WIND BY ROLF NESCH

lost ries den fall

ght was

ley,

in ind Fin ick

JANUARY 1958

uld

ROGER ORTMAYER EDITOR HENRY KOESTLINE MANAGING EDITOR MARGARET RIGG ART EDITOR

EDDIE LEE McCALL HELEN POST WILLIAM HARRISON WANDA LENK

CIRCULATION MGR. PROMOTION MGR. EDITORIAL ASST. SECRETARY

M ] T I Vv E

JANUARY 1958 VOLUME XVIII / 4

CONTENTS:

CONTRIBUTING EDITORS: HERBERT HACKETT ¢ HAROLD EHRENSPERGER

EDITORIAL COUNCIL: JOHN O. GROSS « H. D. BOLLINGER

WOODROW A. GEIER « RICHARD BENDER ¢ HOWARD ELLIS « HARVEY BROWN

HAROLD W. EWING « MYRON F. WICKE ¢ JAMESON JONES

john e. jordan

1 W.S.C.F.’s CALL TO THE DAY OF PRAYER 2 AN ORDER OF WORSHIP for the universal day of prayer 5 TWO-WAY TRAFFIC robert h. hamill 8 THE SEARCH FOR INTIMACY: THE FAMILY gibson winter 11 ALL FOR ONE myron scholnick 14. THE TERRIBLE SICKNESS IN SHAKESPEARE’S OTHELLO norman penlington ROLF NESCH (ARTIST) barbara lee bachmura 25 TWO STORIES erich kaestner 27. NULLUS EPISCOPUS, NULLA ECCLESIA jj. hamby barton, jr. 29 THE CONSENSUS: WE'VE HAD IT 33. LETTERS departments 34 MUSIC I. p. pherigo 36 CAMPUS ROUNDUP FROM OXFORD, ENGLAND 38 BOOKS cover 3. PRAYER (Print) margo hoff cover 4 EDITORIAL roger ortmayer

COVER ARTIST:

MOTIVE:

motive is the magazine of the Methodist Student Move- ment, an agency afhliated with the World Student Chris- tian Federation through the United Student Christian Council, published monthly, October through May, by the Division of Educational Institutions of the Board of Edu- tation of The Methodist Church; John O. Gross, General

Rolf Nesch, metal print: Wind. See art feature on pages 16 through 24.

POST OFFICE BOX 871 NASHVILLE 2, TENNESSEE

Secretary. Copyright 5 The Methodist Church Subscription rates: Single subscriptions, eight issues, $2.

e Board of Education of Nashville 2,

Group subscriptions of fifteen or more to one address, $1 each. Foreign subscriptions $2.50. Single copy 30 cents. Address all communications to motive, P. O. Box 871,

Tennessee. Please accompany articles, stories, poems and art work submitted with return postage. Entered as second-class matter at the Post Office at

Nashville, Tennessee, under act of March 3, 1879. Accept- ance for mailing at special rate of postage provided for in Section 1103, act of October 3, 1917, and authorized on July 5, 1918.

ries,

.. ept-

on

With these words, the World Student Christian Federation once again calls the Church everywhere to make intercession for the universities of the world.

There is no doubt that the New Testament com- mands us to pray. The imperatives are hard, even sharper than we think at first glance. ‘‘Rejoice always,” at all times. ‘‘Pray constantly,” without ceasing. “‘Give thanks in all cireumstances.”” And what is more, we are commanded to do this ‘for all men’”’ (1 Tim. 2:1). The New Testament does not show much interest in whether we want to pray or not. Our will is not decisive here. Another will wants these things, and that will is the commanding one. “This is the will of God!”

Can we agree? Can we allow this will to take place in us, if not always and constantly, at least here and

January 1958

W.S.CF.’s call te the day of prayer

Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all circumstances; for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. | Thess. 5:16- 18.

now, in this place? Are we willing here and now to be given the gift of joy, of a thankful heart, of valid prayer? While we weigh this possibility, the New Tes- tament speaks once again: that which God wills has already taken place “‘in Christ Jesus.” You do not decide whether God’s determination to have a joyful, praying, grateful creature will happen or not. God’s will has happened in the Man of Nazareth! In him the Creator hears the grateful ‘‘let it be so!’’ of his Crea- ture. In the Man of Nazareth, the life of faith in all these forms—joy, prayer, gratitude—is a reality, not just a possibility.

And this Man of Nazareth has to do with us here, today. This Lordly Man believes, rejoices, prays, gives thanks ‘‘for you.’’ In him your Day of Prayer has al-

l

ready begun. In this Man of Nazareth, God is glad about you, his own creature! In this Man of Nazareth, God himself prays for you, his friend! In this Man of Nazareth, God in his own inconceivable way, gives thanks for you, his own beloved child! Your hard will and deadness of heart he wants for himself. His free will and living heart he wants you to have for yourself. His command to rejoice, to pray, to give thanks is an invitation to let his life be your own. God wants this life for you.

“For you’’—‘‘for all men.’’ What God wants for you, he has already begun “‘in Christ Jesus’ for all men. Can we rejoice and pray and give thanks for that in the universities where we study and learn and teach? “All men”’ is not an abstraction in the New Testament. It means ‘‘each man’’: each man and woman in the universities of the world, especially those we know and see every day, and most particularly those we might prefer to leave alone. Professors—the interest- ing and the dull ones! Fellow students—the clever and the foolish ones, the rich and the poor, the cour- ageous and the cowardly, the trustworthy and the

untrustworthy, the Christian and the non-Christian, the religious and the skeptic and the indifferent, the good and the evil—all men are included in the for you which we celebrate today.

And those also who help us to study: families—the understanding and the misunderstanding ones, the en- couraging and the depressing; officials—the helpful and the hindering ones, the just and the unjust; and the merchants from whom we buy, and the poor of every kind among whom we study and live. For all these we are invited to rejoice with the Heavenly Father, who ‘‘in Christ Jesus’’ sees not only the heart of each man, but the destiny of all men. For all these we are invited to pray with the Lord who holds them lovingly and without ceasing before the heavenly throne. For all these we are invited to give thanks in all circum- stances—not pharisaic thanks for things unworthy of thanks, but the thanks of those who know that their own sins have been forgiven, and those of all men.

Rejoice always, pray constantly, give thanks in all cir- cumstances; for this the will of God in Christ Jesus for you. Amen.

ANN ORDER OF WORSHIP

for the universal day of prayer

felrmmary 16, 1958

This service is offered as a suggestion for use by student Christian groups meeting together in response to the Call of Prayer issued by the officers of the W.S.C.F. It is only a suggestion, and groups are free to use it any way they wish, to alter it, or even to make use of a different service altogether. Some, however, may wish to follow this order in the knowledge that other Christian students in different parts of the world will be praying the same prayers. Ap- propriate hymns are to be chosen by each group.

This service includes portions with responses. The parts to be said by the congregation are given in capital letters.

aA

——

oa

THE READING OF THE “CALL TO PRAYER”

INVOCATION Blessed is the Kingdom of the Fa- ther, Son and Holy Ghost Now and forever, World without end. AMEN.

HYMN

ADORATION Almighty God, most blessed and most holy, before the brightness of whose presence the angels veil their faces, with lowly reverence and adoring love, we acknowledge thine infinite glory and worship thee, Fa- ther, Son and Holy Spirit, eternal Trinity. Blessing and honour and glory and power to be unto our God for ever and ever. AMEN.

CONFESSION OF SIN O God, our Father, by whose power we are sustained, and by whose mercy we are spared, look down upon us with compassion. We have not loved thee with all our heart; we have not loved our neighbours as ourselves, we have done amiss and dealt wickedly. We beseech thee to forgive us and to cleanse us from our sins and to lead us in the path of righteousness. WE CONFESS TO GOD ALMIGHTY, THE FATHER, THE SON AND THE HOLY SPIRIT THAT WE HAVE SINNED IN THOUGHT, WORD AND DEED, THROUGH OUR GRIEVOUS FAULT. THEREFORE WE PRAY GOD TO HAVE MERCY UPON US.

Lord, have mercy upon us CHRIST, HAVE MERCY UPON US. May the almighty and merciful Lord grant unto us pardon and remission of all our sins, time for amendment of life, and the grace and comfort of the Holy Spirit. AMEN.

PRAYER OF THANKSGIVING We give thanks to thee, O Lord God, Father almighty, together with thy Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. We thank thee for all the blessings which in the riches of thy great

January 1958

mercy thou hast bountifully poured down upon us and all men.

Let us not live but to praise and magnify thy glorious name. O Lord, we especially thank thee for giving us the privilege of serving thee in and through (the SCM and) the World Student Christian Federa- tion. We offer thee our humble thanks for all thou hast been pleased to do through the Federation (and the SCMs) in every part of the world. We praise thee for all those whom thou hast raised up as wit- nesses in our midst and through whose lives and words we have been enlightened. We beseech thee that we, being encouraged by their ex- ample and strengthened by their fellowship, may not fail thee in the day of opportunity.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord AMEN.

HYMN

READING (St. Luke 10:17-24 or I Thessa- lonians 5:14-25)

SERMON OFFERING

PRAYER OF INTERCESSION

These prayers of intercession should be made as specific as possible, per- haps by direct reference to other movements with which your move- ment has had a special concern in the past year. Short periods of si- lence may be observed after each item. Reports about other move- ments are published in the Federa- tion News.

Let us bring before God the needs of the students of the world.

God our Father, who hast promised that thou wilt grant the requests of those who are gathered together in thy name, we bring before thee the needs of our fellow students in every country. We pray for those who have lost the sense of their signifi- cance as students and those whose existence as students is threatened by injustice in society.

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US.

—For those whose anxieties do not leave their minds free to think

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US.

—For those tormented by difficulty of choosing a career and those who face unemployment

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US.

—For those who study in foreign lands, those who are homeless, lonely or hopeless

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US.

—For those who yet have had no opportunity to hear thy call to follow thee and those who have heard thy call and not yet obeyed

WE BESEECH THEE TO HEAR US.

Let us bring before God the Student Christian Movements throughout the world and the World Student Chris- tian Federation.

(Following subjects are suggested for intercession)

For all Movements in our world fel- lowship; for the Movements in Asia, Australia and New Zealand; for the Movements in Africa and Latin America; for the Movements in North America and Europe (specific needs of each Movement may be mentioned here).

For groups of students in countries where there are no SCMs. For the various activities of the SCMs, for each of our members, in whatever situation he is; for the senior friends of the SCM; for those who spend their whole time in Christian work among stu- dents; for the work of the national Movement, its officers and staff, for the work of the World Student Chris- tian Federation, its officers and staff.

Our Father, who hast given thy son to reconcile the world unto thyself and to abolish the walls of partition be- tween classes, races and nations, may our ministry in the World Student Christian Federation be a ministry of reconciliation. In times of strife and tension, of wars and rumours of war, may our unity in thee remain un- broken, our faith in thee unshaken.

Through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AMEN.

A PRAYER FOR INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER LEARNING

Almighty God, we beseech thee with thy gracious favour to behold all institutions of higher learning, especially the (mention the institu- tion or institutions in that place), that knowledge may be increased among us, and all good learning flourish and abound. Bless all who teach and all who learn; and grant that in humility of heart they may ever look unto thee, who art the fountain of all wisdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AMEN.

A GENERAL PRAYER O God, creator and preserver of all mankind, we humbly beseech thee for all sorts and conditions of men; that thou wouldst be pleased to make thy ways known unto them, thy saving health unto all nations. Especially, Father, we pray for countries, for the peace of the whole world, and for thy holy catho- lic Church so that she may be guided and governed by thy good spirit. Through Jesus Christ thy son, our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Ghost, ever one God, world without end.

AMEN.

LORD’S PRAYER

HYMN

PRAYER OF DEDICATION

O God, our heavenly Father, we commit ourselves into thy hand, make us to love what thou loveth, to will what thou willest, and to de- sire what thou desirest; to serve where thou sendest and to be ready when thou callest; through Jesus Christ our Lord.

AMEN.

BENEDICTION Grace, mercy and peace from God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit be with us hence and for ever more.

AMEN.

motive

TWO-WAY TRAP

across university quenwse BY ROBERT H. HAMILL

Here Robert Hamill speaks to the dichotomy between the church and university at the University of Wisconsin. The implications, however, are widely applicable.

January 1958

Fe aera ste to the book of Acts the Athenians spent

their time on the Areopagus hearing or telling some- thing new. St. Paul and the philosophers argued there among people characterized by tolerance, curiosity and mental astuteness. In the modern setting all this is equiva- lent to the church and the university standing side by side on University Avenue, where the crowds traffic back and forth and argue daily about all new things. It is elemen- tary, my dear Watson, that your life is being shaped by church and university.

You may try to separate them into compartments. Some say that church and university, like religion and politics, oil and water, cannot mix. “East is east, west is west. . .” which is like saying, Men are men, women are women, and never the two shall meet, for church and university have much in common. They are costly, to begin with; it is hard to raise money for them, and however much you raise, it is never enough. They are both prospering; education and religions are big business, and booming in popularity. They are nevertheless the outcasts of so- ciety. For instance, that sobering book The Power Elite (by C. Wright Mills) declares that religion, education and the family are but poor cousins to government, busi- ness and the military, where real power and real wealth are concentrated.

Yet religion and education are alike also in this, that they carry the seeds of regeneration, the capacity for self-criticism, the power of growth. Consider the state- ment of Dr. Charles Malik, ambassador from Lebanon to the U. S., and head of the Lebanese delegation to the United Nations. He analyzes the West, which he deeply respects. He speaks of the many phases of Western life which are repulsively materialistic, the general weaken- ing of moral fibre, the eclipse of quality in favor of quantity and size, the failure of leadership, the bank- ruptcy of fundamental ideas. It is a devastating critique. Then he concludes,

Whatever be the weakness and decadence of the West, it still has one saving glory: the University is free, the Church is free. It is a great thing to preserve unbroken the tradition of free inquiry started by Plato and Aristotle, and the tradition of love started by God. Truth can still be sought and God can still be loved and proclaimed in joy and freedom. And this fact alone is going to save us. It will not be by pacts, nor by atomic bombs, nor by economic arrangements, nor by the United Na- tions, that peace will be established, but by the freedom of the Church and the University each to be itself.

The church and the university therefore have relations of mutual respect and criticism, across University Avenue. Traffic flows in two directions, not just south. How arro- gant it would be for us in church to feel that we come here to gain purpose for an otherwise purposeless study; to build moral power to face a wicked Babylon, as though we and we only were faithful to the Lord. Nonsense, and pride. We don’t come across University Avenue empty- handed, empty-headed. We come with work to do, service to render here.

THE UNIVERSITY THE INTELLECTUAL CONSCIENCE OF THE CHURCH

You bring first of all an intellectual judgment against religion. You bring the sharp mind and the tools of honest

5

thought. The university stands as a relentless rebuke to all shabby religion. It shouts anathema against all super- stition, all uncritical faith, all anemic belief. Conse- quently, some students lose their faith; they deserve to lose whatever cannot stand the scrutiny of hard thought. The university turns the X ray of scholarship upon the Scriptures, for instance, and studies them as it studies any other documents. Thereby we learn that Genesis con- tains two accounts of creation, neither of them accurate science, neither of them intended to be. We learn that Moses was not the author of the first five books, especial- ly not of the passage which records his own death and burial. The Gospels were not written by eye-witnesses who knew Jesus personally, but by second- and third- generation disciples; they are composite books, reflecting the faith of the early church, books of faith and not news- paper reporting. The Bible contains contradictions and records of bad morals. Scholarship looks at this book honestly, as it looks at the evidences in geology, history or any literary documents.

Here on this modern Areopagus the philosophers will question Paul not only about Scriptures, but about the religious experience itself. For instance, Reinhold Niebuhr recently wrote a popular article about Billy Graham. He treated him gently because he knows that Graham is sincere, genuine, honest, although he feels that his mes- sage is irrelevant to the mature modern man who is aware of the tragic dimensions of life. The only letter which Niebuhr received criticizing him for his gentleness came from a college freshman.

You say Graham is sincere. I suppose he is; but can a man really be sincere when he constantly repeats in his calls for de- cision, “You may never be as close to the Kingdom of God as you are this moment.” Isn't that reducing the mystery of the divine to petty proportions and isn’t it egoistic to make your- self the master of mystery?

Niebuhr comments, “That is rather astute for a college freshman—or for anyone else.” This is exactly the business of those who traffic from university to church. Criticism is ultimately a protection of true religion. Good criticism is the best defense, it saves the genuine article. This is the purifying work of the intellect. Nels Ferré makes it clear.

The church needs the university to check its claims, to steer its search for truth, and to test the consistency of its faith, both for self-consistency and with all known facts. The university should be the intellectual conscience of the Church.*

* Christian Faith and Higher Education, p. 244.

When you come across University Avenue you bring critical judgment. THE CHURCH PUTS QUESTIONS TO THE UNIVERSITY

In turn you go back to the univer- sity with a similar kind of critical re- spect. Just as the church cannot live on faith without reason, so the uni- versity cannot live on reason with- out some prior faith. It has faith al- ready. The scientist believes. He believes in the regularity of nat- ural phenomenon, and takes it for

granted. He believes that litmus paper and the spectro- scope give reliable information about the structure of atoms, which no man has ever seen. He believes that his own senses are trustworthy; he trusts his power of ob- servation. He believes that all natural events will ulti- mately yield to understanding. He believes many things which cannot be proven.

The university believes that knowledge is worth striv- ing for. It does not entertain the notion that knowledge is a waste of time. If you believe that, you get expelled, for the university is intolerant. The university has pre- suppositions, axioms which it takes for granted and sel- dom examines. According to one critic these axioms in- clude “a belief in progress, a confidence in the goodness of man, a naive view of objectivity, an unbounded faith in science and education, an uncritical worship of reason, and a bourgeois evaluation of success.” (John Coleman) All this is faith, and the church serves the university by asking, Do you recognize that you have this faith? Is this faith adequate?

The church presses upon the university another prob- lem also: Does the university recognize the temptations which are peculiar to the academic life, the particular sins of the mind? Why is it, for instance, that knowledge was the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden myth? If men are created but a little lower than the angels, does this mean that men can think all God’s thoughts after him, or can think none of them accurately? What does it mean when Paul says that the foolishness of God is wiser than the wisdom of men? Here on the modem Areopagus the church serves the university by pressing these questions. Students, professors and administrators carry these matters across University Avenue.

TWO BROKEN COMMUNITIES

Both church and university are communities, com- panies of people committed to common tasks. Both, alas, are badly shattered.

The university asks, By what right do you in the church claim to be united? You are broken into severe separa- tions, Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox. Within, you are divided into hundreds of denominations. Even your local congregation is divided into two “sittings” like movie showings. How can you be the One Body of Christ when you cannot worship together, or eat together, even meet face to face? When you come south across the Avenue, never relent in pressing this question!

In turn, the university itself is fragmented. Last June we invited here to discuss the A-bomb fallout two dis- tinguished professors, one a notable chemist who is ad- visor to the Atomic Energy Commission, the other a famous historian and author; these men have both been on this campus since 1947, yet when they walked in the church door I introduced them to each other. How can a university understand itself and its work, when its great men do not even know one another? I was hunting a cer- tain engineering professor’s office, and wandered by mis- take into the mining and metallurgy building. When I asked a student where I might find Professor So-and-so, he replied, “Gee, Mister, how would I know? He’s in M.E. I am in M. & M.E.” Those same days a young coed received a check for $25 from the university with no

motive

tTe2s2

an Sit

lef

pu cu

SO}

ee ee, ee ee ee,

al

w = Ww

explanation in the letter. She felt it was a mistake; it must be a bill! No one seemed able to explain it; the dean’s office, the counselor, had no answers. After two hours of telephoning all over campus, a secretary learned that this was an award given to the freshman girl who ranked first in English. Imagine a great university giving out scholarships without knowing why. These are the marks of a broken community.

The church asks therefore, what is it that holds this university together, and makes it cohere? What is the uni in the university? To this question the University of Wis- consin has two answers.

First, the “Wisconsin Idea.” Dr. Leroy Luberg recently described the Wisconsin Idea as the concept of service to the state, the plan which weds the labors of the scholar and scientist in the university with the practical concerns of farmer, industrialist, politician; the ideal of service to democracy rather than the individual advancement alone; it concerns the increasing dignity of man. Here, obviously, is a great concept.

Secondly, the university proclaims freedom, freedom to think and to teach what you are convinced is the truth. Have you ever stood down on campus, looking up the hill toward Bascom Hall? You have the Capitol building be- hind you, and the broad expanse of lawn rising up ahead. On the sides you scan the buildings surrounding you like riches of learning: law, music, education and the sciences, then farther up, the social sciences, and you walk up to- ward Lincoln’s brooding statue, and read the immortal words, then you pass on up onto the porch of Bascom, and read the plaque which was replaced and rededicated again last spring. The words come from the Board of Regents of 1894,

Whatever may be the limitations which trammel free in- quiry elsewhere, we believe that the great State University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless

sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found.

There is an eloquent statement of the second idea. These two marks set forth a great tradition of service to society, and freedom. They are the external and internal dimen- sions of a great university.

Now in respectful friendship, the church asks the university, Are these two marks adequate? Have you not left some large questions still unanswered: what is the purpose of education here? and what is the unity in your curriculum?

THE WHY AND THE WHAT OF UNIVERSITY EDUCATION

What purpose for education do you instill in students? What is the modern equivalent of that purpose which founded Yale College in 1701, and other great American universities? “For the educating and instructing of youth in good literature, arts and sciences (Yale was founded): that so by the blessing of Almighty God they may be the better fitted for public employment both in Church and in Civil State.” Is it still the purpose of higher education, as it was in former days, “to escort the soul to the fron- tiers of knowledge,” or is it to escort the student to the employment office of a big corporation?

If the university is to have any unity it must instill at the heart of its curriculum some matters, some values, some content which make things cohere. The modern

January 1958

university offers many courses beyond the 3 R’s and their refinements. You can learn how to build a bridge, cure rabies, fill cavities, make dresses. You can find courses in basic jazz, bridge-playing, radio gag-writing, baseball umpiring, mountain climbing. The university has become a multiversity. Intellectual life lacks direction. There is no common faith, no body of principles to shape the uni- versity’s purpose. Almost the only common requirement upon all students is attendance; everyone should be edu- cated, but there is hardly any one thing that everyone should know. Consequently a student can graduate from the university without any consistency in his thought. He can be an evolutionist in science, a materialist in history, a New Republican in economics, a state’s righter in politics, a Puritan in morals and pantheist in religion —all at once. No wonder the divided mind makes for tangled personality.

In reality the university exists to find and proclaim the unity of the universe. Whatever unity there is in the universe, that is the only valid source of final unity in the university, and that of course raises the religious question. There is no way for a university to avoid the religious problem. All learning—pure or applied—is simply an effort to explore this most comprehensive and essential question: what is the nature of Final Reality, what makes it function as it does, what makes it work to- gether? The unity of the universe should be used to create unity in the curriculum. The modern university has been likened to a city that is all suburbs: many specialties spread across the intellectual map in formless clusters, with only trickles of communication, and no heart, no unifying center. (Ferré, 237-8.) If the university intends to educate the whole man with a true and whole educa- tion, it must search for some cohesion in its own curricu- lum, and it will have to confront the final religious ques- tions.

It is the saving glory of the West that a free church and free university will thus address each other in mutual respect and mutual criticism. You will traffic across University Avenue, coming south with intellectual tools that purify the church, going north with a concern about the purpose of the university.

RESPONSIBLE ACTIVITIES

The university is not an intellectual agency only; it is a living company of people with diverse activities, as a church is not creeds only, but picnics and committee meetings. As such these two can learn and benefit from each other.

For one thing, let the church al- ways remind us that activities can be a folly and delusion. Some peo- ple hide from themselves in a panic of activities. Others plunge into campus life just to accumulate Brownie points, or credits for initia- tion. My wife’s sorority at North- western University allowed four points for attending a football game, and one for attending church; one hundred required for initiation. Likewise in church, it is

(Continued on page 38)

the search

A fresh look at marriage and family life has been taken by Chicagoan Gibson Winter in his soon-to-be-published volume Love and Conflict: New Patterns in Family Life. Doubleday and Company will publish the full work and we are grateful to them for making possible this portion.

| ire most virulent poison created by industrial society is excessive loneliness. Our way of life uproots people, carrying them upward or downward in the struggle for success. Human bonds are pulverized. Those who cling to family ties are soon left behind in the economic struggle. Those who press forward find them- selves cut off from friends and asso- ciates. We are the uprooted. We are the producers of things and the serv- ants of machines. We live with things, ideas and prices. We rarely have time to live with people.

E vEN though the basic loneliness of our lives cannot be eliminated, we can share intimate contacts with others which make our loneliness creative rather than destructive. Our society has narrowed the sphere of intimacy almost exclusively to the immediate family of parents and children. The family is now the only antidote to the poisons of excessive loneliness.

The principal question about the American family is whether it alone can be a sufficient antidote to the poison of isolation. Can one intimate group meet all our needs for intimacy? Can the family meet such excessive demands for intimacy?

The strains in family life today can be attributed primarily to the narrow- ing of intimacy to the home. Two kinds of tension seem to be paramount in the modern home. The family is torn between its need for intimacy and its need for authority to guide its life. The family is also caught in a difficult struggle to provide children with a sense of belonging that does not tie them too closely to their par- ents. Both of these dilemmas have arisen as the family has become the exclusive sphere of intimacy on the American scene.

The more intense the loneliness of

8

husband and wife, the more difficult it is to develop a center of authority in the home. Personal intimacy and authority are contraries which always exist in tension. The stronger the per- sonal need for intimacy, the more disturbing is the subordination to authority. Since people today are suf- fering from intense needs for intimacy, we can assume that few families can tolerate much formal authority in the home. If the male authority is to be recovered in the modern family, it can only be done very slowly. The central job of the family is to provide a sphere of intimacy in which excessive lone- liness can be overcome. This is its primary task. All other concerns must be subordinated to the accomplish- ment of this task. If we accept this fact, we can handle the problem of authority without undue haste and without doctrinaire claims that it must be such and such. A proper division of authority can only arise as a fruit of personal intimacy.

T HE conflict between authority and intimacy is clear from the nature of intimacy. An intimate relationship is a bond of mutual concern and support between equals. Two people stand to- gether as equals in their concern for each other. No distinctions of ability, mental aptitude, riches or office can be allowed to dominate an intimate relationship. These barriers may exist in other settings, but they cannot be allowed to operate in friendship or marriage. Barriers of inequality are excluded from consideration in inti- mate relationships. Persons bound to- gether by mutual love and concern exist for each other. Each will help the other and support the other. They counsel each other in difficulty and rescue each other in danger. These

or intimacy:

are the qualities of an intimate rela- tionship. The intimate relationship assumes an equality as persons. How- ever unequal the persons may be in ability, they are simply persons in their intimacy.

Authority, on the other hand, intro- duces inequality. Authority can only be exercised when one person sub- ordinates himself to another on a par- ticular matter. Let us picture the situa- tion on the Titanic at the time of the tragic sinking. Husband and wife are on deck. The wife wants to stay with her husband. They have children at home. They resist the idea of being separated in this catastrophe. The hus- band insists that the wife enter the lifeboat and return to the children. In this crisis, the husband exercises an authority to which the wife sub- ordinates herself. In this decision, they are not equal. So long as husband and wife agree, there is no issue of sub- ordination and matters can be settled by consensus. When they disagree on critical issues, authority introduces a problem of subordination and in- equality.

It seems desirable that wives en- courage their husbands to take a more authoritative role in the home. Their husbands have been forced out of the home situation by the circumstances of modern life. Such a recovery of male authority is bound to upset the equality of intimacy. It need not threaten the intimacy, if husband and wife feel assured of the mutual con- cern in their relationship. This sug- gests that the real issue to be worked through is the personal intimacy of the relationship. If the personal bond is soundly established, allowing room for privacy and a sense of support, then the devision of authority may follow. On the other hand, many couples cannot deal with their per- sonal intimacy because the power

motive

x |

~~ ee FP ee —_=rw EE we $e

; = = 2"

=

THE FAMILY

BY GIBSON WINTER

HENRY MOORE

struggle has frustrated both of them. The modern family will undoubtedly lean toward equality and intimacy no matter how chaotic the home becomes. It is the nature of loneliness to de- mand its due at any cost. Nonetheless, full intimacy cannot develop in a chaotic home that is ruled by children. At the risk of disturbing equality and arousing conflict, the problem of authority will have to be faced for the long-range good of the family. There is no great danger of undue inequality if the biblical injunction is kept in mind and put into practice, “be subject one to another.” This is the ground of equality on which inti-

January 1958

FAMILY GROUP

macy rests. Husband and wife will differ in their abilities, interests and responsibilities. Despite these differ- ences, they are joined as equals in the covenant of intimacy. Every inequality in marriage is subordinate to this fundamental equality. The two have become one flesh.

THE need for intimacy also creates tensions between parents and chil- dren. Such strains reflect additional problems of equality and inequality in intimate relationships. A fully inti- mate relationship is a person-to-per- son response between those who stand

together in their personal life. At mo- ments of deep intimacy, the persons shed the inequalities and differences. We occasionally experience such mo- ments of intimacy across the barriers of inequality. A foreman and a worker may experience such personal en- counter. These are moments when the responsibilities of our particular jobs are set aside and the fullness of our equality as persons takes the fore- ground. Then the work of life con- tinues and we don our inequalities once again.

Parents treasure moments of full personal intimacy with their children. They cannot, however, fulfill their re- sponsibilities to the children if they expect intimacy to be the normal state of affairs. Children are not equal to parents in the order of family life. If they were, the parents could not pro- tect and guide them as they mature to full personal responsibility. Our deep needs for personal intimacy tempt us to transgress the inequality between parent and child. We want to draw children into more intimacy than is proper. We treat them as equals, when they need the protection of an unequal, parent-child relation- ship. Our own need for intimacy seduces us into excessive intimacy with