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

...question and I'm very glad to answer it as a good and -- introduction to what we have to deal with today: the -- the fate of the churches in America, when they became mere denominations. I have said that there is no group in this country that is so central in the tradition of the people at this moment that it is looked upon as more than a denomination. And I used the term "sect." Now I have gone a little bit into studying the American tradition with regard to the term "sect." And it is very interesting to find that there is, for example, no article on sects in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, American edition. It seems that the word "denomination" is what has been called a euphemism; that is, a kind way of speaking about something disagreeable, which is a sect.

So we have today in this country these three expressions: Church, sect, and denominations. Now in lay -- in secular speech and a paper, it will always be either the Church or "the churches" in the plural, and "denominations." And it seems that the word "sect" has to be avoided. I wonder if our gentleman from the press would bear me out, that this wouldn't be a favorable expression, the term "sect." Is that right?

(I think -- I think {you're right}. I have -- have written both, but { }.)

Ja, so I have to apologize when I am still in the tradition of the first thousand years of the Church, which di- -- distinguished there the Church and sects. The old church in the -- of the first thousand years of -- which was, as you know, still undivided in East and West, in which the Greek, and the Abyssinian, and the Ethiopian Church as of today, to the -- far to the {Thomist} Christians in India--who still exist to this day, by the way--were united in the faith with all the western Christianity, and where there was no split between Protestants and Catholics, either -- this great universal church of course, hoped to be catholic, that is, over all the earth, represented in every community by one visible body of Christ assembling on the -- for -- together, but the congregation formed the church and not the stone buildings.

As time has gone on in this country, when you speak of church, you think of a building somewhere on Fifth Street, and think, "There we go, and then we are in the church." That's of course in itself heresy, you see. If there is no congregation in this church which forms the body of Christ, then there is no church. You can have 50 -- 500 buildings in a city, and there need not to be a church for that reason.

But we have of course in 2,000 years all these things externalized. Any-

thing that begins, of course, in -- in the hearts of men, finally leads to -- petrifaction. And you now really think when you build a church visibly that there is one.

For this reason, I suppose, the term "sect" is no longer understood. The term "sect" means--or "heresy"--means the stressing of one special branch to the breaking point. You will have a tree, you have various branches. If one is very rich in fruit, it may break down if you do not support it in time, and it may even fall to the ground, and one of these side branches may then begin to sprout out and send out -- other trees. That has been the fate of Christianity. And "sect" then means to be cut off. That's the term, the idea.

It has the same root as "sex." A man who is not in love is -- has only sex. That is, he's -- he is -- relating his sex urge to himself, which of course is an abuse. You may have sex urges. But that's very -- very penurious. You are waiting to be loved. And in this very moment, that part of you that can love, that is made for love, becomes part of a larger whole inside of which you are one of the two parts. And two sexes don't make a marriage. And two sects don't make a Church.

That is, you can add the 287 sects in this country at this moment, and you still have not the catholic church. Because -- one of you wrote in her paper very eloquently that the sum was only -- the -- the whole was only the sum of all its parts. That's heresy. The whole is always previous to the parts. And the -- it is not the sum. And the -- it is not the sum. And alone the sum. Miss {Levi}, where is she? You wrote this. That's just a logical error, you see? And it's a -- the -- prevailing error. All over this country, you find this error that groups are analyzed by its membership. And you think that the sum of the members, you see, then gives the group. But if you have a school, with a hundred lazy stu- -- children, and 10 incompetent teachers, that still isn't a high school, you see. The concept of a high school is derived from a higher order, and comes down into these hundred. And if they ruin it, you see -- they can corrupt it, you see. But you cannot explain by the laziness of the children, you see, and the incompetency of the teacher what a school is. Can you see this?

The whole grips these people, and tries to incorporate them. If it cannot do this, it's bad enough, you see. But they never -- you never must go to a school and say these hundred people as they are, and these 10 teachers above them, are the school. They have to comply with the demand -- the command is -- and I can come to them and say, "Be ashamed of yourself. This isn't a school." And most schools -- most entities are that way, I mean. That they can be put to shame. And as long as you can blush, as long as you can feel ashamed, you are still growing. And therefore there is still a whole that incorporates you, that lifts you up, that changes you, that transforms you. And therefore, never say this--it's a blatant

heresy of which of course the whole Church just -- all the churches in this country are to a large extent at this moment -- have come--that the -- the membership is the Church. But then there would be no Church. The Church is either from -- of all times and of all ages, or it's a club. And the honorable name of -- of "church" should then be replaced by "organization," or by "club," or "lodge," or what have you, "society."

When Maxim Gorky, the great Russian writer, came to this country and was hounded down here, especially in California, because he took the liberty of the movie stars and lived with a woman not his wife--he was hounded, and hunted down. He had to leave every one hotel in which he stayed; and at the end, when he took ship again for Europe, the newspapermen asked him what he thought of this country. And he was very sweet and mild about it. He didn't resent his persecution and his -- his shocking treatment. Just as bad as Fidel Castro has been treated here, at the -- the last fortnight.

And he said, "America is a society of immigrants and new people and therefore has not lived through the tragedies of a people." It has not become -- grown together into the -- as he called it, tragedies of the history, you see, of many, many generations.

Now I think this is a very wise word of this much-suffering man, Gorky. And the churches had to become here in this country more or less organized societies in order to survive. That is, they have to cater to the public, the tax- -- the people -- I mean, support the churches fortunately, by voluntary contributions. That's the greatness of this country, that we have no established Church. And I'm all for it. And I'm very proud that I help to support my church. But of course you can easily see that the danger is that then the -- the contributors say that the church has to conform to our notions of what it should be. Especially it has to conform to our notions what should be omitted.

And so the Catholic churches have to play bingo in New Jersey, as you know, in order to support themselves, because that's the easiest way of making money. And there are many -- other such strange goings-on, you see, where the living generation penetrates into the marrow of the Church and makes its demands on it, and says, "So far you can go, and further you cannot go."

And I had a friend who was -- lived in Milton, Massachusetts, where the blue blood of Boston is at home. And -- very aristocratic congregation. And one day these friends invited me together with the -- their minister and his wife. And the wife was seated next to me, and so she said to me, "My husband really is quite a social reformer. Sonst -- but since he is minister in Milton, he just has no occasion to make use of it." You understand? That's Milton, Massachusetts. I

suppose it's Beverly Hills, too. He has no opportunity to -- to say these things, you see. They have to be omitted.

Wherever the -- the money bag is completely in the hands of the living, we -- you have to take regards. Then of course, I read you the line of Melville, the sermon of Father St- -- Mapples just -- just doesn't work, you see. "Woe to him who tries to please."

I think that is one of the obvious reasons why most of you think that the Church is a social organization, that it can be organized today; and where they are, is this {way}. We -- you -- in your own lifetime, we have seen tremendous changes which point to the fact that this cannot be so. Because while 10 -- percent of the American people were Church in 1800, now there are 60 percent in churches. And that's too serious a social grouping to be dismissed as just an appendix to the existing day-by-day society. So I do think that against the appearances of the moment, anybody who joins a church has some yearning, as I tried to say, you see, to be lifted up, to be incorporated into something which he isn't when he enters. So that the church cannot be res- -- result of the sum of these hundred feeble-minded, anxious people with a nervous breakdown and a divorce in their back. But these -- this -- there is a -- a future, there is a direction, there is a power for -- of which these people expect to be made healthy, made whole--perhaps even holy.

Therefore, the Church has this strange aspect of living at the same time at the first day of creation and at the last day. The Church, as I told you, is not a Church when there is nothing in our existence which is identical through all times. -- The main identity of course being that we all die--not only when we go to the grave--but many times in our lives. And this -- constant dying and rising again is I think that which all people who are honor- -- honest with themselves know to be true. Regardless of to what you die or to what you rise again, every one of you has to one day -- should shake off that he has been a child, shake off that he has been an -- a boy, shake off that he's just in adolescence, shake off that he's just a man, shake off -- that he's just a husband, shake off that he's just a father. There's always a death. St. Augustine, who I think is the most modern, and most un- -- so to speak, unused thinkers, whom -- the only man perhaps of the Occident whom we will take -- have to take into our future, has said very poignantly, "As many ages, as many deaths." As many ages, as many deaths. Anybody who cares to know the Latin word should take it down, because you cannot express in English anything in such a poignant way as you can in Latin: {Quot aetates}--as many ages as there are-- {tot mortes}--so many deaths.

Now this is very unfortunate that the word "death" in our language is

never used in the plural, you see. You say, "death," but "deaths," I mean, really means very little. You'd better get acquainted with the fact that in our modern society, more than in any other age of the world, a man has to die more than once, and a woman, too. She has to stop to be a girl; and if she's a girl at 70, then she has just missed the bus; she has missed her life. She has failed to live.

In order to help you, I -- must tell you that you have to -- to fight in this recognition that we are in a life struggle. And it is a miracle every night that we wake up again and have overcome the danger of dying. If you see that all life means all the time to escape, to survive--that survival is just another description of the life process itself, you see--"life" and "survival" is identical, because at any one moment, the mechanic- -- mechanisms of life are trying to throttle us, to -- to infect us, to disease us, to -- to starve us, to choke us. And in many ways, death is a daily attack -- onslaught on you. You are young, and you don't know this. But it is true, just the same, that you are just as much at this moment in danger of your mental death. I have seen in my statistics of my own students, I think that out of 4 to 5,000 students whom I have tried to educate during my teaching -- activities here in this country, 3,000 were dead at the 30th year.

They hadn't known to dismiss being a student, so they come back after 30 years and 40 years, as alumni, in this childish manner with their caps on, proving thereby that they hadn't died to their college days.

{Quot mortes tot aetates). Or {Quot aetates tot mortes}, you can put it both ways.

If you read, however -- the difficulty for the churches today to inculcate this, for what they stand--that's their whole doctrine--that we recognize each other by this fact of our common dying, and our common rising, that this is our humanity, that we know that every one of us has to bury his dead. And funerals should connect people. It's a tremendous experience that everyone has to bury something. Why doesn't it work?

I have to tell you this, I think, before we advance to the problem of the ecumenic Church at this moment. I'm still dealing with the problem: why the Church today has become in America a daily sect, a sect of one day. And the next church in 30 years, so to speak, has no memory of what it was -- what it was 30 years ago, that there is no continuity at this moment, despite all this feverish activity of our churches. I think that the biological heresy today has produced this.

I looked--at the hospital next door from us at home, into -- when I had to wait for the doctor--into the textbook of biology. And there the definition of life

runs: "Life is a factory which can produce other factories."

Now this is today sold as science. The man who wrote this book has sold 20 editions. It is, of course, obvious nonsense. But that's today sold as biology. So that the main topic of biology is to omit death. Life is, as another biologist in Europe has written in his biology, very -- very poignantly and very pathetically, "Life is that process which produces corpses." Which produces corpses. That all life, you see, leads to something that is finished, something that is complete. That's a corpse. And then the spirit moves -- into all the other places. It moves on. And so life is not thinkable without death. Death is inherent. In the very moment that the baby is born, it is born as mortal. And when you look at the mask -- the death mask of Beethoven, you know that his -- is a fulfilled life. There was nothing more to add. This carving, you see, of his -- of his features, is what he was made for. Or Napoleon. Have you ever seen Napoleon's mask? Also a very beautiful one.

That is, when Spengler was asked why he wrote The Decline of the West, he said it could also have been called The Perfection of the West. His book was called in German not "Decline" quite, but The End of the West. You see, "end" and "perfection" should be the same. When a civilization has perfected itself to a certain point, you see, to a certain refinement, it cannot go on from there. It is finished. That's not a -- a scandal. That's not an accusation, you see. And that's not a verdict of good and evil. It just means that in history, all processes have their appointed end.

Just as the promise of America is fulfilled in Los Angeles. You can't go further. South California in a way is a fulfillment of all the dreams of the immigrants of the East, at the eastern { }. And in -- anybody had shown them South Cali- -- Southern California, you see, in 1620, they would have thought that they didn't have to live. It was all there. Fulfillment and promise go together; perfection and -- and hopes go together; and life and death go together. And that's just one and the same thing.

Since, however, you are all biology-drunk, you all live by a mechanical view of life, you omit death. And the churches do the same, because they have to do with educated people. And they cannot offend these educated people, you see. And therefore, they must never mention death. And they are perfectly hopeless. I mean, when you see the -- why our churches are not churches, you can see this from the helplessness in fun- -- at funerals. They're perfectly helpless, and I don't have to tell you in Los Angeles how helpless they are. I mean, here is a famous book written here on this topic. I hope you all have read it. Who hasn't -- heard of the book? I hope you all have. Wie? By Evelyn Waugh. No?

(Yeah. The Loved One.)


(The Loved One.)


(The Loved One.)

The Loved Ones, yes, you see. The Loved Ones. Well, perhaps some of you have lots already on Forest -- Lake Cemetery.

There you are declared--you see, there is a man standing on the cemetery and he says, when the coffin is brought in, "By the authority vested in me, from -- by the trustees of the cemetery, I herewith declare you immortal." You see? That's the abolition of death. Because we are only promised death and resurrection. We are never promised immortality. The word "immortal" doesn't -- is not found in the Bible. Death is the condition of life and of rising again. And if you don't die, nothing doing, gentlemen. But in -- at this -- on -- in -- in Los Angeles, I think it's the only place on the -- under the sky that has gone so far: death is abolished. And people pay for that, money. Very interesting. I wish I could make money that easily.

So this is, I think, the un- -- the real situation of the Church. It ha- -- every church here has become a sect, in as far as it embalms, in as far as it buys platinum coffins, or zinc coffins, so that the man must not die. This attempt to -- hide the grim fact that this body is dead, you see, is very funny. Extremely funny. But the undertaker, you see, is of course the man who takes advantage of your tears at the moment that you -- that you die. Your widow is beset by these sharks, and they say that the best coffin is just of course the only thing worthy of this wonderful dead man there, and so you spend all your family fortune on the funeral.

As long as you have this situation, gentlemen, America is still a society of the living in which death is made pleasant. It is eliminated. People mustn't weep. They keep smiling. And they are proud that the widow is able to stand the funeral. I think it much -- would be much more honest if she would say, "I can't stand it."

So a church that doesn't put the death--the real death of all of us, you and me--into the center, is unable to connect the ages. Because the link by which we are one man through the ages is the death of every cell of this living body, you

see. Not the life. But at the moment of death, our faith is restored, that despite this death, the spirit moves on. There is one spirit through the ages. If there isn't, no Church. And then the more this is forgotten, the Church must cater to the public. You have today, the churches split up, as you know, into age groups: the married couples, the young married couples, the divorced couples. Idiotic, you see. That's in society. The Church obviously makes the old -- speak to the babies, and the -- women speak to the men, and the elder speak to the younger people, that otherwise it's not a church. But this zebra--you see, how do -- what do you call it?--organization of our modern society which fires a man at 60 you see, and forces a man into school, even an Amish man, you see, down to the age of 28 before he can get his Ph.D., these funny divisions of our age groups, you see, where you are ranked with class of '59, you see, or class of '62, and that's what you are, so to speak, and the spirit of this special year, then, is -- is your stigma of the rest of your life--this is of course against the Church. The Church is absolutely indifferent to age. Completely indifferent.

No man is better than he -- while he is younger; no man is better while he is older. In this country, however, today the belief is: younger is better, newer is better, you see, faster is better. As long as you have these things also in the Church -- into the Church coming, there is no Church. The Church is -- has complete immunity against sensation, and against tradition. It is: nothing is good because it is tradition, and nothing is good because it is new, you see. There are -- diabolical traditions and there are diabolical innovations. And that's just the difficulty, you see, that you have to decide where the devil is, and where God is. You never -- because everybody does it, tomorrow -- a different matter, that doesn't mean that tomorrow doesn't go to hell.

So the churches are very hard-put. And the -- that is, I think, a negative sign, I should stress. Because -- regardless of this intrusion of the -- of the daily society and its prejudices, its scientific prejudices--especially from biology--that you can treat life as a mechanism, that you can grow old as Methuselah, that you should forget about death, you see, that death is something that happens somewhere, but shouldn't, you see, that it is a mistake, so to speak, to die--despite I think this intrusion, there are two tasks which only the Church in the future of this country can fulfill.

And {wild} people obviously, including the president of the United States, have felt that they have to establish a level beyond the political order and beyond the economic order. The problem of rabbi and minister, priest and cardinal, bishop and deacon today is to make clear that we can remain a unity, a country, the United States of America, even though the political slogans of democracy and the social slogans of capitalism may have to be dismissed, or changed, or transformed.

A secular society which is nothing by -- held together by nothing but democracy must idolize democracy into something divine, you see. And today democracy in this country is a pseudo-religion. That is, it substitutes for religion. The only thing by which America can be conjured today is democracy. Therefore everybody trembles { } says a word against democracy, you see. But as you see in the papers, Mr. Nixon says a lot against democracy by being -- becoming crown prince. That's monarchy. And in a good way, I mean. I'm all for it. But Mr. -- Nixon simply has to change the Constitution at this moment by an element which has absolutely nothing to do with democracy. We need some- -- somebody, you see, who is like a son or a brother to the president, a prince, a crown prince, a prince of Wales, however you call it. An alter ego, you see. Someone you can lean on. You remember what I said about the friends of the president, before, you remember? We had to talk about this social group in the leadership of the country.

Now I warn you: you all, in the next 20 years, will be faced with tremendous changes, because the -- the balance between the Congress, and the president, the judiciary is untenable once you have $40 billion in the annual budget to administer, you see. That gives the administration such an incredible power, you see, that the -- he is -- that in peace times, the president has as much power as he only has otherwise in war -- in wartime. You see, in wartime, you are satisfied that he can act as a commander-in-chief, you see, and do all { }. But if he has this spending power, you see, the -- in his departments -- it is impossible by any other body, you see, to look into this, I mean. This is too complicated, the tremendous bulge, you see, of government.

That's all over the world. Don't think that America is in any way isolated. But I think it is my duty to explain to you that whether we like it or not, that's not a question of wishful thinking, of desire, of faith, or of -- or conservatism, or loyalty, you see. It is -- simply means that all secular forms of government are transient. They have to be transformed. In which way I do not know. And I am at this moment absolutely -- ignorant of -- I have no program in this matter, but I -- my, as an historian, I can point out to you that this substitute during the 19th century of a common religion--democracy, you see--this using of a secular term for a religious is -- in gra- -- a great danger to the future of this country. There are always three levels, you see, of behavior. The economy deals with things. The democracy deals with people, with men, with your brother. But religion deals with the direction, with the meaning, you see, in the name in which we -- we -- we condemn a murder. How do we know this? Isn't he a man, as we said? You have to, because you cannot live in a society, you see, which does not -- recognize in the man murdered, you see, an image of God. He cannot -- he cannot go unrevenged, you see. Because it has to be done when a man is murdered. Otherwise you don't live in a community that can hold up its head. And whoev-

er persecutes a murderer is the government. If, in a democracy, you have lynching in Mississippi, then it is quite indifferent, you see, what state or form of government in Mississippi prevails. Murder has to be punished. And if the democracy doesn't function, you have to find another form of government and -- it is really { }. Very simple.

I always used to ask my students in -- in Europe the question, just to tell you then that this is not -- nothing made up for the moment. { } ask them, I was a professor of law --. When a murder happens in a desert, you see, and some people gather and -- and find out who the murderer war, and punish him, who is the government, you see? There's no written rule. Anybody who punishes murder in the desert establishes a government at that moment, you see. They become the governors, because they do what has to be done. Justice has to be done. He who does justice, you see, is the governor. Doesn't need election for this.

And when I came to this country, I -- with great glee I learned that Mr. Owen Wister has written a whole book on this very same theme, The Virginian, you see, in which this is explained, that those who execute justice are the government. And they did it in the name of God.

Now therefore, gentlemen, when you -- religion is anything, you see, that is worth a sacrifice. I should put the word "sacrifice" in. You always worship that you are willing to give up your own will, your own intentions. Where there is sacrifice, there is religion, because you say that a higher will must be done and not your own. Where your own will is to be done, you are in politics. You fight as a minority against the majority. You want to win in the next elections, you see. Your will is master, you see. And when it comes to economy, the climate, the soil, the materials dictate to you what to -- how to live, I mean. If you have no water in California and have just smog, you see, what are you going to do, you see? What's the real estate -- here to do? You see. So I -- I think the real estate people, from fear for their property, will do something against this smog finally, because -- matter, you see, in economic- -- -s, is law, is imperative. You have to comply with what the soil, and the climate, and the fields, and the gardens, you see, produce. Otherwise we go to pieces.

So there is -- you -- you like it or not, always are three levels. And the Church is only the reminder of the existence of these three levels. The three -- the whole function of a Church, or the synagogue, or the Bahais, or the Christian Scientists, or what have you, who have this aspiration of freeing you from this confusion, will all -- in some form or other tell you what is material, you see, what is human, and what is worth a sacrifice.

People who love, know this just automatically. Love is always worth the sacrifice. That's why we say, "God is love." But it is more inclusive. Love is not God, because there are other -- other side aspects who also need a sacrifice. Your country is worth a sacrifice. The future of your children is worth a sacrifice. The law is worth a sacrifice when it is violated.

So sacrifice makes a religious level; people -- I -- I should say mutuality, perhaps, or partnership makes a people; and agreement -- common life, and economy, and material -- the material world makes law. That's one thing.

When people at this moment, under the Russian onslaught, crowded the churches, that was not only for an alibi, to prove that they were no Communists. People have -- the -- the intellectuals have sometimes cracked jokes about this fleeing into the churches as though it was just a question of anxiety, you see, to be recognized as good people. I don't think so. I think it was perfectly -- legitimate, an attempt to spell out again the three divisions, the three levels of behavior on which all of us for the last 1900 years had to -- have to live, and will have to live in the future. We have to be completely indifferent to the needs of the economy. I mean, if there is smog, you stay at home when you can. Or -- or in our part of the country, it's -- it's ice. Only a fool goes out in Vermont when -- in wintertime, you see, when the ro- -- roads are icy, because as you know, you can't do anything. You are not master of your -- of your ca- -- not captain of your soul in such a case.

So you have to obey the material world, to a certain extent. Or you can cheat, perhaps. You can shoot a hole into the mountain. I always hope they'll open the Sierras here for us, too, for the -- against the smog, you see. But they tell me it wouldn't -- would work.

Once you see this, you may have understood perhaps now a little better the -- the whole disposition of my -- of my course, here, where I have tried to show you that on these three levels, the fate of the United States, you see, has been moving. That in the 18th century, the alr- -- the incredible story has happened, which only has happened in the case of the Jews in Canaan before, that the Church here was older than the state. That the political destiny of America were ruled in England, you see, the form of political life. But the religious life was, you see, free here. And the churches were sovereign while the colonies were not sovereign.

And then comes the 19th century, where people translate everything from their democratic experience in the churches into the democratic way of life of their secular government. And I think at this moment, if you want to rise again, you will have to bury. The identification which you -- very simply accepted as

your -- as your inheritance from 1800 and 1750, that the government of the United States in all its various parts and aspects, counties, and states, and senate, and so on, should imitate the sovereignty of the congregation in the church in the little town. That was the idea, you see. Be -- feel as unintimidated, feel as free, be as secure in the large, secular government, you see, under the open sky of the 48 states, or now 50 states as you feel -- felt at home in the little red schoolhouse, in the meeting house on the hill, you see, where politics were subordinate to the community on -- on -- on -- in the Church.

So the Church, at this moment is not yet able to do this. I think the flag of the United States -- is still flying above at this moment most of our churches. The churches have to prove that they are patriotic, for example. And instead that the government would have to prove that it allows the free growth of the churches.

And I -- I think, as I say, the -- the -- Mr. Eisenhower has a very deep feeling for this -- for this problem. And he expresses it in his very personal and simple way, but I -- I think is nothing -- nothing superficial about this feeling of his that you cannot be president of the United States without pointing out to the -- distinct existence of these two levels, you see, of our lives. More I will not say, because everybody will have to express it in a different form.

Now the second -- the thing the churches however are at this moment doing, practically, is the so-called, as you know, ecumenic movement. The ecumenic movement is very much und- -- misunderstood. And I must sober you about it. It is nothing very enthusiastic about the so-called ecumenic movement of the churches. -- However something tremendous -- intellectually tremendous--for your thought, important--thing has happened, or is happening at this moment. In the so-called World Council of Churches, which had its meeting as you may have read, in this country in Evanston. Was it three years ago -- or two years -- ja, when was it? Doesn't anybody know -- remember the -- the date? Evanston, Illinois had the honor of being -- playing host to this great, worldwide convention. In this ecumenic Council of Churches, all the churches are represented except the Roman Church, and except the Missouri Synod. By and large, all the others are in it. That's not literally true, but out of 287, I mean, let's say 200 are there.

Now on what basis are these denominations there together? Are they perhaps together the Church? Not at all. It's a very secular congregation -- aggregation, I should say. But something tremendous happened, something I would say very humble, and very charitable. In their convention in Toronto, four years earlier, the members of this group passed the following resolution: "The members of this ecumenic Council of Churches have joined this council without thereby asserting that they consider any of the other churches as real churches."

Can you see the quandary? Here are the Baptists, and here are the Episcopalians. Now an Episcopalian will always say that the Baptists are non-conformists. They are a sect; they are not a Church, you see. And -- I come to this in a moment why they -- why they -- how they argue this point, why they say by definition the Baptists are not a Church. They are a sect. The Quakers are not a Church. Certainly, they -- decline to be one, as you know. But they are in the ecumenic council, I think. The Amish men certainly are a sect; the Mennonites are a sect. They are not a Church. Yet they are in this ecumenic council.

So the -- the brotherhood of these people who represent these -- these churches, who inside -- speaking inside of themselves -- for themselves -- "Church," you see, the humility or the brotherhood shows in -- that they are satisfied that the others are their brothers, dis- -- regardless of the fact that they deny them this honorable title. So the tension, the dis- -- incongruity, the discrepancy between what I think of myself, and what you think of myself is victoriously borne -- forborne. No self-righteousness, you see. They say, "Well, I hope," -- as the Bi- -- the New Testament says, you see, "I believe, { } my unbelief," you see. In the same sense, these churches say, "I don't think, Mr. Neighbor, that you are representative of the church, but let's find out. Let's grow together. Let's give time to this whole problem. Perhaps you come around to me; perhaps I come around to you. At this moment, I cannot give you the full title which you expect me to give you," you see -- "to be given."

Now I think that's a tremendous, and the first, sign of real mental and intellectual humility, that religion and faith have conquered theology. Because theology, you see, defines what a Church is. And therefore, by definition, the other group is not a Church. But faith in the future compels, you see, to get together, regardless of the -- of the absence, you see, of a common definition. I think it's only the American influence -- that has brought this miracle.

But in honor -- in -- in order to stay, in -- in real history, I have to tell you that it was a Dutch man--the gen- -- the secretary-general of this ecumenic organization--who has forced the denominational leaders to this concession. And was a battle royal. And it was very difficult to achieve this. And therefore I think the name of this man should be -- you should -- perhaps -- I think I mentioned him before. Is that possible? Mr. van {Bouys}.

To form -- sum this all up, the churches at this moment are in a movement not as churches, but as a -- parts of a society. They are under social pressure, you see. It is not -- these churches treat each other as social bodies of importance, as they were clubs or parties, you see. And it is then in this sense not a movement led by theologians, you see. It is not a movement led by religious {motives}, but it is by social pressures. And the reason, of course, is the growing disappointment

of the laity with the quar- -- squabbles of the -- squabbles of the theologians, you see. And the theologians feel that they -- they are no longer able to tell their Presbyterian members that they only are Presbyterians, and that even the Roman Catholics are -- have to cope with the fact that their Roman Catholic laymen and the pope live every day with non-Roman Catholic fellows and brothers.

And therefore, it is the -- the people -- the peoples in these churches who have, so to speak, limited the intellectual liberties of their leaders. You see, the intellectual pride of their leaders. The body down below has influenced the heads of these movements. And these people felt that they have gone too far in their divisions, and that they have first to as- -- assert now that there is some common bond, although they cannot spell it out, what it really is.

A very mysterious situation, which bears out my contention that nobody can understand the movements which are on -- on foot at this moment, if he doesn't know to -- to distinguish between Church, state, and society. The ecumenic movement of the churches captures them as containers of unformed, but hoping and faithful masses. And the society forces the ecumenic movement on the individual church, you see, because it makes the Church tolerant for the first time, that it will treat as an equal another group that in its heart of hearts, this -- one church says, "Heretic, sect, not a Church."

Now may I -- then be -- after having shown you that we really are at this moment outgrowing the division of 287 denominations. Just happens in these last 20 years, as a result of the two world wars of course, and as -- that their -- pardon me; I have -- was too eloquent now -- the spirit has left me. Just give me a moment so that -- find my way again.

The ecumenic movement as a social movement just goes to show why we are very soon going to turn to the social movements of the last 150 years, because even the churches today are not faced so much by political problems of the governments -- inside of which -- states they live, but with the pressures of inarticulate masses whom they fear to lose if they ma- -- do not make concessions against their theories, against their theology, against their philosophies.

This was not what I -- ja, I wanted to define now a little better the sect. A sect is that group -- church life--as I said, it's a cut-off branch--which doesn't feel responsible for the whole tradition from Christ to today. Very clear, the Mormons are a sect, because they say, "Everything between the Apostle Paul and -- and Joseph Smith was wrong. And we have an immediate, new revelation, and we for- -- can forget about the 1800 years. Then God didn't do anything in these 1800 years, and left us alone, abandoned us. A very strange situation, you see. God created Heaven and earth, and He creates man, and then He sends us His

revelation--His savior," as the Mormons say--"and after Christ has died, a vacuum, you see, of 1400 years; and then we begin all over again."

Any Church has to render accounts for its own place within the history of the human race. As I said you -- told you, the motto of my book, The Christian Future, is a quotation from an old father of the Church, of the year 1200-- or 1100, as a matter of fact--Hugo of Saint Victore, that's long ago, and it was a Roman Catholic, and I'm not a Roman Catholic, in which he simply says, "The Church of course has existed from the days of Adam and Eve and must last to the last judgment."

And that's -- has been the -- the tradition, of course, of the -- read the Bible, where can read that Enoch, and all the pre-Jewish elders, you see, were of course sanctified and lived in the Church of God just as much -- long before Noah and long before Abraham, you see. This is very strangely today completely overlaid by -- I think it comes from the -- from the rather childish interest the last 150 years have given to the attempt of writing a life of Jesus. And -- they -- they have concentrated on this moment in time, and have never stressed the fact that through all times people have lived -- tried to do the will of God. And certainly the -- the hero of all these treatises on the life of Jesus was quite sure of that. He never doubted this for a moment, that all men, since the beginning of time have tried to serve their maker.

So the very strange thing is that a sect can always be distinguished from a -- from a Church when it says, "I don't care how the people in 1100 were able to live or {1000}. I begin from scratch. A sect begins from scratch in some way. It stresses one point, you see. And you can say -- if -- if you want to -- to lean over backward, and -- and, so to speak, equilibrate Church and sect, the sect is only concerned with the question: how does -- do the living attain the good life? And the Church is primarily concerned with the fact: how have at all times the souls, you see, been saved? The Church is stressing, or that aspect which we call "Church" in any -- generation would say, "How has it always been possible to live the good life?" you see. Then of course, the living generation will probably do well to inherit something of these forms, you see. And the sect says, "I don't care." The Mormons say, "I don't care what happened to all these Britishers in the past 1500 years. We, the Mormons, only care for the latter-day saints, you see. And the former-day saints are not our concern." That's a sect.

And I think this definition is a definition which is valid, because anything that concerns Church--if you would like to help yourself in clearing up your confusion about society, state, and Church--anything that deals with the Church must be expressed in terms of time, and must not be expressed in terms of space. That your forefathers, you see, left Egypt under Moses, and that Noah made a

covenant, you see, the rainbow, that's expressed today still as you know on our -- on our dollar notes, you see, where the rainbow is still a symbol. That is, the identity through time is the problem of the Church, the very little change that the -- one generation there undergoes.

And therefore -- ja?

(It's {3} o'clock.)

Oh, heavens. I just said "time," didn't I? I'm always to the point, you see. Thank you.