LITERATE—FOR WHAT?

Gandhi’s grandson reportedly once said that while Christian missionaries had taught his people to read, the Communists had furnished them with reading materials.

The question arises, “Are we failing new converts by not filling the vacuum created when they give up their pagan gods for the Christian way of life?” Is not American democracy failing the new nations of Africa and Asia if it does not successfully compete for the minds of the young by offering them literature presenting the Christian view of life? If the house of the mind has been emptied of the demon of paganism are we by default allowing the seven demons of Communism to take possession?

Is there any reason why we should not indoctrinate the minds of Africans and Asians with Calvinism, if the Communists can successfully do so with Marxism? If the ideo}· ogy of Communism with its Utopia of a classless society and its demand that youth give its all for the great god of the STATE is able to enthrall and charm the minds of the students of the world, why not the ideal expressed by Paul when he says that we are to offer our bodies a living sacrifice unto God? Does not Christianity challenge men to give their all? And does it not offer the highest rewards? The challenge of Communism is its appeal to the mind of youth. Let us not be afraid to challenge the youth of the world with the glorious gospel of Jesus Christ!

How to carry this out? We need men of God, men of vision, men of courage! We need consecrated Christians to furnish the sinews of war—money, money, money! We need salesmen to open bookstores in all parts of Africa and Asia; Bible and tract distributors who will travel by Jeep into the jungle; intrepid souls willing to spend and to be spent for the sake of the Kingdom. We need writers and artists to interpret the biblical view of life in drama and in all forms of literary art. We need interpreters to write for the natives so that they may read Calvin, Kuyper, and others, just as they now read Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. We need an army of prayer-warriors and intercessors!

Who will show the way? Will you be a volunteer?

H.H.v.T.

 

THE DISCIPLINE OF THE WORD

Among other things, to be “in good and regular standing” in the Church means that one is not being dealt with officially in a disciplinary fashion. And this has led to the accepted distinction between those who are and those who are not “under discipline” or “under censure.”

This distinction is warranted, for, in the Christian Reformed Church at least, every member must solemnly declare at the time of his public profession of faith that he promises “to submit to the government of the church,” and in the event of delinquency in doctrine or life “to submit to its admonition and discipline.”

Distinctions can be dangerous, however, and in the hope of signalizing one in order to be reminded of a good and necessary truth I’d appreciate consideration of the following proposition:

It is the duty of every Christian to be sure that he is continuously under the discipline of the Word, and to do nothing that will diminish the force or restrict the working of that “infallible rule” in his life!

From my experience as a pastor I have noted that very few “sinners” approached by the elders reveal a real willingness to discuss their offense in terms of the Word. Many place every kind of obstacle in the way of effective disciplinary work: failure to keep appointments, refusal to converse openly and honestly with those sent to them, all kinds of attempts to shift the blame by criticisms of most everyone else connected with the Church, and, finally, “resigning” membership or transferring to another denomination which readily accepts all and sundry without question.

In this connection I have wondered if it might not be more correct in many instances to say: Mr. So-and-so has come “under censure” because he will not really remain with the Church in the circle of the clear and brilliant light of God’s nonnative Word. To welcome the discipline of that Word, constantly, means nothing less than to be under the blessed discipline of the Father.

J.H.P.

 

SOCIALISM AND PLANNING NOT DIFFERENT FROM COMMUNISM

The fundamental fallacy that leads astray contemporary political thinking is to be seen in the fictitious distinction between communism on the one side and socialism and planning on the other side.

The two terms socialism and communism are synonyms. Communism is a very old term, while the term socialism was first coined in France at the end of the eighteen hundred thirties. Both were up to the year 1917 used indiscriminately. Thus Marx and Engels called the program they published in 1848 the Communist Manifesto, while the parties they organized for the realization of this program called themselves socialist parties. Before 1917 no distinction was made between the two words. When Lenin then called his party communist, the meaning he attached to it was: a party sincerely aiming at the realization of socialism as different from the parties that, as Lenin suggested, merely call themselves socialist parties while in fact they are “social traitors” and “servants” of the bourgeoisie. Lenin never pretended that his communist party had any other goal than the realization of socialism. The official name he gave to his government was—and is—Union of the Socialist Soviet Republics. If somebody says he is opposed to communism, but cherishes socialism, he is not more consistent or logical than a man who declares that he is opposed to murder but cherishes assassination.

L.V.M. in Christian Economics 

 

PREACHING THE WORD

One Sunday evening I beard a sermon in a big Presbyterian Church which is one of those few churches in that denomination that has retained some semblance of orthodoxy. A sermon? That was a mistake on my part. For this speech had absolutely nothing to do with the preaching of the Word of God. The orator spoke for 75 (yes, that is right, 75) minutes on Jack Kennedy and Roman Catholicism in relation to the past election. What he said was generally correct (essentially, that this quarrel was not with Senator Kennedy, but with his church). But as I wrote to him on a card during the speech (and I tried to do it in a nice way): I came to hear the Word of God proclaimed. Instead I heard a praise of Kennedy for 25 minutes and then a tearing down of his church for 50 minutes. There was not one reference to the Word of God in the whole oration and no semblance of what Paul told Timothy to do: “Preach the Word” (II Timothy 4:2). As I wrote to this minister, this talk might be good during the week but has nothing to do with preaching. (Incidentally, at least 35% of the address was a reading verbatim from innumerable editorials and excerpts from such publications as The New York Times.) How thankful we can be that there are some churches which, in addition to being orthodox in their beliefs, also stick to the main task of the worship service, i.e., the preaching of the Word. How starved for the challenge and consolation of the Word of God every single soul must have been after they had listened for 75 minutes!

E.H.P.

STICK TO ONE BIBLE TRANSLATION

One of the signs of reviving interest in Scripture is the appearance of a number of new Bible translations, some of them privately sponsored. We have today, besides the King James Version, the American Revised Version, the English Revised Version, and the more recent Revised Standard Version, such unofficial translations as the Goodspeed Version, the Berkeley Version, the Phillips Version, and the Williams Version of the New Testament.

What shall we say about the desirability of a daily use of one or more of the newer translations? One of the favorable features of some of these is that they present the Word of God in modern, more understandable English. We believe that Bible scholars can use these with considerable profit and that for the ordinary Bible reader an occasional or even frequent reference to one of the more modern translations may shed a welcome light on the mean ing of Scripture. To this we can add that today it is possible, because of the work of textual critics and the discovery of new Bible manuscripts, to improve on certain renderings in the older versions.

However, there is another side to this. We do not believe it is at all advisable to do what some of our Christian people are doing; namely, to make a daily use in their devotional reading of such versions as the Goodspeed, which is definitely liberal in its translation, or even the Berkeley or the Phillips translation, instead of the American Revised or the King James version. If we wish to familiarize ourselves with the English Bible we should use a well known version, one that is read in our churches and usually quoted in articles and books. The very words of Scripture should become familiar to us if we wish to be able to recall them when we need them most, as in a time of sorrow or great need.

The Bible does not speak to us as it should unless its very words have found a lodging place in our hearts. Its voice should be like that of a familiar friend. That is probably the reason why so many in the Christian Reformed Church and in other orthodox churches, who have been reading the King James version from their youth, hesitated to change over to the American Revised Version. Personally we have not had this difficulty since we have used the latter from our early youth. We should let the Bible speak to us in words that have become familiar and dear to us.

There is one other fact that should be borne in mind. Some of the newer translations, for example the one of Phillips, are not translations in the full sense of the word. Often they merely paraphrase Scripture. Translations, to be worthy of the name, must be just that—not just paraphrasings or interpretations.

Remember, our comments conccm our daily use of Scripture, in our private and family devotions.

H.J.K.

A STRANGE PARADOX

While America points to her traditional ideals, emphasizes historic spiritual values, and condemns the materialism of communism, the latter denies God and glories in its materialism.

Curiously enough, though, from this foundatio n rises a strange paradox. Both America and the Marxist or Communist countries reverse their positions when dealing with the people of other lands.

In our campaign to advance the spirit of American ideals and values, too much faith has been placed in the volume of material goods we have been sending abroad since the war—amounting in all to something like $100 billion. There are those who seem to believe that an abundance of material things ( not bad in themselves ) is the ultimate evidence to convince the people of other countries that American ideals of justice and freedom are desirable above all others.

Conversely, the Soviet Union, while remaining loyal to its materialistic beliefs, resorts largely to the export of ideas as a means of promoting its cause. Unnumbered tons of Soviet literature, lauding Marxist ideology and proclaiming Communist ideas with religious fervor, are spread all over the world. We may gauge the effectiveness of these types of propaganda by noting that the Hood of material goods has brought ill will to America while the flood of rosy, but false dreams of benefits to be derived from communism has made friends for Soviet Russia everywhere…

America denies the Communist thesis that man is a creature of his circumstances and merely the composite result of kinds and qualities of material things that have been impinged upon him, but nevertheless there is an influential segment of our society which places its faith in the export of material goods in our effort to convince the people of the world of the superiority of a system based on the spiritual ideals of freedom, self-government and individual responsibility.

To date, the campaign for spiritual values waged by the export of material things has proved to be a failure.

It is always interesting to see ourselves as others see us. After a sojourn in our country Mr. Prakash C. Jain, an Indian journalist, summed up an interesting discussion of this matter which appeared in the U.S. News and World Report, October 19, 1959, in the following quotation:

“When, in the face of clear, moral issues, anyone wavers or falters or seeks an escape through a zig-zag trick, he can be sure of dying not a martyr’s death but that of a street dog. But a still greater irony is that America, which has inherited such a rich spiritual legacy from her Founding Fathers and from moral giants like Abraham Lincoln, should base her outlook on Marxist materialism; while the Soviets, who have been nurtured on the materialism of Karl Marx: and Friedrich Engels, should base their policies on what is called pure philosophical idealism.”

H.E.K., Editor, Christian Economics

COMMUNISTS, CRACKPOTS, AND EGG-HEADS

The irony of it all! To think that through our willful ignorance we are cooperating for our own destruction! Oh, the fateful complacency and abominable self-conceit! And the insult added to injury—all according to the plan and blue-print of our enemies!

“What is this all about?” Here’s the story. World Communism allied to Russian Imperialism has announced its determination to make the world a Marxian Paradise. To achieve its diabolical ends it has temporarily given up the mailed fist approach since the pen is mightier than the sword. Doggedly and insidiously the lords of the Kremlin and their allies in Peiping are making a bid for the mind of the West and of the whole world. This worldwide hattie of propaganda is interspersed and supported by intrigue, political plotting, localized wars, infiltration in the agencies of democracy and even in churches, student riots, etc. We have first of all the word of Communist plotters that this is their method. We have the records of Congressional investigating committees, the testimony of F.B.I. Chief, Hoover, thc testimony of experts who have studied Communist tactics, and the testimony of witnesses such as Mr. Noble and others (see Reader’s Digest, December, 1960). These all substantiate the Communist ideal of world conquest and also give us the evidence that it is happening before our very eyes. Khrushchev says boldly: “We will bury you” and Foster, head of the American Communists, dedicates his latest book to a grandson, who, he believes, will live in a Communist America.

However, when Christian men seek to stir their fellow citizens out of their lethargy and complacency, they are called “crackpots.” Thus one of my students reports, who had the curiosity to attend a Freedom Forum recently conducted in Grand Rapids by the Christian Anti-Communist Crusade.

How delighted Khrushchev must be! The egg-heads will pull the Russian wooden horse right into their own citadel1 No wonder world communism is making its pitch for the student mind. If we continue to call our modern minute-men “crackpots,” and scornfully chant, “It cannot happen here,” we’ll wake up some day to find the eggheads consigned along with the crackpots to some concentration camp or cemetery.

H.R.v.T.

VACATION FROM SUNDAY SCHOOL

One characteristic of Modernism is its deprecation (conscious or unconscious) of the Word of God. Therefore, a Modernistic church almost never has an evening worship service. Sometimes, in the summer they take a vacation from all semblance of worshipping God and do not even have a morning service. Likewise, they never have catechism classes. And in Sunday School, so they reason, the children need a break from the Word of God; so they have a long summer vacation from Sunday School. Strange as it may seem, there is a similar tendency even in orthodox churches. In my own denomination (the Christian Reformed Church), for example, there is the increasingly popular tendency to do away with Sunday School in the summer. In some churches the argument runs: the pupils need a break after having studied so ‘long all year; the teachers should be given a vacation for their faithful work; and many pupils go away on vacation. The result is that some churches declare a moratorium on Sunday School for two weeks. Then it increases to a month and the next step is that there is no Sunday School for the whole summer. This is thoroughly bad from both the standpoint of effects and logic. Sunday School properly taught is not a chore but as much fun as a movie on TV that a child likes to watch. If the teachers are tired of teaching (and that is understandable), then the solution is not dissolution of the Sunday School but a substitute teacher. (And who knows: maybe a substitute will help the class to get out of a rut and will present new ideas with a fresh approach.) To eliminate Sunday School with its study of the Word of God is a step in the wrong direction. It is like cutting catechism down from twelve to ten to the present six or seven months. There is no really good reason for it and the church misses another fine opportunity to teach the Word of God.

E.H.P.