Basic HTML Version
INBRIEF
THE
COUNSELS
OF
by
Stanley R. Rader
W
e live in a world of grcat
complexity. Simplistic
so–
tions rarely bear much
fruit in this modero world of incredi–
ble technology and vastly compli–
cated human engineering. Yet sorne–
times grcat institutions allow them–
selves to indulge in cut-rate remedies
to solve infinitely complex and deep–
rooted problems. Especially is this so
when a quick face-saver is urgently
needed to smooth over a major em–
barrassment.
One of the grcatest states in the
Union found itself ftushed with em–
barrassment over the untimely dcath
of 900 of its citizens in the nation of
Guyana. Worldwide attention was
now acutely riveted on the ecclesias–
tical affairs of the state of California,
famous for its fanatical religions.
A
very
few radical religious sects
had clcarly gotten out of hand. The
media were filled with titles such as:
"Behind the Cult Craze"; "The Bi–
zarre Tragedy in Guyana"; and
"Why Cults Turn to Violence." Edi–
tors of major newsweeklies called for
a tight rein on lunatic cult leaders.
Sorne few were even hinting at a cut–
back of religious liberty. The hcat
had been turned up.
California was then enjoying a
soaring employment rate, renewed
population growth and a big boom in
construction. Moreover, Californians
considered their "golden state of
mind" one of their matchless assets.
With the tragedy of Guyana, this
golden image was suddenly and
hopelessly tarnished. Public outcry
for quick, concerted action pressured
the government into the proverbial
trap of opening Pandora's box.
The casy, on-the-shelf solution is
always readily available for those
gullible enough to reach over and
dust it off. The convenient coinci-
The
PLAIN TRUTH May 1979
dence nearly always presents itself in
these situations.
It
just so happened
that at the time six dissident mem–
ben were seeking ways to overthrow
the leadership of the Worldwide
Church of God. They took their sup–
posed grievances to one of the Cali–
fornia assistant attorneys
general ~
The state lcaped at the unforeseen
opportunity. The time was just too
ripe and the temptation too grcat.
This was one game they couldn' t
lose.
In due course a lawsuit was filed.
The complaint against the Church
called for, among other things, the
removal of the existing directors of
the Church and the appointment of a
temporary receiver. Then, on Janu–
ary 3, 1979, the receiver showed up
on Church premises with attorneys
for the relators, security forces, and
representatives of the attorney gener–
al's office. Next, without any prior
notice, he commenced his attempt to
seize the operations of the Church.
The rest you probably have already
rcad in your local newspaper.
Forgotten
in this almost involun–
tary spasm of retributive action fol–
lowing in the wake of the Guyana
tragedy was the First Amendment to
the Constitution, the age-old princi–
pie of separation of church and state,
the overall unconstitutionality of any
such action, and the uncalled-for gov–
ernmental entanglements into
every–
day
ecclesiastical affairs. A state gov–
ernment just cannot walk in and take
over a church
without
a determined
reaction from not only the accused
church itself, but also the wholeofthe
American worldofreligion.
The fight is currently progressing,
and religious freedom will win out in
the end no matter
how
many unsched–
uled rounds are needed to end the
bout.
But for the purposes of this month–
ly column, let's look at the whole
episode from a very detached, philo–
sophical point of view. Forget, for the
moment, the enormous damage the
Church has already sustained. ln–
deed, history will eventually forget
even this headline-grabbing breach
of religious liberty. In· the long term,
the important thing is the lesson to be
lcarned and the character growth to
be instilled in the lives of the partici–
pants.
Let's widen our perspective just a
little. The ancient admonition that
fools rush in where angels fear to
trcad has probably been repeated
time and time again for many centu–
ries. That's because it's fundamental–
ly true-being based on a sound bib–
lical principie. The proverb says: "A
prudent man sees da nger and hides
himself; but the simple go on, and
suffer for it" (Prov. 22:3, RSV) .
Am 1 suggesting that any particu–
lar individuals or groups employed
by the California state government
are fools and simpletons? Emphat–
ically not! No one can even casually
read through the book of Proverbs
and find himself completely unas–
sailed. The specific stated purpose of
these aphorisms of antiquity is to
make men "know wisdom and in–
struction ... in wise dcaling ... that
prudence may be given to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the
youth" and even that "the wise man
also may hcar and increase in lcarn–
ing" (Prov. 1:3-5, RSV) .
These biblicallessons were not lost
on Abraham Lincoln. Churchill so
aptly described bis wise and positive
rcactions to the enormous pressures
ofthe Civil War. Sir Winston stated:
' ' Through his [Lincoln' s] office
ftowed a strcam of politicians, news–
paper editors, and other men of in–
ftuence. Most of them clamoured for
quick victory with no conception of
the hazards of war.... At the same
time bis spirit was sustained by a
deepening belief in Providence .
When the toll of war rose steeply and
plans went wrong he appealed for
strength in his inmost thoughts to a
power higher than man's. Strength
was certainly given him.
lt
is sorne–
times necessary at the summit of au-
(Continued on page 45)
21