Awake!, August 22, 1974

Download: PDF — Awake!, August 22, 1974

Awake! — August 22, 1974

Source: jw.org

Contents

Coping with the Rising Tide of Vandalism

Set Purposeful Goals for Yourself

Discord Shatters Concordia

The Church of Scotland and the Bible

Whatever Happened to the Moon Trips?

Nervous Breakdown—Cure or Prevention?

Energy Supplies in Abundance

Respect for the Sanctity of Life Rewarded

“Golden Fleece” from the Far North

Why Does the Heron’s Neck Tilt?

Must You Be Born Again?

Watching the World

Take Lifesaving Action Now!

In Just 24 Hours

Coping with the Rising Tide of Vandalism

Coping with the Rising Tide of Vandalism

AT A Philadelphia school youngsters smashed 170 windows, cut telephone lines and spattered paint over classrooms. The damage cost $10,000 to repair and forced the school to close for a day.

Students at a St. Louis elementary school went on a rampage, throwing more than a hundred desks through windows and pushing a piano down a flight of stairs.

In Toronto, Canada, a police officer said regarding the frenzied destruction upon a school there: “It was like the set of a bombed-out building, straight out of a war movie.”

It would be bad enough if these were rare incidents. But they are not. According to a special report developed by the staff of Education U.S.A., school vandalism has gained “the magnitude of a national dilemma.”

Not Just Schools

Vandals also deface and destroy businesses, homes, libraries, museums, churches, banks, parks, playgrounds, cemeteries, public telephones, cars, buses, subways, trains​—practically every kind of private and public property.

Much of the destruction is done by roaming bands of youths. The San Francisco Examiner calls them “mousepacks.” They bash in windows, snap antennas off parked cars, ransack playgrounds, start fires, spray paint and create havoc in about every way imaginable.

“We are under constant attack,” said a representative of the Philadelphia Suburban Transportation Company. “It doesn’t make any difference whether the kids are seven or 17​—they urinate in the stations, decorate them with swastikas and four-letter words, tamper with the signals and break the glass. When we installed shatter-proof mercury vapor lights on high poles, they shot them out.”

In New York city practically all the 7,000 subway cars have paint or graffiti smeared on them, and many windows are broken. Acts of vandalism resulted in more than 560 injuries on the city’s subways and buses in a recent year, mostly from broken glass. Objects thrown at or dropped on automobiles kill about a hundred persons annually in the United States.

But youths are not the only vandals. In 1971 the new John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts was opened to the public. In three months souvenir-hunting vandals had taken virtually everything “reachable and detachable,” Senator Charles Percy lamented. Carpets had been cut up, chandeliers ruined, paintings and potted plants removed, restroom faucets pried off, and so forth. Beautiful national parks, too, are vandalized by young and old alike.

A Staggering Cost

The total bill for vandalism is gigantic. In one year alone 243,652 windows were broken in New York City schools! National losses to U.S. schools are estimated to be $200 million annually owing to window breakage, theft and arson. But other authorities say that this is a “grossly understated” figure, since there are other losses.

For example, in 1969 the loss from vandalism in New York City schools was reported to be $2,266,025. But Hugh McLaren, Jr., executive director of New York City’s Office of School buildings, noted that this did not include the expense of repairing defaced walls and desks, broken furniture and fixtures. He said that, if such expenses were included, “the total would be three times the amount quoted in the report.”

But there is another major expense: Maintaining a school security force. In 1971 New York City schools more than doubled the size of their security force at an expense of $1 million. Los Angeles schools, too, spend over $1 million a year for security agents. In New York schools police officers sometimes register as students and attend classes.

Whatever is the cost of school vandalism​—some say it is “close to half a billion dollars annually”—​the bill cannot be calculated simply in dollars and cents. The fear and tension created by the destruction, or threat of destruction, interferes with education and can even contribute to illnesses. All this cost to schools is only part of the total bill of vandalism.

Repair of vandalized cars, private homes, businesses, churches and other establishments also runs into the many millions of dollars. Removal of graffiti alone is a major expense. The cost just to the New York subway system is about half a million dollars a year. Philadelphia estimates that it spends $4 million annually to cope with the problem. The Christian Century observed editorially: “The removal of graffiti and slogans from walls and rocks is now a futile billion-dollar-a-year enterprise in America alone.”

Why does this tide of vandalism seem to be rising each year?

What Is Behind It?

Many explanations have been given. “All crime is up, everywhere, and this is just a part of it,” said a Chicago transit authority official.

“Vandalism and Violence,” a special report developed by the staff of Education U.S.A., points to improper instruction and adult behavior as contributing factors: “The Boston Tea Party is often held up to students as a ‘patriotic act,’ a sort of punishment for the British in retaliation for an onerous tea tax. Yet what happened was pure vandalism perpetrated by grown men.”

When taken together, the various reasons given seem to indicate that vandalism is often a protest. Stanford University Professor Philip G. Zimbardo explains: “Vandalism is rebellion with a cause.” The cause, he says, is “social indifference, apathy, the loss of community, neighborhood and family values.”

It is true that practically everywhere young ones see loss of values​—lying, cheating and hypocrisy are rampant, even among world leaders. This breeds hostility in youngsters against ‘the establishment,’ and vandalism is one way they vent their feelings.

Also, parents contribute to vandalism. Judge John Forte of Concord, Massachusetts, indicates how: “You look at kids sitting by their parents, awaiting trial in our new courtroom. They’re whittling their initials on the benches while their parents look on, unconcerned. The unhappy kids have parents who care too little to notice what they’re doing, much less instruct them.”

Indifferent, uncaring parents are perhaps the main cause of vandalism. And this abdication of responsibility by parents is noted in practically every community. As a result, rich, poor, middle class, and both black and white youngsters are all deeply involved in vandalism. A study of more than 3,100 teen-agers from “every major segment of the Illinois adolescent population” revealed that nearly one in every three had engaged in property destruction!

How can this rising tide of vandalism be stemmed?

What Is Needed?

Many efforts are being made to reverse the tide. Difficult-to-break plastic is replacing glass in school windows. Hard-finish epoxy-resin paints are being used on interior walls that resist markings with felt-tip pens, lipstick and crayons. New schools are being built like fortresses, with few, if any, exterior windows. Alarms, fences, night lighting, guard dogs​—all these measures and more have been employed. Yet vandalism increases.

This does not mean the situation is hopeless. There is a solution. An editorial pointed to it when it said: “The real answer is to modify the conduct of our young.” But how?

One approach has been by legislation. Thirty-eight states have passed laws that now make parents responsible for the vandalous acts of their youngsters. Making parents pay for the damage their children cause has helped, but has by no means solved the problem. More is required.

A juvenile officer with good insight indicated this, saying: “The payment of money won’t do away with vandalism​—it just papers over this sickness with dollar bills. When parents devote sufficient time and attention to their kids because they want to​—not because they are afraid of future bills or fines—​the problem of vandalism will begin to recede.”

Actually children require more than simply the time and attention of their parents. They need parents to instruct them on why obedience to law and respect for others’ property is right. But who is to say what is right? It is not simply some humans. It is our Creator, Almighty God, and he tells us what is right in his Word, the Bible.

Parents who rear their children with love and respect for their Creator and his righteous requirements find that among their offspring the rising tide of vandalism can effectively be stemmed.

Set Purposeful Goals for Yourself

Set Purposeful Goals for Yourself

IF WE want to make progress, if we want to lead a full, useful and meaningful life, we must have goals set before us. Rather than follow the lines of least resistance, “taking it easy,” as the saying goes, being content to drift downstream, we must swim upstream, and to do that we must have goals that motivate us.

The first human pair, Adam and Eve, had some very purposeful goals. These were set for them by their Creator, Jehovah God. He commanded: “Be fruitful and become many and fill the earth and subdue it, and have in subjection . . . every living creature.” That command gave them a real purpose in living. Unfortunately they did not appreciate the privileges and opportunities that those goals represented and, losing sight of them, they forfeited life and all its blessings.​—Gen. 1:28; 3:1-19.

Of course, most of us have our daily routine. We get up, bathe, dress, eat and go off to work if we are breadwinners. Or, if we are housewives, we care for domestic duties, or, if we are students, we go to school. But do we perform such daily functions as if pushed along against our will by necessity instead of eagerly doing so in order to reach a worthwhile goal? And what do we do with our leisure time after we have taken care of these necessary things?

There simply is not enough time for everything we could or would like to do. So unless we set goals, we may find that the things of lesser importance crowd out the things of greater importance. As an old saying has it, “It is never this AND that, but this OR that.” This is a principle behind the counsel, “Never too busy to pray.”

Recently a Christian minister was surprised to learn that one of his friends was associated with a Spanish-speaking congregation and another friend with a French-speaking congregation. He had no idea that they spoke these languages, as they are Anglo-Saxons. How did they come to know these tongues? They set themselves goals of learning to speak these languages so that they could be more useful. In their city there is a crying need for ministers speaking these languages. In less than a year they had learned to speak the languages fluently, thereby greatly increasing their opportunities to help other people.

You may not have a religious motive, but making it your goal to learn another language besides your native one can be most rewarding. Learning another language increases your thinking ability, thus enriching your life. It may also come in handy in other ways, even becoming a means of earning a higher salary in one’s secular employment.

Among other purposeful goals that people have set for themselves are those of learning the touch system on a typewriter or acquiring the ability to write shorthand. By setting such a goal and working at it, these individuals utilized time that they would ordinarily have wasted, and eventually they acquired a useful skill that has proved rewarding.

Among the practical goals that quite a few might set for themselves is that of getting regular exercise, unless their days are filled with physical activity already. A regular program of exercise is beneficial for both mind and body, will enable you to enjoy better health and make you less susceptible to colds and like ills. By setting a goal of just ten minutes a day, a program of exercise, such as the “RCAF Exercise Plans for Physical Fitness,” for both men and women, can do a great deal for you.

Or are you working at a certain routine job, doing the same thing day after day, and that in the same manner and at the same pace? Such may well be boring and make you discontented. So why not set yourself a goal that will make it more interesting or more rewarding? Could you find a way of increasing your production? Or could you improve the quality of your work? Could you become more efficient at it, doing the same job with fewer movements? Setting yourself some such goal will make work more interesting, resulting in your having a better frame of mind, and may even result in material benefit to both yourself and your employer.

Are you a housewife? Among the goals that you could set for yourself would be to increase your efficiency so that you get your work done in far less time and with less effort, thus giving you more leisure time for reading or a hobby. Another goal would be to reach out for variety in the meals you prepare for your family, every so often preparing a surprise for your family. Or you may find yourself having a problem in caring for your correspondence. It is easy to neglect this because of your daily chores, your watching TV or visiting over the phone. But by setting goals for yourself as to answering letters, writing “thank you” notes, “get well” cards or sending congratulations, you can bring a lot of happiness to others and even gain more happiness for yourself.​—Acts 20:35.

Today many people pay high interest rates on personal loans they get, all because they do not make it their goal to live within their means. How much wiser for them to take time to reason on their finances, decide how much they can afford to spend for food, clothing, shelter, amusements, and so forth, then make a budget and put forth a real effort to live within it. The result would be more money to use, because interest payments would be eliminated. And how much anxiety they would spare themselves!

Dedicated Christians, as well as others, can benefit from goals that they personally set. Goals as to personal study, Bible reading, attending congregation meetings and time spent in sharing the Bible’s good message with others can help them to make good use of their time. And goals in producing the fruitage of God’s spirit​—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control—​can contribute to their spiritual growth.

But let it never be overlooked that setting a goal is only half the battle, in fact, only the first step, so to speak. There must be a following through, a persevering therein. It takes stick-to-itiveness, self-discipline, and at first there may be failures. But keep trying, learn not to yield too readily to your inclinations or to the influence of others, which, while well meant, might not always be wise. Having set a goal for yourself, keep at it, unless as time goes on you should discover that your goal was set too high or was impractical. The Christian apostle Paul once gave good advice in connection with making contributions for needy fellow Christians: “Let each one do just as he has resolved in his heart.” If you have set a wise and worthwhile goal, do just as you have resolved, stick to it!​—2 Cor. 9:7.

Do not drift downstream. Be purposeful, set wise goals for yourself, and lead a richer and more meaningful life.

Discord Shatters Concordia

Discord Shatters Concordia

SHOCK waves still jar Concordia Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. For several months the largest Lutheran theological school in the U.S. has been reeling under the effects of massive revolt. To some persons this may come as a surprise, even in a day when virtually all mainline religious organizations are suffering. Why?

Because 135-year-old Concordia (meaning “harmony“) seemed so secure. It is backed by the three-million-member Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod, known for its strong “conservative” stance on religious questions.

What happened?

The Shattering Discord

In January of this year John H. Tietjen, head of the seminary, was suspended by the school’s Board of Control. The Board cited as reasons: Official misconduct in performing the duties of office, including insubordination to Synod president J. A. O. Preus and advocacy of false doctrine. In reaction to the firing, most of the faculty instituted a class boycott. Within days forty-three faculty members, or all but five, were fired for refusal to return to their classes.

A month after Tietjen’s suspension, over 450 students of an approximate total of 600 voted to follow the ousted faculty members into a ‘seminary in exile,’ which has come to be called Seminex. The student action was voluntary. They felt that staying at Concordia would imply agreement with the firing of the professors, actions that they deplored as “un-Christian” and “immoral.”

The new seminary has operated out of the nearby Jesuit-controlled Divinity School of St. Louis University as well as Eden Theological Seminary, which is run by the very liberal United Church of Christ. Its program has been financially backed by ELIM, Evangelical Lutherans in Mission, and is dependent on contributions. By mid-March, about one month after classes resumed in the new facilities, ELIM reported in its publication Missouri in Perspective that it had received donations and pledges approaching $800,000.

Only a few students stayed behind at Concordia. The spring quarter found only about ninety students and nineteen regular and guest professors at the school. Even many of these would apparently have really preferred joining the splinter group, but parental pressure or financial fears and uncertainty about their careers prompted them to remain. A number of students quit their ministerial studies altogether.

This discord has come as quite a change. During the 1960’s, when it was considered fashionable for college students to be in rebellion against the establishment, Concordia was motionless. In fact, a campus joke says that during that period the school was “a hotbed of contentment.”

However, those content days are gone forever. Why? What has stirred up the fire that has resulted in such discord?

Major Cause of the Discord

Well, at the root of the problem are doctrinal differences. Each side​—conservative and moderate—​has extensive arguments to back its views. In brief, what do they say?

The conservatives insist that “every word of Scripture” must be considered as directly inspired by God. They believe that when the Bible says that a large fish swallowed Jonah, that is what really occurred. They claim to accept literally the account about creation, the Garden of Eden and the fall into sin, narrated in Genesis chapters one through three.

Moderates, meanwhile, say they “accept without reservation the Bible as the inspired, written word of God.” But they use what they call the ‘historical-critical method’ to try to interpret the Bible. According to this system, the gospel or good news that Jesus preached, as the moderates understand it, is said to be the standard by which any part of Scripture is to be evaluated. It is sometimes called “Gospel reductionism” by conservatives.

Interestingly, the moderates try to make the difference between their position and that of the conservatives appear as small as possible. Why? Because many persons in the Missouri Synod traditionally prefer the conservative view. If the moderates were blatantly to appear, in any way, as doubters of the Bible, they might alienate themselves from a sizable section of the church.

The moderates are therefore often guarded and cautious in their explanations of the Scriptures. This might be illustrated. If a conservative asked a moderate, “Do you believe that Jonah really lived and that a large fish really swallowed him?” how would the moderate answer? Well, moderate Professor Richard R. Caemmerer says: “I don’t suppose that I ever thought of Jonah as not a historical personage, nor was I tempted to mythicize the story as too miraculous. The chief miracle about it I found, already in my pastor years, to be his ability to remember the lovely words which he prayed to God ‘out of the fish’s belly’ (2:1ff.).”

The conservative, hearing or reading such an answer, wonders: “What does the professor believe? Does he feel that there really was a Jonah and that a large fish really swallowed him or not?” The answer is just not sufficiently clear for the conservative.

“And what about the Genesis account of creation?” the conservative asks. “Is it to be taken literally?”

The moderate professor responds: “With Martin Luther I was modest about what the ultimate interpretation of Gen[esis] 1 might be; and I still have to find anybody who has thought that Gen[esis] 3 was anything but a drama of man’s first conflict with Satan​—and it does not mention Satan.”

This again strikes the conservatives as very vague and as leaning subtly away from belief in the Bible. Despite what the moderates claim, there really is a wide difference in the way the two groups look at the Bible.

“Church Politics” Also Causes Discord

The discord is not limited to doctrinal differences. There is also the matter of church authority, “church politics.” Conflict exists between those who have power in the church and those who would like to have it.

Synod president Preus apparently has strong views as to how he thinks the Missouri Synod should operate. Dr. Sam Roth, one of his critics, says Preus “has engaged in a campaign of fostering suspicion and mistrust.” Dr. John Damm, project director of the joint project for theological education, asserts that the synod head “has just used every ounce of power at his fingertips to crush anyone who dares not agree with [his] point of view.”

In more than four years of control over the synod, they claim, Preus only twice came to them asking about grievances. And, on one of these occasions, he is said to have demanded that any questions be written out in advance, thus hindering dialogue. However, the conservatives say that numerous overtures have been made toward Tietjen and his followers but with no response. The moderates, they contend, simply do not want to submit to duly constituted church authority.

Future Harmony at Concordia?

Neither of the groups is sure what the future will bring. Some fear that the moderates may break off and form a separate church in due time. Preus is said to have stated that it will take a decade to resolve the matter.

Undoubtedly the moderates’ stand leaves them with some puzzling Scriptural dilemmas. These problems are summarized in question form by an eighteen-year-old student at Milwaukee’s Concordia College: “When people say the story of Jonah and the whale and other Biblical stories are myths, where do they stop? Do they go on to say the Resurrection (of Christ) is a myth, too?” And, it might be added, once the floodgates are down on matters of doctrine, what will prevent moderate theologians from later saying that Biblical moral standards are also subject to their ‘historical criticism’?

On the other side of the picture, some conservatives, who take the position that they are “guardians” of the Scriptures and Lutheran teaching, have equally embarrassing questions with which to cope. For instance, where did the moderates whom they so strongly condemn come from? Are they from outside the church? No. They have been spawned and nurtured right within the church. Further, is it merely a minority of the seminary that is involved in this moderate movement, what might be called a maverick fringe element with which almost all organizations must contend? No, again. Remember, some 80 percent of the faculty and student body forsook Concordia​—that is hardly just the fringe!

Further, those who left to form Seminex were not all young men, fresh out of seminary. Conservatives like to imply that the effects of the undermining ‘historical-critical’ methods are relatively new. Missouri Synod pastor P. G. Kiehl of Bellfontaine, Missouri, says that over the last fifteen or twenty years “there were [Concordia] men who went out to study at different seminaries, theological schools . . . and [were] then impressed with the methods used by other schools . . . and evidently came back and infiltrated their teachings . . . into the curriculum of the seminary.” This practice no doubt has contributed to the discord at Concordia. But not all the ideas that the conservatives consider wrong were imported, nor are they new. Consider Professor Caemmerer, whose moderate views were quoted earlier; he has been a member of the Church for forty-six years and with the school for thirty-four years.

All these factors combine to show that it is the whole church, not just a faction, that is largely affected by the ideas of those the conservatives think of as moderates. The severity of the problem is indicated by the fact that the conservatives admit that they are unable to provide replacement for the professors who left the school. One even admits that “it is going to take a generation” to find other men of such scholarly attainment. Does this not indicate that the whole synod is in reality saturated with the same liberal view, not with strong Bible-based conservatives?

Actually, this should not surprise those conservatives who are familiar with Lutheran theology. Why do we say this? Because Martin Luther himself actually employed a form of “historical criticism” in his study of the Bible. Christian Century reminds the conservatives:

“Luther not only originated this approach but applied it: witness his criticism of the theology of the Epistle of James, his suspicions about the Epistle to the Hebrews, and his warnings about the use of Revelation. Where there was [what Luther considered] a conflict between some biblical passage and the message of the gospel, Luther declared that passage invalid. He was anything but a literalist in this regard.”

If the man whose very name the Missouri Synod carries, Martin Luther, employed a form of “Gospel reductionism,” is it not to be expected that branches of that root idea would insinuate themselves somehow into the whole church? Obviously. This agrees with what Jesus said in his Sermon on the Mount: “A good tree cannot bear worthless fruit, neither can a rotten tree produce fine fruit.” (Matt. 7:18) Understandably, moderate thinking has affected much more of the Lutheran Church than conservatives may want to admit readily.

This fact frightens some conservatives. Suppose moderates assumed control of the church?

Will Moderates Take Over?

If they did, what would the conservatives do? Many Lutherans of the Missouri Synod, of course, like to feel that such a thing just could not happen. It may not. But alert Lutherans know that it is indeed a possibility.

They know that comparatively only a handful of circuit representatives vote at the synod conventions on matters of church bylaws and authority. The outcome of their balloting affects thousands of ordinary Lutherans, Yet their voting can be influenced by factors other than the Bible or doctrine. What factors, for instance?

Well, the pastors, it must be remembered, because of their position in the church, exert a great deal of influence over the selection of voting circuit representatives. What affects how these people view important church matters? Pastor Tom Baker says: “In the St. Louis area of 125 pastors, we have 70 to 80 or 90 of them that are Seminex-leaning people, not maybe particularly theologically, but just because half of these seminary professors are [their] relatives.”

So it is not entirely out of the question that moderates could eventually take control of the synod. Says Baker: “It just takes a few circuits to be controlled or outvoted.” If that happened, what would the conservatives do? Would these not then have two options before them?

One choice, Baker mentions: “To keep your conscience within a particular church like this you would, of course, have to agree with the synodical resolution.” But, have not the conservatives been calling the moderates “Bible doubters“? How could any of them in “conscience” go along with the moderates? And the other choice?

They could do the very thing that they are currently accusing the moderates of doing! Yes, they could rebel against ‘church authority,’ possibly quit and form a new church, made up of a minority of the membership.

Sincere Bible-reading Lutherans in the synod are not blind to all the doctrinal confusion. Further, they take note of the church politics and the strong personality clashes. But, frankly, Missouri Synod Lutherans must also get the sense of what is happening, look below the surface, so to speak. They should see that the Concordia situation shows that their entire church is laced with severe problems.

Earnest Missouri Synod Lutherans know that God has provided an organization somewhere that really believes the truth of the Bible. The Scriptures positively assure them of that. (Eph. 4:11-16) But with the situation in their own synod becoming more acute each day, many of them are asking: “Should I look elsewhere for that God-approved organization?”

The Church of Scotland and the Bible

The Church of Scotland and the Bible

■ Will the Church of Scotland continue to tolerate a minister who challenges the truthfulness of the Bible? Alestair Bennett of Strathkinness Church, Fife, says: “The Church of Scotland has freed itself from compulsory submission to the ancient creeds. . . . The next bold step must be to free the Church of Scotland from compulsory submission to all that is in Scripture. . . . primitive and outdated beliefs and practices are not occasional or trivial but they occur throughout Scripture.”

But what does the New English Bible, approved by the Church of Scotland, say about this? “It was not through any human whim that men prophesied of old; men they were, but, impelled by the Holy Spirit, they spoke the words of God.” (2 Pet. 1:21) The church’s taking action in this case, or its failure to do so, will show where it stands on this issue.

Whatever Happened to the Moon Trips?

Whatever Happened to the Moon Trips?

ON July 20, 1969, millions of people all over the world were ‘glued’ to their television sets. They were watching an amazing accomplishment​—the first man was setting foot on the moon.

As the American astronaut stepped onto the surface of the moon, he spoke of a “giant leap for mankind.” The imaginations of people everywhere were excited. Some considered this a breakthrough into space. There was talk of manned flights to other planets, even “to the stars.”

But the six moon landings by Americans ended three years later in 1972; there have been none since then. And at present no others are scheduled. Except for a joint United States–Soviet flight in orbit around the earth in 1975, American astronauts are not scheduled to return to space until a “space shuttle” is completed, and this is projected for about 1980.

While moon landings once captured the imagination of people, this is no longer the case. Most people are no longer thrilled at talk of moon colonies, or of scientific findings of vast importance coming from moon trips, or of bringing back more “moon rocks.” Indeed, for vast numbers of people interest in moon ventures is ‘as dead as the dodo bird.’

What has happened? Why are no more Americans scheduled to land on the moon? Why has public interest waned so much?

Why the Disillusionment

True, there were definite accomplishments made on the moon trips. Just getting there was one of the greatest feats in human history. Also, more information about the moon and other parts of the solar system was obtained. And some things were learned that could be applied to industrial use.

Yet many people feel that the billions of dollars that it takes to get a few men to the moon represent too much money spent for too little return. They feel that additional knowledge of the solar system, or knowledge that would benefit industry, can be obtained far more cheaply by unmanned space probes. Many others even feel that the money, brainpower and effort could be much better used on other scientific or industrial projects here on earth.

The Apollo moon missions alone cost well over 20 billion dollars. Other “space” ventures cost more billions. But with so much poverty, hunger, shortages and other problems among mankind, it is understandable why many people are disillusioned by vast expenditures of money for what they consider of so little practical return. Most would be happier for their government not to spend the money, and instead give them a tax refund!

That a disillusionment has set in is widely acknowledged. During a flight of “Skylab III,” which late in 1973 circled the earth for eighty-four days with three men aboard, the New York Times observed:

“After 16 years of space flight, the fact of men circling the earth once every 93 minutes for weeks on end hardly rates notice. . . .

“And only four and a half years after Neil A. Armstrong took ‘one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind,’ few people complain that men are no longer going to the moon.”

The Times spoke of the “listless reaction to each new spacecraft launching.” And columnist Russell Baker commented:

“To people watching those incessant countdowns at Cape Kennedy it has also seemed pointless.

“Going to the moon, for example. We all know that scientists were thrilled by the rocks, dust and what-have-you which came back from the moon, but let us not lie about our own unscientific reactions.

“Sitting there by the [television] tube watching the trip, most of us probably felt an unpleasant urge to think, ‘So what?’

“Here were some guys who had gone all the way to the moon and had nothing to do when they arrived there except take a fourteen-mile hike. That could be done in Wyoming, cheaper, and through comparable landscape.

“It was wonderful, but it didn’t really open any horizons for most of us, and it was certainly hard to see how it was going to improve man’s lot.”

Too, it has become more obvious that since such a tremendous effort is required to get just a few men off the earth, space travel will not be something for the common people in their lifetime. There will be no cheap tickets to the moon or any other place away from the earth. In fact, there are hardly any cheap tickets for travel even on the earth nowadays!

There have also been disappointments regarding the results of the moon landings. For example, scientists hoped that the more than 800 pounds of moon rocks brought back from the six moon landings would prove valuable in determining the origin of the moon. But the New York Times reports:

“For years prior to the first lunar landing, scientists argued the merits of various theories [of the moon’s origin] with great intensity, but the battle ended in a stalemate. . . .

“Everyone expected that the lunar landings would promptly settle the debate: It seemed obvious that as soon as we found out what the moon was made of, we would be able to tell where it came from. . . .

“These hopes were not realized. Analysis of the moon rocks has shown that the chemistry was different, proving the moon did not come from the earth. But it didn’t suggest any alternatives.

“The origin of the moon remains as much a mystery as it was before Apollo.”

Another disappointment for the scientists is that the moon proved to be without any life forms. It gave no hint of life as having existed there. This has dashed the hopes of some scientists that the moon would help to bolster their pet evolutionary theories of life’s origin.

Undesirable

Another reason why many people have lost interest is that they now realize that space flight is uncomfortable enough to be a burden on those who undertake it. It is not something for which people would want to trade the comforts of home. Not only is it dangerous because of possible accident, cosmic-ray and meteoroid damage, but the confinement, the pressures on the human body, mind and emotions are viewed by most as undesirable.

For instance, there is the challenge to the body and mind of prolonged weightlessness due to a lack of gravity away from the earth. This has caused undesirable changes in the cardiovascular system of astronauts, to their muscles, body fluids and body functions. It has caused a depletion of bone calcium.

Another undesirable result began to be noticed in 1964 after two American astronauts made a four-day flight around the earth. Doctors examining them on their return discovered that they had lost blood in orbit. Experiments on the very next flight confirmed the blood loss. In the eight-day flight of Gemini 5 the two astronauts lost 8 percent of their red blood cells​—about a half pint of blood. A later flight of fourteen days by two other astronauts caused a blood loss of close to a full pint!

This same phenomenon has been noted in the more recent Skylab missions, the three flights by teams of astronauts in a ‘sky laboratory’ orbiting the earth. The crew of the first flight suffered a 15-percent loss in red blood cells; the second experienced a 12-percent drop. The first crew lost about 10 percent of their blood plasma; the second crew 13 percent. The third crew also lost blood.

Commenting on this, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution says: “Whatever the reasons for it all, the loss of red cells and blood plasma and cellular body fluid is a serious space medical mystery. It might be overdrawing things to say that the future of manned space flight hangs on its solution, but the truth doesn’t fall too far short of that.” And one of the astronauts involved said because of this: “I’m not willing to go to Mars tomorrow on what we know now.”

Not only was there blood loss, but it took weeks for some of the returning astronauts to regain the blood lost in flight. In one case it took four weeks before the body of one astronaut began making any new red blood cells.

Of the many other problems that make space flight unappealing to most people is the following that U.S. News & World Report notes:

“One of the crew’s [Skylab III] most disconcerting problems was caused by a combination of air bubbles in the drinking water, weightlessness and space food.

“When asked what was the toughest hygiene problem they faced, astronaut Pogue explained: ‘We have to pass so much gas. I don’t want to pass over this lightly because I think passing gas about 500 times a day is not a good way to go. . . . The only redeeming feature is that everybody is passing the same amount.’”

Longer flights, such as those at times spoken of in regard to Mars, which could take two years, pose far more serious problems. That is why Saturday Review/​World says: “While the astronaut may do quite well on Mars, he had better watch his step when he returns to earth’s [gravity], NASA doctors warn. He risks breaking his calcium-depleted bones with even a little fall if he tries to use his phosphorous- and nitrogen-depleted muscles too soon after landing.”

More Realistic

For these, and many other reasons, a more realistic appraisal of manned flights to the moon, or anywhere else in space for that matter, has been forthcoming lately. It is now better understood that man’s “progress” in space is very limited. Even the moon trip is regarded by many scientists as only a ‘flea hop’ and not a trip into outer space.

It is also better appreciated now that talk of sending a man “to the stars” becomes absurd at this time. The nearest star outside our solar system is so far it could not be reached in a lifetime of travel. Even if it could, a star is a sun, a hot ball of flaming gas that would consume any spaceship.

Surely if manned trips to the moon and beyond had been found very useful, governments would be rushing to get there and exploit their benefits. But that is not taking place. The enthusiasm for such ventures has unquestionably diminished. So while the moon trips proved of momentary excitement, the hard reality of what is involved and how very little of practical benefit is derived for the cost has cooled the interest of both the average citizen and his government.

Nervous Breakdown—Cure or Prevention?

Nervous Breakdown​—Cure or Prevention?

EARLY in 1972 it was made public that Col. Edwin Aldrin, Jr., the second man to set foot on the moon, had undergone psychiatric treatment. It seems that the pressure of publicity associated with his Apollo 11 flight had been too much for him. Said he: “The fact of the matter is that I was on my way to having a good, old-fashioned American nervous breakdown.” The condition is one that some persons prefer to describe as “chronic nervous exhaustion.”

The role that our nerves play in our bodies might be likened to the role played by an automobile’s electrical system. An auto may have all its mechanical parts in good order and yet it will not be able to move if something is wrong with its electrical system. The situation is similar if our nervous system is not functioning properly. That is why doctors distinguish between organic disease, in which something is wrong with some organ or part of the body, and functional disease, in which a physical examination reveals nothing wrong with the organs.

And if we were to imagine an auto electrically powered and capable of being driven by a robot we would have a still more apt illustration​—the robot corresponding to the mind, whereas the rest of the auto’s electrical system could be likened to the rest of our body’s nervous system. Just as neither the robot nor the auto could function properly if the electrical energy were low, so when there is nervous exhaustion neither the mind nor the body can function properly.

However, we should not oversimplify the matter. A nerve impulse is not just a simple electrical current. Further, while wires in an auto serve merely as conductors, in the human body the nerves themselves forward the nerve impulse, even as a fuse of gunpowder carries a spark along by feeding it. Yes, a nerve impulse retains its strength no matter how far it travels, for it is continually regenerated as it moves along.

Its Symptoms

Many different symptoms can accompany a nervous breakdown. Among these is fatigue, not related to any physical exertion; a feeling of being tired that may range from vague to so heavy as to preclude one’s doing any work at all. Restlessness, insomnia and nervous indigestion are other common symptoms, even as are loss of appetite, headaches and constipation. A nervous breakdown may be accompanied by irregular heartbeat or palpitation of the heart, by spells of dizziness or fuzzy vision, skin rashes, excessive sweating, muscular pains and tingling sensations in the hands and feet. In fact, practically all physical ills can be simulated by nervous breakdown.

More likely than not, mental and emotional symptoms will also manifest themselves. There may be inability to make decisions or to meet people comfortably. Extreme cases are marked by weeping, panic or near hysteria. There may be excessive fear or apprehension for apparently no reason, severe mental depression, a desire to die and even suicidal tendencies. Christians at times have said that their nervous breakdowns were accompanied with fears that they had committed the ‘unforgivable sin’ and that there was no more hope for them.

Since all our mental, emotional and physical processes and activities consume nervous energy, it can readily be seen why a nervous breakdown can manifest itself in such a variety of ways. But let no one jump to the conclusion that he has a nervous breakdown just because he may have some of these symptoms!

Its Causes

Well has it been said that a nervous breakdown is a disorder arising from conflicting attitudes, that it is due to mental and emotional difficulties. Someone once said, “The Lord may forgive our sins, but the nervous system never does.” More accurately, the Bible says: “Whatever a man is sowing, this he will also reap.”​—Gal. 6:7.

A very common cause of nervous exhaustion is oversensitiveness, which often is inherited along with excitability and a quick temper. These cause one to make ‘mountains out of molehills,’ to be unduly hurt by real or imagined slights, and to expect too much of others. Closely related thereto is being overly fussy, never satisfied with one’s own efforts or achievements. All such emotional states likewise take a toll in nervous energy and can lead to a nervous breakdown.

A nervous breakdown can also be brought on by what is called a trauma. This could be in the form of a serious accident, loss of a loved one in death, an unhappy love affair, loss of a job or financial reverses. Or it could be brought about by environment. An unhappy marriage, unfavorable working conditions, too much pressure or responsibility, being the victim of discrimination or arbitrariness, also the problem of trying to make ends meet have time and again taken a heavy toll in nervous energy.

Then again, failure to use the spirit of a sound mind can bring on a nervous breakdown. A man may be overworking himself, either because of ambition, overconscientiousness or because of being too easily imposed upon. He may be tense nearly all the time, may never be able to relax. This wastes nervous energy, and so does worry. In fact, overworry hurts far more people than overwork. Closely related to worry are indecision and anxiety.

Causes of nervous breakdown must also include what the Bible terms “works of the flesh.” (Gal. 5:19-21) These are such things as loose conduct, unwise use of drugs, indulging too freely in alcoholic beverages and such unwholesome mental attitudes as rebellion, carrying on conflicts with others, holding grudges and hatreds. Yet it has been discerningly observed that a curious thing about human nature is that it seldom sees a connection between its emotional torment and its illness, and there seems to be no limit to the ingenious ways in which people manage to deceive themselves in these matters. Here again a scripture is to the point: “The heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate.”​—Jer. 17:9.

Remedies​—Physical

Today more and more persons resort to drugs to bring relief when suffering from nervousness or a nervous breakdown. But as one authority noted, drugs bring only temporary relief and they do not increase wisdom or insight, which is important for a cure. As Dr. W. C. Alvarez so well notes, after years of overdrawing recklessly on the bank of health, one’s loans get called in, as it were, and, as a result, one goes into a sort of “nervous bankruptcy.” So it follows that cure will take time. In particular is it of the utmost importance to appreciate the fact that a cure requires self-control. But “most persons would rather try to get well with medicine or an operation than by making the effort at self-control.”

In view of the fact that so many different things could be the cause of a nervous breakdown, one should, first of all, seek to find the particular cause or causes, as often more than one factor enters into the picture. Did it result from being oversensitive, from some mishap or trauma? Is it the result of environmental conditions under which one is living? Or could it have had an emotional cause such as frustration, worry, fears? Try to take inventory, either by yourself or with the help of a mature friend, a Christian minister or a family physician. Sometimes just getting to recognize the cause is sufficient to bring relief.

And while in some quarters it may be fashionable to consult a psychiatrist when suffering a nervous breakdown, many have been able to get real help from a physician practicing physical medicine, or from a chiropractor or an old-style osteopath. It could well be that massage will help you, provided you get in the hands of a skillful, cheerful, understanding massagist.

Of course, if the cause is tenseness, being unable to relax, then one must simply learn to relax if one would recover. Put forth an effort, practice relaxing, taking time for it. While lying on a firm bed or couch try relaxing one part of the body at a time: the hands and forearms, then the feet, legs, neck muscles, and so forth. Also give thought to relaxing when at work. Try to adopt a steady, regular pace rather than a hasty one. Learn to slow down. Instead of running all the time, learn to control yourself and to walk instead. Especially take time to practice relaxing before going to bed at night; it will help you to get to sleep quicker and to sleep more soundly. Listening to melodious, soothing and cheerful music can also greatly help your nerves. If possible, take mini-vacations over weekends. If you are a housewife, try to spend mornings in bed for a month or two. Put good health above good housekeeping until you recover.

Then again, if certain bad habits brought about a nervous breakdown, these must be dropped if cure is to be effected. Bad eating habits must be replaced by good ones; drug habits must be broken and moderation and self-control regarding the use of alcoholic beverages must be exercised.

Mental, Emotional and Spiritual Aids

Most likely, use of physical means of themselves will not be adequate. The mental, emotional, yes, and spiritual aspects must also be given attention. In this regard it is indeed noteworthy how helpful Bible principles are. Thus a good recipe for mental hygiene is found at Philippians 4:8, where we are counseled to keep considering whatever things are true, lovable, well spoken of, virtuous and praiseworthy. The Bible also tells us that “a heart that is joyful does good as a curer.”​—Prov. 17:22.

Are you a “worry bird”? Ask yourself, Is the problem that I am worrying about really my problem? Can I do something about it now? If not, dismiss it from your mind. Carry only today’s problem; do not worry about tomorrow’s. Here again we have fine Scriptural counsel: “Do not be anxious over anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication along with thanksgiving let your petitions be made known to God; and the peace of God that excels all thought will guard your hearts.” And as Jesus put it: “Never be anxious about the next day, . . . Sufficient for each day is its own badness.”​—Phil. 4:6, 7; Matt. 6:34.

Another great aid is learning to adjust. Are you married to a shrew? Adjust by being extremely tactful. Or you can seek to adjust by bringing about a change in her. The same is true if you have a husband who is an alcoholic brute. You can either try to avoid confrontations over the situation, or you can try to change the environment. As one wit put it: “O Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change; the courage to change the things I can; and the wisdom to know the difference.” Yes, as the saying goes, “What cannot be cured must be endured.” What will help you to endure? Love, for the Bible says that love “endures all things.”​—1 Cor. 13:4-8.

You must also learn to distinguish between what is important and what is not. Avoid needless issues by ‘being peaceable with all men, as far as it depends upon you.’ (Rom. 12:18) Further, all “works of the flesh,” such as loose conduct and fits of anger, must be avoided.​—Gal. 5:19-21.

Prevention Better than Cure

“An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure” is an adage that applies here also. It goes almost without saying that most of the things that will help to cure a nervous breakdown would have, if practiced, prevented it in the first place. Thus we are told that the most important lesson one can learn for nervous health is that of cooperation. Certainly cooperation will follow if we heed the admonition ‘to do to others as we would have them do to us.’​—Luke 6:31.

Another great aid in preventing a nervous breakdown is contentment, a quality that the Bible repeatedly recommends to us. Most helpful also is its warning against a greedy love of money and a craving to be rich, for these can result not only in spiritual loss but also in being stabbed “all over with many pains,” including that of a nervous breakdown.​—1 Tim. 6:6-10.

While practical wisdom will go far in aiding us to avoid or prevent a nervous breakdown, even more so will unselfish love. The Scriptural principle that “love builds up” applies in every way, mentally, physically, emotionally as well as spiritually. (1 Cor. 8:1) Since, as it has been shown, the “works of the flesh” can bring on a nervous breakdown, it follows that cultivating the very opposite, the fruits of the spirit, can also help you to prevent one. And what are these? “Love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness, self-control.” No question about it, more than anything else, the application of Bible principles in one’s life will serve either to cure or to prevent a nervous breakdown.​—Gal. 5:22, 23.

Energy Supplies in Abundance

Energy Supplies in Abundance

ENERGY is very much in demand. All life in the universe depends upon it. Without energy there would be no food to eat, water to drink or air to breathe.

In recent years people have become concerned about the supply of energy available to man. Electric power cuts, blackouts, rising prices for heating fuels and long lines at gas stations have made “energy crisis” household words. This could lead some to believe that the earth’s supply of energy is running dangerously low. Is that really the case? Not at all. In fact, the earth has abundant, virtually unlimited, energy supplies. How so?

The Sun​—Energy Unlimited

The sun is the principal source of energy for the earth. Each year this immense, nuclear furnace bathes the earth with energy equivalent to that contained in 250 million million tons of coal, about 100,000 tons for each person on earth. In one day enough sun energy shines upon Lake Erie alone to meet the needs (if it could be fully utilized) of the entire American populace for a whole year. Where does the sun get its energy? Scientist Ralph E. Lapp explains:

“The sun is an enormous nuclear machine. It runs by fusing ions of light hydrogen (H1) to form the heavier atoms of helium (He4). . . . The energy released becomes heat. Every minute about 40 billion tons of hydrogen atoms are fused on the sun.”

The sun is indirectly responsible for many other forms of energy too. The sun’s rays cause tropical air to warm up and rise while cooler air from polar regions flows in to replace it. This creates winds that can be used for sailing ships, grinding grain, or even for producing electricity from windmill-powered generators. Coal is the fossilized remains of plants that stored solar energy in their cells long ago. Likewise, the chemical energy in oil is the light and radiant energy of the sun stored in the cells of living things in the past.

Sun Power for a Modern World

Efforts in modern times to make greater use of sun power have been interesting. There are at least twenty houses in the United States using solar energy to reduce heating costs. An experimental house in Newark, New Jersey, derives 80 percent of its electrical, heating and air-conditioning needs from the sun.

Two United States solar energy researchers, Dr. and Mrs. Aiden Meinel, have suggested spreading out sunlight collectors over vast areas. They say that such “solar farms” covering a total area of 15,000 square miles in the southwestern United States could achieve an electrical generating capacity of one million megawatts,a enough to care for the entire country’s electrical needs between now and the year 2000.

Some have suggested putting a huge solar energy collector into earth orbit. Such a satellite would contain “solar cells” that convert sunlight directly into electricity. It would beam this back to a receiving antenna on earth as microwaves that would be reconverted into electricity. And a satellite would be unencumbered by inclement weather.

God’s generous gift of the sun has made available to mankind virtually unlimited supplies of energy. Of course, devising means of ‘plugging into the sun’ for today’s massive energy demands presents some knotty technological, political and economic problems.

But is today’s massive energy consumption really working for man’s happiness? Does the ready availability of material gadgets in crowded, smog-filled cities result in a sense of well-being greater than in the society of bygone days?

Some persons have concluded that they would rather have a different way of life. They enjoy pollution-free power from their own windmill-powered generator. This source of power was common on farms in the past. But recently both individuals and the United States government have been giving windmills a second look. With little difficulty a family can at least pump water and provide light for their home in this manner.

Energy from Water in Motion

For thousands of years man has taken advantage of the power of flowing water as a source of energy. The first plant for generating electricity by water power appeared in Appleton, Wisconsin, in 1882. Hydroelectric plants now utilize the power of onrushing waters to produce close to a third of the world’s electricity.

The oceans, which cover more than 70 percent of our globe, hold vast potential as an energy resource. The ebb and flow of the tides keep countless billions of gallons of water in motion each day. During 1961-1967 a major hydroelectric plant that uses tidal energy was built in northern France. A dam equipped with reversible turbines permits production of electricity by tides flowing in either direction. In 1969 a tidal power plant was completed in the Soviet Union. There are nearly one hundred sites in the world that could, on the basis of man’s present knowledge, be utilized to provide tidal electric power.

Energy Beneath the Earth’s Crust

Another potent source of energy is within the earth itself. Less than forty miles beneath its surface there is a layer of molten rock and gas, called “magma.” This seething mass may reach temperatures as high as 3,300 degrees Fahrenheit. The gases from cooling magma heat underground water, causing geysers of hot water and steam to erupt, sometimes hundreds of feet into the air.

For decades some homes and greenhouses have tapped these “geothermal” energy sources for hot water and heating. In 1904 Italians hooked up generators to a source of natural steam at Lardarello, Italy. This power plant produces enough electricity each year to operate most of Italy’s railway system. Dr. Robert Rex, a geologist who has done much work exploring the possibilities of geothermal power, feels that large-scale exploration of this type of energy could turn up a generating capacity of a billion kilowatts, nearly three times the present United States generating capacity.

But economic and political obstacles crop up here too. The initial cost would be high, for geothermal steam is cooler than that used in most generating plants and, therefore, not so efficient. Extraction of energy from “dry” subterranean areas requires sinking wells into hot rock to allow water from the surface to penetrate so as to produce steam. Pollution from salts and sulfur in the hot water and steam is another problem. But if these difficulties could be worked out in a system of things in which love of neighbor took precedence over self-interest, how beneficial this rich source of energy that lies beneath the earth’s crust would be to mankind!

What About Nuclear Power?

Nuclear energy, that is, the energy locked up in the nucleus, or central mass of an atom, is by far the greatest known source of power in the material universe. Two ways of releasing that energy are called “fission” and “fusion.”

Nuclear fission means splitting a nucleus into two lighter ones. Scientists have learned that the combined weight of the two new nuclei is slightly less than the original one. The difference is converted into energy. So great is the power in the atom, it has been said, that the fission of a piece of uranium no heavier than a loaf of bread and smaller than a golf ball can provide as much energy as 2,300,000 pounds of coal.

…