A reporter for the National Enquirer began research for a story early one morning by carting off five bags of trash that had been placed outside the Washington home of Secretary of State Henry Kissinger. His gleanings from the garbage probably sold a lot of newspapers. The information explosion of modern times, far from quenching people’s thirst for new data, seems only to foster it. The unknown, the unrevealed, the undiscovered shine with promise.
The garbage caper brings to mind once again the age-old controversy over censorship and the right to know. To what extent must freedom of expression be limited? Who is to say what can be made public knowledge? How do we decide what information is harmful?
The problem is especially knotty in a pluralistic and democratic society. We might get everyone to agree that what is generally injurious should be suppressed. But it is impossible to get a consensus on what is generally injurious. As early as the first century B.C. Lucretius was saying that “what is food to one man may be fierce poison to others.”
The Church needs to become much more concerned with the problem of censorship. It is not just “a matter of taste,” as the Christian Century recently characterized it. Unless there is liberty to preach the Gospel, the Church will not be able to carry on its mission. But beyond any consideration of self-interest is the fact that to be true to Scripture, the people of God must strive for justice, and censorship can easily entail injustice.
We are often reminded that the Church has repeatedly tried to play censor. But the Church has also been on the receiving end, as Encyclopaedia Britannica notes:
It seems that historically religious ideas were the first target of censorship, through persecution for blasphemy and heresy; then with the development of strong states came political ideas, with persecution for sedition and treason; most recently came ideas relating to the emotional and, more especially, the sexual nature of man, leading to persecution for obscenity.
Both in the Church and in society at large, there has been little creative thinking about censorship that avoids the extremes. Yet that is where the ultimate answers must lie.
In an orderly society, people cannot go around simply suppressing whatever offends them. When a group of Baptist clergymen invaded a Sacramento pornography shop recently and started throwing its books into the gutter, they were in the wrong, even if they were right in deciding that the gutter was where those books belonged.
On the other hand, it is irrational to contend, as does U. S. Supreme Court justice William O. Douglas, that this country’s Constitution guarantees absolute freedom of expression. True, the First Amendment forbids laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” But it may be well worth noting the article “the” and asking whether it was meant as a qualifier. The framers could have said “abridging freedom of speech.” Their inclusion of “the” suggests a pre-existent condition set up by the original Constitution, at least by implication. Certainly the original Constitution does imply restraints, from the preamble on down. The preamble, for example, says that among the purposes of the Constitution was the desire of the people to establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and promote the general welfare; an unbridled tongue can easily thwart those goals.
The point is that virtually everyone believes in some restraints, and the sooner the advocates of absolute freedom admit this fact, the sooner our society will come to a healthful understanding of freedom of expression. Who would differ with Justice Holmes’s aphorism that free speech does not apply to one who yells “Fire!” in a crowded theater? Would anyone deny that pre-trial publicity can prejudice a fair trial? Or that laws against libel and slander are necessary infringements upon liberty? Does not the right of privacy, now well established in the American legal system, inhibit expression? What about radio and television, where a limited amount of time and a limited number of frequencies curtail expression? And would Douglas uphold the public disclosure of the secrets of nuclear weaponry?
The Supreme Court itself abolished the freedom to conduct Bible reading and prayer in public schools as devotional exercises. Indeed, the court has a number of rules against free expression in its own chambers. One has to be certified before he can testify on anything. Arguments must be compressed into allotted time frames. As one enters the main door of the court, the first thing one sees is a sign demanding “Silence!”
Despite general acknowledgment that “your liberty ends where my nose begins,” we regularly hear simplistic summaries of the censorship problem. A recent statement from the National Ad Hoc Committee Against Censorship, spearheaded by a National Council of Churches executive and funded by the Playboy Foundation, averred, “All of us are united in the conviction that censorship of what we see and hear and read constitutes an unacceptable dictatorship over our minds and a dangerous opening to religious, political, artistic and intellectual repression.” A variation of the domino theory is frequently applied: if hard-core pornography is outlawed, can morally courageous material be far behind?
It should be obvious to rational human beings that a lifting of all restraint on expression amounts to anarchy. As G. K. Chesterton commented, “morality, like art, consists in drawing the line somewhere.” We contend that the degree of censorship necessary in a society varies with the sense of responsibility prevalent in that society. Today, it seems both irresponsible expression and unwarranted secrecy seem to be growing inordinately.
There is a real question as to whether laws can be drafted to give a society the best of both worlds, openness and freedom of expression on the one side and privacy and protection on the other. The better route might be that which falls within the province of the churches, the persuasive, educative approach. The effect will be more lasting if people can be persuaded rather than coerced to refrain from anti-social behavior.
Anti-Abortion: Not Parochial
Many Americans still think that the anti-abortion movement is wholly a Roman Catholic thing, and that to restrict abortion is to bow to the pressure of a powerful church. That misunderstanding has been nourished by the pro-abortion movement. Pro-abortionists have used as a central argument the principle that sectarian or doctrinal tenets should not be imposed on a pluralistic society.
Hoping to clear up this misunderstanding, some distinguished Protestant church figures have formed the Christian Action Council. The council will try to persuade legislators and judges that abortion and other human-life issues are of grave concern to many non-Catholics as well. Dr. Harold O. J. Brown, acting chairman of the council, contends that virtually all Christians throughout history have opposed permissive abortion.
Persons of other religions and no religion might also be convinced that abortion is wrong. But even if none were, Catholic and non-Catholic Christians should not be denied a voice in the determination of public policy on abortion. It is unfair to disqualify their views simply because they grow out of a religious heritage.
The program of the Christian Action Council deserves the support of all evangelicals, even those who feel that the weight of the moral arguments is on the side of giving pregnant women the legal right to abort. Surely evangelicals ought to agree on the principle that concepts should not be excluded from the legal realm on the sole grounds that they originate in Christian thinking.
‘Shardik’: A Fantasy Of Hope
For over a year Watership Down, by Richard Adams, was the number-one best-seller. The fantasy about rabbits won both the Carnegie medal and the Guardian award for children’s fiction in 1972. Adams’s latest book, Shardik, is broader in theme and more metaphysical in its world view than Watership Down. In six hundred compelling pages Adams presents a unified tale of deeply religious people. And along with a good story he offers provocative ideas about man’s religious nature. With a less imaginative writer, passages on prayer or submission in worship might sound sermonic, but with Adams these evolve naturally and organically from plot and theme.
The world of the Ortelgans is certainly pre-Christian; they worship Lord Shardik, the great bear, an incarnation of the power of God. But the way Adams treats his fantasy seems Christian. The people pray for God’s leading and “wait” on his will; they trust his beneficence; and they are willing to lose their lives in his service. A character tells another not to try to save his life or he will lose it, for God demands total submission. Prayer is central to the story. One of the main characters, the Tuginda, tells Kelderek, the one who first sees Shardik upon his return to earth, that “many pray. How many have really considered what it would mean if the prayers were granted?” Although the idea is not original with Adams, he reminds us of its truth with dynamic power.
He also makes us realize the weakness of most of our worship of God: “Worship yields nothing to the slipshod and half-hearted. I have seen men’s worship which, if it had been a roof they had built, would not have kept out half an hour’s rain; nor had they even the wit to wonder why it left their hearts cold and yielded them neither strength nor comfort.” In a sense, though, we worship God because of who he is; he ordained that we do so for our benefit. His spirit comforts and kindles us as we surrender all to him in worship.
Shardik also reminds us of God’s sanctifying power. He breaks us and remakes us as fit vessels in his service. Kelderek’s wife, Melathys, explains it: “Fashioned again to His purpose. I believe I’m at last beginning to see.” Along the way, God’s people commit sins of pride, ambition, and greed, both spiritual and physical, and finally are forgiven. Only after they experience the joy of forgiveness are Kelderek, the Tuginda, and Melathys fit to serve him and fulfill his purposes.
Although war and hatred are part of the story, ultimately Shardik is about the regeneration of sin-saturated people, and therefore about hope. The cool, clear vision of Richard Adams is refreshing for the hot August days of both body and soul.
Paul E. Little
As in Ezekiel’s time, God is looking for people to “stand in the gap.” There seems to be many gaps in the Church today, and precious few Christians able and willing to fill them. The death of Paul E. Little creates one more big one. He had been used of God in an extraordinary way to pull together evangelicals from various sides of the camp.
Paul Little was equally effective disciplining in the seminary classroom or witnessing on an ocean beach. With Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship he did both. He combined a missionary zeal with a deep grasp of theological truth. He had a personality and intellect that endeared him to students without turning off the older generation. Little had vast and varied responsibilities as associate director of last year’s International Congress on World Evangelization, and he handled them admirably. Not the least was the go-between role so important in any meeting that assembles people with all sorts of axes to grind.
Little’s three highly readable books on the principles of the Christian faith are the closest thing to an evangelical catechism available to laymen today. He was a thinking Christian who had the respect of people from all walks of life.
Little died in an automobile accident in Ontario last month at the age of forty-seven. The loss of one with such ability and promise is puzzling and discouraging. But we are drawn to reflect on a principle that Little himself once wrote about. He suggested in a Decision article that often the supreme test of faith for the Christian relates to the question “whether or not God is good. In the face of tragedy only trust in his character will carry us through.”
Looking For Answers On Morningside Heights
A year-long search for a person willing and able to lead Union Theological Seminary ended last month when Dr. Donald W. Shriver was appointed president. But for the beleaguered giant of religious academia on Manhattan’s Morningside Heights, other pressing needs remain. Enrollment is down. And, despite an endowment currently worth more than $20 million, Union’s finances are at the critical stage.
The new president is a Southern Presbyterian clergyman with a Ph.D. from Harvard. His background holds promise for resolving the tension of theoretical vs. practical that has plagued Union in recent years: he held a pastorate for three years and has taught ethics at a seminary and a university. To help toward a resolution, seminary directors reportedly have strengthened the authority of the president. A spokesman commented that so-called participatory democracy, which apparently has been practiced at the seminary, “is not adequate for this day. It’s just not a viable way in a school of theology.”
The main need facing Union is its need of theological moorings. Regrettably, its directors show no signs of recognizing this. The founders of Union noted at the outset of its constitution that ministers were “to preach the Gospel to every creature.” Is Union still committed to this mandate?
Keeping Uncle Sam Honest
A “Truth in Government Act” proposed by Representative Donald M. Fraser (D-Minn.) would make it illegal for federal officials to lie to private citizens. Right now, Fraser says, honesty is a one-way street. “Under current law, it is a crime for a private citizen to lie to a government official, but not for a government official to lie to the people.”
Perhaps officials should take an oath of honesty when they are sworn in. (See Psalm 119:29, 30.)
Summertiming
We’re taking our annual fling at being a triweekly. This issue follows the previous one by three weeks. The next will appear three weeks from now: August 29. This means you have extra time to devote to War and Peace, Jaws, old National Geographics, The Total Woman, or whatever else is on your summer reading list. With the September 12 issue we’ll be back to being a biweekly.
