[)ECEMBER 1953

fAitH AND fREB

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL DEBATE

WILLIAM J()Hb4SrDbt

M

IN T HIS ISS U E

3

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL DEBATE­A CASE STUDY

WILLIAM JOHNSON. A report on theinvestigation into social actionismwithin the Congregational Churches.

8

16

10

15

FAITH AND FREEDOMFaith and Freedom is a voice of the libertarian ­persistently recommending the religious philosophyof limited government inherent in the Declarationof Independence. The chief intent of the libertarianis not pedagogy, but rather the further discoveryand application of the Creator's changeless princi­ples in a changing world.

While speaking against the present-day Goliath,the totalitarian state, we work for no special inter­est. Freedom under God is in the interest of everypeaceful, self-respecting man of faith, whether heis in a factory or on a fann, in business or in thepulpit. If a government or a philosophy does notserve to safeguard his freedom - regardless ofwhether he is in a minority or a majority - thenthat government or philosophy is his enemy. ACommunist, Socialist, Fascist or other authoritar­ian government is always such an enemy; and ademocratic government espousing a paternalisticphilosophy straightway becomes such an enemy.

As the journalists of Spiritual Mobilization, oureditorial policy is based on a profound faith in God,the Author of liberty, and in Jesus Christ, who pro­moted persuasion in place of coercion as the meansfor accomplishing positive good.

Our credo is the long-standing credo of Spirit­ual Mobilization: Man, being created free as achild of God, has certain inalienable rights andresponsibilities; the state must not be permitted tousurp them: it is the duty of the church to helpprotect them.

THE CLEVELAND AFFAIREDMUND A. OPITZ. What is thesignificance of the recent NationalCouncil of Churches Conference onthe Churches and World Order?

ALBERT JAY NOCK­A SUPERFLUOUS MAN

JACK SCHWARTZMAN. The first ofa series portraying the individualistideas of the remnant.

ALONG PENNSYLVANIA AVENUEFRANK CHODOROV. A column ofWashington comment about a pro­posed change in the Electoral Col­lege system of representation.

EDITORIAL COMMENTDR. JAMES W. FIFIELD, JR. Thoughtson a Los Angeles incident which sawBishop Oxnam denied use of aprivate rostrum.

Published monthly by Spiritual Mobilization,1521 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles 17, California.

VOLUME V, NUMBER 4, DECEMBER, 1953

WILLIAM JOHNSON, Editor

As a journal of opinion, Faith and Freedom opens itspages to expressions of thought and belief on contro­versial questions. In publishing the magazine, SpiritualMobilization, as an organization, does not necessarilyendorse its contents.

SUBSCRIPTION RATE: One dollar per year.

2 FAITH AND FREEDOM

THE SOCIAL GOSPEL DE TE-

A CASE STUDY

the outcome may have an onthe eventual outcolne ofbate in other Christian Faithand Freedom readers will want to know moreof the details.

Int:rOldu~Cln.1! the .llL.PJl.UlIJ''l.A.IL~AJi.I\-J

In the CSA rl,,,,.,,.,,,,·,t'-,..,

Social

man of the ~~._~!=.'-'.'-'

man, F. A.commercial in order toto a solution of the

of the forces £'1 r\~-n,,-. r·H ...... ,,'

the Co-Chairman ofDean Liston

u"--... ltv ....''-, andof the CSA

Early in in an attempt to settle thecontroversy, a Board of Review was officiallyempowered to examine the claims and counter-claims in the of andbeliefs. After a year a of theBoard issued its this last October. Thefindings and recommendations stated in thereport are to be reviewed the individualCongregational a view towardreaching a settlement at the next session ofdenomination's General Council in the summerof 1954. nlust careful

Resident Lincoln did not have a church dis­pute in mind, but he could have had. A friendof the President's had said to him: "I thatthe Lord is on our side,"

Lincoln startled the friendthat this was not his own Lincoln ex-

IJ.~l:''''''Jl''-'''''''' "1 am not at all concerned aboutknow that the Lord is on the side

of the rny andthe

WILLIAM JOHNSON is editor of Faith and Freedom.

'w·niLCl.,.."C'Q,ff',rLlC' in heatedn ...... ·"..·.."n[\h to

directthan to sub-

"I,-.,nrl", .. One of the most active ,rl~C' ...... ,4-""C'

'Vjd~A.a.vjU.. centers around the ..-.r.r;,nr>·'Y-'N'

of the in its to ..-.. ""i,~.,.. "

economic matters. are few who wouldclainl that the of Christ do notto such matters. Thehow the Christianwhat means shouldcommonly-held goals.

An ever-growing number of churchmen havebecome concerned about the steps taken andmeasures advocated by their denominational"social action" agencies. The situation withinthe Congregational Christian Churches hasbeen particularly acute. Their Council for So­cial Action (CSA) has undergone extensive in­vestigation during the past two years. Because

DECEMBER 1953 3

and prayerful attention to the issues involvedbecause they affect the very foundation andfuture of their denomination.

To understand the problem facing the Con­gregationalists, one should be familiar with the"bill of particulars." Speaking as "an individ­ual Congregational parish minister" affiliatedneither with the laymen's League nor with theCSA, the Reverend Howard Conn divided theprincipal issues into the two categories of struc­ture and message.

The Question of Structure

In the category of structure, Mr. Conn de­scribed the issue this way: "Congregationalismhas chosen to stress local autonomy and indi­vidual freedom. We must recognize that thisdoes put a limitation on our right to make de­nominational pronouncements. If this practiceseems to anyone too high a price to pay forfreedom, then he ought to join a denominationwhich operates under a different system."

This was the same understanding of Con­gregationalism that the League had evinced. Ithad charged that the CSA had been overstep­ping its bounds by giving the impression thatit was the voice of the entire denomination onpolitical matters.

In answering this charge, the CSA peoplesaid that only a minor part of their activity wasdirected toward publicly representing the de­nomination; that the major portion of theirenergies and finances were used to speak to thechurches.

Furthermore, the CSA claimed that its "char­ter" authorized its propaganda efforts; for thedenomination's by-laws called for an agencythat would not only direct its educational ef­forts "primarily toward the local churches but[would] also envisage the cultivation of publicopinion...."

The CSA also advised that since January1951 it had been introducing its testimony be­fore congressional committees with a pre­pared statement deSigned to indicate that theCSA was speaking only for itself and not forthe denomination. Regarding this formula,though, Mr. Conn observed that it borderedon double-talk: while the qualifying statementtechnically denied representation of the whole

4

denomination, it bid for the moral effect ofsuch.

However, the CSA was inclined to believethat clerical experts should apply the fullweight of their denomination to the solutionof social problems. A writer in one of the CSApublications put it this way: "While the churchleaders do not have a special gift of the HolySpirit, there are certain reasons why many pro­fessional workers, especially in social actionagencies, are able to see above the narrow classinterests which unhappily characterize largesegments of their denominations."

But speaking to this issue, the Board of Re­view found that the CSA had not taken thelimitations in its charter seriously enough. TheBoard further observed: "The Council hasfound it easy to turn aside from the slow taskof education, which is often full of frustration,to the field of political action where tan­gible results seem to be more immediately inevidence." The Board cautioned that the mainfunction of the CSA was to speak to thechurches rather than for them. In making pub­lic pronouncements, the CSA was admonishedto speak out only when it had the affirmativeapproval of fourteen of its eighteen members.The Board held that the CSA was an agent ofthe denomination and should not act as thoughindependent of its control.

Yet, the Board's report concluded that in in­stances where the Council may be sure of sub­stantial unanimity in the denomination as to apolitical course of action, the churches can lookto the CSA as the agency to express their mindfor them. But one of the Board, Congress­man Walter Judd, could not agree with thisconclusion, for he asked: "How does [the CSA]determine whether there is ~substantial unani­mity .. .'?" Furthermore, thought Mr. Judd, ifthere were substantial unanimity in any in­stance, pronouncements ought to come from the

:

•.

'.;....:.::••J:....,:..•:::f.ri·~.)i,:""-'11,~

i1i~'<Z;'!:,

FAITH AND FREEDOM

denomination's General Council (the represen­tative body of the Congregational churches).

Second Major Issue: Message

In the category of message, the Congrega­tional controversy came closer to the SocialGospel squabbles in other denominations. Mostsocial action professionals have banded to­gether in an interdenominational group called"Christian Action." In their publication, Chris­tianity and Society, their executive secretarydescribed the function of the professionals in·this way:

c'On account of the nature of our resources,... we are not sufficient in number, in strength,or in financial resources to have ... a very pro­found ... impact. On the other hand ... manyof us are in positions of leadership, I may say ofpower, within the churches. When we useour resources through the institutions of thechurches we multiply our effectiveness becausewe use them where they carry some weight. Allof us are in a position, and all of us can get our­selves into a better position, to advance ourcommon convictions through the religious insti­tutions to which we have direct access."

This use of the churches, however, is the rea­son why various denominations are having theirrevolts. Churchmen dislike being used as ameans to implement someone's political pro­gram. In describing this aspect of the Congre­gational controversy, the League made twopoints: (1) The CSA - in suggesting solutionsto social problems-had been acting primarilyas a political agency; (2) The CSA had beenpartisan in its politics.

Regarding these points, the League conclud­ed in its statement to the Board of Review: TheCSA cChas supported, almost without exception,legislation requiring greater governmentalinterference and governmental coercion." Ex­amples of legislation endorsed by the CSA are:

.1

DECEMBER 1953

compulsory health insurance, price control andrationing, public the "Full Employ­ment Act," federal aid to education, FECP,federal hydroelectric authorities, extension ofsocial security, and farm supports.

The CSA defense was not constructed to dealwith these accusations. There was not much itcould say except to reaffirm a belief in theAmerican economy - with a qualified state­ment. This the defense did by quoting from theCSA magazine: "We seek a relationship of freeenterprise and social control. ..." They ex­plained that they believe social controls are,cneeded in the areas of ( 1) the total money de­mand for goods: that is, economic stabilization;(2) the distribution of income and property;and (3) private rrlonopoly." In effect, the CSAstatement lent support to the allegations of theLeague.

So it was not surprising when the Board ofReview found that the CSA's "literature hassometimes been definitely slanted in the direc­tion of a particular political or economic pro­gram." The Board became even more criticalwhen it opined, for instance, that the CSA"should never assume the prerogative of com­mitting the denomination to any specific politi­calor economic program."

The CSA had gotten off the track at theoutset when it equated Christian actionits own Social Gospel TheReverend Howard Conn; his statelnent tothe Board of Review, defended the Social Gos­pelon the grounds that Jesus had shown a spe­cial concern for the problenls of society. Connmade a distinction, however, between socialproblems and the social means of attackingthese problems. Mr. Conn wrote: "Jesus wasas interested in social problems as individualproblems; His approach to the solution wasfrom the personal rather than the collectiveangle." Thus Mr. Conn saw no cause for Chris­tian action to be equated with political action.

In addition to the leftist slant of the CSAmaterials, the League charged that the CSAhad been acting primarily as a propagandarather than an educational institution. By thiswas meant that the CSA had been partisan inits research; that its publications did not pre­sent all the dominant points of view on social,

5

....,"-' ...J.Il ......'.LI..... '-', philosophic and political questions.The League employed a chart to indicate the

CSA's one-sidedness. The chart comparedrnajor planks in the CSA domestic programwith the stand taken by the CIO, the Metho­dist Federation for Social Action and the Com­munist Party. The League concluded: "The realtragedy in this situation is that a research andeducational agency ... which should presum­ably be approaching social problems from acritical basis, finds itself so continuously inagreement with three organizations which areknown not to have done so," Mr. F. A. Bean,speaking the sentiments. of League members:lamented the fact that the CSA had not "ap­proached these controversial matters in thejudicial manner which would help Congrega­tionalists to evaluate truly their Christian socialresponsibilities ."

At one of numerous Congregational forumswhere CSA policies and practices were dis­cussed, a member of the audience askedspeaker Ray Gibbons, the CSA Director: "Howare we to know that the CSA representativeknows anything more about the Will of Godthan anybody else?"

Mr. Gibbons replied, "The answer is he doesnot, but he is given time and a group of fellowCongregationalists to work at the problem....But we do not stand and say the position thatwe take is a Christian position, and other posi­tions are not Christian."

No reply could have been more definite. Yetit was another CSA adn1ission that it usually ad­vances a particular line of thinking, instead ofpresenting various Christian points of view. An­other time Mr. Gibbons directly rejected the"both sides and educate" approach: "The criticswant to reduce the CSA to uttering innocuousplatitudes. How can an agency 'educate' unlessit has some goals, some positions to which itleads people?"

The CSA believed it had a "democratic man­date to witness to the conviction of an ad­vanced minority." Co-Chairman Liston Popewas proud that the CSA had "charted the way.for establishing ... agencies to speak withoutbeing chained to majority or consensus."

In replying to the "propaganda versus educa­tion" issue, the Board of Review criticized the

6

CSA for its partiality: "That the By-Laws pro-vide 'In its research the will aim to beimpartial' seems to theCouncil in its activities." The pre-sent all essential aspects of every controversialquestion with which it deals on which Chris­tians may fairly differ. It ought even to presentviews which have no support within the churchif they are important to contemporary thought.... We do not wish ... to imply that the Councilshould not present its own view, which wouldbe properly assessed in such a framework.... "

Appraising the Board's Report

When all was considered, the findings of theBoard of Review tended to support the allega­tions of the laymen's League. But in view ofthese findings, how closely did the Board'srecommendations then follow the League'srecommendations?

* League recommendation: Funds for GSAuse should be kept separate froln funds goingto the benevolences. The Board disregardedthis one. All it said was that sufficient denomi­national funds should be provided for the CSA.* League recommendation: GSA publica­tions should adopt an educational, approachrather than a propaganda line. Board recom­mendations supported the League by requiringthe CSA to "present the principal positions onwhich Congregational Christians may fairlydiffer."* League recomnlendation: Shake up theCSA staff to get representation of all dominantsocial viewpoints. The Board did recommendthat CSA staff members be competent and"happy to work" under an educational ratherthan a propaganda setup. But it made no pro­vision for replacing the present staff.* League recommenda tion: The GSAshould make no pronouncements on behalf ofanyone, even itself. Despite words of criticismand caution, the Board was disposed to leavethe CSA with some leeway to continue makingpronouncements directed to both the publicand to government legislative bodies.

A person looking objectively at the report ofthe Board of Review would be apt to concludethat although the judge found in favor of the

FAITH AND FREEDOM

Who Is on the Side of the Lord?

One is certain. The social action unrestindicates an of concern aboutthe behavior hierarchies and theirsecular Such is forthe of the CSA's strategy has re-

ho\v a small of professionals isable to s\vay and control a whole church if then1embership remains .... 1J ..L ..,l,l,v\.-'-v.

\Vhen church people allow group thinking totake the of independent personal think-

the froIn the Kingdom Within tendsto drowned out. Thinking totate to\vard 111atters of rnattersof the And \ve find a Councilfor Social Action its ,>Tn,'.'''''''''''

to instead of to the Christian ....n"nr'r~ ••

If church must appoint groups to dealwith social rnatters, let them at least establishall possible safeguards to prevent overempha­sis on political luatters to the detrirnent of re-

For the principle of the separation of thefroln political dorninance has just as

''YY'I"",~".'t'." ... .r.n. within the church as betweenthe and the state. To the extent that theSocial Gospel makes social change the princi­pal of it veers into materialisrTIand lUllnanism.

That, at least, is the opinion of those who dis­believe in the Social Gospel. They say we lTIUst

be rnore careful about \vriting the Lord overto side. \vould prefer to see us seekIIi:; side. To be sure, the final question facingboth sides \vill be: \Vho is on the side of theLord?

government, Christians adopt an inconsistent,evil means for accomplishing good: "The com­pulsion and the lavv can prevent an act oflllurder it cannot erase the desire to murderfrom the heart of n1an. the [Christian]

possesses such cleansing povver, and sothe attempt to equate the Gospel with the phys­ical coercion of the law can have only oneend-the death of the Gospel."

The social actionists themselves admit that itis not the function of the church to control so­ciety. This leads to the provocative question:Then is it proper for the church to advocate thatany collection of men control other men?

did little to

soringthose

~>-"~"""J'~~'''''''' IvIinister Bussenserves tvith social ,,,,~!,'t',.,,,n

concon1itant reliance on the nrHY";,("'~1.f"

plaintiff, the court's C'1l'"\,anl-Nn

change the status quo......... "-" ... 'V'-''-', this social action in the

....... 'V .... f"...... ..."j;;., ..... " .. 'V' .., .. , .... rI nY\r~"""""r\n'l'-,d'~,'¥'\ has of realin it has some of the issues

must be settled there can be aharmonious Christian f']r\'nrr,'lK"n to sociallems. Some of the issues be stunmarizedas follows:

( 1) The that can be in-fluenced of moral asvvell as weight numbers appears to be

But there is a serious question aboutselected and financially sup-

vi/b'(:;;'.""'"''-'hJ denomination can qualifyso that will place no

UI,l,;;;;',l,l,"~"'vCCLL""',"" on the and size of the spon-~L"'''<''Lc.U'''JlV',J.,That is the dilelnma

who want their church to...".< ........u .. 'v ....... without to ap-

The who are activein the social action rnovell1ents want to be rec-ognized as their churches' thoughtson econol11ic and matters. Yet at the

want to look to thelnselves asthe out in front of inthese matters. We would not be thecase to that this is no lnean task.

( ,3 ) Christians cry: "Enough of socialus Christian conduct instead," The

thisvvhether ( of the action-ists) is the Christian ,-",-,,~,~-,'v.i..

If there is a to be made behveenthe Christian Gospel and the Socialthere is the question of whether adherence to

latter Gospel is a function of theIn other the professionalleaders have a proper basis for declar-

ing a or altered intoChrist's rnethods of withproblems? Without the professional vanguard'sn1anifesto and without church "social action"in would be disre-rt'n,..ri,'nr'l" Christ's exhortations to love

DECEMBER 1953 7

"f President Eisenhower plans to run for re­election in 1956, he must of necessity keep

"in mind the probable effect of his policies­including appointments and patronage-on thevoters in the state of New York. Neither theRepublican nor the Democratic candidate canignore the state's bloc of 45 electoral votes.

But, the political center of the state is the cityof New York. If the large Democratic vote inthe city is held below a certain percentage, thenormally Republican upstate vote is sufficientto carry the commonwealth. Hence, the strategyof both Republicans and Democrats is to courtthe on-the-fence voter in the city.

Organized labor is strongly entrenched in thecity, and it would be unsound politics for anycandidate to alienate that body. The Negropopulation is so important that in the last cityelection each of the parties had a member ofthat race on its ticket; the prospective candidatemust weigh that fact. The Italians, the Jews,the Irish - the city is made up of islands ofemotional voters; all must be placated. Then,there is the strong internalistic and socialisticflavor in public opinion, fostered by the Amer­icans for Democratic Action, the AmericanLabor Party, and other similar pressure groups,to say nothing of the press under their influ­ence. With over eighteen per cent of the Elec­toral College at stake, the prospective candi­date cannot take a nationalistic position oroppose welfarism. New York City must be won.

Then come Pennsylvania and California,each with 32 votes in the Electoral College.And in these states the pivotal points are Phila­delphia and Pittsburgh, Los Angeles and SanFrancisco; what do the folks in these cities wantin the way of a presidential policy? Illinois, withits bloc of 27 electors, is mainly Chicago, wherevoters of central European extraction play nomean part.

And so it goes: The fifteen larger states inthe Union have a total of 313 electoral votes(266 elect a president), and in each of them

8

one or two cities are large enough to dominatethe entire state.

It will be seen that as a matter of politicalnecessity the policies of the Administrationmust be largely influenced by urban interests.This is so not only because of the populationfigures, but more so because it is easier toactivate pressure groups in congested areas. So,whoever can capture the pressure groups in thecities can walk off with the states' entire blocsof electoral votes, thus negating the choice ofthe rural sections. For example, when Roose­velt captured the state of New York in 1936(mainly because of the overwhelming majorityhe obtained in the metropolis), the Republicanswon 16 of the state's 45 seats in the House. Thecitizens who elected these Republican con­gressmen probably cast their votes for the Re­publican candidate for the preSidency. Buttheir vote was ineffective in that respect, be­cause of the bloc system of choosing electors.Roosevelt was awarded all 45 electoral votes.

The Mundt-Coudert Amendment

It is to correct this preponderance of urbaninfluence on the White House that an amend­ment is being sponsored by Senator Mundt ofSouth Dakota and Representative Coudert ofNew York. The proposed amendment wouldabolish the bloc system; presidential electorswould be chosen by congressional districts,each voting in the Electoral College accordingto the political mandate of his district. Thus,if a district chooses a Republican to representit in the House, it would be represented on theElectoral College by a Republican, even if therest of the state went Democratic.

The effect of this change would be to givethe rural areas an influence in the White Housecommensurate with their voting strength; theycould not be counted out. And the White Housewould not be compelled by political consid­erations to give the cities a disproportionateamount of attention.

FAITH AND FREEDOM

The big city political machines are for ob­vious reasons opposed to the proposed amend­ment and are doing their utmost to keep it fromcoming up for debate. Its sponsors, however,are confident that they can bring it to the Hoarof Congress in the coming session.

It sometimes happens that what begins as aHcrackpot" idea gains stature by the adherentsit wins as well as by its intrinsic validity. Yourreporter witnessed such a metamorphosis inOctober.

To begin at the beginning, an old-time news­paperman was disturbed, as are many of us,over the trend toward collectivism; and he de­cided to "do something about it." He had anidea and a list of about 15 hundred organiza­tions in the country-organizations which areprotesting about this, that and the other thing.This dedicated newspaperman, Arnold Kruck­man, with the help of his devoted wife, sent amimeographed letter to the list, in which hesuggested a meeting of delegates for the pur­pose of finding a program they could agree towork for. It seemed to be a fatuous undertak­ing; the usual result of such meetings is thatnothing is agreed upon, because each delegatecomes for the sole purpose of selling his pana­cea to the others. They leave with a grab bagof resolutions and do nothing.

But, the replies to his letter were encourag­ing' and Mr. Kruckman announced a "Congressof FreedolTI." It was held in Omaha in the earlypart of October, and about 400 delegates fromthirty states took part.

It was an orderly and inspiring affair. Underthe agreed upon rules, no speeches from thefloor were allowed, and an able chairman,Archibald Roosevelt - only living son of thefamous T.R., firmly but politely enforced thisrule. The keynote was struck by Willis Ballin­ger, Washington news commentator; he wasfor limited, constitutional government, lessspending, lower taxes; he was for getting outof the world mess and minding our own busi­ness. That was apparently what the crowd wasfor, judging by the generous applause given.

In the limited ~pace of this column it is im-

DECEMBER 1953

possible to list all the speeches. RepresentativeRalph Gwinn, in his speech of summation, gavea concise description of the Congress of Free­dom in these words: "I have never in my lifeheard more sound knowledge of the Am~ricanConstitution and of the American traditionthan was displayed here."

To mention a few highlights, Frank Holman,former president of the American Bar Associa­tion, delivered a brilliant speech on the Brickeramendment; Robert Dresser, prominent RhodeIsland lawyer, read a carefully prepared paperon the proposal to limit income taxation totwenty-five per cent of income; Mary Cain, theMississippi eclitor who is defying the U. S.Treasury, made an impassioned demand forrepeal of the Sixteenth Amendment; MajorGeneral (Ret.) Bonner Fellers outlined the sea­air program of defense advocated by I-IerbertHoover and General MacArthur; Lucille Crainspoke on education and Professor Merrill Rooton communism in the colleges. For three daysthere came from the platform a seemingly end­less stream of sound reasoning and sincerity.

Mr. Kruckman Is Now "In Business"

Finally, the various panels reported theirfindings and, as expected, too many resolutionswere adopted: nineteen. However, the Con­gress voted that the resolutions be resubmittedto the organizations represented, for furthersifting. It was also agreed to empower Mr.Kruckman, through his organization known asOperation America, to form a permanent com­mittee of organization representatives, for thepurpose of proposing a program of action.Though some talk of a "third party" was heard,the consensus was that the need was for anational pressure group, working on localpoliticians for specific measures, rather than apolitical party.

The most interesting part of the Congress ofFreedom was its aftermath. Somehow the char­acter of the meeting became known and sub­stantial citizens who were not there expressedinterest in the movement. Consultations nowgoing on in Washington, New York and Chi­cago indicate that the next session of the Con­gress, scheduled for Omaha next April, will beeven more successful.

9

ALBER'T JAY NOCK-

JACK SCHWARTZMAN

"MERE ... TOUTING OF 'RUGGED INDIVIDUALISM' AND ... FUSTIAN ABOUT THE CONSTITU­TION ARE SO SPECIOUS, SO ... UNSCRUPULOUS, THAT THEY HAVE: BECOME CONTEMPTIBLE"

You are gone these hundred months, Mr. Nock,yet to a fragmentary number, whom you oncecalled the "remnant," your work - they say­will live forever. This is very perplexing tous-a collectivist delegation that has come allthe way to this Place to interview you. Whydo you smile? You are indeed a puzzling relicof a breed that used to be known as individual­ists. What were you individualists like? Wereyou believers in democracy?

"I could see how'democracy' might do verywell in a society of saints and sages.... Short ofthat, I was unable to see how it could come toanything.... Socrates could not have got votesenough of the Athenian mass-men to be worthcounting.... As against a Jesus, the historicchoice of the mass-man goes regularly to someBarabbas." (III: 131 )

Weren't you proud of our Western culture?"Western society was entirely given over to

economism. (This word is not in any dictionary.... ) It had no other philosophy.... It inter­preted the whole of human life in terms ofthe production, acquisition and distribution ofwealth.... Its god was belly." (III: Ill)

Wouldn't you say that our civilization hasproduced a group of superior intellectuals?

"Above all things the mass-mind is most bit­terly resentful of superiority. It will not toleratethe thought of an elite.... Under this system ...the test of the great mind is its power of agree-

JACK SCHWARTZMAN is a counselor at law, prac­ticing at 40 Hancock Street, Franklin Square, NewYork. He is author of the libertarian book "Rebels ofIndividualism."

10

ment with the opinions of small minds.... Anequalitarian and democratic regime must byconsequence assume, tacitly or avowedly, thateverybody is educable." (111:88)

Nevertheless, is not our compulsory educa­tional system the pride of our nation?

"I have never been able to find anyone whowould tell me what the net social value of acompulsory universal literacy actually comesto.... On the debit side, it enables scoundrelsto beset, dishevel and debauch such intelli­gence as is in the power of the vast majority ofmankind to exercise." (111:49)

What about the credit side of our educationalsystem?

"As a state-controlled enterprise maintainedby taxation the system [has] become anassociation for the extreme of hideboundnationalism and of a superstitious servile rever­ence for a sacrosanct state." (111:263)

A Man of Odd OpinionsYou are odd indeed. Don't you have any re­gard for our society?

"When the great general movement towardcollectivism set in, ... 'society,' rather than theindividual, became the criterion of hedonists.... The greatest happiness of society was firstto be considered, because in that the individ­ual would find a condition conducive of hisgreatest happiness. Comte invented the termaltruism as an antonym for egoism.... This hy­brid or rather this degenerate form of hedonismserved powerfully to invest collectivism's prin­ciples with a specious moral sanction, and col­lectivists ... made the most of it." (III :305-6)

FAITH AND FREEDOM

Still, does this cCmoral sanction" wholly ex­plain why collectivism has been found accept­able by man?

cCConsidering mankind's indifference to free­dom, their easy gullibility and their facile re­sponse to conditioning, one might very plau­sibly argue that collectivism is the politicalmode best suited to their disposition and theircapacities. Under its regime the citizen, like thesoldier, is relieved of the burden of initiativeand is divested of all responsibility, save fordoing as he is told. He takes what is allotted tohim, obeys orders, and beyond that he has nocare." (111:318-9)

Won't you admit that only collective powercan do away with iniquity and misery? (Butyou are smiling again! )

cCSomething like this appears to be the basicassumption of collectivism. Let but the stateconfiscate all social power, and its interests willbecome identical with those of society.... Itis an attractive idea.... A closer examinationof the state's activities, however, will show thatthis idea, attractive though it be, goes to piecesagainst the iron law of fundamental economics,that rnan tends always to satisfy his needs anddesires with the least possible exertion." (II:58-9)

Now it is our turn to smile, Mr. Nock. Do youactually believe in cCiron" laws, or any lawsother than those granted by the state?

Epstean's LawHI was at lunch ... with an old friend.... Itled to Mr. Epstean's ... saying ... clf self-pre­servation is the first law of human conduct, ex­ploitation is the second.' This remark instantlytouched off a tremendous flashlight in my mind.... Spencer and Henry. George had familiar­ized me with the formula that man tends alwaysto satisfy his needs and desires with the leastpossible exertion; but they had given me noidea of its immense scope, its almost illimitablerange of action.... Having occasion to refer tothis formula, I gave it the name of Epstean'sLaw.... Why was it impossible to improvesociety or the individual through political ac­tion? Simply because all such well-meant enter­prises ran hard aground on Epstean's Law."(11:132-3)

DECEMBER 1953

We don't understand what political actionhas to do with your so-called Epstean's Law.

"There are two ... means, and only two," whereby man's needs and desires can be satis­

fied. One is the production and exchange ofwealth; this is the economic means. The otheris the uncon1pensated appropriation of wealthproduced by others; this is the political nleans.(11:59)

c'The state, then, whether primitive, feudal,or merchant, is the organization of the politicalmeans. Now, since man tends always to satisfyhis needs and desires with the least possibleexertion, he will ernploy the political meanswhenever he can-exclusively if possible; other­wise, in association with the economic means.He will, at the present time, that is, have re­course to the state's modern apparatus of ex­ploitation; the apparatus of tariffs, concessions,rent-monopoly and the like." (II: 60-1 )

Do you rnean to imply that the state is notbrought into being to serve the needs of allmankind?

"The positive testimony of history is that thestate invariably had its origin in conquest andconfiscation. No primitive state known to his­tory originated in any other manner." (II :44)

Don't we, in this country, however, havesomething different: a republican state?

Not Afraid to Call a State a State

A state is a state is a state. "Thus colonialAmerica, oppressed by the monarchical state,brings in the republican state; Germany givesup the republican state for the Hitlerian state;Russia exchanges the monocratic state for thecollectivist state; Italy exchanges the constitu­tionalist state for the Ctotalitarian' state." ( II: 31 )

At least you will admit, NIr. Nock, that thepurpose of the state is to abolish crime.

cCThe State claims and exercises the monop­oly of crime.... It forbids private murder,but itself organizes murder on a colossal scale.It punishes private theft, but itself lays un­scrupulous hands on anything it wants, whetherthe property of citizen or of alien." (I: 143 )

If there are any abuses in the administrationof the state, is it not because people like youfail to participate in your own state?

cCRepublicanism permits the individual to

11

coup d'etat. (11:187-9) In Russia, Italy, Ger­many, the coup d'etat was violent and spectac­ular; it had to be; but here it was neither."(II :23-4)

Do you deny the good that the power of ourstate has done?

"Just as the state has no money of its own,so it has no povver of its own. All the power ithas is what society gives it, plus what it con­fiscates from time to time on one pretext oranother; there is no other source from whichstate power can be drawn. (II :3-4)

But Government Corrects the State

"under a regime of natural order, that is tosay under government, which makes no posi­tive interventions whatever on the individual... misuses of social power would be effectivelycorrected.... Under a regime of actual individ­ualism, actual free competition, actual laissez­faire . . . a serious or continuous misuse of so­cial power would be virtually impracticable."(11:199 )

Just what do you mean by your peculiar dis­tinction between state and government?

"Based on the idea of natural rights, govern-

~(~ment secures those rights to the individual bystrictly negative intervention, making justicecostless and easy of access; and beyond that itdoes not go. The state, on the other hand, bothin its genesis and by its primary intention, ispurely anti-social. It is not based on the ideaof natural rights, but on the idea that the in­dividual has no rights except those that thestate may provisionally grant him. (11:49-50)

"While government is by its nature concernedwith the administration of justice, the state isby its nature concerned with the administrationof law - law, which the state itself manufac­tures for ... its own primary ends. (II: 196 )

FAITH AND FREEDOM

"The code of government should be that ofthe legendary King Pausole, who prescribed buttwo la\VS for his the first Hurtno man, and the second, Then do as you please.. . . The whole business of government should

purely negative one of that thiscode is carried out." (II~36)

If you feel so strongly about state abuses, whydid you not join reform movements to bringabout proper government?

A Tussle Between Mass-Men

"When one brushed aside the reformersverbiage, the situation was perfectly clear.. , .What I ,vas looking at was simply a tussle be­tween two groups of mass-men, one large andpoor, the other small and rich.... The objectof the tussle was the material gains accruingfrom the control of the state's machinery. Itis easier to seize wealth than to produce it.(111:121 )

"It is easy to prescribe improvements forothers; it is easy to organize something, to in­stitutionalize this or that, to pass laws, multiplybureaucratic agencies, form pressure groups,start revolutions, change forms of government,•

tinker at political theory. The fact that theseexpedients have been tried unsuccessfully inevery conceivable combination for six thousandyears has not noticeably impaired a credulousunintelligent willingness to keep on trying thenlagain and again. (III: 307-8 )

"The only thing that the psychically-humanbeing can do to improve society is to presentsociety with one improved unit. In a word, agesof experience testify that the only way so­ciety can be improved is by the individualisticmethod which Jesus apparently regarded as theonly one whereby the Kingdom of Heaven canbe established as a going concern; that is, the

DECEMBER 1953

means freedom to drink oneself to death....It also means freedom to say ... 'I have studied,I have graduated, I never drink.' It unquestion­ably means freedom to go on without any codeof morals at all but it also means freedom torationalize, construct and adhere to a code ofone's own.... Freedom to do the one withoutcorrelative freedom to do the other is impos­sible; and ... just here comes in the moral edu­cation which legalism and authoritarianism,with their denial of freedom, can never furn­ish." (I: 174-5)

A Prediction Coming True

Will you at least admit, Mr. Nock, that ourcollectivist government will ensure a futurethat our children will enjoy?

"However just and generous an administra­tion of collectivism may be at the outset ... itis immediately set upon and honeycombed byhordes of the most venal and untrustworthypersons . . . and in virtually no time everyoneof the regime's innumerable ... departments isrotted to the core.... (III :319)

"What we and our more nearly immediatedescendants shall see is a steady progress incollectivism running off into a military despot­ism of a severe type. Closer centralization; asteadily growing bureaucracy; state power andfaith in state power increasing; social powerand faith in social power diminishing; the stateabsorbing a continually larger proportion ofthe national income; production languishing,the state in consequence taking over one 'essen­tial industry' after another, managing themwith ever-increasing corruption, inefficiencyand prodigality, and finally resorting to a sys­tem of forced labor." (11:205-6)

Well, if you individualists are so fearful ofthe increase of state power, what do you doabout it?

"Simply nothing.... The student of civilizedman will offer no conclusion but that nothingcan be done. He can regard the course of ourcivilization only as he would regard the courseof a man in a rowboat on the lower reaches ofthe Niagara - as an instance of nature's uncon­querable intolerance of disorder, and in theend, an example of the penalty which she putsupon any attempt at interference. (II: 203 )

14

"If it were in my power to pull down itswhole structure overnight and set up anotherof my own devising - to abolish the state outof hand, and replace it by an organization ofthe economic means - I would not do it, forthe minds of Americans are far from fitted toany such great change as this, and the effectwould be only to lay open the way for theworse enormities of usurpation - possibly, whoknows? with myself as the usurper! After theFrench Revolution, Napoleon!" (I: 159)

Well, Mr. Nock, thank you for the interview.It has been most enlightening. When we returnto Earth, we will ask our legislators to studyyour proposals, and have our committees de­bate them in open forums. (But why do yousmile?) Meanwhile, is there any final statementthat you would care to make which would bestsummarize your life?

His Final Statement

"I learned early with Thoreau that a man isrich in proportion to the number of things hecan afford to let alone; and in view of this Ihave always considered myself extremely well­to-do. All I ever asked of life was the freedomto think and say exactly what I pleased, \vhenI pleased, and as I pleased.... It is true thatone can never get something for nothing; it istrue that in a society like ours one who takesthe course which I have taken must reconcilehimself to the status of a superfluous man; butthe price seems to me by no means exorbitant,and I have paid it gladly, without a shadow ofdoubt that I was getting all the best of thebargain." (111:321-2)

Bibliography(Roman letters in parentheses following abovequotations refer to the three books written byAlbert Jay Nock, appearing below; and thenumbers refer to the pages thereof.)

I -On Doing the Right Thing, and OtherEssays, Harper & Brothers, New York, 1928.

II-Our Enemy, the State, The Caxton Print­ers, Ltd., Caldwell, Idaho, 1935, 1946.

III-Memoirs of a Superfluous Man, Harper& Brothers, New York, 1943.

FAITH AND FREEDOM

EDITORIAL COMMENTTHE LOS ANGELES PRESS carried word inOctober that Bishop G. Bromley Oxnam hadbeen denied the use of Philharmonic Auditor~

ium for speaking purposes. The actual requestfor the use of the Auditorium (owned by theTemple Baptist Church of Los Angeles) wasmade by the American Civil Liberties Union­with the intention of having the MethodistBishop speak under its auspices on Bill ofRights Day.

The ACLU reportedly labeled the denial ofthe Auditorium's use as being contrary to thedoctrine of freedom of speech, as representingdiscrimination against Bishop Oxnam becauseof some of his views, and as endangering thewhole future of the Republic.

The following day, I released to the pressa statement - in part as follows:

"The refusal ... to permit Bishop Oxnam tolecture [at the Philharmonic] on Bill ofRights Day is based on one of our most cher­ished constitutional freedoms, of which Billof Rights Day is intended to remind us. It isa travesty that the ACLU should so confusethe issues in this instance....

"Bishop Oxnam and I have had many ar­guments and are in fundamental disagree­ment on many issues. However, if he wantsto speak in Los Angeles, and if the peoplewho wish to hear him cannot find a placefor him, I shall be glad to try to find a place.

"Certainly we must not deny him the free­dom of speech on Bill of Rights Day - normust we deny the freedom of the Philhar~

monic to run its own business."Both freedoms are vital to the future of

our country - and one is just as sacred as theother. Any organization truly interested infreedom would champion the one as vigor­ously as the other, instead of making out thePhilharmonic owners as 'villains' and theOxnam friends as 'heroes.'"But a short time later, the Board of the Los

Angeles Church Federation - reportedly byunanimous vote of those who were present atthe Board meeting which I could not attend ­condemned the Philharmonic for its refusal tomake its facilities available to Bishop Oxnam.

DECEMBER 1953

Other groups across the nation joined in theprotest, either not understanding the issue orbeing collectivist-n1inded and therefore mindedto ignore the property rights of private Ameri­can citizens.

The statement adopted by the Los AngelesChurch Federation Board said, among otherthings, that the Philharmonic's action "is a

denial of the spirit of the first article of the Billof Rights.... "

However, the First Amendment-and in fact,the entire Bill of Rights - was established tosafeguard the rights of citizens against the un­just acts of government. In this case, for in­stance, the government would not be permittedto use its power of compulsion to preventBishop Oxnam from speaking. But to suggest, asthe Federation Board seems to, that "the spiritof the Bill of Rights" imposes on a private per­son an obligation to make privately owned fa­cilities available ta whomsoever wants themfor any legal purpose is a unique interpretation,to say the least.

Does the action of the Federation Boardmean that anyone who owns an office building,or church, theater, newspaper or magazine, hasthe duty to make that facility available to any­one who wants it for any legal purpose?

Needed: "More Light and Less Heat"

It finally came out that Bishop Oxnam hadnot even accepted an invitation to come to LosAngeles; the ACLU's effort to secure a facilityhad apparently been a bit premature. So per­haps the unfortunate incident will soon passinto forgotten history. Yet it has pointed up theimperative for a more discriminating and care­ful judgment - with more light and less heat.

I have been as much criticized for under­taking to help Bishop Oxnam as I have beencriticized far undertaking to help protect therights of the Philharmonic. I do not defendBishop Oxnam. I simply defend the traditionalconstitutional rights of our nation as they applyto him and also as they apply to the Philhar­monic. Unless we preachers and others becomemore aware of infringements upon these rightsand take more courageous steps to defendthem, we shall lose them.

DR. JAMES W. FIFIELD, JR.

15

HOW THE RECENT N.e.C. CONFERENCE iM­PRESSED ONE LIBERTARIAN OBSERVING ITSACTION AS A SOUNDING BOARD FORCHRISTIANS ON FOREIGN RElATIONS

EDMUND A. OPITZ

THE CLEVELAND AFFAIRThe National Council of the Churches ofChrist in the U.S.A. sponsored a Study Confer­ence in Cleveland, Ohio, October 27-30. This,the fourth National Study Conference on theChurches and World Order, was convened bythe Department of International Justice andGoodwill, on the theme: "Christian Faith andInternational Responsibility." More than fourhundred delegates from all parts of the nationwere present, and news stories about the Con­ference were front-paged from coast to coast.

The Conference was newsworthy because itwas presumed in many quarters to speak notfor itself, nor even for the National Council ofChurches, but for the Church, or at leastfor a majority of church members. A cautiousstatement of this presumption was voiced priorto the Conference by Dr. Walter Van Kirk ofthe National Council of Churches when hesaid, "While the Conference will speak onlyfor itself in its findings, I believe it will comeclose to voicing the international concerns andobjectives of the majority of American churchmembers." The next sentence in the press re­lease where this statement occurs, reads, "Mem­ber denominations in the National Council em­brace more than 147 thousand local churcheswith more than 35 million communicants."

If the "findings" of the Cleveland Confer­ence really brought into focus the scatteredthoughts of 35 million church members - evenapart from what the 50 million other churchmembers in the nation are thinking - thatwould be quite an achievement. As a matter of

The Reverend EDMUND A. OPITZ is Director of theRegional Conference Program of Spiritual Mobiliza­tion. His office is located at 137 Longview Avenue,White Plains, New York.

16

fact, however, the Cleveland Conference madeno eHort to draw up a statement that would winthe support of a majority of the constituents ofeven the member churches of the N.C.C. Toquote Dr. Van Kirk himself once more: Thefour hundred delegates came together to "con­sider and adopt the findings of four specialcommissions which have been grappling withrnajor issues affecting world peace and welfarefor the past six months."

Yet, in some quarters there seemed a beliefthat Conference ratification was to be the al­chemy which would transmute the pedestrianthoughts of several N.C.C. commissions into"the international concerns and objectives ofthe majority of American church members."

The Tangible Results

The immediate, tangible results of the Cleve­land affair are five papers, four commissionreports and a CCMessage," about twenty thou­sand words in all, which the Conference rec­ommends to the churches and the public forstudy and action. These papers are being pub­lished by the N.C.C. as a 48-page booklet,together with a companion booklet of equallength, presumably staH-written, telling howto use the "Message and Findings" of Cleve­land. The Cleveland Conference also passed anumber of resolutions which were solemnly re­ported in the nation's press because they pur­port to record how the church people of Amer­ica stand on certain controversial public issues.

The five commissions which brought their"findings" to Cleveland had about twenty-Rvemembers each, and were setup six months priorto the Conference by a committee of the De­partment of International Justice and Good­will of the N.C.C. The commission topics and

FAITH AND FREEDOM

chairmen were: 1) "The Christian Faith andInternational Responsibility," the Rt. Rev.Angus Dun, Bishop, Protestant Episcopal Dio­cese of Washington, D.C.; 2) '·The U.S. andthe UN," Mrs. Edith Sampson, former U.S.delegate to the VN; 3) "The V.S. and ForeignEconomic Policy," Willard L. Thorp, a formerAssistant Secretary of State; 4) "The U.S. andthe V nderdeveloped Areas," Dr. Emory Ross,formerly of the N.C.C. and now of the Phelps­Stokes Fund; 5) "The V.S. and Collective Se­curity," Frank P. Graham, UN representativein India and Pakistan.

The papers submitted to the Cleveland Con­ference by these commissions were in religiousphrases, but were cut from the same bolt as thematerials issued by the several propagandaagencies in the field of foreign affairs, such asthe American Association for the United Na­tions, the Council on Foreign Relations, Inc.,and the Foreign Policy Association. The prom­ise of these organizations, if it could be reducedto a slogan, would be: "Universal peace, evenif we have to wage continuous war to get it."Looming in the background, ready to supplythe sinews of war for these and other "peace"outfits, are such tremendous pools of wealthas the Carnegie Endowment for InternationalPeace, the Rockefeller and other Foundations.

The ideas expressed in the five commissionpapers are just such everyday ideas as right­thinking internationalists are supposed to have;they are not newsworthy in themselves. But ifthese ideas can be represented as the "findings"of a delegate body representing 35 million peo­ple, then the event is news.

So, the most important function of such aconference as that held at Cleveland is to actas a sounding board. The delegates discussed

DECEMBER 1953

the cornmission reports and made rninorchanges, but they did not lock horns with thebasic neither the major premises of ourforeign policy nor the philosophy underlyingthe United Nations was subject to scrutiny.

The two questions uppermost in the minds ofthe delegates were: How can we help strength­en the UN? and How can we thwart the hellishmachinations of the "isolationists"? There wasdebate and argument in the efforts to answerthese questions, but there was no hint of a sug­gestion that there might be a serious defect ina foreign policy which has not enabled us toavoid the three bloody conflicts of the presentcentury. There was no discussion of the ideathat the UN might not be an instrument ofpeace, and that it might be the embodiment ofa philosophy inimical to human freedom.

Instead, the delegates were told that "theV nited Nations operates on a frontier of inter­national anarchy; it is threatened by a jungle ofdashing nationalism, social systems and powerblocs." They listened to stories about the"frenzied chauvinists" who lurk in the shadowsin nearly every community, and who are evennow plotting to destroy our old Constitution byamending it. Why, if we had had the Brickeramendment in force, asserted Dr. Van Kirk,twelve of the last twenty-three treaties made bythe U. S. would have been unconstitutional!

Gideons Surrounded by McCarthy

The delegates \vere reached emotionally. Theypictured themselves as a Gideon's band, sur­rounded on one side by someone namedMcCarthy, but nevertheless eager to hurl them­selves on the Midianites. In this mood the 400delegates became like an electronic device ­to amplify enormously the sound created bythe politicos, professional uplifters, and socialactionists who made up the five commissions.

Some effort was made to allay the suspicionthat these N.e.e. conferences are mere rubberstamp affairs which serve as elaborate, and ex­pensive promotional devices for the opinionsof the N.C.C. bureaucracy. At the opening ses­sion the Conference chairman, Mrs. DouglasHorton, said, "No one must leave feeling hehad a bright idea and couldn't express it. No­body wants to put anything over on you. Look-

17

ing over this audience I can't imagine anybodyusing you. Nobody's going to try." But "thereare Urnes," 11rs. Horton concluded, "when alninority should rise up proudly and say 'weare a lTIinority. Thank you!' and let the majoritygo about its business."

There have been charges that earlier confer­ences were dominated by the clergy, so Mrs.Horton asked all clergymen to rise, then alllaymen. There was little imbalance either way.If there was an inlhalance in the selection ofdelegates it was an understandable overweight­ing with professionals who live for this sort ofthing. In this category I would include execu­tives and employees of the N.C.C., and of theseveral denorninations and their agencies, ofstate and local councils of churches, of theY.~1. & Y.\V.C.A., educators, and governmentofficials. People in these categories constituteda disproportionate nun1ber of those present.

The Vehicle for "Internationalism"

A brief report on a single N.C.C. conferenceis hardly the place to undertake an adequaterefutation of the cult and myths of "Interna­tionalism" for which this Conference was a ve­hicle, but mention of a few points is in order.In the first place, the so-called Internationalistsare not true Internationalists at all; they are,in my opinion, nlisguided men who have em­braced the evil policy of nationalism, whoseevils they think they can exercise by 11lakingthe policy global in scope.

Patriotism must not be confused with na­tionalism. A patriot is one who works for thewell-being, the freedom, and the advancementof his fellow citizens; and who loves his patria.Nationalism is one of several methods proposedfor the attainment of these ends.

Nationalism, in its domestic aspect, is theuse of political machinery to promote the well­being of some citizens at the expense of others­taxes for all and subsidies for a few. In its globalaspect, nationalism ain1s "to promote the well­being of the whole nation, or of some groupswithin it, by inflicting harm on foreigners," toquote from a definition of nationalism suppliedby Ludwig von ~/lises, An integral part of theforeign policy of the bogus Internationalistsfor lnore than a generation has been the selec-

18

tion of foreign devils or "aggressor nations"whom they could put down by the force of ourarms to the accompanin1ent of their moralisticexhortations.

The true internationalist, on the other hand,favors a world society or community but he be­lieves that this is established as local society isestablished. A society or a community is anatural growth which occurs in the absence ofarbitrary, coercive, political interventions. Itsquality depends on the degree of social skillsbrought to it by the persons composing it. Thecommon, or garden variety of Internationalistoriginally may have had a world society in Inindas a goal which he thought to attain by elabor­ating political machinery. But no\v he has for­gotten the goal in his fascination with evermore complicated machinery, such as that ofthe United Nations. lIe has confused the meanswith the end, and the more power he has at­tained over the direction of policy the fasterhas the goal of a world society receded.

Secondly, the bogus Internationalist has donehis best to stifle free, scholarly inquiry into thebackground and origins of World Wars I andII, such as the inquiry projected by men likeH. E. Barnes and C. C. Tansill in this country.Before you can correct the evils that plague thenations you must come to some openly arrivedat consensus as to what they are. This, the In­ternationalists have tried their best to prevent.

Dissenters Tagged as "Isolationists"

Third, the so-called Internationalists have dis­torted history and shunted off real discussionby labeling all dissenters with the intellectuallyvacant tag, "isolationist." Someone ventured todefine "isolationism" for Charles A. Beard as"the creed that America owes nothing to othercountries and has no moral responsibilities inthe world; that foreign wars are none of ourbusiness; that the United States should shrinkbehind high nationalist walls, let the world gohang, and refuse to cooperate in efforts to main­tain peace in the world." Beard commented,"If that is a correct definition of isolationism,I must say I never heard of an American of theslightest importance in public life who favorsisolationisn1."

Fourth, the policy of the Internationalist cult

FAITH AND FREEDOM

ONE ()F TH1110St difficult

to

worldtell us, is tosOInething awayfree. And it is nowonder. For years

now, the has been teluptingus citizens with a "for free" label andthen us up with hidden strings.

citizens, rightly so, have becomecautious of "something for nothing."

We can syrnpathize \vith their cau­tiousness - but it lllakes it harder for usto make this legitimate free offer-withno strings attached. You see, we've hada windfall, a gift of 500 copies of FrankChodorov's new book, One Is a Crowd.Having ourselves enjoyed his sharp in­sights into the world of politics, we wantothers to the rare treat of

his Call it a Christmasto the 500 alnong our readers

who are to act.Head brief descriptions of the book

below, then send us your request for acopy. Do it right now while think­ing about it; and we'll rush you the n10stprovocative book published in years.

"What a stimulating experience toread Chodorov's sure-footed yet grace­ful prose, with its precious sense ofhumor that characterizes a true philoso­pher." A Los Angeles Editor

"1 found 1 could not put the bookdown until I finished it, because 1 wascarried from one exciting note to an­other." A Chicago colulnnist

Write to us at: 1521 Wilshire Boule­vard, Los Angeles 17, California. Justsay, Send Chodorov's book.

or-

nh',nn",C'II"n in-

lirnited govern·~

...,'lcfiJU ..... 'jf,.-"'- of Bruited govern-,-,V'~.",v'-·I·J'-. It is

~VJU.V'jlJ!. causes an '-..u.'U-vJl. ...... .l.......... il ..~

inof

'I-.o<'t-' .......,r"'--'"o to,-.1 ",'''''r,'' rl n, 1""' r' ...... of our of rnan as

creature of God. If docUlnentation is neededto buttress this one finds it in such booksas to the British lavv-yeI', F, J. P. Veale"

N.C.C. Conduct Questionedi',.."".-",,-,. ..,, needs to be raised about

organization,~""'''..'-'-.J.A.''u.._ '--..Jvu. ..... 'V-'- .. of Churches, ad­

~y ..... ,-,..,.-u- .• ~.n!' -H,,,n" .... " ....... -I-1~7 ...... " .......;C',,~, views in both do-There is a 1".n!'.-I-..."....,,1f-r~

and useful for the ...""" ....... I?"li~7 ....... O} ... t-,C'O}n

'l;:aJl.l..I.L.,,-"l.l..I.'U.U., oriented around ato such C''''~~''~'''T

fronl those who want to have a in further-ing these convictions. But N,C.C. is not suchan its open is in con-flict \vith its character.

If the Council is "a PT.~1,C....t ..' C",a... .....L1>.IW'-'- ,-",-,~"cv-,-.. ofthe of and ~. '''''''''''1,<:,.0 Christian

to rh+il-n ... ,nnt-

Council is notapart from the churches but the

churches themselves doing together thosethings which can be better done unitedly thanc'n.'~"~·'-'+-,nhr " as its own literature states, then it

and an abuse of its for the'---''-,'LU.J1L,Lj pe.rsonnel to use it to "rl·,rn.,.-,n= peJfSOnaland even if they sincerely cherishthese ends and regard them as best for man­kind. The National Council of Churches hasgreat value and potential; to raise a questionabout abuses within it is not to but toaffinn this.

DECEMBER 1953 19

THE OPINION MAKERS

Out of the dull routine of a college class inEnglish composition, a discerning instructor bythe name of Robert S. Hunting has extracteda news story of colossal importance. And thenews is all bad. In The Christian Century, Pro­fessor Hunting tells how he picked the mindsof his students at Purdue University by askingthem to write about the effect of war upon theireducation. The typical reaction: "For me, waris good." The reason: the government, throughcollege military training programs or the C.l.Bill of Rights, is footing most of the bills.

Profoundly disturbed by his students' re­plies, Professor Hunting poses two questions:"Where," he asks, "is the spirit of free andunbiased inquiry, the broad liberal education,on today's subsidized campus - busy trainingmen for war?" Further, he inquires, ~~Is thiseducation free?" Far from it. Today's boys arejust getting a ride at the expense of their fel­low citizens. Even if it were free, the price ofthe "government-issued" diploma is high - atleast it means years of subservience, and at themost, much much more.

n our era the term "planning" is in style. Andit is hard to criticize planning; it sounds likegood sense to look ahead. But planning one'sown activities is one thing; planning how othersshall behave is quite another. The latter formof planning involves governmental action, andthe proper word is not planning at all, butcontrol.

The National Planning Association has justissued a report on U. S. defense capabilities,which specifies how much we can spend on themilitary without "straining" our economy.

By some process that is not revealed, theNPA concludes that our country could, twoyears hence, spend $70 billion for defense"without any undue strain." The planners assertthat the nation could undertake these huge out­lays without the need of any "substantial" taxincrease or going "substantially" further intodebt.

Those who deal in such large figures so glibly

20

must, it would appear, know what they aretalking about. But what is a "substantial" taxincrease? If we increase defense expenditures$15 billion above our present $55 billion, howshall we pay for them? Either by raising taxesor going further into debt. Is $15 billion <~sub­

stantial"? The NPA planners seem to think not,judging from their report.

When one can plan for others - a whole na­tion of them - it is easy to forget what a "strain"it may be on each of the millions of taxpayerswho must pony up the money for the giganticspending program. The Planning Associationcallously assumes that it is no "strain" on theaverage family today to pay between $1200and $1500 a year for this budget, and thus itwill be no strain to spend between $1600 and$2000!

So it is with those who plan for others. Froma grandiose collective point of view, everythingwill be fine - particularly if we just forgetabout individuals.

ast year there was an explosion at the Uni­versity of Chicago. One of the University'sdivinity students who thought his alma materwas dominated by a leftist faculty and studentbody, said so in an article for a national studentmagazine. He was subsequently denied admis­sion to candidacy for his divinity degree. Thismeant that although he had completed part ofhis training to become a minister, he was not al­lowed to enter into his final studies. Therewas no question that the academic roadblockstemmed directly from his authorship of thecontroversial magazine article.

An "official" viewpoint on this case is ex­pressed - in the Summer issue of Christianityand Society - by Bernard M. Loomer, Dean ofthe Chicago theological faculty. Accordingto Professor Loomer, the faculty unanimouslyconcluded that the student '~did not possess asufficient amount of personal integrity and free­dom to warrant its recommending him to aposition of religious leadership." Mr. Loomermakes it plain that lack of "integrity," in this

FAITH AND FREEDOM

case, did not mean dishonesty or ofsincerity; it meant that the student had notachieved "a sense of wholeness."

The student's real the Dean ex-plained, was that he not have ato accept and absorb judgment and forgive­ness." He was not "open to further light andcriticism." This condition, the faculty felt, se­verely restricted the theological student's "per­sonal freedom."

Just what is the llleaning of the Dean'sponderous academic language? What was thestudent's offense? Was he rude? Did he deliber­ately circulate falsehoods about the Universityof Chicago? No, admittedly not. Dean Loomersays the faculty simply found that the studentwas not a whole person because he would notaccept the faculty's forgiveness. He ,,,auld notaccept forgiveness, because he felt he was rightand there was nothing to forgive. The reluctantbut conclusion is that the student justdidn't see things his professors' way.

Every day some college student is disciplinedor denied advancement, and in most cases thepunishment is deserved. But this is different,and Dean Loomer knows it; that is why he hastaken such pains to justify himself and his col­leagues. And it would seem he has justified somuch that he has hirnself away.

This is not a bona fide example of an unrulyor incompetent student. It is a case of a studentwho stood his convictions and was punishedfor doing so. Such action makes a mockery ofacademic freedom. Moreover, in trying tocamouflage the real facts in academic verbiageabout "lack of integrity," the faculty has, atbest, badly fooled itself.

he late George Bernard Shaw, British play­wright and philosopher not always respectedfor his wisdom, was nonetheless famed for hiswit and respected for his candor. He was aSocialist who adrnitted the consequences.

"Social reforms," like state unemploymentinsurance programs, are difficult to combat be­cause folks see the obvious benefits, but do notlook ahead to the consequences.

DECEMBER 1953

periodical TIme and Tide, commenting recentlyon this, remarked that Shaw was one Socialistwho never made bones about this. "Social-ism," he declared, the right of thestate to tell citizen work he mustdo and the power to shoot him if he refusedto do it."

Proponents of the WeHare State could usesome of George Bernard Shaw's candor. Howmuch support would they have if they franklyadmitted that the ultiInate consequence of 50­

cialisln is enslavement?

ost of the pins in this country, we are told,are made eight manufacturers en1ployingabout 1500 workers. These companies and theiremployers are complaining loudly that theirbusiness is being hurt by 247 thousand poundsof foreign pins which, last year, came into ourcountry. This means-say the local pinmakers­that nearly a tenth of their business has goneto foreign competitors. In step with the currentvogue, they are for government pro­tection, either through a tariff or an embargo.

Now government measures could no doubtkeep foreign pins off American markets. Andthis would make sailing easier for the dOlnesticindustries. as there is a forgottenperson somewhere. This time, it's the Americanhousewife. She's been buying foreign pins be­cause sell below the prices of American-

\ rP\ 1made ones. The local manufacturer, in effect,wants to tax the American housewife to help

him in business.as The Individualist pointed out

to our house\vives the chanceon

21

N

SHAME AND GLORY OF THE INTELLECTUALS

PETER VIERECK

(Beacon Press, Boston, 1953, Pp. 320, $4.00)

This book, in parts, takes on the aspect of anuninterrupted monologue, sometimes brilliantand epigrarnmatic. It is like a mosaic, in thatit incorporates fragments of Viereck's writingswhich have appeared earlier in thirty-eightjournals and papers. While an underlyingtheme holds the book together, it is neverthe­less something like a variety show.

Viereck comes by his virtuosity with wordsnaturally, as a paternal endo\vment. Joubertremarked that "To write well a man shouldhave a natural facility and an acquired diffi­culty." It is the acquired difficulty that is notapparent in this book.

The glory of the intellectuals, according toViereck, was when they '\vere the spearheadof anti-Nazi militancy." Their shame, accord­ing to the saIne source, is that they are not no\v"taking the lead in uniting the vVest behind ananti-comn1unisHl luore fervent than before, yetmore fair-minded."

The strength of the book lies in Viereck's in­cisive treahnent of the anti-anti-Cornrnunists.He brings out a gross inconsistency of theseintellectuals by sho\\7ing that the major consid­erations which led them to denounce naziism,apply to communism with even more force­the secret police, political murders, concen­tration camps and so on. Thus the author'streatment elin1inates one of the inconsistenciesof the intellectuals who are soft on commu­nism; but the nub of the problem is somewhatdeeper.

The intellectuals seem to hear voices in theair. Their wellwethers told them that naziismwas a dreadful thing-which was true-so theywere against it. But they were not given a fullunderstanding of its real inwardness, linkingit to its twin totalitarianism, communism, whichthey favored in a vague sort of way. At the time,these two totalitarianisms were in conflict, sothat "anti-Nazi militancy" was but another

22

phrase for "pro-Communist sympathy." Thebellwethers are at last telling the intellectualsthat communism, too, is a dreadful thing(which is true), so that the intellectuals canwork up a full head of moral indignation over it.

What needs pointing out is that the "mili­tancy" of the intellectuals finds expression inrelatively indirect, "peaceful" ways. The anti­Nazi militants, with few exceptions, contentthemselves with firing barrages of words at theenemy from a safe distance.

Typical of such militant intellectuals in manyways is a man who has made a real contributionto thought in certain realms, but whose under­standing fails lamentably in other respects. InWorld War I this Aluerican was a pacifist. Buthe thought W orId War II a good war for otherAmericans to fight. In case other Aluericansfelt differently about this, he urged that theybe conscripted against their will. Yet writing in1953 he is able to of n10dern tilnes as an"era when toe have to defend civilization

various deITIOnries." [ italics.

This is a clue to the shame of the intellec-their rather. As a class are

characterized a fondness for and aavid for \vords has gratefully given

them a niche where they Inay teach and writewith reasonable assurance of handsome supportwhile so doing.

But the people who actually fought the warshave a right to expect and demand somethingmore of such a group of men: that each of thembe his own man; that he be animated by an in­telligent and reverent desire to know; that hehave a point of reference immune to the passingfads and shibboleths of his society; that hereport his findings with integrity and in plainlanguage; that he guard his intellectual produc­tions from the pull of popularity and power;and finally, that he show a sensitive apprecia­tion of the only kind of a society in which hiskind of scholarship is possible.

Some magnificent scholarship has been at­tained during the past two generations by men

FAITH AND FREEDOM

and admit that while this rnay'we must nevertheless his no-

alone have the sanction of

E,A.O.

WINGS FOR PEACE

BONNER FELLERS

(Henry Regnery Co., Chicago 4, 111., 1953, Pp. 248, $3.50)

General Bonner Fellers has made an excellentstatement of the case for air power.

But perhaps one should not begin reading hisbook with the idea that the case is one of strat­egy alone. The reader would be better preparedif he were first acquainted with the views ofBritish General J. F. C. Fuller-who is widelyregarded as the foren1ost military theorist of

( Van) 0 This volurne

schoolusefu.l

and \vith frequentreferences to occurrences. If yourlocal school system is looking for the right text­book you would render a service by acquaint­ing the school board with this one.

1953, Pp. 418,

EDTvIUND

Of SOCIOl.OGY

(The Stackpole Company, Harrisburg, Pa.! 1951,

'1V'ho fulfilled these conditions. But vvith rareIllen vvon neither acclaiIn nor

the

(The Stackpole Company,

A. H. HOBBS

THE

science)' in Ollr c'ri,,,,,,-'f-'r'..-. ....

'will find in these hvo books an extensivernentation to their Dr, Hobbshas done an expert of '"-~.h:'u'U'v ..... 'v ......

Inade his booksand casual

An analysis ofor advocating social change was a task thatbadly needed doing. The Claims Sociologyis an examination of eighty-three textbookswidely used in college sociology courses overthe past twenty -years, to discover what, if any,persistent biases and prejudices they indicate.As the analysis proceeds, it becomes n10re andmore evident that these textbook authors aimat inoculating the student with a one-sidedviewpoint in such important fields of study aseconomics, education, government, personality)and the family.

This flagrant special pleading by the socialtheorists is represented by them as having thesupport of the latest scientific findings. Thusthe prestige of science is used to lend a speciousplausibility to implausible theories. When thesocial theorist is challenged on the ground thathis theories won't hold water and are destruc­tive of our institutions, he feels able to beat a

SOCIAL PROBLEMS AND SCIENTISM

DECEMBER 1953 23

CUR,REN T REA DIN G

modern times. This British general has ob­served, in his book Armament and History, thatmilitary considerations are not "the sole, letalone the highest, values in war. . . . " In hisopinion:

War can only be considered sane when itis looked upon as a political instrument, aninstrument subservient to policy, which, tobe curative, must be based on moral prin­ciples.... The peace aimed at should be abetter peace than the one war has broken;for should it be a worse peace, then, morally,the war will be lost, however decisively theenemy may have been beaten.

We of the United States are confronted withthis possibility (if not actuality) of "a worsepeace." For the military problem facing us ishow to defend ourselves without losing in theprocess those values for which the defense isundertaken. General Bonner Fellers is awareof the collectivistic import of such measures asUniversal Military Training and other coercivedevices which we rely on to raise huge massarmies. And although Fellers is a ground forcegeneral, he is convinced that no mass armies wecould raise would be a threat or determent to apossible aggressor.

A feasible defense strategy, as outlined byFellers, would include these points: a) Avoid\var, if possible. b) Win, if war cannot beavoided. c) Maintain free economy and initia­tive. d) Meet treaty obligations. e) Conservelives. He argues that the best way to imple­ment this strategy is to raise our air strength toa 250 group air force supported by an adequatearmy and navy. This the United States coulddo without strain if our policy called for such

. a program.This whole matter needs to be thoroughly

ventilated by public discussion, for the Penta­gon seems bent on staffing our defenses withhuge masses of manpower despite the fact thatwe have but one-sixteenth of the world's popu­lation-while the potential enemy controls one­third. Wings for Peace makes a significant con­tribution to this discussion; its outcome willaffect the life of every American.

E.A.O.