A Chaotic Start

THE 1948 news parade has started off in confusion, with uncertainty as the chief characteristic of the events thus far appearing in the lineup. Already more than 600 people—Arabs and Jews—have been killed in the Holy Land since the United Nations’ decision concerning the partition of Palestine, and the violence is increasing;

The civil war in Greece has erupted into greater fury, and it is suspected by many that the dispatching of United States Marines to the Mediterranean is in some way associated with events in Greece.

Another of Europe’s kings has abdicated, and is now in exile in Switzerland, leaving Rumania under the full control of the Communists. This leaves but five hereditary rulers, still exercising a measure of power in the European world, which, prior to the first World War, was almost completely controlled by monarchies.

With the beginning of 1948, Burma became an independent state, being no longer ruled by Great Britain. The wartime Prime Minister of Great Britain remarked during the days of his power that he did not propose to preside over the demise of the British Empire, but despite Churchill’s ardent feelings in the matter the empire seems slowly to be disintegrating.

In the British Isles the new year sees the enforcement of a draft labor law, and already the unemployed, and those not employed in important industry, are having to register. The call to register for essential work goes right down the line from Briton’s aristocracy to street peddlers.

In France, the Schuman government has forced through what is designated a “soak the rich” tax bill, while deGaulle comes forward with a plan for a new French constitution, which experts say is familiarly like the one which Mussolini saddled upon the backs of the Italian people following his march on Rome.

Here at home Congress has reconvened, and will attempt to pass a tax reduction bill, and approve, disapprove, or amend, the Marshall Plan for saving Europe, as a prerequisite to saving ourselves.

The so-called “Little Assembly” of the United Nations has convened at Flushing Meadows much to the displeasure of Russia, who sees in this move an effort to circumvent her veto powers in the Security Council. One of the first issues before the Little Assembly is that of deciding what shall be done to improve relationships between the striving factions of India.

The Bible foretold that a time would come in the experiences of the nations when their rulers, their statesmen, and their advisers, would be at their “wit’s end” to know what to do. There is no doubt but what we have reached that time now; and while from the human standpoint the outlook is dark, if we view world conditions through the telescope of God’s Word, the prospect is glorious. It has been well said that the world’s hopes for the future are as bright as the promises of God, which are very bright indeed.

The Rights of Man

TOWARD the close of 1947, a group of delegates representing the United Nations, who had been in conference at Geneva, Switzerland, for some time, agreed upon a bill of human rights, which it is hoped will exert a powerful influence for good throughout the world during years to come. This tentative declaration will be submitted to all the member nations of the UN for suggestions and revisions. Finally, in its amended form it will be brought before the General Assembly of the United Nations for adoption or rejection. Even if adopted, however, no legal machinery is expected to be set up to enforce this bill of rights. Its only authority will be the moral influence it will wield because of the favorable public sentiment with which it is likely to be received.

Among the “rights” set forth in the tentative draft of this document is an expression on religious liberty. It is reported that this statement was first drafted in the State Department at Washington. Then a number of the nation’s outstanding religious leaders were called in to examine it and to make suggestions. In its original form provision was made for “freedom of worship,” but not for freedom of practicing one’s religion and for teaching it. Attention was called to this, and the words “practice” and “teach” were added. This broader interpretation of religious liberty was still in the draft as adopted at Geneva.

It can hardly be supposed that the officials in Washington who formulated the original draft of this declaration on the meaning of religious liberty did not realize its limitations. Perhaps it was hoped that a formula could be found that would be suitable to totalitarian governments as well as to the democracies; for merely the freedom to worship is the concept of religious liberty granted in such countries as Russia today. What this means in effect is that if, for example, one has been brought up a Catholic, he is permitted to attend a Catholic Church to worship, but he is not permitted to teach the Catholic doctrine to others. Even the professional clergy are not permitted to do this. It can be readily seen that such a restriction of religious liberty would in the long run greatly weaken all religion; for, as the members of the various denominations died off, there would be few, if any, newly instructed members to take their places. And it is this sort of thing that has been going on in certain parts of Europe almost continuously since the close of the first World War.

Representatives of many Protestant groups were invited to sit in at the Geneva Conference in an advisory capacity. The Vatican had an “observer” there, who had no official part in the deliberations. However, the delegates of the Protestant churches apparently made their presence felt, for the liberty to teach one’s views of religion is broadened to include teaching with the objective of changing another’s religious convictions.

This is tremendously important. For example, three years ago one of New York’s leading radio stations refused to continue the Frank and Ernest broadcasts because the owner of the station claimed that to him religious liberty did not imply the right to attempt to change another’s religious viewpoint. Later the same year, a group of Jews who had accepted Christ applied to the New York State government for a charter of incorporation permitting them legally to carry on activity which they defined as an effort to convert Jews to Christianity. The judge of the court who had the final say on the granting of this charter, refused it on the same grounds. He also explained that to him religious liberty did not imply the right to persuade others to change their religion. It is well, therefore, that this point has been made very definite in the proposed bill of human rights for the world. One can’t help wondering, though, what will happen to this particular clause in the present draft of the bill when it reaches the General Assembly of the United Nations.

Religious liberty granting the right to worship according to one’s own conscience is in reality a step in advance of what Europe enjoyed for centuries; and perhaps by comparison with the past this seems like a lot of liberty to the priest-ridden nations of the old world. Throughout the Dark Ages, religious liberty in Europe meant the right to worship and serve God according to the encyclicals, edicts, and bulls of a centralized church-state government, not according to individual conscience. Those responsible for this restriction of religious liberty justified their position by the assumption that they alone represented the true God, and that their way of worship was the only one acceptable to him. If this assumption were true then it would be to the best interests of the whole world to forbid the practice of any other religion, for it would simply be encouraging the people to do wrong.

Religious belief which is not predicated on the conviction that all other viewpoints of religion are wrong, is not worth having. One of the greatest weaknesses of religion in the world today is the modernist viewpoint that after all it doesn’t make much difference what one believes. This, in reality, is unbelief. One should be convinced that he is right, so convinced that he would be willing to die for his convictions; but he should not try to regulate the consciences of others. This would be proper only if one had been given such a mandate by God, and no individual or group has been given such a mandate during the present reign of sin and death.

The Scriptures teach that during the thousand-year reign of Christ there will be liberty only to serve the true God in the way which will be prescribed by the laws of that new kingdom. People will not then be given the right to choose their own religion, but will be fully enlightened concerning Jehovah the true God, and his beloved Son Christ Jesus. It will be made known to all that Jesus, by the grace of God, tasted death for every man, and that those who desire to live forever will need to believe on him and obey the laws of his kingdom. The way will be made plain. No one will need to say to his neighbor, “Know the Lord,” for all shall know him. A pure message will be given to the people and they will all call upon the name of the Lord to serve him with one consent.—Isa. 35:8; Jer. 31:34; Zeph. 3:9

Viewing the matter from another standpoint we could say that there will then be absolute religious liberty—liberty for all to serve God as they desire; but the whole world will be so thoroughly enlightened concerning the true God, and will have such an appreciation of his glorious attributes of wisdom, justice, love, and power, that they will wholeheartedly choose to serve him. The people will then say, “O Lord our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name. They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased, they shall not rise: therefore hast thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.” (Isa. 26:13,14) With all the “gods” of the past—animate and inanimate—destroyed and their memory forgotten, the people will be glad to serve the true God, and will rejoice forever in his loving-kindness. Thus will Christ’s kingdom solve the problem of religious liberty.

Radioactivity on the Farm

PERSISTENT, although unconfirmed reports keep filtering through from Japan telling of the greatly stepped up growth of plant life in the vicinities of Nagasaki and Hiroshima resulting from the presence of radioactivity remaining after the explosion of those first atomic bombs. Undamaged trees around Hiroshima, it is said, have shown a two years’ growth in one year. Henry Wallace has told of Russian experiments of plowing uranium into the soil for larger crops, and of his own experiment with “radio activated” tomatoes.

Recently, however, the chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, David E. Lilienthal, has issued a warning before the American Farm Bureau Federation, saying, “Do not, I urge you, take any stock at this stage in the vivid claims of great stimulation of growth and production by the use of radioactive materials directly on the farm as fertilizers or in feeds. These are not tested and proved.” It is well to note from this quotation that Mr. Lilienthal does not deny the reports. He is simply saying that the practical use of radioactive materials as fertilizers and food has not yet been thoroughly tested—that the matter is still in the experimental stage.

Mr. Lilienthal, while sounding a note of caution, said, nevertheless, that radioactive isotopes can help enormously in solving the world’s food problems. He referred not to their direct use in fertilizer, but to their indirect use in research, where they are already serving to trace the processes by which plants take up the materials of the earth to yield fruits, grains, and fibers. The new science of farming, it is claimed, will be based on more accurate knowledge of just what minerals a soil must have, and why. This can be determined now by supplying these elements in the radioactive forms that can be purchased from the Atomic Energy Commission.

It seems evident that the “atomic age” is destined to mean more to the people ultimately than the destruction of cities and millions of the human race. It is refreshing to learn that so much attention is being given to the matter of how atomic energy can be used for the benefit of the people; and surely increasing the world’s food supplies at this time could do much to relieve human suffering. However, as long as it is considered essential to destroy foodstuffs which have been grown under normal conditions in order to keep prices up, it is difficult to see how the increased production of food can help very much.

Taking a long-range view, however, the application of radioactive science to farming with a view of increasing food production is most interesting. The Bible tells of a time coming when the earth shall yield her increase—an evident reference to abundant crops. (Psa. 67:6; Ezek. 34:27) This will be necessary, for the plan of God calls for the return from death of all who have died as a result of Adam’s sin. These, together with the living generation are to have the opportunity of living on this earth as human beings forever.

Eternity is a long time, and while there will be ample room on the earth for the entire human race, the soil will need to be maintained at a high level of production in order to supply sufficient food for all. Perhaps atomic energy will be the answer to this problem; and it may be also to the problem of heat and light, for it is obvious that coal and oil deposits will not last forever. It is significant indeed that just at the dawn of the new age, which will usher in everlasting happiness for the world, there should loom on the horizon that which may make for permanent supplies of heat and fuel, and an abundant and lasting supply of food.

Palestine Not yet Partitioned!

WHEN the General Assembly of the United Nations voted for the partition of Palestine there was great rejoicing among the Jews the world over. And while there has been almost daily spilling of Jewish and Arab blood since, Zionists are still happy about the partition plan; and at the same time the Arabs are just as determined that the plan will never become effective. In taking the Arab viewpoint into account it is well to remember that the United Nations General Assembly is empowered only to make recommendations in matters of this kind. It has no authority to enforce its recommendations. It has set up a commission of five members to do the partitioning in case its recommendation is accepted.

But who must accept this recommendation? First is Great Britain, who now holds a mandate over Palestine, given to her by the deceased League of Nations. Great Britain has already accepted the recommendation, and has promised to withdraw her troops from Palestine well ahead of the date specified. From here on it is not so simple. There is no Jewish government to accept the recommendation, and no government that can speak for all the Arab world. Here it is a case of a recommendation being accepted by people—1,200,000 Arabs and 600,000 Jews—now resident in the territory it is proposed to divide. Not only the Palestinian Arabs, but the whole Arab world is opposed to the partition recommendation and has declared its determination to oppose the plan by force of arms. So what shall be done about it?

What the United Nations Assembly has actually done in this case, under the guidance of Canada, was to “request” the Security Council to “take the necessary measures as provided for in the [partition] plan for its implementation.” This means that the Security Council is requested to proceed under the authority granted by the United Nations’ charter to impose the partition by force. What force the Security Council is to use to do this is not specified in the partition resolution.

Here is a very unique situation. Unless the Arabs change their minds with respect to the partition plan, Palestine will not be partitioned except by force of arms authorized by the Security Council, and the Security Council operates on the basis of unanimous decisions. Any one member of the Council can veto any matter which comes before it, with the result that thus far it has accomplished very little, if anything, worth while.

Will it agree now to raise an army large enough to impose the partition plan upon the resisting Arabs? Will Russia, nearest Security Council member to the scene of controversy, insist that her army be the one used to force the partition plan, and, on the, basis of this, occupy Palestine with her troops, much to the disadvantage of both the United States and England? Will an American Army be sent to Palestine? Obviously, the problem is far from being solved. Partition has been recommended by the United Nations, and, as The Christian Century puts it, “It is too late to turn back now. The die has been cast. But the future is dark, very dark. And there is smell of blood in the air.”

Victor Emmanuel Dead

ON SUNDAY, December 28, the former King Victor Emmanuel of Italy died, just four days before Italy officially became a republic, the House of Savoy having been ousted from the government by popular vote of the Italian people. The House of Savoy began to crumble with the march of the blackshirts on Rome. Emmanuel yielded to the demands of Mussolini rather than precipitate a civil war. From that time on he was but a figurehead in Italian governmental affairs. He may have been somewhat flattered when proclaimed emperor of what was claimed to be the restored Roman Empire, as Mussolini viewed it, but that was a glory which quickly faded. When Mussolini’s armies were defeated in the second global war, Emmanuel endeavored to take over and rally the support of his people, but it was, too late. In the world’s march toward liberty the Italians were ready to step into line, and the House of Savoy was voted out.

As was to be expected, there is now much chaos in Italy as the various factions which are attempting to rule the country strive for greater power. But despite their disagreements on other matters, apparently the vast majority of the Italian people as well as the representatives they have elected to govern them, are agreed that rule by a monarch shall never return.

And this represents progress along another line also. The church-state systems which once ruled the old Roman world were a union of the church with one or another of the hereditary ruling houses which held a whip hand over all of Europe. As one after another of these ruling houses is ousted by an enlightened people, it makes more remote the possibility that church-state governments will ever be restored.

All in America should rejoice in this, for it was to escape the evils of church-state government that many pioneer settlers of this country fled from Europe. Those systems were alleged to be the kingdom of Christ set up on earth, and they called the world which was governed by them “Christendom,” meaning Christ’s kingdom. But now we know that was a false claim. Now we know that Christ’s kingdom will not go to war against itself; and we know, too, that Christ’s kingdom will not be responsible for cruelties such as were practiced in the name of religion during the period we look back to and call the Dark Ages. Knowing this, we are glad that the Constitution of the ‘United States precludes the establishment of a church-state government in this country.

We are not to suppose, however, that the failure of church-state governments to establish peace and good will in the earth means that Christianity itself has failed, or that the true kingdom of Christ will never be established. The Bible foretells the spurious efforts of men to set up Christ’s kingdom before God’s due time, and points out also that soon after the failure of these efforts and the downfall of the systems which made up the counterfeit, would come the real kingdom of Christ.

So while this is a time of great distress throughout the world as the institutions of the past which were based upon ignorance and superstition are crumbling to their fall, we can, nevertheless, be glad for the assurance that a new world is about to be born, not through the efforts of men, but because of divine intervention in the affairs of men. Then there will be genuine peace and plenty. Above all, there will be health and everlasting life for those who accept God’s grace through the Redeemer, and obey the laws of that new, that genuine, kingdom of Christ.

| Home Page | Table of Contents |