overthrowing the doctrine of the "divine right of kings” wherever it was held. Have we forgotten the literary context of the dismembered text from which that doctrine was said to have been derived? Cromwell knew the con text, and so did the Independents who led the democratic movement on which our culture stands. Professor Hook’s distorted perspective in social sta tistics is illustrated in the following: Nor can the compulsory study of these subjects be justified by the worthy desire to elevate character and improve moral behavior. For anyone who has lived with intelligent and growing minds will have discovered that there is hardly anything they resent so much as didactic moralizing, even when it has the ■ weight of authority—natural or supernatural — be hind it (p. 108). It is not questioned that progressive education meth ods (when correctly defined) are effective. Professor Hook’s article in the Saturday Evening Post last summer (June 30, 1945) was very convincing. However, the above statement contradicts a vast amout of data in cultural anthropology. “ Intelligent and growing minds” in great blocks of population over long centuries have not shown that they “resent . . . didactic moralizing.” Germany and Russia have trained youths under authoritative di dactic moralizing, and they have not been resentful as might have been supposed. Catechetical instruction among Lutherans and among Scotch Presbyterians is correlated with observable group loyalty, solidarity, and continuity. I am in favor of “progressive" education, but I protest against such a sweeping negative generaliza tion. For another example of distorted statistical perspec tive I quote the following from this book: Whoever holds the opinion that religious education is either a necessary or sufficient condition for the pre vention of crime, does so in defiance of available statistics on the subject (p. 109). Note that two negatives are alleged to be supported by “statistics." The great word “statistics” with no bibli ographical references, is not scholarly "cricket” in my lexicography. I do not know that anyone claims that religious edu cation is “sufficient . . . for the prevention of crime” in the sense that “statistics” would show absence, of crime. The Bible makes no such claim. As to the “necessity” of religious education as a helpful influence toward prevention of crime, the “sta tistics” should be open to study. What kind of Sunday schools is under discussion—a half-hour of poor teaching a week? What do the statistics reveal as to the elimina tion of the influence of “religious education” from non criminals? Was there religious home training, or a spir itual impact upon all in the neighborhood? What social forces were involved? Professor Hook is not acquainted with theological controversy. He asserts: But a critical evaluation of dogmas is precisely what those who urge the prescription of religious and theological study do not want. Imagine what an outcry would arise from religious organizations if their sacred dogmas were critically evaluated — pos sibly rejected (p. 109). One who knows the struggles of the Gospel need not “ imagine” what he knows to be almost universally prev alent. One familiar with the facts would never accuse us of avoiding “critical evaluation.” The book should be read by Bible-believing Chris tians as an example of current atheistic influences in edu cation, with which our young people have to contend. OCTOBER, 1946
By Betty Bruechert
A S CHILDREN, my sister and I believed fer- yently in Santa Claus. Like Riley’s “Bill/’ just before Christmas we were as good as we could be. Much of the time we were veritable angels, but pccasionally, when Christmas seemed pretty far off, it was too great a strain on our disposi tion^, and we reverted to our natural naughty selves. To correct this weakness and to enable us to hold out at least until Christmas, Mother deviled an ingenious plan. Said she: “Some times, if children are very, very good, Santa Claus makes a visit to their homes before Christ mas. He might leave a little advance present, if yqu girls behaved properly.” Apparently this had the desired effect, for I recall very vividly that one evening, while we were eating supper (all were at the table except Mother, who was taking care of some errand), we heard our bedroom window slam. Dad said, “You had better see what that was,” and off we scampered. We stopped short at what we saw lying on our beds: two tiny, exquisitely dressed dolls, one in pink for Sister, and one in blue for me. Chills and thrills ran up and down our spines when we realized that Santa Claus had been so near. For days, we literally tiptoed about, hoping to keep out of mischief, and to be worthy of bigger and better gifts at Christmas time. And, as we clasped to our hearts our precious little dolls, how we loved Santa Claus for his goodness to ug! Many a time, since I have been Christ’s, and He has been mine, I have thought of those pre- Christmas presents and have likened them to the foretastes of Heaven which the children of God enjoy. Blessed hours of fellowship with those of like precious faith; new truths from the Word of God; lifting of burdens; the joy of win ning souls to the Saviour—these are pre-Christ mas—pre-Heaven—gifts to the believer. They are comforts by the way; helps on the journey; manna for the soul—to keep us walking with Him, to make us faithful in our service and un tiring in our devotion. If these are but fore tastes, what will it be to see our Lord, to be with Him, and to be like Him? 7
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker