Morals Twisting in the Wind

The election is over. But it did not solve any problems nor resolve any issues with which the nation must deal. The President's avoidance of any specific methods to meet the difficulties ahead leaves us in a political and moral haze.

It is interesting to note how easily we ignore, twist or reverse political and moral principles to adjust for our preferences and prejudices. For instance, the Republican party was formed as a free working man's party to end the system of cheap slave labor which threatened the livelihood of every free man. It wanted a strong central government to limit the extension of slavery. They were "black" Republicans. The doctrine of State's Rights was developed by the Democratic party and the "silk stocking" Whigs (Lincoln's phrase) to protect the institution of slavery, to prevent the more populous northern states from imposing limits on the "peculiar institution". What a change has occurred! The Democratic party has become the working man's party with national political programs to protect those workers and consumers who are subject to exploitation by industrial giants. The Republican party beats the drums for State's rights, because dividing authority among the states cripples the effectiveness of legislation which limits such exploitation. The two parties have exchanged constituents and political theories.

The moral issues involved go beyond anything the "moral majority" comprehends or contemplates. The conduct of our relations with our Latin-American neighbors leaves us no grounds for criticism of any other nation. Long before a Communist power was on the scene we invaded Central America to depose opponents and install friends in governments there. Russia's adventures in Poland, Hungary and Afganistan only duplicate our incursions into Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Guatemala and El Salvador. Accusations by both sides are simply cases of the pot calling the kettle black.

We have been getting a lot of "righteous indignation" about terrorists lately. But persons who are terrorists to us are patriotic martyrs to Libyans, Iranians and the PLO. At the time of the Watts riots in Los Angeles I was teaching a Bible class. Some of the class members, at one session, were angry over the riots in that city, and demanded enforcement of law and order. I asked them to explain the difference between the Watts riots and the Boston Tea Party, a glowing example of American patriotism. The members stumbled around looking for differences. Finally one man clarified matters: "In Watts, it's them. In the Boston Tea Party, it's us." So much for the administration's righteous indignation.

The CIA manual for the Contra in Nicaragua leaves the administration with dirty hands and face. It suggests "selective violence" - they mean murder - against supporters of the government. This is American terrorism. If the President and his appointees at the CIA knew about the manual and permitted it to be printed, they have betrayed the American people. If Mr. Reagan didn't know about it he is not the responsible leader his advertising agency pictures him as being. After the CIA, during the Nixon administration, gave its support to the Chilean generals who murdered democratically elected Salvatore Allende, President of Chile, any protestations of innocence on its part are suspect. Coupled with the CIA involvement in mining the harbors of Nicaragua, and the incendiary raids on that country's oil storage tanks the administration is establishing a record of terrorism under the subterfuge of protecting national interests. There is a big doubt about the administration's morality.

What to do?

We need to capture and develop the experience for which one description is "born again". At birth we leave the world of the womb and enter into a new world of independent action. At a second birth we enter into another new world of different principles, experiences and values. One of those values is intellectual honesty, a willingness to admit violations of moral principles and not try to argue evil into good. Lincoln Steffens once spoke of honest crooks and dishonest crooks. An honest crook knew he was dishonest and never used pious phrases. He could be changed. A dishonest crook did not realize he was dishonest. Even though he mouthed pious verbiage, he was hopelessly lost.

A second value is the ability to see things from a different angle, even from the point of view of an enemy. For instance, think about two hundred million Russians facing more than thirty thousand nuclear warheads, five thousand of which are only twenty minutes away. Remember that the man whose finger is in the button that can launch those missiles has described Russia as the focus of all the evil which must be destroyed. Do you wonder that the Russians build more and more missiles as a deterrent force?

Unfortunately, both nations are under the rule of power-hungry leaders. Ours are determined to be Number One in military power. Russian leaders are determined no one shall be more powerful than they. Each side whips up a tempest of fear and hate against each other. And the masses of people on both sides are condemned to life in fear that some joker will outlaw the other nation and "start bombing in five minutes".

Our hope is that we experience a birth into a new world of different values that place cooperation above conquest, acceptance above fear, friendship above hate, peace above war, and a future better than the present.

A Portrait Painted with Check Stubs

No man’s portrait can be painted without a study of his check stubs. They give a revelation of his character.

The nation’s budget is equally revealing about the character of the nation. The budget presented by President Reagan suggests a social disintegration and a spiritual decay. Incidentally, the President’s own check book the year before he became President is shocking. His income, on his tax form, was listed at over $200,000. His philanthropic giving to churches, colleges, United Way, museums, hospitals, health research and other charitable activities was about $1,000, or one-half (1/2) of one percent of his income. The Internal Revenue Service would normally expect $8,000 to $10,000 in gifts by a person with that income.

Look at the changes in the Federal budget from 1980 to Mr. Reagan’s proposals for 1986.

Military expenditures are up $93,000,000,000 or 55%.

Social Security and Medicare are up $58,000,000,000 or 31%.

Other human service programs, and all other government expenses, are down $50,000,000,000 or 17%.

Interest on the national debt is up $65,000,000,000 or 95%.

The Interest on the national debt is $131,000,000,000 or almost as much as the scheduled deficit. It results from the fact that Reaganism has increased the debt by $600,000,000,000 in his four short years in office. He has accomplished this by his income tax reductions, primarily in the upper brackets for his wealthy cronies and backers, in an amount equal to the increase in the national debt. If he had not rammed through that tax cut we would not be paying that increased interest bill of $65,000,000,000 a year for years to come.

Instead of getting adequate income in taxes, the government gets it through borrowing from those with enough left over after living expenses to lend it the money. Then the government pays interest on those loans to increase the lenders’ wealth. In the words of the old song, “The rich get richer, and the poor get ….”

The attitude of the administration is demonstrated by a remark by Donald Regan, the President’s chief adviser. He said, in a conversation, that many Catholic nuns who manage hospitals “don’t have their heads screwed on tight.” He means that these women who have dedicated their lives to the relief of pain, suffering and misery, just aren’t mentally competent. He later apologized for saying what he said, but didn’t deny that he thinks it.

The priorities of the administration were set forth clearly by one of its supporters who voiced his approval of Reagan because “now he can afford to go on ski trips and wear designer jeans,” presumably as a result of lowered taxes and increased dividends from defense contractors. To such, the prophet Amos speaks:

“Woe to them that lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches, and eat lambs from the flock, and calves from the midst of the stall; … who drink wine in bowls and anoint themselves with the finest oils, but are not grieved over the ruin in Joseph.” (Amos 6:4-6)

Reagan has never reduced the size of government nor its expense. Every budget has been higher than the preceding one. What he has done is to shift money around to cut back help for the homeless, the hapless, the helpless and the hungry. The money thus saved he throws away on million dollar missiles that won’t hit where they are aimed, and six hundred dollar toilet seats. He is the most extravagant spendthrift President the country has ever known – a smiling joking playboy using borrowed money to buy military toys which don’t and won’t work.

To sharpen the point, Reagan’s Education Secretary, in announcing elimination of some finds for college education, and cutting back of other funds, says some middle class families will be hurt, but “like the rain it ‘falls on the just and the unjust’”. Like so many in the administration he quotes Biblical phrases with no understanding. When Jesus originally used the phrase he meant that God sends his refreshing showers on both the just and the unjust. Secretary William Bennett uses it to justify sending acid rain on the less affluent and the needy.

There is no question about it; the deficits in the federal budget must be reduced. Four years of Reagan deficits have put an intolerable burden on the American people. But the deficit reduction program must be fair. The President’s proposals show a callous disregard for the poor and the powerless, while catering to “those who are at ease in Zion.” (Amos 6:1)

The character painted by the budget priorities is not an attractive one. But it is the character of its sponsor who shares one-half of one percent of his income with philanthropy, and who proposes a spiritual ly impoverished and ethically cancerous budget for the nation. Is this a fair picture of America?

President Reagan - "Non-Political"

President Reagan perpetrated a fraud on both the TV networks and the public in his supposedly "non-political" speech last week.

When the networks refused to disrupt their regular commercial broadcasts to sell time to the President's political crew, he demanded free time on TV to tout his accomplishments. Then he ended his "non-political" report by mouthing his partisan appeal to "stay the course".

As to his accomplishments.

Interest rates have come down - true. That is because few people can afford to borrow for housing, cars, major appliances or travel. Business has no need to borrow for expansion when it is operating at 70% of present capacity. It is also worth noting that long term interest rates are 25% higher than present temporary short term rates.

The rate of inflation has declined - true. The President says this leaves more money in our pockets. He is simply juggling figures. "The hand is quicker than the eye." Prices at retail have not declined. What happens is that present inflation is piled on top of past inflation. Persons on fixed incomes still have their spendable funds further reduced. Wage increases are based on last years's inflation. This year's inflation takes another bite out of this year's wage scale.

Taxes have been reduced - maybe. I have done some calculating. A senior citizen couple with an adjusted gross income of $10,000 a year will have a tax cut of about $50. The deduction from income for medicine and drugs will be about $200, adding about $24 to the tax bill. Medicare will pay $100 or less on medical bills, which the taxpayer will have to make up. The whole tax cut has been Pac-Maned by Reagan's new tax law. Persons with incomes over $25,000 a year still get good tax cuts.

He brushed off unemployment by blaming it on previous administrations. Under President Johnson unemployment was 3.9%, under Nixon 5.5%, under Ford 7.5%, under Carter it dropped to 7.4%. Reagan called that a depression and promised jobs. Under him unemployment has jumped to 10.1%. All increases occurred during Republican administrations.

Mr. Reagan rejects any attempt at what he calls a quick fix. He promises a high technology job training program for next year and the next decade. But hungry children and homeless families cannot wait until next year for food and shelter. He regrets their condition, "I'm sorry." But compassionate actions are needed not pious sorrows. St. James has some harsh words about people who say, "Have Faith" in the future, but do nothing about present hardship and suffering. The costs of unemployment are more than hunger. They include frustration, bitterness, discouragement, loss of dignity and personality destruction. The Wall Street Journal, in its weekly Business Employment Review, reports a big increase in child abuse resulting from unemployment. Unemployment destroys human values now. Christian followers of Jesus want help for the unfortunate jobless now.

Lest I be considered too partisan - Mr. Reagan has inaugurated three positive and helpful policies: (1) he has opened up grain sales to Russia; (2) he has authorized a long term job training program; (3) he has formulated a peace program for the Middle East.

On Monday, October 18, newspapers all over the country carried an AP dispatch listing a number of misstatements of fact, out of scores of such incidents on the part of Mr. Reagan. He has used the fictitious facts to support his ideas. When asked about the errors, Reagan's advisers replied they just decided to forget about them. Ron Ziegler tried to cover up Nixon's deceit with "misspoke." Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister, said that of you lied often enough and loud enough, people would believe you.

Two serious issues face us: the lack of intellectual integrity and compassionate action of an administration which indulges in subterfuge, deviousness, misstatements, and indifference to compassionate action.

Jimmy Carter said, "I will not lie to you." We hope his successors can make the same statement.

Know Your Roots

The squabble over school prayer is quite – at least until the election heats up. It is, of course, a tempest in a teapot. No child is now, or ever has been, denied the right to pray ay school, providing it is a quiet, private prayer which does not disturb the school routine.

Of much greater importance is the absence, in the school curriculum, of study of the basic experiences from which came the foundations of our ethical civilization. Many of those foundations are derived from the Jewish literature of two thousand to twenty-eight hundred years ago. Writings from other ancient cultures, particularly the Greek, contribute as well to our speech, our laws, our customs and our ethical values.

How can one understand the phrase, “handwriting on the wall”, without knowing of the fall of Babylon, as told in the book of Daniel, Chapter 5? A “siren song” becomes much more tantalizing and intriguing when one has read of Ulysses tied to the mast of his ship to prevent his yielding to the sirens’ enticement. The “golden calf” acquires more meaning within the framework of the Israelites’ orgy at the foot of Mt. Sinai. Incidentally, there is a bit of sardonic humor in the story when Aaron, disclaiming responsibility, explains to Moses how it happened: “I threw the gold rings into the fire. And Moses, you aren’t going to believe this, but that calf just walked out.” Bowing to the golden calf, a symbol of fertility and wealth, is not too different from our canonization of productivity. We tend to place a higher value in greater quantities of things than on human relations, and the contest at the foot of Sinai is reenacted again.

Marathon running has become a mass participation sport, but few of the racers of the spectators realize they are celebrating one of the turning points in the history of the Western world. The first marathon was run by a courier from that city to Athens with the joyful news, “We conquer”, announcing the destruction of the Persian navy and army by the Greeks; an event that saved the Western world from becoming a satrapy of the Persian Empire. Incidentally, the same emperor who lost at Marathon had liberated the Jews who were taken into exile by the Babylonians, and allowed them to return to Palestine and rebuild Jerusalem, laying the groundwork for today’s Middle Eastern problems.

There should be in our schools a course possibly titled, “Readings in Ancient Literature – Sources of Our Civilization.” Seventy years ago in our reading textbooks we had, “The Death of Socrates,” lifted verbatim from Plato’s dialogue, “Crito”. We had selections for Homer’s Odyssey. There were no stories from Jewish literature. We did have, by law, the reading of ten verses from the Bible every day, but those readings were mostly from the Psalms and none of them were particularly impressive at that time. The material from Homer and Plato had religious significance for the authors and their readers of the era when they were written. Those religious elements were simply ignored as irrelevant for us.

In Jewish literature, for starters, there could be several good stories without religious significance. Judges, Chapters 14–16, tell the story of a “free-spirited” but not very intelligent jock, the macho man in vogue these days. Samson comes on as a male chauvinist pig when he refers to his wife as “my heifer”. The current movie “Samson and Delilah” tries to glamorize what was really a stupid and treacherous affair. The Book of Ruth corresponds to the modern romantic novels without any super-steamy verbiage but still suggests how feminine wiles were used to trigger a rich landowner’s interest.

 For evil plot and counterplot, and mob violence, again with a bit of feminine trickery, few stories can match that of Esther, in which a personal vendetta blows up into a mass riot.

Besides the entertaining stories there is a ferment of new ideas. The meeting of Nathan, the prophet, with David (I Samual 11-12) and Elijah, the prophet, with Ahab and Jezebel (L Kings 21) were harbingers of the Magna Charta and Declaration of Independence. Those meetings were the beginning of the end for the doctrine of “divine rights of kings” and of royal death squads. The humblest subject had rights on which the highest authority dare not trample.

Amos demands justice for the poor and concern for the weak and helpless (Chapters 4-6). Ezekiel discovers a new truth – individual responsibility (Chapter 18). No longer is a person swallowed up in the mass of people. Each person has a unique dignity and worth. The hippies of the 1960’s may echo the plaint of the Jewish exiles, “The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge.” But Ezekiel says it isn’t so. The generation gap may exist, but it is a source of hope rather than despair. There is always expectancy and faith in individual persons in a new generation.

It is not necessary to teach all this in terms of religion. We hear appeals to the spirit of America’s “Founding Fathers”. Actually, the founding fathers got most of their ideals from the Greek and Jewish literature. The roots from which our democratic and humanitarian principles have grown were planted in Greece and Rome two thousand to twenty-eight hundred years ago. To nurture rich blooms today we need to know the roots from which they have blossomed.

Let’s teach about those roots in our schools.

Is a Puzzlement

“Is a puzzlement.”

The King of Siam thus contemplates a problem in the play, “The King and I”. How many of us share that feeling.

Last week a speaker told the Chamber of Commerce, “America’s economic woes result from the fact that it has consumed more than it has produced, and spent more than it has earned. All this adds up to too big a national debt. This mountain of debt stalls the economic machine. He also commended the Reagan administration, and advised all of us to cooperate with it in the national interest.

Therein lies the puzzle.

All previous economic principles have held that when you consume more than is produced you stimulate production and the economy booms. When you produce more than you consume you get a depression. Witness the tremendous production of American foodstuffs and the agricultural depression.

How can anyone support an administration that projects a budget deficit of more than six hundred billion dollars during its four years in office? This deficit adds to the debt, in four years, 50% as much as the previous twenty nine administrations accumulated, in war and peace, in one hundred ninety-two years.

This administration bulldozed through Congress a tax reduction bill, largely for the benefit of the affluent, reducing taxes by six hundred billion in four years. This just about equals the debt increase and may have caused that increase. The Director of the Budget said that nobody in the administration, except himself, understood the figures.

The supply side Reaganomics promised that a tax reduction would result in increased production which would boost the economy. It didn’t work that way because production already exceeds demand. Present production uses only 70% of existing capacity. When George Bush was running for the Republican nomination he called this voodoo economics. When he was tabbed for the Vice Presidency ha changed his tune. “Is a puzzlement.”

Now the new emphasis is on creating demand. We are supposed to go on a buying spree to get the economy going. It’s a return to the New Deal. “What has been will be again.” (Ecclesiastes 1:8). I get letters every few weeks offering to lend me money. Two banks with which I have never dealt want me to use their credit cards in addition to those I already have. The two banks issuing my present cards increase my credit allowance, and send me black checks to fill out for ready cash, all to be added to my debt to them. Do I have a moral responsibility to solve the problems of the Reagan depression by going into debt? The financial institutions seem to think so.

“Is a puzzlement.”

I took some courses in economics in college. I also took some courses in logic. Because I learned to use logic I am skeptical about the economic fantasies of the supply side economists and their political disciples.

How is all this related to religion and ethics?

Fifty years ago a business man observed to me that what was needed to cure the Great Depression of that time was the Biblical year of Jubilee. (Leviticus, Chapter 25)

A trumpet call went forth, “Proclaims liberty throughout the land, to all the inhabitants thereof.” These words are inscribed on the Liberty Bell, perhaps America’s most treasured relic from the past. All debts were cancelled, all servants and slaves were freed (Jubilee was a magic word to black people). All land and property (except in walled cities) reverted to the families of the original owners. It was a fresh start. Jubilee occurred every fifty years.

It had certain values. Creditors did not make long term contracts, knowing they would be cancelled at Jubilee.

Property was redistributed, breaking up concentrations of wealth.

Hope was given to those burdened down with debt.

People felt they had roots in the past.

It is an impractical idea in an industrial, rather than an agricultural society. But it is an intriguing idea. The Bible is not an economics textbook.

It is a book about personal relationships, human and divine. It would be fascinating to have a group of economists, financiers, politicos and reformers work on it.

“Is a puzzlement.”

A Revival Service for ERA

ERA, the Equal Rights Amendment, is supposed to be dead.

Be sure of one thing. It will be revived in some form in the next session of Congress; and in the North Carolina legislature.

The Biblical book of Ester offers a suggestion about the source and nature of some of the opposition to the Amendment. The book itself is a tale of love, jealousy, intrigue, revenge, death and justice (of that day) triumphant. What a TV movie!

The story begins when Ahasuerus, king of Persia, throws a party for the lords, generals, and governors of the hundred twenty-seven provinces of his kingdom. The festival lasted for six months, and then there was a banquet for seven days. There was eating and drinking and “the royal wine was lavished”. His queen, Vashti, also gave a banquet for the women of the palace.

On the seventh day of the festivities, when “the heart of the king was merry with wine,” (not surprisingly) he summoned Vashti to show off her beauty along with his other possessions and wealth. She refused to come.

The king was enraged, “His anger burned within him.” He asked his courtiers fir advice.

Paraphrasing their advice: Queen Vashti, by refusing to appear, has insulted not only the king, but also the princes and men of the realm. The women of the court, our wives, all know of the queen’s disobedience, and will look at us, their husbands, with contempt. Right now these women are spreading the news all over the country. Wives will say, ‘If Vashti can disobey her husband, the king, I can disobey my husband too;’ and “there will be contempt and wrath in plenty.” Vashti must be deposed as queen, and news of her punishment be published so that “all women will give honor to their husbands, both high and low.” Keep the women in their place.

The author of the Book – it may have been Jehovah-God himself – knew male chauvinism, and held it up to ridicule. The story continues – Esther became queen, was threatened with a pogrom, and risked her life to rescue her people. Both Vashti and Esther struck a blow for women’s rights. I’ve always rather admired the neglected heroine, Vashti.

The Book of Esther has very little, if any religious value. Martin Luther wanted to discard it from the Bible. The word, “God”, does not appear in the book. Its significance lies in Esther’s willingness to risk her life for her people.

On the other hand, a bit of advice to ERA advocates, stick to equality before the law. Don’t be diverted from the main issue by the excesses of some of the proponents. In the nature of things there are differences between men and women. To deny the difference is futile and weakens the case for ERA.

For instance, there is a suit in the courts claiming sex discrimination because pension annuity rates for women are lower than those for men even though both have paid the same amount for their pensions. The reason is, that on the basis of averages, the women will live longer than men, and collect pensions for more years than will their male counterparts. The total pension over the years will be essentially the same amount for both men and women who invest the same amounts in pension programs.

Conversely, men pay more for life insurance than do women of the same age for the same amount of insurance. Surely the advocates of ERA do not want the rates for women raised to equal the rates for men.

In Ahasuerus’ Persia, and in Khomeini’s Persia today, women were and are humble, submissive slaves. In the world of Jesus and Paul, the women – Mary Magdalene; Mary and Martha (the sisters of Lazarus); the Samaritan woman at the well; Lydia, the merchant of Phillipi; and Prisca, the preacher at Corinth are equal souls, neither male nor female, before God. We hope they will be equal before the law.

Lectures From the White House Bible College

President Reagan scans the Bible occasionally, although it does not appear that he really reads it. He hits on a few phrases and statements, and then comes forth with novel and hitherto hidden interpretations which have, up to present, eluded Biblical scholars.

His latest excursion into Biblical exegesis was used to reinforce his plea for more MX missiles. He quotes Luke 14:31-32: "Or what king going to another king in war does not sit down first and take counsel whether he is able with ten thousand to meet him who comes against him with twenty thousand. And if not, while the other is still a long way off he sends an emissary to ask for terms of peace." The President says the first king must build ip his army to thwart the second king. Hence, we must build the MX missile and deploy it whether it works or not; and with it a lot of military hardware developed by grafting defence contractors, General Dynamics, General Electric, Boeing, Westinghouse, etc.

Three things the President overlooked figure in the parable.

First, the President assumes the role of king going out to war, and insists on preparing for it. His notions as how to settle disputes are out of place and out of date in a nuclear age. Preparing for a war is the surest way to provoke a war. It makes the war inevitable. No other alternative is considered. Weapons in the hands of a contestant are never "Peacemakers". They are a challenge to the opponent, and sooner or later the challenge is accepted and the shooting starts.

Second, the war mentioned by Luke was king against king, ruler against rules. The people had no voice in the matter. The people of Russia fear the government of the United States just as much as we fear the government of Russia. The people of Russia, having lived through a holocaust of their own - more than 20,000,000 lives lost in four years of war - fear war again. So do we. Any war against Russia is ruling clique against ruling clique, not people against people. It is the President who demands that those who differ from him cry "uncle".

Third, Luke suggests the ruler should realize the risk before going to war. The risk in nuclear war is total destruction. The second Commandment (Exodus 20:4) mentions "visiting the iniquities of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations." If we have nuclear war there will be no third or fourth generations, nor a second one either. Jesus' advice, reported by Luke is for the wise ruler to send an emissary to ask therms of peace. Possibly Benjamin Franklin had this in mind when he wrote, "There never was a good war nor a bad peace."

As Mr. Reagan skims through the Bible he might find some interesting passages about which he could enlighten us. Here are a few of them.

"Thou shall not kill." Exodus 20:13

"Then Jesus said to him, 'Put your sword back into it's place; for all who take the sword shall perish by the sword." Matthew 26:51

"So if you are offering your gift at the alter, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother ; and then come and offer your gift." Matthew 5:23-24

"Go sell all that you have and distribute to the poor." Luke 18:23

Jesus' parable about paying the same wages to all the laborers in the field, regardless of how long they worked - possibly because they needed the wages to support their families. (Luke 20:1-16)

"He has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away." Luke 1:52-53

"It is not the rich who oppress you?" James 2:6

"What causes wars, and what causes fighting among you? - You desire and do not have, so you kill. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and wage war." James 4:1-2

We await more Presidential Biblical lectures.

Bob Jones University, the IRS, the Supreme Court and the Book of Ruth

On October 12 the United States Supreme Court heard the case of Bob Jones University v. Internal Revenue Service. The IRS had denied tax exemption privileges to the school on account of racial discrimination. The school admits black students but prohibits interracial dating and marriage.

Bob Jones seems to admit that the rule is discriminatory, but contends that it is based on religious principles derived from the Bible. As such it cannot be reviewed by the civil authorities. The basis for such a claim is probably the Book of Ezra, Chapters 9 and 10. Ezra traces the troubles of the Jewish nation to the fact that there has been intermarriage between Jews and Palestinians. He orders all Jewish men to divorce their Palestinian wives, and lists the names of the leaders who obey his command.

Now comes the author of the Book of Ruth. Whether that author be divine or mortal, he tells a good story. If it were published today, it would be classified as historical romance – based on fact and embellished by the imagination of the author.

There was a famine in Israel. A man named Elimilech, his wife, Naomi, and their two sons migrated to Moab in search of food. The man died. His two sons married Moabite (non-Jewish) women. Then the sons died.

The famine ended in Israel, and Naomi decides to return there. She calls her daughter-in-law to say good-bye. Ruth declares she will leave Moab to stay with Naomi: “Whither thou goest, I will go. Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God.” For centuries Ruth has been honored for her loyalty to her mother-in-law.

In Israel Naomi sends Ruth out to glean behind the reapers in the field. She finds herself in the field of a rich man named Boaz, who happens to be a third or fourth cousin of Ruth’s dead father-in-law. Boaz notices her, invites her to share his food at the lunch hour, and instructs the reapers to leave some of the grain around for Ruth to collect. He advises her to stay in his field for she might be molested if she went elsewhere. She and Naomi fare well. Naomi understands the by-play.

The harvest ends and threshing the grain follows. After the day’s work there is to be a threshing party – eating and drinking – a custom which still persists in the corn-husking bee. Naomi tells Ruth to bathe herself, use some perfume, don her prettiest clothes and go to the party. She instructs her to give special attention to Boaz, and how to get his special attention after the affair. Ruth captivates him. Boaz succumbs and decides to wed Ruth. He comments how pleased he is that she devoted herself to him rather than to some younger fellow.

Mother in laws, take notice. Naomi encourages Ruth to remarry, and helps her catch the right man.

Boaz follows through with the formalities of Jewish law to secure the legal right for them to marry and presumably to live happily ever after. A son was born to them.

Now comes the punch line: They named him Obed, he was the father of Jesse, the father of David. In other words, a Moabitess (a non-Jewish Palestinian) was the great-grandmother of Israel’s most honored king. Ezra’s edict against racial intermarriage is invalidated.

I am not advocating racial intermarriage. I am only recounting a divinely inspired Biblical story.

Armageddon – Today

President Reagan, several times, has talked about Armageddon – Apocalyptic battle between the armies of good and evil mentioned in the Bible (Revelation 16:16). From the nature of his remarks some pundits suspect he might welcome such a spectacle, and sees himself as the commander of the forces of righteousness. If so, he should learn more about the Bible.

I first met the world, “Armageddon”, in connection with the Republican National Convention in 1912. Theodore Roosevelt, leader of the Progressive segment of the party, was contending with William Howard Taft, the candidate of the “Old Guard”, for nomination for President. The Progressive slogan rang out, “We march to Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.” The conservatives were dubbed the forces of evil, but they won and Taft was renominated. Roosevelt’s adherents split off, formed the Progressive – Bull Moose – party, and insured the election for Woodrow Wilson.

Senator Boies Penrose, leader of the Old Guard, was told, “Boies, if you persist in pushing for Taft, you’ll wreck the Republican Party.” To which the Senator replied, ‘Yes, but I’ll control the wreckage.”

To get back to the Bible, the author of Revelation writes in code words which Christians of that day understood, but the meaning of which has been lost for us. We do have a clue to the identity of the “beast” with the seven heads, which is the enemy of the saints (Chapter 17). The seven heads represent the seven hills of which the city of Rome is built, and the ten horns represent the emperors since Augustus Caesar. Probably the emperor at the time of the writing was Domitian.

From the time of Augustus every Roman Emperor was declared to be a god, and assumed the role of divinity. Domitian decreed that every citizen must worship before his status as a sign of patriotic loyalty. The Christians refused. To obey would betray their faith in the God of Jesus Christ. Their refusal made them traitors to Rome, and outlaws. Domitian inaugurated a persecution if the Christians far more wide-spread than anything that had occurred previously.  John writes to the Christians to be loyal to God, never to compromise their faith. He assures them of the overthrow of the Roman beast in the near future, and gives them a vision of eternal life in the New Jerusalem.

Armageddon, as John foresaw it, never occurred; but the symbolism expresses an eternal truth. The basic conflict in Revelation, at Armageddon, is the conflict between the demands of a secular society, the Roman Emperor, and the Christian faith and ethics. That conflict persists symbolically in generation after generation after generation, even to this day.

The furor raised by the worshippers of so-called “free market economy” in reaction against the proposed pastoral letter of the Catholic bishops puts the issue in focus. The letter indicts our economic order for allowing people to die of hunger in the midst of food surpluses, for abject poverty side by side with ostentatious displays of wealth, unemployment in spite of need for goods and services, and a widening gulf between rich and poor resulting in denial of human dignity to the less fortunate and the less able. Incidentally, school prayer is no substitute for an enlightened social conscience. We Protestants who have supported the social message of the National Council of Churches are delighted with the reinforcements the Catholic bishops are bringing us.

The pastoral letter is denounced as being in conflict with economics. Jerry Falwell calls it “socialism” – which betrays his worship of profits above Christian behavior. Top Republicans see it as an attack on Reagan’s policies. The Bishops understood this and postponed publication of the letter until after the election in order to avoid the criticism of trying to interfere with that election. To the criticism that the bishops ignore economics, Cardinal Bernardin replies that the bishops are specialists in Christian ethics. The critique of the economic practice is an ethical critique. It is up to the economists and business leaders to devise a system to conform to ethical standards.

The issue is the same as in the Book of Revelation, the worship of an economic and political system under any name, and the worship of God as known in Jesus Christ. The Reaganites, in their fulminations against the letter put the President and themselves on the wrong side of the battle. The Bishops of the Catholic Church, allied with many of our Protestant leaders, “March to Armageddon and battle for the Lord.”

“For not with swords’ loud clashing,

Nor roll of striking drums;

With deeds of love and mercy

The heavenly kingdom comes.”

President Reagan – Illiterate in Ethics

Ronald Reagan has just exhibited an ethical illiteracy, devoid of any knowledge of Biblical Christianity.

On March 8 he urged Christian evangelicals, in convention in Florida, to spread from their pulpits his crusade against the “evil empire” of the Soviet Union. He said, according to news reports, that if we don’t build more nuclear bombs, we will be morally inferior to the Russians. He wants more and bigger bombs because, he says, the United States and the Soviet Union are locked in a struggle between right and wrong, and good and evil.

Reagan’s choice of the word “crusade” in connection with a moral effort is unfortunate. The original “holy” crusades of the Middle Ages were supposed to be efforts to rescue the tomb of Christ from the infidels, but they turned out to be a series of wars for commercial gain and licensed piracy. Thousands of devout Christians died for higher profits for the merchants of Venice and the innkeepers of Malta and Cypress. I am always worried when somebody starts a crusade.

The New Testament not once advocates a military contest or conquest. When Jesus was attacked by the soldiers, he told Peter, “Put up your sword, for they that live by the sword shall die by the sword” (Matthew 26:52-53). The message of the Gospels is one of Reconciliation. Jesus says, “If you are offering your gift at the altar and remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother and then come and offer your gift.” (Matthew 5:23-24). Paul writes, “Beloved, never avenge yourselves. – No, if your enemy hungers, feed him; if he is thirsty give him drink – Do not be overcome of evil, but overcome evil with good.”

Mr. Reagan never speaks in terms of conciliation; always in terms of challenging confrontation and enmity. He would do well to read another statement of Jesus, “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not see the log that is in your own eye. You hypocrite, first take the log out of your eye and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:3-5). Jesus probably disliked the Roman rulers almost as much as did his Jewish compatriots, but he preached to his own people first, to purify themselves to be a light to the Gentiles.

The story of Jonah is suggestive here. He was a Jew. He hated Assyria, the capital of which was Nineveh, a pagan city and the mortal enemy of Israel. God commands Jonah to go to Nineveh and preach that after thirty days Nineveh would be destroyed. Jonah objected but after his experience with the great fish he went on his mission. He pronounced the doom and sat down outside the city to await eagerly the promised destruction. But God did not follow through. The city was spared and Jonah was mad. He was mad at God. God planted a vine to give Jonah some shade while he sat in his hut. Then, the next night he killed the vine so that the sun beat mercilessly on Jonah again. Jonah got mad all over again. It was becoming a habit. God asked Jonah if he did well to be angry because of the vine, and Jonah replied that he certainly did do well to be angry. And then God said, “You pity the plant, for which you did not labor, nor make it grow, which came into being in a night, and perished in a night. And I should nit pity Nineveh, that great city, in which are more than a hundred thousand persons who did not know their right hand from their left, and also much cattle.” That last phrase about “much cattle” is beautiful.

Mr. President, get acquainted with Jonah’s and Jesus’ God. Then you might speak about morals.

The President is trying to dictate to religious leaders. Next, he’ll tell publishers what they may print. His administration has already ruled that the citizens may not see educational films about acid rain.

A national political leader, who finds himself with a divided constituency and declining levels of support, frequently tries to recoup his losses by whipping up hatred for someone, usually a foreign country. Hitler unified Germany by inciting hatred. Reagan’s appeal to the Christian Evangelicals sounds much like the same thing.

School Prayer – Much Ado About Nothing

“Much Ado About Nothing” is an appropriate title for the farce Senator Helms staged in the United States Senate the past few weeks. He attempted to pass legislation to get around the Supreme Court ruling on prayer in public schools. In doing so he tied up the Senate for two weeks, forcing it to push aside consideration of the important matters.

It was truly much ado about nothing.

In the first place, the Supreme Court has never prohibited prayer in the schools. It has only said that school authorities cannot set a time and place for prayer in the school program. Any child who wants to pray may do so at any time he does not disturb the school routine. He can close his eyes and pray – a private silent prayer.

The real issue is that the Senator, using school prayer rallying cry, is trying to drum up support for his effort to destroy the three-part government set up by the Constitution. He wants to prevent the courts from ruling on certain Constitutional liberties to which he objects. He does not question the ruling of the courts. He asks that they be forbidden to consider the matters involved. It is just one step further to bar the courts from protecting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. Dictatorship is just around the corner.

Jesus has something to say in this regard: “Beware of oracticing your piety before men, to be seen of them, for you will then have no reward of your Father who is in heaven. - - - When you pray you must not be like the hypocrites who love to stand and pray in the synagogues and on the street corners that they may be seen of men. But when you pray, go into your room and shut your door and pray to your Father in secret.” (Matthew 6:1, 5-6) Contrary to the spirit of Jesus, much of the pressure for school prayer emphasizes going through a form, rather than the moral and spiritual content of the prayer.

The inoffensive and neutral prayers suggested devaluate prayer as trivial and innocuous when it should be stimulating and life-giving.

For those who want their children to pray, it is simple. Start the morning with family prayers at breakfast and end the day with family prayer in the evening. The school should not have to make up for the deficiencies in family life.

The Senator reminds me of Demetrius, a silversmith in Ephesus, whose story Luke tells in Acts 19:23-42. Ephesus, according to the ancient tradition, as the site on which the goddess Artemis, cast down from heaven a magic stone. The stone had been enshrined, and a temple erected in the goddess’ honor. The silversmiths had a big thing going in making and selling replicas of the temple and images of the goddess.

St. Paul had been preaching at Ephesus for several months when Demetrius heard about him. He called his fellow silversmiths together and spoke in these terms: “Men, you know that from this business we get our wealth. Now, here is this fellow Paul saying that gods made with hands are no gods at all. This stuff is being preached all through this area. If this keeps up there will be no tourists coming to visit yje shrine, and buy our souvenirs. Business will fall off. We’ll lose a lot of money.”

With this, the craft men started a riot against Paul, taking to the streets and raising the cry, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians.” What they did was to use emotional, religious and patriotic slogans to squelch a movement which might hurt their economic interests. I am always skeptical of people who use such pious phrases behind which to hide their real purposes.

Leaders – Strong or Good

What did Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini, Nicolai Lenin, Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt and Martin Luther King have in common?

They were all strong leaders.

What do Walter Mondale and President Reagan have in common?

They both aspire to have their names added to the above list. Although, after the President’s fumbling and bumbling in the debate with Mondale, and after his childish excuse that his failure was because he lacked proper makeup, he has lost all hope of being included. He no longer exhibits leadership that is working. Arm wrestling skills, about which he boasts, are no substitute for mental alertness.

What characterizes a strong leader?

A strong leader articulates the murky discontent of people who consider themselves frustrated by conditions over which they have no control, trapped in a maze from which there is no escape. He brings into focus what was a blurred impression of the source of their troubles. He, or his speech writers, is a master of language.

A strong leader picks a person or thing as a scapegoat for the people’s frustrations – a devil in their midst.

A strong leader offers people a concrete solution to their ills, a direct path out of the maze. The solution may or may not be rational. It must be simple, and it must be specific.

The strong leader offers hope. He always promises a bright future.

A strong leader entertains no doubts about his programs. “He who hesitates is lost.”

A strong leader is constantly tempted to feel that the welfare of those he aspires to lead coincides with his own personal welfare, rather than the other way around. Therein lies the difference between a great leader and one who is merely strong. Strong leadership is dangerous unless it is wise and ethical as well.

A case study of great leadership is contained in the story of Moses. The author of Deuteronomy concludes his account, “And there has not risen a prophet since in Israel, like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face.” The author suggests that Moses’ greatness is attested by the signs and wonders he performed; but an incident recounted in Exodus 32 better explains the appraisal.

While Moses was on Mt. Sinai receiving the Ten Commandments, the people had made the golden calf and bowed down to it. Jehovah spoke Moses, “I have seen this people, and behold it is a stiff-necked people; now therefore let me alone, that – I may consume them, but of you I will make a great nation” (Exodus 32:9-10). But Moses, after he surveyed the debauchery of the calf, went back to Sinai to meet Jehovah, and prayed, “Alas, this people have sinned a great sin; they have made for themselves gods of gold. But now if thou wilt forgive their sin – and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of the book which thou hast written.”

The Egyptian prince of Chapter 2 of the book of Exodus identified himself with the Hebrew slave suffering under the Egyptian taskmaster; and the great deliverer and lawgiver of the Israelite people identified himself with even the least and lowest of the wandering nation.

This is a great leader, strong, and wise, and ethical.