Awake!, January 22, 1975

Download: PDF — Awake!, January 22, 1975

Awake! — January 22, 1975

Source: jw.org

Contents

Should Your Dreams Guide Your Life?

Nuns Today—What About Tomorrow?

Why Nuns Leave

The Mysterious Rainbow

Why No One Can Figure Out the Economy

Love Is Costly—but It Is Worth It!

Love Moves Them to Do It

Kidney Stones—Ancient Affliction Still with Us

Can Saints Help You?

Watching the World

Who Made Birds, and Eggs That Become Baby Birds?

8,750,000 Copies of Each Issue in 79 Languages

Should Your Dreams Guide Your Life?

Should Your Dreams Guide Your Life?

MOST people desire sound guidance in their lives. They want to know more about themselves, their future and how to make wise decisions. But where can people find such guidance?

Many today look to their dreams as a guide in life. This is nothing new. Interest in dreams has a lengthy history. Ancient writings reveal that dream interpretation played an important part in the lives of the Babylonians, the Egyptians and the Greeks of long ago. People would often sleep overnight at “dream oracles” in the hope of receiving communication from a god in a dream.

But why all this interest in dreams?

It may be because dreams are so puzzling, lacking in organization and coherence. In the topsy-turvy world of dreams a person may see himself in an auditorium viewing a fencing match instead of hearing a lecture. He may dream of animals talking or people and objects floating through the air. Often people envision themselves trying to sprint free from an onrushing locomotive, only to be virtually frozen in their tracks. But none of these bizarre happenings seem abnormal to the dreamer​—until he wakes up, that is.

Why do people dream? Do such night visions really contain the key to self-knowledge? Can you gain special insight, including knowledge of the future, from your dreams? Should your dreams guide your life?

Science Investigates a “Mystery”

During the past twenty years scientists have devoted much study to the mysterious world of dreams. With the aid of volunteers in specially equipped “dream labs” some interesting facts have come to light.

Scientists have noted, for instance, that a sleeping person experiences rapid eye movements (REM) about once every ninety to a hundred minutes through the night. These REM periods, which suggest that a person is dreaming, may last from ten minutes to half an hour and recur three or four times a night.

Experiments have shown that dreaming is a necessary part of restful sleep. Calvin Hall, director of the Institute of Dream Research at the University of California, writes:

“If a person is deprived of dreaming for a number of nights, his waking behavior appears to be adversely affected. He manifests various aberrant ‘symptoms’ that border on being pathological . . . These results seem to indicate a ‘need to dream.’”

This “need to dream” is so strong, explains Hall, that “when a person’s dreaming is reduced by awakening him every time his eyes begin to move, there is a significant increase in REM time when he is finally permitted to sleep undisturbed.” Thus people “make up” for lost dreaming time.

But why this need to dream? Is it, as some say, that dreaming aids people to cope with the stresses of life? Does it help people to sort out and process information that they have taken in while awake? Or does dreaming perhaps benefit the nervous system by recharging the brain cells? Dr. Julius Segal and Gay Gaer Luce admit there are no scientific answers to these questions. In their book Sleep they say: “Many conjectures about the purpose of the REM state are plausible. Yet they are not answers and the purpose of the dream state remains a mystery.”

What Prompts Dream Content?

A small percentage of dream content results from stimulation of the senses from the outside or within the body of the sleeping individual. Thus lights, sounds, hunger, thirst or the need to urinate all have some effect on a person’s dreams. Research has shown, however, that recent events especially influence what a person dreams about.

The book Sleep explains: “Perhaps the best established, out of all the factors that influence our dreams, is the role of events in the preceding day.” These become mingled with past experiences, including ones from childhood. A study made at the National Institute of Health revealed that dreams early in the night surround current events. As the night progresses, dreams center around things of the past and become more vivid. Then, as waking time rolls around, dreams once again focus on current events.

Do you find that your dreams often contain unpleasant aspects? You need not become overly concerned about this. Experiments with hundreds of dreams have shown that unpleasant dreams, in which the dreamer is the victim of some type of misfortune, outstrip pleasant dreams by a ratio of 7 to 1.

But what if you are troubled by repetition of the same type of unpleasant dreams, perhaps ones that contain allusions to sexual immorality, egotism, aggression or similar things? Remember the close relationship between recent events and dreams. The cause of your bad dreams may be in the things you practice and dwell on mentally from day to day. The solution to bad dreams may call for an adjustment in your routine of life, especially in what you regularly feed your mind.​—Phil. 4:8.

“Royal Road to the Unconscious”?

Sigmund Freud, known as the founder of psychoanalysis, stated that dreams are “the royal road to the unconscious.” Many individuals believe that they can gain deep insight into their own personalities through dream interpretation. Books that encourage self-interpretation of dreams are available in abundance today. But are dreams really a sound guide to a better understanding of yourself?

That depends on whether interpretations of things seen in dreams are reliable. Are they? George Nobbe, in an article entitled “What Your Dreams Mean,” observes: “One of the vagaries of dream analysts . . . is that they seldom agree on the meaning of anything in a dream. Talk to two of them and you’ll get two different notions of the meaning of the plot of the same dream and the objects that appear within its framework.”

Freud, for example, theorized that people dream about wishes, particularly of a sexual nature, that they repress during waking hours. The psychoanalyst’s job, according to Freud, would be to probe through the things actually seen in the dream and to lay bare its hidden meaning. This, he thought, would be related to repressed wishes that arose from events of the preceding day and desires established in the patient’s early childhood.

Others disagree radically with Freud. The well-known columnist, Dr. Joyce Brothers, writes: “Freud’s view of dreams, however suggestive, doesn’t provide a complete explanation, because human adults are not the only dreamers. Dogs, cats, cows and horses dream. So do babies. Fifty percent of the newborn infant’s sleep is spent in dreaming.” Certainly these are not all dreaming to fulfill repressed wishes.

Numerous other theories to explain the meaning of dreams have appeared during the last two decades. Concerning them, Calvin Hall writes: “The ratio of research to speculation is still so small that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions regarding the validity of these speculations.” Will you allow such guesswork to guide your life?

A Dangerous Fascination

Many, however, have reported dreams that they believe are “supernatural” in origin. One writer states: “In dreams, [I] am informed, sometimes uncomfortably, of facts of which I can have no knowledge by normal means.” Thereafter this author furnishes examples of several dreams in which she saw specific details of coming events.

Such experiences have led many to become fascinated with dreams, feeling that they may come from God and hold the key to important future events in their lives. They note, for instance, that on a number of occasions God imparted vital information, even long-range prophecies, to people by means of dreams.​—Gen. 20:3; Dan. 2:3, 28; 7:1; Matt. 1:20; 2:12, 13, 19, 22.

It is important to note, though, that with the completion of the Bible canon by the end of the first century C.E., God made available a complete inspired record in written form for the guidance of mankind. After that there was no need for God to communicate with man in dreams, or in any other miraculous way. As to “spiritual gifts,” including supernatural “prophesying,” the Bible shows that these were not to be permanent, but were to be “done away with.”​—1 Cor. 12:1; 13:8-10.

In view of this, fascination with dreams today can be dangerous. The Bible, at Zechariah 10:2, associates certain dreams with “divination,” saying: “The practicers of divination, for their part, have visioned falsehood, and valueless dreams are what they keep speaking.” Divination involves gaining secret knowledge, especially about future events, with the aid of occult powers.

Could God approve of a procedure that leads to “valueless dreams”? The Scriptures, at Deuteronomy 18:10-12, state:

“There should not be found in you anyone who . . . employs divination, a practicer of magic or anyone who looks for omens or a sorcerer, or one who binds others with a spell or anyone who consults a spirit medium or a professional foreteller of events . . . For everybody doing these things is something detestable to Jehovah.”

God’s Word here associates divination (including the looking for omens, as in dreams) with spiritism, which involves the influence of wicked spirit forces. (Eph. 6:12) Because wicked spirits may occasionally cause dreams that correctly predict the future, God warned his people to shun the “dreamer of a dream” who would encourage false worship, even if “the sign or the portent does come true of which he spoke to you.”​—Deut. 13:1-3; compare Acts 16:16.

Something Better than Dreams

The Scriptures urge people to seek vital guidance in their lives and knowledge of the future, not through divination, but from God through his appointed “prophet,” Jesus Christ. (Deut. 18:15-19; John 6:14) That calls for a careful study of the Word of God. We read, at 2 Timothy 3:16, 17: “All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work.”

The Bible, as a “complete” guide for human conduct, is something better than dreams. It is not vague, uncertain as to meaning. The Scriptures contain specific counsel on marriage, family life and other human relations, as well as sound principles that provide a basis for making wise decisions.

What about gaining insight into one’s own personality? No human can provide that through interpretation of dreams, no matter how skillful the analyst. The Bible, at 1 Samuel 16:7, states: “Mere man sees what appears to the eyes; but as for Jehovah, he sees what the heart is.” If a person really wants accurate analysis of his personality, he must go to God. How?

In the Bible, at Hebrews 4:12, we are told: “The word of God is alive and exerts power and is sharper than any two-edged sword and pierces even to the dividing of soul and spirit, and of joints and their marrow, and is able to discern thoughts and intentions of the heart.” What is the point of that verse? It means that diligent study of the inspired Word of God will help a person to examine himself, to detect the difference between what he appears to be as a living creature (the soul) and what he really is at heart, in attitude (the spirit).

The Bible also provides dependable information about the future. Fulfillments of hundreds of Bible prophecies are now a matter of record. The Scriptures indicate that within the present generation Almighty God will sweep the earth clean of wickedness and usher in a new order in which suffering, oppression, sickness and death will be things of the past. (Dan. 2:44; 2 Pet. 3:13; Rev. 21:1-5) Would you like to live on earth during that glorious time?

Then you must ‘exert yourself vigorously.’ (Luke 13:24) That calls for careful study of the inspired Word of God, firm belief in it, and application of Bible principles in your life.​—Jas. 1:22.

But preoccupation with dreams can hinder you from doing this by causing you to look to something other than the true source of guidance that God has provided, and possibly even involving you with harmful spiritistic influences. It is only God, through his inspired Word, who can guide you to a meaningful life now and lasting blessings in the future.​—John 17:3.

[Box on page 4]

A leading dream researcher says: “The ratio of research to speculation is still so small that it is difficult to draw any firm conclusions” about the meaning of dreams. Analysts seldom agree on the meaning of anything in dreams. According to the Bible, certain dreams may even predict future events, yet not come from God.

Nuns Today—What About Tomorrow?

Nuns Today​—What About Tomorrow?

THE troubles of the Catholic Church are perhaps nowhere more apparent than among its nuns. These are leaving their religious orders in startling numbers. And discontent among those that remain is increasing.

Newspaper article-headings reflect the crisis, such as the following: “9,000 NUNS QUIT IN U.S. LAST YEAR.”a1 “NUNNERY WITHOUT NUNS.”b2 “NUNS IN MIDST OF FEMALE REBELLION.”c3 “VANISHING NUNS: CRISIS AT SCHOOLS.”d4 “SHORTAGE OF NUNS FORCES CATHOLIC HOSPITAL TO CLOSE.”e5

Recently Franciscan nun Mary Modde worked on a major study that included about 70 percent of the nuns in the United States. She wrote that the study was made to “prove or disprove” the public belief that the question, “Where have all the sisters gone?” had changed to the declaration, “ALL the sisters HAVE gone.”

Is the situation as serious as indicated? Is the survival of the Church’s religious orders really in danger?

Some Catholic authorities seem to think so. Anita Caspary, a former mother general, said that unless changes are made in the religious orders the Church “stands to lose the whole [nun] community.”

Also, Gabriel Moran, as president of the Christian Brothers, Long Island​—New England district, wrote: “One of the tragedies of recent Roman Catholic history has been the dissolution of religious orders. . . . there are tens of thousands of people who are treading water in collapsed organizations.” Moran concluded: “The overall picture is a depressing one and this is the reason why the picture is almost never candidly drawn.”

How Great the Exodus?

Reliable departure statistics are hard to come by. And yet Catholic sources give an idea of the extent of the decline. For example, they show that there were 1,201,159 nuns world wide in 1965, but only 879,939 in 1971​—a loss of 321,220 nuns in just six years! In some areas the decline has been particularly great. South America, for instance, experienced a 40-percent decrease in one recent year, from 87,593 nuns to 52,163!

The decline in other places has also been great. Canada dropped from over 59,000 nuns in 1960 to fewer than 45,000 in 1972. And in the United States the decrease was from more than 180,000 in the mid-1960’s to fewer than 140,000 last year. But more significant than the number of departures is the type of women who are leaving.

An editor of a Catholic newspaper wrote: “There have been in recent years an unprecedented number of good Sisters leaving religious life.” Franciscan nun Mary Modde was more specific. She said that the ones leaving are “both young and middle-aged women who, to a large degree, are very well educated and who helped to form the core group of the apostolic community.”

What does that mean? Catholic leader Gabriel Moran put it bluntly: “Most of the young and imaginative people have left these groups.”

Are they being replaced?

Prospects for the Future

The 32-page report “Study of Entrances and Departures in Religious Communities of Women in the United States 1965-1972” provides the answer. Citing the study’s results, Mary Modde noted that, in 1965, 4,110 women entered the religious communities represented in the study, yet only 553 entered in 1972. Thus, while thousands of nuns are withdrawing, fewer and fewer women are replacing them. With what consequences?

For one thing, Roman Catholic schools have fewer nuns as teachers, and since hiring lay teachers as replacements is expensive, Catholic schools have been closing at a rate of about one a day. Catholic elementary- and secondary-school enrollments declined by 1,700,000 students between 1967 and 1971, a 30-percent drop! And the situation worsens. The Catholic Commonweal of February 2, 1973, under the heading “The Disappearing Nun,” reported:

“This is the season when Sisters are sending their ‘Dear John’ letters to pastors to whose parish schools they will not be returning in the fall. And this year the letters are especially numerous.”

The article then mentions dozens of schools from which nuns would be withdrawing in the states of New York, Massachusetts and Minnesota. It concludes:

“How bad is the situation? Perhaps not everywhere as bad as with the Sisters of St. Joseph of Boston, but their vocations problem gives some idea of what religious orders generally are up against these days in keeping their ranks replenished. Between 1966 and 1971, twenty new members entered the order; during the same period, the order lost 563 Sisters through death, retirement or departure from religious life. That’s a loss ratio of 28 to 1.”

Who are the nuns left in the convents? This can be a distressing question to Catholic officials. For one of every three nuns in the United States is sixty years old or older. In the Boston Archdiocese’s largest teaching order, the average age of the nuns is nearly sixty. But, as James Eblen, Seattle Archdiocesan director of communications, noted: “Even as recently as 20 years ago the vast majority of nuns were in their 20s and 30s.”

Is it any wonder, then, that some would suggest that religious orders may soon disappear entirely? It seems that even now many nuns are just waiting for the opportunity to leave, and others would depart if they could. Gabriel Moran indicated as much when he wrote in the National Catholic Reporter:

“Some people are there [in religious orders] because they are old, sick or helpless and they cannot do anything except hold on desperately to whatever remnants are left. There are other people who have enough freedom to go but are doubtful that they have a better alternative.”

What has brought about this deterioration of religious orders? Why are nuns, as Catholics express it, “losing their vocation”?

[Footnotes]

1. Chicago Daily News, January 19, 1970.

2. San Francisco Chronicle, May 29, 1972.

3. The Sioux City Journal, January 28, 1970.

4. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, January 7, 1972.

5. South African Sunday Tribune, May 28, 1972.

[Charts on page 8]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Total number of nuns world wide

1,201,159

879,939

1965 1971

hundreds of thousands

[Chart]

Number of new nuns in survey area

4,110

1965 1972

Why Nuns Leave

Why Nuns Leave

THERE have always been a few nuns who defect. But today’s exodus of tens of thousands of nuns has been unparalleled in numbers and in its shattering impact. Why have so many left?

A number of factors are involved. However, the principal cause has to do with the very structure and operation of the Catholic Church itself. Former nun Mercedes Alonso noted: “The steadily rising number of dedicated women who are daily leaving the convents is not creating the crisis but revealing it.”

What conditions in the Church have so disturbed nuns that thousands have defected?

A Major Reason for Defections

Nuns object, in particular, to what they consider meaningless traditions and restrictions. An example is the Church rule that forbids nuns to marry.

The law of celibacy was imposed centuries ago by rulers of the Church; it is admittedly not Scriptural. In fact, the recent Pope John XXIII said: “Ecclesiastical celibacy is not a dogma. The Scriptures do not impose it. It is even easy to effect a change.”

Thousands of nuns and priests have urgently appealed for such a change, some even citing the authority of the Holy Bible. Catholic theologian Hans Küng, for example, said: “Peter and the Apostles were, and stayed, married even in the full discipleship of Jesus, and this remained the pattern for the leaders of the community for many subsequent centuries.” (Matt. 8:14; 1 Cor. 9:5) Yet the Church has refused to change its celibacy law.

Thus, because of feeling unjustly forced to submit to a man-made law, many nuns have left their convents. Some have left the Catholic Church altogether, no doubt being reinforced in their decision by discovery of the Bible warning: “Now the Spirit manifestly saith that in the last times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to spirits of error and doctrines of devils, . . . forbidding to marry.”​—1 Tim. 4:1-3, Douay Version.

Restrictive Regulations

Yet celibacy is only one of the Church laws by which nuns have felt oppressed. Regulations that dictated the type of habit, or uniform, nuns must wear was another source of irritation. Many considered the habit unbecoming and uncomfortable, especially during hot weather.

Also, many nuns considered it a needless humiliation to have their heads shorn so as to wear the elaborate headgear. “In all the years I spent as a religious,” said one former nun, “I never got used to the fact of being without my hair; when uncoiffed I simply avoided looking into mirrors unless it was absolutely necessary.”

Then there are regulations on discipline. Midge Turk, who spent some eighteen years as a nun, explains in her 1971 autobiography The Buried Life: “The discipline was a twelve-inch whip, the shaft made of braided venetian blind cord that flowered at the tip into four knotted strips. We were told to use it in private only on Wednesday and Friday afternoons for a specified period of time, according to the written regulation, and to use it only on our backs, legs, or buttocks.” But not only does this “severe treatment of the body” find no support in the Scriptures, but many consider the practice demeaning and medieval.​—Col. 2:20-23.

In addition, there are rules that enforce periods of silence, regulate periods of prayer and meditation, and so on. The endless regulations, many of which seem unjust and ridiculous, frustrate nuns. Even Leo Cardinal Suenens in his 1963 book The Nun in the World acknowledged that, in many cases, nuns were prisoners of outdated rules that waste their potential and effectiveness.

“We were forbidden even to talk to fellow nuns, unless we had permission,” explained a nun who spent more than seventeen years in a Brooklyn, New York, convent. “In fact, it was marked in the Holy Rule that the simple gesture of touching each other was forbidden. This rule was an overreaction to the accusations of lesbianism, which were rampant in the medieval religious community.”

True, within the past decade, changes in some of the above regulations have been achieved. But changes did not come easily. Long despairing conflicts with Church authorities were involved, and reform was granted only after it seemed that it was the only way to save the nun community. Thus, many nuns left because of being frustrated at every turn in their attempts to initiate reform.

This occurred, for example, in 1970 in Los Angeles, California. There, about 315 of the 380 nuns of the Sisters of the Immaculate Heart of Mary departed en masse. They were led by the head of the order, Anita Caspary, who had earlier given up her religious name, Mother Humiliata.

However, not only outdated rules and frustrating attempts to change them have caused nuns to leave. The very climate within convents is perhaps the major factor.

Attitudes and Conduct

Nuns often point to a lack of warmth and friendliness in convents, and this has contributed to the decision of many to leave. As one might well imagine, such rules as those that enforce silence, prohibit free discussion and forbid even touching one another contribute to a cold, formal atmosphere in convents.

It is frequently noted that human feeling is absent. “Attempts at normal, healthy friendships were discouraged, and even looked upon with suspicion,” explained a former nun. “I missed intimacy,” another former nun noted, “the kind of closeness you feel only as a part of a big, close-knit family.”

Nuns further observed that genuine concern for the welfare of others was missing within the Church. Midge Turk, who advanced to administrative roles as a nun, complained: “Never once during meetings with diocese officials was the subject of the worth of the human beings I was working with ever mentioned.” No doubt it was this type of attitude that a Catholic editor had in mind when he wrote that nuns were “leaving religious life because their community was for them more of a hindrance than a help to Christian living.”

Also, many nuns are leaving because they feel stifled​—all initiative and innovation are squelched. In 1967 Jacqueline Grennan, nationally recognized educator in the United States, abandoned her religious order, explaining: “Under the vow of obedience . . . I came to realize that I could not live as a responsible and productive human being.”

Then, too, nuns often feel as though they are treated as children​—indeed, practically every decision and move are dictated for them. The way the Catholic Church is structured contributes to this. The Mother Superior, for instance, is granted great powers over the lives of nuns, which tends to make her feel that she is somebody special. One woman, who left after spending seven years in convents in Argentina and Chile, reported:

“The superiors required total obedience. This, in fact, amounted to idolatry because, according to them, God placed them in their positions and therefore all had to give them unquestioned obedience. . . . The obedience they required reached such an extreme that we had to bow down before them, without ever questioning them.”

Catholic priest Luke Delaney, who spent about a quarter of a century organizing convent missions, pointed to such attitudes of superiors as the cause for the great exodus of nuns from convents in Ireland. He said:

“Some Mother Superiors are mulishly stubborn, conceited in their conservatism . . . They adopt restrictive practices . . . Nowadays young women will not stand for petticoat dictatorship in convents. They just quit.”

It may be noted, however, that all these conditions have existed for generations​—the celibacy, the restrictive regulations, the unloving, authoritarian attitudes, and so forth. “Why, then,” persons may ask, “has it been now, within the past decade, that the dramatic exodus of nuns has been occurring?”

Why Mass Departures Now

The Second Vatican Council, of 1962 to 1965, with its efforts at renewal, is particularly responsible. Pope John XXIII noted that the purpose of the Council was “to let some fresh air into the Church.” Thus, in effect, an invitation was extended to the religious to examine their vocation, to think for themselves. With what consequences?

In her 1972 letter of withdrawal, after spending nearly eighteen years in the Visitation of Holy Mary convent in Bayridge, Brooklyn, one nun explained: ‘Many of the Sisters became disillusioned as we tried to update our customs and traditions. But stiff resistance was met from those who opposed updating. No wonder so many are leaving the convents.’

Investigations by nuns revealed that numerous regulations that governed their lives were meaningless and needlessly restrictive, rather than helpful to Christian living. For instance, their habit or dress, which supposedly was of sacred origin, they discovered is simply the type of dress peasants wore centuries ago. Also, the curtains around their beds, which they thought had some holy significance, they learned served originally only for warmth, and hence are entirely unnecessary in these days of central heating!

The Second Vatican Council had invited the investigations that led to the eventual disillusionment and conflicts when attempts at updating were made. But there is another factor that has contributed to the mass exodus of nuns. This is the changing attitude, as well as status, of women in the world.

Nuns have been caught up in the spirit of the women’s liberation movement, which blossomed in the mid-1960’s. Thus imbued by a new sense of independence, nuns have been encouraged to strike out from their convents when they become disillusioned. This gives courage to yet others to leave, and in this way the exodus has gained momentum.

Another Important Factor

However, efforts at Church renewal led to other discoveries that have confused many nuns. Saints were dropped, meat can now be eaten on Fridays, and images were removed from churches. But that is not all. One former nun observed: “I also learned that basic Catholic teachings such as the Trinity, immortality of the soul, purgatory, limbo and hellfire are unscriptural and of pagan origin.”

The fact becomes evident: The Catholic Church simply is not teaching the Bible truth about God and his purposes! No wonder discouragement among nuns spreads. “I felt that I was starving spiritually,” noted one former nun from Adams, Massachusetts. “There was no talk or hope of God’s kingdom in our convent. We seldom ever talked about God spontaneously.” Even Catholic authorities began openly to acknowledge the spiritual deprivation. For example, Catholic priest Andrew M. Greeley wrote recently:

“There is a religious energy crisis in the church that is even more serious than the petroleum shortage. Vast numbers of people are hungry for religion, for illumination and direction of the critical questions of life and death, good and evil, love and hatred, unity and diversity, God and man.

“The last place they can look to for illumination in 1974 will be the Roman Catholic church (and it won’t do them much better to look toward other churches either).”​—The National Catholic Reporter, January 11, 1974.

Can you blame nuns for leaving a church that even its own priest describes in this way? But if other churches are just as spiritually deprived, where can one go for Bible truth regarding God and his purposes?

Nuns Are Finding Satisfying Answers

There is a source of reliable spiritual instruction. After leaving the convent in 1969, the former nun from Adams, Massachusetts, observed: “I ceased going to church. I had come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church was not teaching the truth, but I had no idea where to go to find it. Later two of Jehovah’s witnesses came to my door and I gladly welcomed them into my house to talk.

“I did research on what was being taught me by the Witnesses, because I wanted to be sure that I was not being misled again. However, after two or three studies I knew that Jehovah’s witnesses were teaching the truth from the Bible. It was too reasonable not to be true. I was especially pleased to learn that God is not a Trinity.”

But not only is it gratifying to learn the truth regarding God and his grand purposes, it is heartwarming too to experience the genuine love that exists among Jehovah’s witnesses. “This attracted me more than even their Bible teachings,” noted a former nun of ten years who was baptized by Jehovah’s witnesses last January in Paraguay.

Are you a nun, or were you? Have you been associated with any religious organization? Do you desire to serve God in the manner that Christ and his early followers did? Would you enjoy the warm, loving companionship of modern-day Christians who truly imitate first-century Christians? Jehovah’s witnesses will be most happy to help you. Just speak with them the next time they call in your area, or write to the publishers of this magazine.

The Mysterious Rainbow

The Mysterious Rainbow

THE rainbow has long fascinated man, but he has been repeatedly baffled by the mysteries it presents.

Why does the rainbow appear only after certain rains? Why can one see more colors in one rainbow than in another? Why does the bow seem to move away from a person as he walks toward it? Do you know?

Fearing what they could not understand, many ancient peoples viewed the beautiful bow as a hostile force or “bad luck.” To some it was a great snake (or other animal) that swallowed water and held back rain. These views, however, strongly contrast with the first written record of a rainbow.

The First Rainbow

The world’s oldest history book, the Bible, draws attention to the first rainbow and gives the reason for its continued appearance. It reports that God made a covenant, a promise to the survivors of the world flood, namely, Noah and his family, that “no more will the waters become a deluge to bring all flesh to ruin.” And as a sign of this covenant, God said to Noah: “My rainbow I do give in the cloud, and it must serve as a sign of the covenant between me and the earth.” (Gen. 9:8-16) What a splendid way to remind mankind of God’s promise!

Some argue that the Bible was not actually here describing the first appearance of a rainbow, but that from that time forward a new significance was being attached to its existence. However, the Bible presents it as something introduced at that time. Apparently atmospheric conditions prior to the great Flood did not allow for the formation of the rainbow. Even today certain atmospheric conditions must exist for it to appear.

Although the Bible’s comments are brief, they give the why of the rainbow, and to this day those of faith see in it reassurance that God still cares for man.

Attempts to Understand

It was when man began to ponder the how, the mechanics of the rainbow, that he tackled a mystery with many a surprising turn. Truly, those who would “catch the rainbow” have often ended up with sore feet!

One early “detective,” the Greek philosopher Aristotle, held that the rainbow was formed by rays reflecting or bouncing off the uneven surface of cloud droplets. He further reasoned that there were only three colors in the rainbow​—a view that dominated scientific thought on the point for centuries. His explanations, however, left many questions unanswered.

One perplexing puzzle arose when two arcs or a “double rainbow” would appear. Why, if the rainbow was simply reflection, would the bands of color in the outer arc appear in exactly the opposite order of those in the inner bow? As various theories on this and other aspects were discarded, scholar Roger Bacon was prompted to say: “It is certain regarding philosophers that no one of them has been able to gain a knowledge of the rainbow.”

‘Not so,’ answered René Descartes, a French scientist of the seventeenth century. Using complex mathematical calculations, he set forth charts showing the angles necessary to the formation of a rainbow. He boasted that those who understood his theories would “easily understand” the cause of rainbows. However, a professor of mathematics at Brooklyn College said that “he had not really answered all the problems connected with the rainbow.” For example, he failed to explain correctly color formation and multiple rainbows.

Then, sixty-seven years later, Isaac Newton published his Opticks, correctly stating that sunlight can be separated into several colors and thus raindrops simply separate the colors. After this, it was generally assumed that “the last word had been written.” But was the mystery of the rainbow really solved? Many thought so. However, the rainbows that occasionally appeared refused to obey the man-made rules.

Eventually scientists began to believe that light consisted of “waves” similar in action to sound waves. Explanation along these lines led the Encyclopædia Britannica for 1858 to conclude: “At last we begin to believe that we understand this matter [the formation of the rainbow] completely.” In fact, so confident were many, that the then-held views on light were commonly called “the complete theory.” However, new experiments eventually reduced the “complete theory” to what was renamed a “first approximation”!

The Present View

Of course, in hundreds of years of studying “clues” scientists have made some fascinating observations about the formation of the mystery bow. Basically, the present view is that you see a rainbow when the sun is behind you and rain is falling in front of you. Remembering that sunlight can actually produce several colors, consider what happens when rays of sunlight hit raindrops at certain angles.

As a ray hits the outer edge of the round raindrop, it is bent (refracted) and dispersed or separated into different colors (different lengths of light waves). Then these separated light waves hit the far side of the raindrop and are turned back (reflected). On their leaving the raindrop, more bending of the waves takes place.

How does this cause all the colors of the rainbow? Well, present theory holds that each color that you see is formed by rays that reach your eye at a certain angle, and the angle for that color never changes. The top band, for example, is red because that portion of the raindrops is at about a 42-degree angle from your eye. It is at that angle that your eye will pick up the red light waves. The other six color bands below the red (orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet) occur at angles slightly less than 42 degrees.

Why, then, when there are two bows, do the colors in the higher one appear in reverse order, with red at the bottom and violet at the top? Because, it is explained, rays of sunlight hitting at an angle of about 51 degrees from your eye are entering the bottom of water droplets and undergoing double internal reflection​—in other words, bouncing twice inside the raindrop before coming out of it. This second bounce or reflection causes the colors in the higher bow to be in exactly the opposite order of those in the lower bow.

As for one reason why you can sometimes see more colors than at other times, the February 1972 Science Digest notes: “The number of colors and their relative widths in the rainbow vary with the size of the raindrops.” But there is yet another factor​—you. Since the rainbow is only visible when you form a certain angle with the raindrops, it really could be called your rainbow​—your personal “seeing experience.” So the same raindrop that is at an angle to reflect red light to you may be reflecting yellow or blue light toward another person standing a few feet to one side of you.

Of course, this means that when you move, the rainbow “moves” also. That is, if you walk toward a rainbow, you may pass the position of the raindrops that formed the first rainbow you saw, but you will not be able to look up and see a rainbow over your head, for you are at the wrong angle. You may still see a rainbow in the distance, but this will be a new one formed at the appropriate angle from your new position. How accurate the old saying that describes the foolish dreamer as “chasing rainbows”!

Thus we can see that man has gradually learned much about the great bow of light. But does this mean that the final chapters to this mystery story have been written?

The Mystery Remains

“After hundreds of years of study, what is left to answer?” was a common attitude early in our century. According to many, the “light and optical theory seemed complete and perfect.” But, again, questions persisted, this time concerning the very basis of the rainbow​—light. Experiments indicated that light rays sometimes acted like particles (small pieces of matter) instead of “waves.” This upset the “wave theory,” which had been apparently successful in explaining so many different activities of light.

More research has led to yet another theory in which light is now viewed as composed of particles called photons and yet in action behaving “wavelike and particlelike at the same time.” In the final analysis, we must humbly admit that man still cannot fully answer the question that God asked Job over 3,000 years ago: “Where, now, is the way by which the light distributes itself?”​—Job 38:24.

But the very nature of light is not the only remaining puzzle in the rainbow mystery. “Little has been learned about its perception,” says the book The Rainbow. Yes, there is still much to be learned about the human eye and especially concerning color vision.

Truly, the challenge of the rainbow remains. And so whether we view the ‘bow of heaven’ as a sign of peace or choose to study the mystery of its structure, we do well to stand in awe of its Designer. It is true in many ways that no one is about to catch the elusive rainbow!

[Diagram on page 15]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

Sun’s Rays

Sun’s Rays

42°

Viewer

Why No One Can Figure Out the Economy

Why No One Can Figure Out the Economy

MAKING ends meet is not as easy as it once was. A housewife spends more money at the market for fewer groceries. Her husband makes higher wages than ever but has less to show for it. Will things get better?

The economy of the Western non-Communist world in particular has prompted predictions of national and international monetary collapse. In peculiar contrast, other experts say that the current economic plight is only a phase the economy is passing through as it adjusts to profound new influences. Soon, they prophesy, it will again vigorously move ahead.

Who is right? More than a few experts take a careful middle-of-the-road position. Business Week magazine, in a largely gloomy special issue about the U.S. “Debt Economy,” says that “the nation’s burden of debt is like a string drawn very taut . . . The string has not broken, and it may not. . . . Yet no one knows the precise breaking point and, while there are schemes and theories galore, no one really knows how to ease the tension, either.”

But why is it that the economic future is so hard to figure out? Why is it that you cannot be sure how much your money will buy tomorrow​—if anything? Some background in elementary economics is of assistance.

Economics Is a System

In its simplest definition, economics has reference to how goods and services are produced and distributed. The study of economics, then, is the study of a system.

In virtually every society people need things that other people have. One man, A, has sheep, which produce wool; another man, B, possesses dyes. If each is willing, they simply swap or barter goods. A gets dyes and B gets wool. Economics is essentially a system of cooperative swapping.

But suppose that A wants dyes from B and yet B already has an ample supply of A’s wool. Then what does A do? Or, what if both need the weaving service offered by a third, C? How should C be compensated? An economic system has to be big enough to handle these slightly more complex arrangements. How?

Money is used. Money​—that is, currency—​stands for or represents something of value; it is an instrument that allows great flexibility in a system of exchanges. Money, of course, should not be confused with true wealth. What A has of real value is his sheep. Meanwhile, B and C have dyes and a skill, respectively, as things of genuine worth. The money thus stands for what each has of true value.

But what is it that makes each one’s product or service of value? The demand for it. If no one ever needed wool, the value would remain low. On the other hand, if everyone depended on wool for clothing, that product would be in great demand and thus of high value.

The so-called “classical economists,” such as the Scotsman Adam Smith who lived in the eighteenth century, advised that an economic system should be allowed to float freely and, like water, seek its own level. Supply and demand would determine the “level” of each product or service. Thus if one man or company produces a product or service more cheaply than another, his competitor will eventually be driven from business by the public demand.

Prices, too, would be set by demand. When demand is high and supply limited, prices are high. But when little demand exists for an item available in great abundance, prices are low. This constitutes the rudiments of a “free” economic system. Unobstructed, many have reasoned, this system would continue indefinitely.

But a warning is in order here. Just because a system has been devised this does not mean that it is a “good” one.

How “Good” Is the Economic System?

Measured by certain standards, the Western world’s economic system may appear to be very effective. But is it really proving to be a “good” one? Or will it eventually be shown up as largely self-defeating? Let us see.

Particularly in recent decades experts have applied more controls to the economy. Why? If the economic system really works with supply and demand setting prices, why try to manipulate it? Many reasons are offered, but there are essentially two factors.

For one thing, there is fear​—a desire to “protect” one segment of an economy. A man, a company, a class of workers or a whole nation all know that if they lose out to their competition they have no work.

They may know economic “theory” very well. They know that public demand has made their service or product unnecessary and that they should merely be shifted to another part of the economy where they can play a productive role, supplying what the public demands.

But they also know that this means radical changes for them personally. Suppose a man is older and has spent his entire lifetime learning a trade that is no longer in demand; should he suddenly be expected to learn something entirely different? And what about salary? Obviously a man shifted from a skilled position in a now-defunct business will not make as much money when put on a job at which he is untrained. This means, in turn, that his family will have less money to live on, and his standard of living must drop. And who wants that?

Yes, the theory of supply and demand, a free uncontrolled market, and so forth, may look good on charts when extended over generations or centuries of time. But it cannot help the man who loses his job today. Thus economic writer Henry Hazlitt observes:

“It was precisely the great merit of the classical economists . . . that they were concerned with the effects of a given economic policy or development in the long run and on the whole community.”

However, Hazlitt adds:

“But it was also their defect that, in taking the long view and the broad view, they sometimes neglected to take also the short view and the narrow view. They were too often inclined to minimize or to forget altogether the immediate effects of developments on special groups. . . . [This situation is] incident to nearly all industrial and economic progress.”

For this reason, most modern Western economists lean to the other extreme, and the “long run” effect of policies is forgotten as they call for jobs to be preserved at all costs. Let us consider a couple of admittedly simple illustrations.

Suppose a man’s wool suit can be made and sold for $80 in the U.S. Yet Hong Kong companies make the same suit and can ship it and sell it in the U.S. for $40. Many, if not all, customers would buy two Hong Kong suits for the price of one U.S. suit. If this is kept up, American suits would go out of demand and thousands of garment-industry workers would be left idle.

So a tariff is imposed on suits imported to the U.S., heavily taxing them. This greatly raises the cost of the foreign-made suits, and U.S. jobs are rescued. Superficially, that looks fine; but let us look below the surface.

What about the buyer? He is paying an additional $40 for a suit. That money could be spent in other sectors of the economy, on, say, television sets and refrigerators. Theoretically, the American garment employee could shift over to work in one of these other industries. But the tariff prevents his being confronted with this uncomfortable shift. Yet what about the Chinese garment workers? They could lose jobs because their suits have been taxed out of the market, are no longer in demand. They are forced to do something else for a living. The problem is not really solved, merely pushed outside the U.S. in this example. With the tremendous assertion of national sovereignties in recent decades, more and more controls of this nature and those of a similar nature have been grafted into the economy.

The same process goes on inside each country. To illustrate: With the introduction of diesel locomotives, firemen became unnecessary; there was no longer any coal for them to shovel. But labor unions managed to preserve the fireman’s job. After that firemen were, so to speak, paid just to go along for the ride. The fireman’s job was saved but only at an increased cost to railroad passengers and freight shippers. Instead of shifting the firemen over to making suits, which may have been in demand, the system pays him to stay on with the railroad. Meanwhile the customer pays more for hard-to-obtain suits as well as for railroad service.

The number of controls of this kind has grown massively in recent decades to take in virtually every facet of the economy, from small shops to gigantic corporations and farmers. Each nation, each union, each company, yes, each man, is looking out for himself. Such fear​—largely understandable under the circumstances—​is prompted by the knowledge that if each one does not care for himself, who will? As we have seen, the system is certainly not geared to do so unless it is controlled for someone’s special interest.

This clearly points up a major inability on the part of the present economic system. How can it preserve an overall system of supply and demand indefinitely, if, at the same time, it must set up measures that restrict that very system? Yet that is necessary if people now are to have jobs. It does not take an economic genius to see that such a cumbersome, self-contradictory system must at some time sag from its own weight.

Compounding the System’s Problems

But as if that were not enough, another hard-to-control major element enters the murky economic soup. Greed. Regardless of actual need, people want more and more material things and a “better way of life,” even at the expense of others. Each worker wants higher wages and each manufacturer wants increased prices for his product. So, in Paris’ Le Monde, Bruno Durieux refers to “the permanent struggle between social groups to maintain or increase their share of the nation’s wealth.”

If a man hired to make wool suits demands higher wages, then the price of the finished product must reflect the same increase. Other people who want to buy the suit then need more money from their own employers. So the products and services that they provide also increase in cost, generating a terrible spiral. Because of skyrocketing demand, products cannot be made fast enough, and so prices continue to mount. This is one vicious form of inflation.

Equally if not more devastating is the role that governments themselves have had in stirring up inflation. It was noted earlier that money merely represents true worth. A nation’s currency, in simple theory, should not exceed what it is actually worth, that is, what it can produce. But modern nations, violating this elementary principle, have printed money far in excess of their true worth. Usually this has been done for a reason; for instance, to pay war contractors in time of national crisis. But the excess money introduced into circulation eventually makes it worth less; everything costs more in terms of “dollars and cents.”

As inflation settles in, the nation’s people can only buy less for more money. Currency, in other words, loses its value, and in relation to the currencies of other countries it is worth less than it was before the inflationary period began. Thus it must be officially devalued on the world market. Foreigners are then able to buy more easily the now-cheaper products of the affected nation, creating even more havoc. How so? They are demanding the supplies that were already in short supply and that largely brought on the inflation in the first place. Results? More inflation! “Runaway inflation” now plagues the economy of most Western nations.

Of course, too, when money is devalued, it loses something other than just face value. It loses the trust of many persons. They stop investing and try to hold onto what they have. So, business loses the further capital that it needs to expand in order to meet the demand for products. Rather than stepping up production, they must cut it back, but prices remain high. People are laid off from their jobs and a “recession” could set in. The current situation in the U.S. and elsewhere is described by some as a form of recession. A record number of strikes, too, has cut down production.

Inflation, recession, unemployment​—all at one time—​are staggering enough to consider. But the current plethora of problems has grown to nightmarish proportions. How? By the introduction of new, unexpected elements. Oil prices have quadrupled and other natural resources are becoming harder to obtain and subsequently more expensive. These radical adjustments​—unheard of only a few months ago—​have affected virtually every industry in the Western world with staggering and sometimes devastating results.

Uncooperative weather has meant low crop yields; burgeoning populations grab for the limited supplies. Thus even once-inexpensive staples like beans and sugar have multiplied several times in cost. Almost daily a larger percentage of the average person’s income is used to buy life’s necessities.

People’s desire for more of everything has affected the system in yet another way and that is through credit buying. While the economy was expanding and seemingly virile, credit was popular. Currently, there seems to be some tapering off of credit use as people realize that they cannot pay off their debts with inflated money. The high interest rates on cheap money further frighten away borrowers. Less credit used means fewer products and services sold, further depressing production. But up until recently everyone blindly expected economic growth to go on and on. In the U.S. a total debt of $2.5 trillion has accumulated. That is over two times the total gross national product (or the sum of all the nation’s products and services in one year). For every U.S. dollar of money supply in circulation, there is now $8 of debt.

In fact, much of the seeming “economic miracle” made in the Western world in recent decades is really no more than a mirage, since it is based largely on debt​—borrowed money. As Thomas Oliphant writes in the Boston Sunday Globe, Americans today are “much less better off than their parents . . . Their greater material well-being appears at least as much the result of a huge increase in the use and availability of credit as of a healthier economy.” The nation, like others, is hopelessly in debt.

Prediction Impossible

Is it any wonder that with all these factors, and hundreds of others not here mentioned, twisting at the Western world’s economy, no one can accurately predict where it is heading? The problems are no longer limited to a few nations, but are all over and interlocked. The slightest adjustment in the political or economic situation of one country can jar the whole complex web.

Economists are thus adrift in the current economic ocean, dog-paddling to stay afloat like everyone else. They are baffled by the vast array of interacting factors. “Man’s knowledge of his own economic institutions is limited,” confesses R. W. Everett of New York’s Chase Manhattan Bank, Economic Research Division, adding: “Good analysis is made more difficult by the fact that these institutions are constantly changing.”

The impossible task before the economic forecasters is colorfully described by syndicated columnist Max Lerner:

“This is the season in the sun for economists. They don’t seem to know much, and what they do know they know to little avail. But they are beautiful to behold as they squirm and flounder, wriggle and leap about like fish in the encircling net of economic circumstance.”

Most of them hope for the best but can bring forth no sound reason for believing that things will get better. Even if the system were to pull out of the current crisis temporarily, how can anyone believe that it can maintain its balance in the future? As we have seen, its end seems obvious. The only question is, When will it end?

Persons with faith in the Bible know that world change​—not just a major adjustment in the economic system—​is coming. They know that the Bible says that the worldwide system cannot work and will soon pass away, to be replaced by one of God’s making. Right now, while obviously affected by the system in which they live, they do not rest their confidence in it. (Matt. 6:9, 10, 19-34) They look elsewhere for an accurate understanding of the future, and that is to God.

[Graph on page 20]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

U.S. INFLATION SINCE WORLD WAR I

World War I

Great Depression

World War II

Korean War

Vietnam War

[Picture on page 17]

“It’s the other fellow who is causing the inflation!”

STOREKEEPER

MANUFACTURER

OIL COMPANY

CUSTOMER

GOVERNMENT

OIL PRODUCER

Love Is Costly—but It Is Worth It!

Love Is Costly​—but It Is Worth It!

THE world is full of bargain hunters. Among these are ever so many who hope to get something for nothing. But more often than not they get disappointed. This applies not only to material things but also to intangibles, such as love and affection.

The underlying sentiment of a majority of the modern-day “love” songs is that “love” is both pleasurable and free. Of course, what is referred to is romantic love or sexual gratification. Little, if anything, is said about love costing something or about one’s being deserving of love. And so youths rush into marriage. Or they begin to live together without the benefit of marriage​—“free love,” some call it. But sooner or later a large proportion of them separate or get a divorce. Why? Because they were not realistic, not mature enough to be willing to pay what love costs.

The love that is lasting, be it romantic love, love of one’s family or friends, or love based on a sense of duty and a love of righteousness, invariably costs something​—but it is worth it.

Various Kinds of Love

For each different kind of love the Greeks had a special word. Interestingly, Bible writers did not use eros, which designates the romantic type of love based on sex attraction. However, they did use storgé when referring to the kind of love that exists between parents and children, between brothers and sisters. They also used philía in reference to a friendship type of love that exists between persons who have a great deal in common, culturally and/​or idealistically. But most frequently they used a word rarely employed by ancient Greek writers; it is agápe, referring to principled love, love that can be an exemplary expression of unselfishness.

Even with the romantic type of love, it is true that it is costly but is worth it​—that is, if it is kept within the bounds set for it by the Creator. The Bible itself shows this. An example is found in an account in Genesis, the first book of the Bible. It tells of the love that Jacob had for Rachel. He served seven years in order to have her as his wife. Does that seem like quite a price to pay? Yet, the account says, “in his eyes they proved to be like some few days because of his love for her.” He felt that it was worth it. And she and her sons Joseph and Benjamin came to be very close to his heart.​—Gen. 29:20; 37:3; 44:18-34.

The kind of love that exists between parents and children, also brothers and sisters, likewise costs something. Such relationships must be nourished in order to thrive. Obligations must be discharged. But doing so is worth it. Just think of the satisfaction that comes from doing something for a person you love, also of how much it means to have someone who really cares about you. Loneliness is the lot of many in the world because, as they see it, no one really cares about them.

To have the love of friends there is also a price that must be paid. Friendship between mature persons requires consideration, thoughtfulness, good manners, tact, and genuine concern for the well-being of the other person, among other things. Where friendships have faltered, it is because one person or the other has tried to do too much taking and not enough giving. A fine Scriptural example of real friendship is that between David and Jonathan. Jonathan loved David “as his own soul,” and David said that Jonathan’s love ‘exceeded that of women.’ Their relationship was richly rewarding. But it cost them something. For one thing, Jonathan risked his life for David. (1 Sam. 18:1; 20:30-34; 2 Sam. 1:26) Do your friends mean that much to you?

…