TRENDS AND TENDENCIES OF THE TIMES

Ours is a complex civilization. Indeed it may be said that the world has never been as complex as it is today. All this makes it very difficult to understand. There are in almost every field of human endeavor so many trends and tendencies that we would have material for many conferences if each of them were treated even briefly. We shall, therefore, limit ourselves to a treatment of such matters as seem to be of peculiar interest and significance at this time.

There can be no doubt that it is quite in order for us to occupy ourselves with a discussion of this kind. We should study the vital issues of the day. The Lord Himself enjoins us: "See that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, redeeming the time because the days are evil," Eph. 5: 15-16, and again, "Prove all things: I Thess. 5: 21. If this be true at any time it certainly applies to the present, for it is not too much to say we are living in an age of intellectual, moral, and religious confusion. Men are groping about, anxious to find something upon which they can lay hold with conviction. The old foundations are shaken. That has been held sacred for a thousand years seems to be undermined. Some face the future with misgivings, others adopt a non-chalant attitude and live by the maxim, "We don't know where we're going, but we're on our way; and still others rally around a dictator, who poses as a God-sent leader and claims he has all the answers and can lead them to the promised land if only they will follow him.

Under the circumstances it is of the greatest importance that Christians be able "to discern the times," and this is doubly necessary for those who are ministers of Christ, interpreters of God's will to man, and shepherds of immortal souls.

In discussing this topic we shall try to evaluate the various trends in the light of God's Word. That is the touchstone by which everything is proved in the Christian experience. Now it will always be found, upon closer scrutiny, that almost any trend or tendency we might discuss will have its roots in the ideology or the "Weltanschauung" of those concerned. "As a man thinketh so he is," says the Bible, and as the leaders of any movement or tendency think so it is. It seems, therefore, that it will be of benefit, if we first of all make clear what the Christian ideology or world view is. Having done that we have a vantage point from which we can interpret and properly evaluate the trends and tendencies which we observe in our present day world. Accordingly we shall first of all set forth as briefly as possible the Christian's "Weltanschauung" That will be followed by a discussion of the dominant trend in these three fields: the cultural, the social and economic, and the political.

The Christian's Weltanschauung

The word "Weltanschauung" is being used so widely today, also in English texts, that it seems hardly necessary to translate it. Ideology, view of life, world view, philosophy of life would be English equivalents. We prefer "philosophy of life" because it includes all the fundamental ideas and principles, which form the basis of a person's thinking, acting and willing. And be it said here that everyone if he is a thinking being at all, has some philosophy of life. Whatever he thinks about the great problems of the human soul, whatever the ideas which motivate his actions, whatever are the maxims he consciously or unconsciously lives by, that is his philosophy of life.

Now as to the Christian's philosophy of life. I believe we can rightly say that the Apostles Creed together with Luther's explanation of it gives in brief compass the sum total of the Christian's "Weltanschauung." Here we have an answer to all those great and profound questions which have been agitating the minds of men from time immemorial: Is there a God? What is His relation to the universe? Where do all things come from? What is the destiny of man? Is there a life after death?

Philosophers are want to divide the field of thought into three main divisions: metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Metaphysics deals with the ultimate reality, or the first cause and the final end of all things. A person's ethics are always based on his metaphysics, for if there is a God and one stands in some relation to me, that implies that I must act accordingly. That is really a command as to what my conduct should be. Ethics answers the question: What must I do? Immediately the question arises: How can I know? That ought I to do? What may I hope? Those are the problems which knock at the door of the reflective human mind. Now it is not true that the second chief part of our Catechism gives answers, and adequate answers, to all those great questions? No doubt it is for this reason that someone remarked he could find more common sense with regard to these profoundest of human problems in any pastoral conference than in the meetings of philosophical societies.

Suppose we take up briefly some of these questions. Whence is the universe? Or more philosophically what is the first, the primal cause, of all things? The Christian answers: I believe in God the Father "Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth." God has made heaven and earth, the world and all that is therein. And He made it out of nothing. Before that almighty fiat: "Let there be," nothing of this universe existed. Matter is, therefore, not eternal. Neither is God immanent in the world. That is to say: God is not part of the world. He is not the soul of the universe as a person's soul is part of himself. If that were true, the universe itself would be eternal and God would be the ordering principle in the universe. Some students of Plato contend that this is what the great Athenian taught, but that is not Christian doctrine. According to Christian "Weltanschauung" God is something separate, something over and above the world. He was before the world, for the world had a beginning, while God did not, though it is true that in Him we live and have our being. "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." Gen. 1: 1. "For all those things hath mine hand made, and all those things have been, saith the Lord." Is. 66: 2. These words also exclude the idea of a gradual evolution of all things from a primordial cell. The word "create" or made occurs no less than eleven times in the first chapter of the Bible, and it is clear beyond any doubt that God created the various animals and plants after their kind, that is, He called the separate creatures into existence, not only the germs or bits of matter from which they later developed.

And indeed does not a little reflection on the part of man endowed with reason lead to the conclusion that the universe is a result of an act of God? Do not the wonders of nature with its myriad of laws always point to design? And does not that imply a divine mind behind it all? As well believe (as Huxley did) that a monkey hammering haphazardly on a typewriter could eventually produce all the plays of Shakespeare as to conceive that the whole universe should have come into being by chance. Is it not true that the tiniest flower says in unmistakable language: I am a product of the almighty hand of God?

And now we already have an answer to the next great question which belongs to a

proper "Weltanschauung;" Whence is man? The Christian says: I believe that God has made me. "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul." Gen. 2: 7. In the image of God, like God, entirely different from all other creatures. Man never was an animal and never will be. He is a moral being, Adam was like God or corporate holiness and righteousness. He was the most perfect, the most wonderful human that ever lived, save alone that second Adam.

But alas, man lost that consecrated righteousness. He listened to what Scripture calls that explains the existence of evil in the world. There are people who claim that sin is due to the shortcomings of man as man. "Man is not imperfect," say they. "He is finite as everything on earth. Nothing is perfect; and in fact imperfection belongs to the very constitution of things. Man, just because he is man, will make mistakes. What is sinful yet they are completely holy. Evil had a different source. There were "spirits who kept not their former habitation." Men heeded the word of the prince of those evil spirits rather than God and thus came under the curse. "In the day that thou eatest the sof thou shalt surely die," Gen. 2: 17. "By one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin." Rom. 5: 12. Now we must confess: "I am a lost and condemned creature."

But that is not the end of the story. God is not only an almighty Creator, just, holy, and full of majesty. He is also a God of love. He has sent his holy child Jesus to win us back to God and open Paradise to man, and who is this Jesus Christ, who is called the Son of God? The Christian answers: He is "true God begotten of the Father from eternity, and also true man born of the virgin Mary." For "when the fulness of time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons," Gal. 4: 4-5.

But what has He done to bring us the adoption? Christ didn't accomplish this by telling us what to do. All our good works could not atone for our sin. Christ is not merely a great teacher who has proclaimed a new philosophy of ethics. "He is the propitiation for our sins." He redeemed me from all sins, from death, from the power of the devil," by paying a price. And this price was His own blood or soul His holy precious blood and His innocent suffering, and death." Now all who believe in Him, should not perish but have everlasting life. John 3: 16. However, man cannot by his own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, His Lord or come to Him. The Holy Ghost must call him by the Gospel enlighten him, sanctify and keep him in the true faith. Those who become children of God again are "born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." John 1: 13.

And that leads us to another of those profound problems about which all great philosophers have speculated: What is the ultimate destiny of man? Is man immortal? Is there an afterlife? Some try to solve this on rational grounds. They say: "Yes, man is immortal in the sense that Socrates, Shakespeare, and Lincoln are immortal, because they will never be forgotten. But that is not the Christian's view of the matter. He says: "I believe in the resurrection of the body and the life everlasting." "God will raise up me and all the dead and give unto me and all believers in Christ eternal life,"

25-29. That means that all will be raised, also the unbelievers. There is no annihilation as those deceivers, the self-styled Jehovah's Witnesses, or Russellites, claim. "Heaven and earth shall pass away," but not man. He has a beginning, but no end. He is powerful to bring himself into existence, and he is just as powerless to put himself out of existence. He is immortal, and therefore he will have to appear before that final judgment seat of the Lord, who will "come to judge the quick and the dead." There the word which he has spoken will decide. Many final destiny is heaven or hell, for "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." Mark 16: 16.

This final resurrection and judgment will take place on the last day, at the end of the world. That last day will come we do know, but "of that day, and that hour knoweth no man." But we do know that the world is headed for destruction. It will not last forever as some claim, for in God's appointed time "the heaven shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." 2 Peter 3: 10.

All these truths are of such transcendent importance that one is overawed if he ponders them for only a moment. And yet we Christians can rise up and say, as we do at the end of each article of our creed: "This is most certainly true." How do we know? Or to say it philosophically, what is our theory of knowledge, what is the Christian's epistemology?

It would really be presumptuous on our part if we were to stand before you here and make such statements to these great questions because we are some wise man or group of wise men have looked into the matter and found it so. What we have set forth is not the product of man's intellect. Dr. Pieper, in his essay on "Die rechte Weltanschauung" has called attention to a statement by Dr. Daniel, a world famous geographer. After recounting a whole list of arguments in support of the Copernican theory, "Dr. Daniel admits at last that the whole system is but a 'scientific hypothesis,' and not a demonstrable fact. This must be so of necessity, because man cannot answer these questions with finality because he cannot take a stand outside the universe and not observe them. To quote Dr. Daniel: "Alle aufgestellten Weltsysteme beruhen nicht auf Erfahrung--melche einen Standpunkt ausser der Erde erfordern wuerde--sondern sind Schlussfolgerungen aus Kombinationen. Alle sind und bleiben deswegen hypothese." Since no man on earth can take on such a position, which might be called an "Entwickelungsstandpunkt," it goes without saying that we could never settle these great problems if we were dependent on ourselves and our experience. One man's guess or hypothesis would be as good as another, and the theory of even the profoundest thinker would still be based upon the assumption that human reason is reliable. But, that fails us, we do not have to depend upon our own resources. The Christian's world view is based upon the word of One who does have a position also outside the universe, who is infinite, higher than the heavens, and who rules and upholds all things by the word of His power. Only because He has spoken and told us about these great mysteries, can we speak with finality. Our philosophy is not based upon wisdom, but upon God's revelation. Our epistemology therefore is very simple: We know, because God has told us. Having His Word we can say without any kind of misgiving: "This is most certainly true."

However, that is not all that belongs to an adequate "Weltanschauung." There remains the question of ethics: What am I here for? That ought I to do? It has already been noted that every philosophy implies an imperative; and this holds also with regard to the Christian philosophy. If those things we have set forth are true than we must

be guided accordingly in our conduct. If "God has made me and all creatures," if man is a sinner and God has sent His Son to redeem him, if eternity is a reality and every human being is destined to spend it either in heaven or hell, then surely the purpose of our life in this world is definitely determined. And this too is confessed in our creed: "That I may be His own and live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence, and blessedness." Perhaps 8: of Holy Writ summarizes the whole purpose of our existence here upon earth more aptly than 2 Cor. 5: 15, "He died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again." Our whole life must be a service unto Him. We belong to Him with all that we are and have, not only because he has created us but above all because he has redeemed us. We are to live unto Him because He died and rose again. Foregoing in life is to be judged in relation to God and His service. "How can I serve my Lord and Savior best? That tends to His glory," That is the guiding principle for action in life. His kingdom has really accepted the Christian philosophy of life. This one big purpose is to extend God's kingdom, to help in spreading the Gospel so that more immortal souls might be saved. Yes, he realizes that the whole world exists for no other purpose, hence that the good news of the forgiveness of sin might be brought to the uttermost parts of the world, as Christ Himself says Matt. 24: 14: "And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come."

This outlook on life is distinctly other-worldly, but this does not make a person unfit for this world, the opinion of modern men not withstanding. Having his eye trained upon heaven and the eternal verities does not mean that a person therefore neglects his duties toward his fellowmen. In fact, just because he properly evaluates the larger issues he will have the proper conception of the right relationship towards others and society in general. Having been restored to fellowship with God through Christ he serves His God and fellowmen in humble gratitude and love.

Perhaps it will not be amiss, to point out at this juncture that too many Christians fail to comprehend this third major part of the Christian's "Weltanschauung." They have never come to an understanding of the far-reaching implications of their Christian confession. Let me illustrate. Suppose we were to ask the first ten voting members we meet this question: "What is your real purpose in life? What are you working for? What is your goal?" Would we not get answers such as these: "Well, a person must work to earn a living," or, "I'm working to give my children a better training than I had," or "I'm trying to establish a home," or "I'm trying to save up enough so that I don't have to be a burden to someone when 'I'm old.'" Perhaps someone would answer, but how many would say: "I am doing what I can because in this way I can serve my Lord and Savior best;" If we ask our members about creation and redemption and conversion nine out of ten will give us the correct answer. Is this perhaps due to the fact that we pastors have made ourselves clear with regard to the first two important phases of the Christian philosophy, but not with regard to the goal as they ought, but at least they should know what that goal is.

We must seek to avoid giving the impression that being a Christian is nothing more than marching up to the altar, making a confession, and later on paying a certain amount for the support of the church. "Those who have put on Christ are new creatures." A Christianity that is not lived becomes a dead thing. Faith and love are the two great

words that must always go together. "The kingdom of God is within you."

That is, in brief compass, the Christian's "Weltanschauung." As leaders in the church it is of the most vital importance that this view of life be a living thing within us and that we realize its far-reaching implications. Only then will we be able to inculcate it into the hearts of our people; and --what concerns us more immediately here--only then will we be in a position to see clearly and judge rightly in the confusion of the present day world.

The Pagan Trend in Our Culture

In discussing some of the more important trends and tendencies of our times we propose to begin with what may be considered the dominant trend of thought in present day culture. There can be no doubt that this is of the greatest importance, for it must be remembered, that the ideas and ideals of a people are what determine its life. All the major problems with which the world is wrestling are in the last analysis moral problems. They arise out of the sense of values, the concepts of right and wrong, or in short the life philosophy which people adopt.

Now if there is one idea which is permeating the whole thinking of our civilization at the present time it is the concept of evolution. This theory is considered a fact by most learned men today and it lurks in the background of almost every outstanding system of thought and philosophy or education. "The basic underlying thought of science and philosophy in our age is the philosophy of evolution. The earth and universe are the product of evolution, so our conception has been taught, and hence all this will end must continue in its onward and upward process. This is a view generally accepted. It is taught as truth in many of our schools and in much of the literature that comes our homes, is taken for granted by the press, and is generally accepted by the people among whom we live." (The World Today, page 11-12.)

It may be argued that evolution is not something new. Darwin wrote his famous book in 1859; in fact the ancient Greeks already taught evolution; but the difference is just this, that whereas formerly these ideas were discussed in learned circles they have today filtered down to the masses. Now everybody goes to school and thousands and thousands of teachers, not only in the high schools but also in the grade school are preaching the teachings of Darwin. That they are thereby spreading an atmosphere hostile to an expression of the Christian faith goes without saying. For we must keep in mind that evolutionism is much more than merely a theory as to the origin of the universe. If evolution is true there is no kind Father in heaven. Matter is eternal. Man is but an higher animal. He did not fall into sin. In fact he is better now than he was. Hence there is no Savior from sin. Christ is not the Virgin Son and He did not arise from the dead, for there are no miracles. Neither is there any resurrection from the dead nor an appearing before a judgment seat of Christ. The Holy Ghost is only a name and spirits are mere abstractions. And of course there is no revelation. The Bible is nothing but an account of the religious experiences of the Jews and the early Christians.

Thus evolutionism implies a sweeping denial of the entire structure of Christian doctrine and ideology. It is absolutely pagan. Not one element of the Christian faith remains inviolate. It is not difficult to see what all this means for the people and for the youth in particular. In the degree that they are influenced by it they are adversely affected in their Christianity. Their standard of values must change and at-

youth writing to the president of one of our great Eastern universities. "You, sir, were brought up from earliest childhood in an atmosphere of traditional Christianity and democracy. You read, learned an inwardly digested the Bible. Nearly every Sunday you went to church, and there you heard and hallowed sermons which postulated the divinity of Christ, eternal principles of right and wrong, the existence of the human soul, a personal God and a life after death. Thanks to your training, your life as you have led it defines its meaning largely from the teachings of Jesus.

"During your youth you also were educated to think that man is superior to animals, that he is a free agent capable of choosing between good and evil. Loyalty to country was an ideal you came to cherish, and your schooling never caused you to doubt that man possessed certain inalienable rights. Your position is typical of your generation.

"But what about us, the youth of America? What have we been taught to revere in the university you direct, and in other similar institutions throughout the land?

"In the modern college it is probably fair to say that Christianity has progressively lost its grip on your minds. You may have noticed that, unlike you, most of us have recently either glanced at the Bible. When our professors refer to eternal verities we are likely to recall the lesson your instructors in sociology have driven home--that morals are relative to time and place, that what is good in one society is bad in another. Such teaching is separated only by a hair's breadth from the view that there can be no such thing as sin. Have we not gleaned from your very own professors of natural science, philosophy and ancient history that the religions are the product of myth and superstition and that man create gods in their own image; then if there is such a thing as the soul, no scientist has ever isolated it in the laboratory?

"If men are but animals, why not treat them as such? An animal has no rights. The law among animals is the law of the strong. If there is no natural law in the universe, how do you justify those inalienable rights which the Declaration of Independence asserts to possess? If patriotic fervor is just a manifestation of an 'enlarged tribalism,' why do you think America is worth defending?

"Personally, I fail to understand how you, or any other college president, can expect us to become ardent Christians and democrats when the vital postulates on which these faiths are supposed to rest are daily undermined in the classroom."

This youth has done some sound thinking. He is calling for guidance and he isn't finding any. And yet these same apostles of doubt and instability of all standards in our educational institutions are insisting that the schools must help the students develop a wholesome and consistent personal philosophy. They must be able to meet our educational institutions are insisting that the schools must help the students develop a wholesome and consistent personal philosophy. They must be able to meet

school; life outside provides too little opportunity for participation and affords too little direction toward establishing young people in a rightful place of their own." (Ibid, page 6.)

We rightly ask: What about the church and the home? "Oh," say these educators, "the youth must find help in merging his own distinctive code and ideals of conduct with those of others. Only so may he arrive at new standards more appropriate to meeting the common needs. And for the most part this help must come from the school, at agency outside the home. The home is always too interested a party. The school are the parents who are willing to see these jeopardized." (Ibid, page 170).

Now it may be argued that this has been going on all the time, for a teacher always teaches according to his own views, but it seems that in recent years a special effort is made to bring home to high school teachers particularly that they must help the adolescent in developing what they call a "sound, democratic, and integrated personal philosophy." Just how that can be done is another question. In many schools there is the authoritative guidance program through which the teachers should help the student solve some intimate problems of personal living. One educator likened this unto the confessional in the church.

It stands to reason, of course, that with evolutionistic paganism rampant among educators the only kind of "Weltanschauung" taught can be one based on the relativity of all truth. These educators fail to see the contradiction in their own statements and demands. "A well integrated personal philosophy" can be developed only if we can point to some stable criterion of values. In development of youth, and yet these same apostles of doubt and instability of all standards in our educational institutions are insisting that the schools must help the students develop a wholesome and consistent personal philosophy. They must be able to meet the seeds of doubt into the hearts of their students and conviction about any view of life is impossible.

Do we realize the seriousness of the situation for the church? Our youth, more than ever, are exposed to a secular and pagan influence which must tend to undermine the faith if counter measures are not taken. How important Christian education becomes in view of this and how zealous we ought to be in carrying out an adequate youth program!

In stressing the paganism in educational circles we do not mean to say that its influence is from that source alone. Our whole culture is permeated with it, and therefore our civilization is becoming more and more Epicurean or sensate, that is to say, dominated by sense gratification, hence materialistic. Sorokin, one of the really outstanding sociologists of the present day, tells us in his monumental work on "Social and Cultural Dynamics," that he has enjoyed our European or sensate civilization, but that his survey of its development has forced upon him the conclusion that it is essentially unstable and destined to disintegrate. No doubt he is right. The present disorganization and conflict in human relations, which has been increasing for more than a generation, testifies to human futilities. In fact, it may be said that other pernicious tendencies such as totalitarianism, communism, and other radical isms are but manifestations of this one, for when men lose the vision of the true they become a prey to the false. The prophets of these other isms have also substituted something else for the doctrine of the eternal verities of God. The irwhole thinking is likewise centered upon things in this world, upon the

here and now. A recent writer has said, "Paganism streamlined and arrogant, has reconquered more of Europe (and he might have added America) than it held in a thousand years."

It is not without significance that Prof. J. M. Bartum of Columbia University in a recent 240 page study of the dominant ideas of the late 19th and early 20th centuries points out that the intellectual revolution of the present began in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his "Origin of Species." Bartum maintains that the intellectual forehead of nearly everyone in Western civilization are Darwin, Marx and Richard Wagner. "To understand how these three men have dominated our thinking," says Author Bartum, "try to imagine our speech without terms like survival of the fittest, struggle for existence, natural selection, exploitation of labor, dialectic materialism, scientific socialism, social significance, Nordic culture, music drama, leitmotiv, the twilight of the gods."

"It is thus no accident that Germany's West Front should have been named the Siegfried Line; that the new regimes of force should have taken the title of socialist; or that the most powerful myth of today should be a mixture of biological, economic and cultural forms. The 20th Century.....belongs to Darwin, Marx and Wagner--so true is this that the ordinary educated man of today sees no third choice between the 'scientific ideas' of the late 19th Century and the 'obscurantism and superstition of the Middle Ages."

"Tell such a man that you are not a Darwinian, and he will usually conclude that you must be a Fundamentalist. If you do not believe in the economic interpretation of history, you must be a 'mystical Tory.' If you are not a materialist, you must be an idealist. Ours is a scientific world, saturated with --I will make no bones about saying, their faith in matter, their love of system, their abstract scientism, and their one-sided interpretation of Nature."

What gave these men such a powerful hold upon all subsequent thought? Says Author Bartum; they "made final the separation between man and his soul. Man was no longer a cherished creature of the gods..... Things were no only reality--indestructible; but matter in motion." Result of this apotheosis of matter: "A premium was put on fact, brute force, valueless existence, and here survival."

Can anyone deny that Bartum is right? What does it mean? For one thing we venture to say that our democratic civilization, our freedom, cannot survive if there is not a fundamental away from this godless approach to life and education. "Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Proverbs 29: 18.) Liberty can be maintained and be a blessing only where the people have the spiritual marrow to discipline themselves.

But what is far more important, this almost world-wide trend toward evolutionistic paganism means a titanic struggle for the church and we who have the pure Word, have the greater responsibility. We must be alive to the magnitude of the task. "Who more insidious the approach of the enemy, the clearer must be the sound of the trumpet. From pulpit, classroom, publications and every other high place the voice of the Church must speak in reproof and warning. The issues are clear. Over against man's inhumanity to man, God's love; over against the blind appeal to the masses, the divine emphasis on the dignity of the individual human soul; over against the philosophy of power and blood, the tenderness of the Christ of the mountainside; over against sin, the forgiveness of the Cross." (O.P.K. in American Lutheran, June 1939, page 10.)

Capitalism or Socialism?

We turn now to a discussion of trends in the social and economic field. It has become almost a habit to refer to our times as a period of crisis or transition. Prisoners or social and economic dramatically predict great changes in the entire structure of our society. An English economist has recently summed up the situation in this way: "It is pretty obvious that we are standing today at the turning-point between two civilizations, one of those burning-point in history not unlike the first or second century, the Renaissance, or the 17th century in England. The transition from an individual to a collective state of society is as hard." (CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REVOLUTION, page 177, Quoted from "The World Today" page 35.)

Mrs. Lindberg has written a book entitled "The Wave of the Future," and in an article in the "Atlantic Monthly" June 1941, page 682, she explains her basic thesis in these words: "It is, as I see it, A middle movement of adjustment to a highly scientific, mechanized, and material era of civilization, with all its attendant complications and as such it seems to me inevitable. I feel we must 'guide' the Wave of the Future. Granted; if we lose exact literary truth, we don't mean 'by-ing down prospects on the beach and letting it pound you into the sand. Quite the opposite. It means meeting it with all the energy and controlling it with all the powers they are forced upon us by cataclysms and violence. What great changes are coming seems to be inevitable; the question is: can we meet them with or without war, with our without the dictators, for we have set these changes in motion ourselves."

Whether we have arrived at an actual turning-point between two entirely different civilizations at the present time remains to be seen. Certain it is that great changes are in the offing.

Now if we ask ourselves what is the trend today, there can be no doubt that it may be characterized as a movement away from capitalism--as our present system is called--towards some kind of socialism or collectivism. This does not mean that capitalism is definitely on the way out and that Hitler this war it will disappear altogether. It may be that the present trend will be reversed and that some modified form of capitalism will emerge to take its place; for changes come slowly and there is seldom if ever an abrupt break with the past.

However, to understand all this it is necessary that we first of all get a clearer idea of what capitalism really is and what distinguishes it from other systems. Capitalism is most easily defined. That is in part due to the word itself, which can be used in different ways. Then we hear the word capital we think of in the sense only. Actually, any fund of wealth is capital. When we speak of the capital wealth of Canada we mean everything of value in our country. Whatever you possess is your capital, even the clothes on your back. In the business world the term is usually employed to refer to the stock of wealth within the form. Whatever is carried on. Thus in the case of a manufacturing concern its capital, buildings, trucks, and everything else the company owns in the process of production. That we actually use in our daily lives, such as food, clothing, living quarters, pleasure cars and the like may be called consumer's capital. Besides this economists also speak of land capital which refers to natural wealth. All natural resources and our great land acreage would come into this category.

From this it will be seen that the term "capitalism" is very inapt, for in any kind of system today, these three kinds of capital would exist. To say that "capitalism" is a system in which "capital" plays an important role is beside the mark. There always has been and there always will be land capital, instrumental capital and consumer's capital.

The unabridged dictionary defines capitalism as a "system that favors the concentration of capital in the hands of the few." Others describe it as a set-up that is based upon the profit motive. And still others claim it is an economic machine that makes rich people richer and the poor poorer.

While there is some truth in these statements none of them really explains the true nature of capitalism and what distinguishes it from other economic systems. Probably the most satisfactory way we can understand this best if we contrast capitalism with socialism. Under socialism a larger group, almost invariably the state, owns or controls capital, particularly the means of production. Under capitalism ownership of capital and enterprise is scattered among --individual and groups of individuals. Almost all land, factories, railroads, mines, stores, houses, clothing, food and so on, are today privately owned. Of course, there is some common property even now, such as roads, parks, railroads, waterworks, etc., but that is a very small part of the total wealth of the country. The present system of ownership carried with it the right to use that property as one sees fit, to dispose of it by sale or gift, and to prevent the use of it by others. Control extends even after the death of the owner, who may will decree what shall be done with it; and the law will see to it that his wishes are carried out. These rights are not absolute, and may be restricted if exercised in a manner injurious to other members of society. For instance, if a man maintains a public nuisance on his property or within wide limits, he can dispose of his property as he wills. (Bye: "Principles of Economics" page 492.)

2) Furthermore, as long as the institution of private property exists it implies that there will be freedom of enterprise. This is in a large measure what the framers of our American constitution had in mind when they spoke of "liberty" and the "pursuits of happiness." Each individual should be free to engage in any kind of work or line of production he sees fit. He may produce or manufacture goods if he sees fit. He may work either the goods privately, manufacture or as a workman. There is no higher power which says what he must do or what he must produce. Again this privilege is not absolute, but by and large a person is free to engage in any kind of enterprise he cares to.

3) That simply means that a person is left to follow the dictates of self interest. The thing that will guide him in the choice of his occupation will be the market value of his labor or his line of production. He will not continue to work for nothing if he can make things an employer will be content to close down. Due to this situation our system has also been called the "profit system" or the "price system."

4) Closely allied with this is the idea of profit. A person engages in this or that type of production because it brings him a profit. If he does not make more than his expenses he will be forced to close down. Due to this situation our system has also been called the "profit system."

5) Another natural accompaniment of private property and free enterprise is competition. Anyone who wants ploughs will try to sell him implements because he hopes to make a profit therefrom. Those to rightly understand this best if we contrast capitalism with socialism. Under socialism the market value of his labor or his line of production. He will not continue to work for nothing if he can make things that others want to buy, so will stop producing hat-pins if the ladies quit wearing them because there will be no market for his product and the price will keep so low that he cannot sell it at a profit. It will be to the thing that makes

ters, pleasure cars and the like may be called consumer's capital. Besides this economists also speak of land capital which refers to natural wealth. All natural resources and our great land acreage would come into this category.

From this it will be seen that the term "capitalism" is very inapt, for in any kind of system today, these three kinds of capital would exist. To say that "capitalism" is a system in which "capital" plays an important role is beside the mark. There always has been and there always will be land capital, instrumental capital and consumer's capital.

The unabridged dictionary defines capitalism as a "system that favors the concentration of capital in the hands of the few." Others describe it as a set-up that is based upon the profit motive. And still others claim it is an economic machine that makes rich people richer and the poor poorer.

While there is some truth in these statements none of them really explains the true nature of capitalism and what distinguishes it from other economic systems. Probably we can understand this best if we contrast capitalism with socialism. Under socialism a larger group, almost invariably the state, owns or controls capital, particularly the means of production. Under capitalism ownership of capital and enterprise is scattered among--individual and groups of individuals. Almost all land, factories, railroads, mines, stores, houses, clothing, food and so on, are today privately owned. Of course, there is some common property even now, such as roads, parks, railroads, waterworks, etc., but that is a very small part of the total wealth of the country. The present system of ownership carries with it the right to use that property as one sees fit, to dispose of it by sale or gift, and to prevent the use of it by others. Control extends even after the death of the owner, who may will decree what shall be done with it; and the law will see to it that his wishes are carried out. These rights are not absolute, and may be restricted if exercised in a manner injurious to other members of society. For instance, if a man maintains a public nuisance on his property the courts will restrain him, and he may be prevented from using his wealth for dishonest or immoral purposes. But, in general, there is inheritance of wealth by the owner; and within wide limits, he can dispose of his property as he wills. (Bye: "Principles of Economics" page 492.)

2) Furthermore, as long as the institution of private property exists it implies that there will be freedom of enterprise. This is in a large measure what the framers of our American constitution had in mind when they spoke of "liberty" and the "pursuits of happiness." Each individual should be free to engage in any kind of work or line of production he sees fit. He may produce things he sees fit. He may work either in the production of goods himself, or he may hire employee, manufacturers or as a workman. There is no higher power which says what he must do or what he must produce. Again this privilege is not absolute, but by and large a person is free to engage in any kind of enterprise he cares to.

3) That simply means that a person is left to follow the dictates of self interest. The thing that will guide him in the choice of his occupation will be the market value of his labor or his line of production. He will not continue to work for nothing if he can make things an employer will be content to close down. The thing that will guide him in the choice of his occupation will be the market value of his labor or his line of production. He will not continue to work for nothing if he can make things that others want to buy, so will stop producing hat-pins if the ladies quit wearing them because there will be no market for his product and the price will keep so low that he cannot sell them because there will be no market for his product and the price will not keep so readily enough to keep body and soul together. It may be that the present trend will be reversed and that some modified.

4) Closely allied with this is the idea of profit. A person engages in this or that type of production because it brings him a profit. If he does not make more than his expenses he will be forced to close down. Due to this situation our system has also been called the "profit system."

5) Another natural accompaniment of private property and free enterprise is competition. Anyone who wants to make ploughs will try to sell them for example, who makes ploughs will try to sell them. As soon as he does so he is in competition with other plough makers, and for that matter with the makers of the numerous of all kinds. And that holds true with regard to any activity that one might name. Competition, therefore, is almost universal in our economic system, and can scarcely be eliminated. In farming, mining, manufacturing, banking, merchandising, and so on, there goes on a continual struggle for existence, in which the less able producers fail and are eliminated. He who is the quickest and surest of judgment, who most nearly appears to the cost with the most accuracy, and who eats the least able to keep prices down to the level of costs, and to keep the costs as low as the existing state of productive technique and the ability of the producers make possible. Within each plant, moreover, there is competition among the employees to win promotion to the

best positions. So, all along the line, there is a continuous rivalry which acts as a powerful incentive to efficiency." (Bye: "Principles of Economics" page 465.) As a consequence our system has also been called the "competitive system."

6) Now competition invariably brings with it inequality in wealth and income. This stands to reason, for people themselves are unequal. In the race some are going to make better and others will lag far behind. Some are more industrious, some are more intelligent, and some have more luck. If a person is a laborer and his kind of skill is scarce he is paid a higher wage. If he is an entrepreneur and has a large amount of business he can foresee events and make his investments accordingly. The natural result of such a process of income-getting is that some will receive more, others less; and if there are no restrictions, you even in spite of restrictions, some receive very much and others hardly enough to keep body and soul together. It has been said that in the United States, which today has a higher standard of living than any other nation, about 30% of the people are living on a bare subsistence level and that 4% own 50% of the wealth of the nation.

Due to this fact some have described the capitalistic system as one which operates in the interests of the few and for the exploitation of the masses. But our presentation has shown that such extreme inequality is not of the essence of capitalism, but rather a consequence of the freedom from government interference our system is also called "laissez faire." This French term means that almost we referred to the idea that the government should let each individual alone to seek his economic advantage as he saw fit. It was held that a normal person is the best judge of what is good for himself. In general he will find the niche in society for which he is best suited. Furthermore if his occupation is his own choice, he will feel better about it, will work with greater enthusiasm and in the end contribute more to the general welfare than if hedged by all kinds of government regulations. This self-interest and the natural law of supply and demand would automatically work out to the good of all, and the sum total of human happiness would be the greater.

These doctrines were eagerly taken up by the utilitarians (Jeremy Bentham, the Mills, etc.), whose leit motiv was "the greatest good to the greatest number." Originally, however, they were promulgated in opposition to the system called "Mercantilism" which held sway before that, particularly in the 17th and 18th centuries. Under mercantilism all industry and commerce was to be carried on in the interests of the state. The welfare of the king had to be filled, and the way to do this was to encourage industry so that you could sell more to other countries than you bought from them. The doctrine of a "favorable trade balance" was believed in as Gospel truth. Hence there were minute regulations for all businesses. It is said that the rulers for the textile industry in France for example covered over 2000 pages. Even the number of threads in every fabric was prescribed and there was rigid enforcement. 16,000 people are estimated to have lost their lives because of infractions of the rules governing calico alone.

Laissez faire was a protest against this system and was in line with the general demand of the times for more freedom in all phases of life. Its chief proponent was Adam Smith, who in 1776 produced that epoch making work called "Wealth of Nations."

Naturally Smith's ideas were not adopted at once, but as time went on one govern-

ment restriction after another was abolished and laissez faire became the guiding principle of the new economic order so much so that by about 1850, was there complete laissez faire in any country.

Laissez faire, then, was but another concession to liberalism and individualism, and as we look back we must say that in the short space of 125 years this system made greater advances in the economic sphere than were made since the time of Abraham in the Old Testament almost 4000 years earlier. Not only was there a great increase in population, the average wealth per person has been greatly enhanced, in other words, the average standard of living has risen far beyond anything ever known before.

However, it soon developed that the new system, which quite generally came to be called capitalism, did not guarantee economic justice and the well-being of society. Economic freedom meant for the wealthy but practically slavery for the masses. The employers had all the advantage. Since they also controlled governments, they could have laws passed in their own interests, and low wages and sweatshops were the result for the workers. The hunt for profits led to unconscionable competition and inhuman practices, the race for new markets and raw materials even to imperialistic wars between nations.

Because of all this many people are today condemning capitalism as un-Christian. "Self-government rules supreme," say they. "Rugged individualism leads to a dog-eatdog policy. Let's every one for himself and the devil take the hind-most. And even the better element in society is forced to go along with this policy or go under in the mad scramble."

It will not be unknown to you that the United Church in Canada in an official pronouncement a few years ago roundly condemned capitalism as immoral. In January of this year leading divines and influential lay-men of the Anglican Church met at Malvern, England, under the leadership of the Archbishop of York and adopted resolutions such as the following: 1) Christian doctrine must insist that production exists for consumption..... 2) Christian doctrine must insist that production exists for consumption..... This method..... becomes the source of unemployment at home and dangerous competition for markets abroad..... The monetary system must be so administered that what the community can produce is made available to the community for consumption; and the satisfaction of human needs being accepted as the only true end of production.

And this was not all. An amendment, with far-reaching implications, was moved by a Liberal Member of Parliament, Sir Richard Acland: "In the present situation we believe the Church should declare that the maintenance of that part of the structure of our society by which the ownership of the great resources of the community can be vested in private individuals is a stumbling block, making it harder for the generality of men to live Christian lives."

On June 3, 4, 5 the North American Ecumenical Conference with delegates from almost all Protestant and non-Roman communions from the Caribbean to the Arctic met at Toronto. "Its consensus: 1) Hitler is fighting the war with an idea. 2) Christianity, to survive, must show the world it has a better idea. 3) this will require a drastically different social order in the post-war world. 4) the Church must offer some leadership toward a more constructive and more lasting peace than Versailles.

"The Haves should share with Have-Nots. Re-asserted was a Federal Council pronouncement of last December, calling for 'a world, where economic opportunity is not the legal monopoly of those rational groups which have through accident or prior aggression have obtained control of the bounties of nature."

Said one report: "People must be provided with basic shelter, food, fuel, clothing and health services, even if all the people, including the rich, have to be rationed."

Thus Toronto echoed Malvern. It declared that in North America as well as in Germany anti-Christian things are in such a mess that a solution to the unemployment problem has been found only in armament programs. "We can well say, with our fellow Christians in England, that 'the system under which we have lived cannot survive, experiencing came out of war, even though these who direct it have desired peace." These solutions were suggested: "State planning, wider use of producers' and consumers' cooperatives."

And Dr. C. F. Morrison, editor of the "Christian Century" had this to say in a sermon delivered at the University of Chicago: "The housekeeping of mankind is organized as a system of both domestic and imperial greed. This greed is an expression of both human sin. The perennial tragedy to which it leads inheres in the fact that this need and this sin are forced to live together in an economic system which falsifies human dignity by tying up to submit their lives to the satisfaction of elemental human needs. We cannot hope for peace while the nations cherish the unjust privilege upon which their economic life is based." (Quoted from Concordia Theological Monthly for September 1940.)

Also within our own circles similar voices are being heard. In an essay read before the Professors' Conference at River Forest Dr. Boehringschol writes: "There is evidently an inherent clash of interest between competitive capitalism and labor, between profits and human welfare." And again: "The capitalistic system as it has arisen out of laissez faire contains no spiritual values but is hostile to them in its nature. Its heart and soul are profits; it is purely materialistic. As it has grown

ment restriction after another was abolished and laissez faire became the guiding principle of the new economic order so much so that by about 1850, was there complete laissez faire in any country, also not in the hey-day of 1800, was there complete laissez faire in any country.

Laissez faire, then, was but another concession to liberalism and individualism, and as we look back we must say that in the short space of 125 years this system made greater advances in the economic sphere than were made since the time of Abraham in the Old Testament almost 4000 years earlier. Not only was there a great increase in population, the average wealth per person has been greatly enhanced, in other words, the average standard of living has risen far beyond anything ever known before.

However, it soon developed that the new system, which quite generally came to be called capitalism, did not guarantee economic justice and the well-being of society. Economic freedom meant for the wealthy but practically slavery for the masses. The employers had all the advantage. Since they also controlled governments, they could have laws passed in their own interests, and low wages and sweatshops were the result for the workers. The hunt for profits led to unconscionable competition and inhuman practices, the race for new markets and raw materials even to imperialistic wars between nations.

Because of all this many people are today condemning capitalism as un-Christian. "Self-government rules supreme," say they. "Rugged individualism leads to a dog-eatdog policy. 'Let's every one for himself and the devil take the hind-most.' And even the better element in society is forced to go along with this policy or go under in the mad scramble."

It will not be unknown to you that the United Church in Canada in an official pronouncement a few years ago roundly condemned capitalism as immoral. In January of this year leading divines and influential lay-men of the Anglican Church met at Malvern, England, under the leadership of the Archbishop of York and adopted resolutions such as the following: 1) Christian doctrine must insist that production exists for consumption..... 2) The true status of man independent of economic progress must find expression in the machinery framework of industry; the rights of labour must be recognized as in principle equal to those of capital in the control of industry, whatever the means by which this transformation is affected.

3) "In international trade a genuine interchange of materially needed commodities must take the place of a struggle for so-called favorable balance..... We must recover essential wealth to be exploited, but as a storehouse of divine bounty on which we utterly depend.

4) "After the war, our aim must be the unification of Europe as a cooperative commonwealth.

5. "The Church has the duty and the right to speak, not only to its members but to the world, concerning the true principles of human life..... The Church, as we know it, does not..... therefore urge that enterprises be initiated whereby that life can be manifest."

And this was not all. An amendment, with far-reaching implications, was moved by a Liberal Member of Parliament, Sir Richard Acland: "In the present situation we believe the Church should declare that the maintenance of that part of the structure of our society by which the ownership of the great resources of the community can be vested in private individuals is a stumbling block, making it harder for the generality of men to live Christian lives."

On June 3, 4, 5 the North American Ecumenical Conference with delegates from almost all Protestant and non-Roman communions from the Caribbean to the Arctic met at Toronto. "Its consensus: 1) Hitler is fighting the war with an idea. 2) Christianity, to survive, must show the world it has a better idea. 3) this will require a drastically different social order in the post-war world. 4) the Church must offer some leadership toward a more constructive and more lasting peace than Versailles.

"The Haves should share with Have-Nots. Re-asserted was a Federal Council pronouncement of last December, calling for 'a world, where economic opportunity is not the legal monopoly of those rational groups which have through accident or prior aggression have obtained control of the bounties of nature."

Said one report: "People must be provided with basic shelter, food, fuel, clothing and health services, even if all the people, including the rich, have to be rationed."

Thus Toronto echoed Malvern. It declared that in North America as well as in Germany and England things are in such a mess that a solution to the unemployment problem has been found only in armament programs. "We can well say, with our fellow Christians in England, that 'the system under which we have lived cannot survive, experiencing came out of war, even though these who direct it have desired peace." These solutions were suggested: "State planning, wider use of producers' and consumers' cooperatives."

And Dr. C. F. Morrison, editor of the "Christian Century" had this to say in a sermon delivered at the University of Chicago: "The housekeeping of mankind is organized as a system of both domestic and imperial greed. This greed is an expression of both human want and human sin. The perennial tragedy to which it leads inheres in the fact that this want and this sin are forced to live together in an economic system which fulfills human dignity by tying up to submit and surrender to the satisfaction of elemental human needs being accepted as the only true end of production."

2) "The true status of man independent of economic progress must find expression in the machinery framework of industry; the rights of labour must be recognized as in principle equal to those of capital in the control of industry, whatever the means by which this transformation is affected."

3) "In international trade a genuine interchange of materially needed commodities must take the place of a struggle for so-called favorable balance..... We must recover essential wealth to be exploited, but as a storehouse of divine bounty on which we utterly depend.

4) "After the war, our aim must be the unification of Europe as a cooperative commonwealth.

it has more and more centered American life and thought about money. The possession of money has become the supreme ambition, the mark of success in life, the badge of honor. Other values have correspondingly been overshadowed and diminished, including the religious and moral values which serve as a check to anti-social tendencies and on which depend the health and preservation of society, and which, in general, are responsible for what idealism and public spirit we still have. It will take more than the mere restriction of extremes to save us from this. The danger is real and we should recognize the true significance of the fact that today we are living and our children are growing in a pagan environment.

Now what shall we say to this? Certainly it is a very serious matter; for if Dr. Morrisen is right, if our present economic order really forces us to "to injure, or oppress, or even kill others in order to satisfy our elemental human needs," if it is "intrinsically the incarnation of selfishness" then of course, we should do all we can to have it abolished and bring in a new order.

But is that really the case? It seems to us that we are going too far if we condemn capitalism per se. It isn't the system as such but rather the abuse of such privileges which it permits that is root of the trouble. After all the capitalistic system merely allows a certain amount of freedom in economic life. If human beings do not have the moral character to use that freedom correctly, if they rather misuse it to exploit the neighbor then we should not say the system in itself is immoral, but man has. It may be necessary to curtail the freedom of the individual in the interest of the larger group. It may even be found expedient to abolish the whole system and put something better in its place, but the evil doesn't inhere in the system, it inheres in the heart of man.

All this is not intended as an argument in favor of the status quo. On the other hand if we are opposed to capitalism and what it to obtain it, let us make sure of what we want in its place; else the cure may be worse than the disease. Stephen Leacock says there is a plenty wrong with a system that depends on private buying and private selling, but that it is the only system that ever worked outside the Garden of Eden.

What is obviously being worked out in North American today is a compromise between capitalism and socialism. If this can be accomplished the two extremes--unregulated capitalism and complete socialism--will be avoided. In our opinion this would be the best solution of the problem with which we are faced today. Unless we believe in the possibility of such a compromise the only alternative to our present order is socialism or collectivism.

As already stated there is a definite trend in that direction. Let us now try to analyse this trend and seek to determine what its introduction would imply.

The two terms, socialism and collectivism, are practically synonymous today and refer to any system in which the control of property and industry no longer belongs to private individuals but inheres in larger groups. Strictly speaking "collectivism" is the better word, since it has a wider connotation and certain forms of collective ownership are often not called socialism, but for practical purposes the two may be used interchangeably.

There are of course all shades of socialism from the most radical communism down to the mildest form of democratic management of industry by a community for the benefit of its members. The various forms or types may be conveniently classified as follows:

1. state socialism
2. guild socialism
3. syndicalism
4. Christian socialism
5. consumers' cooperation

a) Consumers' cooperation, to begin with the last, would be an organization of all consumers, that is all people, in societies for the benefit of producing for use and not for profit, e.g. cooperative stores, cooperative insurance societies, etc. This would be a kind of voluntary socialism. The renowned Kagawa of Japan and many other Christian leaders believe this would be the solution of our problems. They call it "Christianizing the economic order."

b) Christian socialism accepts the socialist ideal on ethical rather than on economic grounds, and sees in the movement an effort to realize the teachings of Christ rather than a struggle of classes for material advantages.

c) Syndicalism aims at the federation of workers in all trades into an effective organization, strong enough to enforce the demands of labor. The name of the syndicalists is: One big union. If the A.F. of L or the CIO became powerful enough we would have a form of syndicalism.

d) Guild socialism represents an attempt at a compromise between state ownership and syndicalism. Each industry would organize into a guild, to which all workers, that industry, both managers and workers, would belong. The set-up in Italy and Germany today is a kind of guild system, except of course that the state controls all the units in the organization.

We cannot go into a discussion of all of these at this time. We shall concern ourselves entirely with state socialism, all the more since it seems evident that any kind of successful collectivism would ultimately be state socialism. Any organization which would become strong enough to control industry in this our industrial society would simply be the state. And besides, practically all socialists today, including for example, our CCF in Canada, are very effort to gain political control. They know that without that they will never have a chance to bring in their reforms and carry out a socialistic program.

In a very real sense the movement of socialism represents a pushing upward and a clamoring for recognition on the part of the lower classes. It gained strength in the middle of the last century chiefly through the writings of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Marx is the apostle of the proletariat, the workers, and perhaps rightly called of the Marxist school of socialism. Certainly his influence in the various countries has been greater than that of any other writer. His "Kapital" published in 1867, is still the Bible for most socialists, and it was his system that Lenin tried to introduce into Russia. It may be well, therefore, that we briefly summarize the Marxian philosophy. It embraces above all these five major points:

1. The first and most fundamental is his economic or materialistic interpretation of history. Marx holds that everything always has and always will depend upon economics.

Other things are not important. The general social order at any given time is always determined by the manner in which the people produce and exchange goods. The technique of making a living will decide what kind of political set-up, what kind of religion, what kind of customs, what kind of anything they will have. It will also determine what classes in a society will be on top and which below. In ancient times there were masters and slaves, in the Middle Ages feudal lords and serfs, and now we have the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the capitalists, and the workers.

2. Due to this there has always been class struggle. "The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggle," says the famous "Communist Manifesto" of 1848. The interest of one class always conflicts with those of another, it's employers against employees, landlords against renters, capitalists against wage earners. The church is always found on the side of the privileged classes; "religion is the opium of the people." Political power is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.

3. The only one who really earns is the laborer. This constitutes Marx' "theory of the value of labor." Under capitalism the capitalist takes most of the profit, while the laborer gets barely enough to eke out an existence. Thus he is constantly exploited.

4. Because of its very nature capitalism cannot grow without at the same time pushing a larger and larger percentage of the people into the wage earner class, for wealth will be concentrated more and more into the hands of a very few due to monopolies. This situation cannot last. Finally the masses of the proletariat will rise in their wrath and overwhelm the oppressors just as the burgher class overwhelmed the feudal lords. Marx believed this revolutionary cataclysm was inevitable. He lived at the time of Darwin and felt that his theory paralleled the biological evolution of Darwin. The social revolution was foreordained in accordance with the materialistic interpretation of history. "It rested upon the relations between the physical constitution of the earth and the mental and physical attributes of man." (Gunning, "Political Theories," page 374.)

5. In the inevitable upheaval the proletariat will seize control by force. The "expropriators will be expropriated." In the new order every one will be a worker. Each will contribute according to ability and receive according to his needs. The classless society will be a reality, for any basis for classes and class antagonism will have been swept away. Society will have become "an association in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all."

That is, in brief, the doctrine of Marx. His system is usually called communism. It distinguishes itself from other forms of socialism in that it is the most radical. At the same time it is not only anti-Christian, but anti-religious. Religion is not merely disregarded but roundly denounced as harmful. Economic goods are the only things that count; spiritual values are of no avail. Thus the whole view of life of the Marxist is materialistic and hence atheistic and in a very real sense degrading of man.

As stated Marx' influence has been tremendous, and it has been asserted that all socialism is Marxian, and that no active socialist could remain a Christian. Yet we believe this is going too far. In the light of later developments, and in view of the fact that there are so many kinds of socialism, we may say that a Christian can be a socialist and that all who favor collectivism are not necessarily disciples of Moscow.

The present government of New Zealand, for example, is largely socialistic without bowing to anti-Christian communism.

Certain strands of communistic thought of course appear in all socialistic camps. Chief among these is the demand for collective ownership and control of industry by society. This, as already pointed out is the fundamental tenet of socialism. All socialists denounce capitalism with its profit motive as the incarnation of social injustice, leading invariably to exploitation of the masses and enrichment of the few. They demand a planned economy in place of the hap-hazard system now in vogue. Only then, say they, can the needs of society be satisfied for property relations will no longer be a restriction on production and the productive classes will be guaranteed the full use of the products of their labor.

And the demands of the socialists are being heeded. The growing concentration of power in the hands of the central government, the increased interference in industry, the extension of governmental ownership, the passage of social security acts, the increase in state credit to the people of low income, the immense taxes upon the rich and various other New Deal measures, are all signs of this trend toward a collectivistic order. During the depression there was of course a great amount of agitation for a change in our system and many were calling for abolishing capitalism altogether.

Now what shall we say to this? Or do such matters not concern us as pastors and church members? A little thought will reveal that they do. We owe it to ourselves and to the church to strive for clarity on these issues for they vitally affect the liberty of our people and cannot be divorced from moral and social implications. Many of our members are being influenced by socialistic propaganda. They want against capitalism with the best of them. When you ask them: "And what do you want in place of the present system?" they say, "Some form of socialism. That will at least make it impossible for the big guns to get everything and give us little fellows a chance."

In order to evaluate the movement rightly it is necessary that we bear in mind certain considerations which are always pertinent when socialism is discussed. Our space is limited and we submit what we consider the more important items very briefly.

1. First and foremost is this consideration, that every kind of socialism means a tremendous increase in the power of government, and when the state has great power the individual has less freedom. There is an old saying that if you "abolish private property you have dictatorship, and if you have a dictatorship you no longer have private property." Experience has borne out the truth of this statement. Remember that even Hitler calls his system National Socialism, and dictator Stalin, who has succeeded in socializing even agriculture in Russia, claims he has the best form of collectivism. It simply remains an axiom that who ever controls the economic life of the people controls that people altogether. The power of the big money and power over industry is great today, but it is small compared with the power of the government officials in a socialistic state. Since our economic system is so highly complex no government, even though it were constantly in power, could supervise everything. It would be forced to adopt arbitrary methods and thus authoritarianism in the economic and political sphere would be inevitable.

2. Also the laboring class would lose its freedom; for since practically everybody would be working for the government it would be almost treason to go on strike. A worker would have to stay on the job assigned to him. If he didn't the state as the

only employer could easily prevent him from getting another position.

3. By controlling almost all resources government could easily perpetuate itself. The party in power could readily marshall the necessary votes, for between election all people would be working for it.

4. In introducing socialism we would merely be taking control from one group and putting it into the hands of another. What guarantee have we that this new group would always work for the best interests of the people? Would the socialistic system guarantee a higher type of governmental official?

5. Socialists argue that competition would be done away with. This is a fallacy. Competition is a fundamental social process. It exists wherever people live together in larger groups.

6. A socialistic system to be and remain democratic as its advocates contend it must, would demand a citizenship with a thorough understanding of economic principles, for economics and politics would be interwoven still more than they are now. Recent economists prove that it is impossible to reach the stage where the mass of the people would usually study such problems and are thus able to make intelligent decisions with regard to these matters.

7. The only way the government could gain control of property is by confiscation. Some argue the government could buy the property from present owners. This is a contradiction. How can the state gain control of property if it gives the present owners some other property?

8. All collectivism tends to discourage if not to paralyze initiative. Due to governmental regulation the freedom of choice and action would be seriously restricted. Men would be apt to say, "Why work hard and try something new? We cannot improve our lot anyway?"

9. Under socialism the individual would in a large measure be relieved of personal responsibility. Free now we have too many who say, "Why worry? The state will take care of us." This business of depending upon the government for everything is serious.

10. Socialists claim that "planned production" will obviate disorganization and avoid much waste. In this way the amount of goods produced would be increased and there would be more for each to consume. In other words the standard of living would rise. While it must be admitted that authoritarian governments are "terribly" efficient in this respect there isgrave doubt whether that system is best in the long run. Arbitrary, though well intended, interference of government officials would be frequent and the danger of disturbing the balance of economic forces could hardly be avoided.

11. Socialists insist that the profit motive must be done away with. People would have to work for the welfare of the community and not for their own benefit. That simply means that socialism, to be effective, would require a higher type of citizen morally, or as some one has put it, "Socialism would work if everybody were a good Christian." True, but the same may be said of capitalism.

These are some of the points we must keep in mind when we are trying to determine whether socialism offers promise and hope for a solution of our social problems.

From the more specific view of the church member there are still other considerations which must not be lost sight of. We shall list also these very briefly.

1. The chief problem so far as the church is concerned is the one inherent in a dictatorship. A dictatorship tends to be supremely nationalistic and hence totalitarian. Would the church, all-powerful state keep its hands off religion and the church? We know that separation of church is difficult to maintain even in a democracy. Would not this danger be enhanced under an authoritarian government? And what would be the status of the church under socialism? Would we be free to operate as we are now? Would we, for example, be permitted to raise collections whenever we saw fit and for any cause we decided? Would we be allowed to send monies out of the country any time we wished? Could we purchase any property we decided adequate for our needs? Could we gather endowments and make investments and gifts? Could we carry on charitable endeavors such as hospitals, old people's homes, and the like?

2. Christianity stresses the worth of the individual soul and its relation to God. All collectivism directs accent on to the group and group life and thus the emphasis is on externals. Due to constant regimentation the inner life of the individual is more or less neglected.

3. Socialism lays stress upon material things. Economics is the all-important subject matter of thought and thus the attention of the people is constantly directed to the here and now, to the neglect of things eternal.

4. Socialists are want to promise the dawn of a golden age here on earth once their program is adopted. As Christians we should remember that "righteousness exalteth a nation." The welfare of society depends upon the moral fiber of its people. The solution of the problem of man's relation to his fellowman and the use of his earthly goods is real Christian stewardship. Whatever makes men good Christians also makes them good economists and useful members of society. As clergymen and church members, therefore, we can do most for the individual and for society in general also in this respect by the preaching of God's Word we are instrumental in engendering a living faith in the hearts of the people, and thus bring them to a realization that everything they are and have is due to God's grace and that all earthly goods should be used to His glory and the welfare of the neighbor.

TOTALITARIANISM WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO NATIONAL SOCIALISM

In this section of our paper we purpose to review the main trend in the political field. There can be no doubt that it is totalitarianism. One country after another in Europe is adopting the principle of this movement. It is not too much to say that the danger is present in North America also. Certain strands of political thought and certain tendencies in our country point toward this form of government, chief among these is the increasing concentration of power into the hands of the federal authorities.

Totalitarianism as a term is of recent origin. The word is not to be found in dictionaries published as late as 1938. Yet the idea itself is not new. Totalitarianism as we understand it today simply means that the state claims the right to dictate in all matters and to control every phase of the life of its people. The individual as such does not count. He amounts to something only in so far as he can contribute.

to the life of the state. In this respect he is like any member of the human body. A hand, for example, would only be harming itself, if it refused to obey orders from headquarters. Alone and separate from the body it really has no existence; it is absolutely worthless. And so with the individual member of the state. His whole being, his very existence as an human entity, is wrapped up in the hand or the body politic. Therefore he has no right over against the state. He cannot rise up and say: "This is something the state cannot do."

Mussolini defines the conception this way: "The Fascist Conception of the state is all-embracing, outside it no human or spiritual value can exist, much less have value. Thus understood, Fascism is totalitarian, and the Fascist state-synthesis and a unit inclusive of all values--interprets, developes, and potentiates the whole life of a people." In his book "The Doctrine of Fascism" (page 7) we read: "Political doctrines pass, humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority, a century of the left, a century of Fascism. For the nineteenth century was a century of individualism (Liberalism always signifying individualism) it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism, and hence the century of the state. It is a perfectly logical deduction that a new doctrine can utilize all the still vital elements of previous doctrines."

"The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the state, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the state as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the state."

"The state, as conceived of andas created by Fascism, is a spiritual and moral fact in itself, since its political, juridical, and economic organization of the nation is a concrete thing; and such an organization must be in its origins and development a manifestation of the spirit. The state is the guarantor of security both internal and external, but it is also the custodian and transmitter of the spirit of the people, as it has grown up through the centuries in language, in customs, and in faith." (Pages 451-452.)

Hitler repeatedly speaks of the "Hingabe des persoenlichen Daseins, des eigenen Lebens fuer die Gemeinschaft." "Alle Faehigkeiten," he says "muss man in den Dienst der Gemeinschaft stellen, und das eigene Ich der Gemeinschaft unterordnen, wenn man das absolute, betuende Leben haben will." And in relation to the party organization he says: "Die Faehigkeit der Fuehrung liegt

tig und willens-maessig-einheitliche politische Glaubens- und Kampf gemeinschaft." (Mein Kampf, page 419.)

And the implication is that you are really a member of the body politic onlyif you accept this faith, otherwise you are outside the pale. This ideology must guide not only the artist, for example, in the Voelkische Beobachter, May 21, 1934 we read, "So long as there remains in Germany any unpolitical, be it liberal or individualistic art, our task is not ended. There must no longer be any artist who creates otherwise than nationally and with a national purpose. Every artist who withdraws from this preoccupation must be hunted as an enemy of the nation until he gives up his intolerable resistance." (Quoted in "Roots of Totalitarianism," page 28.)

From this it will be seen that totalitarian principles always imply a dictatorial form of government. This is necessarily so. The will of the state must become audible in some way, and that is only possible through the mouths of its officials, and since one, the leader, the Fuehrer. In him the organism has its head. Parliament and different opinions. Just for that reason Hitler and Mussolini insist on one party and are so scornful of democracies. Totalitarianism will not allow differences to be different.

As stated the doctrine of totalitarianism is not new. What is modern, is not its spirit, its world outlook, but rather the manner in which it applies ancient social principles to the conditions of a complex modern civilization. Actually the doctrine of the all-competent, all-embracing state is almost as old as human history. We know that in ancient civilizations the ruler was often looked upon as a favorite of the gods and demanded divine homage. Think of the Pharaohs of Egypt, Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander the Great, the Roman Caesars. They were all deified. Indeed the present Japanese emperor is still called the "Son of Heaven." In many instances even among primitive peoples, there obtained hide-bound customs and mores which held the individual absolutely no freedom. His whole existence as a human being was wrapped up in the life of the tribe or the group or the nation.

In the time allotted we cannot of course trace the history of totalitarian doctrine in all its meanderings down through history, but a few high lights will not be amiss.

Totalitarians like to insist that Plato is one of the chief sources of their doctrine. Though Plato himself would probably object to this, for he did advocate a blending of the monarchial and the democratic form of government, there is much truth in the statement, that Pl to advocates a totalitarian order. In his "Republic," for example, he adheres to the organic view of the state. He says, "Is not that the best ordered state which most nearly approaches to the condition of the individual--as in the body, when but a finger of one of us is hurt, the whole frame....feels the hurt and sympathizes altogether with the part affected?" (Quoted from American Lutheran, June 1939, page 9.)

THAT SIMPLY MEANS THAT THE STATE IS AN INDIVIDUAL; As in the individual, intellect or rqison should rule over the emotions and passions, so in Plato's state the wise men, the philosophers, should be the rulers of the others. The state's main duty would be education. The prime minister would be none other than the minister of education, and the aim would be to develop the whole man in mind, body and soul. The

state would regulate the entire education of its citizens from the cradle to the grave. Therefore it would also make provision for religious ceremonies and observances. The rulers or guardians would also assign to each that place for which he is best suited. All will cooperate toward the same general good and no individual will then interfere with another, be the perfect society, the just state for justice in the right place. That will one's own," and a just man in man in just the right place.

Besides this there would be strict eugenic laws, regulating the procreation of offspring so that the race may be improved. As the breeding of animals the best should be selected for mating. The better and braver children should have as many sons as possible. Weak and deformed children should be left to die.

Furthermore, there would be laws regulating the economic activities of man. His patrimony could not be taken from him, he could not own more than four times what the poorest had, there would be no usuries at weddings, no lending money at interest, eating of meat, travelling to a foreign country, the picking of fruits or veg., the number of guests that may attend a wedding. Plato expressly says, "If say who gives up to common and public life is making a great mistake." (Laws page 780.)

The same idea of the state as an organism, occurs repeatedly in the history of political thought. We find it in Thomas Hobbes in England, Jean Jacques Rousseau, and particularly in the writings of the German idealists, Fichte and Hegel. Since the German situation interests us particularly. Let us pause for a brief review entitled "Der Kampf der evangelischen Kirche in Deutschland und soziale und einzelne tonesstreben der Reformation." He was put on a level with the human soul he was seen as sect. In proportion as evil others, and brought to say: "The exclusive authority in God, as it proclaimed and brought to acceptance by the Reformation, was anthroporphized: He was put on a level with the human soul he was seen as sect. particularly in the State, assumed absolute authority. "

"The German philosopher who evolved an absolutist political science was Friedrich Wilhelm Hegel. It was his belief that with his conception he was shaping strictly to the ground occupied by the Lutheran Reformation. He was grateful to the Reformation and glad that it broke up the unity of the Church and thereby helped the State to rise and dignity. Only by its realization in the source of his liberty into a State does a people gather itself together for action and thereby come to consciousness to self-consciousness; highest aim; and, seeing that man achieves freedom in the state, Hegel can pronounce the remarkable opinion; "Everything which man is, he owes to the State! " Hegel expresses in the loftiest strains the definition of the State, 'the existence of God, is the work of God in the world.' (Heenschaells assays, J.E.G.C.) From this it will be seen that totalitarian principles are the exact opposite of the ideals of a Christian the State is the work of God in the world.' The 'State is an organization wzlled by God; Hegel expresses in the loftiest strains the definition of the State, 'the existence of the State is the work of God in the world.' Not merely Hegel expresses in the loftiest strains the definition of the State, 'the existence of God, is the work of God in the world.' (Heenschaells assays, J.E.G.C.) From this it will be seen that totalitarian principles are the exact opposite of the ideals of a Christian Weltanschauung" as well as individualism and democracy. Perhaps we could say, totalitarianism is love and duty to country gone to the extreme, yea to such an extreme that it is idolatrous, for to the totalitarian the state comes first at all times. It has usurped the place of God.

It is not possible to speak more absolutely of the State. With Hegel we already have the totalitarian State!

"For Hegel the State is in character completely religious. In the same way as the people, the State also has its roots in religion; but the people exist for the sake of the State and not the reverse. There is absolutely nothing which stands over the State. Hegel stresses with the greatest emphasis that the State stands above religion.

"Therefore Church doctrine also falls within the State's domain. Everything has to subordinate itself to the State; even science, and along with it, theology; stand first of all at the service of the State. Within this limit they enjoy freedom. Thus with Hegel the State comprehends all the elements of life and in this way becomes the sum total of morality. ......

"If with Hegel the State is the ultimate and the highest existence in the world, there crops up with other thinkers a new conception that is peculiar to the nineteenth century: It is the conception of the Nation. It became popular through Fichte's 'Reden an die deutsche Nation,' which prepared the way for the German National State. Among all peoples you 'the Germans' are that in which the germ of human perfection.' He sees the German people as the most definite people, that can boast of a living speech of its own and that possesses a creative literature and science. It is the people of poets and thinkers and is called to be the 'regenerator and restorer of the world.' Fichte's belief in the German nation breathes a religious spirit; German nationality is to him something divine, no less than an organism through which the eternal spirit reveals itself. He sees the Fatherland 'under the image of eternity, and that the visible and sensible eternity.' Fichte finds a rational mysticism with him not the State, but the nation is divine. This mystical patriotism, c.:. to put it otherwise, mystical patriotism, has exerted a 'profound influence on the German people. Fichte recognized that man is willing to make sacrifice only for a religious cause, and therefore he proclaimed nationalism as a gift of God, for which the man who is noble is happy to sacrifice himself.'" (pages 49-53.)

Many other writers could be mentioned here who in a sense prepared the way for the totalitarianism we find in present day Germany. We shall call attention to just one more, namely Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900). Nietzsche seized upon the Darwinian doctrine of the 'struggle for existence' and the 'survival of the fittest' and developed this into a philosophy of the "will to power." "The will to live," he says, "is a will to power and nothing else." "This will be swept away. The only true goods are strength of heart and strength of limb and power, and splendor. These we must love and cherish and seek to build up in ourselves and in the race. The strong must take what they can. The weak must go to the wall, and suffer they must. The day of the superman is at hand--and we must prepare his way.

"Nietzsche's doctrines of the will to power and of the natural right of the strong to dominate the weak, and his ethical ideal of the superman had a widespread and profound influence found in his works. (Fuller; History of Philosophy, page 562-563.) -- Dr. MacEachran of Alberta University stated last winter that when he studied in Germany before the last war he found, particularly among the students, many Nietzsche clubs and that these young people were fanatical adherents of the doctrine of power.

From all this it will be seen that there was a lot of Nazism in Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the scene. Very few, if any of the tenets of Nazi ideology originated with Hitler. What he did was to adopt and join together various ideas promulgated by others at different times into a political system which he calls 'die neue Weltanschauung der National-Sozialistischen-deutschen-Arbeiter-Partei.' In line with this, Nazism demands a complete reorganization of one's view of life, a new way of regarding the world, a new interpretation of the meaning of life and the objects of national policy. Hitler emphasizes this again and again. In the first chapter of the second part of "Mein Kampf" he says: "Es war die grosse Bedeutung, dass die Menschen nur dann hoffen durften, die nostalgic Bedeutung und die erforderliche Staerke fuer diesen Riesen-Kampf zu erhalten, wenn es ihr vom ersten Tage an gelang, in den Herzen ihrer Anhaenger die heilige Ueberzeugung zu erwecken, dass mit ihr den politischen Lehren auch eine neue Weltanschauung von prinzipieller Bedeutung vorausgestellt werden sollte." (Mein Kampf, page 409.)

And we might add, that all the essential elements of this "Weltanschauung" also those which are anti-Christian, are to be found in "Mein Kampf." It has often been said that Rosenberg is the philosopher of the movement and that it was he who wanted to undermine its philosophy one would have to go to his "Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts." But in reality Rosenberg brings nothing new though he does develop the paganism of the movement more fully.

But let us try in the brief time at our disposal to get a clearer idea of what Nazism really stands for, and how Hitler would apply his theories in the field of politics, and particularly in that of foreign policy. (The following quotations from "Mein Kampf" are all from an authentic edition printed in Germany.)

Hitler begins with the theory of race. This is really the fundamental basis of his whole system and because he believes in it fanatically it is the well-spring of all his actions. Many people lose sight of this fact and as a consequence fail to grasp the significance of the titanic struggle now in progress. As already stated it is not something new, but no one has ever brought it to the fore and made it the dominant thought of thousands of people and the left-motiv of a foreign policy as Hitler has done.

According to the theory there are lower and higher races among people just as there are lower and higher species of animals. The white among the races is the true though. In "Mein Kampf" the word Nordic is used also and one gains the impression that "Arientum" and "Deutschtum" are the same thing. All progress in the history of mankind, all its higher life whether in the spiritual, artistic, or economic field are due to the Aryan race. If for some reason the Aryan would disappear mankind would soon

only true goods are strength of heart and strength of limb and power, and splendor. These we must love and cherish and seek to build up in ourselves and in the race. The strong must take what they can. The weak must go to the wall, and suffer they must. The day of the superman is at hand--and we must prepare his way.

"Nietzsche's doctrines of the will to power and of the natural right of the strong to dominate the weak, and his ethical ideal of the superman had a widespread and profound influence found in his works. (Fuller; History of Philosophy, page 562-563.) -- Dr. MacEachran of Alberta University stated last winter that when he studied in Germany before the last war he found, particularly among the students, many Nietzsche clubs and that these young people were fanatical adherents of the doctrine of power.

From all this it will be seen that there was a lot of Nazism in Germany long before Hitler ever appeared on the scene. Very few, if any of the tenets of Nazi ideology originated with Hitler. What he did was to adopt and join together various ideas promulgated by others at different times into a political system which he calls 'die neue Weltanschauung der National-Sozialistischen-deutschen-Arbeiter-Partei.' In line with this, Nazism demands a complete reorganization of one's view of life, a new way of regarding the world, a new interpretation of the meaning of life and the objects of national policy. Hitler emphasizes this again and again. In the first chapter of the second part of "Mein Kampf" he says: "Es war die grosse Bedeutung, dass die Menschen nur dann hoffen durften, die nostalgic Bedeutung und die erforderliche Staerke fuer diesen Riesen-Kampf zu erhalten, wenn es ihr vom ersten Tage an gelang, in den Herzen ihrer Anhaenger die heilige Ueberzeugung zu erwecken, dass mit ihr den politischen Lehren auch eine neue Weltanschauung von prinzipieller Bedeutung vorausgestellt werden sollte." (Mein Kampf, page 409.)

And we might add, that all the essential elements of this "Weltanschauung" also those which are anti-Christian, are to be found in "Mein Kampf." It has often been said that Rosenberg is the philosopher of the movement and that it was he who wanted to undermine its philosophy one would have to go to his "Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts." But in reality Rosenberg brings nothing new though he does develop the paganism of the movement more fully.

But let us try in the brief time at our disposal to get a clearer idea of what Nazism really stands for, and how Hitler would apply his theories in the field of politics, and particularly in that of foreign policy. (The following quotations from "Mein Kampf" are all from an authentic edition printed in Germany.)

Hitler begins with the theory of race. This is really the fundamental basis of his whole system and because he believes in it fanatically it is the well-spring of all his actions. Many people lose sight of this fact and as a consequence fail to grasp the significance of the titanic struggle now in progress. As already stated it is not something new, but no one has ever brought it to the fore and made it the dominant thought of thousands of people and the left-motiv of a foreign policy as Hitler has done.

According to the theory there are lower and higher races among people just as there are lower and higher species of animals. The white among the races is the true though. In "Mein Kampf" the word Nordic is used also and one gains the impression that "Arientum" and "Deutschtum" are the same thing. All progress in the history of mankind, all its higher life whether in the spiritual, artistic, or economic field are due to the Aryan race. If for some reason the Aryan would disappear mankind would soon

sink back into a state of savagery. The only hope for humanity therefore, is the propagation and the maintenance of the superior race. It's all in the blood, if a person has that Aryan blood he belongs to the superior race. It's of the greatest good to the world therefore, that the blood remain pure and hence it is the chief duty of the state (and this is a fundamental difference between Hitler's totalitarianism and that of others) It commands a complete segregation of One's view of life, a new way of regarding the world, a new interpretation of the meaning of life and the objects. Mixing this elite blood with inferior blood and thus account for her ultimate tragic defeat. Hitler himself says: "Wuerde man die Menschen in drei Arten einteilen: in Kulturbegruender, Kulturtraeger und Kulturzerstoerer, dann kaeme als Vertreter der ersten wohl nur der Arier in Frage, die ausserste Form und Farbe sind bedingt durch die jeweiligen Haeuser der ein-zelnen Wo-Volker. Es liefert die gewaltige Haustiere und Plaene zu allem menschlichen Fortschritt, und nur die Ausfuehrung entspricht der jeweilligen Wesensart der jeweiligen Rassen." (p. 317.)

Again "Damit aber war der Weg, den der Arier zu gehen hatte, klar vorgezeichnet. Als Eroberer unterwarf er sich die niederen Menschen und regelte dann deren praktische Betaetigung unter seinem Befehl, nach seinem Willen und fuer seine Ziele. Allein, indem er sie so einer nuetzlichen, wenn auch harten Taetigkeit zufuehrte, schonte er nicht nur das Leben der Unterworfenen, sondern gab ihnen vielleicht sogar ein Los, das besser war als das ihrer frueheren sogenannten 'Freiheit.' Solange er den Herrenstandpunkt ruecksichtslos aufrechterhielt, blieb er nicht nur wirklich der Herr, sondern auch der Erhalter und Vermehrer der Kultur. Denn diese beruhte ausschliesslich auf seinen Faehigkeiten und damit auf seiner Erhaeltung an sich, sowie die Unterordnung der von ihm beatmten und unter seine Prinzipien an sich, sowie die Unterwerfung der Inferior races erging. Der Arier gab die Reinheit seines Blutes auf und verlor dadurch den Aufenthalt im Paradiese, das er sich selbst geschaffen hatte." (p. 325.)

If we ask for the reason for this superiority Hitler tells us its not due to the Aryan's great or will to live but his ability to see beyond his own nose, as it were, and realize the advantage of joining hands for the common good and in need of race. It's of the greatest good to the world therefore, that the blood remain pure and hence it is the chief duty of the state to see to this matter. He was grateful to the Reformation and it broke up the unity of the Church and thereby helped the State to rise and dignity. Only by its realization in the state does a people gather itself together for action and thereby come to consciousness to self-consciousness, highest aim; and, seeing that man achieves freedom in the state, Hegel can pronounce the remarkable opinion; "Everything which man is, he owes to the State! " Hegel expresses in the loftiest strains the definition of the State, 'the existence of"

"Menschliche Kultur und Zivilisation sind auf diesem Erdteil unzertrennlich gebunden an das Vorhandensein des Ariers. Sein Aussterben oder Untergehen wird diesen Erden wieder die dunklen Schleier einer kulturlosen Zeit senken." (p. 421.)

If we ask for the reason for this superiority Hitler tells us its not due to the Aryan's great or will to live but his ability to see beyond his own nose, as it were, and realize the advantage of joining hands for the common good and it need of race. This ability the Aryan has by birth. It's in his blood, 'because he is finite as everything on earth. Nothing is perfect; the most wonderful human creature over lived, save alone that second Adam.

But alas, man lost that consecrated righteousness. He listened to what Satan said that explains the existence of evil in the world. There are people who claim that sin is due to the shortcomings of man as man. When is not bad? Unless I have first adopted some standard of value I cannot pass judgment on consequences. And particularly in the field of ethics or morals my scale of value must be fixed. A standard must stand or in other words, no standard, no judgment.? How that can be done is another question. In many schools there is the authoritative guidance program through which the teachers should help the student solve some intimate problems of personal living. One educator likened this unto the confessional in the church.

It stands to reason, of course, that with evolutionistic paganism rampant among educators the only kind of "Weltanschauung" taught can be one based on the relativity of all truth. These educators fail to see the contradiction in their own statements and demands. "A well integrated personal philosophy" can be developed only if we can point to some stable criterion of values. In development of youth. And yet these same apostles of doubt end instability of all standards in our educational institutions are insisting that the schools must help the students develop a wholesome and consistent personal philosophy. They must be able to meet their status--to help them find themselves anew in their personal, social, and economic relationships, and to develop a working philosophy of values which will give meaning.

At the opposite pole of humanity we have the Jews. They are the lowest scum of the species. There are, according to one writer, some 770 references to the Jews in Hitler's book and everything is scathing denunciation. In spite of this by the way, we were always told by visitors from Germany when we asked about "Judenhatz"; "O, Juden geschieht nichts." Here are just a few samples of what Hitler teaches with regard to the Jews: "Der gemeisten Gegensatz zum Arier bildet der Jude." (p.329.) "Er ist und bleibt der typische Parasit, ein Schmarotzer, der wie ein schaedlicher Bazillus sich immer mehr ausbreitet, sowie nur guenstiger Naehrboden dazu einlaedt. Die Wirkung seines Daseins gleicht ebenfalls der von Schmarotzern; wo er auftritt, stirbt das Wirtsvolk nach kuerzerer oder laengerer Zeit ab." (p.334.) Wearen die Juden auf dieser Welt allein, so wuerden sie ebensoehr in Schmutz und Unrat ersticken wie sich gegenseitig zu uebervorteilen und auszurotten versuchen." (p. 331.)

Of course the Jews are also to blame for the defeat in the last war. "Wenn wir all die Ursachen des deutschen Zusa entruches vor unseren Augen vorbeizeichen lassen, dann bleibt als die letzte und ausschlaggebende das Nichterkennen des Rassepro blems und besonders der juedischen Gefahr uebrig." (p. 359.) Whereas other inferior races can be useful to the German "Herrenvolk," not so the Jews. They are like poison; the only way to deal with them is to get rid of them. We haven't time here to go into the history of the Jews as Hitler teaches it but we can say that in essence, his entire foreign policy, not so much Jews. They are like poison; the only way to deal with them is to get rid of them. We haven't time here to go into the history of the Jews in the last war. "Wenn wir all die Ursachen des deutschen Zusa entruches vor unseren Augen vorbeizeichen lassen, dann bleibt als die letzte und ausschlaggebende das Nichterkennen des Rassepro blems und besonders der juedischen Gefahr uebrig." (p. 359.) Whereas other

Now if Hitler's racial theory is right then the state, as the most powerful institution, must see to it not only that the blood of the elite remain pure but that it be increased. Hitler repeatedly stated there must be more marriages and more children. Hitler himself says that the state must offer special inducements for marriages and more and more Germans and the "voelkische Bewegung;"' But where get that new territory? The only possibility according to Hitler would be to expand by means of sword in Europe proper. "Fuer Deutschland lag damals der einzige Moeglichkeit zur Durchfuehrung einer gesunden Bodenpolitik nur in der Er-

werbung von neuen Lande in Europa selber. Kolonien koennen diesem Zwecke so lange nicht dienen, als sie nicht zur Besiedelung mit Europaern in groesstem Masse geeignet erscheinen..........Man hatte sich Klarheit zu verschaffen, dass dieses Ziel nur unter Kampf zu erreichen war, und musste dem Waffengang dann aber auch ruhig und gelassen ins Auge sehen." (p. 153.)

In view of these statements it is erroneous to suppose that this war is entirely a result of the injustices of the Versailles Treaty and that Hitler started the struggle merely to regain some territory lost in the last war. In fact he says: "Die Forderung nach Wiederherstellung der Grenzen des Jahres 1914 ist ein politischer Unsinn von Ausmassen und Folgen, die ihn als Verbrechen erscheinen lassen." (p. 736.)

The duties and obligations towards other nations do not play a part. It is not a question of right and wrong at all. As in nature "die gegenuen muessen wir Nationalsozialisten prinzipiell an unserem auszenpolitischen Ziele festhalten, naemlich den deutschen Volk den ihm gebuehrenden Grund und Boden auf dieser Erde zu sichern. Und diese Aktion ist die einzige, die vor Gott und unserer deutschen Nachwelt einen Bluteinsatz gerechtfertigt erscheinen laesst; vor Gott, insofern uns das taegliche Brot, als Wesen, denen nichts geschenkt wird,und die ihre Stellung als Herren der Erde nur der Genialkraft und dem Kampfe des Ewigen Kampfes um das taegliche Brot, als Wesen,und zu wahren wissen.......Ich habe mich dabei scheerfsta gegen jene volkischen Schreiberseen zu wenden, die in einem solchen Bodennerwerb eine Verletzung heiliger Menschenrechte erblicken und dementsprechend ihr Geschrei dagegen aufsetzen. Staatsgruenzen werden durch Menschen geschaffen und durch menschen geaendert. Deutschland wird entweder Weltmacht oder ueberhaupt nicht sein. Zur Weltmacht aber braucht es jene Groesse, die ihm in der heutigen Zeit die notwendige Bedeutung und seinen Buergern das Leben gibt." (pp. 739 - 742.)

"Wir alle ahnen, dass in ferner Zukunft Probleme an den Menschen herantreten koennen, zu deren Bewaeltigung nur eine hoechste Rasse als Herrenvolk, gestuetzt auf die Mittel und Moeglichkeiten eines ganzen Erdteils berufen sein wird." (p. 422.)

The sum total of his foreign policy Hitler puts in these words: "Das politische Testament der deutschen Nation fuer ihr Handeln nach aussen soll und muss immer gemassenen lauten: 1) Duldet niemals das Entstehen zweier Kontinentalmächte in Europa! Seht in jeglichem Versuch, an den deutschen Grenzen eine zweite Militärmacht zu organisieren, und sei es auch nur in Form der Bildung eines zur militärischen macht faktigen Staates, einen Angriff gegen Deutschland und erblickt darin nicht nur das Recht, sondern auch die Pflicht, mit allen Mitteln bis zum äußersten Einsatz zu verhindern, beziehungsweise einen solchen, wenn er schon entstanden, wieder zu zerschlagen!-- 2) Sorgt dafuer, dass die Staerke unseres Volkes ihre Grundlage nicht in Kolonien, sondern im Boden der Heimat in Europa erhalte! Haltet das Reich nie fuer gesichert, wenn es nicht auf Jahrhunderte hinaus jedem Sproessen unseres Volkes sein eigenes Stueck Grund und Boden zu geben vermag! Vergeszt nie, dass das heiligste Recht auf dieser Welt das Recht auf Erde ist, das man selbst bebauen will, und das heiligste Opfer das Blut, das man fuer diese Erde ver-giesst!" (p. 754.)

All this should give us a fair idea of what the theory of "race, and blood and soil" implies. Hitler's constant appeal to nature is a deliberate turning away from the law of the jungle, and a challenge to the whole spiritual structure erected by Christian theology through hundreds years ago. Certainly the doctrine that "might makes right" could not be stated more crassly. At the same time, it is any wonder that the statesmen in other countries refused to take Hitler seriously? By and large they considered it his reach. Just the same things of a politician and orator, who would cool off if he ever got into power. We now know that they made a big mistake; for it has become evident that every major undertaking of the Nazis has been the carrying out of a policy announced to all nonsense when viewed scientifically; but that is not the point. Hitler and the members of his party are fanatically and act upon it. The present conflict is, therefore, more than a mere struggle for territory. But what concerns us more vitally than the political implications is the fact that Nazi ideology strikes at the very heart of Christianity. The "voelkische Weltanschauung" as taught by Hitler and his party is diametrically opposed to the Christian view of life, as must be evident to anyone who has given the matter even a little thought. No consistent Christian can, therefore, give aid and that totalitarian movements as we are witnessing them today. Their influence is absolutely pagan, their principles are alien and hostile to God as revealed in His holy Word. "We quite agree with the following statement: "We say that the individual Christians must surrender his conscience to the growing demands of the State in times like these is fatally wrong. It is neither science nor theology. Lutheran. The modern theory of the sovereign State is subtly poisonous in its implications and freedoms crucially crucial in its evolution that human reason is reliable. But, thank God, we are not have to depend upon our own resources. The Christian's view is based upon the word of One who does have a position also outside the universe. Who is infinite, right than the heavens, and who rules and upholds all things by the word of His power, and who because He has spoken and told us about these great mysteries, can we speak with finality. Our philosophy is not based upon the word of wisdom and other that is of men, but upon God's revelation. Having His Word we can say with hout any kind of misgiving; "This is most certainly true."

However, that is not all that belongs to an adequate "Weltanschauung." There remains the question of ethics: What am I here for? What ought I to do? It has already been noted that every philosophy implies an imperative; and this holds also with regard to the Christian philosophy. If those things we have set forth are true than we must

All this should give us a fair idea of what the theory of "race, and blood and soil" implies. Hitler's constant appeal to nature is a deliberate turning from the law of the jungle, and a challenge to the whole spiritual structure erected by Christian. Certainly the doctrine that "might makes right" could not be stated more crassly. At the same time, it is any wonder that the statesmen in other countries refused to take Hitler seriously? By and large they considered it his reach. Just for the same time, it is any wonder that the statesmen in other countries refuse to take Hitler seriously. By and large they considered it his reach. But now that they know that they made a big mistake; for it has become evident that every major undertaking of the Nazis has been the carrying out of a policy announced to all nonsense when viewed scientifically; but that is not the point. Hitler and the members hear of his party are fanatically opposed to the Christian view of life, as must be evident to anyone who has given the matter even a little thought. No consistent Christian can, therefore, give aid and that totalitarian movements as we are witnessing them today. Their influence is absolutely pagan, their principles are alien and hostile to God as revealed in His holy Word. "We quite agree with the following statement: "For the individual Christian to surrender his conscience to the growing demands of the State in times like these is fatally wrong. It is neither Science nor biblical Christianity, nor is it consistently Lutheran. All three give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, Can a man hate a Jew only because he is a Jew? Can a Christian consistently believe in the mordern doctrine that might is right? I have no doubt that there are good Christians in Italy, Germany, and Russia at this moment. To the extent, however, that they are good Christians they cannot be completely and consciously absorbed into Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. All three philosophies of government go far beyond the things that are consistent; nor can Scriptural limits laid down for the powers that be, the powers that be, all three give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, Can a man hate a Jew only because he is a Jew? Can a Christ ian consistently believe in the mordern doctrine that might is right? I have no doubt that there are good Christians in Italy, Germany, and Russia at this moment. To the extent, however, that they are good Christians they cannot be completely and consciously absorbed into Nazi, Fascist, or Communist. All three philosophies of government go far beyond the Scriptural limits laid down for the powers that be, the powers that be may hope in the kingdom of grace and the kingdom of power." (O. P. Kretzmann in "American Lutheran," July 1940.)

In view of all this it must be a source of disappointment to say that totalitarianism and particularly Nazism, has not been more severely criticized. We have here a movement which is sweeping all Europe and which is anti-Christian to the core and yet, we have not held, an adequate discussion of the subject in our church papers. There seems to have been a studied attempt to avoid this lest the church be meddling in politics, but surely it is not mixing church and state if we expose the anti-Christian teachings of a powerful organization; no matter who its members are.

We should recognize and point out that the danger is very real and that also in the democracies we are not immune to its influences. A great conflict is in progress in the land of Luther at the present time between the Cross and the Swastika. Of that there can be no doubt. According to reliable reports some 800 clergymen were thrown in prison. They were not all politicians. But what is of still greater consequence, the

NSDAP has already succeeded in instilling its pagan ideas into the hearts of thousands of the youth of Germany. And this work goes on. It is now compulsory for every german boy or girl to belong to the "Hitler-Jugend." In a complete regulation concerning this order reads, "dass die gesamte Jugend in Sinne der National-Sozialistischen Staats-idee koerperlich, geistig und sittlich erzo gen wird." The National-Socialistic government permits the instruction of the German youth only in so far as in reading, writing and arithmetic--but in its whole philosophy of life and its ideologies as its very own work." (P. Peters in "Quartalsschrift, April 1941.) This agrees with Hitler's well-known statement as so the real purpose of the N.S.D.A.P. "Damit muest also der voelkischen Weltanschauung ein Instrument geschaffen werden, das ihr die Moeglichkeit einer reinen Darstellung gewehren, aehnlich wie die marxistische Partei-organisation fuer den Internationalismus troie Bahn geschaffen....... Dieses Ziel verfolgt die Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei." (Mein Kampf, page 423.)

And not only have the Nazis taken over the entire education of the youth, they have also set up an elaborate "National Chamber of Culture" with Joseph Goebbels at the head. The purpose of this Chamber is to control the entire cultural life of the people. There are six separate divisions for the press, radio, publication and writing, theatre, motion pictures, sculpture and painting, and music. All persons active in those fields must be members in some organization affiliated with one or another of the NSDAP. Thus the NSDAP is a vast propaganda machine designed to indoctrinate into all Germans the "voelkische Weltanschauung", and we needn't add that the organization is efficient.

Under the circumstances we say quite frankly that it is hard for us to understand how any Christian, who has a grasp of the situation can wish that Hitler and his cohorts should win this war, for if that means if they do, their power will be tremendous and they will be given still more opportunity to carry on their propaganda and spread still further the pagan doctrine of race and blood and soil. In fact, this is already going on. We quote one more support in the "The Lutheran": "Preparing for the Next 1000 years of the new order," the Fuehrer has quietly launched a special educational project. Ever since last January carefully selected youths--16 to 19 years old, and mostly selected from Denmark, Holland, Czecho-Slovakia and France--are recommended by high Nazi officials after the most rigid scrutiny and investigation. At present there are 650 students in the school, but the number will be greatly enlarged this fall. Alfred Rosenberg, said of the Nazi Party Foreign Political Office (who is incidentally the author of the "Der Mythus des 20. Jahrhunderts") thus explains the new school as its immediate supervisor." (The Lutheran, June 11, 1941, page 8.) Thus the virus of Nazi ideology is to be spread also beyond the borders of Germany proper.

There can be no doubt that totalitarianism has deceived an issue which has not been so pressing since the days of the deified Roman emperors. The conflict between this movement and the Church of Christ is true to itself, for totalitarianism and Christianity cannot exist side by side.

Our brief review of the world scene has not been too encouraging. We are living in times of strife and turmoil and what the outcome of the struggle between the opposing forces will be we do not know. As leaders in the church it behooves us to be alert and to face the future with faith and courage. In a world of confusion we need not be confused. Our task is plainly outlined by the Lord Himself. We must go on preaching,

teaching, serving. If we are faithful in that we need not be dismayed, no matter how dark the clouds that appear on the horizon may seem, for we have the blessed Savior's assurance that He will be with us always and that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against" His church.