Awake!, March 8, 1972

Download: PDF — Awake!, March 8, 1972

Awake! — March 8, 1972

Source: jw.org

Contents

Be Wise—Live Within Your Means

Where Is the United Nations Heading?

I Was an African “Country Doctor”

The Building Blocks of Creation

A Look at Martin Luther

The Offbeat Music of Peru

“We Thought It Was the Police”

The Bolekaja—West African Mammy Wagon

Tropical Forest Life

Can Apparent Numerical Discrepancies Be Resolved?

Watching the World

Uplifting Music and Songs

Would You Like Your Family to Live On a Paradise Earth?

Be Wise—Live Within Your Means

Be Wise​—Live Within Your Means

THEY are a young happily married couple, as yet without children and living in one of the nicer sections of New York city. They bought a house, as they thought that paying off a mortgage made more sense than paying rent. Obviously they needed furniture, and they also obtained an auto, both of which were purchased on the installment plan. And then they let themselves be coaxed into buying a large stereophonic set with record player, radio and color TV. Although both of them were working and the husband was holding down two jobs, they were unable to keep up their payments.

They turned to a good friend for counsel and were shown how they could retrench so as to live within their means. This they readily resolved to do. And not just because of their financial problems but also because as Christians they found themselves too busy and too tired to take care of their Christian obligations.

More and more families are overburdening themselves as this couple did. Thus in the United States in the past ten years personal bankruptcies have just about doubled, from 97,750 to nearly 183,000 a year. While a few of these cases doubtless were due to “time and unforeseen occurrence” (such as illness, accident or unemployment), by far the greater number, we are told, were due to “binges of buying on credit.” (Eccl. 9:11) As one bankruptcy referee put it: “The growth in the use of consumer credit is behind it all. Merchants and lenders have been pushing credit on people, competing strongly for the credit business.” U.S. News & World Report, July 19, 1971.

Causing people to buy beyond their means are such slogans as “Fly now​—pay later.” But a better slogan is, “Save now​—fly later.” Yes, this is good advice. Buying for cash is the most economical way to purchase things, as then you do not have to pay high interest rates, which often are as high as 18 percent a year.

What causes families to fall victim to high-pressure salesmen? One factor often is the desire to “keep up with the Joneses.” If a man’s neighbors buy a new auto or an outdoor swimming pool, then must he also acquire these things? He may think so. But such a course can be folly, if perhaps his neighbors can afford these things but he cannot. Then again, just because his neighbors make the mistake of living beyond their means is no reason for him to do so, is it?

The problem may be status symbols. Many a family has burdened itself with heavy installment payments because of having bought a fine auto simply because it gave them status in the community. But if one cannot afford it, is not the status symbol a false front? Or it might be a color TV set. Thus it is reported that a teacher at a private school once heard a youngster say to another, “I can’t play with you because your folks don’t have a color TV!” Imagine it! But where did this child get such a notion? Doubtless from his parents.

Of course, there is also the hedonistic or pleasure principle to consider. No question about there being pleasure in owning fine things, the pride of possession apart from what others may think. There is also a great deal of enjoyment in eating fine food, which pleasure causes not a few to live beyond their means.

All these causes and others that might be cited call to mind the words of wise King Solomon: “Everything [is] vanity and a striving after wind.” (Eccl. 1:14) Vanity? Yes, because the added pleasures do not compensate for the added concerns, cares, worries, anxieties. Jesus said, “Never be anxious about the next day,” but he who keeps living beyond his means has good reason to be anxious about the next day!​—Matt. 6:34.

So learn to be objective, to be governed by reason, not by mere inclination, feeling or sentiment. Learn to distinguish between the things you really need and the luxuries you may want but can do without. Do not get started to feel and coddle the desire for luxury, for in just a short time luxuries have a way of mentally becoming “necessities.” It all goes back to inherited human weakness, our inclinations from youth up being toward selfishness and needing to be redirected.​—Gen. 8:21.

In this matter as in every other problem of living the Bible offers good counsel. It warns that a materialistic pursuit is the root of all sorts of injurious things. It also counsels contentment, saying, “We have brought nothing into the world, and neither can we carry anything out. So, having sustenance and covering, we shall be content with these things.” (1 Tim. 6:7, 8) The apostle Paul not only preached contentment to his friend Timothy, but also practiced it. He set a fine example, being able to write: “I have learned, in whatever circumstances I am, to be self-sufficient. I know indeed how to be low on provisions, I know indeed how to have an abundance.”​—Phil. 4:11, 12.

Why was the apostle Paul able to be self-sufficient, content whether he had little or much? Because he had something in his life that was more important than material things, more important than fine food, fine clothing or other fine material possessions. What was that? He had godly devotion or godliness, concerning which he also wrote his friend Timothy: “There is great gain in godliness with contentment.” (1 Tim. 6:6, Revised Standard Version) Yes, spiritual treasures are a great aid to being self-sufficient and contented with modest things, needed things.

Man was not meant to live on bread alone or for material things alone. (Matt. 4:4) He needs spiritual food, spiritual possessions. So take time to cultivate and to acquire these. Heed Jesus’ words, “Keep on, then, seeking first [God’s] kingdom and his righteousness.” That means take time for reading and studying God’s Word; take time for talking with God in prayer; take time to associate with others who likewise are interested in spiritual things. Get a balanced view of things and you will not be tempted to live beyond your means.​—Matt. 6:33.

Where Is the United Nations Heading?

Where Is the United Nations Heading?

EACH year on October 24 the United Nations celebrates its anniversary. At that time a special concert is performed in its General Assembly hall. One particular piece of music occasionally used is the powerful choral section of Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony. Evidently, the words of this music about the brotherhood of man are felt to be in keeping with the spirit and purpose of the United Nations.

Yet today, after twenty-six years of U.N. existence, do we see the words “All men shall be brothers,” which have been sung so movingly, practiced by the member nations? Has that very General Assembly hall where this noble expression was sung been the scene of much unity during the many meetings of the United Nations?

On the contrary, in recent years the world has witnessed some very stormy sessions in the imposing U.N. buildings in midtown Manhattan. This has caused a growing number of thinking people to entertain serious doubts about the future of the U.N. They have become disillusioned with it. Perhaps you are one of these persons.

On the other hand, there are some who feel that the problems besetting the U.N. could be overcome if changes were made in it. What do you think?

Will Changes Help?

Cyrus R. Vance, former United States ambassador at the Paris peace talks, said recently: “We are definitely entering into a new phase in the history of the United Nations. This is an absolutely critical time to try to make of the organization what it must be if this is going to be the kind of world it should be.”

Are changes in the U.N. the answer? Consider the one that was made during the Korean War in the early 1950’s. At that time a resolution was passed that made a two-thirds vote in the General Assembly enough to override a veto by one of the members of the influential Security Council. It was believed that this modification in procedure would curtail any attempt by a Security Council member to hinder the peacemaking efforts of the United Nations.

Actually, this change was not drastic enough, as subsequent history has proved. In a crisis it was found that a two-thirds vote usually could not be mustered to overrule a veto. The influence of a larger nation in the Security Council has a great effect on how members of the General Assembly vote.

Efforts to resolve the recent India-Pakistani crisis were hampered by the veto in the Security Council. This caused the Pakistani Foreign Minister to cry out during a session of this council: “We have been frustrated by the veto. Let’s build a monument for the veto. Let’s build a monument for impotence and incapacity.”

Well, is there any hope that real changes will be made to improve the U.N.? What does the past record show? In 1966 an editorial in the Washington, D.C., publication Human Events warned that “only drastic reform will save [the United Nations] from the fate of the League of Nations [which failed in 1939].” In 1970 that call was still going out, for the New York Times published an article entitled “A Call for U.N. Reform.” It asked for a consideration of “how [the United Nations] can best be dismantled and reconstituted.”

Additionally, the comments made by this same newspaper at the close of the U.N.’s twenty-sixth session last December are not very hopeful. “There was no one at the end of the session who could honestly say that a promising new start had been made. . . . There was a strong feeling that the United Nations would go on, as it has in the past, busily attending to secondary issues but paralyzed or ignored by the big powers when big questions are involved.”

Why are more significant changes not being made? J. Russell Wiggins, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, answers: “Efforts to change the system would create ever bigger problems.” Obviously the United Nations is not improving. Instead, to many it appears to be headed for disintegration.

What About Its Achievements?

In the field of specialized services the United Nations has made some notable contributions. Education, health, aid to the poor, development of agriculture and industry are among these.

But these accomplishments, when compared to the magnitude of the world’s problems, pale into insignificance. Poverty, disease and hunger may have been attacked, but they are far from being vanquished. In 1965, the Saturday Review magazine bemoaned the fact that the U.N. “is having trouble bridging the moat that separates the ‘have’ from the ‘have-not’ nations. Sadly, the moat grows wider every day.” And if you review last year’s press reports about famine, poverty and disease riddling India, Pakistan and certain African nations, you could say that that moat still is not being bridged.

There are those who claim that a great achievement of the U.N. is that it has prevented a major war from breaking out. This is because the U.N. provides a place for men to talk things over. And, as Winston Churchill once said, “Jaw-jaw is better than war-war.” While this might sound reasonable, former Secretary-General U Thant once warned that the United Nations was headed toward becoming “merely a debating forum, and nothing else.”

A realistic view of the world’s history of the past twenty-six years of U.N. existence shows that all too often there were times when war was felt to be better and more effective than debate. Member nations in different parts of the world marched off to the battlefield rather than to the conference table. In fact, since 1945, the year the United Nations was born, it is estimated that some fifty-five wars have been fought, including the third largest in United States history.

Also sobering is the fact that since then, according to one source, over three hundred revolutions, uprisings, coups, rebellions and insurrections have taken place world wide. Much more is needed than just discussion.

How Effective Are Its Sessions?

Mitchell Sharp, Canada’s Secretary of State for external affairs, complained about the tremendous amount of speech-making that goes on in the U.N. He said that the organization was drowning in a sea of words.

A former prime minister of Canada, Lester Pearson, agreed, and added that the United Nations is “suffocating in its own documents.” Does this sound as if its sessions are effective?

How all this can hamper efforts to resolve a crisis was demonstrated at the sessions held to consider the India-Pakistani war. Pakistani delegate Zulfikar Ali Bhutto said: “The Security Council, I am afraid, has excelled in the art of filibustering. With some cynicism I watched yesterday a full hour wasted on whether the members would be ready to meet at 9:30 A.M. or bed and breakfast required that they should meet at 11 A.M.” During this time hundreds of persons were dying in war.

A little over a week before this, a sharp dispute broke out that caused a meeting of the U.N. to be adjourned. A delegate shouted and shook his fist menacingly at the Undersecretary-General, demanding the right to speak before another delegate who was to give a report. They had to be separated before blows were struck. Certainly, incidents like this do not generate respect and confidence in this world body.

Financial Woes

The United Nations’ 1971 budget was about 950 million dollars. But it was unable to meet it. According to one report, the world body is 189 million dollars in debt. Now with Nationalist China expelled, the situation has not improved, for its debt of thirty million dollars is unlikely to be paid by the incoming Chinese Communists. Furthermore, the number of nonpayers and slow payers is increasing among the 132 member nations.

Recently, there have been times when the U.N. has had to borrow from trust funds or special accounts just to meet staff salaries. Compounding the financial problems are those nations that refuse to pay for certain actions that they did not agree with. These feel no obligation to back up financially something they voted against. If these financial problems continue, the U.N. is headed for economic disaster.

Where Is It Really Heading?

The situation in which the United Nations finds itself today is bleak. There is little hope for its betterment. As one writer observed, “So long as the U.N. is composed of men with the limitations inherent in the human mind, it will talk peace and prepare for war.”

The late Adlai Stevenson described the problem in this way: “The central question is whether the wonderfully diverse and gifted assembly of human beings on this earth really knows how to run a civilization.” The answer is obviously No.

Why is this so? Because Jehovah God did not create man with ability to govern his kind. He needs God to do that for him. That is why man’s attempts to do it are running into so many difficulties. And this also helps us to appreciate where the U.N. is really heading and why!

In the eyes of God, the U.N. represents this world’s defiance of him and the heavenly government he has established to rule this earth, his kingdom by Christ. The U.N. thus attempts to do what God alone can and will do, namely, bring true brotherhood, permanent peace and security to this earth. Because of its defiance of him, it is headed for destruction at his hands.​—Matt. 24:15; Rev. 17:8-11.

What will you do? Where will you place your confidence? Your decision involves your life.

I Was an African “Country Doctor”

I Was an African “Country Doctor”

AS TOLD TO “AWAKE!” CORRESPONDENT IN LIBERIA

AN AFRICAN “country doctor” is no ordinary doctor. I know because I was one of them.

Persons would come to me because they sought revenge on real or imagined enemies. I would determine the punishment and administer it by magical means. I specialized in divination and made “medicines” to protect one from “departed spirits” or those seeking to bring evil upon a person.

Years before I took up the practice of divination, I became a regular attender at one of Christendom’s churches and later went to a religious mission school. Why? Well, in my early teens my uncle took me to a church in Monrovia. He explained that those who did not go to church would go to hellfire, where first the fingertips would burn, then one arm, then the other arm, the other limbs, and finally the whole body. When finished, God would so fix it that the burning would start all over again, to be repeated to time indefinite, he said.

I was afraid of burning. So, along with so many others, I went to church. But church attendance did not change me very much. My real religion was still the worship of the “spirits” of my ancestors.

The efforts of my church to get me to stop worshiping the “spirits” failed. Why? The church did not teach that the dead were not alive to receive such worship. No, the church said otherwise. I was taught that each person possessed an immortal soul that survived the death of the body. This only strengthened my belief that my ancestors were alive and needed to be appeased. My non-Christian relatives, I reasoned, were not far from the truth after all.

I Learn How to Be a “Country Doctor”

Unfortunately I could not read the Bible for myself to see just what it said about God and his ways. Not until I was twenty years old did my guardian yield to years of pleading and send me to school. After three years, I was compelled to accompany my ailing guardian to the chief “medicine” town in my country. There I took a course in “country medicine.” This included the art of preparing and administering poisons made from the bark of trees, leaves or the gall of alligators. This knowledge was essential to the work of a “country doctor” whose patrons sought revenge on enemies.

Having heard a complaint, a “country doctor” determines if punishment is merited and to what degree. Learning how to become such a “doctor” did not bother my conscience, despite years of church attendance. I believed that God not only allowed the “country doctor” to do his work of administering revenge but also empowered him to do so.

Divining was another requirement in mastering my craft. Methods of divining included looking at the water in a pot or at a mirror. For protection against departed spirits or evil persons, I learned to concoct various “medicines.” Often such would be put in a bottle and buried in the threshold of a house, with just the top of the bottle showing.

One day all my possessions were burned up when fire gutted the village. My depression turned to astonishment when I was told that this was a sign from the spirits that I would receive more power. The next day the chief practitioner gave me a ring and confided to me: “If you put this on your finger and start rubbing it, you will be invisible to anyone standing by. Here are the laws of the ring: Don’t look at the sun when it is noon; don’t eat onion!”

The first time I tried rubbing the ring, people passed me by as if I were not there. But the second time I was greatly disappointed. My confidant explained: “It cannot work all the time, but it is a quick way of making money. I will show you how to do it.” Thereafter I would supply rings at a price to make one invisible, rings for ambitious men seeking power and position.

On one occasion, I made a ring for a clan chief, and he paid me $32, convinced that it had made him invisible and that he would be empowered as chief to time indefinite. But on an occasion when the ring did not seem to work for him, I simply told him that the spirit of the ring was temporarily visiting other parts of the earth.

Uncertainty and Confusion

When I was twenty-four years old, I decided that I wanted to return to school. My parents mocked the idea, but I was not to be put off. I enrolled at a religious mission school, and although the students, mere children, laughed at me, the teacher gave me encouragement: “Try your best. I was big like you and went to school. Now I am teaching you.”

During Bible class I was told: “It is wrong to punish anyone for his wrongdoing to you, or to harm him with country medicine.” Defending my conviction that the “country doctor” was actually God’s means for returning evil for evil, I countered: “Since God punishes people when they wrong him, then we are only following his example and punishing people when they wrong us.” But the teacher maintained: “We are not to do it. That is for God to do.” Nevertheless, I reasoned to myself that if that were true, then why did God make the “medicine” work? This was not explained.

But my uncertainty turned to confusion when I tried to reason out the Trinity teaching. In reply to my query as to how three gods could exist in one, I was told that I could not understand this mystery. Unsatisfied, I asked how it was possible for the “Father” to understand it but not the rest of us. “You will get your answer tomorrow,” was the reply. But on the next day I was simply punished and threatened with dismissal if I asked any more such questions.

I was taught in the mission school that war was not wrong, for Christians had defended themselves in the past and must continue to do so. From what I learned at this school God takes sides in fights and contests, and for that reason we were urged to pray to win in a football match. And when we did win we rejoiced, convinced that God had been on our side.

During those years I continued to sacrifice to my “medicines” by rubbing them with the blood of a victim, usually a chicken. I attended church services, yet I trusted in “medicines” and magic. Despite years of church instruction, I still thought that there was nothing like “African science” practiced by the “country doctor” for dealing with the problems of life.

At Last the Truth

In 1956 I obtained literature from one of Jehovah’s Christian witnesses at Voinjama. Therein I read that the practice of spiritism, which includes divination, magic, sorcery and binding others with a spell, is wrong according to Deuteronomy 18:10-12 and Revelation 21:8. For a further explanation I went to see this Witness. It was made clear to me that my relying on “medicines” was spiritism and condemned by the Bible. God, I learned from the Bible, was opposed to all forms of divination and magic. The next words of the Witness startled me: ‘All who continue to practice such things will not survive “the war of the great day of God the Almighty,” called Armageddon, nor will they live in the glorious new system of things!”​—Rev. 16:14, 16.

This Witness then gave me answers from the Bible to many other questions I had. I began to see for the first time that “the god of this system of things” is Satan the Devil and that even the so-called Christian churches had come under his influence. (2 Cor. 4:4) The real truth lay in the Bible. I needed to make a study of it to get free from Satan’s snares. I had really been serving the Devil and his demon angels.​—Rev. 12:7-9.

The shock of all this​—that as a “country doctor” I had been misled by the Devil—​was so great that I could scarcely think of anything else for the next two weeks. At the end of that time I had made my choice. Early one morning before daybreak, I gathered all my “medicines” and my prized magical ring. After packing them all into a bag, I dumped it into the river. No one was around, but I knew that the true God, Jehovah, was observing.​—Prov. 15:3.

As for the church systems, I was furious that I had been deceived into superstition and demonism by their false doctrine that man possessed an immortal soul. This false doctrine was the basis of my foolish fears of departed spirits. (Ezek. 18:4) And how glad I was to learn that the Bible does not teach the mysterious Trinity! From the Bible I could now see that Jehovah is one God, that Jesus Christ is truly his Son and that the holy spirit is God’s invisible active force.​—1 Cor. 8:6; Matt. 16:16, 17; Acts 1:8; 2:2-4, 16, 17.

Arrangements were made for a Witness to come to my village and study the Bible with me. This provided the accurate knowledge needed to make my dedication to Jehovah. I chose to follow the fine example of Joshua: “As for me and my household, we shall serve Jehovah.”​—Josh. 24:15.

Serving the True God for Life

When news got around that I had made a break with magic and all forms of spiritism, I was summoned to the entrance of the local secret society “bush.” Thereupon the chief “country doctor” or zo asked me: “Are you the one who has said that you have no more time for Poro and Sande [native secret societies] and you have dumped all your medicines into the water?”

“Yes,” I replied.

“Are you not afraid of all the gathering here, and to admit to us these things?”

To this I replied: “I will not allow fear of you to cause me to do what is wrong before the living God Jehovah!”

“Go and be for your Jehovah,” thundered the zo, “but you will know who we are!” This was clearly an intimation that I could expect to be poisoned by “country medicine.” Turning from them and walking straight ahead, I sought protection from Jehovah through prayer.

No calamity befell me. But later my uncle, the head of our family, officially disowned me with the words: “Any good that comes to you, don’t bring it to me, and any bad that comes to you, keep it for yourself!” Despite such opposition, I treated my relatives kindly, for I knew that serving Jehovah meant living up to the high principles found in his Word the Bible.

No longer being a “country doctor,” I found work as a cleaner of tractor parts for a very low wage. The man in charge soon observed that I would be working while others slipped away. One day the man in charge was drunk at the time a truckload of parts arrived. So I received the shipment for him, checking to be sure that all the parts were there. My coworkers ridiculed me for doing this job without pay. But the man in charge appreciated my saving him his job, and within a short time I was earning five times my original wages.

Though doing my secular work well brought satisfaction, I knew I would have even more satisfaction if I could spend more time in preaching Bible truths to others. So my wife and I agreed that after a Christian convention to be held at Gbarnga, I would enter the full-time preaching work. I left my job and brought all my possessions and savings with my wife and young son to the assembly. Unexpectedly soldiers disrupted the assembly and tested our faith on the matter of rendering a religious salute to a secular standard. For three days and three nights we were not given any food and water, as we were confined in an open field. After our release we found that every possession we owned had been stolen. But a number of my Christian brothers gave me some money, so I could return to my home. The first night at home I hunted and killed two deer and a porcupine. For the rest of the year I supported my family in this way.

Finally in 1964 I realized my heart’s desire to serve Jehovah as fully as possible. At that time I became a full-time proclaimer of God’s kingdom. Jehovah has wonderfully provided for us, and I am continuing in my chosen service even though my children now number six.

During the years I have had the joy of seeing my niece and one of my uncles accept the Bible truth, and other family members are now interested. An opportunity came to demonstrate Christian love when my oldest brother became sick and was taken to our town for treatment. He did not come to stay in my house because he had strongly opposed my serving Jehovah. Yet I went to him and brought him to my home, gave him food and treated him as well as I could. After a time others of the family came, saying: “Your way of serving God is very nice. We never knew it would be like that. You did not turn against us, but you have shown us consideration and respect in return for contempt.”

How different the ways of true Christianity from the ways of the African “country doctor”! Instead of returning evil for evil, I do as the Bible says: “Keep conquering the evil with the good.” (Rom. 12:17-21) How happy I am that I abandoned African “country medicine” and Christendom’s false religion and have come out of darkness into the glorious light to serve Jehovah!

The Building Blocks of Creation

The Building Blocks of Creation

LOOK around you on this earth. What can you see? No one can fail to be moved by the sublime beauty of the hills and mountains, by the fascinating colors and shapes of the plants and trees and by the delightful abilities of the animals, birds and insects. The very complexity of creation just staggers the imagination.

Do you ever wonder from what all this profusion of beautiful and awe-inspiring things comes? What are the building blocks of creation? How are these building blocks assembled to produce the innumerable material things all around us? When we look at the multitude of marvelous creations, we see a seemingly solid world. Would it surprise you to know that all this is constructed from basic building blocks that are themselves 99.9 percent nothingness or emptiness?

For thousands of years man has tried to unravel the secret of what exactly it is that constitutes matter. The dictionary defines matter as “that out of which anything is made.” But from what is it made? It has only been in this century, indeed only in the last thirty or forty years, that scientists have really begun to understand the fundamental nature of material things. Now researchers tell us that all material things, whether they be the rocks, plants, animals, rivers or anything else that we can become acquainted with by using our bodily senses, are built up from building blocks that are themselves made from three basic particles.

These three basic particles, depending on the number of each present in the building block, determine the nature and properties of each block or “atom” that they form.a

First, though, let us get our definitions straight. By “atom” we mean “the smallest particle of an element,” and an “element” has been defined as “a substance that cannot be resolved by chemical means into simpler substances.” For instance, if we could take a sample of the element we know as gold and keep on dividing it into smaller and smaller pieces, it would eventually be impossible to divide it further without its losing its original chemical identity. This smallest portion is the atom. Any further division would be a splitting of the atom into the aforementioned parts, called protons, neutrons and electrons.

The protons and the neutrons are about equal in weight, the difference in these being that, whereas the proton carries a positive charge of electricity, the neutron has no charge, hence is neutral. Relatively speaking, the protons and neutrons are huge compared to the electrons, having a mass about 2,000 times as great. The tiny electrons carry a negative charge of electricity, and since they always equal in number the protons, then the atom is a neutral body.

These three fundamental particles are built up in increasing numbers to form the atoms of the different elements, or the building blocks of creation. How many are there? For a long time it was thought that there were merely four elements; namely, air, fire, earth and water, but as knowledge increased, different elements were gradually identified. Now lists of the elements show over one hundred, some of them being man-made, artificial and unstable.

What, though, about this 99.9 percent nothingness? If we could see a single atom of any of the marvelous things around us, what would it look like? What kind of structure would it be?

Atomic Structure

All atoms have a central nucleus composed of a combination of protons and neutrons, surrounded by orbiting electrons. The only exception to this is the atom of the simplest element, hydrogen, which has only a single proton as its nucleus with one single electron in orbit around it.

Thus we get a mental picture of a sort of miniature solar system, with the electrons in comparatively large orbits around the small, compact nucleus, much as the planets move in orbit around the sun. This microscopic planetary system is different for each of the elements and is reproduced in each of the atoms of that element. What power and precision produced all that? Take, for example, an atom of the element carbon, as portrayed in the following schematic diagram:

Of course, we cannot see a single atom because an atom is so infinitesimally small. Each of these minute ‘planetary systems’ would measure a mere one hundred millionth of an inch in diameter! And the central nucleus or ‘sun’ would be only about one hundred thousandth the size of the entire atom in diameter!

Since the number of electrons in the atom can vary from one to over a hundred, depending on which element is under consideration, it is awesome, is it not, to consider the wonderfully intricate arrangement within the incredibly small space of each atom?

It is fascinating to realize that all the material things, all the seemingly solid things, from the green grass to the cow’s tail to the mountains, are made up of millions upon millions of these tiny atoms, each of which is itself predominantly emptiness and space between the central nucleus and the orbiting electrons. Yes, an atom is mostly empty space. Thus the Life Science Library volume Matter says: “If each atom were collapsed into a sphere no bigger than its own core, or nucleus, then all the bulk of the Washington Monument [555 feet high] could be crammed into a space smaller than the eraser on a pencil.”

The electrons in each atom orbit in what are referred to as “electron shells,” each “shell” being a set distance from the nucleus. As the atoms get progressively more complex by the addition of more of the basic particles, the additional electrons orbit in these “shells.”

For instance, the illustration of the carbon atom depicts it with two electrons in its inner shell and four in its next shell. An aluminum atom would have two electrons in its first shell, eight in its next shell and three in its outermost shell. In other words there is not an unruly mass of electrons without any fixed pattern but rather a very orderly arrangement in all this.

Since we are interested in how these building blocks are assembled to produce all the wonderful things that delight us so much, then we are particularly interested in these minute particles, the electrons. How so? Because it is the arrangement of these electrons in their orbits that determines the combining abilities of each atom. This combining ability is called “valence” or “valency.”

Combining by Borrowing Electrons

As research into the atom progressed, it was found that any element with a complete number of electrons (usually eight) in its valence ring (borrowing-and-lending shell) was extremely stable; that is, it did not readily combine with other atoms. These stable or inert elements are known as the rare gases​—helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and radon.

Gradually a picture of the electron shells of all the elements was built up. It was found that atoms tended to try to make up a stable outer electron shell. The valence theory explains this by showing how the atoms do this either by borrowing and lending electrons, or by sharing electrons with other atoms. An element that has seven electrons in its outer shell, such as chlorine, will borrow an electron from an element that has one electron in its outer shell, like sodium, for instance. Look at the following diagram to see how this would happen:

Sodium, a soft, silver-white metal, which was discovered in 1807, is a very active element that reacts violently with water. It has a total of eleven electrons, the shells having two, eight and one electrons respectively. Chlorine, discovered in 1774, is a greenish-yellow gas. It has been used as a bleach, a disinfectant and also as a poison gas. The chlorine atom has seventeen electrons, its shells containing two, eight and seven respectively. Showing only the outermost electron shell, the diagram depicts how these building blocks combine and what results from this combination.

The chlorine atom borrows an electron from the sodium atom, becoming negatively charged in the process by the addition of this extra electron, while, vice versa, the sodium atom becomes positively charged. These charged atoms, now called “ions,” are attracted to each other because of their opposite charges, and they cling together to form the compound known as sodium chloride, or common salt.

From two seemingly unlikely building blocks with their own distinctive properties we get the common salt so vital for life. This rearrangement with regard to only one electron builds a completely new substance! A combination like this is called an electrovalent bond.

Combining by Sharing Electrons

Another kind of combination is called a covalent bond. In this kind of bond the various atoms share electrons to form the required stable outer electron shells. An example of this is when two carbon atoms, six hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom combine to form a molecule of ethyl alcohol, the intoxicating ingredient of many beverages. The covalent bonds of each pair of shared electrons are shown in the structural formula by a dash in the following diagram:

By thus sharing pairs of electrons the carbon atoms and the oxygen atom acquire a stable outer shell of eight electrons, while the hydrogen atoms acquire outer electron shells with two electrons.

More Complex Interaction

Of course, the interaction and attraction between the different atoms become very much more complicated as the far more complex molecules that go to make up the organic compounds, those having carbon in their molecules, are formed. An example of one of these organic substances serves to illustrate this. Here is a diagram showing the structural formula of a molecule of that amazing substance called chlorophyll:

Just think of it: Here are 72 atoms of hydrogen, 55 atoms of carbon, 5 atoms of oxygen, 4 atoms of nitrogen and 1 atom of magnesium, some of them already combined into prefabricated units, as it were, built up into one molecule of chlorophyll, one of the most important pigments in vegetation. This is the substance that accounts for the greenness in the countryside and that gives the plants the wonderful ability to convert the radiant energy of the sun into chemical energy for the plants to use.

Can you imagine the incredible interaction among the electrons as they whirl in their orbits to link the various atoms so as to make up even one molecule of chlorophyll? When one considers that it would take millions upon millions of such molecules to cover the period at the end of this sentence, one’s admiration for the Designer of such an arrangement can only grow and deepen.

Scientists have only begun to unravel the facts with regard to how and why the different building blocks combine, but they do know that there are fixed and orderly laws that govern these combinations. They stand in awe at the inconceivably intricate way in which the tremendously complex living cells of all forms of life build up these already complicated substances into the abundance of living things on the earth.

This buildup from imperceptibly small atoms to all the magnificent handiwork of creation is set out in the following diagram:

Look around you, and reflect on the wisdom and intelligence that has masterminded the production of all the material things we know, from the tiniest seed to the limitless universe​—and all from building blocks that are themselves 99.9 percent nothing.

[Footnotes]

Scientists have actually identified more than thirty atomic particles, but the ones mentioned above are the ones that determine the nature and properties of the element they form.

[Diagram on page 13]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Carbon atom has a nucleus with 6 protons and 6 neutrons, and has 6 electrons, two in the inner shell and four in the outer

[Diagram on page 14]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Combining of Sodium and Chlorine Atoms

Sodium Chlorine + −

Atoms (showing only Ions​—forming

outer electron shells) sodium chloride

[Diagram on page 14]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Molecule of Ethyl Alcohol

C: carbon atom

H: hydrogen atom

O: oxygen atom

[Diagram on page 15]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Molecule of Chlorophyll” “a.”

H: hydrogen atom (72)

C: carbon atom (55)

O: oxygen atom (5)

N: nitrogen atom (4)

Mg: magnesium atom (1)

[Diagram on page 15]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Three Basic Particles

protons

neutrons

electrons

Atoms Compounds All Matter

over 100 elements inorganic and organic living and nonliving

A Look at Martin Luther

A Look at Martin Luther

FOR the past five years or more, talks have been in progress between Lutheran and Catholic theologians. The ultimate aim apparently is to bring Lutherans back into the Catholic church. Although some individual Lutherans may not relish this thought, others do.

In fact, even Luther would probably look upon such efforts with an approving eye, despite his polemics against the pope. He was a devout monk who had no desire to break with the Catholic church. Instead he wanted to see it institute reforms that would correct practices he sincerely believed to be unchristian.

According to Dr. Carl Braaten of Chicago’s Lutheran School of Theology, a reunion with the Catholic church would be in accord with Luther’s wishes. “The Reformation,” he said, “was always meant to be a temporary movement.”

Their Founder

When he began to challenge certain practices of the Catholic church, Martin Luther had no intention of founding the Lutheran church. However, it was a natural development when his break with Rome became irreconcilable and when he concluded that the church should be reformed wherever possible in Germany despite pope and emperor.

The name “Lutheran” was first applied to Luther’s followers by his enemies. Although it was meant as a derogatory term, they adopted it.

What led to Luther’s break with the Catholic church was the practice of selling letters of indulgence. It was the claim of the church that indulgences issued by the pope could shorten the stay of a person, or of a relative, in purgatory. Some even granted forgiveness of sins. Selling such indulgences was one of the avenues used by the church in Luther’s day to obtain money.

Since Pope Leo X was hard pressed for funds needed to complete St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome, he entered into an agreement with Archbishop Albert of Brandenburg, Germany, that would help with the project. He accepted from Albert the sum of 10,000 ducats in return for the archbishopric of Mainz. That Albert might pay back the sum to the financial house of Fugger, from whom he borrowed it, the pope granted him the privilege of dispensing an indulgence in his territories for a period of eight years. Half of the money received would go to the pope and the other half to the house of Fugger as repayment on the loan.

The Dominican monk Tetzel was entrusted with the sale of these indulgences. He and his fellow vendors made extravagant claims in their sales pitch. Among other things they would say: “As soon as the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs.”

Luther was infuriated by such claims. He contended that the granting of indulgences without repentance was contrary to Christian doctrine. He argued: “Indulgences are most pernicious because they introduce complacency and thereby imperil salvation.” In one of his sermons in 1516 C.E. he said: “To assert that the pope can deliver souls from purgatory is audacious. If he can do so, then he is cruel not to release them all.”

On October 31, 1517, Luther nailed ninety-five theses regarding indulgences on the church door at Wittenberg, Germany. This was the practice in his day for publishing a challenge for a debate. No one accepted his challenge and no discussion of the subject with church officials ever occurred.

Thesis number five said: “The Pope has neither the will nor the power to remit any penalties, except those which he has imposed by his own authority, or by that of the canons.” Thesis number twenty-one stated: “Thus those preachers of indulgences are in error who say that, by the indulgences of the Pope, a man is loosed and saved from all punishment.”

By thus challenging the church’s practice of selling indulgences, Luther unwittingly launched himself on the road to separation from the Catholic church and struck the spark that ignited the Reformation. His theses were translated from Latin to German and printed by some of those who read them. They became a common topic of conversation throughout Germany.

Emphasis on Scriptures

The more carefully Luther studied the Scriptures the more he found things in them that were in conflict with the Catholic church. The Scriptural statement, for example, that a man is declared righteous or justified by faith made a deep impression on him. (Rom. 3:28) He could not reconcile it with the teaching of the church that a person can gain religious merit by venerating certain relics.

In his famous debate with the Catholic theologian Johann Eck, Luther stressed his respect for the Scriptures as a guiding authority by saying: “A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it.”

When he discovered that no mention of purgatory occurs in the Scriptures, he ceased to maintain that doctrine. But he did retain the unscriptural doctrine of hell as being a place of eternal torment for immortal souls. Instead of teaching that the human soul is immortal, the Bible plainly states that it dies (Ezek. 18:4), and instead of saying that the wages sin pays is eternal torment in hell, it says that the “wages sin pays is death.”​—Rom. 6:23.

The Hebrew and Greek words, sheol and hades, that have been translated as hell in some versions of the Bible mean the common grave of mankind. For example, faithful Job says, according to the Catholic Douay Version: “Who will grant me this, that thou mayst protect me in hell, and hide me until thy wrath pass, and appoint me a time when thou wilt remember me?” (Job 14:13) Obviously, Job is speaking about being hidden, not in a place of torment, but in the grave until the resurrection. There are Bible versions that use the word “grave” here instead of “hell.” Despite this Scriptural truth, Lutherans to this day hold to the Catholic doctrine of eternal torment in hell.

When Luther appeared before Emperor Charles V and the Diet at Worms, Germany, which was an assembly of princes and representatives from the free cities, no argument was presented to prove his views unscriptural. There was actually no discussion, but only a demand that he recant. In his reply he again appealed to the Scriptures as supreme authority by saying: “Since then Your Majesty and your lordships desire a simple reply, I will answer without horns and without teeth. Unless I am convicted by Scripture and plain reason​—I do not accept the authority of popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other—​my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything, for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe.”

Excommunication

On June 16, 1520, Pope Leo X issued a bull condemning Luther. It listed forty-one propositions from Luther’s writings that were declared to be false, dangerous or heretical. If he did not recant, the secular authorities were to seize him and deliver him to the pope. He then would no doubt have been treated as was the Bohemian John Huss, who was burned alive at a stake.

But the secular authorities where Luther was located were sympathetic to him and declined to take action. Their sense of justice was outraged because Luther was condemned without having been given a hearing and an opportunity to defend himself. The bull actually caused public indignation to burst forth against the arbitrary action of the pope.

In Rome and in some other places Luther’s books were publicly burned. In reprisal the faculty and student body at Wittenberg gathered outside the Elster gate of the city and burned the papal constitutions, the canon law and works of scholastic theology. Luther added the pope’s bull of excommunication to the burning pile.

Baptism

Luther indicated a preference for baptism by immersion, because that is what is indicated by the Greek word for it. He said: “I could wish that the baptized should be totally immersed, according to the meaning of the word and the signification of the mystery.”

However, Luther also said about immersion that he did not think it is necessary. Thus he indicated that his thinking was influenced by the Catholic practice of sprinkling. This no doubt is the reason why sprinkling is an acceptable practice in Lutheran churches today.

Baptism by immersion, not sprinkling, is the Scriptural method. There is no evidence in the Scriptures that anyone who was baptized in apostolic times was sprinkled. Rather the Scriptures show that they were immersed.​—Matt. 3:13-16; Acts 8:36, 38.

Not Far Enough

While some of Luther’s views that caused his break with the Catholic church moved him into closer alignment with the Scriptures, he did not go far enough. Many practices and beliefs of the church that are without Scriptural support were carried over into the Lutheran church.

The Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, for example, is still preached in Lutheran churches. This doctrine is in direct conflict with the testimony of the Scriptures and relies upon a twisting of the Scriptures. The claim that God is a trinity of three persons who are coequal and coeternal is nowhere taught in the Bible. Rather than Jesus Christ’s being coequal with his Father, we find him speaking of his Father as being greater and as being his God. (John 14:28; Matt. 27:46; John 20:17) After he returned to heaven he is spoken of as being subject to his Father and his Father as being his head. (1 Cor. 11:3; 15:28) The plain testimony of the Scriptures is that Jesus Christ is the Son of God rather than being God, as is wrongly claimed by the Trinity doctrine.

The Trinity doctrine is only one of many things that have been carried over from the Catholic church to the Lutheran church. The Lutheran clergy have continued to wear the old Mass vestments and carry on the old ceremonial forms of worship. The altar with its candles and crucifix were retained, although such things are without Scriptural support. The use of candles and the cross in worship is actually of pagan origin, as admitted by Cardinal Newman in his book Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine.

Luther failed to perceive from the teachings of the Scriptures that Christians are to be neutral in the political affairs of the world and that they are not to participate in warfare. Jesus told his followers that they were “no part of the world.” (John 15:19) He also counseled them against the use of the sword when he said that “all those who take the sword will perish by the sword.” (Matt. 26:52) Furthermore, it is written at 2 Corinthians 10:4 that “the weapons of our warfare are not fleshly.”

Despite these and other scriptures on these points, as well as the historical record showing that the early Christians did not engage in military warfare, Luther did not disapprove of the use of the sword. He viewed a person who abstained from military service as worthy of a death sentence. When the peasants revolted, he urged the civil authorities to “stab, kill and strangle” them. Is that what Jesus Christ would have done?

Manifesting the same intolerant and violent spirit of the Catholic church, Luther and his followers approved the use of the sword against the peaceful Anabaptists because they held religious viewpoints different from theirs. Luther’s close associate, Melanchthon, argued that even the passive action of the Anabaptists in rejecting government, oaths, private property and marriage outside their faith was seditious and therefore punishable by death. Certainly the Christian Bible writers never advocated that Christians kill anyone who rejected an article of faith.

Since the days of Luther the Lutheran church has been closely allied with the political governments of the world. When these governments have become embroiled in a war, the members of this church have not hesitated to pick up the sword to kill those classed as political enemies by these powers, even when it meant killing fellow Lutherans. This was particularly evident during World War II when German Lutherans in support of the Nazis fought fellow Lutherans in other countries. How contrary this is to true Christianity and to Jesus’ statement, “By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves”! (John 13:35) History makes it clear that Christ’s followers in the first century were pursuers of peace, not wielders of the sword.​—1 Pet. 3:11.

There can be little doubt that Luther caused a severe shaking of the Catholic church. But the Lutheran church is in reality only an offshoot of the Catholic church, and resembles it in many ways. Although this offshoot instituted some reforms of Catholic teachings, it has not proved to be a restoration of the Christian organization that existed before the great apostasy that followed the death of the apostles. (Acts 20:29, 30) Thus discussions about reuniting the Lutheran church with the Catholic church need be no cause for surprise. There are natural ties between these two churches, and even Luther would doubtless approve their uniting.

The Offbeat Music of Peru

The Offbeat Music of Peru

By “Awake!” correspondent in Peru

RAFAEL entered the hallway and sank into a chair. “We’ve been recording for hours and I’ve never had a session like it,” he said. “Instead of just sitting down and playing the usual accompaniment, I spent the entire afternoon trying to teach the orchestra how to play mountain music.”

“That shouldn’t be such a task,” I said. “You are all expert guitarists, and folk music is so simple.”

“Simple, yes, but have you ever noticed the beat? It’s that beat that gets anyone who hasn’t been raised in the Peruvian mountains.”

“Well, yes, I’ve noticed that the folk music of Peru is a bit different, but​—well, just what is there about the beat?”

“After every few bars there’s a bar introduced that gets only a fraction of the normal beat. Now this simply isn’t done in music. Any musician knows that a piece of music has just so many bars and each bar a given number of beats, whether it be two, three, four or even more. But not the Peruvian mountain folk music.”

“Now, just a minute,” I said. “I know a little about music and I do know that each bar has to conform to the timing in order to have rhythm. There’s nothing more frustrating than playing or singing a piece of music when each bar is not given full value. Are you telling me that . . .?”

“That the Peruvian folk music doesn’t give all the bars equal value of beats? Yes. Here, I’ll demonstrate.” With that he hummed a tune with which I was familiar, having heard it many times in my four years of teaching in the interior. As he hummed, I noticed that at every fifth bar he stopped short at just half the number of beats. It sounded delightfully normal​—for Peruvian music.

“Don’t you remember the kind of dances they do to this music?” he asked. “Here, I’ll refresh your memory.” With that Rafael got to his feet, shuffled a few steps while humming the same tune, then stopped short, bringing both feet to a halt in quick succession on the fifth bar, starting in again immediately for the next four bars, only to stop short again on the fifth. How many times I had seen the Indians sing and dance this way! It was fascinating, and so typical. This type of dancing, together with this music​—a perfect match.

My mind raced back to the quaint little towns dotting the puna (high, cold, arid plateau) or nestling in the terraced valleys of the Andes. I recalled the scenes of little orchestras at work in the plazas with homemade harps and flutes. Bright, billowing skirts spun into focus revealing sturdy-legged dancers circling opposite their knitted-capped partners. Twirling and stomping to a stop​—twirling and stomping to a stop.

Rafael was speaking again. He was explaining that it would be difficult to put this offbeat music into writing, but that nevertheless it was uncomplicated and simple to play. All except the broken bar, that is, for this creates an incredible problem for conventional musicians. Their mental metronome, so to speak, strives to supply the missing beats and equate the rhythm and thus the peculiar offbeat savor of the folkloric music is lost.

Today’s Ancient Inca Music

Peru is divided down its long middle by the high Andes mountain range, keeping communication between the mountain population and that of the coastal strip to a minimum in the centuries before modern transportation facilities. The Inca-inspired mountain music therefore has been preserved in its nearly original state. What seemed a rather curious fact was that, whereas this folk music had failed to infiltrate to any degree into the comparatively nearby coast, it nevertheless penetrated a 2,000-mile length of mountains while undergoing only minor changes from one section to another.

These changes have developed into three regional “moods” that have come to be recognized today as characteristic music of the northern, central and southern sections of the Peruvian Andes.

To illustrate, if you were a native of the northern mountains, you would like your music gay and lively, and you would be accustomed to dance to it in fast, jumping steps or in marches. You would have grown to love the violin and the locally made harp, the quena (flutelike instrument made of cane), and the guitar strumming its accompanying rhythm.

But, contrariwise, most certainly if the South were your home, you would sway to the melancholy strains of the mandolin and the accordion, rounded out by the twang of the charango and the extra-heavy beat of the big guitarrón as they doled out their sad melodies. Dancing to these mournful ballads, you would be overcome with emotion, tears streaming down your chapped cheeks.

Or if you were raised in the Central Andes region, the land of the saxophones and the clarinets, the harps and the violins, you would delight in the lilting melodies in the popular mood. The distant thumping beat of the cajon (homemade drum) would lure you to the public plaza where you would join hands with the circle of dancers or clap rhythmic accompaniment.

The Offbeat

Although the Indians of the mountains have learned to dance to the waltz that has infiltrated from the coast, the waltz rhythm is practically unknown in the composition of this folk music. The popular two or four beats to the bar is generally phrased into groups of several bars in succession followed by an offbeat bar.

Where the broken bar is interjected varies according to the piece and sometimes varies even within one piece of music. One might, for example, have a piece with the first two bars of four beats each and followed by a bar with just one beat, succeeded immediately by the two bars of four, and then the one beat. This would be repeated throughout the whole piece with scant variation of tune. However, what may be lacking in color and creativity is compensated for by their boundless enthusiasm as they stomp, clap and shout hour after hour to more of the same.

Emotional Outlet

These Indian folk are outwardly unemotional but their music is capable of deep expression and sentiment. One example of this is the slow and melancholy ballads sung at social gatherings to a music called El Triste (the sad one). This is a music for expressing laments and sentimental serenades, and it is the only music where the singer is featured. The soloist, singing in either Spanish or Quechua, is accompanied by a single guitar fingering only the melody. He sings these melancholy tunes with exaggerated sadness, provoking tears of deep emotion in the eyes of all the listeners. It is not uncommon to see little bands of guests grouped around crying freely and unashamedly, a good time being had by all.

…