Page 5855 – Christianity Today (2024)

In an epoch-making series of decisions, the California State Board of Education has ruled that the creationist view of the origin of life must be presented alongside the (naturalistic) evolutionary one when the life sciences are taught in California schools. This ruling has been strenuously opposed in the name of “scientific objectivity” by, for example, Stanford University professor David S. Hogness, who said, “Today the arguments against evolutionary principles must, I think, be placed in the same arena as those advanced by the ‘Flat Earth Society.’”

Hogness’s statement illustrates the unscientific and dogmatic determination of those who believe in naturalistic evolution to see to it that no alternative explanations of the origin of life get a serious hearing. People who doubt the roundness of the earth can, if it comes to that, be taken several thousand miles out into space, where they can see for themselves. But neither Hogness nor any of his fellow believers, no matter how perfect their evolutionary theory may seem, can take doubters back millions of years in time to show them that the evolutionary theory is not only plausible but in fact describes what happened.

Commenting on the state of mind represented by Hogness, which is widespread in the scientific and educational community, the noted scientist and educator Sir Julian Huxley had the frankness to observe that naturalistic evolution reigns almost unchallenged not because it has been proved but because “the only alternative is clearly unacceptable.” And what is the alternative? Some kind of belief in Creation, which clearly presupposes that there is a Creator.

A non-Christian biologist who himself accepts the concept of evolution, G. A. Kerkut, observed in 1961 that candidates he examined for the Ph.D. in biological science did not even know there are scientific arguments against evolution, and were equally unaware that in accepting naturalistic evolution (that is, evolution on a purely naturalistic basis, with no divine Mind guiding it) one also accepts a number of far-reaching implications that cannot be proved but are of a philosophical or religious nature (cf. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, 1960).

In other words, to propose evolution as a mechanism while not denying the possibility, or even the probability, that a supernatural intelligence stands behind it is one thing; to present it as self-evident truth, excluding God as an “unscientific hypothesis,” is itself an unscientific hypothesis, because it demands faith in an unbroken chain of natural causes, for which there can at best be supporting evidence but no convincing proof. There are, within the very evidence presented for naturalistic evolution, things that point in a theistic direction. Nobel Prize-winning French biologist Jacques Monod has ruthlessly tried to suppress any lingering belief that the universe has a Designer, attributing everything, without exception, to Chance and Necessity (Knopf, 1972). However, as the Roman Catholic psychoanalyst Marc Oraison pointed out, Monod in effect attributes to “Chance” the qualities of omniscience that theists ascribe to God. (For further discussion of this evolutionary question-begging, see A. E. Wilder Smith, Man’s Nature, Man’s Destiny, Harold Shaw, 1968, and Rachel H. King, The Creation of Death and Life, Philosophical Library, 1970.)

The very determination of the evolutionists to prevent objections to naturalistic evolution from being raised in public school science courses is evidence that the objections have some merit; otherwise simply to present them would be the best way to have them rejected by the students. So what we are faced with is a kind of trial of Galileo in reverse. The “religious” party is saying: “We have questions that may undermine some of your scientific dogmas,” and the “scientific” party is in effect replying: “Your objections are not scientific and may under no circ*mstances be permitted to threaten the confidence of the students in our teachings.”

Christians and others who believe in God have often alleged that the public schools have reached the point where they impose a doctrine of naturalistic secularism on all their pupils. The emotional reaction of a large part of the scientific and educational establishment to California’s initiative lends support to the charge that for them evolutionary naturalism is not a demonstrable scientific fact but a hallowed religious dogma that must be defended by strict censorship of all contrary arguments and facts.

Christians should not allow themselves to be intimidated by a new kind of obscurantism posing as scientific objectivity. Having been persuaded that suppression by Christians of controversy and troublesome evidence is inacceptable to society at large, we should not be frightened into silence when others attempt similar maneuvers. To present the evidence for evolution and offer a naturalistic explanation for it is one thing; to suppress all evidence and argument that points in any other direction on the grounds that it is “religious” is quite another. Both creation and naturalistic evolution are “religious,” or at the very least philosophical. In Washington, D. C., the religion editor of the Star-News, William F. Willoughby, has filed suit in the U. S. District Court to enjoin the National Science Foundation from excluding everything but the Darwinian view from public schools through its officially endorsed textbooks, and thus in effect coercing him to pay taxes to support “anti-religious acts against his belief that man was created by God.”

Christians cannot expect that the public schools promote a Christian world-and-life view, but they can and should insist that whenever the subject matter moves into the area of philosophical or quasi-religious commitments, the students be told what is happening and made aware that other credible options are available. More than this we should not ask of public schools, but less than it we cannot accept, unless we are willing to make of them established churches of secular materialism.

Never more than now have Christians needed to keep a sane perspective. That the unregenerate are incapable of such a perspective makes it all the more imperative that we who know Christ exhibit for the world a serenity that has its wellsprings in eternal truth, unaffected by conditions in the world.

To speak of world chaos and uncertainty is to speak of something so obvious it sounds trite. What is particularly disturbing now is the overwhelming pessimism to be found among so many Christians. That this stems from a misplaced confidence in men and nations makes it all the more serious, for the Christian’s confidence should be centered in God, who is sovereign and for whose purposes all history is inexorably being worked out.

We are all familiar with the story of Martin Luther’s period of dark brooding, and of the penetrating question asked him by his wife: “Is God dead?” By our attitude today the same question could well be asked of some of us.

To dispel the cloud of depression that has settled on the hearts and minds of so many Christians, we need a new understanding of the sovereignty of God and the eternal verities of his Word.

That present world conditions are a part of the prophetic picture is very evident to many Christians, and this serves to strengthen their faith and encourages them to look to the One who said: “Look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.”

Our hope is firmly fixed in God, who is sovereign, and who has never abdicated his own central place in the affairs of men and nations.

We have every reason to be pessimistic so far as the acts of unregenerate men and nations are concerned. The Bible is explicit in its teaching that all stand under the judgment of God, for he holds them responsible whether they acknowledge him or not.

The supreme folly of the ages is committed by those who take counsel against the Lord and against his anointed. There are no more solemn words in all of Holy Scripture than those that speak of God’s laugh of holy derision as he views this scene. “He who sits in the heavens laughs, the Lord has them in derision.” This is followed by the awesome statement, “Then he will speak to them in his wrath, and terrify them in his fury.”

Is this incompatible with a loving God? No. It is not only compatible but a necessary attribute of the One who is holy and just.

Why then do we go about our daily tasks with a load in our hearts and a cloud hovering over our minds? Have we not succumbed to the philosophy of the world, which looks at the immediate rather than at the eternal? Are we not evaluating men and events in terms of this world rather than in the light of the One who is the God of history?

As we look at Communism, atheistic in concept and in practice, we are prone to stand in awesome fear. Rightly so, for Communism is a deadly ideology that enslaves the bodies and minds of men. At the same time we need to look beyond it to the God whom Communists will eventually have to face.

If we appropriate to ourselves the question and implied answer of the Apostle Paul, “If God be for us, who can be against us?,” then our prime responsibility is to be found in the place of his approval.

Nations rise and fall primarily because of what they do about God. Civilizations have come and gone, not because of outward attrition, but because of internal disintegration, the neglect of spiritual and moral values because men knew not God or the saving power of his Son.

Let pessimism be based on our failure as individuals and as nations to live up to the privileges and opportunities that are ours. On the other hand, Christians should exhibit for all the world an optimism that centers in Christ himself and in the knowledge that God never fails his own. Only the Christian has the right to be optimistic. We know to whom we belong, and we have his presence now, and the certainty of living with him in the future.

Such confidence can bear its own mute witness to those who do not themselves possess it. This witness should not be an attitude of smug complacency. “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men”—these words should be an impelling motive for Christian work and witness.

In fact, how can we keep silent when we know the One who not only knows the future but who also keeps the future in his hands? It is something too good to keep to ourselves.

Christianity demands that its followers maintain a clear perspective on the sovereignty of God. That we often accord him absentee status, or make him small to fit our own puny minds, makes us timid, fearful, and despondent Christians.

One of the great lessons of the Old Testament is the picture of a holy God, deeply concerned about individuals and about nations. Through Isaiah he affirmed: “I will punish the world for its evil, and the wicked for their iniquity; I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant, and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.”

That judgment has not yet fallen does not mean God’s word has failed. Rather it is evidence of his mercy. John tells us of God’s forbearing: “The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to usward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”

World conditions should make us tremble because of the impending and inevitable judgment of God. We who are Christians should heed the words of the Apostle Paul: “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men.” Or the words of the writer to the Hebrew Christians: “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God,” and “For our God is a consuming fire.”

Nevertheless, for the Christian there is no such fear. We can come into God’s presence with holy boldness because we come in the name of his Son. And we serve him with love for those around us. If the Christian fails to bear testimony to the sovereignty of God, along with his yearning love for the redemption of mankind, who is there to witness?

Why Do You Have A Poor Memory?

A noted publisher in Chicago reports there is a simple technique for acquiring a powerful memory which can pay you real dividends in both business and social advancement and works like magic to give you added poise, necessary self-confidence and greater popularity.

According to this publisher, many people do not realize how much they could influence others simply by remembering accurately everything they see, hear, or read. Whether in business, at social functions or even in casual conversations with new acquaintances, there are ways in which you can dominate every situation by your ability to remember.

To acquaint the readers of this publication with the easy-to-follow rules for developing skill in remembering anything you choose to remember, the publishers have printed full details of their self-training method in a new booklet, “Adventures in Memory,” which will be mailed free to anyone who requests it. No obligation. Send your name, address, and zip code to: Memory Studies, 555 E. Lange Street, Dept. 690–03, Mundelein, Ill. 60060. A postcard will do.

Nonsense!

Since I first discovered the art form I have been a lover of nonsense. When I hear someone recite,

‘Twas brillig and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe …

I immediately respond,

All mimsy were the borogroves

And the mome raths outgrabe

knowing I have found a soul brother or sister.

Nonsense is essentially nouns and verbs and other parts of speech (or groups of letters that sound like them) marching along in proper order going nowhere.

It has a long and honorable history. You can find it from the ancient Greeks to “Laugh-In.” Aristophanes puts this wonderful bit of nonsense into the mouth of Socrates as he swings above the stage in a basket:

I contemplate the sun,

I could not search into celestial matters

Unless I mingled with kindred air

My subtle spirit here on high. The ground

Is not the place for lofty speculations.

The earth would draw their essence to herself.

The same too is the case with watercress.

Lewis Carroll, whose “Jabberwocky” is quoted above, was a master of the art. In addition to “Jabberwocky” and “The Walrus and the Carpenter,” there are great passages of nonsense in his Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland.

Theologians who use Carroll and others to establish something or other about logical consistency or inconsistency miss the great unmined lode of nonsense right in their own back yard. Consider this beauty by Alistair Kee in the Christian Century:

Insofar as belief in God is what makes Christian faith a religious faith, then religionless Christianity must be Christian faith without belief in God.

Magnificent! A perfect statement of the very faith of slithy toves gyring and gimbling in the wabe.

Or how about this gem from Rudolf Bultmann:

Therefore when I speak of the teaching of Jesus, I base the discussion on no underlying conception of a universally valid system of thought which through this study can be made enlightening to all.

The very reason the mome raths continue to outgrabe.

Editors of nonsense anthologies have missed a good thing by not including this from John A. T. Robinson:

To assert with the apocalyptists that there is a necessary correspondence between kairos and chronos is always to say the world must die on a certain date, and to give chronos the determination of kairos. But if one abandons this perversion of the prophetic truth, the eschatological principle still stands—the ultimate truth will be the final fact.

Way to go, Robbie! Lay it on ’em.

And when ultimate truth becomes final fact—

’Twill be nighttime in Italy

And Wednesday over here.

I’m sure you astute readers have encountered even more priceless treasures of theological nonsense. Don’t be selfish. Share them with

EUTYCHUS V.

FIRST … AND LAST

Permit me to thank you for publishing the article “Faith and the Artistic Vision” by Nancy B. Barcus (Oct. 13).

As life is full of contradictions, so is this splendid article and the page of advertising which follows it. On that page, the book The Beginning of the End, by Tim Lahaye, is promoted. Putting Nancy Barcus’s article and the promotion of this book side by side causes me to feel hope and then despair. Her article is like opening a window to let in fresh air, only to have it promptly closed by someone who cannot stand the change. Every book I have ever read on the Second Coming is essentially the same, beginning with the Apostle Paul. They are all right and all wrong at the same time—right in saying the ultimate destiny of all things is in God’s hands; wrong in trying to say when and how God’s ultimate authority will be made manifest. Paul sincerely thought the Second Coming was right around the corner. So have other sincere believers in every generation and every century. Perhaps the problem here is that traditional Second Coming advocates do not see the idea of the Second Coming as a symbol of a truth too deep, awesome, and sublime to be captured either by words or time.

Colusa, Calif.

H. EDWIN BURKE

SAVAGE WASTE

I vacillated between anger and amusem*nt while reading J. Edwin Orr’s glib account of the turmoil in Northern Ireland (“The Agony of Ulster,” Nov. 10). Anger, not directed at Orr of course, but at the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, Paris Monde, and hundreds of American and foreign journalists and television commentators who have given us the wrong impression about the B-Specials, ex-prime minister Faulkner, and the housing and employment situation in the utopia of pre-1969 Ulster—“Grievances there have been, but played up out of all proportion to the real situation,” and “almost every complaint has been rectified.…”

Orr provided some amusem*nt for me, however, and I suspect some dismay in the British Colonial Office. For hundreds of years Englishmen taxed, jailed, robbed, and murdered Irishmen for the cause of the Reformers, without success. And now Orr tells us that the key to the treasure was a few Gaelic Bibles after all. What a tremendous waste of Anglo-Protestant savagery.

JOSEPH MURPHY

Fresh Meadows, N. Y.

OUT OF ORDER

It is clear that CHRISTIANITY TODAY’s stance is prejudicial, one-sided, and poorly informed. I want to comment here on the statement of J. A. O. Preus in his letter which you printed in the November 24 issue. In showing his indignation at what he considers poor procedures by which the name of Dr. Hoffmann has come before us as a possible candidate to replace him as president, he stated: “We have a proper method for election of officers that I and Dr. Hoffmann respect.”

Dr. Preus should know that had he really respected synodical procedures in this regard in 1969 he probably would have never been elected. I am glad to know he respects the proper procedure now. His nomination was put before Missouri Synod by the so-called Christian News and the Denver Post with a block ad at a time when nominations were to be made from the convention floor only. That’s history. The present situation is that nominations are to be made by the congregations before the convention. This makes what goes on presently among those opposed to Dr. Preus very legitimate now, whereas when he used the method it was not legitimate. His indignation at the use of the present proper method is hardly commendable since he used it long before it was proper. We know Dr. Hoffmann has nothing to do with trying to get himself elected. This can hardly be said of the previous election.

O. T. MCREE

Church of the Resurrection—Lutheran Yardley, Pa.

PERCEPTIVE POINTS

Harold Lindsell in “Tests For the Tongues Movement” (Dec. 8) lays out a very clear and perceptive description of the points at issue in the first five paragraphs of his article. He also points out that when a tongue speaker holds unscriptural doctrines, the validity of tongues as a test is rightly questionable.

I would like to question the validity of the doctrine of the “baptism of the Holy Spirit” as a second crisis. I believe the Bible teaches that “baptism of the Holy Spirit” and regeneration are the same crisis. This comes from Acts 11:15, 16, First Corinthians 12:13, Galatians 3:27, Ephesians 4:5, 6, and Colossians 2:12. It also comes from the whole counsel of Scripture. And when tested by other parts of Scripture no contradictions arise. For instance, Acts 19:6 becomes the moment of regeneration for those believers.

Pittsburgh, Pa.

A. B. JAHRAUS

I want to thank Dr. Lindsell for his perception and astuteness in writing, and commend him for the article.

ROBERT A. Box

Victory Hills Baptist Church

Kansas City, Kans.

I am certain that most of the Pentecostals you refer to as “classic” would accept [Dr. Lindsell’s appraisal].…

Regarding many of the great ministers of the past not speaking in tongues, please refer to the book entitled What Meaneth This, by Carl Brumback. You will find history says some did. Also, you will be interested in a quote from The Life, Work and Sermons of Moody, by Richard B. Cook: “It is reported that during his absence on his double mission in the East Mr. Moody had been gloriously baptized with the Holy Spirit.” You will note that this book was published years prior to the founding of the Pentecostal churches. What the author meant is not clear to me, but it is interesting that this came in Dr. Moody’s life after years of ministry!

Second, most Pentecostals would accept the position you have mentioned regarding the mainline denominational errors and the importance of making Scripture the central theme of interpretation. Interestingly enough, many of the so-called mainline denominations are falling into the same errors that Pentecostals rejected forty or more years ago (i.e., fake approaches to speaking in tongues, Spirit writing, to mention but two).

Third, contrary to what William J. Samarin writes in his book, there are dozens of documented cases where known languages have been spoken. I can personally cite perhaps a dozen if you would like. In fact, this would make an excellent book subject. However, in regard to your mention of the fact that no missionary has “permanently” spoken in a known language, this would be contrary to Scripture and thus falls into that area which you have mentioned regarding reliance on Scripture for a position. Since there is no scriptural indication that anyone ever was given a gift of “permanently” speaking a known language for missionary work, it should not be expected today. Rather, the cases that I can cite seem to fall into the position of answering real questions regarding the reality of the experience for many. For an example, missionaries have had nationals receive the baptism with the Holy Spirit and speak in English miles from anyone who knew the language.

CARL G. CONNER

First Assembly of God

Winston-Salem, N. C.

I believe that comparing Pentecostals with great non-Pentecostals of the past and present misses the point. The baptism with the Holy Spirit is not intended to make the least Pentecostal greater in Christian stature and productivity than the greatest non-Pentecostal. We are on the wrong track when we start comparing ourselves among ourselves. The question is not: “Am I a greater Christian than my non-Pentecostal brother or sister?” The question is: “Am I as a Pentecostal a more dynamic, victorious, productive, Christ-like Christian than I would be if I were not a Pentecostal?” …

The fact is that “all that baptism signified by tongues produces” has not been equaled, much less surpassed, “in the lives of Christians who have never spoken in tongues.” Great as such Christians are, were they to become Pentecostal in experience, they would find their lives enriched by the Holy Spirit in a way previously unequaled in their personal spiritual history.

J. W. JEPSON

College of Ministerial Education

First Assembly of God

Lebanon, Oreg.

[This] is the ultimate article on a most difficult and crucial subject. I found it profound and enlightening.

Racine. Wis.

JACK MADAHGLAN

We have not had tongues-speaking at L’Abri. My pamphlet, The New Super-Spirituality, published by the Inter-Varsity Press, expresses our concern in regard to certain aspects of the new Pentecostalism, and we would ask all who read what was erroneously reported in the December 8 issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY to read this pamphlet. There was a long excerpt from this pamphlet in article form in Eternity magazine in November, 1972.

FRANCIS A. SCHAEFFER

L’Abri Fellowship

Huémoz, Switzerland

• We are rechecking what we considered reliable sources, but nothing we said implied that L’Abri endorses or encourages tongues-speaking.—ED.

What has the Bible to say to me as a reader of novels? Does it condemn me, as some of the Puritans thought, because I take seriously what in their view is essentially lies? Or does it have nothing to say to the point, so long as I keep my moral convictions in tune with its precepts? Perhaps there is something to be said for the secular-sacred dichotomy after all. But suppose I am committed to the integrative approach to life, convinced that everything I do is at least in some sense sacred? If the Scriptures do indeed govern all of life, they must give me some basis for criticism of the serious novel, making my perspective distinctively Christian.

The critic who is determined to work in full harmony with the biblical revelation will find, it seems to me, at least five working principles. The first principle should dismiss any uneasiness he may feel in working with the novel genre at all. It is that God himself places an astounding value on human experience. And the real qualities of human experience are the serious novelist’s prime concern.

How many students of Scripture have been adequately impressed with the attention the Bible gives to man’s experiences, both in poetic analyses (e.g., the Psalms) and in historical narratives? The Spirit chose to show us as a prime means of teaching us. He filled his revelation with narrative after narrative: Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, and on and on to John and his great visions on Patmos. Christ’s favorite tool for teaching was the parable. The Scriptures are together one great historical plot, with God the protagonist and the biblical personalities his foils. In the beginning he is presented creating all things, and in the end renovating and recreating all things, and all between he is shown momentously intervening in human history, moving it to its certain dénouement. The manner of these interventions should strike all Christians with great force. The Bible is centrally concerned with presenting the raw material of human experience. Underlying its entire form is the quiet, persistent assertion that concrete human experience—its particular events—is of profound importance.

To study these incidents carefully and work toward theological generalizations is necessary. But the Spirit does not intend this to be man’s whole response to his revelation, nor indeed the primary one. The Spirit uses various aspects of Scripture to bring man to truth. The Bible is able to grip the heart through the imagination, and through his imagination man can very directly approach truth. If the mind of man is to grasp the full truth of Scripture, it must not stifle the imagination’s power to recreate the experiences of particular men. Since God is a God of movement in the concrete world, kinetic rather than static, revealing himself more in the affairs of men than in their abstractions, the story form is an essential vehicle for communicating the truths of life.

To approach truth through the imaginative re-creation of human experience is the object of the serious novelist. I can hear someone objecting: “Your comparisons between novels and the Bible are hopelessly invalid because the Bible is history, whereas fiction is merely the product of imaginative fancy. No practical Christian should take fiction seriously, no matter how beautiful it is as literature. Good novels may entertain harmlessly, perhaps, but that is all they are good for.” So we are getting back to the objection of certain Puritans: the novel is lies.

My objector really owes it to himself to read some of the classic discussions of the relation between truth and works of the imagination, such as Aristotle’s Poetics, Shelley’s Defense of Poetry, and Joseph Conrad’s Preface to The nigg*r of the Narcissus. To summarize: the novel presents an imaginative vision of life in order to tell higher truth. This is the compelling quality of the serious novelist’s vision: he has something true to say about life, but he can say it only by embodying it in an imaginative projection of life in an imagined real world. What a novelist says instructs, and that profoundly. It is a gross mistake to view the novel only as entertainment, or indeed to erect an apologetic for any literary genre on its aesthetic qualities alone, as if it could be divorced from practical life.

Granted, not all novels teach truth, and not all novelists are even interested in pursuing truth. Poor novels have a large capacity to impress the imagination with untruth and evil. But the existence of many cheap, escapist, and depraved works must not persuade the Christian to reject the entire genre. Part of his responsibility to his world is to bring to bear upon the novelist’s visions his deep conviction that all of human experience can be redeemed.

STUCK IN THE MUD

Joshua calls:

“Come up out of the Jordan!”

It was here

My soles sensed the sands of God.

I stood to hold the ark

While God here wrought

A great road in a river.

Move now, forsaking miracles?

It’s cleaner here, and safer,

Than inside the evil city.

I stand for peace

Still in the Jordan.

Feet firm in the foam

I will remember:

God used me here!

(The Jordan rises.)

LOIS G. ROWE

The Bible not only esteems human experience highly; it also sanctions full and uninhibited probing of the meaning of that experience. The second principle the Bible conveys to the literary critic is that man, an inveterate questioner, has full right to pose and boldly ponder all his hard questions about the whys of experience. Consider the Book of Job. Job is the completely honest questioner. He faces his experience inductively and fearlessly demands answers. And God in the end commends Job, nowhere condemning his inquiring spirit. Serious novelists such as Melville and Dostoevsky show a similar spirit. They are in a sense modern Jobs, imaginatively posing the hard questions of the meaning and nature of life in deep agony of mind.

In his attitudes and pronouncements as well as in his open questions Job anticipates the types of deep concerns man has in our own time. When he laments, “the arrows of the Almighty are within me, … the terrors of God do set themselves in array against me” (6:4, ASV), one thinks of novels of Thomas Hardy that make a similar remonstrance, such as Tess of the d’Urbervilles. Job expresses with poetic force the theme of alienation, so poignantly portrayed in many modern novels of existentialist cast: “He hath put my brethren for an alien in their sight” (19:13–15, ASV). And Job anticipates the concern of modern writers such as Nelson Algren who have delineated the plight of the ghetto: “From out of the populous city men groan, and the soul of the wounded crieth out: yet God regardeth not the folly” (24:12, ASV). This listing could go on at length.

Job is not only a book of laments, however. It also moves toward a conclusion that is far reaching and complete. Both the movement and the conclusion should be of interest to the student of the novel. They yield him a third biblical principle: the Bible presents us with a model of movement that is in a sense archetypal and that is all but inevitable in any narrative of serious purpose. The pattern is that of spiritual quest that leads to illumination, of moving from problem to solution or meaning within an imagined real world. There is hardly a serious novel that does not at least suggest this pattern. And even the most vulgar fiction sees man in quest, though he be depicted as an animal seeking bestial satisfaction through violence and sex.

The end of Job’s quest is fulfillment on the highest possible plane. He reaches the ultimate illumination: confrontation with God. The result is that Job is fully satisfied, but not with national answers. Instead, God meets him with more questions, for God is subject, not object. Job’s satisfaction derives from an experience with the One who is the true God, an experience that encompasses his whole person. His mind is not allowed to analyze God as it would some objective phenomenon. What Job learns is that he is a being with distinct limitations, that all of reality—not just evil and suffering—is veiled in mystery for man. In thus depicting man as a restless, questioning being who can find satisfaction only in God, the Book of Job offers the Christian critic of the novel an invaluable biblical base from which to operate.

Job experienced an illumination of high degree, from the Voice of Ultimate Truth. Novels, by contrast, present human insights into human situations. They concentrate upon particular problems of human experience and move toward insights that, from the Christian perspective, may be partial.

The novel, however, does not work with the enigmas of experience as a detective story would, moving mechanically toward neat solutions. Rather, the novel allows experience to retain its open-endedness while offering insights into how one may order his life more satisfyingly. Novels that succeed in illuminating large numbers of readers will endure, outlasting their generation and their literary period to join that body of literature which seems to transcend time. This body endures precisely because generations of readers agree that these works give them certain insights into the human situation.

The fourth principle the Bible offers the critic gives him an important approach to the actual task of evaluating the literary worth of a given novel. It is that true meaning resides in form, and that any statement about the theme of the narrative must be supported by the form. This support must be convincing and aesthetically satisfying. Take, for instance, the Joseph story. It is history, but the principle it illustrates applies with equal force to serious fiction. Joseph himself announces one strong theme of the narrative in Genesis 50:20. Speaking to his brothers, he asserts: “And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive” (ASV). Whether this conclusion is valid depends ultimately not on Joseph’s saying so but upon his experiences in the narrative. So the reader ponders the personalities of Joseph and his brothers, their response to the incidents that befell them, the sequence of those incidents, their nature and outcome. Then, having concluded that all these attest beautifully to the truth of Joseph’s statement, the reader concludes that this statement is indeed part of the true meaning of the story.

Or take the Book of Esther. Here the reader is favored with no summarizing statement of theme. Yet all lovers of Scripture agree that the story clearly teaches that a special providence of God guards his people. What conveys this meaning, except all the various aspects of the form of the book? These work in remarkable harmony to establish this meaning in the readers’ minds. The same sort of observation can be made of the Book of Jonah and other scriptural narratives, to say nothing of the parables of Christ.

And so in any novel: form indicates meaning. Much more needs to be said about the elements of form than can be said here. Let this suffice: Only as the form of a novel attests to one’s sense of the way things may happen—that is, one’s sense of plausibility (cf. Aristotle’s Poetics)—is the novel speaking truth. And when the elements of a story take the reader somewhat deeper, giving him new insights into the way things happen, showing him what he may have vaguely felt to be true but had never articulated, the reader may then be sure this story has a quality that makes for great literature. Thus literature clarifies life, helping us to interpret it. On the other hand, when a novel arouses a sense of improbability, and we feel that the author is missing the true qualities of reality, we are forced to conclude that his work fails as literary art.

In functioning as a critic of the novel, the Christian student rightly feels that, having examined the form and its relation to ideas, and thus determining literary worth, he is ready to confront his main task. He must now measure the validity of what this novel says, imaginatively, about life. He is equal to this task only if he brings to it a thorough knowledge of the Word of God, and has imbibed the spirit as well as the precepts of the Word. The fifth principle, then, is that the manner of Christ is the perfect model for making moral judgments. Christ’s manner was incisive yet kind, always penetrating to the heart of a matter, invariably seeing value where more obtuse minds did not. He always put the value of an individual first. He patiently understood the unregenerate mind.

And no Christian critic can afford not to. The creative artist often evidences his fallen state primarily, it seems to me, in that he chooses not to have the true God consciously in his knowledge; the thrust of his energies is away from God. It is, therefore, in his speculations about the moral and spiritual aspects of experience and about the relation of man to God that a novelist must be most carefully examined.

Guided by an earnest talent, however, an unbelieving novelist may impressively penetrate the nature of human experience in its horizontal relations and in its effects upon the individual consciousness. In this lies his strongest claim to artistic achievement. And inasmuch as he accepts no supernatural revelation, he generally asks the hard questions of meaning more intensely than his Christian counterpart. He also scrutinizes life more closely, hoping it will give him some insights, some answers. The believing author is in danger of looking too quickly upward, thus failing to help us to see life from a more penetrating perspective. For the true novelist must, in the spirit of Job, insist on grappling inductively with experience itself for answers. He must reject solutions deductively conceived, no matter how logical, if they fail to fit the nature of things as he sees them.

As a critic of novels, then, the Christian takes the shape of his task from the Word of God. The Bible gives him at least the above five working principles. His task is to use them to evaluate the novel Christianly while not depreciating it as an art form valid in its own right. Performing his task, he finds that the novel can be a source not only of aesthetic delight but also of much indispensable instruction.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

British writer Aldous Huxley once wrote that “most of our mistakes are fundamentally grammatical.” Surprising as this assertion may appear, there is something to be said for it, and particularly in the Christian realm. In an age when Madison Avenue has attempted to make good grammar and “good taste” mutually exclusive, the believer, having tasted and seen that the Lord is good (Ps. 34:8), must show the world that the good grammar of grace is “good taste.”

One of the major “grammatical” mistakes Christians are prone to make has to do with pronouns: they rely on the first-person pronoun—“I”—rather than on the third—“he.” Paul spoke of this fundamental problem in Galatians 2:20—“I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live, yet not I but Christ liveth in me.” The secret of a victorious Christian life lies in getting one’s personal pronouns straight—not I but he.

Perhaps nowhere else is the pronoun problem so obvious as in Romans 7, where in just twenty-five verses the first-person pronoun occurs forty-one times. A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small package, someone has rightly said. The victory, signaled in verse 25—“I thank my God through Jesus Christ our Lord”—lies in the third-person referent, that is, in Christ, as shown by the recurrence of the third-person he in chapter eight (note especially verses 27–32). Only when the believer settles the personal-pronoun difficulty—and it is a continuous battle—can he properly use the demonstrative pronoun, as Peter did at Pentecost: “This is that …” (Acts 2:16), speaking, as Paul did, in “demonstration of the Spirit and of power” (1 Cor. 2:4).

Another mistake is in number: limiting God to the singular rather than recognizing his limitless plurality. The Christian life is a plurality: God and the believer make a majority in any situation, for “greater is he that is in you than he that is in the world” (1 John 4:4). In Your God Is Too Small, J. B. Phillips wrote: “The trouble with many people today is that they have not found a God big enough for modern needs.” We are guilty of limiting to nigg*rdly singularity our munificent God, whose very name, Elohim, is plural in form. He is “able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think” (Eph. 3:20). In Romans 5, the chapter of the five “much more’s,” Paul reminds us that “where sin abounded, grace did much more abound.” Because we are subjected to a plurality of temptations and trials (1 Pet. 1:6), the grace he supplies is “manifold” (1 Pet. 4:10)—varied, multiple, having many features or forms. In an age of horrific “overkill,” we can be “overconquerors”: “In all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us” (Rom. 8:37).

Still another grammatical problem is one of tense, of relying on the past tense, or the future, instead of on the present. Many Christians live in the past, either being guilt-ridden with old sins they should have confessed and long since forgotten or attempting to live on blessings of twenty years ago or of last week. Paul said, “This one thing I do: forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before, I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus” (Phil. 3:13, 14). But Paul was not simply living in the future. While he eagerly anticipated the “sweet bye and bye,” he was very much involved in the “nasty now and now.” “Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation,” he warned the Corinthian Christians (2 Cor. 6:2).

Undoubtedly one of Satan’s most effective ploys is to get the believer to live in an irrevocable past or in an uncertain future. Someone has said that one of the devil’s greatest wiles is “wait awhile.” C. S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters has Screwtape advise his nephew, the fledgling devil Wormwood, as follows:

Our business is to get them away from the eternal and from the Present.… With this in view, we sometimes tempt a human to live in the Past.… Of the present moment, and of it only, humans have an experience analogous to the experience which our Enemy has of reality as a whole.… The Enemy does not foresee humans making their free contributions in a future, but sees them doing so in his unbounded Now.

The believer must serve his Lord, if at all, in his “unbounded now.” “The grace of God that bringeth salvation hath appeared to all men, teaching us that, denying ungodliness and worldly lusts, we should live soberly, righteously, and godly, in this present age” (Titus 2:11, 12).

There is also the problem of voice: the mistake of using the passive rather than the active. Too many Christians remain passive, their voices mute. A year or so ago in Los Angeles, an eighty-four-year-old woman who had no family and lived alone became so desperately lonely that she ran an ad in the local newspaper asking for someone to visit her or even write a letter. “In Christendom, where are the Christians?” Emerson asked. Where, indeed?

Love is always active, never passive. Because of its very nature, love must give: “God so loved the world that he gave.…” Note the active verbs in First Corinthians 13: “beareth,” “believeth,” “hopeth,” “endureth.” A colleague recently asked me how one can know if he loves God. One way of knowing is suggested in John 14:15—“If ye love me, keep my commandments.” True love always manifests itself in self-sacrificing action. How misguided was a sign I saw recently in a student’s window: “Love is the ultimate drug.” God’s love does not drug us; it activates us, empowers us, constrains us.

No less pronounced is the problem of mode or mood: using the subjunctive (expressing doubt, or something contrary to fact) instead of the indicative (expressing fact, certainty). Mark 9 records the story of the father who brought to Christ his demon-possessed son after the disciple had been unable to cast out the demon. The father says to Christ, “If thou canst do anything [using the subjunctive, expressing doubt], have compassion on us and help us.” Christ corrects his grammar: “If thou canst believe [placing the subjunctive, here expressing that which is contrary to fact, in the right place], all things are possible to him that believeth.” The father then cries out, in the indicative mode, “Lord I believe; help thou mine unbelief.”

In a day of relativism and subjectivity, the subjunctive mode, which was supposedly fading in English usage, seems to be used with increasing frequency to express the pervading sense of doubt, of unreality, in the heart of modern man. The subjunctives with which Satan tempted Christ—“If thou be the Son of God”—are being used today in only slightly altered form. The Christian must respond as Christ did, in the indicative: “It is written.” At a time when we are told there is no such thing as absolute truth, the believer can say with Paul, “I know whom I have believed …” (2 Tim. 1:12). “Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free,” Christ promised (John 8:32). I shall never forget the college student who, plagued with the folly of humanistic relativism, brightened when I presented to her the Christian concept of Truth in the Person of Jesus Christ rather than as a nebulous abstraction. Glorious indeed is the indicative mode in Christ’s challenging promise, “If any man will do my will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself” (John 7:17). This challenge is being accepted by many college students.

There is, finally, the preposition problem, the mistake of being against rather than with Christ. “Oh, but I’m not against Christ,” many will respond. But are you really with him? Christ said, “He that is not with me is against me and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad” (Matt. 12:30). To put it differently, if we as Christians are not, through our Christian witness, part of the solution to today’s problems, we are part of the problems.

Christianity might be called a preposition proposition. Prepositions indicate relationship, and the Christian experience is not a system of rituals and creeds but a living relationship with Christ. A Christian is in Christ; a non-Christian is outside Christ. “Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). Not only is the Christian in Christ, but Christ is also in the Christian: “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). John brings these two prepositional relationships together in the fifteenth chapter of his gospel, where Christ says: “Abide in me and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches. He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

Most of our mistakes in the Christian life are in a sense grammatical. What we need is a transformational grammar—a grammar of grace to transform our Satanically inspired solecisms into grace-full words and deeds that will, in turn, be instrumental in transforming the lives of others. This transformational grammar can be learned only through the tutelage of grace. Good grammar, this grammar of grace, is the result of “good taste,” for the believer, as he grows in grace, continues to “[taste] that the Lord is gracious” (1 Pet. 2:2, 3).

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

As a political scientist and a Christian, I have long been concerned with the relation of the Church to public policy. I used to regret that Jesus did not urge vigorous social action on his followers. Why didn’t he recommend active involvement in the political arena? Shouldn’t he have admonished his followers to fight the good fight for freedom and equality, for a just and humane political order?

But alas, he did ignore the political plane. Virtually nothing in his recorded life suggests that he thought in terms of political action or urged his followers to think that way. And after thirty-five years of political observation, I think I understand a little better why he may have taken this position.

It still seems reasonable to me that the Church should condemn such public evils as racial discrimination, cruelty, oppression, hypocrisy, deceit, corruption, and war—especially war, which I find wholly incompatible with the Sermon on the Mount and all that Jesus stood for. And 1 think the Church should encourage its members to oppose these things by every peaceful and ethical means. All of them are evils that Jesus opposed by word or example, implicitly or explicitly. Although he did not say his followers should enter the political arena to eradicate them, such action is compatible with the spirit of his ministry.

Having identified such general evils, should the Church go on to prescribe or support specific public policies or strategies to eliminate these evils? This I doubt. Why? Because social problems are enormously complex, complex in their roots, their character, and their response to treatment. To deal intelligently with them requires an immense amount of detailed knowledge not only about problems per se but also about political and social institutions and processes, and about man as a political animal. Precious few theologians, church leaders, or Christian laymen have this expertise.

As one who teaches a course in national issues and writes extensively about them, I am obliged to read a great deal about our domestic problems. I do not become a full-fledged expert on any of them, but I am reasonably well informed. When I hear churchmen discuss public policy, what they say usually strikes me as naïve, superficial, simplistic, jargonistic, and unhistoric. Lacking real expertise, they tend to support policies that have a pleasantly humanitarian ring—and that are compatible with the dominant intellectual climate. In recent Western history this has meant compatibility with the views of the liberals (or the avant-garde), whose approval they covet above all else. Somehow the modern Christian social activist is supremely confident that the liberal—or the ultra-liberal—has a near-monopoly on social wisdom. To be out of step with them is the most dreadful fate he can imagine. Better the rack and the gallows!

Substantive ignorance on public policy is enough to disqualify churchmen as leaders of public policy. Unhappily, even the best-informed persons don’t know much more about what will work and what won’t.

We have been learning some discouraging things about government in recent years—primarily, that government can accomplish far less than we once thought possible. I predict that the period 1880 to 1970 will someday be called The Age of Faith—in Government. And I predict that the balance of this century will be called The Age of Disillusion—With Government.

From the time of the Populist movement down through the New Deal, the Fair Deal, and the Great Society, Americans believed government could do much to better the lot of man. Ten thousand laws later, a trillion public dollars later, we find Americans more restless, more troubled, more discontented than they have ever been. Should this striking outcome not tell us something about the limitations of the state? Does this era of growing frustration have no message for churches seeking to promote the Kingdom of God on earth?

A host of liberal proposals have appealed to churchmen (and to me) in recent years; when their results have been weighed, however, they have usually been found wanting. Only Medicare and the Civil Rights Acts come to mind as reasonably successful measures.

The Federal Highway Act of 1956 was regarded as the major domestic accomplishment of the Eisenhower years. But ecologists now regard the gigantic appropriations in its support as more of a disaster than a triumph.

The Poverty Program? A grievous disappointment. Mostly it nourished an uncreative bureaucracy, poured billions into patchwork local agencies, and brought only marginal gains to the poor.

Federal aid to education? Long a favorite with liberals, it expands regularly without enhancing the quality of American education. There seems to be almost no correlation between bigger federal appropriations and better education. The celebrated Coleman Report proved this almost beyond cavil.

Operation Headstart? A sincere effort to get at the root of educational inequality but one that has produced few if any enduring results.

Federal housing programs? Beginning with the first public-housing experiments during the New Deal, moving through the Housing Act of 1949, the urban-renewal amendment in the fifties, and the low-income housing subsidy program of the sixties, these efforts have been among the more dismal disappointments.

Manpower and retraining programs? A succession of bills have been passed and reasonably well financed, with monotonously uninspiring results. Major federal aid to invigorate and modernize high school vocational education seems to have gotten us almost nowhere.

Aid for depressed areas? Hundreds of millions for this worthy cause have proved relatively sterile. And who believes the Appalachian Regional Development Act has really helped the poor very much in that stricken area?

The farm program? Ostensibly designed to help the poor and struggling farmer, it sustains or fattens the large and middle-sized farmer while sprinkling crumbs to the small operator. Liberal enthusiasm for the program disappeared years ago.

Foreign economic aid? A few successes here and there, but overall a dispiriting record despite some capable administrators and regular congressional attempts to improve the program.

The Peace Corps? A great experience for those who participate but of trifling consequence to beneficiary nations.

The historic Safe Streets and Crime Control Act of 1968? Violent crime keeps rising at an appalling rate; the act has accomplished almost nothing.

A recent article in the New Republic summarizes the results of a long list of prison “reforms” designed to rehabilitate prisoners—and faithfully supported by liberal churchmen. Group therapy, psychiatric treatment, remedial education, halfway houses, small case loads for the probation officer, on-the-job training—these and many more have been appraised. The author concludes, from 231 scholarly studies, that “the present array of correctional treatments has no appreciable effect—positive or negative—on the rates of recidivism of convicted offenders.”

Busing black children to predominantly white schools? The latest studies show that educational results are meager. The self-esteem of (predominantly) lower-class black children apparently suffers when they are intermingled with (predominantly) middle-class white children; racial hostilities rise rather than fall.

Almost every public program ends in disappointment. Yet we plunge ahead, undaunted, through the desert of our blasted hopes, believing an oasis must lie ahead. The next proposed reform that wins approval in the intellectual community will surely provide the breakthrough we have long awaited.

Professor Amitai Etzioni made a profound observation when he wrote (Saturday Review, June 3, 1972):

We have come of late to the realization that the pace of achievement in domestic programs ranges chiefly from the slow to the crab-like—two steps backward for every step forward—and the suspicion is growing that there is something basically wrong with most of these programs. A nagging feeling persists that maybe something even more basic than the lack of funds or will is at stake.… We are now confronting the uncomfortable possibility that human beings are not very easily changed after all.

Maybe it’s the system. Maybe we need socialism. But the dream of socialism as a means of bringing justice, order, and felicity to man has become tattered in Western Europe. Not that democratic socialism has been a conspicuous failure; it just has not been a success when measured against the high hopes of those saw it as the answer to man’s quest for the Good Society.

This is not to say there will not be public policies advanced from time to time that will promote somewhat greater social justice—but the theologian has no unique criteria for separating the few programs that will meet with some success from the many that will fail. He cannot foresee the end results of social experimentation any better than others. He can only say, “Its objectives mesh with my ideals”—a feeble basis for judging public proposals. “Will it really work? Will its gains outweigh its losses? Should society concentrate on this rather than that? What will be its over-all, long-run effects?” On these critically important questions the churchman speaks with no authority.

Unhappily, even the “experts” can do little better. Even they act on the basis of staggering predictive ignorance in our incredibly complicated society. All of us see through a glass very, very darkly. It is time we recognized how intractable social problems really are, how little the most brilliant social scientists really know about dealing with them, and how little we should expect public policy to accomplish in promoting human happiness. We should recognize how unlikely it is that any legislative reform, any social engineering, will really do much to make Western man happier, more virtuous, or more wise. We should remember—churchmen should never have forgotten—Samuel Johnson’s wise couplet: “How small of all that human hearts endure, that part which laws or kings can cause or cure.”

Ask yourself a question. “Of the unhappiness that afflicts people I know, how much of it is due to public policy?” Not very much, I suspect. That should indicate where the Christian should direct his major efforts. And that may be why Jesus cast his message as he did—on the plane of personal and man-God relations rather than that of political action.

While acknowledging their severe limitations as social engineers, church leaders should still, I think, advise their members to apply Christian principles as best they can to public policy—but always with due humility, awareness of the fallibility of their vision, and modest expectations. Making solid progress in public affairs is as difficult as making moral progress in our personal lives. If we haven’t found that to be a discouraging, painfully slow process, we aren’t very perceptive or very honest. Or we are en route to canonization!

Although government cannot do much to solve our major problems these days, it can—in the absence of men actively dedicated to humane values—do much to make life worse. After all, Hitler and Stalin did live in our age. Hitler was staunchly opposed by many German churchmen—to their everlasting credit—while Stalin (and the czars) found little opposition from Russian churchmen—to their everlasting shame. The Church, to repeat, has the same obligation to condemn gross public injustice as it had in Isaiah’s day.

On the other hand, the perils of promoting the candidacies of particular presidential candidates are well illustrated by the recent election. Conservative churchmen often yielded to the temptation to support openly or indirectly a candidate who had long acknowledged religious pieties and who had cultivated conservative religious leaders. But suppose the Nixon administration should prove to be seriously corrupt at the higher levels? And suppose the Communists soon seize Saigon and 120,000 American casualties plus over a million Vietnamese casualties (over the last four years) prove beyond cavil that American participation in a civil war between a right-wing and a left-wing dictatorship was indeed for naught? Will public support of this candidate by these religious leaders not redound to the discredit of Christian orthodoxy in general?

Conversely, other religious leaders publicly supported Senator McGovern. Suppose he had won and then proved to be naïvely idealistic and incapable of adequate executive leadership. Would this enhance the public’s respect for the faith with which his religious champions are associated? Are religious leaders—whether right- or left-minded—really competent to guide others in judging between presidential candidates? Or is their political judgment just as fallible as that of the average citizen?

Where does this bring us, then? I think it brings a fresh awareness that the most important contribution almost all of us make in this world is in our interpersonal relations. Our personal acts of kindness and concern have probably a hundred times more actual impact on the lives of others than our advocacy of “enlightened” social ideas. Let me repeat: Our personal acts of kindness and concern have probably a hundred times more actual impact on the lives of others than our advocacy of “enlightened” social ideas.

College professors, for instance, may talk endlessly and learnedly about social reforms. Yet for all but a very, very few, I believe the only part of their lives that really makes much difference to the real lives of others is the way that treat their wives or husbands, their children, their neighbors, their students in and out of class—and the general moral example they set. The world would probably not be one whit the worse if 95 per cent of all the books and learned articles were never written and most of the lectures never delivered. But each time an individual performs an act of kindness, someone’s life is brightened at least a little. Wordsworth wisely spoke of “that best part of a good man’s life, his little nameless, unremembered acts of kindness and of love.”

If the principal impact of almost all political activists is found not in their political ideas and activities but in their personal relations, then should not the churches largely concentrate on helping all of us make the most of our private lives and relationships? This is where the action really is; this is the crucial battleground for 98 per cent of us, 98 per cent of the time.

This approach parallels the main thrust of Jesus’ life and teachings. He was concerned about political action very little, if at all. But he was endlessly concerned with people’s daily behavior and the values ordering their private lives. His priorities offer the safest guide to the Church yesterday, today, and tomorrow.

Last but by no means least, Jesus never forgot that man hungers for more than bread, more than justice, more than the here and now. Man desperately needs to believe in a God, a God who cares about man. A God who cares beyond the grave. This, too, many churchmen have forgotten or minimized. Jesus did not forget, as Scripture abundantly testifies.

The Church has something unique to offer, something the humanists and secularists cannot supply. It can help men satisfy their deepest hunger, their deepest need. This need is to believe that man is not abandoned in a cold and uncaring cosmos of moral absurdity—that human life has significance both today and in the long tomorrow.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

Christianity Today presents this exclusive interview with Dr. B. P. Dotsenko, who was one of the Soviet Union’s top nuclear scientists. It marks the first time a detailed account of his dramatic Christian transformation has been published in his own words. Dr. Dotsenko now teaches at Waterloo Lutheran University, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. He belongs to a Mennonite church.

Readers will discover that he is a convinced Christian, a thinking believer, one readily able to give reason for the hope he now has within him.

Question. Dr. Dotsenko, why did you forsake the Soviet Union?

Answer. There was a lot to it, but the last straw for me was the realization that under the Communist system even family relations must be considered secondary to man’s loyalty to the party and state. It happened to my own (former) family.

Q. Yes, but had you not attained privileged status as a scientist, and did this not make for a relatively easy life?

A. Except that I had some shocking experiences. They left me with a feeling of disgust. The price for such an “easy life” was service to the KGB, and that I reject.

Q. How was it that you were able to get out of the country at all?

A. In preparation for an assigment to supply the Soviet espionage system I was sent to Canada. It was to be an introductory visit to the West. That was in October of 1966.

Q. And you never went back to the Soviet Union?

A. No.

Q. Obviously, though, this was not a spur-of-the-moment decision. How did it all come about?

A. During World War II, I was in Siberia. At the age of fifteen I went to work on the construction of boilers for factory power plants. The mixture of steam and coal dust made it hard to see more than ten steps away. It brought on convulsive outbursts of coughing. One would spit a black sticky substance instead of the usual saliva.

Little food besides bread was available: a bowl of watery soup called balanda and two or three spoonfuls of mashed potatoes from the kolkhoz (collective farm) fields, where it was well frozen in advance. That was our usual late lunch or “dinner.” The daily ration of bread was about the size of an average fist, and when pressed between the fingers it turned into a gooey mass. But it was food and it was precious. Sometimes, to pacify the pangs of hunger in the evening, another lad and I risked being shot by a sentinel in crawling through a ditch to a nearby kolkhoz field. Each of us stole a head of cabbage, and clutching this meal to our chests we inched back to our barracks. We did not have any cooking facilities, so we ate this cabbage raw after warming it up a bit in our hands. More than once I swore I would get out of that place.

Q. How did you get out?

A. I was taken into the army. But in the process of training I suffered a concussion and was dismissed “due to the illness” as “unfit for regular military service.”

Q. What then?

A. In 1944 my family was “reevacuated” to Ukraine. I was still a metalworker, and conditions were not much better there than in Siberia. Frustration and desire to get an education made me enter an electrotechnical communications school, the students of which were released from working duties by special decree of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers. There is a law in the Soviet Union that requires every man and woman to work. During the war, even students, except those in especially important fields, were ordered to work.

Q. Did you have any spiritual yearnings at that time?

A. I was allowed to take a two-month break from my studies at the electrotechnical school to see my parents. On my way to the village where they were staying I contracted pneumonia. It took me about three weeks to recover. One hot and humid afternoon in August I wandered into an old barn in our yard and went to sleep on the haystack. Upon awakening I discovered I had slipped between the hay and the rough wooden back wall of the barn. Struggling to get out I only sank deeper, until my bare feet were on the floor below. There at my feet were some copies of an old prerevolutionary magazine called Niva (“The Wheatfield”). I began reading. The life described in Niva was quite different from what was told us by Soviet propaganda of the times prior to the October Revolution. I look further through the bundles of literature stashed there and found a book without a cover. Its pages, yellowed with time, were covered with strange type—ancient Slavic. On opposite pages appeared a Russian translation of the text. I read: “The Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ.” It was frightening and intriguing. I remembered the heap of ruins on the central square of that village; the ruins were of a cathedral blown up by the Communists. They were claiming that religion was an opiate of the people. The preaching of it was a crime, although the essence of this crime was not disclosed to us. I hid the book under my shirt and sneaked back to my room. There I resumed reading. It was strange reading. I felt uncomfortable, nearly ridiculous. I had been rather thoroughly brainwashed from this sort of thing into Communist ideology, and I believed in the truthfulness and realism of Communism. I adored Stalin, who said, “Who is not with us is against us. And if the enemy does not surrender, he must be annihilated.” Also: “Morally justified is everything which supports the dictatorship of the proletariat.” The proletariat is supposed to be led by the only righteous party, the Communists. Revolution led by the Communists is supposedly the only way to improve the life of the workers. “Violence is the midwife of history” (Marx). The proletariat (the working have-nots) will conquer the world if they follow the leadership of the Communists. The dictatorship of the proletariat is the way of transition from the capitalist society (where all workers are supposedly suppressed) to the workers’ paradise, where workers are free (except that those who do not work do not eat) and “nearly” everybody is happy. Those who do not feel happy are treated very simply—they are considered as “not with us” and then annihilated or removed. So only happy people are left. That was the logic of revolutionary progress as the younger people of the Soviet Union were (and most of them are still being) taught by the huge, overwhelming stream of Communist propaganda.

Q. So you resisted what you read, right?

A. Yes, but it sank deep, nevertheless. The Great Commandment spoken by Jesus somehow frightened me. If these words were true, then all the teaching of Communism was false from the roots. Love your neighbor? As a follower of Marx and Lenin I was supposed to be ready to betray not only my neighbor but my family if necessary. The saint of Soviet youth is the “Young Pioneer” Pavlik Morozov, who betrayed his father and his uncles when they tried to save their families from starvation by not giving 95 per cent of the crop to the Communist authorities. I have since thought, too, of an old woman from the village who was sentenced to five years in prison for gathering rye in the fields. It occurred to me that the Communists would not have crucified Jesus and his apostles for gathering grain on the Sabbath; they would just make them to rot alive in one of the isolated Siberian camps or mines.

Q. Was there anything in your discipline that prompted any theological wonder?

A. Yes. In 1945 I quit the electrotechnical school and went to a university in Lvov to study at the faculty of physics and mathematics there. One of the most fundamental laws of nature that interested me was the law of entropy, concerning the most probable behavior of the particles (molecules, atoms, electrons, etc.) of any physical system. This law, put simply, states that if any system is given to itself it will decay very quickly, inasmuch as particles composing any system have a tendency to run wild. It means that all the material world should have turned into a cloud of chaotic dust a long, long time ago. I thought about this, and it dawned upon me that the world is being held in existence by a non-material power that is capable of overruling this destructive entropy. I began to realize, moreover, that the most brilliant scientists in the best equipped laboratories still are incapable of copying even the simplest living cell. I started to pray and to worship God. It was in the early fifties.

Q. Anything else?

A. My inner rejection of materialism was upheld in a very special way. In 1949 I was sent to Leningrad to do my master’s thesis under the supervision of Dr. Jakov I. Frenkel, a world-renowned scientist. While browsing through his library one day I came upon another Bible. So here was a man with the most intimate knowledge of the laws of nature, a brilliant Jewish scholar, keeping the Book of God in his library. It was a puzzle then not only because I was still hesitant about the priority of God but also because it simply was dangerous to keep this book openly in one’s house. For Communists, the ideological enemy is the worst enemy. Interestingly enough, a few years later, when the anniversary of the publication of Lenin’s Materialism and Empiriocriticism was being observed, Frenkel was invited to make a comment on this “treasure of Marxist-Leninist thought” at a party meeting (the work was a fierce attack on all those in the party who might be inclined to reconsider their materialistic stand in favor of positing the possible existence of God). Frenkel stood up and quietly but firmly said, “I do not consider this book, nor the whole philosophy of Marxism-Leninism, as any valuable contribution to modern philosophy.” The meeting was adjourned, and the party started to work on Frenkel. Not long after that Frenkel was dead (of a heart attack, according to the official verdict).

Q. Was this the end of your education?

A. No. As one of the three best students upon graduation I was sent to the Moscow State University. In 1954 I obtained my Ph.D. in physical and mathematical sciences and was assigned to work in the Academy of Sciences of the U.S.S.R. on intercontinental and space rocket research. During this period my personal ideology was swinging further and further away from Communism. Two incidents played a key role.

Q. What happened?

A. Once while on vacation I witnessed the brutal beating of a sick old woman by the drunken chairman of a kolkhoz. Her only crime was that she had been unable to produce a doctor’s certificate for her inability to work (the doctor was a drinking partner of the chairman). The party chairman for that district was a friend of the chairman, so no one intervened.

Q. And the other experience?

A. It was while I was working on rocket research, which was top-secret activity, closely supervised by security agents. One of these people became very friendly and used to tell me stories and pass along gossip about the life in inner party circles. Once he mentioned that Lenin died of syphilis in a state of practical madness. Another time he told me that in the Soviet concentration camps during the Great Purge more than 12 million people were “eliminated.” A feeling of numbness and deep disgust overtook me.

Q. Your superiors apparently were impressed by your work, however.

A. Apparently. By this time I was married. In 1957 I was invited to work at the nuclear department at the Institute of Physics in Kiev. In the spring of 1958 a very polite and friendly major of the KGB (Committee of the State Security of the U.S.S.R.), M. I. Zapivokhin, approached me and asked me to “help” them in their work, reporting about most interesting ideas in science, especially in nuclear physics, and also about my colleagues. I am thankful to God that I managed not to betray anybody but was able to disclose for myself some disguised provocateurs from the KGB. Then came a proposal to send me abroad. But then I found that my father and my wife were reporting on me regularly to the KGB. I began to fear them. It was the psychological death of my family. I prayed: “My God, kill me or take me out of here.” In the fall of 1964 the strain became intolerable. I took an overdose of sleeping pills. When I regained consciousness in the hospital 1 remembered having said, “My Lord, thy will be done.” So death did not work. It was an answer and I decided to wait.

Q. And you got abroad eventually.

A. Yes. I was regarded as a successful scientist and was appointed head of the nuclear laboratory of the Kiev State University. In October, 1966, I was called to Moscow, to the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist party. I was told that I would be sent to Canada and after that to Vienna to the International Atomic Energy Agency. There, working as a senior member of the scientific staff, I was supposed to supply the Soviet espionage system with the most important information about the achievements in nuclear research throughout the world. Comrade Baskakov, one of the top men in the party, received me. Lifting up his finger to indicate a quotation from the highest source he said, “Boris Borisovich, we can reward your service very greatly, up to the Nobel Prize.” Two days later I was in Canada, at the University of Alberta. When I started to unpack my luggage in the room given to me I pulled out a drawer. There was a book, the Holy Bible, placed by the Gideons. My hands trembled when I took it. I applied for political asylum. The Soviets were furious. Although they failed to make the Canadian government expel me, they managed through their sympathizers to create such an atmosphere at the university that I felt it better to leave. I could not get a job at any other university, so I went to teach in a high school at Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories. Before going there I asked a minister in Edmonton to baptize me. I became a Christian.

Q. Actually, not many defect from the Soviet Union, and there have been relatively few disturbances against the government in the more than fifty years the Communists have been in power. What keeps people in Communist countries seemingly content with their lot?

A. The mark of Soviet society is to show outward absolute obedience and acceptance of all issued orders, all regulations, and all political and ideological statements. Penalties for violations are extremely severe. Khrushchev did not hesitate to order the shooting of hungry people—mainly workers and their families—in the early 1960s in Novocherkassk. The people had gone to the streets not for political change but with the demand, “If you want us to work, give us bread and meat! We cannot work eating liquid porridge and spoiled vegetables!” The demonstrators chased police with stones, and army units were called in. The workers put their wives and children in front of them. The soldiers refused to shoot. They were ordered away and court-martialed. Then specially trained units of the Bashkir cavalry were called in. These are Mongolian tribespeople who live on the lower Volga and in the South Urals and who are said to hate all white people. They shot more than 300 men, women, and children. Even the lower ranks of the party were taken aghast. But F. R. Kozlow, a party boss, said “We cannot tolerate such irregularities. We will repeat these actions of keeping peace in Soviet society if necessary.” Similar “irregularities” happened also in Sverdlovsk, in the Urals. Both cities were in a state of siege for two weeks, but the Western press was silent: from the outside the people were “seemingly content with their lot.” Kozlow’s colleagues continue to work on keeping people “content with their lot.” Maybe this is the reason for the very high consumption of vodka.

Q. As a scientist, Dr. Dotsenko, how do you confirm the validity of the Bible? How do you justify it as truth?

A. The Bible is the greatest book of faith, where the acts of God are recorded for believers. Faith does not need any justification. It is given to whom it is given. Those who do not see the light express doubts in its existence. It is rather frustrating to try to describe the light to the blind one who stubbornly expressed doubts in the existence of light on the grounds that it cannot be described in terms familiar to him. As to the factuality of the historical data, there are many excellent evidences. The final proof of the Bible will come with the return of our Lord and the establishment of his Kingdom. As for the present, the task of “justification” of the Bible can be formulated as carefully and rigorously analyzing all arguments against the Bible and showing that no one argument would be truly correct. I intend to undertake this task by an analysis of Bertrand Russell’s Why I Am Not a Christian. When I first read this work, it left me puzzled and nearly dismayed. Scrupulous examination of it, however, showed me that even such a prominent mind fails when trying to disprove the existence of God and his Word. Another side of the task of “proving” the Bible is to break the wall of cynical, atheistic, and egocentric propaganda that some self-assured “free thinkers” (who quite often deceive even themselves by false arguments) have created in trying to stop the teachings of God’s revelation. If such a wall is removed or at least cracked, the power of the truth stored in the Bible will inevitably attract many non-prejudiced people. And this would be the best justification yet of the Bible. Man has a feeling for the truth, unless he is biased and brainwashed. Correctly developed objective reason strengthens faith and clarifies it. Distorted reason sometimes kills it. The first drug-pusher was Satan, the enemy of truth and man. He managed to provoke man to be egocentric, and now he is trying to prevent man from knowing the truth recorded in the Bible—by using false arguments.

Q. You mentioned a work by Lord Russell. Which thinkers have influenced you the most?

A. I was impressed by the scientific writings of Einstein, Gibbs, Bohr, Heisenberg, Dirac, Schroedinger. Also by Wheeler, Wiener, Wigner, and Bethe. I enjoyed reading the works of Frenkel. In philosophy, I would mention initially the works of Lenin, Marx, and Engels, but these did not stand up to scrutiny. Then I would list Plato, Aquinas, Hobbs, Hegel, Spinoza, and (among Christians) C. S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer. In general reading: Scott, Shakespeare, Stevenson, Homer, Milton, Dante, Longfellow, Cooper, Verne, Tolstoy, Lermontov, Paustovsky, Shevchenko (partly), Solzhenitsyn, and Jack London. I could mention many more but I am afraid of testing the patience of the reader.

Q. Assuming you believe God to be creator of the universe, do you mean by this only a personal way of looking at the universe or God’s causal relationship to the rest of reality?

A. Both. God, however, cannot be treated as the cause of all causes, because by the definition of general nature each cause must have its own cause. Each and every cause is a part of the universe as a whole. God is not a part of the universe. He keeps and controls all the universe and each party of it. Grossly oversimplifying, one could consider an analogy of the small particles of iron placed in a magnetic field. All movements of particles are controlled by this field, though the field itself does not become part of the system of particles and the particles preserve their “individuality.” Many other more sophisticated examples could be given, but of course even all of them could not give a complete description of the relation of God to this world simply because we can think only in terms of this world and God does not belong to this world, to “this” reality.

Q. Is there really a difference in the way in which Communist science and Western secular science contemplate nature?

A. Definitely—and a big one. So-called laws of dialectical materialism are constantly being pumped into the minds of Soviet scientists. Einstein’s theory of relativity was classified by Lenin as simply a description of the movement of material bodies with great velocity. Any other interpretation was considered unnecessary, and this hampered understanding of important laws of the universe. The suppression of genetic studies long after Stalin’s death is another good example of the influence of Communist philosophy on science. Many officially paid “philosophers” are keeping close watch over intellectual developments in Soviet science. They hold the power of manipulating the development of Soviet science and controlling the careers of scientists (especially the younger ones). Any deviation is quietly but efficiently twisted and eliminated.

Q. How about what you have seen of Western science?

A. The existence of agnostic or egocentric philosophical opinions among Western scientists leads to exaggeration of relativism in the interpretation of the phenomena under study. But this could be overcome by proper evaluation of the guiding laws of the universe. The great freedom of exploration should, if honestly done, lead sooner or later to proper understanding of the universe and to realizing that God keeps it all.

Q. How about the Soviet-Communist view of man? How does that differ from what you have found in the West?

A. Soviet Communists consider man a part of society that is under permanent and thorough control of the party through the government. The KGB and MVD and the Soviet military are the real holders of power. Everybody is required to be loyal to the state and party. No one has any right to change his work or his place of living without the permission of the authorities.

Q. How about the standards of morality? How do they differ?

A. Soviet morals are derived from the Marxist concepts of class society and class struggle. Everything that increases the power of Communism is morally justified. In the West, man is considered as basically a free individual who has a right to choose his own way of life, as long as it does not hurt other men. The basis of morality in the West is taken from Judeo-Christian belief and from the ideals developed gradually through the evolution of Greek, Roman, pre-Christian German, and other civilizations.

Q. What about anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union?

A. No question about it. At the time of Frenkel’s death a vicious anti-Semitic campaign had been launched by the party apparatus under Stalin. It was accompanied by a campaign against Ukrainian nationalists and, in science, a campaign against any appearance of bourgeois “idealism.” Stalin proclaimed cybernetics to be an “idealistic” invention. Now the Soviet Union, being about ten years behind in the development of computers, can testify about the “positive” influence of dialectical materialism upon science and industry. But don’t be alarmed, for the West has come to the rescue. Fear of Communism, which eats away the foundations of Western society, is not so great as the fear of losing profits. IBM and Honeywell are selling computers to the Communists. So are the British. At the same time, Soviet authorities impose quotas on the admission of Jews to universities in spite of the brilliant abilities of Jewish students, and impose a shameless tax on Jews who want to go to Israel, like the tax on slaves who wanted freedom. Ideologically, Soviets are the worst enemies of the state and people of Israel. Stalin was made secretary-general of the Russian Communist party after he wrote a special work in which he denied for the Jews the right to be called a nation and scorned Jewish religion and customs.

Q. What passages of Scripture mean the most to you?

A. John 1:1, Mark 12:29–31, Matthew 22:36–40, and in the Old Testament Genesis 1:1–2 and Exodus 20:1–17. Finally I would say Luke 23:42 and 43, for in these words there is all: hope, faith, love, anguish of suffering, and the light of eternal life of man and his Lord God.

Q. What is your view of truth and justice?

A. Truth is the word of God (John 17:17). Justice is the implementation of moral norms of behavior in relations between man and God and between people. This implementation includes forceful restoration of moral patterns of behavior (punishment) whenever such patterns are violated because of the spiritual imperfections of man.

Q. Is there any rationale for pacifism?

A. The idea of peace is very attractive to many people, and rightly so. But the priorities must be put forward clearly and definitely. Peace with whom? Peace at what price? What is more important, peace with the enemy of God or faithfulness to God? What is more important, from the Christian point of view, this earthly life or readiness to suffer in the fight for gaining eternal life? Jesus put it very clearly to his disciples, “Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you; not as the world giveth give I unto you.” Also, “Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword.” From this follows very clearly that the true peace can be established only in the family of believers. An attempt to establish peace without first unifying people into this family means an attempt to establish peace with the enemies of God. It is against God’s will, because God does not want anything false and such peace would be definitely false. These enemies are led by the devil. Naturally, however, every Christian should strive for peace inside the Christian community and should forgive his personal enemies by loving them. We need to remember that the words of Jesus in Luke 22 are quite different from the Sermon on the Mount. In both instances he is talking to his disciples. In Luke 22 he says he had initially sent them without purse, scrip, and shoes, but now he is telling them, “He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment and buy one.” Prior to this he was there protecting them, but it is another thing when he is going to the cross. Now he will be guiding them only in a spiritual way, so that for their own protection they need to buy the sword. From this it follows that the Christian has a right and the duty, indeed, to protect himself and the people entrusted to him by God—using the sword, if necessary.

Q. How important is the question of verification of data? Of experience?

A. The basic method of learning and understanding is trial and error. Data are results of active and passive tests, experimentations in practical life, and initial observations (motivated contemplations). Abstract thinking (which is the gift of God) specifies causal relations between observed data. Knowledge of causal relations enables man to exercise control over the surrounding world. In the case of animals without abstract thinking (animals do possess some degree of concrete thinking in reflected images), there is instead a reflectory adaptation to the existing conditions (adaptation can be both passive and active). Verification of data is important for checking abstract conclusions. Accumulation of the knowledge of causal relations in man’s memory, and accumulation of conditional reflectory reactions on real and imaginary situations in the animal’s memory, are called experience. Both kinds of experience are of vital importance.

Q. How do the principles of logic and scientific thought relate to a person’s view of God?

A. Paraphrasing Francis Bacon, one may say that superficial and egocentric knowledge leads to atheism, while genuine, deep, and objective study leads to faith in God.

Q. How much religious liberty should there be in any given political control system? To what extent should Christians living in a Communist country obey its laws?

A. The Lord’s commandment was to render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. Paul wrote, “Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. For there is no power but of God.” Therefore, true powers are of God. What is the property of true power? Paul answers: “For rulers are not a terror to good works but to the evil.” Those, then, who reject God and his supremacy cannot be called the true powers, because the best work is the work of serving God. God allows such false powers to operate to test our faithfulness to him, to check our worth for the eternal life. Christ himself in all his humility rejected the offer of the devil (who by Christ’s definition was the prince of this world): “If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.” Elsewhere, Christ called King Herod “that fox” when told that Herod could try to kill Christ before his mission was fulfilled. Conclusion: No true power has a right to intervene in the worship of God and Christ as it is prescribed in the Scriptures. Christians ought to obey all laws that do not make them turn away from worshipping and serving God and Christ. Christ also warned that one cannot serve both God and mammon (earthly temptations by money, also by lusts and by false power and fame). To accept the leadership of Communism is incompatible with the true service of God. It is like accepting the assertion that the thief is the lawful owner of the things he stole.

Q. Why does the atheist Soviet government allow any churches to remain open and hold services?

A. Despite all the efforts of Stalin and others to exterminate faith by force, Christianity and other religions have survived in the Soviet Union. All the people saw the patriotism of the believers during the war. But then Stalin and his successors decided to take control of the faithful by appointing specially trained and conditioned agents to key positions of the church—especially the Russian Orthodox Church, but also in others. These appointments were made in an indirect way, by allowing only those churches that suited the Communist government to function. Communist agents entered seminaries, were ordained as ministers, and started to preach blind obedience to the “ruling powers.” They were and are well versed in the Scriptures—as was Satan when he was trying to make Jesus obey him, not by the threat of torture but by offering him power. There is considerable literature on the subject showing the fate of believers who do not follow the way of blind obedience to godless powers. The existence of open churches allows the Communists to claim they respect freedom of opinion. In this way they brainwash people in the West and entice tourists. These, in fact, are allowed to see altogether not more than 5 to 7 per cent of the Soviet territory, and then only after asking to do so well in advance. Another important point: By developing relations between the churches in the Soviet Union and those abroad, the government creates another way of sending agents into the West.

Q. There seems to be some discernible Christian influence among intellectuals in the Soviet Union. How do you account for it? Does it stem from some identifiable common factor?

A. Many of the so-called intelligentsia of the Soviet Union are deeply disillusioned and cynical people who report on one another, and on everyone else about whom they are asked, to the KGB. By “many” I should say that the number of such people is probably not less than one-third of the total number of Soviet intellectuals. Others are just living from day to day, doing their job and waiting in lines for food, inexpensive clothes, and other goods. After such hunts, most of them are so tired that they do not think about anything but getting some rest, perhaps some entertainment (ideological films, vodka). But there is an intellectual minority that does not submit itself either to cynicism or to prostituting careerism, or to waiting in line for vodka. These are the ones who suffer because they seek truth and justice and find it in Christ. Many are silent. Some, if they work in professions that allow them to conceal their real feelings, could even be successful in their fields of activity. But quite often they resent such success. One of my former colleagues confessed to me once that he would rather be a simple worker than a successful theoretician. I knew what it meant to be a worker in that system, so I said nothing. Disillusionment with the ideology of materialistic Communism is that common factor in the life of Soviet intellectuals who are finding God.

Q. What can we do for Christians in the Soviet Union? What do you think of smuggling Bibles into Communist countries?

A. Do everything that your conscience, your courage, and your trust in God allow you to do. Shall we submit ourselves to this godless force or shall we follow the commandments of our Lord, “Feed my sheep”? I must confess that I admire Brother Andrew and his co-workers. I pray for them, that the Lord will continue to keep them under his protection and inspire them for their further service. This is the true spiritual battle, where people risk their lives and personal freedom for their brethren to bring them the Word of God.

Q. You mentioned a campaign against Ukrainian nationalists. Is there any religious element to Ukrainian nationalism?

A. I am not aware of any correlation.

Q. How is it that Arabs, militant Muslims, have gotten along with atheistic Communists?

A. I do not know. The Christian should be more acceptable to the Muslim than the atheist. Incidentally, however, I am certain God will protect his people in their Promised Land. His plans are now being worked out.

Q. How do you regard the scriptural admonition about praying for our enemies?

A. The true enemies of the Christian are those who are the enemies of God. All other people are his brothers and sisters in Christ. These he should love and forgive. Concerning the enemies of God, only one prayer is possible: that the Lord in his mercy will open their eyes and soften their hearts so that they will repent and accept Christ as their Lord and Saviour. For otherwise, if they sin against the Holy Spirit they are doomed by the verdict of our Lord (“He that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation”).

Q. What do you think about the easing of tensions between the United States and Canada and the Soviet Union and China?

A. Easing of tensions between these countries is acceptable and can be welcomed as long as it is not accompanied by the weakening of the Western countries relative to the strength of the Communist counterparts. Peaceful discussions eventually lead to better understanding by all people as to where justice and truth are, ergo, to God and his Son. But as long as God permits the price of such agreement should not be that of submission to the enemy of God, not of giving the enemy the military and ideological victory.

Q. What did you think of President Nixon’s visits to the Communist countries?

A. It was a courageous and far-reaching step. By doing this he forcefully presented the good will of the American people to the world and to his counterparts. He took the lead in establishing the channels for a just peace, leaving behind the Communist leaders with their claims that they are the leaders in the “struggle for peace.” At the same time, Mr. Nixon did not compromise his ideological stand. He attended a service at the Baptist church in Moscow. The American people can be proud of having a President who combines in his person a deep political mind and initiative with clear and faithful service to God.

Q. Dr. Dotsenko, what has troubled you most about life in the West in the four years you have been here?

A. For one thing, I have been disturbed at the passive attitude of the majority of people to acts of violence on the part of relatively insignificant but vocal groups, and the violation by these groups of the most sacred moral, religious, and social norms and customs of Western society. These groups claim that, unless they are given what they insist upon, it would be the suppression of the “freedom of the individual.” But this disregards the fact that the most important condition for the really free society is the responsible behavior of each and every member of the society toward any other member and toward the society as a whole. If the society does not demand responsibility, then it openly invites totalitarian dictatorship, which brings an end to all individual freedom.

Q. What else?

A. I am also disturbed by the passive attitude toward the infiltration of materialistic ideas into the Western educational system. The quiet replacement of Christian norms in relations between people (especially in the areas of love and sex) leads to the debasem*nt of human relations to levels lower than that of beasts (animals normally follow very strict regulations established by the Creator).

Q. Any other thoughts on this point?

A. A third observation I would make is about the tolerant, “pacifistic” attitude of so much of liberal society toward the Communists. People with true democratic and liberal attitudes ought to know that the liberty of a man is based on God’s gift to man, namely, the freedom of choice. The Communists have never renounced their ultimate goal, the establishment by all means of the ruthless, oppressive, and inhuman dictatorship of the party elite and their functionaries. They disguise it by the demands for the rule of the proletariat, but the hungry workers and their relatives who were shot in Novocherkassk ten years ago are better witnesses of the true Communist goals.

Q. How much of a danger is this ideology insofar as the West is concerned?

A. Probably the greatest menace facing the West today is the presence of a widespread network of Soviet Communist agents. This network was initiated by Lenin himself at the second meeting of his party in London in 1904. The Communists in their propaganda are calling those who actively oppose them “Fascists,” trying to conceal the fact that Hitler learned from Stalin how to run a dictatorship in its most ruthless and inhuman way. They also are not eager to admit that Stalin was made secretary general of the Russian Communist Party after he wrote a special work in which he denied for the Jews the right to be called a nation and expressed scorn of the Jewish religion and customs.

Q. What about poor people and those unable to find jobs in the West? Is it surprising that Communism should appeal to them?

A. They should remember that, for example, the normal salary of a janitor in the Soviet Union is about 70 or 80 dollars a month. The monthly salary of an average worker is around 160 to 180 dollars. The price of food is not high, but the supply is meager, and the price of other goods is relatively higher than in North America. An existence of “closed” (secret) stores for the privileged party, KGB, and military “elite” where everything is available in great selection and with grossly reduced prices is another evidence of deep and very “materialistic” corruption in the Soviet ruling system. General free medical care and low apartment rents do not mean much for the hungry stomach—not to mention that often three or four families must live in one apartment. Students and other “free thinkers” should remember that it is an official and strictly followed policy of the Communist apparatus to suppress by all means, including physical elimination, when possible, or incarceration in mental asylums, all those who are critical about even the most ridiculous (sometimes) statements made by the party “prophets.” Workers have to remember that they are the part of the living body of the whole society. If the society is torn apart, as Marxists aspire to do, the workers will suffer not less than anybody else. Under the Communist dictatorship everybody loses any chance to improve his life by his own choice.

Q. Summing up, to one who has experienced deeply both of the great ideological options open to twentieth-century man, just what difference does the resurrection of Jesus Christ make?

A. The main desires, anxieties, fears, and passions of man today are about his life, his health, his family, his food, his career. Basically these are not much different from the emotions of men of ancient Israel, Rome, or Greece, England, or Germany. They are very intimately related with one question: What will happen to me and to my dear ones in the future, the near future and the remote future? For the person who believes in the power of God to give life, the answer is that he shall live a much better life as a result of the Resurrection.…

Q. What is on your mind and heart that you would like, in conclusion, to share with the readers of “Christianity Today”?

A. My wish to them is the same as it is to myself. And that is, to learn the Truth and the ways of a just and reasonable, really human life as a child of the Most High God, who suffered and died for our sins in the person of Jesus Christ—his own expression. Keep the blessings of God protected. I am a witness that here in the West there is, compared to the rest of the world, great abundance in both the material and spiritual life. Reject loose, egocentric morals. Give full support to leaders who are working to protect and develop the ways of productive and free life in the framework of well-adjusted, time-tested laws. (And I would say here that I am very much in favor of the study of the Bible in schools for those who want it.) The most important part of life is creative work together with your Christian neighbors, following wise and responsible leaders, for a better life and freedom and a better chance (not handouts from a totalitarian state) for everyone, according to the commandments of our Lord—for the glory of God.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

We start the New Year featuring an interview in which a brilliant nuclear physicist, B. P. Dotsenko, relates his conversion, his expatriation from the Soviet Union, and his responses to questions posed by our managing editor, David Kucharsky. In our news section (see page 44) we examine the state of Christianity behind the Iron Curtain. News editor Plowman predicts that during the 70s great numbers of Communist youth will turn to Christ; dialectical materialism and “big brother” supervision have not filled the empty void in their hearts.

The new year brings several internal changes. Charles Wright, formerly our advertising manager, has left our staff. Having added the book clubs to our operation, we now need not only an advertising manager but also an assistant. As advertising manager, Coleman Luck will work primarily at the home base, concerning himself with the book clubs and with production and other aspects of the advertising that appears in the magazine. His assistant, Stephen Wike, will be on the road, visiting advertisers and selling space.

The next issue of CHRISTIANITY TODAY will feature Key 73, whose evangelistic thrust we hope will result in the conversion of many unbelievers this year.

Meanwhile, a happy new year to one and all.

In 1970 AND 1971, Ark searchers faced a grim prospect owing to the political situation in eastern Turkey. Demonstrations by leftist students in Istanbul made waves that splashed against the Ankara government, and the government, in turn, pounded on key areas of potential dissent.

Mt. Ararat, the geographical and symbolic center of the native Kurdish population of ancient Armenia, constituted such a hot spot, for the Kurds in Russian Erivan, just across the Turkish border from Ararat, could well claim that Turkish Kurds deserved “liberation”—Russian-style—from Turkish “oppression.” So in 1970 the only Westerners permitted on Ararat were those who were willing to stick to an “orthodox” trail on the mountain’s southern face; Americans (because of negative Russian-American relations) were discouraged from doing even that, and only by special permission was I allowed on August 17 to conquer the summit. In 1971, the situation remained basically unchanged, but my son David and I were able to do some preliminary work on the crucial north face (the side of the mountain that overlooks the Russian border and where all Ark sightings have concentrated).

The middle of this summer (1972), however, brought a dramatic change in the permissions atmosphere. The south face—the route from Dogubayazit—was suddenly declared off-limits and the north face opened up!

Our own plans had been laid months before this shift in the political climate. On Thursday, May 25, David and I drove from Strasbourg, France, to Frankfurt, Germany, for a vital planning session with Dr. Lawrence B. Hewitt, physician, botanist, and head of the Archaeological Research Foundation expedition that in 1966 carried out the most detailed twentieth-century investigation of the geology and glaciology of Ararat.

Three days later we met again in London, in private session with a member of the Turkish presidential family. We were assured of clearances to work in the key area on the mountain, and we were informed that a certain American organization still soliciting funds for Ararat work would never be allowed back on the mountain, because of that organization’s activities in the Near East in 1970.

With assurance of government clearance at the top level, we carried out operations in August on the north face, eliminated the east side of the Ahora gorge as a possible resting place for the vessel, and obtained complete photographic coverage of the west side of the gorge in preparation for future systematic coverage of the area between the gorge and the site of Navarra’s 1955 find, above Lake Kop, of 5,000-year-old hand-tooled wood. Our expedition activities came off like clockwork, aided by the superlative management of Dr. Hewitt, the labors of Eryl Cummings, Gary Oliver, and my son, and the services of a translator and two gendarmes supplied by the Turkish government.

The only clouds across the exploratory horizon came from the presence of five well-meaning arkeologists who appeared as if by magic when the north-face restrictions were—as they put it—“providentially relaxed.” The possibility that their activities may herald a tidal wave of similar efforts leads me to some words of admonition, based upon their work and upon that of the American organization referred to earlier.

My advice is given negatively, in deference to the supposed death-wish of Ark searchers who really do not want to carry out a thorough search for fear it will prove them wrong—as in the case of the traveler in Bishop Blougram’s Apology who “saw the Ark a-top of Ararat;/But did not climb there since ‘twas getting late, / And robber bands infest the mountain’s foot.” In order not to find the Ark, robber bands are by no means necessary; the following techniques will certainly suffice!

1. Insult the Turkish government. One of the members of the highly publicized American organization that tried unsuccessfully to operate on Ararat in 1970 was so disturbed by the refusal of Ankara to provide his group with appropriate permissions that he castigated the Turkish government in comments to Greek journalists. As a result, this organization is permanently persona non grata in Turkey.

2. Obtain only local permissions to climb; don’t bother with red tape or the central government in Ankara. This procedure was followed by the five-man team that turned up this summer. Without clearance from Ankara, the group had no gendarme protection. The Kurds on the mountain enjoy a certain amount of bullying and pilfering in the absence of gendarmes, so the five found (a) their vehicle used for target practice, and (b) all their equipment stolen, including the very trousers worn by one of them.

3. Ignore the safety rules of mountaineering, and don’t clutter up your team with a physician. The five searchers this summer had no doctor with them (one of them had some kind of certificate in mountain first-aid). Leaving the first-aid man at camp, three of them (a civil-engineering graduate, a Bible-college graduate, and an industrialist with nine children back in the States) climbed to an extremely precarious position on the mountain, got caught in a lightning storm, stayed in the open, were struck by lightning and knocked out, and after partially recovering somehow made their way back to base camp. Had they been permanently injured or killed, the authorities would doubtless have stopped all exploratory work on Ararat for the indefinite future.

4. Rely on your spirituality. When questioned about the wisdom of such activities as the preceding (“shall we sin that grace may the more abound?”), the reply was that they were doing the Lord’s will, and were led by his Spirit. (The group has personal, though not official, connections with an extremely rightist, Americanist, fundamentalist college in southern California.) The leader of the group constantly talked about his “witnessing to the Turks and Kurds,” but I quickly discovered that his knowledge of their languages was so paltry that he could not give the simplest gospel presentation. When will we learn as evangelicals that the Gospel is not our “experience” or our “spirituality,” but the message of Scripture that must be conveyed in words? And when will we learn that our sanctification can never absolve us from using our heads?

If the Ark is ever to be found, it will require the consistent, long-term planning of a Cape Kennedy operation, not the perspective of a Boy Scout outing. Perhaps the Ark is no more significant than the cradle in which the Saviour lay on the first Christmas, but Luther saw fit to compare that cradle with the Scriptures. The quest for a scriptural artifact demands the clarity of heart of a relic-seeker and the clarity of mind of a scientific investigator.

Born in a suburban washington, D. C., hotel and nurtured in denominational and organizational offices across the continent, Key 73 passes this month from the hands of its organizers to the local churches. It is the local pastor working with his congregation who will either send Key 73 into orbit or leave it sitting on the launch pad.

Suggestions for local churches are contained in the Congregational Resource Book published by Key 73, available for $3 through Christian bookstores or the Key 73 office (418 Olive Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102). But the book contains only suggestions and resources. There is no imperative that churches act on any of the ideas it contains, for Key 73—from top to bottom—is a do-it-yourself project with the sole overriding aim of evangelizing the continent. Within that context, pastors and laymen are free to contribute in the way that suits them best.

Many churches are already geared up for the first phase: “Calling our Continent to Repentance and Prayer.” During this phase congregations will be involved with noon prayer calls and a prime-time television special the weekend of January 6.

The noon prayer call is designed as a means for the lay Christian to extend his witness as well as support Key 73. From Christmas Day until the date of the TV special (the program is being placed on stations by local Key 73 committees, and times may vary) Christians are being asked to stop whatever they’re doing at noon each day and pray for Key 73 and the extension, by millions of people, of God’s Kingdom.

For local congregations the opportunities are unparalleled. Backed by heavy media advertising, local churches can declare themselves “prayer places” where Christians can gather each day. Pastors should urge their students and teachers to set up similar prayer times in school cafeterias or wherever they happen to be at noon. Businessmen should be encouraged to use offices for prayer with open invitations for fellow workers to join them. Nurses and doctors in hospitals, construction workers at their sites, salesmen in their stores—the possibilities are endless.

The prayer sessions need not be long and need not interrupt business, since they fall during the customary lunch hour. Some churches are sponsoring special prayer places in public facilities such as airline terminals to enable travelers to participate in the noon prayer calls. Literature on Key 73 will be available at each of the centers.

Key 73 organizers are hoping the noon prayer call will be signaled each day by the sound of church bells, car horns, sirens—anything to call attention to it. However, they agree the initiative for such efforts can come only from local congregations and their Key 73 committees.

The two-week period of official prayer calls ends the weekend of the television special (though organizers hope the prayer will not also end). Like the prayer calls, the TV special is intended for use by members of the congregation.

Individual Christians will be relied on to spread the effectiveness of the program. Designed for prime-time viewing, it is a thirty-minute color documentary outlining the changed lives of nine new Christians in Canada and the United States. Followup will depend on the local churches. Copies of the film are being made available by Key 73 so the program can be rerun at other times or shown to church or school audiences. Also, congregation members are urged to form “viewing parties” of neighbors to see the program and participate in Bible studies immediately after. As with most Bible-study groups, the size should average six or eight adults. Study guides based on the program’s content and tying in with biblical emphasis on evangelism are available from the Key 73 office.

Viewing parties can be of two types, say organizers: committed Christians or non-Christians. For the committed, the program provides opportunities to explore better ways of witnessing under the Key 73 umbrella, while it also presents a unique chance for Christians to evangelize neighbors and friends. By evening’s end, the first group—committed Christians—should have covered various methods of witnessing and its effects (as noticed in the film), while the second group, non-Christians, should have a clear understanding of the Gospel and the call to Christ.

Throughout the whole period, churches can use Wednesday- or Sunday-evening prayer services to share the Key 73 burden and use Sunday-evening evangelistic services for intensified presentation of the Gospel.

Formation of prayer cells can be continued and used to lead into the second phase of Key 73, emphasis on the Bible as the Word of God. Many churches already have active prayer and Bible-study cells operating in the congregation. All that’s needed is to convert operations to a Key 73 emphasis through the first two phases. Bible societies and distribution organizations are already assembling special resource materials for such groups. Phase two will concentrate on evangelistic Bible studies, and again the possibilities are endless; coffeehouse groups for youth, women’s home groups, married couple groups, Saturday-afternoon children’s groups, to name a few.

Along with the study groups, intensive Scripture distribution can be an effective way of reaching homes. (One of Key 73’s main aims is reaching every Canadian and American home with the message of Jesus Christ.) Churches, youth groups, or even individuals can participate a few nights a week. Groups like the World Home Bible League and the national Bible societies have already printed gospel portions for use by such groups. Not to be overlooked, of course, is the opportunity for high school or college students to work through campus clubs (such as Youth for Christ, Inter-Varsity, and Campus Crusade) in distributing Gospels or Testaments to fellow students.

Both phases lead to the third part of the Key 73 program, which centers on Easter and pledges to take the fact of the Resurrection to non-Christians. Much of the third phase will consist of direct evangelistic confrontations on streets, in homes, and on college campuses.

Whatever the plans and ideas, the critical time period has arrived. Unless local churches provide grass-roots support and evangelize in their own communities, Key 73 will be just another dream. It’s time now to do something.—BARRIE DOYLE, assistant news editor, CHRISTIANITY TODAY.

Sharing ideas across the continent is one way of keeping Key 73 alive in your church. If you have an idea you have found valuable, let us know. “The Minister’s Workshop” can be a sounding board for Key 73 projects and ideas throughout the year. Make yours one of them.—ED.