Awake!, March 22, 1959

Download: PDF — Awake!, March 22, 1959

Hiy the Religious Paradox?

tiat Wives Look For in Husbands me Birth of France’s Fifth Republic

courageous Stand for Sanctity of Blood..............

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

News sources that are able to keep you awake to the vital issues of our times must be unfettered by censorship and selfish Interests. "Awake!" has no fetters. It recognizes facts, faces facts, is free to publish facts, ft Is not bound by political ambitions or obligations; it Is unhampered by advertisers whose toes must not be trodden on; it is unprejudiced by traditional creeds. This Journal keeps Itself free that it may speak freely to you. But it does not abuse its freedom, it maintains integrity to truth,

"Awake!" uses the regular news channels, but is not dependent on them, its own correspondents are on all continents, In scores of nations. From the four corners of the earth their uncensored, on-the-scenes reports come to you through these columns. This journal's viewpoint is not narrow, but is international. It is read in many nations, in many languages, by persons of all ages. Through its pages many fields of knowledge pass in review—government, commerce, religion, history, geography, science, social conditions, natural wonders—why, its coverage is as broad as the earth and as high as the heavens.

"Awake!" pledges itself to righteous principles, to exposing hidden foes ond subtle dangers, to championing freedom for all, to comforting mourners and "strengthening those disheartened by the failures of a delinquent world, reflecting sure hope for the establishment of a righteous New World.

Get acquainted with "Awake!" Keep awake by reading "Awake!"

Published Semimonthly bt

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.

117 Adama Street Brooklyn 1, N.Y., U.S.A.

N. H, Knobb. President Gbant Suites, Secretary

Printins this issue: 2,850,000

Fl vs cents a copy

"Avikgl" h P»Nlih«4 la ths following 19 linggagai: Semimonthly—Afrikaans, Danish. Dutch, English, Finn* ish, French, German, Greek, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Poctnjuese, Spanish, Swedish, Tagalng, N4fethly"~ClnyMiK Indonesian, Ukrainian, Zula.

Yearly EubscripUon rate*

OfflM for semimonthly editions

AserJet. U.S's 117 Aduw St., Brooklyn 1, N.Y. |1 Australia, IT Beresford Bl, StrethfleM, N.S.W. 8 A Canada, 150 Bridgeland Ave., Toronto 19, Ont $1 England, Watch Tower House,

The Ridgeway, London N*W, 7 7/*

New Gotland, 831 New Norm Rd.. Auckland. S.W. 1 7/-South Africa, Private Bag. Elandri pntrin, T?l. 7/-

Monttily editions cost half the above rates.

Remhtanm for Bubaeripdons should be sent to the office In your country. Otherwise send your remittance to Brooklyn. Notice of expiration ts sent st least two issues before subscription expires.

CHANGES OF A DO ft ESS ahoild meh » thirty days before year movlni data. Give » year old and new address (if PHsIbfs, yoir old address label). Write Watchtower. 117 Adams Street* Brooklyn 1, New York, U.S.A.

Second-das postage paid at Brooklyn, N.Y. Printed in U.S.A.

The Bible tra*sl>tl«ii iscd In “Awake V' [& the Now World Translation of the Holy Scripting, When other translations are seed the following symbols will amir behind the citations

— American Standard Version jIT — An American Translation

- Authorized Version (1011} Da — J. N. Darby'® verden

Dy — Catholic Douay version KD — The Emphatic Diaglott JP — Jewish Publication fioc. Le — Isaac Leaser's version

Jfo — James Moffatt's version Ao — J. B. Rotherham's reraion PS — Revised Standard Version Yff — Robert Young's version

CONTENTS

Beware of Resentment!

Why the Religious Paradox?

The Baby Is Now a Giant

What Wives Look For in Husbands 12

The Birth of France’s Fifth Republic 17

Courageous Stand for Sanctity of Blood 21

Decision of the American Hospital Association

Japanese Popularity Soars

“Your Word Is Truth”

The Lord's Supper—Who May Partake ? 27

Watching the World

BEWARE

of resentment!

Beware of nursing resentment! Beware of holding a grudge! Why toss away your contentment? Why try

to play God the

Judge?

What is the nature of resentment? Resentment, we are told, is a prolonged dwelling upon that which one regards to be a personal injury or grievance accompanied with strong indignation and ill will toward the offender.

Have you ever found yourself nursing resentment or holding a grudge because of some insult, slight or injustice received? And have you made yourself miserable because of mentally going over that grievance again and again? If so, beware!

Why? Because nursing resentment robs one of contentment, peace of mind and happiness. Resentment makes for unbalanced thinking. It has caused some to sacrifice their own happiness and the lasting welfare of their children on its altar. Resentment can spoil the peace of one’s Christian congregation and even one’s faith in God and the human instruments he is using today.

Unchecked, resentment leads to frustrating hate and murder. Because Abel, although being younger than his brother, received divine preferment, Cain cherished resentment to the point where he could no longer endure it and so murdered his brother. Because he lost the birthright Esau nursed murderous resentment toward his brother Jacob. Joseph’s ten half brothers let resentment cause them to conspire to kill Joseph, —Gen. 4:3-8; 27:41; 37:19, 20.

And then there was King Saul. Because God prospered David, Saul let resentment make a miserable, potential murderer out of himself. Only God’s providences saved David, even as they saved Jacob and Joseph. Because Jesus publicly rebuked Judas for his mercenary complaint regarding the costly perfume, Judas let resentment rise in him to the extent of causing him to become the archtraitor of all time. And. calling to mind a modem instance: Right after General Montgomery had his Memoirs published, an Italian officer challenged him to a duel because of some of the things Montgomery had said about the Italians.

The officer’s resentment was so strong that he did not want to live on the same earth as Montgomery. In times past many duels were fought for just such a reason. Incidentally, note that all the foregoing felt they had just and valid grounds for nursing resentment.—1 Sam. 20:31; Matt 26:6-14; John 12:3-8.

One who cherishes resentment may be said to be depriving himself of life’s beauty and sunshine by deliberately preferring to stand in the dark shadow of his disturbed mental attitude toward the one who has offended him. Is it not foolish to let oneself become so disturbed over one’s relationship with another? More likely than not that one bears no grudge and may not even be aware of the fact that he has given cause for resentment. Or it may be that that one occupies a position of authority in a place of business, the family or the Christian congregation and he felt it best to inflict the hurt. If we find ourselves reproved by one in such a position, then we will do well to call to mind that “the wounds inflicted by a lover are faithful.” —Prov. 27:6.

Cherishing resentment is not only unwise but also unjust It makes no allowances for extenuating circumstances; it does not try to see matters from the other’s viewpoint; it sees only its own side, its injury. Here again there is a Scriptural remedy, for we are instructed to do to others as we would have them do to us and to be as forgiving toward others as we would have God be toward us.—Matt. 7:12; 6:12.

And, in particular, all nursing of resentment is unloving. When one nurses resentment he stifles tenderness, compassion, affection and mercy; he becomes harsh, exacting, vindictive and cruel. “Love is long-suffering," but resentment refuses to suffer wrong. It causes one to continue in a provoked state, whereas love “does not become provoked" in the first place. Further, we are told that love “does not keep account of the injury.” Resentment, however, makes one do the very opposite, to dwell on the injury, going over it again and again. Also, love "bears all things” and “endures all things.” But resentment refuses to bear and endure. Truly, love takes out all the props on which one’s resentment may rest.—1 Cor, 13:4-7.

It will also help us better to combat resentment if we view it as a form of presumption and rebellion. It rebels at what God permits and presumes to take God’s prerogatives to judge and chastise. It makes us forget the admonition; “You must not take vengeance nor have a grudge against the sons of your people; and you must love your fellow as yourself.” “Return evil for evil to no one.” “Do not avenge yourselves, beloved, but yield place to the wrath; for it is written: ‘Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says Jehovah.’ Do not let yourself be conquered by the evil, but keep conquering the evil with the good.” —Lev. 19:18; Rom. 12:17, 19, 21.

So, if you ever feel resentment rising in your breast or taking root in your heart, stifle it, pluck it out! Tell yourself it is foolish, it is unjust, it is unloving and it is presumptuous and rebellious. It may also help if you do some soul searching, asking yourself if it could be that there is some hidden reason for your resentment. Remember, “the heart is more treacherous than anything else and is desperate. Who can know it?” asks God’s prophet.-—Jer. 17:9.

It may also help if you will look for opportunities to do the one who has offended you a good turn; or to humble yourself by asking that one to do you some slight favor. Do what you can along such lines, and do not forget prayer. Pray for the one that offended you; pray to God to help you to overcome this resentment; pray for wisdom and strength to deal with it. And if all this is still without avail, go to the one who has offended you and talk it over with him, in keeping with Jesus’ command at Matthew 18:15-17.

So pursue peace of mind, contentment and happiness by never nursing resentment.

not

What accounts for the paradox of increased lawlessness at a time when there is also Increased interest <n religion?

PARADOX?

ra HAPPY group of minis-M ters were driving home from a midwinter graduation of missionaries. It was late at night and the snow began to fall, causing the roads to become very slippery. Coming to a hill their auto got stuck. A stranger with a larger car, noting their predicament, helped out by pushing their car over the hill. In expressing appreciation one of the group remarked about where they had been and that they were returning to New York city. “New York?” exclaimed the stranger. “Why, you’re heading in the opposite direction! You’re not far from Ohio!”

Were they chagrined! Inadvertently the driver, unfamiliar with the route, had turned west instead of east on reaching the main highway. For more than three hours they had been going in the wrong direction, and it was past midnight before they were back to where they started from. But did they resent this stranger’s telling them of their mistake? Of course not! They were only too glad to be set straight.

We should be of the same frame of mind regarding whatever affects our interests. If some well-meaning friend or stranger tells us that we are making a mistake, rather than resent it, we should be willing to listen; it may be that he has the truth on his side. Nowhere is it more important that we do this than in the field of religion. This, therefore, is the course we recommend to all reading “Why the Religious Paradox?”

A paradox, we are told, is “any phenom-

enon or action with seemingly contradictory qualities or phases." Today a religious paradox is to be observed, particularly in the United States. There religious interest has so increased that pollsters have repeatedly found that 95 percent of the population claims to be Protestant, Catholic or Jewish. In view of such claims it is unreasonable to expect a very high moral tone in the United States, especially since these religions subscribe to the Ten Commandments, among which are: “You must not murder. You must not commit adultery. You must not steal."—Ex. 20:13-15.

Yet what do we find? A paradox. Year after year one sees more crime, more juvenile delinquency, more adult immorality, more political corruption, more labor racketeering. Crime in 1957-1958 increased 12 percent over the previous year, whereas the population increased about 2 percent. Crime costs the people of the United States $20,000,000,000 annually; three times as much as education, ten times as much as the people give to their churches. According to Time, July 28, 1958, the United States is “the most divorcing nation in Western Christendom.”

Racial and religious prejudice and strife are also on the increase. Since May, 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that schools must be desegregated, there have been more than eighty bombings or attempts at bombing in the southern United States, seven of these being directed against Jewish buildings.

Religious leaders are keenly aware of this paradox. Thus The Christian Century, January 1, 1958, after telling of how numerous Lutherans were in the state of Minnesota, went on to say: "The Lutheran Herald, official organ of the Evangelical Lutheran Church, recently urged Minnesota Lutherans to ‘take a look at some other statistics’ before they start bragging about their numbers. It suggested that examination of the state’s record of crime and alcohol might prompt them to be ashamed rather than proud of their predominance.” The same religious periodical, in its July 30, 1958, issue, stated that ministers at their summer conferences “recount their statistical successes, but nobody much impresses anybody that way any more because everybody knows how troublesome are the shadowed facts that never quite get into the figures.”

Also aware of this paradox is Dr. Henry P. Van Dusen, dean of Union Theological Seminary, New York city. Said he: “Religion is gaining ground but morality is losing ground. This is one of the most surprising and overlooked facts in America today, . . . Churches possess a larger and wider allegiance than ever before, but crime, alcoholism, divorce and sexual laxity are on the alarming increase.” (Cosmopolitan, December, 1958) Jewish and Catholic religious leaders have made similar statements.

Emphasis on Numbers

Why this religious paradox? There are many reasons, one of which is that religious leaders and organizations put more stress upon numbers than upon maturity; upon quantity instead of upon quality. Highlighting this weakness is the column that appeared in The Christian Century, April 9, 1958, under the heading, “Cowboys or Shepherds?” It told of a meeting of ministers at which one speaker “described the difference between a cowboy and a shepherd, with particular reference to ministers and churches.... The speaker put the searching question to the preachers: ‘Are we cowboys or shepherds?’ . . . The cowboys get the cattle together at intervals and count them and brand them. The big thing is to count them and to make sure that there are more than last year,... That is not too far removed from some ecclesiastical procedures. By all means count them and put the denominational brand on them....

“The shepherd has a name older than that of cowboy. And his chief concern is not arithmetic; not how many do we have this time, not to have the biggest herd in uic state, but to follow the old injunction, ‘Feed my sheep.’ The danger for a church which gets to have an inordinate appetite for numbers is that its eyes will be fixed on the roundup. It grows concerned to have long lariats which can lasso the largest numbers. . . . The sheep cannot exist on a diet of thistles. ... It is exciting to see cowboys in a rodeo. It is far more wonderful to see a shepherd leading his sheep and feeding them.”

The foregoing points truly are well taken. How can those professing to be Christians become morally and spiritually strong when their pastors are more concerned with numbers than with the spiritual health of their flocks? Putting the emphasis on quality, Jesus said that many would go upon the broad and spacious road that leads off to destruction, whereas but few would find and enter the narrow gate and walk the cramped road that leads to life.—Matt. 7:13,14.

Compromising

Another reason for the religious paradox of today is the compromising course taken by the clergy. For example, a wife asked if it were wrong for her to take money from her husband’s trousers: “I do not want to steal, but when I need a few dollars and have to beg and argue and be yelled at, it is easier and better to help myself. He has so much money that he never misses it.” Dr. Norman Vincent Peale replied: “Help yourself. It’s too bad you feel you must do it that way, but the money is as much yours as his. When he married you, his ‘worldly goods’ were conferred upon you. You can hardly steal that which belongs to you.” (Look, December 9, 1958) The apostle Paul told wives to be in subjection “to their husbands in everything.” He also told Timothy to “reprove, reprimand, exhort, with all long-suffering and art of teaching.” Dr. Peale prefers to tickle the ears of erring ones rather than to reprove and reprimand them, even as the apostle Paul foretold would be the case’—Eph. 5:24; 2 Tim. 4:2, 3.

Compromising must also be the charge laid against the clergy as regards the racial issue in the United States. Thus Time, September 15, 1958, told that “the hardhitting drive of New Orleans’ Archbishop Joseph Francis Rummel against racial segregation has petered out under pressure from laymen and private opposition from many of the clergy, and the desegregation that the archbishop planned for New Orleans parochial schools has been indefinitely postponed.” This was but one of a number of like incidents mentioned.

On the Protestant side, a group of eighty Southern ministers met and declared: “We resent the implication by certain liberal ministers that it is unchristian to oppose integration. We believe that integration is contrary to the will of God ... is ... unChristian, . . . and is not supported by Scripture.” (New Outlook, November, 1958) Going to the other extreme is clergyman Adam Powell, whose church is said to have the largest membership of any in the United States. Being a Negro and his flock also, he flatters his listeners by harping on their grievances, tickling their ears instead of urging them to show brotherly love, exercise patience and self-control and to seek to lead exemplary lives.

The religious paradox can also be accounted for in that the religious leaders themselves compromise the very principles they have vowed to uphold and teach. Thus the Minneapolis Morning Tribune, September 3, 1958, told of Roman Catholic priest Rucker being fined $350 for selling hard liquor without a license and operating gambling devices at a church picnic. When the government agents arrived at the picnic such a disturbance was raised that one of the agents died of a heart attack and another was knocked to the ground. Only when the third drew his gun did the priest step in and restore order. The priest granted that the fine was fair; however, what he did object to was the resultant bad publicity. What can be expected from the flocks when their pastors so openly flout the laws of the land?

Downgrading the Bible

But above all else, what accounts for the religious paradox is the downgrading of the Bible on the part of the religious leaders. The fundamentalists downgrade the Bible in people’s minds by their inconsistent and contradictory creeds and by their construing every expression in the Bible literally. Not knowing any different, the people think that the Bible is a fundamentalist book and so lose the fear of God that the Bible inculcates and their hold on the Bible’s righteous principles.

Especially do the modernists downgrade the Bible by their denial of its authenticity, inspiration and historical accuracy. One of their leading mouthpieces is Theology Today. Its contributors would water down the Bible record and have us believe that the voice that Moses heard at the burning bush was from within his own heart, that the tenth plague that came upon the Egyptians was merely a matter of infants dying because of “poor hygienic conditions,” etc.—April, 1957; October, 1958.

An even more notorious mouthpiece of destructive modernistic criticism of the Bible is the modem work The Interpreter’s Bible, a Bible commentary consisting of twelve large volumes and containing eight million words. Its first volume has a series of introductory articles, the first of which is “The Bible: Its Significance and Authority.” How the Bible is downgraded therein is apparent from such remarks as this: “When once we have set aside the infallibility of the Scriptures, and have fully admitted that the Christian believer or theologian in his use of them must be guided in the last resort by his own conviction of truth, we admit in principle the right to set aside some of the Bible content. . . . It may well be asked, in view of all that has been said, in what sense, if any, we can properly speak of the Bible as the Word of God.” From beginning to end are to be found such speculative opinions as that Moses did not write the Pentateuch, that the basis for the book of Job is a myth and that the Gospel of Matthew was not written by an eyewitness. And this is one of the leading Protestant works that clergymen, Sunday-school teachers and others consult for their sermons and lessons!

No wonder the clergy cannot speak with authority when they have only their own judgment as a basis for what they say! No wonder what they say makes so little impression upon their flocks! How striking the contrast between them and the Great Teacher whose name they bear and in whose footsteps they profess to follow! Jesus Christ, the Son of God, manifested full faith in the Hebrew Scriptures as being his Father’s Word, not only repeatedly quoting from them and crediting their account of creation, of the Deluge and of Jonah as actually historical, but also expressly stating to God: “Your word is truth.”—John 17:17.

The Bible contains revelations of God, his purposes and dealings with man; it further makes known God’s righteous principles. We cannot discount its claim to be the divine revelation, we cannot question its miracles and historicity and yet expect to be able to quote it as an authority as to what is right and what is wrong, as to what are the principles by which men should live. If the religious leaders cannot speak with earnestness and conviction, how can their flocks take seriously the admonition given them? Again note by contrast the example of the Son of God: “When Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds were astounded at his way of teaching; for he was teaching them as a person having authority” —as one that clearly understood what he was talking about and spoke with the utmost conviction—“and not as their scribes.”—Matt. 7:28, 29.

Truly, when we consider the emphasis religious leaders put on numbers instead of spiritual maturity, how they compromise in both word and action, and, above all, how they downgrade God’s Word, we have the answer as to “why the religious paradox?”

The is now

BY "AWAKEI" CORRESPONDENT IN SWEDEN f

THE Swedish labor movement appeared to be a helpless babe when it began in 1898 with finances that amounted to a mere 56.97 kronor ($15.00). Employers thought little of it. They manifested a chilly, even a hostile, attitude toward it. Today the story is very much different.

No longer is the Swedish Confederation of Trade Unions (the LO) a babe. It is a powerful giant whose favor employers and political leaders seek. It comprises 1,400,000 members and has a capital of 400 million kronor. Economically the LO is looked upon as a coequal of a big capitalist. Its political power is so great that the government frequently consults it before making an important decision.

When this giant had its sixtieth anniversary in August, 1958, it was lauded in the press as “a vital sexagenarian.” Among the first ones to congratulate it were the top men of the Confederation of Employers Associations. Many persons considered this as interesting proof of the extent to which the attitude between labor and management has changed during the course of the years. The fact that the LO is now a mighty giant is undoubtedly the reason for this change.

When labor unions first started in Sweden, employers would send hired men to create serious disturbances at union meetings. As the unions grew in strength the employers decided to organize into an association that would look after their interests in the face of labor’s increasing demands. As a weapon it would employ the lockout. The association ■ was organized in 1902, and

the first lockout was proclaimed the next year in the engineering industry. Fifteen thousand men were affected. The next lockout came in 1905 and lasted for five months. The settlement of this dispute resulted in an agreement that formally acknowledged labor’s right to form unions and to have collective wage agreements.

Tie with Social-Democratic Party

The initiating force that caused the forming of the LO came from the Social-Democratic political party. Around the turn of the century Social-Democratic agitators actively participated in labor’s negotiations. The aim was to eliminate the great poverty in the country and to capture political rights for the working class. The continued co-operation between unions and the political labor movement is considered by many as having been of great benefit to both parties.

At the LO’s sixtieth anniversary Sweden’s premier, Tage Erlander, stated: “Social-Democracy in Sweden willingly admits its debt of gratitude to the union movement. If we get contributions from it we do not try to hide it, as other parties do regarding those who contribute to their treasuries. We are proud that the wageearners want to help Social-Democracy to get influence.”

Although the majority of workmen are Social-Democrats, as is the premier, voices are heard complaining that a workman’s dues to the union help support a political party that he may not personally favor.

Another voice that lauded the LO at its anniversary was that of J. Oldenbroek from the Netherlands. He observed: "There is no union movement anywhere that has understood its task better and has more harmoniously developed into a power for the common good than has the union movement in Sweden,”

What Happened at Saltsjobaden?

A new epoch began as the result of an agreement that was reached at Saltsjbba-den, a small town outside Stockholm. Seven representatives of employers and seven of employees met here to talk over their problems. The result of the agreement reached there created a new situation on the labor market that gave rise to the phrase “the Saltsjobaden spirit.”

Before the agreement was made in 1937 there had been many small and uncontrolled conflicts between management and labor. The agreement was a big step toward pacifying them. It was this same year that the hated Akarp law was abolished. It was enacted against labor on July 19, 1899, It increased the punishment for threatening or assaulting persons who were willing to work during a strike.

At the meeting at Saltsjobaden it became apparent how strong the baby of 1898 had grown to be. The labor-union movement now had to be considered as an element of society. Elven opposers had to admit this.

Regarding union and employer relations, the managing director of the Employers Association, Bertil Kugelberg, said: “To me the most essential thing about it was that representatives of both parties could get to know each other by being together without constraint, get to know of each other’s aims and difficulties and lay the groundwork for personal respect and friendship.” He added that the leaders of industry today are very satisfied with the spokesmen of labor when they meet to negotiate. “I want to express our thanks and appreciation,” Kugelberg said, “of the way the LO has conducted negotiations. We have met able, reasonable, well-informed negotiators whom we have learned to greatly appreciate and with whom also many good jokes have been exchanged.”

The Svenska Dagbladet, which is the mouthpiece of the Employers Association, wrote editorially: "The Saltsjobaden spirit has become the key word for this union mentality which has so greatly benefited both parties and thereby the national household as a whole. In reality Sweden has far fewer union conflicts than the great majority of countries of somewhat corresponding size. The LO deserves recognition for its no small part in achieving this state of things.”

One important provision in the Saltsjb-baden agreement concerned the dismissing of employees. An industrial concern must not discharge workmen without previous warning and without first discussing the matter with the local organization.

Attitude Toward War

At the party congress of 1900 the labor movement’s attitude toward war was decided upon and the following was stated: “The Swedish Social-Democracy, like its brother parties abroad, is absolutely opposed to all militarism. . . . The same interests that are inimical to the people and which are at work all over the world in order to expand militarism are carrying on their game in our country also.’

READ THE NEXT ISSUE

• Can a police officer arbitrarily imprison a person who has done no wrong without having to answer to the Jaw for his conduct? The Supreme Court of Canada answered Not On the same day it ruled that the premier of Quebec himself could not use hie power to force out of business a man whose religion he did not like. Read about it in the next iseuf’

Few find satisfaction in their work. In a highly industrialized society many work only to make a living. Will the situation ever change? Read the next issue.

• Posture is a controlling factor in personal appearance, physical health and mental disposition. Learn what you can do about it in the article ''Coping with the Posture Problem." Next issue.

Workmen were exhorted to render “energetic, planned resistance” and not to approve of the smallest increase in the allowance for armaments. This line of thought, however, was abandoned in 1914 when World War I broke out For twenty-five years Sweden has had a Social-Democratic government that has repeatedly asked for and received increased sums for armaments. At present almost three billion kronor a year is set aside for armaments. The critical state of world affairs appears to have been the force that caused labor to change from its antimilitary policy.

Fight for Better Conditions

Among the many guests at LO’s anniversary feast was the president of the Norwegian DO. He told newspaper reporters that it is more difficult nowadays to fight ideologically for better living conditions because there no longer exists any acute material want in this part of the world. He said that people should have an automobile and a telephone. He called these “noble necessities.” He observed that even when people are well off they always desire to get something still better.

The question of wages always turns up at labor conferences, but because of inflation, a crowded labor market and increased international competition, unions are no longer making such loud demands as they did in the past. The economic situation has become more difficult. Already many industries have had to cut down on production.

One of the most difficult problems appears to be in the training of youth for the various trades. Young people have grown accustomed to earning money easily without having any specialized training.

Although Sweden’s labor movement has grown from a babe to a powerful giant and has conquered many obstacles, its future is not free from imposing difficulties. Regarding this the premier said that “the future, so far as we now discern, will no doubt again confront the labor movement with situations very difficult to handle and which will call for consciousness of responsibility and visionary outlook.” He and other Swedish leaders seem to sense that there are very difficult times ahead.

Trouble is to be expected because we are living in the last days of the present system of things, the “time of the end.” Shortly God will destroy this wicked system and usher in a new system of things in which righteousness will dwell. This expressing of God’s righteous indignation because of the wickedness of this world will be the worst trouble that labor, management and political governments will ever have experienced. “For then there will be great tribulation such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until now, no, nor will occur again.”—Matt. 24:21.

There will be no need for giant labor unions to represent and to protect working men in the new system of things that will follow this time of trouble. Under the rule of God’s kingdom all humans will do what was long ago commanded: “Youmust love your fellow as yourself.” (Lev, 19:18) How can the workman be oppressed and unfairly treated when everyone exercises love for one another?

MOST wives do not expect their husbands to become the chief cook and bottle washer of the house. They do not expect them to do the work of the maid, the laundress, the charwoman or the houseboy, although they recognize that there may be times when circumstances might force them to fill these roles for a brief period of time, and some men like to help in the kitchen and with other household chores. But wives find no lasting pleasure when husbands do the cooking, the sewing and the shopping, and then moan about it. What a wife wants is a husband that will be a father to his children, a good provider that sees that the bills are paid, a man that is firm and stable, someone she can deeply respect.

But before she can show deep respect for a man, he must show himself worthy of it. Certainly an unreliable provider, a tramp, or a drunkard is not worthy of her deep respect simply because he is of the male sex. A husband must win the love and respect of his wife. How can he do it?

Wives appreciate a husband that is loving and considerate; one that is kind and affectionate, not overly critical and never harsh; one that is gentle, but firm. They would like their husband to have a sense of humor, good taste and appreciation. They want him to be mature and resolute, a man that knows what he wants outpi&

of life and gets it.

Christian wives want their husbands to be the head of the family and not just partners in the family arrangement It is proper for them to feel that way, because the Bible states that wives are to be in subjection to their husbands “as to the Lord, because a husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation.” Christian wives do not enjoy taking the lead in family affairs. They do not want to be forever the one that does the deciding of the places to go and things to see and do. They look to their husbands to take the lead that is theirs. It would be refreshing to many women to hear their husbands say: “Honey, no dishes for you tonight We’re going to Lu Chow’s restaurant for dinner.” At least that would be a change from that old familiar question so often asked in many homes: “Where shall we eat tonight, dear?” The man that assumes the initiative wins the respect of his wife. She appreciates his taking the lead.—Eph. 5:22,23.

Wives look for more in marriage than a male roommate. They are willing to accept the fact that a man’s job demands much of his time, talent and attention. But they would have husbands know that a good home and a happy family are deserving of some of that time and attention too. Wives often are heard to complain: “As soon as my husband comes home he heads for the basement and there he works until late at night. We hardly know that he is around. On weekends the children and I have our religious activities while he goes off either fishing or golfing. You have no idea how thankful I am when it rains on weekends! It is usually our only chance to see something of him.”

Some husbands become selfish, irresponsible individuals. They permit their hobbies or outside interests to allow them to evade or ignore their obligations to home and family. Some of this is sheer thoughtlessness or a kind of little-boy enthusiasm that wives are not too keen about. It is a life in which a mature, responsible married adult cannot afford to indulge.

An unreasonable share of married men’s time and money is often absorbed by outside recreation. The number of wives that bewail their husbands’ obsession with hunting, fishing, bowling, boating or some other pastime is astounding. These men share little interest in home life and have little or no time for their wives whom they have sworn to love and cherish.

Where this aloofness exists, there is also a great strain on the mental health of young children. Dr, Leonard Duhl of the Health, Education and Welfare Department is quoted as saying that many children do not get to see their fathers often enough. “The disturbed, upset children live in a strictly feminine world and know their fathers only as night-time residents and weekend guests.” This lack of association with the father tends to upset the mental stability of male children especially. They find it difficult to understand what it means to be masculine.

Marriage Is Not Singleness

Wives may sympathize with husbands that have a great craving for freedom, but they would like to remind the head of the house that by becoming husbands they have agreed to give up a measure of that freedom for the sake of the marriage union. Marriage may mean their giving up some personal hobbies, boyhood ambitions and nights out with the “boys.” After you get married is no time to find this out, however. If you are the type of man that cannot let go with both hands of the freedom and easy living that goes with singleness, then do not get married, because you cannot have your cake and eat it too. A married man with a single man’s ideas is just asking for trouble.

Husbands are not the only ones that lose a measure of freedom when they get married; wives do too, do not forget. Husbands may complain about that fenced-in feeling after they get married; wives may experience it too. Wives say that if husbands want to go places and do things they have no objections as long as they take their wives with them. But most wives think it unfair that they be left home alone with the children time after time. Of course, some prefer it that way, but not many do. Experience has proved that the more married couples do things together the sooner that fenced-in feeling gives way to an appreciation of each other’s company.

How often comes the legitimate complaint from wives: “Rarely do we go out together any more. He leaves most decisions to me. We share almost no interests. When I want to go for a walk or to a movie, he says ne's too tired i nnd myself dividing my time between my job and my daughter. My husband has become less like a husband and father and more like a casual visitor or a paying guest I have often asked myself, Am I too dominating? If I am, I can say it is largely because of his passiveness. He has left all the money management and household business to me. I have tried to encourage him to take the initiative, but he won’t do it. What am I to do? Should I let my life, the child’s life and his life go to waste just because he won’t do anything?” If a husband lacks initiative or headship, has an aloof attitude and self-pity, it only aggravates the difficulties in married life. A wife wants her husband to shoulder his responsibility and not pass it on to her to carry. Her load is big enough without having his to bear.

Both parties in marriage must work for an interdependence and not for independence. A husband with an independent streak will find it difficult to live a married life and endure his wife’s combination of weaknesses, whimpers, doubts and demands. But wives appreciate a husband that learns the meaning of their moods and undercurrents and becomes extraordinarily aware of them. At times she will complain, blame and praise the husband in consecutive breaths. In one moment she will try to impress him with her resourcefulness and independence, and in another moment she will be pouting for his attention, There will be times when the husband may wonder if it is humanly possible to satisfy his wife and make her happy, and there may be times when he will wonder if it is worth the trouble of trying. On Monday she may be in a talkative mood. Tuesday she may not say a word to you all day. Wednesday you are all wrong and a bore no matter what you do. Thursday you did nothing, but you are simply wonderful. Friday everything delights her, Saturday you may be back in the doghouse. Sunday you see the girl you married, soft and tender and very loving. A wife expects her husband to learn the special meaning behind her looks, her sudden attentions and inattentions and how to cope with them. She does not want to go into any reasonable explanation of why she is the way she is, because most likely she does not know herself.

Little Things Mean a Lot

There are many things that wives do, desire and enjoy that may appear trivial to their husbands. Still these things Eire very important to women and women are very sensitive about them. For example, your wife may want you to hold her hand. You might think it childish and refuse, yet it may be very important to her. It is a source of strength and encouragement to her. She may want you to talk to her at times. You may be busy. But she may feel that no man should be too busy to talk to his wife, especially when she asks him to. If you refuse to talk to her, she may conclude that your work or other people mean more to you than she does.

Listen to her when she wants you to; she usually listens to you when you speak. Her conversation may be dull Eind uninteresting, but your wife may measure your interest in her by your interest in her affairs. If you find what she has to say dull, she may think that you also find her dull and monotonous. She needs someone she can trust to help her think out her problems aloud. And since it is quite impossible to separate your wife from her weaknesses, then the best thing to do is to learn to live graciously with them all.

Most women want to be beautiful. They enjoy dressing up in gowns and frills to please their husbands. But when they do dress up, they want their husbands to notice them and to tell them how lovely they look. She wants to look her best so that her husband will be pleased with her when others say, “Isn’t Mr. John’s wife beautiful? She takes such good care of herself.” There are times when a wife wants her husband to dress up, shave a little closer than usual and look his dapper best. She enjoys, as it were, showing him off before others. Wives want their husbands to be neat, clean and tidy all the time.

Women may feel that they have to prove their continued attractiveness to men, or else their husbands will take them for granted. A wife feasts on her husband's compliments and reassurances that she is the only one. Each year as a woman grows older it becomes more important for a husband to let his wife know freely how much she is wanted, loved and needed. Everyone desires to be loved and wanted. And what could possibly make a woman feel more like a woman than knowing she is loved and needed by her husband?

It is remarkable how a little spontaneous husbandly affection can take a woman’s mind off her worries. Love, affection and attention are not luxuries. They are essential foods for the body and mind. The Bible commands; “Husbands ought to be loving their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself, for no man ever hated his own flesh, but he feeds and cherishes it.” Therefore, “let each one of you individually so love his wife as he does himself; on the other hand, the wife should have deep respect for her husband.” A man that so loves his wife will have the deep respect of his wife. —Eph. 5:28,29,33.

A wife may tolerate almost anything from her husband but indifference. A husband’s indifference may be understandable, but it is never constructive. Let him show that he is interested. Wives prefer little affection, rather than a mechanical show of it. They want their love to be warm and genuine.

Some husbands find it difficult to show their wives that they are affectionate and really dose to them. These husbands may express their affection by providing their wives with gifts like a dishwasher, a washing machine, a new radio or a television set. But wives will have you know that gifts do not take the place of a husband’s love. “Money is nothing to sneeze at,” said one woman, “but I think a husband’s eternal love beats a hundred mink coats.” A wife wants to hear her husband’s reassurances and feel the strength of his arms around her. She must be convinced that his chase for other women is over. She needs him to be close to her because he gives meaning to her struggle for existence.

You can demonstrate your love for your wife by the look on your face when you greet her and by the tenderness with which you treat her. When you come home from work, greet her in a manner that she will feel that you love her and that you are glad to see her. When she sees your eyes light up and feels a warmth come over you that no one else gets, she will feel deeply pleased and she will love you all the more for it. Most wives ask for no more than that same happy, welcoming look you have when you greet old friends. Is that too much to ask for?

Nagging Busbands

A man has no right to make his wife feel inadequate as a housewife. He should help her to become the wife he wants her to be. A nagging man is no better than a contentious woman: “And the contentions of a wife are as a leaking roof that drives one away.” A husband’s constant dissatisfaction may fill his wife with resentment, making her hostile toward him. It may even drive her away. Being her husband does not give you the right to be a tyrant. If you continue to find fault with her, you will cause her to feel abnormal and she will come to feel unwanted and unloved. She may even come to hate you for it. Remember the Scriptural admonition that “love builds up,” that "love is long-suffering and obliging,” that “it bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never fails.” Show warm love for your wife, the love you promised to show in your marriage vow.—Prov. 19: 13; 1 Cor. 8:1; 13:4,7,8.

Exercise extreme caution as to what you say about your wife's work. You might think she was made for better things, but if you even so much as hint or suggest that you are ashamed of what she is doing, you are treading on dangerous ground. In fact, you are about to break her heart Whatever you do, do not point out how much better other women are doing or can do certain things. Neither set yourself up as an example. Despite the quality of her work, the wife’s desire is to please her husband and no one feels any worse than she when she fails. Housework is easier if husbands are appreciative.

Borne and Religious Activities

Wives want their husbands to take part in home activities. They would be greatly encouraged to see their husbands take an active interest in rearing their sons and daughters. Too many husbands desert their family, because they are too busy making a living.* A boy or girl growing up should observe not only the mother at work in the home, but also the father. They should learn to distinguish between masculine and feminine pursuits. A father’s tastes and enthusiasm are naturally catching. His love for such things as music, literature, art and religion become the center of interest of his family. By a husband sharing in some of the home life a wife’s load is made lighter and more delightful.

Perhaps nothing is more appreciated by a wife than when a husband takes the lead in religious instruction at home and in the congregation. This is as it should be, according to the Bible, which says: “And you, fathers, do not be irritating your children, but go on bringing them up in the discipline and authoritative advice of Jehovah.” This responsibility husbands usually like to pass on to their wives. Nevertheless, it still remains the husband’s load to carry. And when he shoulders it, both he and the family are made happier and benefit greatly because of it.—Eph, 6:4.

Christian wives thoroughly appreciate it when their husbands read to them out of the Bible, or discuss religious subjects with them. It gives the woman the spiritual lift that she needs. In the theocratic household considering the morning’s text, going to meetings together, singing and praying together creates a loving spiritual bond in the family that only death can break. Christian women want their husbands to be theocratic, that is, they want their husbands to stand up for what is truth and right. They gain strength from a man that displays strong conviction and demonstrates deep love for God. They deeply respect his humility in prayer and the Christian way that he does his work.

So women want their men to be real husbands and fathers. They want them to be leaders, comforters, counselors and teachers in the home. They want them to follow the apostle Peter’s advice, that is, to assign them “honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.” And husbands can carry out all these proper desires of their Christian wives without having to be supermen. They need just to fulfill Paul’s command: “Stay awake, stand firm in the faith, carry on as men, grow mighty. Let all your affairs take place with love.” —1 Pet. 3:7; 1 Cor. 16:13.

THE BIRTH OF

1 FRANCE’S FIFTH REPUBLIC

the fall of Napoleon I

proclaimed on Sep-1792. It lasted seven

public was tember 21, years.

Following

ON June 1, 1958, 329 French deputies voted General de Gaulle into power. So doing they put the French Parliament out of business for nearly a year and opened the road to oblivion for the Fourth French Republic. It was just six months later that France had a new constitution, a Fifth Republic and a drastically modified National Assembly.

General de Gaulle has not taken the position of a dictator as some feared that he would. He has insisted on doing things legally and constitutionally. Because he was convinced that the Constitution was to blame for much of the instability of the Fourth Republic he set out as his first task the writing of a new constitution. This was done with the help of one of the chief Gaullist theorists,

Michel Debre. De Gaulle The government of Louis

planned on submitting it Napoleon fell in 1870. In

for public approval by the following year elec

means of a referendum. By "Awakei” correspondent in France tions were held that pro-

He promised fresh parliamentary and presidential elections if his constitutional reforms for setting up a Fifth Republic were accepted. This promise has been kept

France’s Constitutional Background

The significance of these constitutional reforms can be better appreciated if something is known about the constitutional past of France. France has had about fifteen constitutions since the revolution in 1789. These have been the framework for republics, monarchies and even dictatorships. The First French Rein 1814 there was a period of limited monarchies. These were the governments of Louis XVIII, Charles X and Louis Philippe. Each had its own constitution. The proletarian revolution of February 24, 1848, overthrew this form of government. On the following day the Second French Republic was proclaimed. On November 4 a new republican constitution was written and adopted. Louis Napoleon, the nephew of Napoleon I, was made the first president of this second republic. Within four years he had a new constitution written and had himself made emperor.

This brought an end to the short-lived Second Republic.

duced a National Assembly of 650 members. More than 400 of them had monarch-istic tendencies. The royalists tried to restore the monarchy but failed to agree upon which of two pretenders to the throne should be king. The quarrel continued until January 30, 1875, when a compromise republican solution was voted by 353 to 352 votes. By a one-vote majority the Third Republic was born.

The opponents to the Third Republic were never really reconciled to the republican idea. Within a few short years two attempts were made to turn it into a "strong-man” regime. This opposition continued throughout the sixty-five years of the Third Republic.

It was the fear of a return to one-man rule that paved the way for a weak government during the years of the Third Republic. During this period governments came and fell at the rate of one every eight months. France finally had a durable Republic but not a durable government. A solution for Its problem had yet to be found when World War II terminated the Third French Republic in 1940,

The Fourth French Republic was born after the war. Its constitution of 1946 gave it an all-powerful National Assembly, a weak Senate (Council of the Republic) and a figurehead president. Stability was not possible under this arrangement Its legislative assembly was divided into a dozen or mdre political groups. Since its government depended upon shaky coalitions, it is small wonder that it was in danger of falling apart at each vote. No less than twenty-one governments fell during the twelve years of the Fourth Republic.

Most political commentators agree that there is little hope for establishing a political system in France that consists of only two or three parties. General de Gaulle is well aware of this. As early as June, 1946, he advocated what seemed to him to be the only solution to France’s problem and that was a weaker legislative assembly and a stronger presidency. This speech aroused much indignation at the time. Many Frenchmen accused him of Bonapartism. Nevertheless, the new constitution of the Fifth Republic faithfully reflects the main ideas expressed by De Gaulle at that time.

Constitution of the Fifth Republic

In the new constitution France is defined as an "indivisible, lay, democratic and social Republic” that guarantees to all its citizens equality before the law "without distinction of origin, race or religion.” It "respects all beliefs,” and its principle is “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” Political parties are free to operate provided they “respect the principles of national sovereignty and democracy.”

The principal innovation of this constitution is the role of the president of the Republic. He is no longer a figurehead but possesses powers that even exceed those granted to the president of the United States. He is elected for seven years by a college of about 75,000 “notables." These consist of senators, deputies, representatives of elected assemblies of French overseas territories, local government counselors and additional voters for towns of over 30,000 inhabitants. The president appoints the prime minister and has the right to dissolve Parliament and to call for new elections. He can “take whatever steps are required by the circumstances” in the event of a national emergency. He also has the power to "negotiate and ratify treaties.”

Parliament in this Fifth Republic is composed of a National Assembly of deputies elected by the people and a Senate elected by the notables. Since the executive and legislative branches of government are now separated, government ministers can no longer retain seats in Parliament.

Only major subjects such as personal freedom, military service, taxes, education, social welfare and the budget will be legislated by Parliament. Other matters will be handled by decree. To prevent the National Assembly from overturning the government every few months, as before, the Constitution stipulates that the prime minister can be overthrown only on a motion of censure that is signed by one tenth of the deputies and voted by a majority of the total membership of the Assembly.

A Constitutional Council is provided in the Constitution that will test all new organic laws. Its function is somewhat similar to that of the United States Supreme Court.

The Constitution offers the overseas territories of France the choice of retaining their present status of direct rule by Paris, or of becoming an overseas department of France or of becoming members of a new French Community with limited autonomy.

These are the main points of the Constitution that General de Gaulle submitted to the French people by a speech he gave on September 4,1958. Each registered voter received a copy of this speech, a printed copy of the Constitution and two slips of paper. On each slip of paper appeared this question: “Do you approve the Constitution submitted to you by the Government of the Republic?” One slip had a big Oui under the question and the other a big Non. The choice was made by the people on September 28, 1958.

The Referendum

Politically speaking, there was no real excitement in the September referendum. This was probably due to the fact that there was little doubt as to the results. It was a foregone conclusion that the Oui’s would have it. The semilegal coup d’etat in May had left the country in a political vacuum that had to be filled. The people were sick and tired of the Fourth Republic’s governmental merry-go-round. They had little choice but to vote for De Gaulle’s Constitution, No serious alternative was proposed by the opponents to it.

In the background lurked the threat of out-and-out fascist dictatorship. Regarding this the newspaper Le Monde said: “At the present time there is only one rampart separating the republic from fascism: the person of General de Gaulle.”

There is little doubt that this fear was shared by the greater number of the French people. For them the choice was less a question of yes or no to the draft of the Constitution than yes or no to De Gaulle. From that standpoint it must be stated that the political climate in France last autumn was too stormy to allow for a calm acceptance or rejection of the proposed Constitution based on its merits. The referendum, therefore, took on the form of a plebiscite for De Gaulle.

Some of the Constitution’s opponents maintained that De Gaulle himself constituted a menace, but few Frenchmen believe that he is aspiring to be a dictator. He is known to be authoritative and is liable to quit if he does not get his way, but he is not known to force his will on others. The majority felt that if they voted Non, De Gaulle would go back to his village and leave the muddle for someone else to straighten out. For them De Gaulle was less of a risk than that unknown someone else.

The most serious objections were those raised by such republicans as Pierre Mendes-France and Francois Mitterand, Mendes-France considered the new constitution to be “dangerous for democracy.” Mitterand thought the proposed new regime smacked of Louis Philippe or Louis Napoleon. He said: “The only question I am asking myself today is this: I do not imagine that de Gaulle, at sixty-eight years of age, has written a constitution just for himself, so has he, like the (predominantly monarchist) writers of the 1875 constitution, got something in mind that he has not expressed?”

But these fears did not influence the majority of the French voters. Four out of five voted Out to the proposed constitution. Of the eighteen overseas territories, only French Guinea voted Non. It is estimated that more than one million former Communist voters in France disregarded the party’s orders and voted for De Gaulle.

The Parliamentary and

Presidential Elections

With 80 percent of the voting public approving his blueprint for the Fifth Republic, De Gaulle proceeded to prepare the promised parliamentary elections. His first aim was to choose a voting system that would produce a workable National Assembly.

He evidently came to the conclusion that it was in the best interests of the country to adopt a voting system that would drastically cut Communist representation. Proportional representation had given the Communists one quarter of the total seats in the Assembly, in exact proportion to the 25 percent of the electorate who had regularly voted for them since the war. But these deputies have been treated .like untouchables by other parties because of their Moscow-inspired political philosophy. This isolation of the largest single parliamentary group contributed in no small measure to the political instability of France.

…