Awake!, March 22, 1964
Download: PDF — Awake!, March 22, 1964
Faith Without Hypocrisy
PAGE 5
Adult Delinquency Rubs Off
PAGE 8
Ecumenical Council—Its Record to Date
PAGE 13
Should You Buy on the Installment Plan? PAGE 17
MARCH 22,1964
THE REASON FOR THIS MAGAZINE
News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish interests. "Awakel!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts. It is not bound by political ties; it is unhampered by traditional creeds. This magazine keeps itself free, that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom. It maintains integrity to truth.
The viewpoint of "Awakel" is not narrow, but is international, "Awakel" has its own correspondents in scores of nations. Its articles are read in many lands, in many languages, by millions of persons.
In every issue "Awakel" presents vital topics on which you should be informed. It features penetrating articles on social conditions and offers sound counsel for meeting the problems of everyday life. Current news from every continent passes in quick review. Attention is focused on activities in the fields of government and commerce about which you should know. Straightforward discussions of religious issues alert you to matters of vital concern. Customs and people in many lands, the marvels of creation, practical sciences and points of human interest are all embraced in its coverage. "Awakel" provides wholesome, instructive reading for every member of the family.
"Awakel" pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes and subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of God's righteous new order in this generation.
Get acquainted with "Awake!" Keep awake by reading "Awake!"
PUBLISHED SIMULTANEOUS IN THE UNITED STATES BY THE
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
117 Adams Street
AND IN ENGLAND
BROoklyn, N.Y. 11201, U.S.A.
WATCH TOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY
Watch Tower House. The Ridgeway
London N.W. 7. England
N. H. Knora, President
GRANT SUER, Secretary
Printing this issue: 3,850,000
4d a copy (Australia, Sid: South Africa, 3½¢)
Varlyde subscription rates
for non-education edition
Aquinas, O.U., 117 Atamans Street, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201 $1
Australia, 11 Bardford Road, Grimfield, N.Y. W. 11
Canada, 11 Bried Bridge Avenue, Toronto, N. W. 1
New Zealand, The Highway, London, N. W. 7
New Zealand, 521 New New Rd. Auckland, S.W. 1
South Africa, Private Rid 2, P.G. Elandfontein, Tk. 70
RealTikz for subscriptions should be sent in the office in your country. Otherwise send your remittance to Brooklyn.
Notes of expiration be seen at least two weeks before subscription expires.
Now published in 25 languages
Selimethly - Ardhana, Chinna, Banchi, Bristol, English,
Norwegian, Portuguese, Spanish, Tamil, Zulu,
Nepali, Japanese, Spanish, Chinese, Indonesian, Polish,
Tamil, Tamil, Uzbek.
CHANGES OF ADDRESS should remain on thirty days before your movie date. Give as your old and one new address. Call West Tower House, 115 West Mall Tower, Walt Disney Studios, The Ridgway, London M.W. 7, England.
Entered as second-class matter at Brooklyn, N.Y.
Printed in England
The Bible translation regularly used in "Ankhet" is The New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures. 1951 edition. When other translations are used, this is clearly marked.
11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
CONTENTS
When Keeping Silent Is Not Golden 3
Faith Without Hypocrisy 5
Adult Delinquency Rubs Off 8
Is the Wasp Misunderstood? 12
Ecumenical Council
—Its Record to Date 13
Deceptive Situation 16
Should You Buy on the Installment Plan?
Rhodesia's Homemade Grand Canyon 2
Man's Quest for Adventure 2
"Your Word Is Truth"
Benefiting from the
Principle of Family Merit 2
Watching the World 2
London, England, March 22, 1964
Volume XLV
Number 6
When Keeping Silent IS NOT GOLDEN
"SPEECH is silvern, keeping silent is golden," so reads an old Swiss inscription. And without doubt, time and again, keeping silent is the wiser course. Thus we read in God's own Word that "the one guarding his mouth is keeping his soul. The one opening wide his lips—he will have ruin." "Even anyone foolish, when keeping silent, will be regarded as
wise; anyone closing up his own lips, as having understanding."—Prov. 13:3; 17:28.
But not always. There are occasions or circumstances under which keeping silent is not golden. As King Solomon of old well pointed out: "There is . . . a time to keep quiet and a time to speak." Yes, at times love for God, for one's neighbor, for righteousness may demand that we speak out, that we keep not silent, as when Jehovah God commanded: "Call out full-throated; do not hold back. Raise your voice just like a horn, and tell my people their revolt, and the house of Jacob their sins."—Eccl. 3: 1, 7; Isa. 58: 1.
Those possessing greater knowledge, or occupying positions of trust, may at times prefer to keep quiet, but their trust obligates them to call out and raise their voice like a horn. Thus the clergy of Christendom profess to be Christian shepherds and as such they are under obligation to speak out against the sins of their flocks, but how many do? Very few indeed. The vast majority prefer to wink at corruption in high places, hobnob with crooked politicians and ignore the immorality of their parishioners. They therefore deserve the reprimand that the psalmist directed to the
wicked: "Whenever you saw a thief, you were even pleased with him," instead of reproving him, "and your sharing was with adulterers," instead of excommunicating them.—Ps. 50:18.
A book that might be said to be dedicated to the theme that there are times when keeping silent is not golden is the 1963 German best seller Der Stellvertreter, that is, The Deputy, referring to the pope's claim to be the deputy or vicar of Jesus Christ. The book is in the form of a drama that censures especially the Protestant and Catholic clergy for their keeping silent in the face of the wholesale murder of the Jews by the Nazis and singles out Pope Pius XII for particular condemnation. Produced as a play, it is already a sensation in West Germany and England, and its production is being planned in thirteen other lands, including the United States, Israel and Sweden.
In the play there is a dialogue between a Catholic priest, who is intensely concerned with the fate of the Jews, and his father, who is a papal chamberlain and a friend of the pope. Among other things, the son asks the father: "As the leader of a half a billion Christians, 20 percent of whom are subjects of Hitler, is not the pope responsible for the moral climate of the world?" When the father assures the son that the plight of the Jews is upon the heart of the pope, the son asks, "But what about his voice? Where is his voice?" And when the father tells the son that the pope knows why he must remain silent and that, when Hitler's luck turns, the pope will speak out, the son replies, "By then there will be no more Jews left in Poland."
In another scene the priest is shown pleading with the pope, who is represented as saying, "True, the terror against the Jews is nauseating, yet we must not let it so anger us that we forget that Germany has the duty of serving as the patron of the Catholic Church in the near future." The play also tells ofurgings that Hitler be sent an ultimatum, that his concordat with the Catholic Church be scrapped, and so forth. But all such pleas fell upon deaf ears.
No question about it, the Protestant and Catholic clergy in Axis lands, and the pope in particular, had a great moral responsibility in connection with the annihilation of millions of Jews by the Nazis. A certain Catholic bishop in Germany protested the wholesale euthanasia of mental defectives and caused Hitler to stop this murderous program, but did it occur to this bishop to protest the murder of millions of Jews? Had these clergy, one and all, been truly the representatives or deputies of Jesus Christ, would they have remained silent?
Jesus' scathing denunciation of the religious leaders of his day answers that question.—Matt. 23:1-38; John 8:44.
Of course, the principle that there are times when keeping silent is not golden does not apply only to such great issues. It can be brought down to everyday human relations. For example, when there is a misunderstanding between close friends or relatives, the tendency often is for the one who has been offended to brood in silence, to give the offender the "silent treatment." At such times silence is not golden. Rather, then is the time to speak, to seek an understanding and to effect a reconciliation, which is something that the offended one owes to both himself and the one who has offended him. It takes effort, self-control, reason and love, but it can be done.
When, in addition to dealing with the problem in the right manner, one also handles it at the right time, one will often find that no slight was intended. By one's not keeping silent the matter will be straightened out and the friendship will most likely be placed on a firmer basis than before. All such is in keeping with the wise counsel Jesus Christ gave: "If your brother commits a sin" against you, "go lay bare his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained your brother."—Matt. 18:15.
And, of course, this principle also applies in the Christian ministry. Whenever a dedicated Christian sees an opening to bear witness to Jehovah and his kingdom, he is under necessity to take advantage of it. Keeping silent in such an instance would also not be golden.—1 Cor. 9:16.
Happy is he who has the wisdom and self-control to be silent when he needs to be and he who has the courage to speak out when duty requires it of him!
ONE of the most common objections to religion today is the prevalence of hypocrisy.
FAITH
'Churches preach one thing and do the other,' and, 'Multitudes of churchgoers pretend to have principles and beliefs that they do not practice,' are oft-heard complaints. Many persons contend that nowhere have they found a faith without this hypocrisy, and, for this reason, they are no longer interested in religion.
WITHOUT HYPOCRISY
</div>
Many turn away from religion because of the prevalence of hypocrisy. Where can faith be found that is without hypocrisy?
Beautifully dressed, pious parishioners filing into church with Bible in hand are no inspiring scene to those who know that the majority are merely putting on an outward appearance of godliness. (2 Tim. 3: 1, 2, 5) But what many find even more objectionable is the way in which the churches welcome rich and influential members, regardless of what kind of lives they live. It matters not whether they oppress others, live in adultery, lie, cheat and steal; the clergy still welcome them with open arms, as long as they contribute generously and look out for the welfare of the church.
It is an acknowledged fact that such hypocrisy is an integral part of modern-day religion. Notorious Mafia or Cosa Nostra gangsters are respected members of the Roman Catholic Church. When one of their wealthiest and most ruthless members, Charlie (Lucky) Luciano, died two years ago, he was honored with a requiem mass by the church. As with the rest of the Mafia, he was never excommunicated
for his criminal activities.
Protestant churches are no different. When wealthy Billie Sol Estes was exposed as a swindler two years ago, he maintained honorable standing
in the Church of Christ. Observed a U.P.I. press dispatch of August 4, 1962: "Last March,
one of the most regular churchgoers in Pecos [Texas] was a wealthy young businessman named Billie Sol Estes. Four months, three indictments and a congressional investigation later, he still is... The congregation and his pastor, Rev. W. S. Boyett, greet him with outstretched hands and smiling faces."* Even after Estes was sentenced to a fifteen-year prison term last April, there was no indication that the church's attitude changed toward him.
During Wartime
But perhaps the churches' hypocrisy during wartime has soured people on religion more than anything else. How quickly they line up behind their respective political governments! Pulpits become recruiting posts, as the Prince of Peace is quickly changed into a Prince of War. As pointedly stated in the book Preachers Present Arms: "A consideration of the part taken by the clergymen and the churches in our leading wars shows that the government has been able to depend consistently upon organized religion for support."
But why should opposing armies composed of members of the same churches murder one another on battlefields with tanks and guns blessed by the clergy of both sides?
Why do the clergy teach love thy neighbor' during peacetime, but urge parishioners to kill their neighbors during time of war? Is it because the churches only pretend to serve God, while actually they endeavor to win the favor of the political governments to which they belong? Yes, it is this hypocritical effort to please men while claiming to serve God that has turned multitudes away from religion.
Racial Issue
Even during peacetime the churches are careful to check which way the winds of public opinion are blowing in order to do what is popular. Those interested in a faith without hypocrisy find such fence-straddling detestable. For example, where segregation is practiced by the public, the churches generally are in favor of it; many clergymen even advocating segregation of the races from the pulpit. But in places where popular opinion does not favor segregation, the churches condemn it as an unscriptural showing of partiality for one race over another.—Acts 10:34; 17:24-26; Gal. 2:6.
This hypocrisy was recently exposed following a Race Relations Sunday in the United States. On this special day it is the practice, in some places, for Negro and white ministers to exchange pulpits. However, a Cleveland, Ohio, minister, Richard T. Andrews, refused to participate, for he asserted: "I can see no earthly reason why a Negro minister will be invited to a suburban area on one special Sunday to deliver a sermon, and yet be unable to live in that area or be welcomed at worship in that same church on the following Sunday."
it proclaim on the other fifty-one Sundays?" Why, everyone knows that it talks a lot about the brotherhood of all races on other Sundays of the year. But Andrews acknowledged that it was merely hypocritical lip service. He said: "When the day arrives that ministers throughout the land will fearlessly take a stand on love and brotherhood [and not merely talk about it], pulpit exchanges will no longer be necessary."*
He asked: "If the Christian Church still finds it necessary to set aside one Sunday a year to proclaim brotherhood, what does
Avoiding Hypocrisy
Perhaps you are one who is disturbed by this religious hypocrisy. You may once have been a regular attender at a church or synagogue, and found appealing the teaching that one should love God foremost, and his neighbor as himself. (Deut. 6:5; Lev. 19:18; Matt. 22:37-39) But then you observed that even though many parishioners listened to that message on the weekend, they were known publicly to be adulterers, formicators and unethical in their business practices during the rest of the week. Nevertheless, these persons remained church members in good standing as long as they supported the church financially. Have circumstances like this soured you on religion?
This obvious hypocrisy in the churches, however, does not mean that God is a hypocrite, or that his Son Jesus Christ is. God does not approve of this religious hypocrisy anymore now than he did in the first century. At that time his Son scathingly denounced the hypocritical religious leaders with the words: "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you resemble whitewashed graves, which outwardly indeed appear beautiful but inside are full of dead men's bones and of every sort of uncleanness. In that way you also, outwardly indeed, appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness."—Matt, 23:27, 28.
So rather than approve of religious hypocrisy, God requires that his people worship him with spirit and truth. (John 4:24) First-century Christians made up such a body of true worshipers. They were not hypocrites. They lived what they preached. Is it not reasonable that there would be a similar organization of true worshipers on earth today? When it is brought to your attention that there is, if you are really sincere you will make inquiry regarding it. You will prove your sincerity by examining the evidence.
The Faith Without Hypocrisy
And what does the evidence show? It is a matter of public record that not only do Jehovah's witnesses recommend the Prince of Peace, but they also follow his footsteps by keeping separate from the political wars of worldly nations. Eyewitness reports circulated world wide in books and magazines testify how thousands of Jehovah's witnesses were cruelly mistreated because of refusing to take to the battlefield against their Christian neighbors during World War II. In thus maintaining their neutrality, they courageously follow the example of the early Christians.—John 15:19; 17:16; 18:36.
But not only are Jehovah's witnesses unhypocritical in their position on war, it is also a matter of public record that they practice brotherhood of all races, and do not merely preach it. At their large international conventions peoples of all races and nationalities worship together, eat together and work together. With genuine affection they call one another brother and sister, even as they also do in their local congregations. Because of the constant influx of new persons, it is true that some
may not at once rid their minds of old-world prejudices. However, in time they are helped to make their minds over, for Jehovah's witnesses do not condone unchristian racial prejudices within their organization.
Neither do Jehovah's witnesses tolerate persons that persist in immoral practices that are condemned by God's Word. Such persons need to correct their ways if they are to win God's approval. Therefore Jehovah's witnesses lovingly take disciplinary action in order to help them to live clean, upright lives, befitting Christian people. Those that do not accept this correction are disfellowshiped, excommunicated from the association of the "brothers." This is done to preserve the congregation from the contaminating influence of bad persons.—1 Cor. 5:11-13.
Thus Jehovah's witnesses have a clean organization, one that is known world wide for its apostolic method of preaching. The evidence to this effect is plentiful. Why not attend their meetings and see for yourself? Recently a person who was sincerely interested in Bible truth reported having been asked to do this. "My sister told me to go to all the meetings during the week for a month, and I would never stop," she explained. "I didn't believe her, but finally I said I would." And what was the result? "I knew after the first two weeks I would never give up the happiness I had found with the Witnesses."
Are you, too, sincerely interested in finding a faith without hypocrisy? Are you seeking the association of a loving family of Christian people who live their faith? If so, you likewise will be richly rewarded by associating with Jehovah's witnesses. You owe it to yourself and your loved ones to investigate.—1 Thess. 5:21.
HE DIDN'T do Hit! He goes to church every Sunday. I'm a strict mother, and he would never answer me back," sobbed a New York mother of a 15-year-old high school honor student who stabbed to death an attractive young housewife. The boy did do it, but why?
Two American girls, aged nine and eleven, from the Boston, Massachusetts, area, involved fifteen men in charges of most serious sex offenses. In certain instances the girls solicited the men to commit the acts with which they were charged. Hard to believe? Not really, if you understand the girls' background and are acquainted with the world in which these girls lived.
This is not the first time that unusually young girls have become involved with men, or that a boy has killed an adult. What makes these and other youth crimes so serious today is not only their increased number but also their vicious character. Modern "juvenile delinquents" are outcommitting crimes that, in most cases, only adults committed ten and twenty years ago. They are engaging in stickups, stabbings, mayhem, car stealing and sex crimes. In the United States published reports show that the number of teen-agers arrested who were under eighteen rose an alarming 9 percent in 1962. And in the first three months of 1963 crime in America increased 7 percent over the 1962 period, with youth playing a prominent part.
Adults are shocked. Parents are puzzled and obviously concerned over the rising crime wave among youngsters. What makes a child grow up a delinquent? they ask. What makes a child callous, selfish or so viciously cruel? They shake their heads
sadly from side to side and cluck their tongues and inquire in wondering tones: What's happened to the good in the world? What's I our children?
Frankly, juvenile delinquency is not new, so that parents and adults should view it as some sort of a freak disease of recent years. The problem of delinquency is as old as the first man Adam and as basic as the inspired principle that says: "Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap." (Gal. 6:7) Basically the problem is not so much juvenile delinquency as it is adult delinquency—adult failure to uphold the laws of God and supervise their children. Adam's delinquency was reflected in the conduct of his first son Cain who murdered his brother Abel. The Bible attributes the worthlessness of Adonijah the son of David by Haggitt largely to parental neglect. The account at 1 Kings 1:6
reads: "His father did not hurt his feelings at any time by saying: 'Why is this the way you have done?'" The undisciplined Adonijah did as he pleased.
He met with an untimely death, as do so many modern delinquents for the same reason.—Prov. 23:13.
Fixing the Blame
As a rule parents resent being blamed for the delinquency of youth. But is their resentment justified? Note what informed sources have to say on this point. Martha Rountree, president of the National Society for the Prevention of Juvenile Delinquency, according to Canada's Toronto Star, August 6, 1963, defined juvenile delinquency as "a parental failure." "Delinquency starts with the parents in most instances," she said. "There is nothing wrong with children that parents aren't responsible for." And a staff writer for the Dallas (Texas) Times Herald, August 15, 1963, headed his article: "Parental Laxity Blamed for Crime of Juveniles." The writer cites two basic reasons for children being in trouble, namely, lack of parental control and bad adult examples.
A great many people today sincerely believe this to be the case. Roman Catholic Bishop Fulton J. Sheen, in a telecast, stated that "the principal cause of juvenile delinquency, in the final analysis, is delinquent parents in the home." "Bad behavior," he said, "is due less to outside environmental factors than to the temper and quality of the household in which the child lives." A similar conclusion was reached by Dwight D. Eisenhower, former president of the United States. He said: "I don't like to use the words 'juvenile delinquency' because I have a very firm conviction that the term ought to be translated into parental failure." Along this same line J. K. Mumford, chief of the Dallas, Texas, Federal Bureau of Investigation of
fice, who has met with many boys with serious problems, stated pointedly: "From the vast majority of juveniles we handle, we find their trouble can be traced back to lack of adequacy of parents in the home. It may be a lack of concern by parents, a lack of taking enough time to know their children and rearing them right, a case of parents completely devoted to outside interests—in other words, parental delinquency." These reports have a conclusive ring about them, and for good reason.
The Home and Its Influence
It is a statistical fact that most children who get classified as "delinquents" come from homes that have failed. Often parents are too poor to care properly for the child, or are mentally or morally deficient. Studies of delinquency conducted at Harvard University show that six out of every ten juvenile delinquents have fathers who drink to excess. Many have mothers who do the same. Three out of four are permitted by parents to do as they please. Judge Elijah Adlow, chief justice of the Municipal Court of Boston, Massachusetts, summed up the effect of this influence this way: "Children who are brought up in an atmosphere of drunkenness and brawling, who witness parents committing assaults upon each other, and who daily see the laws of God and man violated in their homes would have to be more than human if the atmosphere in which they were brought up did not leave its stamp upon them. Such homes are nothing less than breeding places for crime, and the records of our courts go to prove it." What is more, all the so-called character-building agencies in the world often cannot undo the damage done in a broken home. The family reaps what it has sown.
Is there any basis for expecting more from a child than from the example set before it? As much as parents may desire a good moral standard to be observed by their offspring, yet there is no good reason to expect it unless parents themselves conform to proper moral standards.
When parents condone falsehood, their children have every reason to believe it is acceptable social procedure to lie. When mother or father takes junior to the movies or for a bus ride and he is told not to give his honest age but is advised to shade the truth a little so that he may qualify for a lower admission or a lower fare, are they not undermining the moral fiber of the child? When a proud father hurries his children to Sunday school, supposedly to teach them proper values, but on the way tells them to look out for a policeman because he is going to speed, is he not destroying moral values? When big brother comes home and says in the hearing of young ones, "Those crummy cops. They've got nothing better to do than write traffic tickets," is he not weakening the child's respect for law and order? When an eight-year-old boy returned a dollar to a little schoolgirl who had lost it, his father beat him with a belt and a rope for doing so. (The Toronto, Canada, Telegram, September 17, 1963) How can children reared in such atmosphere grow up to be moral, decent men and women?
When parents lie, will children not know? When parents cheat, fight, swear and get drunk, will their behavior not influence the youngsters? When father comes home and brags about how he got the best of a customer in a dishonest way, will the child not be wrongly impressed? When mother boasts about how she cheated the supermarket out of a bar of soap, will her child not be tempted to try it? When parents search for loopholes and ways to evade tax laws, are they not teaching the little ones that it is right to cheat? When father pads the expense account, mother takes home silverware from a
restaurant, brother pilfers from his employer, is there any reason to believe that a child exposed to all this is going to be different? The divine rule is that we reap what we sow.
Blame Must Be Shared
However, the parents are not the sole sowers of bad seed or the only reapers. The fact remains that there are many good parents whose children have become delinquent. Why so? Presiding Judge William B. McKesson of the Juvenile Department of the Superior Court of Los Angeles County, California, explains: "Youth follow example, and if the parents set an example of antisocial or indifferent attitude for the rights of their neighbors, children may reasonably be expected to follow the same course." However, he points out, there are other factors that are influential, such as community environment, emotional instability, poor companionship, overcrowded housing. His conclusion was that the delinquency problem is not so much an improper youth as it is an improper home and bad adult environment.
Such unpleasant adult association does not necessarily have to be in person. Children can become contaminated with it by the various means of communication, such as radio, television and the movies. Since children do ape adults, they will also imitate their delinquent ways. In their immaturity of judgment youngsters often fail to discriminate between fact and fiction, which fact often victimizes them to a life of crime and corruption before they are aware of it. For example, a thirteen-year-old boy stabbed his widowed mother to death with a bread knife. He told police that he got the "urge to kill mother while watching some goofy movie" on television. An adult-produced program sold him the overpowering wicked idea and with it he murdered his mother. Now, was the boy solely to blame for the crime, or his mother, or must an adult world that produced and tolerated the program also share the responsibility?
The answer is evident.
Adult Delinquency Widespread
The Sunday Bulletin Magazine, a periodical with a wide circulation especially in the eastern part of the United States, had this to say on November 4, 1962: "Nearly every able-bodied, middle-aged adult engages in behavior that would place him solidly in the juvenile delinquent category if he were twenty or thirty years younger. He—or she—smokes too much, drinks too much, lies, leers and drives recklessly, routinely breaking laws with impunity and aplomb, while supporting projects designed to destroy the earth." These comments were made regarding the so-called "respectable adult, excluding the adult criminal, of which there are many among free men," this article said, and then added: "There is a much longer, socially approved list of misbehaviors for the responsible and respected middle-aged citizen. For the young, the same adult behavior is considered delinquent." Among the crimes that are almost never reported are incest, fornication and, to a somewhat lesser extent, adultery. In more recent years even so-called "white collar" crimes, which include expense-account padding, fraud, income-tax evasion, stock swindles and similar affairs, are thought of as not really serious so long as one does not get caught. Getting caught is what is believed to be bad.
With the very atmosphere charged with such thinking, is it any wonder that children go bad? It is a miracle that more of them do not. What chance has a child to resist wayward tendencies when the world's leading so-called Christian nation, the United States, reported that within its borders as much as 5,000,000,000 exchanges hands in kickbacks, payoffs and bribes;1,000,000,000 in embezzlements and in home-repair frauds; 2,000,000,000 in tax penalties and interest cost; over1,000,000,000 in tax delinquencies; 500,- 000,000 is lost because of worthless checks issued, and the crime bill is an estimated22,000,000,000 a year. Still many grownups naively ask, "I wonder where children learn all the bad things they do?" These statistics tell us where.
The Needed Reform
This much is clear, if the problem of juvenile delinquency is to be solved, something first must be done about adult delinquency. It is not enough just to conduct so-called scientific studies on adult delinquency, such as the Kinsey Report, without any follow-through with reforms. More must be done than simply to preach or write about the subject. There must be an honest searching of the heart and mind on an individual and a national scale to determine there what must be done. For as Jesus Christ, the Founder of Christianity, said: "Out of the heart come wicked reasonings, murders, adulteries, fornications, thieveries, false testimonies, blasphemies. These are the things defiling a man" and a nation. (Matt. 15:19, 20) If children are to be free of these corruptions, then an adult world must show the way. This fact was underscored by the New Zealand Auckland Star in these words: "Parents set the standards."
If parents and adults do just that, namely, set decent standards of true morality in keeping with God's Word the Bible, children will follow. For they are born imitators. And the standard of Christian morality is not so high that it cannot be reached. The Christian apostle Paul showed that it can be reached, saying: "Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, nor thieves, nor greedy persons, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit God's kingdom.
And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God." (1 Cor. 6:9-11) So if it was possible for those early Corinthian Christians to make moral changes in their lives, which Paul says they did make, then it is also possible for Christians and others of this twentieth century to do the same. Because available to us is the same Word, the same Lord and the same spirit that enabled them to correct their conduct and become clean. This fact should prove to be an incentive to righteousness, for we know that all who desire a more decent life for themselves and their children can actually have it through God's arrangement.
An assistant district attorney once said that 90 percent of all juvenile delinquency
could be eradicated if parents cooperated. He was convinced that the police department and other agencies could not solve the problem unless the parents did their job first. He declared that we need "a father who rules his children with a firm but kindly hand and a mother whose love cements the family ties." But these qualities are hardly possible apart from God's Word and his spirit.
How absolutely essential it is, then, for us to study the Bible and know what it teaches. Thereby, adults will not only learn the principles of Christian morality but also receive God's spirit, which is indispensable to effecting the needed change in their lives. Then good, not bad, will rub off onto the child. Fortified with the accurate knowledge of God's Word and his holy spirit, parents will then be in position to train up their children properly in the way that they should go. Their reward and the blessing to the community will be that these children, even when they grow old, will not turn aside to the ways of delinquency.—Prov. 22:6.
Is the Wasp Misunderstood?
Some think so, although few persons will come to the wasp's defense when a burrowed nest has been pressed underfoot, or when a single raider attacks the fruit in hand or the jam in the dish. Of course, people do suffer from wasp stings, but these usually occur when the insect is being crushed or its home threatened. In fact, "there is little that is 'waspish' about the wasp," reports Canada's Wildlife Review of July, 1962. "No gentler feet alight on the hand when the unwelcome visitor joins the garden meal. Good-naturedly the wasp allows others to feast; it does not buzz angrily and drive away other eaters. It does not become irritable if brushed away as does the bee. It would live peaceably with all men if that were possible. It is a tiger among insects but a true ally with humanity, and its yellow jacket may cover much virtue...
"It might be argued by an entomologist that a sting-armed wasp is an uncrowned Queen, for no male wasp stings—even in defence of its home. When wasps abound you will find less mosquitoes and flies, for, although the wasp likes jam and fruit, its chief food for the nursery is insectivorous. When the fall rains come, the wasp nests are vacant. The young are all reared, the last hatch being Queens that will hibernate to start new families next year. When these Queens emerge, instinctively bent on storing up life force in their system before the long sleep, flies are keenly hunted. The destruction is very great and human benefit considerable."
Ecumenical Council
WHEN the late Pope John XXIII announced the convening of the twenty-first ecumenical council of the Roman Catholic Church, he stated its purpose in these words: "There must be a Council, to reform the Church and revive the spirit of the Gospel. Then we shall be able to understand our separated brethren and they will understand us."
-ITS RECORD TO DATE
Hopes were kindled, especially in the minds of non-Catholic authorities, that enough concessions might be forthcoming from the Council to moderate those points of doctrine and administration most objectionable to non-Catholics. It was felt
Two sessions of this Council have now been concluded. The first ran from October 11 through December 8, 1962. The second session opened September 29 and adjourned on December 4, 1963. But in between these two sessions, Pope John XXIII died and was succeeded by Pope Paul VI.
Expectations High
Before the second session convened, the new pope reaffirmed that the primary goal of the Council was to bring about a comprehensive "up-dating" of the Roman Catholic Church, and he also appealed for a uniting of all the religions of Christendom into "a single universal church." He added that "such a universal church could permit a great variety" of expressions of faith and forms of worship while maintaining the "organic harmony of a single ecclesiastical control."
this would pave the way toward uniting Christendom's divided religions.
One important change hoped for was
a strengthening of the powers of the bishops in relation to the pope. Involved in this was the desire to see a retreat from the papal infallibility doctrine proclaimed at the Council of 1870. This doctrine is a serious obstacle in the path of religious unity. Strength was added to this hope when Pope Paul announced his intention to modernize and internationalize the Curia, the central and most powerful administrative body of the Roman Catholic Church. The changes desired would give greater influence to Catholic bishops throughout the world and would lessen papal control through the Curia.
Another change wanted by non-Catholics was to be recognized by the Catholic Church as true members of the "church of Christ." As of now, they are not considered to be such. This recognition is considered fundamental if there is to be any real improvement in relations between the Roman Catholic Church and non-Catholic religions.
Also in need of change, from the non-Catholic viewpoint, are regulations regarding mixed marriages. One point considered very objectionable is that approval for marriage to a non-Catholic is conditioned on his agreement to raise any children in the Roman Catholic faith.
Prominent Catholics, too, felt the need for change. Hans Küng, one of the official Catholic theologians at the Council, spoke of moderating long-standing Catholic views. He argued that the Catholic Church should admit the right of all men to worship as they please. He called for the abolishing of the Index of Forbidden Books and the doing away with the secret procedures used by the Holy Office in resolving questions of heresy. Also, he asked that greater liberty of action be granted individuals in recognition of the fact that in certain circumstances "a Christian has the right, sometimes the duty, to act, in a spirit of free obedience and obedient freedom, against the literal sense of an order" by a superior.
Topics Discussed
To determine an agenda for discussing these various topics, every Catholic bishop in the world was asked what subjects the Council should consider. These replies were sifted down to an agenda of seventy "schemata," or frameworks of policy statement, before the first session of the Council met in 1962. However, this proved too lengthy, so before the second session began in 1963 this agenda was condensed and reduced to seventeen items with various subtopics, or chapters.
It was the intention of the Council to consider as many of these seventeen items as possible at the second session. After discussing each, a vote of the more than 2,000 bishops, cardinals and other church officials in attendance would be taken. If passed, the policy statements would be regarded as approved by the Council and presented to the pope for his approval and proclamation as official church doctrine or
practice. But because of the many clergymen attending and the lengthy discussions and debates carried on, the Council succeeded in covering only two of the items on the agenda, leaving fifteen of them unfinished.
One of the items discussed had to do with the internal structure of the Roman Catholic Church. Pope Paul suggested that he govern the church with the aid of the bishops, represented by a "senate" of bishops from all over the world, meeting at intervals in Rome. This would mean that the power of the Curia would be diminished. To Council conservatives, especially members of the Curia, this sharing of power with a college of bishops was distasteful. Hence, it was strongly opposed. One official of the Curia contended that "supreme power over the entire flock of the faithful was entrusted to Peter and Peter alone." The implication was that this power was administered by the Curia who were responsible to the pope and not to the bishops.
Perhaps the most important item to non-Catholics was the "schema" on religious unity, or ecumenism. Two chapters of this item especially arrested the attention of observers. One was a declaration stating it is wrong to blame the Jews for the death of Jesus and that hatred and persecution of Jews is repudiated by the Roman Catholic Church. It said: "Since the church possesses such a common heritage with the synagogue, this sacred synod wants to foster and command in every way mutual understanding and esteem toward each other . . . Moreover, just as it severely condemns injustices to men wherever they occur, so even more with maternal concern it deplores and condemns hatreds and persecutions against the Jews whether they occurred in times past or in our own times."
The other vital chapter in the policy statement on ecumenism concerned religious liberty.
It declared that all men have the right to religious freedom. It expressed the view that a person is free to follow the dictates of his conscience; that no one should be harried because of his religious views; and that a particular faith should never be forced on anyone. This statement, if approved, would have been the first clear and authoritative statement of the Catholic Church on religious liberty. Certainly, approval of this decree would have gone a long way toward reconciling non-Catholics with Catholics, if not in organizational structure, at least in attitudes toward one another.
There were many at the Council who took a stand against this expression of religious freedom, especially Italian and Spanish cardinals and most of the patriarchs from the Middle East. On this issue, as at other times during the Council, the attitudes of the liberal and conservative elements of the Church clashed head on.
Results
The fact that such items were brought before the Council for discussion did not mean they were accepted as part of official church doctrine or practice. These measures would have to be voted on and approved before they could be submitted to the pope as the will of the Council. So observers anxiously awaited the coming to a vote of these important issues.
But the vote never came. To the great disappointment of non-Catholics, the Council did not reach a vote on these points of highest interest to non-Catholics. The best that could be hoped for was that they would come up again for a vote when the Council reconvenes later this year.
There really was very little of any significance to non-Catholics that was approved by the second session of the Council. About the only concrete accomplishment
had to do with internal church matters. This was the granting of permission by the Council, with papal approval, to adapt certain church rites to local customs. Pope Paul VI formally promulgated these liturgical reforms, which allow priests and bishops to administer the sacraments and to celebrate parts of the Roman mass in living languages instead of Latin. The Council also laid down standards for simplifying some of the ceremonies connected with the mass. However, how far these decrees are to be carried out in different countries still has not been determined.
The Council did not authorize the changes desired relative to increasing the power of the bishops. What was approved was embodied in a decree issued by Pope Paul that made a small move toward giving bishops various minor rights in making decisions on matters they previously had to refer to Rome for decision.
There were other minor developments. The Council agreed to cooperate with other international agencies seeking to reform the calendar. This reform includes a proposal to fix the date for Easter for the same Sunday each spring.
The Council also took note of modern means of mass communications such as radio and television, but assented to the controlling of these by civil governments, even if censorship is required.
Another result, although intangible, was of interest to many. Due to the wide publicity and the permitting of observers at the Council, a great diversity of views within the Church was noted. Some of these disagreements led to vigorous arguments among the assembled clergymen. This was a revelation to many, for it showed them for the first time that the Roman Catholic Church is not as unchanging and monolithic as they had previously understood it to be.
Disappointment
The second session of the twenty-first ecumenical council proved to be a great disappointment to many of the liberal segment of the Catholic Church and also to many non-Catholics. Despite all the high hopes and publicity, the prolonged discussions and debating within the Council produced very little of any real importance.
The greatest disappointment came when the Council failed to vote on the two key chapters of the policy statement concerning religious liberty and the Jews.
For a Council that was widely heralded for the sweeping changes it promised, the second session proved to be an assembly of stalemate and compromise. Said one American Roman Catholic bishop: "I don't see what we've accomplished. They talk about it, but I don't see it. I get more work done before breakfast than we did here all session."
Another Catholic clergyman declared: "In the realm of formulated doctrine there was not much done, admittedly . . . Windows have been opened. And with the opening of the windows, the dirt of the house was shown."
conception of unity is still for non- Catholic religions to return to the authority of Rome. The doctrines and policies laid down by centuries of popes and councils cannot be undone easily.
It is doubted by many whether the progressive sentiments expressed by some bishops will ever be enacted into definite legislation. This serious doubt lingers because the powerful, conservative Curia still maintains the greatest authority next to the pope, and this body is generally resistant to liberal ideas.
Regarding the goal of unifying the other religions of Christendom with Rome, the fact remains that the Catholic Church's
However, the second session did not bring the Council to an end. A third session is scheduled for September 1964. What that third session, or any future sessions of the Council, will accomplish remains to be seen. But of this we can be certain: Of far greater value than working to simplify rituals, taking note of modern means of communication and agreeing to cooperate in efforts at calendar reform is an earnest comparison of one's faith with the Holy Bible to bring it into harmony with that inspired Word of God. And whether the Ecumenical Council does that or not, it is something that you can and should do as an individual.
God's Word does not encourage one whose faith is firmly founded on the Bible to compromise his beliefs to make them more acceptable to others. It does not urge true believers to join hands with those who advocate other forms of worship, simply so they can be joined together in organizational unity. It says: "Do not become unevenly yoked with unbelievers. For what sharing do righteousness and lawlessness have? Or what fellowship does light have with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14-18) If that advice is not being followed by the leaders of your church, then it is advice that you personally should heed, that you may worship God in a manner that is acceptable to him.
Deceptive Situation
A rattlesnake found in the middle of its meal, while it is swallowing its prey, is not to be viewed as helpless: It can quickly disgorge even prey that is almost swallowed and be ready to turn its fangs on any disturber of its peace.
Should You Buy
THE thought of living in constant debt would probably have horrified your grandfather. In his day he would likely have considered as irresponsible and untrustworthy a person who consistently went into debt.
Today the situation is practically reversed. Going into debt by using credit of various types has become a standard practice in many countries, especially in some of the more industrialized nations of the West.
Fantastic debts have accumulated. For example, in the United States the total public and private debt has climbed over the 1,000,000,000,000 mark! Over one million million dollars! This gigantic debt is equal to an average of almost6,000 for every man, woman and child in the country.
Part of this debt is the federal government's. Part represents the debts of state and city governments. A huge part represents consumer debt, that is, what the average wage earner has purchased on credit. This consumer debt is often the fastest rising of all types of debts. In one country after another this debt has doubled, tripled or risen even tenfold since the close of World War II.
There are, of course, different kinds of credit, depending on what is wanted. The average person buying a home or starting a business probably would have to use credit in the form of a mortgage or business loan. It is not likely he would have
sufficient cash available. But it is unwise to overuse these services.
Installment Buying
One type of credit that has become most common in many parts of the world is buying on the installment plan.
With this type of credit one can purchase automobiles, furniture, appliances, clothing, services and a host of other items. The price of what
is purchased is repaid in specified installments, usually monthly or weekly.
This is different from other types of credit, such as a charge account. With a charge account at a firm such as a department store, a customer can buy an item and have it charged to his account. He will be billed for it at the end of the month. He may then pay this bill within a certain period, perhaps thirty days, without any extra charge for the service.
Where the installment plan differs is that there is a definite cost for the credit extended, above the price of the article or service. It means entering into an agreement to pay for a product or service over a period of time, perhaps a few months, a year, or even longer. The consumer is usually obligated to pay an initial down payment. Sometimes this is not required, as an added inducement to buy. Payments are to be made each month, or each week in some instances, until the balance is paid off.
that it makes it possible for a person to purchase an item he could not pay for immediately, or within a few weeks on a charge account. Thus he is able to have the use of a product or service months before he could have accumulated enough cash to buy it. Nevertheless, there are also serious disadvantages.
Disadvantages
Moneylending is big business. Thousands of organizations exist to lend money. While they perform a valuable service, perhaps making it possible for you to purchase things you could not otherwise buy at the time, they exist primarily to make money. When you buy something on time, you are using someone else's money. They take a risk and you pay for the service. What you pay must cover the cost of the lending firm's employees, bookkeeping and other expenses incurred in making and servicing your loan. It must also enable the lender to cover losses from delinquent accounts and still make a profit.
This should immediately bring to your mind a serious disadvantage of buying on the installment plan: You will be losing money, for you must eventually pay more than the original price of the item.
What You Really Pay
Costs for buying on the installment plan vary in different areas. But wherever you live, before signing for such an obligation, determine exactly what the total cost will be.
For example, if you bought furniture priced at 350 on the installment plan you might make a down payment of, say,50. You would be financing the remaining 300. This amounts to taking out a loan for300. Let us say the terms are 26.50 each month for twelve months. You could calculate the total cost by multiplying26.50 by 12, which would give you $318.
The 50 down payment would bring it to368. Thus the extra cost to you would be $18 above what the price was originally.
If you are an average mathematician you might be tempted to say, 'Well, I paid 6% on my loan. That wasn't so bad.' But not so. It would be well for you to know that in installment buying, the true annual rate of interest paid on your loan would be much higher than 6%. It really would be about twice as much. On some loans it could be considerably higher.
How could that be? 18 is 6% of300 is it not? Yes, provided you had the 300 for the entire year, but you do not! You have the use of the entire300 for only the first month! Each month thereafter you have another 26.50 less. Yet, you will pay interest as though you had the full300 for the entire year!
Let us look at it another way. Borrowing 300 and paying it back in twelve monthly installments is the equivalent of taking out twelve separate loans of25 each. The first 25 you will pay back in one month and it will cost you1.50. That 1.50 is 6% of25, true, but on an annual basis you are paying twelve times that, so the true annual interest rate is a whopping 72% on that first loan of 25! The second loan of25 you will have to repay in two months. You pay another 1.50 interest. While1.50 is still 6% of $25, you must multiply that 6% by six to determine the true annual interest, since you had the loan only two months. This is a true annual rate of 36%!
So it goes for each month you pay back another 25 plus the1.50 interest charge. Only on the final payment will you have paid a true 6% annual rate of interest, since you did have that 25 for the entire year. The whole year's transaction averages out to somewhat more than 11% true annual interest for the300 loan, about twice what you thought you were paying!
No, installment buying is no bargain. It costs you heavily, whether you realize it or not.
Is It for You?
Since buying on the installment plan is expensive, is it for you? If you really are interested in getting the most out of your money, installment buying should be confined to the barest minimum, and should include only that which is absolutely necessary. Where possible, a large down payment is recommended, as this will reduce the interest you will have to pay.
The wise consumer will not let his obligations for credit, if he chooses to incur such, exceed much more than 10% of his annual income after taxes. Also, one should have at least a few hundred dollars in funds before he takes on such loans. This will enable him to meet payments for a few months even if he has a temporary setback due to illness or being laid off from work.
It would be well to appreciate that buying on the installment plan has proved to be a trap for many. Individual bankruptcies have risen in recent years in many countries. In the United States they more than doubled from 1956 to 1962. In Canada about 15% were in trouble a few years ago. Now the figure is about 30%. In Italy failure to pay in 1962 increased 10% over 1961—a 10% rise in just one year!
Easy credit, much of it for installment buying of one kind or another, has induced many people to live beyond their means, and when reverses come, they are forced into bankruptcy.
So in answering the question as to whether you should buy on the installment plan, the answer is: It depends on you. But if you want to make the most of your money, the answer, in most cases, must be: No.
Discipline Pays Off
It requires discipline to resist the flood of enticements offered by modern advertising. But such discipline pays off in several ways.
One way it pays off is that you avoid many headaches and heartaches brought on by money worries due to immoderate buying on credit. It is a constant source of concern to be in debt continually and have to worry about meeting payments each month. Keeping your credit purchases to a minimum will help you to keep your peace of mind in a world already too filled with worry. Do not add to this worry by imprudent buying on credit just to gratify your desires or to keep up with neighbors.
This discipline also pays off financially. Instead of making payments on a debt, if you discipline yourself to put that same amount of money in the bank, not only will you avoid losing the interest you would have to pay on the loan, but you will also receive additional money because the bank will pay you interest on your account. So saving ahead of time means a twofold gain financially. At the end of a year you will have more to spend than if you had bought on the installment plan.
Of this buy-now-pay-later idea that has rocketed to the fore especially since World War II, one credit expert stated: "It brought real trouble. The excessive, shocking and reckless indulgence in credit wrecks families just as surely as the bombs wrecked the homes in England during the war."
You can avoid that kind of trouble if you discipline your mind to avoid continually going into debt. Experience the relief that comes from paying cash. Keep your credit buying to the minimum and enjoy the satisfaction that the wise use of your money brings.
Little boys and girls think in terms of a bucket and spade in their adventure into subterranean depths; gardeners probably think and dig a little deeper as they penetrate the topsoil of their backyards in search of the phosphates and trace elements so essential to plant life; but what happens when men are stimulated in their proddings of earth's surface by their desire to tap rich reserves of valuable metals with visions of a vast commercial enterprise? Well, that is when you get your homemade Grand Canyon!
Getting down to earth, the opencast
HOMEMADE GRAND
The little boy with his spade need only throw the dirt he digs over his shoulder and think
nothing of it; the gardener or farmer cares only that the soil be furrowed or terraced and contoured, with no great problems of dirt diversion. When it comes to stripping the earth of fifty million tons of its covering in order to reach its copper, there is much more involved, as may be seen in opencast mining for copper in Northern Rhodesia.
OPENCAST mining for the hidden riches of the earth has given many countries their hope in Grande Canyons known in this case not for beauty but for sheer want to any one of these vast excavations will convince the viewer that there is more to it than simply digging a hole and getting out the dirt. Rhodesia's homemade Grand Canyon created at the Nchanga mine in Northern Rhodesia is no exception.
CANYON
</div>
method means mining from the surface downward; excavating a pit, stripping away what is considered to be useless earth, rubble and rock, referred to as the overburden, and excavating the ore. As mining goes, opencast is probably the easiest method the world knows. This no doubt accounts for the fact that 44 percent of the total copper production of Chile, Peru, Nicaragua, Mexico, Philippines, Australia, Northern and Southern Rhodesia, Katanga, Europe and the United States of America in 1960 was mined by opencast methods. So, along with Rhodesia, many countries find themselves with homemade Grand Canyons.
…