Awake!, November 22, 1967
Download: PDF — Awake!, November 22, 1967
Is YOUR PARENTS' RELIGION
Your worship is a life-and-death matter. Can you safely cling to the religion of your parents without making any personal investigation? Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, would answer No! to that question. Instead of criticizing those in his day who had left their parents' religion to become Christians, he spoke approvingly of them, saying: "You were delivered from your fruitless form of conduct received by tradition from your forefathers." (1 Pet. 1:18) Even those whose parents are God-fearing and have the true religion need to examine the foundations of their faith. Peter also said you must be "always ready to make a defense before everyone that demands of you a reason for the hope in you." (1 Pet. 3:15) Can you? Jesus said such truth makes us free. (John 8: 32) Read your Bible with this valuable study aid:
Life Everlasting—in Freedom of the Sons of God Send only 50c
WATCHTOWER
117 ADAMS ST.
BROOKLYN, N.Y. 11201
I am enclosing 500. Please send me the 416-page Bible-study and Life Everlasting—in Freedom
of the Nations has Drawn Near. My coupon I am to receive free the timely 325-page book Healing
of the Nations has Drawn Near.
Name ...
Street and Number or Route and Box
City
IN: AUSTRALIA address II Beresford Rd., Strainthield, N.S.W. ENGLAND: The Ridgeway, London N.W. I CANADA: 150 Bridgeland Ave., Toronto 10, Ont. SO. AFRICA: Private Bag 2, P.O. Astonfainte, Transvaal.
AWAKE!
Is It Wise to Discuss Religion?
PAGE 5
Canada Completes a Century
PAGE 9
Eyes in the Sky
PAGE 12
Is Britain a Christian Country?
PAGE 16
NOVEMBER 22,1967
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. "Awake!" 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 "Awake!" is not narrow, but is international. "Awake!" 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 "Awake!" 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. "Awake!" 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!"
答：H—H—H—H—H—
PUBLISHED SEMIMONTHLY BY
WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.
117 Adams Street
Brooklyn, N.Y. 11201, U.S.A.
N. H. Knobbe, President
GRANT Sister, Secretary
Average printing each issue: 4,750,000 Five cents a copy
Offices
America, U.S., 117 Adams Street, Brooklyn, N. 12041
Australia, 11 Breeders Road, Sydney, N.S.W. $1
Canada, 110 Queen Street, Toronto, 190 U. $1
England, Tower House Tower
The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7 7/6
The Royal Exchange, London N.W. 8 7/6
South Africa, Private House, P.O. BLANKINGTON, Toul.
(Monthly editions half the above rates)
Rentitures for subscriptions should be sent to the office in your country. Observe your remittances to Brooklyn. They are sent at Main Road two weeks before subscription expires.
Now published in 26 languages
Semilathely—Artikans, Cebuano, Danuon, Dauon, English,
Philippine, French, German, Greek, Iceland, Italian, Japanese,
Korean, Russian, Portuguese, Spanish, Swedish, Tequila.
Monthly—Chinese, Chujang, Hillagegeen, Malaysia, Polish,
Tasil, Ukrainian.
CHANGES OF ADDRESS should reach as thirty days
before your monthly date. Give as your old and new
address, possible, year old address, new
Watsonstown, LYA Alma Street, Brooklyn, New York
11201, U.S.A.
Second-class postage paid at Brooklyn, N.Y.
Printed in U.S.A.
The Bible translation regularly used in "Awaken" is the New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures, 1961 edition. When other translations are used, this is clearly marked.
CONTENTS
Do You Really Listen? 3
Is It Wise to Discuss Religion? 5
The Divine Name in Music 8
Canada Completes a Century 9
Eyes in the Sky 12
Is Britain a Christian Country? 16
Evidence Disproves Assertions 20
People Who Practice Bible Principles 21
Amber—A Fossil Gem 26
"Your Word Is Truth"
The Tragedy of King Saul
—a Warning for Christians 27
Watching the World 29
Awake!
DO YOU REALLY LISTEN?
</div>
IT HAS been noted that in many circles conversation has become a competitive exercise in which the first person to draw a breath is declared the listener. Most people, it seems, would rather talk than listen. Even when another is speaking, they often are mentally planning what they are going to say when they gain the opportunity to speak.
And, too, if someone is expressing ideas with which they strongly disagree, they may simply turn to thoughts that support their own feelings. This is a common practice. Unconsciously people feel that it is risky to listen. So they mentally stop receiving what is said, and may prepare a verbal counterattack.
But perhaps the majority of persons fail really to listen because they permit their mind to drift to other matters. The mind can race along some four to ten times faster than most people speak, allowing it plenty of extra thinking time. Thus, persons fall into the habit of letting their mind make brief side excursions, and then dart back to the speaker. Invariably, however, the mind tarries too long on another subject, and important points are missed.
Jesus Christ, the greatest teacher ever
to walk the earth, appreciated that humans often fail really to listen. Therefore, he frequently urged his audience to be alert and take heed to what he was saying. For instance, on one occasion when instructing a crowd, he began by saying: "Listen. Look!" After this arousing appeal to attentiveness, Jesus related an illustration of a sower who sowed seed on various types of soil, and the different results that were forthcoming. Then, when concluding, he added: "Let him that has ears to listen listen."—Mark 4:3-9.
What Jesus said was important; it had a great deal of meaning. It deserved a listening ear. Simply hearing the interesting illustration was not sufficient. The people needed to get the sense of what Jesus said and allow it to make an impression upon their mind and heart. Therefore, they needed to listen, that is, "to hear with thoughtful attention: consider seriously," which is how Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines the word.
Only a few of the audience were real listeners. These came to Jesus afterward and questioned him about the illustration. They desired a fuller explanation. They had heard with thoughtful attention, having given serious consideration to the illustration, but its meaning was not altogether clear to them.
So Jesus accommodated them with answers to their questions and, as a result, they truly benefited. Mark 4:1-20.
A good listener is not afraid to admit a lack of understanding by asking questions. Jesus' disciples were not hesitant to ask sincere questions, and Jesus was delighted with the interest they showed. It is a pleasure to explain matters to such an audience. A discerning listener will draw forth valuable information, as the Bible proverb explains: "Counsel in the heart of a man is as deep waters, but the man of discernment is one that will draw it up."—Prov. 20:5.
Contrary to what many believe, listening is not simply a passive process. It can be a very active one. The stream of messages being received needs to be analyzed. What is the speaker trying to say? Often persons have difficulty expressing themselves clearly or coherently. Sometimes their real meaning is unclear because of lack of specifics or examples. So a skillful listener can lead the conversation by well-directed questions. Under his gentle, exploratory probing a person who may have been considered a dull speaker may be found to have wells of information that no one has bothered to tap.
A real listener appreciates that a conversation is an opportunity to learn something about another person or from him. He realizes that when one talks, or is mentally planning what he is going to say, he is not learning anything. But the listener does. As the Bible proverb says: "A wise person will listen and take in more instruction."—Prov. 1:5.
with personal views! But this is what persons are often inclined to do. Especially is it common to view discipline and correction as a personal affront. However, the Bible proverbs encourage: "Listen to counsel and accept discipline, in order that you may become wise in your future. Cease, my son, to listen to discipline and it will mean to stray from the sayings of knowledge."—Prov. 19:20, 27.
How unwise, therefore, to close one's mind when hearing ideas that may conflict
We all need sound counsel and discipline and so should really listen when they are offered. Never close your mind and mentally block them out when they are given. Do not be like the religious Pharisees of Jesus' day. When Jesus restored sight to a young man who was born blind, they closed their minds to the evidence. Even after the healed man explained to them how the miracle occurred, they remained closed-minded. Finally, when the Pharisees continued to question him about the matter, the man said: "I told you already, and yet you did not listen."—John 9:13-34.
The appeal of God's Word is to avoid such an attitude. Wisdom is personified in the Bible book of Proverbs, chapter eight, and is portrayed as speaking to us as learners, urging: "And now, O sons, listen to me; yes, happy are the ones that keep my very ways. Listen to discipline and become wise, and do not show any neglect. Happy is the man that is listening to me by keeping awake at my doors day by day."—Prov. 8:32-34.
Will you really listen? If someone should visit you with wholesome information from God's Word, will you heed its wisdom and take in the valuable knowledge it offers? You really should, for the rewards are everlasting. The Bible assurance is: "The man that is listening will speak even forever."—Prov. 21:28; John 17:3.
TREAT them as you would treat someone coming to your door trying to sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Listen for a moment, and then politely close the door.' So a clergyman advised his congregation to stifle discussion of the Bible. His target was sincere Christians who visit people in their homes and seek
this precious relationship. As expressed by the apostle Paul: "Who are you to judge the house servant of another? To his own master he stands or falls." (Rom. 14:4) So people resent being criticized on the basis of their beliefs. Why should they leave themselves wide open to such an attack by engaging in some
To Discuss Religion?
IS IT TOO CONTROVERSIAL?
to encourage Bible DO THE BENEFITS OUTWEIGH ANY DISADVANTAGES?
study. Many persons
share this view expressed by a Brooklyn, New York, priest, considering religion to be too sacred, too personal or too controversial a topic for common discussion. But is this the wise attitude? Is it really unwise to discuss one's beliefs?
Certainly, there would seem to be some justification for being reticent about one's religious views. Is it not a fact that discussions on religion can at times become really heated, generating strong feelings? And are not many persons very sensitive about their beliefs? The mere casting of doubt upon cherished ideas is enough to arouse high passions. And it is well known that disputes over religion have been responsible for many of the wars that have ravaged the earth. Peace-loving people prefer to avoid heated controversy.
Then, too, it is a fact that each one's religion involves his personal relationship to God. No one can properly intrude upon NOVEMBER 22, 1967
religious discussion?
matter of the sacredness of religion. Too often the atheist or agnostic takes advantage of discussion to pour scorn upon religious teachings and those who accept them. And even when they do not go that far, they do treat lightly or flippantly those matters that are of serious concern to others. The person of reverent mind can be deeply hurt by such attitudes. Why should he expose himself to the possibility? he reasons. Better, is it not, to avoid all religious discussion?
Yet, there are other angles of the question to be considered. As in almost every other area of life, one does well to balance against one another the advantages and the disadvantages of engaging in religious discussion. Perhaps when this is done it will be found that the benefits far outweigh any disadvantages.
Value of Discussion
While discussion sometimes results in heated words and even violent actions, not all discussion need do so. The Christian keeps in mind that it takes two to fight over words and he himself is under command to keep his spirit restrained even under adverse conditions. "A slave of the Lord does not need to fight," wrote the apostle Paul, "but needs to be gentle toward all, qualified to teach, keeping himself restrained under evil, instructing with mildness those not favorably disposed." (2 Tim. 2:24, 25) So rather than becoming provoked about what someone may say about cherished religious convictions, the Christian remains calm and seizes the opportunity to teach.
Peaceful discussion, even when it involves differing views on Bible teaching, offers some definite benefits. It can strengthen by expression your own convictions. It can aid you to understand better the other party to the discussion when you hear the Bible proof upon which he founds his belief. And is it not true that there is need for more understanding in this divided world? During the discussion, too, there may be mention of some Bible text that had not occurred to you, that may shed much more light upon a subject that had not been clear to you.
So why throw away those benefits simply because you may fear a hot controversy? If, despite your remaining calm and reasonable, the other person continues to talk fanatically, you can always close down the conversation. Nothing is to be gained by a word fight. But as long as both parties keep calm and show consideration for each other there can be mutual benefits from a discussion of Scriptural teachings.
Love Prompts Us to Share
one who must determine whether you have dedicated your life to the Creator or not. You are the one who may make a vow before God, and it is your personal responsibility to strive to live up to such obligation. Nobody else can do it for you. And eventually we must individually submit to the scrutiny of the great Judge, for the apostle Paul wrote: "We shall all stand before the judgment seat of God." (Rom. 14:10) Each one will be held responsible for his own doings.
Your personal relationship to God is assuredly an individual matter. You are the
However, this does not mean that the Christian can retreat into his own little circle and enjoy his own private religion, for the unique feature of Christianity is its outgoing attitude. Next to love for God comes love of neighbor. And who is your neighbor? Not just the neighbors who live on your street and in your vicinity. Not just those who attend the same religious services you do. Not just those of the same class or nation. Jesus explained who is your neighbor by means of his parable of the Good Samaritan. Remember his question in connection with that parable: "Who of these three [the priest, the Levite, the Samaritan] seems to you to have made himself neighbor to the man that fell among the robbers?" (Luke 10:36) So the question really is: To whom are you willing to make yourself a neighbor?
Surely you cannot make yourself neighbor to someone unless you get to know him, unless you talk with him. And especially will you be interested to find out whether he knows God, for if he does not, then the neighborly thing to do is to acquaint him with God and his loving purposes. Thus there is need to grasp every opportunity to share your faith with others, so they too may receive of God's blessings. Under inspiration the apostle Paul wrote to explain that it is God's will "that all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth."
(1 Tim. 2:4) That should be your desire also. Whatever knowledge of religion we possess we should surely be willing to share with our fellowmen.
Perhaps, however, you feel that you do not know enough about your religion, and do not want to be found lacking. That is understandable, but is it good reason for refusing to talk about religion, for refusing to share what information you do have? The better course would be to get to understand the Bible's teachings so that you can offer reasons and scriptures in support of your belief. Otherwise, it is just as though one were masquerading as a Christian, while in fact knowing very little about Christianity. How much more satisfying to know what you believe and why you believe it!
Too Sacred to Discuss?
Certainly matters relating to God's Word and worship are too sacred to treat lightly or in any flippant manner. They are not to be ridiculed. And it is foolish to force them on those who have no desire for spiritual truth. On this account Jesus himself advised his followers: "Do not give what is holy to dogs, neither throw your pearls before swine, that they may never trample them under their feet and turn around and rip you open." (Matt. 7: 6) Discussion of religion with persons who have no love for God and righteousness seldom produces any good result.
But if persons of earnest manner and reverent attitude are willing to speak with you about God and his written Word, the Bible, then by all means welcome the opportunity. There are ever fewer opportunities of this kind in our modern era, for the majority have lost their love for God and are engaged in the selfish quest for material wealth. (Matt. 24:12) How cheering it should be to find someone who has
faith in God and is willing to discuss religion with you!—Rom. 10:15.
Jesus Christ and his followers of the first century had no qualms about speaking to all kinds of persons about the promised kingdom of God. Though many of them had been raised in the Jews' religion, they did not hesitate to discuss their new views on religion freely with as many as they contacted. And then Jesus instructed them, male and female, to be busy about spreading the teachings he had given them. Said he: "Go therefore and make disciples of people of all the nations . . . teaching them to observe all the things I have commanded you." (Matt. 28:19, 20) Certainly, they could not obey that command by refusing to discuss religion with others.
That God is pleased with those who think upon him and discuss him and his purposes with others is made certain by a significant statement by one of the holy prophets of God: "Those in fear of Jehovah spoke with one another, each one with his companion, and Jehovah kept paying attention and listening. And a book of remembrance began to be written up before him for those in fear of Jehovah and for those thinking upon his name." (Mal. 3:16) So it really is beneficial to discuss religion with other reasonable God-fearing persons.
Indeed, if Bible truth has the same effect upon you as it had upon Jesus' first-century disciples, you will be so filled with appreciation that you will just have to talk to others about it. When the disciples were commanded even by the court authorities to quit preaching, their reply was: "We cannot stop speaking about the things we have seen and heard." (Acts 4:20) And they did not stop. They went everywhere preaching the good news.
They knew that a public declaration of their beliefs was necessary. In common with the apostle Paul they were aware that "with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation."
(Rom. 10:10) Is it not clear that such "public declaration" is more than private confession, much more? It means discussing one's faith with all who are willing to listen, in the hope that they too will be attracted to the worship of God.
Make the Right Decision
It becomes apparent that there are many advantages to be derived from religious discussion. It can strengthen your own faith in God. It can aid you better to understand your neighbors. It may well shed new light upon a subject in which you are vitally interested. Discussion with someone who has had considerable experience in Bible study could prove to be very rewarding.
One does not need to be sensitive about one's religious convictions—not if they are well founded upon the Word of God. Nor is there any need to fear that in any such discussion you will be made to look foolish. Anyone who stoops to ridicule a fellow creature who is trying to learn more about God is lacking in the Christian quality of
love, and so you do not have to be concerned about the opinion of such a person.
The kind of person who is willing to discuss the Bible with you in a loving way is not the type who will ridicule another's lack of knowledge on the subject. Rather, he will be keen to extend to others all the information he has obtained, starting with elementary questions if necessary. You see, the Christian is guided by the principle enunciated by Jesus: "You received free, give free." (Matt. 10:8) Without monetary return and without grudging, he will be willing to share the knowledge with which God has blessed him.
It is vital, then, that you make the right decision. How unwise to allow some exaggerated fears to deprive you of that freeness of speech that the apostle Paul so highly commends in the Christian! (1 Tim. 3:13; Heb. 3:6) Far better it is, more in keeping with Christian principle, to speak with others about the hope you entertain on the basis of Bible knowledge. This is the course of wisdom, the course that will lead you to giving closer attention to the Word of God, the basis for all true religious teaching. May your decision be the right one.
The Divine Name in Music
During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries many famous composers made free use of the divine name, Jehovah, in various songs and choral works they wrote. Handel employed it in a number of his oratorios dealing with Biblical times such as Belshazzar and Judas Maccabeus. One of the most interesting uses of God's name appears in the single oratorio that Beethoven wrote and that is entitled "Christus am Oelberge" ("Christ on the Mount of Olives"). In this musical work dealing with the last days of Jesus' earthly ministry, Beethoven supports the fact that Jesus knew and used the name Jehovah. After a dramatic orchestral introduction, Jesus, whose part is
taken by the tenor, sings, "Jehovah, you my Father! O send me comfort and power and strength" (translated from German text). The name occurs twice more in the oratorio. We are told that Jesus is Jehovah's Son and that Jehovah has sent him to ransom mankind. Though there are some textual inaccuracies about Jesus' words during this time due to the composer's lack of understanding in paraphrasing the account for music, Beethoven's use of the divine name is in harmony with the facts and the many Hebrew translations of the Gospels that show clearly that Jesus knew and used his Father's name. —John 17:6.
Completes a Century
By "Awakel" correspondent in Canada
</div>
IN 1534 a Frenchman in quest of a northwest passage to the Orient sailed from the European port of St. Malo to the mouth of Canada's broad St. Lawrence River. He thought this might be the passage for which he was looking, but decided to postpone further exploration until the following year.
On the second voyage to the new land Jacques Cartier's dream faded as the salt seas of the St. Lawrence Gulf turned to fresh water farther upriver. Although disappointed in not finding a sea passage to the Orient, he did discover a majestic waterway. Subsequently explorers sailed this same mighty river as they pushed westward to a distant ocean across a vast continent of forests, mountains and prairies laced with the world's most expansive network of freshwater lakes.
Cartier was the first to explore New France, the geographic parent of the present province of Quebec, which links with nine other provinces and a vast northland to form the Canadian Confederation of today. More than three hundred years and an English conquest intervened before a loose framework of nationhood was hammered together by statesmen, overshadowed by historic forces.
The First Century
Shortly after midnight on January 1 of this year, 101 guns shattered the silence of Ottawa, the nation's capital, and the
prime minister, Lester B. Pearson, lighted the centennial flame that will burn throughout 1967. Canadians are looking back over their first hundred years as a nation, many wondering about their future. What is to be expected in the years ahead?
Few French-Canadian leaders seem to share the enthusiasm of their English-Canadian counterparts as the country rounds off its first century. Claude Ryan, writing in "The Enigma of French Canada" in Saturday Night magazine of January 1967, on page 21, remarked: "The English believe we are to celebrate the one-hundredth anniversary of the birth of a nation. Quebec's leaders, on the contrary, hold that the birth of Canada dates from the 17th century and that what we're marking this year is merely the centenary of a political regime—a regime which has never been completely satisfactory for French Canadians." Base lines of this society were inscribed by early French settlement and overlaid later by the English conquest.
Early French Immigration
After Cartier, French fishermen came to reap the rich harvest of cod off the coast of New France. Others followed to trade with the Indians for furs, or to convert these native originals to the Catholic religion. Some Frenchmen came to put down roots in the fertile soil of the St. Lawrence River basin.
Close to seventy-five years after Cartier's first voyage, Samuel de Champlain, the real founder of New France, set up a post on the site of an Indian village called Stadacona. Today this is the city of Quebec, named from the Algonquin Indian word "kebec," which means "narrows." By 1670 the population of New France was about 6,000. Soon immigration from the old country slowed and virtually stopped. The five million French-speaking inhabitants of the province of Quebec today trace their ancestry mainly to the original 6,000.
These early French settlers brought with them the same feudal system of church-state rule that prevailed in France, and which eventually sparked the French Revolution of 1789. However, society in New France did not experience the purge that weakened church control in Europe. Thirty years before the French Revolution broke out, New France fell to the British. This was the conquest that French Canada has never forgotten. Today, more than two hundred years later, it is an open question whether any progress in mutual understanding has been achieved. Other national groups that immigrated to Canada after the conquest have gradually merged with the English-speaking society, but not the French Canadians, who wore here first.
Peaceful Birth of a Nation
Despite the cultural and religious gap between the Protestant English and the Catholic French, birth of the Canadian nation in 1867 was peaceful. The constitution document, the British North America Act, made it legal for the French Canadians, who formed one-third of the population, to retain a religion and a language
distinct from those in the rest of the country.
In 1867 the population was in scattered pockets amounting to about three and a half million persons, sprinkled over the rugged face of a region comprising close to four million square miles. From coast to coast, from Atlantic to Pacific, Canada stretched for 3,500 miles. There was no railway. Travel was only by oxcart and canoe. By 1873 the nation was joined loosely from sea to sea—"A Mari Usque Ad Mare," as the Latin motto reads on the country's coat of arms. British Columbia on the Pacific coast had been enticed into the new confederation of provinces mainly by promises of a transcontinental railway.
A few years later, in 1885, the Canadian Pacific Railway was completed, and this led to the real opening of the West. Trains carried immigrants across the new land, and trains brought the harvest back wheat from the flat expanse of the prairies, timber from the forests and minerals from the north.
Canada Today
A generation ago Canadians thought of their country as a land of forests being turned quickly into farms. Today there are still hundreds of thousands of square miles of forest remaining. A continuous belt of trees stands between the northern reaches and the settled areas lying to the south, along the border between Canada and the United States of America. The bulk of Canada's population is in this southern band, which amounts to less than five hundred thousand square miles.
The first half of the twentieth century has witnessed the transformation of this populated area from a simple agricultural and forest economy to a mushrooming industrial belt, bolstered by rich discoveries of oil and metals. The same changes are now well under way in Quebec. Rapid industrialization has produced a loosening of the old ties and a cracking of deep-rooted institutions.
There is a quiet, and sometimes not so quiet, revolution in Quebec. The ordinary people want a twentieth-century North American standard of living, but they want it all in French. There is a squeeze on the predominantly English-speaking owners and managers of industry.
Religion in Canada Today
One hundred years have also brought a profound change in respect to religion in Canada. The reverence and worship of the early pioneers belong in the past. As one journalist reports: "A great many Canadians, particularly those in the ever-thickening cities, are indifferent to Christianity and therefore are not intrigued by the recent debates as to whether the Red Sea parted or Jesus walked on the water, or even that God may be dead." (Maclean's Magazine, August 6, 1966, page 7) They are more concerned about Sunday sports, weekend vacations and a greater laxity in the liquor control laws.
An editorial from an Ontario newspaper of moderately conservative view, and quoted in the Vancouver Sun of November 18, 1965, had this to say about the drastic revolution in religious attitudes: "The church today cuts less ice as a force in contemporary life than ever before in its history. It is patronized by the majority of Canadians as a quaint but useful social convenience for the celebration of deaths and marriages, and as a useful discipline for the young. Beyond that it is regarded as naive and unworldly, an out-dated anachronism from another age, like spats and the derby hat."
Nor is there any mystery about the source of this altered attitude toward religion. Religious leaders have for so long
been teaching one thing while believing something quite different that, as cleric Ray Hord, secretary of the United Church of Canada's board of evangelism and social service, admits: "The modern church is confused and on the defensive." (St. Catharines Standard, February 15, 1966) And an article in Maclean's Magazine, of August 6, 1966, tells of "a gentle old minister, whose credulity could not encompass such Biblical celebrities as Noah, [and who] has been preaching for 45 years in Canada without mentioning Noah's name." The clergy have lost faith themselves. How, then, can they inspire faith in others?
Says a reporter in Toronto's Globe and Mail of March 24, 1967, commenting on the weird Christian Pavilion at the Expo 67: "The churches are trying hard to relate to the world, and if the world uses four-letter [obscene] words, so will the Christian pavilion." Adrian Brunet, Roman Catholic chairman of the pavilion's theology committee, explains: "We must, at all costs, avoid showing a kind of triumphant Christianity, with a tendency to advertise itself." An editorial in the same issue of Globe and Mail refers to current religious development in these words: "So much is new, so much is challenged and rejected, that the only certainty of civilized man is the certainty of change. The only intelligible doctrine, it seems, is doubt."
Thus, while retaining many areas of natural beauty, the Canadian scene has witnessed radical transformation during its first century of nationhood. As has been true of many other nations, industrialization has come, and with it the rush to the cities and the consequent lowering of moral values. This presents a challenge to all Canadians who are conscious of their spiritual needs.
EYES IN THE SKY
WHEN a high flying U-2 plane
was shot down over the Soviet Union on May 1, 1960, the capability of aerial photography was brought forcefully to the attention of the general public. People were amazed to learn that photographic equipment in a plane flying at an altitude of more than 70,000 feet was able to take clear, detailed pictures of city streets and buildings. Now reconnaissance satellites are performing the same remarkable feat of farsightedness from an altitude more than seven times as great. But reconnaissance is only one of many ways in which aerial photography has gained the role of being man's eyes in the sky.
Weather satellites are keeping a constant photographic eye on the continually changing weather pattern from a distance of several hundred miles above the earth. They have been an invaluable aid to weathermen in their efforts to make weather forecasts and to issue storm warnings. From 1960, when they first began to operate, until the end of 1966, the Tiros and the more advanced Nimbus weather satellites took well over one million pictures of the earth's cloud cover.
Operating at an altitude of from 250 to 600 miles, the Nimbus satellites can take pictures that cover a million square miles of the earth's surface. The more recent ATS (Applications Technology Satellite) that operates from an altitude of about 22,300 miles can
take a picture in color showing an area from
the northeast United States to mid-Australia. Such wide-angle pictures cannot show the startling detail obtained by the cameras on a reconnaissance satellite that operates at an altitude ranging from about 100 to 300 miles, but they serve well in giving weathermen a view of changing weather conditions over a vast area.
Map Making
Aerial photography has brought great savings in time, labor and money to men who survey large tracts of open land in order to make maps of them. To survey any terrain from the ground requires innumerable detailed observations. This is a slow and expensive operation in favorable terrain, but when it is attempted in a mountainous or marshy area, it becomes almost impossible. In tropical locations there is the added problem of endangering the surveyors by exposing them to diseases. Surveying by airplane overcomes these problems. No terrain, regardless of how inhospitable it might be, is inaccessible to a camera-carrying airplane.
To complete a ground survey of an area covering 1,000 square miles requires a
large staff of workers and a period of about two years, but an airplane can take photographs of the area in a day. The surveying work can then be done from the photographs in a fraction of the time. The accuracy of maps made in this fashion can be surprisingly high.
Measurements of heights can be accurate to within two feet more or less in pictures taken at an altitude of 10,000 feet.
It is a common practice to use combinations of two or three large aerial cameras. When three are used, one points directly downward, but with a slight tilt, while the other two point out obliquely from the plane so as to get pictures of the horizon on each side, as well as a portion of the area covered by the vertical camera. The oblique pictures show a much larger area than does the vertical view but are not as useful in map making as vertical pictures, which permit greater accuracy of measurement. The film is usually nine inches square or seven inches by nine inches.
As might be expected, the motion of the plane creates a problem in obtaining pictures in sharp detail. You also encounter this problem when you take snapshots. The slightest motion of the camera you hold in your hands can cause the picture to lose sharpness. By holding the camera very steady and by using a fast shutter speed this problem is greatly lessened.
Every possible precaution is taken when mounting cameras in a plane to reduce the effect of vibrations that can cause camera movement. The motion of the plane over the ground is another form of movement that can affect the camera, but this is overcome by using a fast shutter speed and by using a special motion-compensating magazine for the film. This device moves the film slightly during the instant the shutter is opened, permitting a very sharp picture to be taken because it compensates for ground movement below the plane.
Cameras in high-speed reconnaissance jets that travel at low altitudes overcome the motion-blurring problem by using a camera without a shutter. All it has is an open slit that allows light to strike the film, which is moved past the slit at a
speed that is proportional to the speed of the plane. The result is a strip of film showing a continuous picture in sharp detail.
A three-dimensional view can be seen by taking a series of pictures, with each taking in about 60 percent of the area covered by the previous one. This overlapping allows any two adjacent pictures to be studied with stereoscopic magnifying lenses that cause them to fuse in one's mind as a single three-dimensional picture.
Using this method in reconnaissance pictures taken at 30,000 and 40,000 feet, an expert photo interpreter can determine how tall a man that shows up in the magnified pictures is. He can also estimate the size of a factory, with a margin of error of less than a foot. The camera lenses used for taking such aerial pictures are exceptionally fine, being regarded as distortion free.
Archaeology
A search for archaeological ruins can be greatly aided by getting an aerial viewpoint. In some instances no sign of buried ruins can be spotted from ground level, but can clearly be seen in aerial pictures. The sites may have been completely obliterated by cultivation of the land, but from the air, color variations can be seen in freshly plowed land and in vegetation that indicate the location of the ruins. Old pits, postholes and trenches can cause a denser and taller crop of grain because of an increase in depth of the soil in those spots, and this outlines the ruins in aerial pictures. A poor or stunted growth of grain over old buried roads, floors and foundations does the same thing. Many Roman ruins have been discovered in England in this manner.
Whole cities may lie buried in North Africa and the Middle East under a light covering of sand without being noticed by ground observers, but they can be detected by aerial photographs when the direction and intensity of the light are just right.
In Italy they have revealed the presence of Etruscan tombs near Rome, and in Yucatan they made evident a sixty-two-mile-long Mayan road in thick jungle because of the difference the road made in tree height.
Some Other Uses
Aerial cameras have proved very useful to geologists, as they have made possible quick regional surveys for determining the geological structure and mineral resources in an area. They make it possible for a geologist to produce in only a few days an outline geological map of large-scale geological features in the earth. To do the same job on foot would be a time-consuming and painstaking task. They also make possible the discovery of geological features that go unnoticed by ground observers. Mexico's Agua Blanca fault zone or fracture in the earth's crust was such a discovery.
When geological changes are taking place, such as the birth and growth of volcanic cones, the flooding of valleys, the slitting of estuaries and the erosion of soils, aerial photography becomes an important tool to geologists. It enables them to watch the process by a series of photos, giving them a fine view from a high vantage point.
Especially valuable geological information is being obtained from cameras on satellites. Color pictures taken by Mercury and Gemini astronauts while in orbit have allowed scientists to see for the first time entire mountain ranges and river basins. Satellite pictures have made necessary a change in charts of Antarctica, because Mount Siple was revealed by such photographs to be forty-five miles too far east on the charts. They have shown the topography of the sea floor around the Bahamas and, by infrared film, have revealed the distribution and temperature of ocean currents. Thus the sciences of geology and oceanography have been greatly aided by man's ability to put photographic eyes in the sky.
They even have been useful in taking an accurate census of wild animals and birds. A plane can photograph with great rapidity herds of fast-moving animals, such as migrating caribou, that may extend over many miles of country. Flocks of geese or collections of seals can be photographed from the air very easily and then counted by means of a binocular microscope.
With flying-camera eyes a quick inventory of timberland can be taken to determine the volume, condition and growth of the timber. As an aid to botany, they can survey a large area to reveal the distribution and structure of the vegetation there, a task that would require years of work on the ground.
Even grain farmers can benefit from aerial photography. Pictures of wheat taken with infrared film at an altitude of 10.000 feet can spot the wheat-damaging disease, black stem rust, more easily than it can from the ground. The same is true of attacks on oats by the yellow dwarf virus. Damage can be done internally to the leaves of oats before there is any outward evidence of it, but infrared aerial photographs reveal the presence of the disease in a crop of oats because the infrared light that penetrates to the interior of the leaves is not reflected by leaves that are diseased inside but by leaves with healthy interiors. Infrared light reflected by such leaves shows up as light tones on infrared film. But when the light is absorbed by diseased leaves the result on the film is dark tones.
Although aerial photographs are usually taken in daylight, it is possible to take some at nighttime, just as it is possible for you to take snapshots at night with the aid of a flashbulb.
A much more powerful light source than flashbulbs has to be used, however. In some situations where aerial pictures must be taken at night, a flash cartridge is used that has a flash of 4,500,000 candlepower, which is sufficient to light up the ground under the plane. The camera in the plane is automatically triggered by a light sensor when the flash reaches its greatest intensity.
Under development as another light source is a laser beam. By quickly scanning the ground, a laser beam that is only millimeters in diameter could make possible pictures with a clarity comparable to those taken in daylight. Even the heat given off by objects on the ground can make useful photographs.
Heat sensors in a plane can detect small temperature differences between objects on the ground below. The readings of these thermal sensors are turned into electrical impulses and then into visible light so as to produce a black-and-white image on film. Warm objects cause a more intense mark on the film than cold objects, making it possible to detect even a tiny cooking fire or a warm engine. Such pictures, of course, are not able to show clear details, but they are able to indicate the location of warm objects even when obscured by the leaves of trees.
Camera Eye in Space
Thus far man has not been able to go out into space personally to look at the moon and Mars, but he has sent cameras there that have acted as eyes for him. Spectacular pictures of the moon have been sent back by such spacecraft as the
Ranger, Surveyor and Orbiter. Surveyors have landed softly on the moon's surface and have made it possible for man to examine the moon at very close range through television cameras.
Lunar Orbiter spacecraft have swung around the moon, taking pictures of very high quality directly on film that was developed automatically on the spacecraft. A system that converted the pictures on the film into electronic signals sent the pictures back to earth, where those signals were rerecorded on film. The results were magnificent pictures of the moon's surface, including the hidden side. Lunar Orbiter I and Surveyor III gave man his first view of the earth as it appears from the vicinity of the moon.
When the Mariner IV spacecraft passed within 6,118 miles of Mars on July 14, 1985, its television cameras extended man's eyes millions of miles into space. The twenty-two television pictures sent back by that spacecraft were man's first close-up view of Mars, but the barren, crater-pocked surface was not entirely what he had expected to see. These various space probes reveal the possibilities for gaining a better understanding of our solar system by extending man's eyes, by means of cameras, far out into space.
From spacecraft, planes and satellites man can now get a wide view of the earth and its various features from high vantage points. This is helping him to broaden his knowledge about this planetary home of his as well as its neighbors in the solar system. There can be little doubt that aerial and space photography have become valuable tools in man's quest for more knowledge by acting as eyes for him in the sky and outer space.
IT HAS long been the proud boast of its people that Great Britain is a Christian country.
One hundred years ago the Victorian era was characterized by church- and chapel-going, by Bible reading and
family prayers; and Sunday observance frowned upon any reading lighter than sermons. Much outward piety and adherence to moral duty set the tone for a respectable "Christianity" that was fostered by a strongly established national church. Education was
A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY?
very much controlled by the church; only Anglicans could attend the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, and they were not allowed to graduate unless they signed assent to the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England.
With such a background it is not hard to understand why its successful empire-building was attributed in part to "a firm belief that the British way of life and its industries were directly related to its moral convictions and its religious habits." But did this make Britain Christian according to the true definition of that name, and can it be said of Britain today that it is a Christian country?
Great Religious Changes
Little remains of that Victorian picture today except the cherished memories of the elderly, and the crumbling churches and chapels that they still attend whenever able. Few of the younger generation
join them; in fact, one estimate puts the number of people of the working class who are churchgoers at only one-half of one percent. 2 Only in some middle-class areas can a moderately full church be found. A Gallup poll conducted for the religious paper Sunday showed that a third of the population no longer even go to church for baptisms, marriages and funerals, so severing all ties with religion. Yet only about 6 percent of the nation professes atheism; and since self-professed atheists often seem to be seeking truth more than many so-called Christians, the entire pattern makes one ask, What is wrong with faith today? and what are the people of Britain prepared to do to remedy the situation?
Seeking a Reinterpretation
The phenomenal circulation of the bishop of Woolwich's book Honest to God raised the question, Why did people buy it? Was it just the propaganda and controversy that made them anxious to read a few pages out of idle curiosity? Or were there many deeply hungry people who thought it might give them a satisfactory reinterpretation of religion? Without doubt there were readers in both of these categories. But writing as a layman, Lord Eccles, in his book Half-way to Faith, adds another suggestion: "So strong is the revolt against the old concept of a Supreme Being that the abstract concept put forward in Honest to God matches the spirit of the age."
He hints at one aspect of this spirit: "I suspect that many of them are not genuine doubters but scoffers, who delight to see a bishop playing Aunt Sally with the mitres of his brethren."
Pressing for a reinterpretation that would bring real understanding to people, Lord Eccles censures the theologians of today who either talk down to laymen because they are thought to be lacking in education, or talk over their heads about academic niceties that leave a layman wondering why he bothers to listen. Either way the result is that the laity "have never been so ignorant about the groundplan of the New Testament."—P. 103.
"Second-Hand Faith"
Analyzing why so many have failed to retain their faith today, Dr. Alan Richardson, dean of York, found a large amount of "second-hand faith." He defines it this way: "Second-hand faith is something which has rubbed off on us from contact with parents, teachers and other influences in our formative years. We have accepted it uncritically, but have never really made it our own. So long as we are not challenged, we go on happily without thinking much about it, in just the same way that we go on accepting the conventional ideas of the social group to which we belong . . . we conform to the hearsay standards of 'everyone else.'"4
The twentieth century has produced more challenges for the average man than any other, mainly due to mass communication. World war, scientific achievement, education, automation—these have all pressed one challenge after another upon his mind, and his second-hand faith crumbled hopelessly as his thoughts were reduced to chaos. This relates to one of the reasons why the faith of Jehovah's witnesses has generally proved so strong. They have sought out the challenge on the doorsteps in their neighborhood and, on the sure foundation of God's Word, have built a personal faith that means something to them, not one that is "second-hand." As the secretary of the Christian Literature Crusade wrote in their magazine Floodtide: "I was challenged—challenged by their dedication to Jehovah. Their determination is no flabby effort, but rings with purpose."
The dean of York is of the opinion that the number of genuine Christian believers in the West is no smaller now than it was a century ago. So, according to him, the Victorians were not any more Christian for all their outward religious observance; and if Britain is not a Christian country today it was not so a hundred years ago either. But this only makes clearer the need in the present situation. C. O. Rhodes, for many years editor of the Church of England Newspaper, remarks: "From one survey after another we learn that the majority of our countrymen are conscious of spiritual need, retain a vestigial belief in God and Christ, but are bored to death by the Church." Many people want to fill their minds with something worth while, but they do not know where to turn to get the satisfying answers that would enable them to build a true faith.
Can Real Faith Be Found in Church?
Prominent Methodist minister Dr. Leslie Weatherhead does not seem to think real faith can be found in many churches. He laments the loss of those people who cannot go to church without making mental reservations about what is said, and who come to feel intellectually dishonest as a result. "The thoughtful layman," he says, "often feels, however, that the churches are far more concerned to defend a hoary tradition than to follow the moving light of new insights and understanding; far more concerned to defend historic language than to discover truth."
So much has been added to Christianity, and these accretions have become substitutes for it. He adds: "Many wonder how the elaborate ritual and ceremony of some services can possibly have developed from the teaching of a young man in a boat on the Sea of Galilee who talked so simply." He condemns "dull church services, using archaic, ambiguous and meaningless words, sometimes accompanied by incomprehensible ritual," and of the hymns he states: "It would take many pages to quote all the absurdities, the unreality and the hypocrisy which they express."a
These are just some of the reasons why people have left the churches, often giving up their search in hopelessness.
Does the type of place in which people worship bring them nearer to true Christianity? A venerable ancient building? or a bright modern one? The year 1966 saw the 900th anniversary of the founding of Westminster Abbey, and much celebration attracted interest and publicity. But, preaching there last summer, minister Eric James said, "Shrine-centred worship can be—indeed, is—a curse." He warned that the more ancient the shrine the worse it could be because it would cause people to miss the heart of the gospel.
Does this mean that the modern building is what is needed? The new Roman Catholic Cathedral in Liverpool has been described as "the most exciting building to be erected in Britain for 25 years." Its modern design produced names like the Wigwam, the Space Capsule, and the Rocket. Yet the New Christian (May 18, 1967) described it as being already obsolete, and voiced the hope that it would be
the last cathedral Britain would build. "The real difficulty is that the Church has not yet worked out what it needs cathedrals for, or indeed whether it needs cathedrals at all," was its conclusion. It is generally felt that the building itself is not too important—it is finding a satisfying practical faith that counts.
The Roman Catholic Church
As it is estimated that 53 percent of all Roman Catholics in England are classed as practicing Catholics, it has seemed to some that this is a worthwhile belief. But such apparent prosperity may hide serious problems that have become important issues in the last few years to many Roman Catholics in Britain. Some of these were highlighted when prominent Roman Catholic theologian Charles Davis left the church last December. He gave as his reasons for leaving that "the official Church is racked by fear, insecurity and anxiety, with a consequent intolerance and lack of love," and that "there is concern for authority at the expense of truth."
Prominent priest Herbert McCabe supported Davis in a blistering article penned for the Catholic magazine New Blackfriars (February 1967). He asserted that "the Church is quite plainly corrupt" and gave examples of this, commenting: "We have lived with this truth so long that we have perhaps forgotten how scandalous and horrible it is." This was too much for some persons, and he was speedily removed from his post as editor of the magazine.
Yet interestingly enough, only a year before, an article appeared in the same magazine by Oxford University Lecturer Michael Dummett, entitled "How Corrupt Is the Church?" His conclusion was that "we are now in the painful process of emerging from a time when the Church has been about as corrupt as she can be; but that we have not yet, for the most part, recognised the extent of this corruption, and that, unless we do, we shall not shake it off."
In trying to find the reason for this, Dummett put his finger on an important point: "While many inside the Church are living, or trying to live, Christian lives as individuals, the Church, as a body, has not been leading a Christian life at all . . . The Church at present is merely a religious association . . . we do not know one another, we do not care for one another, and we have nothing in common with one another save our acceptance of certain religious tenets." How this contrasts with what Jesus Christ said would mark his followers: "By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves"!—John 13:35.
God's Law Ignored
When it comes to morals, does Britain uphold Christian standards and help its people to live by them? Bishop Wand recently lamented: "At the present moment moral values are at a discount." A report published last year by a church commission, and which was called "Putting Asunder; A Divorce Law for Contemporary Society," recommended granting divorce on presenting proof to the court that the marriage had broken down. A storm of protest greeted it. A Church Times editorial (July 29, 1966) said: "Is it expedient for a Christian group to give advice to the State which, to say the least, contradicts the Church's whole view of marriage as a Christian institution? . . . Is not God's law of marriage of universal application, however disobedient to that law a particular society may for the time being show itself?"
Close on the heels of this report came a second one, entitled "Sex and Morality," for presentation to the British Council of Churches. Condemnation was even stronger this time. The bishop of Peterborough, Cyril Eastaugh, felt that to commend it for study would be useless because it contained no clear statement as to what was the churches' belief concerning sexual morality and why it was held. Dr. Bloomer, bishop of Carlisle, quipped: "It may be of interest in heaven but of little value on earth to those who are striving to manage the strong passions and basic impulses of life." A Church Times editorial (October 21, 1966) called it "a disastrous document." It went on, "It prefers to take the shifting moods and opinions of men as a guide . . . it has no time at all for that fundamental Christian concept, the revealed law of God . . . It seeks to justify what the law of God and the Son of God have explicitly condemned."
Along the same lines the bishop of Willesden commented: "There is an extraordinary reluctance to accept that the New Testament regards adultery and fornication as sinful."
It was expected that the Council of Churches would reject the report, and it was even suggested that, if it did not, the Church of England should withdraw from the Council. However, the move to repudiate the report was defeated, although the principle that sex relations should be confined to the marriage state was reaffirmed. For this compromise the Council was called "muddle-headed" and "so lacking in courage as to shrink from judging a mischievous document by the clear criterion of the law of God."
The Verdict
Is Britain a Christian country? Giving the short answer in the Daily Mail (March 26, 1964), Monica Furlong said, "No, it never has been." Reflect on some of the reasons that bear this answer out. Thousands have only a second-hand faith, and for many more even this has collapsed entirely. The scoffing spirit of the age has led to widespread rejection and ignorance of the Bible.
Churchgoing does not make people Christians, because the church itself is often corrupt, frequently irrelevant and archaic, its great cathedrals a hollow symbol. The Victorians hid behind a traditional façade, but now even the pretence no longer matters; moral standards are abandoned and God's law is ignored. No wonder Canon Hopkins, rector of Cheltenham, writing in the parish magazine The Window said: "We are an apostate nation for whom Christ would weep as he did over Jerusalem. We are an apostate nation with a national church in great need of reform, and in greater need of spiritual renewal."
…