Viewing page 14 of 98

resolution proposing an amendment which would take away from Congress the right to declare war. Their time and energy, of course, will be wasted. It must be admitted, however, that many citizens have at least sympathized with pacifist movements to make our army and navy helpless to defend the nation against aggression. 

The world undoubtedly is moving slowly toward a new plane of international understanding and the death of our war President has turned the thought of the United States anew to the principles he advocated as a means of making arbitration a substitute for war. The limitation of armaments agreed on at the Washington conference was a long step toward a new era of international relations. It halted the naval building race, but it did not alter human nature. So long as man continues to covet that which is his neighbor's and the strong nations seek to despoil the weaker, armies and navies will be necessary to police the world. 

It is difficult for the average patriotic American to understand the mental attitude of those who would make the nation helpless. The resolution the Women's Peace Union has drafted as the basis of a constitutional amendment would not only deprive Congress of the power to declare war, but would declare war for any purpose illegal and would forbid the nation, or any part of it, to use any armed forces, ships, machines or other agencies of war. One year after the ratification of the amendment it would be unlawful to manufacture, with new inventions which would make attempted resistance futile sell or transport arms, munitions, chemicals or other agencies designed to take human life. 

The helplessness of the United States would invite an invasion of our territory with new inventions which would make attempted resistance futile. That a so-called peace organization should undertake an extensive campaign under such a platform indicates the necessity of continuing an Americanization program among our own stock. The peace which is the goal of every loyal citizen will not be attained by such methods.

LIVING IN THE PRESENT.
A speaker before an international trade union association in convention in Atlantic City held pessimistic views about the employment of women in industry, a growing custom which he says is destroying the economic union of the family. He went so far as to predict that possibly marriage as it has existed will come to an end. He enlarged considerably on this phase of his subject and the complex requirements of modern society, concluding with the gloomy reflection: "It seems that men no longer exist to be happy, but to worship the machine (meaning the mechanism of society) and make it more efficient." 

To this the obvious reply is a question: When did men exist chiefly to be happy? It is true, of course, that it is the wish of every normal human crea-

Jesus called a child to him and had him stand among them, and he said: 
"I tell you, unless you change and become like children, you will never get into the kingdom of heaven at all. Any one, therefore, who is as unassuming as this child is, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, and any one who welcomes one child like this on my account welcomes me. But whoever hinders one of these children who believe in me might better have a great millstone hung around his neck and be sunk in the open sea. . . . Beware of feeling scornful of one single little child." 

On another occasion, when proud parents brought their children to him, and his followers reproved them for intruding with their youngsters, he indignantly rebuked those who sought to shield him, saying: 
"Let the children come to me; do not try to stop them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as they." 

Thus he interpreted the kingdom in human terms; he made the child its unit of value; in its complete realization the kingdom--the social expression of religion as Jesus conceived it--is simply the developed possibilities of childhood. 

Here is something that men can understand. Here is a place to begin the study and experience of religion much closer to the life of the average individual than the school and the seminary. The instinct of parenthood is a religious instinct. The love which a father or mother has for a child; the concern which any normal adult has for a child is a direct contact with the thought and purpose of God. When we study childhood with a view to learning how we can help to realize the complete fulfillment of its promise--physical, mental and spiritual--we are thinking in harmony with God's thought. When we labor with patience and sacrifice for the attainment of this end we are working in fellowship with God. 

Jesus took the child as the unit of value because it represents the human possible, and the development of the human possible to its highest ends is the object of religion. The reaching of these ends by humanity is the accomplishment of the kingdom. 

So it is that he warned men against scorning the humblest child and pictured a terrible death as a better fate for a man than to be guilty of placing a hindrance in the way of a child's development. How could he have emphasized more clearly or more strongly the fact that God's chief concern is for the human values? That the "last and the least" of human beings is of more importance than all the material wealth which has been created through human enterprise and human toil? What an indictment we have here of much that marks our modern civilization, and what a criticism of much that marks even our religious activities. 

Religion is simpler to understand when we look at it from the viewpoint 

the oldest thought in the world-a rediscovery of a very old thought-the fundamental of the ancients that mind must take precedence over matter. "Psychotheraphy," one of its phases is termed in the learned report. The definition of this by the Lambeth conference committee is interesting, coming from that source. Psychotherapy includes three main departments: treatment by re-education and persuasion, aiming at mental and moral readjustment by means of reason and argument. Paralysis and other diseases can be reached, the report affirms, by this method. 

The second department is suggestion, "aiming rather at influencing subconscious processes, for it is in the subconscious and unconscious parts of the mind that the source of many nervous and moral ills lie." The third department in psychotherapy is the analytic, "investigation of what are assumed to be the deepest layers of the mind, and depend for their success upon the discovery of latent 'complexes' and morbid processes which have given rise to the symptoms." From psychotherapy to the psychoanalysis of Freud and Jung, different schools, however, searching in the same domain, is not a far reach. The committee is careful not to indorse either, or any schools, but is content to point out the roadway that research is taking, and that must be followed by the physician of soul and physician of body. 

What is of striking significance is research, it may be as a means of spiritual discipline and efficiency. But, however it may be brought about, and in whatever way it may be overruled for good, it is in itself an evil. 

This is a departure for the church to take, and in a footnote to the report the committee remarks that it is to be hoped that some of the language used in the office of the visitation of the sick may be reconsidered in this connection and due emphasis given to the principle newly expressed. 

Sickness is an evil. It is not a necessity in nature, it is a violation of nature. Disease is a mortal sin. There is a health note in this. The chief work of the church in its mission of healing, we are told, is to develop in all its members a right attitude of confidence, love and understanding toward God and to train them to approach all questions of disease both for themselves and others in this spirit; to bring together those who care for the soul and those who care for the body in co-operation; and to insist on hygiene and plain living as part of the ordinance of God. 

As to the form to be used in treatment of the cure of sick souls it may take the form of unction, i.e., anointing with oil or the laying on of hands, or both. But this is not the main thing.

The Church of England, like the Parliament of England and things political in England, is giving recognition to the universal flux that is taking place and the spirit of unrest that is so 
Please note that the language and terminology used in this collection reflects the context and culture of the time of its creation, and may include culturally sensitive information. As an historical document, its contents may be at odds with contemporary views and terminology. The information within this collection does not reflect the views of the Smithsonian Institution, but is available in its original form to facilitate research. For questions or comments regarding sensitive content, access, and use related to this collection, please contact transcribe@si.edu.