{ } = word or expression can't be understood
{word} = hard to understand, might be this

...tell you this first part of the lecture, and -- the course and {gentlemen, we} opposed the Church and Israel, that with the coming of Christ, man becomes aware. Man--perhaps you take this down--since the coming of Christ man becomes aware of the four traps sprung on him: in tribe, empire, Judaism, and Greek -- mentality. Homeric man, which is Greek; prophetic man is Israel; cosmic man, which is Egyptian; and tribal man, which is the clan, clannish man. All four live in a peculiar form of horizon. They live under four separate horizons. And we could state very simply the qualities of these four horizons. The tribe looks backward; Israel looks forward; the empire creates a mere presence, a cyclical presence, it has neither past nor future, but eternal presence; and Greece creates a poetical world of comparisons and metaphors, in addition to the existing worlds. That is humanism.

Now in these four ways, the ancients divided themselves up, and so do -- to this day, all the pagans, all the heathens, who either are tribal--like the Irish, or who either are imperial--as the Japanese, or who are Greeks--as the whole -- all the professions and all the college people, or the prophetics like the Jehovah Witnesses, or the genuine Chris- -- Church m- -- Church people. But every one of you knows also that in our era, we feel free to emphasize one or the other of any of these aspects. You can have at this moment still--I don't know how long in this country--prophetic man, and God's country, and clannishness--minorities, and science, the Greek mind. And you can shift between the four, and you can have all these qualities therefore in your own life under the Christian cross, in alternation. Then you can cure one by the other, and that is the difference between our era and antiquity.

The Christian era, in order to do this, gentlemen, had to absorb the ways of old. Christianity comes when the times are fulfilled. That is, when all the possible ways of the human spirit have been walked out, the -- the ful- -- the -- when the times are fulfilled, as you read in New Testament is not an empty phrase. It means that man once had walked out all possibilities. The Empire State Building is nothing compared to the pyramids. The pyramids had to have been built when Christ comes. Modern families are absolutely nothing to the loyalty of { } in { }. That has been done. The -- what are the modern prophets compared to Isaiah and Jeremiah? Small fry. The prophets to this day are un- -- encompassed. And what is modern art compared to Homer, or Greek tragedy, or Greek philosophy? Very small.

The only floundering, the only handicap of these ancients is that they couldn't get out of their own dead end, {really}, you see. That they were once, forever, what they were. Once a Chinese, always a Chinese. Once a Greek, always a Greek. Once a tribesman, always a tribesman. And once a Jew, always a Jew. And how true this is, you see from the fact that to this moment, the people in philosophy departments in colleges think they have to sell Greek. That is, they have to explain God by the nature of things. That's still the Greek mind, comparing everything, comparing all the gods, comparing all the countries, comparing all the literature. What you learn here still, gentlemen, to this moment is Greek. And on the other hand, it is only at this moment that Israel receives back its own country, and that therefore "Once a Jew, always a Jew" ceases to be true. Because as soon as you have a secular nation, you can go from one country to another. Change allegiance, you see. An Englishman can become an American. But the -- the fate of Judaism for the last 1900 years was still that of the dead-end street. And that's only passing before your eyes, gentlemen.

Now at this very moment, when in philosophy--those who have taken other courses really know this, for example, in Philosophy 10 and in 9--where in philosophy itself, the Greek mind is superseded. Where man is no longer face-toface with nature, as in Greek { }, where there is not this kind of pick-andchoose -- choosiness of the world around us, because even the existentialists today discover that man's own mind is in change, is in flux. And that his soul -- therefore has to have other certainties than just comparisons, and systems, and plural- -- pluralisms, and humanistic attitudes. The existentialists, you see, are the first philosophers who are not humanists.

Therefore today begins the end of Greece and the end of Israel, before your very eyes. To this day, gentlemen, the Christian era has not been able to completely redeem the Greek mentality and the Jewish soul, the Jewish prophecy. This is happening -- this great event in the history of mankind, that the Christian era at this moment only is allowed to absorb these two features. And it happens in this manner, gentlemen: that the humanist at this first moment is forced in his own mind, you see, to see the temporality of his thinking. That his own thinking is not out of pride, country, or Israel--out of past, future, or present, you see--not in another world, facing objects, but that the subject of the mind, the creator of the poetical world of Greece, you see, himself still has a heart which must beat with decision and determination in a certain time.

In other words, gentlemen, at this moment, this ex- -- the so-called existential philosophers redeem Greece. Redeem in the sense of the New Testament, that they reconcile it. They bring it home. they take it out of its own dead-end street, and bring it back to the unity of the human -- of human life. The same is true of the Jews. The same is true of the empires. We saw -- I mentioned already that in 1911, the Chinese emperor fell; in 1917, the Russian emperor; in 1918, the Ger- -- Austrian-Hungarian, and the -- and the German emperor; in 1947, the In- -- the emperor -- King of England gave up his title as emperor of India. So how many empires? And the mikado, of course, has declined to be really the mikado in the old sense any more, under MacArthur's divine supervision.

And so you have one, two, three, four, five, six -- six empires went during the last 30 years. Great Britain in India, Russia, Austria-Hungary, Germany, China, Japan. Quite a list. That's much more important, gentlemen, than the whole Russian revolution. Six empires were -- {abandoned}, shed. And even the king of Italy gave up his title as emperor of Ethiopia. So a tiny, tiny little empire was { } also shed in 194- -- '44, '45. So seven empires were shed.

Why do you look so serious?

So the Emperor Jones is the last {one}, and that's a play. And the same is true of course of the tribes, gentlemen. We watch today the disintegration of the family. And the reason for the disintegration of the family can be stated in very simple terms. The word "family" becomes meaningless, because "family" is taken as meaning the words of famulating together, as working together. The married couple and their children are ceasing to be the cooperative team. The unit of work, the tin can, and the sandwich-box have replaced that. And that means that the members of a family work at different places.

That's a tremendous revolution, gentlemen, which places for the first time the relations of children and parents outside the pale of organized society. There are just now, as {one} has said, a bundle of people who don't {eat} together, and who "cramp each other's style." Because for their work, they go on each other -- get on each other's nerves. Anybody who comes home from work has a -- a -- special environment in him, and -- with him. And if you come home, and you suddenly find people who haven't the faintest idea what you have been through during the last eight hours in your office, you have a very hard time to make yourself understood. If every man -- there is no -- no member of the family now on the receiving end. Just being able to listen to the other people's talk -- everyone has to talk, including the housewife. So the kitchens don't { } to listen.

There is no longer the family then in the old sense, because the word "family," as I told you, gentlemen, means those who are nourished by one bread. I think I told you this, who are nourished by one food, who are therefore forming one body, because one food fills them up every day. And one food builds up only -- every day, because they work together for this food. But with the school luncheon, it's no longer {the case}.

In our town, they collect money for charity, for the school luncheon, which is incredible. That is, the parents are no longer expected to pay for the school lunch of their children. Now whatever these people who do this, this collecting -- think what they are doing by collecting the money for the schools, they are certainly the most radical Communists I have ever seen. I doubt that the things have gone that far in Bolshevik Russia.

This is Bolshevism, if anything is Bolshevism. But here, it's all smoothed over. We live in a country of free enterprise, supported by subsidies, charities, nationalization, school luncheon, et cetera. I don't know what the truth really is. But the funny thing is that nobody wants to know what's going on in this country. Everybody says, "We are the bulwark against Communism." You really believe that. With the standardization of manners {and mores} -- { }.

So gentlemen, there is -- four things then today which are in disappearance: empires; families; the Greek superior mind, of contemplative {logic}; and the eternity of the Jewish promise, of the messianic hope. The Zionists have given up the messianic hope. The empires have given up the eternal, cyclical presence. The Greek mind is beleaguered today by the experience that there is no system of philosophy, because every man lives to himself. And the tribes give up their greatest product: the integrity of the human family. They are losing that which they have been able to create through 7,000 years. Families fed by one food, and therefore becoming one flesh, every day again.

So gentlemen, this is the victory of the Christian era over the flesh of antiquity. These four crises are in one way catalysts. The Christian era has created one world, one God, and one -- is on the way of creating one society. And it is beginning in -- in the existential phil- -- in existential philosophy--in Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche--to create medicine men who have the power of the spirit without needing big schools, and examinations on certain systematic paragraphs and topics. Nietzsche is the first medicine man, gentlemen, of our Christian era. That is, a man who develops extraordinary spiritual powers to perceive -- to perceive the state of affairs of human history. And Mr. Toynbee or Mr. Spengler are only the professors who com- -- so to speak, try to reflect on what Nietzsche has said, and Kierkegaard. But they are very far behind that what these really great men have done. They have lived it, and Goethe has lived it, and Saint-Simon has lived it, and somewhat -- Marx to a certain extent. But neither Mr. Spengler nor Mr. Toynbee live it, but they reflect on it. They demonstrate that there is a tremendous need for every man today to be able to shelve whole eras in his own life, and to enter a new one, conscious- -- deliberately, while he lives his own one life. Because both Mr. Spengler and Mr. Toynbee { } able to bury one civilization and start another one.

But don't mistake these people, these literary amateurs. Mr. Toynbee and Mr. Spengler are very deserving people. But they do not rank with the people who for the first time, gentlemen, serve in a human society and no longer in the exploration of the world of space. Because now I take the second step, gentlemen. I have tried to sum up to you what our -- { } in our era from the past.

We either have one God or no God today. The only question today is between people who believe in God and don't believe in God. Up to this time, there has always still been the question between the true God and the false gods. There were still pa- -- heathens. There was still the Japanese and the Buddhists. But the real question today is only between people who believe in the living God, and who -- people who don't believe in God at all. Atheism and theism are the only things left. In other words, gentlemen, the oneness of God is accepted. No atheist pokes fun at the oneness of God. They only say, "There is no God."

But that's not the issue, gentlemen, down to 1900, for the missionary. The missionary comes to a place where there are { }, and sorcerers, and ghosts, and demons, and sky-gods, you see. And he has to lay those specters. The Church came into the world of many gods, gentlemen, and asserted the existence of God. Today however, there is only the question: the God, or no God? One God, or no God? That is, the antithesis, gentlemen, of our era and antiquity is: many and one. The antitheses in our own era are always: one against another one { }. That is, gentlemen, any quarrel between atheism and -- and theism is an inner Christians' quarrel already. Any quarrel between many gods and one God is a -- struggle between the emergence of our era out of antiquity with its many gods.

The same is true, gentlemen, in the development of the sciences. The modern question is: nature or chaos? But down to the disappearance of all the sacred cows and their emperors, the question has been: one world or many worlds? The scientific progress, gentlemen, of the second millennium has sold to you as Americans the idea, as your birthright, that there is only one natural world, that there is no room for divine rights of kings, that there are no sacred cows in the Ganges River, that there is no Rome or Jerusalem which is in any way exempt from the laws of gravity and nature, that geography is all-pervading, and that the laws of nature permeate all space, gentlemen. We take today the oneness of space for granted against the manyness of temples, which is the imperial situation.


An empire is a place with a special sky, and special privileges of the sky over it. Still, the emperor of Russia would say, "We have to get {to} Constantinople," because that's where the sacred anointment of the first emperor of the East took place. Now the Bolsheviks can live quite happily without Byzantium, as it seems, and Constantinople no longer is a real issue. It may come one way or the other, but it will not alter the character, the consecration of the Bolshevik government. You can see today that the -- the turnover of the czaristic government changed their relation to space. The Bolsheviks proudly think, "We own onesixth of the globe." That is, they refer the -- the boundaries of their domination to the whole of the globe, to the oneness of space. If -- as soon as you say, "oneseventh," "one-sixth," what do you do? What is your pre- -- assumption? What's your basic -- wie?

({ } one.)

You say "the oneness." And that is the real, best contribution I think the Russians have made spiritually to the world -- life of the world during the last 30 years: that they have said that they -- contain one-sixth of the earth's area, in space. That's a new thing; that had never been said before, that the government voluntarily gave up its local name. You see, they don't call -- call themselves -- their official title "Russia" anymore. But USSR means "United Soviet Republics." And that is I think all to the good because it suddenly disanchors--how do you say? can you say "disanchors"? "unanchors?"--the government in -- under one special sky.

You can see this very neatly in the fact, gentlemen, that the Russian czars, since Peter the Great, all had Greek names. There was Alexander, Paul, Nicholas, Constantine. Which means that they all tried to go back to the sacred empire of Rome in the -- 2,000 -- 1500 years ago. The last czar -- what was his name?


Nicholas. So you see the names of the Russian emperors themselves contain the element of imperialistic, you see, sacredness. And if an American is down on imperialism, gentlemen, let you kindly be very -- distinct on this. We live in a new world in which there are no emperors, and which there are no sacred boundaries for empires. But as to the conquest of the whole world and its organization, we certainly are imperialists. So if you use the word "imperialist," distinguish: the religious character of the empire has collapsed in the world revolution of the two world wars. Will you take this down? The religious character of empire has collapsed. And the American tradition is to go against this religious connotation of empire. But we have nothing with -- against the Empire State Building. Our instinct is {blown away} when we speak there of empire builders, you see, because they are builders in a very secular sense.

So I think the first thing you should do in your self-education is -- is to watch yourself as to your reaction to the word "empire," "imperialist," and clarify the issue within yourself. Obviously, gentlemen, the Americans must play a part in the affairs of the world. But it is a world affair, you see. The -- word "empire" is mixed; it -- contains elements of sacredness, of temple, of cult, and it -- and -- it -- contains elements of worldly organization. And you can't dismiss both with one shrug of the shoulder.

So gentlemen. today the problem of the natural world is only one of chaos, of order. Law -- natural law today fights against probability, against { }. The question is: is the world of nature hastening to its appointed end by selfdestruction, and explosions, and fire, and genocide, and germ warfare? Or is it -- has it a cosmic plan? Can it be led to its destination? Does the world have a destiny? And there I side with -- with the chaotic thinkers, the people who think that nature is chaos, and is not order. I -- I am an anti-Platonist. Plato thought the world was good, the world was beautiful, and the world was truth. And I don't think it is { }. It's all { }. It's quite arbitrary. It's a human creation that there should be construed one world. By itself, you can also postulate some { }--solar systems, et cetera.

So in atheism and theism, gentlemen, I would side definitely with the theists against the atheists. But as to the world, I find myself in disagreement with your idealism. Idealism, gentlemen, is the belief that the world is headed for order. And I don't believe this. In this sense, I am an anti-idealist, always shall be, and always have been. I'm not an idealist. An idealist finds order in the world, gentlemen. A theist finds order only in God.

So gentlemen, we have two issues today. You have theism, polytheism, and atheism on the -- in the history of religion, of our era. The first millennium corresponds to this, 1 to 1000. You see, Jesus appears to the Jews and to the Gentiles alternatingly as an atheist and a theist. He has just as much atheistic elements from the point of view of a polytheist, as He has theistic elements. Because He says, "In this temple, there is j- -- no God. That's not divine."

They say, "{ }. De-deifying the universe," you see.

So Christianity won, gentlemen, because it didn't have the issue between one God and no God, but it won because it took the people who believed in one God and in no God together on one side and fought the many gods. The atheists were, as you know, the Christians in the first millennium. The emperors -- the Roman emperor accused the Christians of being atheists.

Now don't be frightened by this at all, gentlemen. Atheism and theism are dialectically related, you see; they are corollaries. And only children are frightened by this -- by this division. The Christian knows that he is an atheist at times. The atheist thinks he is an atheist all the time. That's no { }. Nobody believes always. All Christian faith is intermittent. Will you take this down, gentlemen? All Christian faith is intermittent. That's the price of monotheism. If you believe in one God, and you aren't God yourself, God must appear absent to you at times. Because you aren't God. If you were God, you could hold on with your faith forever. But since you are mortal, your own faith at times gives way to despair, to doubt. Everybody knows this; the depression, the dejection, you see.

How does man then solve this paradox, gentlemen? By fellowship. When one man grows weak, and he is an atheist, others hold out and have faith and carry him. In any family, that's true. If one person has a nervous breakdown, the others are able to take care of him.

So gentlemen, Christianity says, "One man, atheist; fellowship, theist," you see. Atheism ignores the conditions of church-hood, of ecclesiasticism, of fellowship, of friendship, of family life, and therefore puts the whole burden on one -- gentlemen, if you try to think out God all by yourself, you must end in atheism. Because nobody in his five senses can proclaim that he does believe in God 24 hours a day. He very often is smart; he very often is cunning; he very often is -- he is not -- really believing in God's providence. And don't be ashamed of admitting it. It's an old story. Jesus prayed at Gethsemane, "Father, let this chalice, if you can, go -- go by." I mean, that's not absolute faith. But He ra- -- wrested with the angels. So did Jacob. All the great saints have had their temptation, their moment in which they just couldn't find the Lord.

Now it is high time that you drop all these chil- -- childish fears of discussing these very central problems of your own historical position, gentlemen. Because whether you try to find whether you believe in God or not, the old -- first discovery you make, that you believe at times and at other times you don't. But then you have to go further and investigate what can strengthen your faith? And your faith can be strengthened by love, faith, and hope, and fellowship, you see. And it is weakened, once you isolate yourself in your pride, and try to figure it all out by yourself.

So gentlemen, there is a -- a treble relation all the time. The pagan issue is polytheistic. The Jew in you is in God. And He says to you--that's the greatest {word} in the state -- in Judaism, "Even though he slay me, I"...

[tape interruption]

...what you or I should have, or where I -- you and I should live, or how far political boundaries should run. It's one of the greatest hoaxes -- always relapses into paganism, which man is --. By the way, modern polytheism is today of course not called this way. You know how they call it, today? Well, any -ism might be today a polytheism. Take psychoanalysis. Everyone has his own demons, his {polydemons} today. I don't know how they call them, obsessions, I mean, obsessions, manias, addictions, you see, -isms. All these -isms are today not the full rank of gods, but they have the rank of {bribes}, you see, { }. This would be poly- -- correspond to { }. Don't look for the official term "polytheism" to discover it in modern -- in modern life. It's everywhere. Most people today are polytheists, you see. Poly-spiritualists, or what- -- whatever they may call it. Many spirits being admitted. Family spirits, father- and mother-in-law spirits, et cetera. The same is true of poly{cosmism}. One of the ways in which a { } shows himself is today in geopolitics, I mean. An attempt, gentlemen, again, to subject man to the influence of a special part of the universe, as though this was different from any other part. And to deduct from this a rule of ac- -- for action, you see, of human conduct; that's the danger of geopolitics. Geography is a good thing. It doesn't say what you should do with your geographical { }. But geopolitics is different. It tells you, you see, that because the greatest land mass is in Russian hands, they must govern the world, or some such thing, you see. Or you have to conquer the greatest land mass if you want to keep your own, and such other things.

Now I said already that the {one}-world people are the second position. And the third position, the atheistic position, is the people who pray, who say that the world is chaos, that the world of space in itself is space without direction, that it is not in itself meaningful. It is the doctrine of modern -- the last physics. It's Bertrand Russell's doctrine, but it's just as well mine. It's of any -- Christian thinker. The Christian has always said that the world is a valley of tears, and that we are the Egyptian night on this earth. I always admire the Christian ministers today who think so much of refrigerators and other -- manifest destinies of man in this world. The Christian { } has always been that the world is the devil's. And God and man must both together fight the world.

Today it's all reversed. Today the idealism, that the world is a wonderful place, seems to come all -- every day from the -- pulpit. I can't understand { } what has happened. But -- it is true that the undertaker who governs our churches thinks that the gods of the cemetery make wonderful sense. That's the orientation which is given to the congregation. The cemetery can be organized, but the world, gentlemen, is still chaos.

If you read Bertrand Russell, he is { }. Modern mathematics and modern natural science begin to realize, as you know, that all is just a law of chance and probability, and not a law of direction, and law of order. Natural laws today are declared to be merely aberrations of chaos.

So gentlemen, we have three properties -- three positions here. The central position is the one you are { } {and annexed to}; that's idealism. The world is good { }. This is our political situation, you see, of imperialist geopolitics. Every part of the world has its own rights and powers over man's spirit and heart. And the third position I think is the sober position. And it is the position of the newest natural philosophy, gentlemen. I told you already that at this moment the last vestiges of pre-Christian traditions vanish. The third millennium of our era, gentlemen, is that strange millennium in which the fight is inner-Christian, inside our era, and in which all pre-Christian vestiges go. For this reason, gentlemen: idealism must go today. Idealism assumed that the world is a good place. That that is a lawful order by itself. That's the Greek idea.

Now the latest natural scientists, gentlemen, Mr. Planck and Einstein are Christians in their scientific mentalities. So is Bertrand Russell. So is Whitehead. So are the { } in the beginning. So is Schr”dinger, so are Heisenberg. So why are these -- these scientists the real missionaries of Christian thinking today? Well, for the simple reason that they dismiss the Greek dogma, you see, that the world can be judged to be good and orderly by the {mind}. The Greek assumption is just this: that the world is to be treated idealistically, you see, as an ideal place. And these modern scientists, gentlemen, do the same as the Zionists who found the Jewish state. The Zionists dismiss the prophetic monopoly of Israel, and leave the prophetic tradition to all men. Since they become -- are specialists of the Jewish state of Israeli, you and I, gentlemen, are the only executors of the will of the Old Testament. And the same way, gentlemen, the Greek -- school, the Greek academies--the academic tradition of the West--has been this far--I said this already of the existentialists, you remember--that the mind could create an ideal world. Now the existentialist says, "There is no such thing as this mind that can create an ideal world." And the scientists say -- the physicists, "The world is not ideal."

So the existentialists, gentlemen, and the physicists today get together on both ends of the problem. The object is undermined and exploded--in the Greek sense, you see--as being chaos, and being nearly probable. And the subject is being exploded by the existentialists, by Kierkegaard and Nietzsche, who in their own life simply have lived the truth--Goethe, by the way, too--the truth that such a mind does not exist. A mind that can stabilize the world, you see, in a permanent manner.

This is -- I think you should at -- be at least excited. So you see, the -- the American position today is strangely mixed. Most Americans try to be idealists today and theists at the same time. They say that they are Christians, you see. And they do not say that in as far as they are idealists, and say that the world is good, that this world space has a natural inclination to go { }, so to speak, you see, that there they are not Christians at all, but just idealists. Now gentlemen, Christianity and idealists -- idealism are in conflict. And as long as you don't see this, you are useless for the battle of the times. Idealism and Christianity are mutually exclusive. Because an idealist idealizes the world. And a Christian dismisses the world. He takes his strength from outside the world, and he comes into the world because it is chaos. The only organizing force, gentlemen, for a Christian in the world is he, sent from outside the world into this world. And to suffer from this world, and thereby to make it a tolerable place to be in.

And this goes through your head, you are -- this is -- it's like a fight against windmills, I always feel. Fortunately I -- you always, when I talk to you as Christians, you -- turn out to be idealists. And when I turn to you as idealists, it sur- -- seems to me that you have { }, but your mind is hopelessly confused. You all confuse the world of space and the eternity of God, the creative power of God. That means when God has created the world, that's not a luxury, you see. It means that God is outside the world. If you let this go, you see, and if you think the world itself is divine, then the world in itself has geopolitical rules, and diet rules, and everything. And then you become the slave of the latest progress of technical science. Because if the world is good, gentlemen, then science has the key to your own life. Can you see this? Because the world then is goodness, and of course we want to be good. Therefore we try to decipher the goodness which we are yearning for in -- {for} terms of scientific laws, you see.

So gentlemen, anybody who says, "The world is good," becomes a slave of science. Because if the world is good, it only takes the scientist to tell you what to do. It's very simple. The world is good, you come to know what the world does, you act like the world, you are all {saved}. Unfortunately, gentlemen, it isn't that easy, as you well know. Everybody in his {right instinct} knows that the world is not good. It puts on a tremendous veneer of goodness, called lipstick. But that's all. The apparition of the world is nice. The advertising, the neon light of the world. But just look behind it and go to the middle world.

So gentlemen, this is therefore a big battle. Now the next, gentlemen, position of course is humanism versus racism, versus nihilism. That is the situation for human society, for the third millennium. The Church, gentlemen, overcame polytheism. The science of one world overcame imperialism. No empire today has its own system of longitudes and latitudes. No empire is excluded from the laws of nature; { }. But we say it -- see that now inside the one-world -- -world people, the people who have conquered the empires, there is this rift between idealists and real members of our own era, who have--as the modern existentialists and the modern scientists--the power to see that this one world--though one--besides being one, is chaos. That's a tremendous paradox, if you think that we have -- have chaos for many -- is here, you would say, "Well, every man thinks that his home, he has a private sky," that's chaos, you see. The paradox of your and my insight today is that God created one world, but without His and your participation in this world, it does not give any sign of meaning, of order or direction. It goes to its appointed { }.

The real problem, gentlemen, of the world obviously is that it would have been -- destroyed itself long ago if it hadn't been constantly re-created. The -- you see, the -- the -- the chaos people, D‚scartes was one of them. I -- I {have allied} myself {to them}. They have been all -- of course, all serious thinkers of all times have fought idealism as not true to fact. The world is not good. No law can be really believed in as good. Just {discovery}. What's good about the thermodynamic law, you see? What's good about death? What's good about illness? Or -- any doctor has accepted the natural laws of {illness}, he has fought them. Has resisted them. He has cured me. That's not bowing to, you see, to -- to science, and to the goodness of the world. The doctor says, "The world is bad. There's cholera. There's the plague. That's not good. It has to be eradicated." You all agree with all these eradications, and immunities, and vaccinations. Why do you? Because the world is so bad, that one has to do something against it. Yellow {plague}, and on -- and so on.

Doctors, gentlemen, represent the Christian element with relation to nature. And scientists, mere research fellows, represent the other. A physician is a man who--in the second millennium--who has fought nature as being dangerous, as being perilous. You know the difference between a mere research man and a physician, you see. The one cures, and the other just examines.

Now in modern science, the chaot- -- the chaos advocate, the man who says, "The world is chaos," will immediately have to have the corollary of the curing aspect, of the healing aspect of man's own {activity}.

So gentlemen, we will say that we only think and examine in order to -- to cure, in order to heal, in order to prevent chaos, in order to throw ourselves into the breach of chaos, you see, against it. It's a weapon, to think. Gentlemen, the sci- -- one scientist says, "I contemplate the universe." The other scientist says, "I fight {it}." It's a great difference.

Now I come however to the third position. As long as the tribes, the many tribes, the many families of man, don't intermarry--and you have all the race and color prejudices--you get racism, like this -- what I -- what could I say? I could say "polyanthro- -- -anthropism," to have a parallel. "Polytheism," "polycosmism," and perhaps you put down "polyanthropism." That is, men are made, and they are separate forever, you see. And it is more important to stress the poly than the one. Now all anthropologists, gentlemen, believe more or less today in polyanthropology. It's -- the very phrase, "anthropology," the very name for the science started with the idea that there were so many different branches that it was more important to study the differences than the unity. Polyanthropism--I call it "racism" for brevit- -- brevity's sake--but polyanthropism offers you a parallel to polytheism and polycosmism. And it may make you patient {to believe}, gentlemen: as it took the Church at least a thousand years to overcome the many gods, and as it took the scientists a thousand years to overcome the many empires--and they only have tumbled down during the last 40 years--so I'm quite sure it will take another long period to overcome the polyanthropism in reality. And no { } law will speed up the thing so that we shall see its consolation, because it's the topic, gentlemen, of the coming thousand years of mankind: the question whether polyanthropism can be overcome by humanism, which says man is one, regardless of race, color, creed--that's humanism, that's Greek; or by Christianity, which says that man is created out of nothing; that's all what it says. And therefore must always each time must begin with nothingness. That's the modern nihilistic position, which is more Christian than the humanistic position.

So the humanistic position, gentlemen, says that man is one, as he is. The Christian position says that man is not one, as he is. That's ridiculous. He's just not one. So he has to disintegrate into nothingness and he has to be reborn in the spirit. He has to be made over. And nobody, gentlemen, who never says to himself, "Nihil- -- I deserve to be annihilated," can enter the kingdom of one man. It is impossible for you as you are to form one human society. No one can. The functions of this human society have to be discovered, as we go along. And we must be ready to fulfill them, for this purpose. You have to break down the walls of your individuality. We are not fit to enter as we are. Not one is, gentlemen.

And the great slogan of the future therefore is, gentlemen: the sentence of Genesis, that God creates out of nothing, has to be extended into man. Man is created only for the future of the oneness of the human race if he can accept upon himself the judgment that he is dust, that he is nothing, that he is annihilated as he finds himself, with his riches, which is language, which his rel- -- which is -- creed, and everything. If you are not re-created, gentlemen, very often in your days, in your life, you will die. You will not be able to survive. You will be become mechanized, pacified labels: { }, Negroes, Germans. And for this purpose, you will -- to have -- may have to be herded into concentration camps, or prisons, or set-away areas. You will not be able to mix.

Anybody labeled, gentlemen, as being something for good, becomes unable in the future to get married. In order to get married, you have to give up part of your individuality. Everybody knows this. Because to marry means to be disarmed, to become vulnerable, to be defense -- defenseless, to be re-created. Love, gentlemen, is predicated on annihilation of self. And the humanist has omitted this condition under which we can form one human {relation}. It can only, in the -- done -- be done in the melting pot.

America, gentlemen--you remember, we said America has two languages: the Christian language, the biblical language; and the Greek language. I gave you an example of democracy and people. And I gave you another example for the other: happiness and salvation. I'll give you a third example. Can anybody help me?

Now gentlemen, we have here a very important example of the equality of all men, and the melting pot. The melting pot is the biblical idea, the rebirth idea, you see. And that's the Chris- -- the biblical -- a revealed experience. The melting pot means that you are made over, you see. The oth- -- the -- secular position is that you are already God. The humanistic position is: man is good. The melting-pot position is: man is nobody. And a little of everything. And he can become the right person in the melting pot.

You have -- where did it -- can you -- can you find in your notes this list of -- of "democracy and people," and "happiness and salvation"? I'll give you a list of other {under}tones, you see. "Revival and election" is, by the way, another such couple. Where you have one biblical term, and no- -- you see, and {"idea and invention"}. Now you come to Germany where they get election and democracy, without the idea of people and revival, you see, and you -- it doesn't work, because the -- the -- the overtone isn't -- isn't there by -- with which you understand that democracy can only work among a real people, you see. Where the Greek term is: you have only a construction, a mechanical construction of so many rolls of election { }. You have something quite different. You have a common {movement}, a common destiny, a common prophecy; you have the promise, the promised land, and God's country. You see the difference?

Now the same is true, gentlemen, here, about melting pot, which is a Christian expression, where man is made over, because he is nobody, and the Greek tradition, which says that all men are like you and me. It's ridiculous. It is only true in abstract -- in abstract, you see, as an idea. Which is an idealistic proposition.

All the melting-pot traditions of America will show you that nihilism is nothing to frighten you. It's a reality. It puts the experience of creation into your and my own real heart. We all--and your grandparents, specially--all have been made over out of nothing, and only because we were humble enough to be annihilated, and to feel all of a sudden that you were just failures. That's why failure is so good in human life, because it gives any man the experience of annihilation. A man must flunk, or must be annihilated. Read -- Rem- -- the article on {Remington} in The New Yorker. Certainly this first -- the first-born in {Rem- -- William Remington} was annihilated in his loyalty ordeal. Did you read it?

So gentlemen, today, as you know, the -- the good people tell you nihilists are terrible, and they are all set in their ways. And socially they are all Episcopalian. But gentlemen, the Episcopalians may be very good people, but they are too good for the future. The condition of entering the future always is to give up {the best}, to lose something. The too-good of one time are not the right ones for the future. The condition, gentlemen, of the next millennium is then this experience in every human being, that God creates a man of the future out of nothing, more or less. But without some grain of salt of nothingness, you see, the -- the unity of the human race cannot come about. The unity of the human race cannot be postulated out of the men who are as they are, you see. Neither can we acquiesce in racism and polyanthropism to leave people as they are. So we have to study the conditions under which man is re-created.

So you see, the humanist says, "Nothing has to be re-created. Everything is good" -- idealistic {humanism}. The polyanthropist says, "Eternal -- racial antagonism," you see. "No intermarriage. Se- -- segregation. The races are the only enemies." The Christian position says, "Terribly serious. There are tremendous differences. But the differences are the challenge to find the one way in which man can be reborn, and he only can be reborn by taking down those fences. But they have to be taken down in a terrible disarmament race, gentlemen.

I have always pitied the Oxford Group people, because they call themselves "Moral Dis- -- Re-Armament." What we need is the third millennium is moral disarmament. Man has to disarm, you see, of his own qualities. He has to cease boasting with what he is.

Let us have a break now.

[tape interruption] have one God -- the true God is quite {universal}. That has been done by the Church. It has preached -- been preached everywhere, to have one world, and to get one society. One society would replace the many families, the many tribes. One world has replaced the many empires. And one God has replaced the many gods.

Now {how is that}, gentlemen? The Cross of Reality, the little -- the little construction will -- in any moment must represent this effort. With -- for the Church, as you have seen, the four missionary tendencies. Mission to the pagans; there is only a Church as long as the Gospel is preached to newcomers. The Gospel is always new and if there is -- the last Negro has been converted, you would still have to convert your own child, because the child is born a heathen. And it is a very difficult thing to make a child that is baptized { } -- into a real Christian. It's more difficult perhaps than to convert a he- -- a grownup Chinese or a Negro, as you well know.

So gentlemen, mission is an eternal form -- aspect of the front -- of the one front of the Church, one aspect of the Church. The other is the memory of the founder, the master, the beginner. Christianity -- the Christian era can only exist as long as we know when it started. Jesus -- Jesus is the first man who believed in one God, one world, and one man. And He lived it all His life, in this oneness. These three things He has lived, and that's why we have a trinitarian creed: one man, one God, one world.

The background -- -front therefore I said "mask"; it's a memory of the founder. You remember our { }. In the inner front, gentlemen, now you understand better why transmission of faith. Because any one individual's faith is intermittent. You have the same word there: "intermittent." Again, the same root of -- for "mission." "Mittent," "mission" is of course the Latin word, "mittere," to send, to send out power.

({ } the Latin "mitto.")

"Missa." "{Vita} missa est." The power has been sent to you. That has been sent down. The spirit has been sent out. That's the meaning of "missa." It has come down from -- from Heaven upon you. { } the higher power, which enables you to see everything in faith, and not by reason.

And omission, we said, was the necessity of distinguishing the world from God, not: the whole world is God. That's the monastic, the ascetic {definition} of any belief--by the way, in any living faith that is necessary.

So gentlemen, we said wherever these four things are, there is the Church. It is not enough to say that where the name of Christ is mentioned, there is the Church. It is not enough that you -- any propagation, any propaganda is already a Christian attitude, you see. Without the connection with the memory of the founder, it isn't. There must be some asceticism, some resignation of worldly success. Why, gentlemen? Because success is at its highest when it coincides with one time, one generation only. Nobody who cares for the unity of the Christian era can be quite suc- -- successful in his own time. He must give some amount of energy to the continuity. That's just a -- square in the -- your accounts, you see. If you live only to your own time, there's nothing left to bes- -- -queath; there's no energy invested in your connection with your past, or your connection with the future. A Christian, gentlemen, cannot build the kingdom of Heaven if he doesn't show any interest -- vital interest in connecting his own time with the past and the future. That costs strength.

Therefore gentlemen, no Christian can be fully successful. And that I mean by omission, you see. If you follow in every respect the latest fashion, you belong to the latest fashion, and you pass out with the latest fashion. You have to detract from the fashion of the times some ounce of your money, and energy, and blood, and heartbeat in order to give this for linking up with people before you and after you. This is very simple, you see. That's why Mother's Day is such a terrible thing. Because mothers cost nothing to love them, you see. It's the most -- love is the most inexpensive thing in the world. And to make it into a com- -- commercial thing of the day is -- make -- should make you vomit. To spend money on your connection with the -- with the previous generation, you see, makes the whole thing into a hoax. What -- the -- your real contribution to your mother -- your relation to your mother is obviously aiding her love, and her affection, and what she meant when you -- brought you into the world. And that cannot be done by telegram or Western Union: "Happy birthday to you."

We -- we watch today the { } disintegration of your relation to the ...

[tape interruption]

...So gentlemen, where does these four things exist? A fellowship to fight our intermittent failures, our intermittent weakness, our -- our personal, individual deficiency in grace. Wherever you have omission--that is, the willingness to forgo the complete success of the moment, because of some higher standard of behavior--wherever you find this, wherever you find the memory of a founder, and wherever you find the zeal to spread this, what you hold to be true, you see, and put it into the hearts of others, you have the Church. That is the Church, gentlemen. And it is better than any other -- than any official definition of {ecclesiastics today}. Usually you pick one or the other. Because you -- modern definitions of the Church are really very often horrifying, because they never geh- -- into the experienced action, but they describe something { }. You can see that on paper.

Wherever this trans- -- ja?

(Has it got -- this got anything to with the { }?) Now, that's { }. { }. Go ahead. What's this about { }?

({ }.)

Ja. { }.

({ }.)

Wie? What?

({ }?)

That's one. That's the visible part. That's the one { } created { } against all { }. All these people {still} outside and haven't {created}. This is holding, { }, and this { }. Because it's everywhere the same process. Apostolic, {Roman, holy, catholic}.

(What is catholic?)

Over the whole earth. Over the whole earth. So it is not any private affair, you see. It's the affair of all men. It has to be -- is -- it can -- is transmitted wherever it goes. And it {lives} only by its catholicity, because through its catholicity, the deficiencies of an individual are {always covered}. That's intermission of -- the remission of sins, which is {consider-} --. By the way, perhaps if we were good theologians, I wouldn't have to use this word { }. What is meant by "the re-mission of sins" is { } in fellowship. { } miracle that the { } in -- in the remission of sins can { } remission of sins, trespass, the forgiveness of the one against whom you have trespassed, you see. So that you're -- and you can -- and by confessing { } that you have done so; with { } as you know, of the { } of the remission of sins. But a {re}-mission, { }. Then of course, it means the same { } as the other { }.

I haven't used this { } because I { } a positive power { } transmission of power, you see, where you are -- your faith is intermingled. -- Anybody who is interested in our { } of our -- { } or our { } remission of sins. The lonely individual can -- never have this { }. We remit our sins { } sins { } as we forgive our -- those who trespass against us. That's literally true.

I have to re-tell you these things, gentlemen. Who understands what the "remission of sins" is today? Ridiculous. This has just vanished {entirely}. They think it's a kind of a smo- -- {smirk} forgiveness, or something. No, that means the thing has not blotted out the { }. {Don't} forget about it, as somebody s- -- tells you, you see. It -- it's -- suddenly you are reinstated into your full power by somebody who still having faith in you at the very moment you haven't. That's what is meant. The remission of sins comes when your own { } remission of sins { }. That's of course { }. But -- { }. Who has seen it? { }.

And -- now gentlemen, we go on from here. Once you get the fact that this is not an empty place, but that the Church is like a -- {very} frail, equilibrium--how do you call it in the watch -- in the wristwatch, this part that is -- has to keep keeps the equilibrium? Wie?


Oh no, it is a very interesting { }. Who has a { }?

({ }.)



{ }. I don't know. I don't know the expression. But it { }, gentlemen. The Church is { } -- not an abstraction, but is wherever these four elements combine. Mr. Goebbels had a pseudo-Church, because he was minister of propaganda. But he started with Hitler, and not with the Lord. So that's not the Church. But propagation of the Gospel, gentlemen, is essential to the Church. Today everybody is afraid of propaganda. Well, only propaganda, as separated, you see, as an act that is good in itself, mushroom growth. That's not balanced. That's not { }. Mushroom growth is always -- also means pre-destruction. But what goes grows through the ages eternally, like the Gospel, in -- in -- a -- { } propaganda, an improvisation.

So the terrible thing is, you see, you are today { }. Gentlemen, we all live by propaganda or propagation. Now the healthy part of it is propagation; the unhealthy part is propaganda. That's -- but faith has to be propagated. You are responsible for this, that there is faith in the world. You can't get out of your -- your situation of carrying a bacteria, probably typhoid { }. All spirit, gentlemen, is contagious. Life is a contagious disease. Therefore, without propagation, there -- just is no li- -- historical life of the Church.

Now gentlemen, we come to the second. For the scientist--the modern scientist of 1800, or 1900, or 2000--the world appears in a -- quite a different shape. There is not the Lord who opens a new era. There is not { }. There is not fellowship for the remission of sins. And there is not {monasticism}. The modern scientist tells you that he comes into a Christian world. He is -- lives in a Christian civilization, as you may say. So he has in back of himself, all these {bigots}, and devotees, and priests, and {illiterates}, the Christians. To him, the background is Christianity. And he says, "My back- -- this background isn't good enough. They still lived by candlelight, and { } {heresy}, I want to get electricity. I want to have longitudes and latitudes. I want to have statistics. I want to weigh uranium. I want to do everything so that the world," you see, "itself is discovered, explored, and { } in -- with research."

Now gentlemen, this scientist has in back of him, christendom. What here was the goal, that's the basis. Mission is the basis of the apostolic -- the goal of the apostolic church; it's the basis of the natural man. But the natural man is really the scientific man. Don't be betrayed. What you call the natural man, the Thomas Paine, or the -- Thoreau, is the man who can afford to be -- go natural, to be scientific, after the whole world has become Christian. If there is one God, then Mr. Thoreau can settle on some, you see -- in the wilderness, because there is nobody to shoot him.

So gentlemen -- this is the Cross of Reality, or the balance {sheet} of any natural scientist in our present day, and that is for the average, common man today valid, too. The laity of science, and the experts of science -- science believe in another reality than the priests, and the clergy and laity of the Church. In as far as you and I are church members, or should have been connected with this, we will look forward to the whole {world becoming Christian, you see}, to the memory of the founder being high, in hon- -- highly honored, to our not being defiled by the world, and to our -- { } faith in fellowship. In as far as we are, however, gentlemen, technicians, businessman today, engineers, farmers, workers, we belong to another realm of -- another reality, the reality of one world. And there we live again on a leaf, so to speak, on the tree of life whose veins, whose arteries, whose lines run in these four directions. One -- oh,of course we are all { } the Christian era, in the Christian world. Christendom, Christianity lies behind us, just { } back, and so everybody { } is assumed to be a Christian. That's normal { }.

In front of us are -- is the progress by revolutions, progress. You -- most in America tend to say "progress." and in Europe say, "by revolutions," {then it holds} together. Progress is made by {revolutions}. This country, who has made progress by a revolution: industrial revolution, { } revolution, kinematic revolution. The word "revolution" just means, you see, that { } still change.

{ }. Now that's quite a { }. How is a mission to lead? By the missionary {being slain} by the laity { }. How is the revolution achieved? By the revolutionary's slaying somebody else. So gentlemen, the world is made one aggressively. The Church has been made one and is made one by martyrdom. That is, he who carries the cross cannot attack. They tell the story of the missionary who went to the Eskimos and lived with them 16 years, and always tried to preach the Gospel. And after 16 years, one day after the meal, the head Eskimo went out with him and said, "Father, who was this man Jesus?" And that was his first ray of hope, the first -- success of this mission after 16 years, that the man asked, himself, you see, "Who was this man?" The -- otherwise no mission is possible. All mission is based on the spontaneity of the -- those, you see, to whom the -- the mission is brought. It's quite the opposite, gentlemen, from the revolutionary {protest}. The Communists attack, as it were. All revolutionaries, gentlemen, have the spontaneity very much to themselves, you see. And the others remain passive. They are blessed by blessings of the revolution. Very much from above.

So gentlemen, the scientist has an active mind, and the Christian has a passive mind. The highest day in Christianity is Passion Day, Good Friday, for this reason. "Passion" in the sense of passivity. And the highest day in the American history is Revolution Day, the 4th of July; in Russia the 30th of October, and in France the 14th of July, and in England, 5th of November--always the day in which the revolution is made. Something active is done, you see. And in the Christian Church, something is undergone. That's very different.

But the reason is, gentlemen, that one God may only be -- believed by a people who reach a direct relation to God, not mediated by the man who { } them. But one world can be organized, gentlemen, technically by { } and { } and any --. We don't care who builds the { }. But I wish to ride in it. But my relation to God must be my own, gentlemen. You cannot missionize -- missionarize one -- I mean gospelize God, you see. If you brutalize a man, he'll even corrupt himself. But you can very well organize the world by selling tickets to the railroad. { } done nothing to build the railroad. See the difference?

The relation, gentlemen, of the Church is based on a direct relation of every man to this point, here on the Cross. The relation of one world, however, to you and me is not at all based on you and me having any personal relation to this { } world, you see. How do they participate in one world, gentlemen? Quite differently from -- as we participate in one God. That you do not know. That's why you are idealists. Idealism, you see, does not realize that the world has no center from which you and I participate in it. All relations to God are your and my relations in the -- and we must get in the center. Nobody who hasn't suffered from the difference between his humanity and his humility, knows who God is. But anybody is in the world already acting, {boiling around}. How is this done, gentlemen? How is in one par- -- do you participate in one world? That's the -- by fighting nature together; to participate in shelter, to participate in a -- using here this electric light. How does it come to you? As members of a group, as members of a settlement, as members of your nation.

The insight, gentlemen, by which man only indirectly is connected with the -- can be connected with the world is that he belongs to a nation, whose language he understands, and in which he participates. Most people who write and speak a language are only not in the center of their responsibility; they talk, they gossip, they prattle in the language of their editorial columnists, and repeat endlessly what Mr. Lippmann has said.

So gentlemen, what I mean to say is: there is no center point {for them}. This point goes out into a Cross of Reality. There is always room. Science, for example, an abstraction. The world is organized, gentlemen, in an abstract manner, not in a personal manner. That's perhaps for you hard to understand. Take it down as something perhaps to be meditated upon then much later. The world is never organized in a personal manner, but always in an abstract manner. Every man here in this room can be replaced by somebody else.

The important thing is, gentlemen, that the outside does not appear as something to be omitted, but as nature, as something to get -- be organized. Nature. Man himself wants to become a part of nature, you see. He tries himself to become natural. The dream of this whole second millennium is, gentlemen, that the nations want to be one with nature. To put nation and nature on all fours is the ideal of this era. And any revolution is achieved so that what you are by birth might appear to be natural.

Now you say, "Well, he's nuts." You are so deeply immersed in your own nature that you do not know that when you are given the name, { }, that you are not natural. Names, as we already know, are not natural. They are historical. But man tries to forget all this, what makes him just a nationalist. And he thinks, "Oh, let me just be a natural man."

So gentlemen, he has achieved this identification of nation and nature by {other means}, by progress, by machinery, by all kind of gadgets by which he becomes more and more natural the more refrigerators and cars he has. A very strange contradiction. We have now reached the zenith of naturalness. Everybody whom I talk to says, "I'm" -- "Man is just {that}, a piece of nature." And when I see how this man is dressed, how he moves, there is not one inch of naturalness around him, you see. That's very strange. Here, even the ladies wear glasses. Pardon me. That's not natural. That's scientific.

We are all scientific man, and we all pose as natural man. Very strange how we can do it. There is not -- nothing natural about us. We have no beards, we are clean-shaven, Mr. Gillette has triumphed. Is this a triumph of nature? You know, Jews and Greek -- Christians take a very -- very serious view of -- to our shaving. They say we are all about to go to Hell, because God gave us a beard. And to shave is against nature. And this -- I'm very serious in this. As you know, the Greek priest in the Greek Orthodox Church must wear a beard. Because he -- although he looks ugly, he says that's how God wanted him to be. "I speak to my created nature." They are much more faithful about nature than you and I. Shaving is an absolute, unnatural action { }. It hurts.

Now I have to stop here, gentlemen. But I hope that { } that still { }. We have technical progress as our background. { }. Any child can today say he grows up in a mechanized world. The world is mechanical. So that what has been the goal, gentlemen, of your grandfathers is the background of your children. They take that for granted. Of course, we fly. Of course, we have atomic { }. They are blas‚. Just as a hundred years ago, your fathers began to say, "Well, Christians, of course. But what of it?" you see. So your children will say, "Well, mechanization. Of course. But what of it?" Now you have to have another goal. And I have put a question mark there. Where do these era people go, from mechanization? You see?

({ }.)

Now, I know that's not good enough. Stop. Put this there, and put this here, { } next time. { }.