Jackie Robinson

Jackie Robinson

Jackie Robinson drew from a great reservoir of personal determination. It was not an ostentatious determination, yet it served to inspire a generation of blacks and whites alike. He was the first black person allowed into big-league baseball, and by July 1 of his starting year he was leading the league in most times getting hit by a pitcher. He endured abuse for years without rancor or revenge. Instead he paid continued tribute to baseball magnate Branch Rickey, who went out on a limb for Robinson to right a wrong. Rickey was a high-principled man who refused to go to ball games on Sunday.

Robinson did not live to see the day when discrimination would be eliminated in professional athletics. When he died last month, there were still no black managers in major-league baseball and no black quarterbacks in professional football.

Toward Truth In Retiring

There was an interesting by-product of the investigation into the inexcusable (though understandable) disobedience of General John Lavelle, former commander of American air forces in southeast Asia. The public learned that when Lavelle was retired he was officially declared 70 per cent disabled, even though he had passed a medical examination allowing him to continue piloting only a few months before and had subsequently suffered no injuries. Moreover, it was learned that this is a common practice. High-ranking officers who are physically fit are nevertheless considered more or less disabled upon retirement, so that the corresponding proportion of their retirement pay is tax-exempt.

If the pensions paid to retired government employees are low, then they should be raised honestly. The present system makes a mockery of thousands of GI’s who are genuinely and severely disabled. Many disabled veterans need much more assistance to enable them to adjust to civilian life than they are now receiving.

Until President Nixon took office, it had long been the practice to conceal the budget of the White House staff by putting speechwriters and others on the payroll of other government departments, while in fact they were working directly for the President and in his office buildings. The same desire for straight-forwardness in paying the White House staff needs to be shown in paying those who have retired from military service.

Hunting For A Touchstone

A statement over the signature of President Nixon calls on Americans “during the occasion of National Bible Week to make the teachings of the Bible the touchstone of their lives.” “Touchstone” is a good word in this context. It refers to a hard, black rock once widely used to test gold and silver. The metal and stone were rubbed together, and the color of a resulting streak on the touchstone showed the quality of the metal.

Similarly for Christians, the Scriptures when applied to their lives show true worth in the sight of God. Indeed, the Bible sets a standard not only for behavior but for truth itself. The test for what is right and valid and meaningful is found not in experience or utility, as so many today are suggesting, but in Scripture.

National Bible Week, sponsored by the interdenominational Laymen’s National Bible Committee, falls this year on November 19–26 (November 19 is Bible Sunday). While the Bible is the book for all seasons, this observance serves to focus greater attention upon it.

The President’s statement declares that “it is especially fitting that full opportunity be provided the young people of America to grow in appreciation of the Word of God.” We might add here that it is especially fitting because the temper of our times deposits on the minds of youth an assortment of competing claims about the essence and foundation of truth. There is considerable skepticism about the Bible, both direct and indirect. Some discount it simply because they do not want to believe, some because it does not jibe with the world as they have come to know it. The most subtle skepticism, however, is that which purports to assign the Bible an element of validity, but not in the most apparent realm: what seems false according to our normal perception is ultimately true, on another level of reality.

Each of these attitudes comes to the Bible with a prejudice, and we maintain that you cannot come to God’s revelation expecting it to conform to an outside mold.

From Wasteland To Purgatory

In a twist on Newton Minow’s well-known characterization of television as a “vast wasteland,” a recent article in Variety argues that to date the general public has had little reason to consider religious radio and TV programming anything more than a “vast purgatory.”

The author, Charles E. Reilly, Jr., can perhaps be forgiven for this bit of rhetorical overkill (after all, no one is obligated to watch any kind of TV) in the interests of surfacing his main point. And the point is that the Church is failing to tap much of the great potential of radio and television. “We know,” he says, “that it is from radio and television that the public gets its information and forms its judgments on toothpaste, automobiles, politics, society, other nations, the global village—on just about everything in God’s world but God.”

Mr. Reilly speaks with expertise. He is former director of the National Catholic Office for Radio and Television and a consultant to the Pontifical Commission for Social Communications. And while again he may be exaggerating somewhat in assigning to the electronic media so much influence, there is little doubt that Christians have been using precious little of what influence is available. He notes some exceptions:

The scene is brightened only occasionally by a cultural triumph from a religious agency or by one of the attractive programs served up by evangelists Billy Graham or Rex Humbard. Churchmen can well afford to look to Dr. Graham for lessons in media “knowhow.” His TV programs combine the good news with showmanship. They are professionally produced, well publicized and positioned in high viewership time periods. They are consistently successful presentations. Graham has the numbers to prove it.

Reilly says Christian underexposure is not simply the fault of church leaders. “The foundations are there,” he observes. “It is really a question of just how the Churches can implement the programs of involvement.” He thinks that non-clergy communications experts must be persuaded to accept a new and very personal obligation to “spread the good news.” “The challenge for church leadership is to bring a sense of mission into the everyday lives of broadcasters, newspapermen and women, and film executives,” he asserts.

Reilly is pretty much on target as far as he goes. He seems not to understand, however, that communication of the Gospel by the laity entails a great deal more than simply providing professional help for special church-sponsored productions. Ideally, the Christian message should permeate everything the layman does. If it doesn’t, something else does. And unfortunately, many lay church people are unwittingly or otherwise helping to promote alien ideologies. It is not that they fail to be involved; but that they are involved in the wrong thing. Jesus said that “where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.”

The principle holds true for any vocation, but it is particularly crucial in communications. Even if you regard the electronic media as suitable only for entertainment, you must grant that some kind of message comes through. There are plenty of churchmen working in the field. What messages are they communicating?

Buy Now

“Neither a borrower nor a lender be,” one father advised his son. When Count Talleyrand (who managed to hold on to high government posts under Bourbon kings, the revolutionary government of the first French Republic, and the Emperor Napoleon) was forced by a temporary loss of favor in France to spend some time in the newly established United States, he immediately noticed the tremendous importance of commercial credit in this country. Talleyrand foresaw the development of a whole way of life based on credit, but probably not even he imagined the lengths to which it could and would go.

America makes personal consumer credit available more readily and in larger amounts than any other country in history. A good deal of America’s national prosperity is based on the availability and use of credit of this type. “Selling” credit has become a marketing specialty in its own right. Within the space of less than a week, one of our editors reports being offered, by telephone and letter, pre-Christmas personal consumer credit totaling thousands of dollars with various stores and financial institutions.

It would be foolish and reactionary to suggest that personal credit facilities should be discontinued, or that Christians should never use them. But in view of the great temptation that easy credit offers, particularly to young families with limited means but ballooning desires, this is certainly one area in which Christians should both preach and practice the time-honored counsel of moderation. Paul wrote in Philippians, “I have learned, in whatever state I am, to be content.… I have learned the secret of facing plenty and hunger, abundance and want” (4:11, 12). Our way of life, including so much “unquestioned credit,” shields many of us from ever knowing want. And many modern Americans, Christians included, have not yet learned the lesson of being content in plenty.

Perhaps a bigger dose of self-discipline could help us achieve a contentment like Paul’s. Evangelical Christianity has long rejected asceticism and self-denial as ends in themselves, as though they were in themselves somehow pleasing to God. But it should not thereby overlook the fact that these practices can still be useful not only for hardening the body but also for training the spirit.

‘Sensitive’ Security

Occasionally an editorial or article provokes vehement reactions from our readers. Recent examples are the editorial “Insecure Security” (July 28) and the follow-up article by Elgin Groseclose, “The Manna of Social Security” (Sept. 15). Most of the responses centered on the “lift Social Security gives.” One correspondent spoke of it as “a lifesaver for millions of retired people.” We do not deny that an effective system of social security is theoretically desirable and has become practically necessary—not least because, since it exists, people have come to depend on it. But we do deny that the present system is above criticism or incapable of being improved.

The indignant, sometimes almost frightened reactions to our criticism of the existing system remind us of the words of Professor Bror Rexed, head of the Swedish Directorate of Social Affairs: “Social welfare limits political action, because nobody will tolerate a threat to his benefits and the power of the Welfare State” (quoted by Roland Huntford in The New Totalitarians, Stein and Day, 1972). This is exactly what Sweden’s government wants, says Rexed. According to Huntford, in Sweden “social security … is the subject of obeisance by politicians, it is celebrated without end in the mass media as if it were some hallowed religious dogma that it was vital to assimilate for peace of mind.” Our mail suggests that in America, too, Social Security evokes an almost religious veneration. If we were disturbed at certain problems inherent in our present Social Security system, we are frankly alarmed at the many suggestions that it must remain above criticism, because, in effect, “nobody will tolerate a threat to his benefits and the power of the Welfare State.”

This is at bottom a religious issue, for the attempt to create an infallible security on earth easily slips over into a kind of idolatry. Let us not hesitate to take practical measures of social support for those not able to work, but let us beware of making such provision a hallowed dogma that is above criticism or correction. It is only God “who keeps faith for ever” (Ps. 146:6).

No Right To Be Born?

The state’s role in abortion underwent a new test in Maryland last month. A pregnant teen-ager who wanted to marry her boyfriend and bear the child ran away from home after her mother scheduled an abortion for her. Refused a marriage license because the boy is not yet eighteen, the girl, sixteen, was then put in jail and ordered by a court to undergo the abortion. Kent County circuit judge George B. Rasin, Jr., wrote in his decision, “The court does not believe it is in the interest of an unborn child to be born under these circumstances.” Thanks to the girl’s court-appointed attorney, Floyd Parks, who obtained an emergency hearing before an appeals court, Rasin’s decision was countermanded and the girl was ordered released from jail.

Since a Supreme Court decision earlier this year, it has been virtually impossible to execute anyone, even for the most vicious crime, anywhere in the United States. Yet here is a judge who feels he has the power to deprive an innocent, unborn child of life.

It is often argued that abortions ought to be lawful where necessary for the mental health of the mother. But what would have been the effect on this young woman? Obviously the state’s concern for “mental health” may be rather elastic. How long will it be before courts assume the right to determine that it is not “in the interest” of the invalid, the aged person, or the mentally handicapped to go on living?

Teachers In Turmoil

Hardly a soul goes into the teaching profession intent on getting rich. It is common knowledge that teachers join clergymen at the bottom of the professional salary heap—both still average less than $10,000. Until recent years, teachers took what they got and complained little. Now they are becoming very vociferous about what they feel they are entitled to, and we have a rash of strikes at the opening of every school year.

We wish there were some other way for teachers to air grievances effectively. But there is no denying that they have been left on the low end of the salary scale partly because they have not been as assertive as those in other vocations. They deserve a better deal. As long as we are committed to public education, we should recognize the great responsibility our teachers have and pay them accordingly. Especially in a society suffering as ours is from an epidemic of criminality, teachers need to be regarded as valuable practitioners of preventive medicine.

Toward Paradise Or Inferno?

A political campaign often arouses impossible hopes and unnecessary fears. Some hope that if a certain candidate is elected, he will usher in a wonderful new era; others fear he will plunge the nation, perhaps even the whole world, into darkness and destruction. As the consciousness of God’s power and of impending divine judgment has faded among Western peoples, the wildest hopes and fears have come to be attached to man-made promises and threats: those of science, technology, politics, medicine, psychology, and pollution, to name but a few.

A German evangelical scholar with a vast and detailed knowledge of the scene today speaks of all this as an “apocalyptic wave.” In an article in the German fortnightly Materialdienst, Dr. Kurt Hutten says that our age is one of “secularized eschatology.” Its visions of the future, whether glorious or gruesome, differ radically from the Bible’s in that they are completely independent of God—though often they count on the near-miraculous intervention of some hitherto unknown factor or powers. Among the glorious visions he mentions the world-wide “flying saucer” or UFO craze that began in 1947, promising the benevolent surveillance of a cosmic police force to protect man from some of his own worst tendencies. Other secular millennialists promise a wonderful future without the benefit of extraterrestrial aid: both Alan Tofler, in Future Shock, and Charles A. Reich, in The Greening of America, after portraying some of the immense crises that loom before us, promise a happy outcome.

Sometimes the secular millennialist’s vision of perfection looks suspiciously like a nightmare. Thus Burrhus F. Skinner’s recommendations for a world Beyond Freedom and Dignity imply such total and absolute control as to make us wonder at the coincidence that his first name is that of one of the Emperor Nero’s chief advisors.

Going beyond a secular apocalypse such as Skinner’s, which he somehow sees as a hopeful vision, many scientists frankly state that we are in the process of turning our earth into a poisoned hell. Paul Ehrlich of Stanford University has predicted that the planet may be completely uninhabitable by 1990; some others offer us only the hope that it will take a few decades longer. Jay W. Forrester of M. I. T. has computed seven “possible futures,” each of which runs into catastrophe sometime between 2020 and 2070.

What comfort is there for the Christian in all of this? He must reject the secularistic visions of a coming paradise as dangerous illusions. Anyone who takes the biblical view of man seriously knows better than to place any far-reaching hopes in human perfectability. The New Testament proclaims not an earthly paradise but the Kingdom of God. This kingdom will not be brought by men, whether scientists or politicians, but will arrive over their opposition and contrary to their calculations. The New Testament hope does not rest on the optimistic predictions of the first type of secular eschatology, and therefore it cannot be threatened by the second variety, which predicts not paradise on earth but total catastrophe. The New Testament promise in fact includes warnings of increasing turmoil, rebellion against God, and widespread destruction before his Kingdom comes.

Whether the this-worldly threats now being voiced by so many secular authors are in fact the next-to-last phase before the final, eschatological catastrophe is of course something we cannot say with assurance. In this unclear situation, Christians should beware of contributing to panic by adding to the predictions of doom, but must also avoid spreading an illusive tranquility by playing down the spiritual, political, and ecological crises of our age.

Up to a point, the Christian doctrine of the last things is more compatible with the secular prophecies of doom, for they agree that man is not about to solve his problems. Books like Charles Reich’s, by contrast, push optimism without evidence or even plausibility, and can rightly be called “opium for the people.” But the Christian, unlike the seers of secular apocalypses, knows there is more ahead of us than ecological or political catastrophe—there is the return of Jesus Christ.

Confident expectation of his return with power is the only message that can convincingly break through the gathering clouds of doom and destruction described by so many scientists and scholars. It is tragic that just when the ultimate failure of the most powerful and well-conceived secular visions is becoming evident, many churchmen are reducing the Christian message to a watery political hope.

Unless the Church can confidently point to one who can overcome the world and to his justice, it has nothing to offer a humanity fascinated and terrorized by increasingly realistic visions of approaching catastrophe. When a total breakdown of secularistic hopes threatens, it is not the time for the Church to serve up warmed-over dreams of human progress. Only the remnant of the Church that has not lost sight of the transcendent power of the personal God of revelation, the God who acts in history and is Lord of history, can offer real hope to frightened man.

No Longer Strangers

The sight of strangers in our midst—and the experience of being strangers ourselves—is no longer uncommon. The twentieth century has witnessed war, revolution, tyranny, and mass expulsion, and has also known the more benign but equally uprooting phenomenon of mass migrations of laborers. In the affluent nations, more and more people participate in mass tourism. Even when one is an invited or a paying guest, the sensation of being a stranger can be unpleasant and unsettling. The terms alienation and estrangement, though derived from words meaning nothing more sinister than “stranger” in the usual sense, have come to apply to deep psychological and spiritual problems.

Still more disturbing than being a stranger in a strange land is the sense of being a stranger in one’s own land, a feeling shared by members of many minority groups today. And even a majority may feel estranged. Indeed, does anyone really feel at home in this world?

Paul spoke to a similar sense of alienation and estrangement when he wrote to predominantly Gentile Christians in Ephesians. Almost exclusively little people, non-citizens in the Roman Empire, the Christians had little influence and almost no share in political power. The old, national varieties of paganism had lost their power to impart a sense of community, and the developing Gnostic religion told its adherents that the whole material world had been made by an alien power basically indifferent or hostile to man. This explains the tremendous sense of joy that came to these people when Paul told them, in effect, what the children’s hymn proclaims, “This is your Father’s world.”

Here lies the significance behind Paul’s singular association of two deeply theological evaluations of their pre-Christian condition, “having no hope and without God in the world,” with what might sound like a more tolerable estrangement, “alienated from the commonwealth of Israel” (Eph. 2:12). Paul knew that the deep sense of alienation required more to heal it than the message that we may be creatures of a Creator. Only Israel, God’s called and chosen people, stood in a child-parent relationship to the Creator. In Christ the Gentiles, a mixed multitude without any family claims, are grafted into the family stock of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus those who have received Christ are not merely, as it were, “naturalized citizens” of God’s universe, but “adopted children.” They belong not merely in the universe, as creatures, but to its Lord, as children.

In one sense, the Christian will always be a “stranger and a pilgrim” in the world, because the world order of this present age is hostile to God and to his people (John 15:18). But in a deeper sense, he knows that he alone can really feel at home in the Creation order, because he belongs to the household of the Creator. On the social, economic, political, and cultural level, we may find helpful measures to relieve, at least to some degree, the widespread sense of estrangement, but fundamentally it can be eliminated only when we learn that we are “no longer strangers and sojourners, but fellow citizens with the saints and members of the household of God, built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone” (Eph. 2:19, 20). Only then can we really be “at home” in the world God has made, when we know that we can ultimately be “at home” with its Creator.

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.