Hiy the Religious Paradox?

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

wurageous Stand for Sanctity of Blood..............

THE MISSION OF THIS JOURNAL

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

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

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

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

Published Semimonthly bt

WATCHTOWER BIBLE AND TRACT SOCIETY OF NEW YORK, INC.

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

N. H, Knobb. President                       Gbant Suites, Secretary

Printins this issue: 2,850,000

CONTENTS

Beware of Resentment!

Why the Religious Paradox?

The Baby Is Now a Giant

What Wives Look For in Husbands 12

The Birth of France’s Fifth Republic 17

Courageous Stand for Sanctity of Blood 21

Decision of the American Hospital Association

Japanese Popularity Soars

“Your Word Is Truth”

The Lord's Supper—Who May Partake ? 27

Watching the World

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

Judge?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Emphasis on Numbers

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

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

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

Compromising

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

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

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

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

Downgrading the Bible

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

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

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

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

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

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

The is now

BY "AWAKEI" CORRESPONDENT IN SWEDEN f

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

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

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

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

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

Tie with Social-Democratic Party

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

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

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

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

What Happened at Saltsjobaden?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Attitude Toward War

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

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

Fight for Better Conditions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marriage Is Not Singleness

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

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

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

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

Little Things Mean a Lot

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nagging Busbands

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

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

Borne and Religious Activities

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

France’s Constitutional Background

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constitution of the Fifth Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Referendum

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Parliamentary and

Presidential Elections

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

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

De Gaulle chose a voting system that produced a National Assembly that is overwhelmingly dominated by the Kight The elections took place in two rounds, first on November 23 and then on November 30. On the first ballot a candidate needed an absolute majority (half the votes plus one) to be elected. Only forty-two deputies were elected on November 23 because there were five or six contenders in most constituencies- On the second ballot the candidates with the most votes won. The Communists had a poor showing. They dropped from 149 seats in the Assembly to ten in the present one.

It was evident from the voting that many electors wanted to give De Gaulle a chance to put things straight. They also wanted a change of faces in the new National Assembly. Of the 544 deputies in the previous Assembly only 146 were reelected. Among the defeated were Mendes-France, ex-premiers Bourges-Maunoury, Daladier, Edgar Faure and Ramadier, exFore ign Minister Christian Pineau and Communist leader Jacques Duclos.

It was three weeks after the parliamentary elections that the presidential elections took place. The candidates were General de Gaulle, Georges Marrane (Communist) and Albert Chatelet (non-Communist Left). According to the new constitution the president is elected by a college of notables. These voted on December 21, 1958, and, as expected, the majority chose General de Gaulle as the new Chief Executive of the French state. The new legislative assembly is due to begin its regular sessions on April 28,1959.

Many people inside and outside France are wondering how the newly born regime will fare. Some fear that there may be danger, not in De Gaulle, but in Gaullism. They believe the Gaullist tidal wave has brought with it many reactionaries and other extremists who are much farther to the Right than the new president himself. They wonder if he will be able to control them or if they are not using him to prepare their own ascension to power. Only time will tell.

The French people hope that the Fifth Republic will provide a more stable government than those that have gone before. However, there is an ever-increasing number of Frenchmen who are coming to know that the only lasting guarantee for governmental stability, economic prosperity and security is the Kingdom of God, and it is that kingdom that they recommend to all men.

THE above and many other sensational headlines reported to the people of Canada the stories of two children of Jehovah’s witnesses whose parents refused to allow them to be given blood transfusions. Since God’s Word, the Bible, instructs his people to “abstain from blood,” Jehovah’s witnesses refuse to accept blood transfusion for themselves or their families, even if it is recommended by doctors. The question had arisen before, but the recent instances involving fourteen-year-old Donald Holland of Neepawa, Manitoba, and newborn Lori Lynn Campbell of Newmarket, Ontario, caused an unprecedented furor through press, radio and television.

Efforts were made to force the parents to agree to administration of blood. Many newspapers demanded that the law be changed so doctors could administer treatment even against the parents’ wishes. Legal proceedings were begun to have custody of the children transferred from the parents to the state agency known as the Children’s Aid Society. The Society could then ignore the decision of the parents.

The first case occurred November 4, 1958, and involved Donald Holland, son of Mr. and Mrs. Lewis Holland. Donald was accidentally shot in the thigh by a .22 caliber rifle while driving a tractor on his father’s farm. The bullet severed the main (femoral) artery to the leg and considerable blood loss resulted. Lewis Holland took his son to the hospital but directed that no blood be administered. When going to the operating room Donald said to his father: “Don’t let them give me blood, Dad.” By the administration of dextran the operation was successfully performed and the surgeon described the boy’s leg as being in “surprisingly good condition.” In spite of this, Donald failed to rally, though a real effort was made by the doctors to save his life. He died nine days later.

During Donald’s illness doctors, newspapers, radio and clergy urged that blood be administered, alleging that it could save his life. Though under great pressure, the parents stood stanchly by their faith in God and their obedience to his command to “abstain from blood.”

Slanted news stories left the impression with the public that the heartbroken parents, respectable and God-fearing Christian people, had been measurably responsible for the death of their son, Lewis Holland issued this fine statement to the press: “We loved our boy. We were willing and ready to accept any operation, any treatment that was advised by our doctors, short of disobeying God’s law with respect to the sanctity of blood. . . . We are comforted in the knowledge that Almighty God, Jehovah, will bring Donald back to life in the resurrection made possible by the sacrifice of His Son, Christ Jesus. Even as Abraham knew that if he obeyed Jehovah God he would once again see Isaac brought to life to be with him, so we believe that by being faithful to God’s command we have not taken the chance of losing Donald forever.”

The distorted impression left by the public news services caused some thinking people to express their very real sense of outrage. Even though the medical profession was involved in the controversy, Dr. A. G. Dandenault of Winnipeg wrote in the press: “I am unable to think of a display of greater inhumanity than that shown by the press, radio, the St. Boniface hospital and the attorney-general towards the bereaved Holland family, . , . Mr. and Mrs. Holland, I believe, merit admiration and sympathy from the public at large. They have certain religious tenets by which their actions and their lives are governed. . . . They have suffered all the agony, grief and anguish that any other normal parents would under similar , circumstances; but as if this was not enough the above named agencies dramatized this sad incident to the utmost in a repulsive, opprobrious and contemptuous manner.”

Dr. H. Angus Boright of Montreal said in a letter to the Montreal Gazette: "I would take exception to the article printed in The Gazette under the headline 'Denied blood by faith, boy dies of wounds.’ This statement would seem to imply that had the boy received blood, his life would have been saved. Perhaps such an implication is unfair to both the parents and the Jehovah’s Witness sect In general.... By implication the story suggests that the loss of blood was largely responsible for the boy’s death, yet, although the accident occurred on Nov. 4, he did not die until Nov. 14. Such an interval is strong evidence against the likelihood that blood loss alone was responsible, for if such were the case death would have occurred shortly after the accident. ... blood transfusions per se would not necessarily have altered the ultimate course. . . . The loss of a son is one thing but to be accused publicly (by inference) of partial responsibility for that death is the inhumane act of an irresponsible press.”

Strangely enough, at Edmonton, Alberta, there was a similar accident at the very same time, when a teen-age child was shot in the leg. Her parents were not Jehovah's witnesses and much blood was transfused, but she died anyhow.

Lori Lynn Campbell

Following the death of Donald Holland, there was born on December 8, 1958, to Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth Campbell, both Jehovah’s witnesses, a daughter, Lori Lynn. The baby was born with the blood factor known as Rh negative. Standard medical procedure for such cases is a draining and replacement of blood, a replacement transfusion. The parents refused to allow blood transfusion. Despite pressure, Kenneth Campbell maintained his covenant to obey God and said: “We have a faith we will stand on. We are not interested in public opinion, we are interested in the laws of Jehovah the Creator. A child belongs to its parents. They are responsible for it, no one else is.”

The very fact of refusal, however, blew up a tidal wave of pressure in the press. Emotional articles whipped up hysteria. One Toronto paper, The Telegram, carried five large articles about blood transfusion in one issue, including an editorial demanding government interference. A sudden court hearing was arranged for Saturday afternoon, December 13, on notice of an hour and fifteen minutes. An effort was made to hurry Mr. Campbell to court without even giving him a chance to communicate with his attorney. The Children’s Aid Society asked the court to take the baby from her parents as a ‘neglected’ child. By rush procedure the officials brought the case before a man called Judge Stewart of the Family Court, a former clergyman who had never been a qualified lawyer. Since this was a religious issue in which clergyman Stewart’s church had taken an opposite view, it was a mockery of justice to bring the case before a man whose religious training and background, together with his lack of legal knowledge, made it impossible for him to weigh the matter with an open mind. The ‘’trial” was held in the hospital. After a battle that went on from 5 p.m. till 11:30 p.m. the clergyman-judge gave custody to the State, as might have been expected. Blood transfusions were given. The baby was released to her parents almost a month later.

Public Opinion

At the beginning of these cases, public opinion ran very strongly against Jehovah’s witnesses. There was a great public clamor and much editorial demand for legislation to give medical doctors authority to administer treatment regardless of the parents. Comments of some clergymen, among them Rabbi Rosenberg of Toronto, were reported in the Toronto Daily Star (December 10,1958): “Dr. Rosenberg added that any one of the 613 laws in the Jewish Mosaic law can be broken if the action contributes to saving a specific life. ... ‘Transfusion is saving life. Everything else is secondary.’ ” He accused Jehovah’s witnesses of “contributing to murder.”

The rabbi says that, even if God’s law does prohibit use of blood, he will break the law. This is most serious, in view of the Scriptural warning at Deuteronomy 27:26, “Cursed is the one who will not put the words of this law in force by doing them.” This rabbi cannot be of the same faith as the faithful Jews who refused under pain of death to bow to Nebuchadnezzar’s image. (Dan., chap. 3) They did not regard saving life as more important than God’s principles. For their integrity Jehovah delivered them.

So much interest was aroused that the government-owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation arranged for a twelve-minute telecast concerning the work of Jehovah’s witnesses. Scenes were shown of Jehovah’s witnesses going from house to house in the ministry, street-corner preaching, pictures of the Branch office in Toronto, and a congregational meeting. The program was fair and informative. It did much to allay prejudice.

The Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society took a strong stand on behalf of the parents. Amid the barrage of opposing publicity, official statements were issued to show that Jehovah’s witnesses will obey God’s Word at all costs, and the statement was made: “You don't need a theological degree to understand the Bible. Transfusing blood and eating it are the same thing and to authorize it would be to go against the decree of God. The parents would not hold back anything to preserve the health of their daughter, but we cannot treat blood in that way. Blood is sanctified; it belongs to the Almighty God, , . . We are not opposed to the medical profession or its good works. . . . Perhaps in the future the profession will discover another treatment to which we will have no objection,”

The Toronto Daily Star said, on December 11, 1958: “The Witnesses are not the only religious group which collides with 20th century scientific practice. Christian Science doctrine has nothing in common with modern medicine. Roman Catholic doctrine conflicts with some medical practice, when it forbids birth control by mechanical means or abortion even when the life of a woman might be at stake. Yet there is no mass outcry because of these beliefs, and properly so.... [The] Witness lawyer poses a danger: ‘If one of the Witnesses can lose custody of his child because he disagrees with a certain form of medical treatment, theh any parent who happens to disagree with any form of medical treatment can immediately have his child removed from his home and declared a neglected child.’ If precedent widened out to snatching children for other medical treatment, let us consider first how much medical treatment of just 50 years ago is now regarded useless or even harmful.”

Dr. Arthur Kelly, secretary of the Canadian Medical Association, disagreed with those who seek to force this type of treatment, as reported in the Toronto Daily Star (November 26,1958): “ ‘Patients and parents have a perfect right to accept or reject treatment offered’ . . . No doctor can be positive that a person will die if he doesn’t get a transfusion or live if he does, Dr. Kelly said. . . . The principle is an important one ‘relating to the liberty of citizens’ . . . The same thing applies to any other medical treatment, he said, ‘and right or wrong, people have a right to decide.’ ”

Despite a concerted effort to change the law, the following announcement was made January 20, 1959: “The Ontario Government has turned down a request ... for legislation that would permit doctors to give children blood transfusions even if their parents object, Attorney General Kelso Roberts said today. The Attorney General said that his department feels that present legislation is adequate and that it safeguards the rights of parents, especially those who belong to the Jehovah’s Witnesses sect.”

Parents’ Objection Founded

on Sacredness of Blood

The decisions of the parents in these cases were founded neither upon health fad nor fanatical religious zeal, but rather upon the right principles set forth in the Bible. Blood is the stream of life and Jehovah has reserved it as holy to himself.

Jehovah God’s instructions to Noah after the Flood, about 2369 B.C., said: “Every creeping animal that is alive may serve as food for you. . .. Only flesh with its soul—its blood—you must not eat.” (Gen. 9:3-6) The flesh he gave men for their consumption; the blood, the life, he reserved to himself. The law given to Moses contained the same prohibition against consuming blood: "Simply be firmly resolved not to eat the blood, because the blood is the soul . . . You must not eat it, in order that it may go well with you and your sons after you, because you will do what is right in Jehovah’s eyes,”—Deut. 12:23-25.

Dr. Franz Delitzsch, celebrated Bible commentator, said: “This is not a requirement of the Jewish law to be abolished with it. It is binding on all races of men, descendants of Noah, and was never revoked. There must be a sacred reverence for that principle of life flowing in the blood.”—Commentary on Genesis, Vol. I, p. 284.

The sacredness of blood was also recognized as a fundamental principle of truth by the early Christian church. During the days of the apostles the only authentic council of the Christian church in Scriptural record was held at Jerusalem to determine whether the law of Moses should be applied to the new church or not. The apostles decided the Mosaic law was no longer binding, but the following instructions were issued: “For the holy spirit and we ourselves have favored adding no further burden to you except these necessary things, to keep yourselves free from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things killed without draining their blood and from fornication. If you carefully keep yourselves from these things, you will prosper.” (Acts 15:28, 29) Note that in this short statement two out of the four items prohibit blood. There is nothing temporary about the prohibition of fornication or idolatry. Of equal permanence is the instruction ‘abstain from blood?

The Bible tells us that “the fear of Jehovah is the beginning of wisdom.” (Ps.

111:10) Throughout history those who have obeyed God’s law have had his blessing. Those who defy him even for what seem to be the best of human reasons reap only grief. Jehovah’s witnesses abide by God's Word. Those who will invade homes and carry away the children of Christian parents to force violation of the sacredness of blood will reap a terrible harvest, a whirlwind for the future.

MN April 18, 1951. The Family Court in Chicago, Illinois, took one-week-old Cheryl Uw Labrenz from her parents because they refused, on religious grounds, to let their daughter be given a blood transfusion. This was the start of a series of cases from coast to coast in which many doctors and courts have conspired to abridge the freedom of worship of Jehovah's witnesses by insisting that their children be given medical treatment that is contrary to their Christian faith.

For any doctor to administer a blood transfusion to an adult without his consent is assault and battery and makes the doctor liable to be sued in court. So in these cases there has usually been shown proper respect for the wishes of the patient. However, the matter is not as clear-cut in the case of minor children. The State declares that at its own discretion it has the legal right to take a child from the custody of its parents and have the child cared for according to what it considers to be for its good. Abuse of this power has caused some doctors and judges to* infringe on the right of Jehovah’s witnesses to worship God in harmony with His Word and according to the dictates of their own conscience.

There are some doctors who have unquestionably acted in good faith, doing what they felt to be right in the matter. Having had explained to them the Scriptural beliefs of Jehovah's witnesses in regard to abstaining from blood, they have co-operated in using blood substitutes or other accepted forms of treatment. Others have been adamant in their stand that only blood could save the life of the patient, but, to their surprise, some of these patients have recovered without the transfusion and continue to enjoy good health.

Recognizing that the situation is going to be a continually recurring one, and with a desire to protect themselves, representatives of the American Hospital Association met in Chicago to discuss the matter with representatives of Jehovah’s witnesses. Their decision was published in the February 1, 1959, issue of Hospitals, the Journal of the American Hospital Association. We are here reprinting photographic copies of a letter as well as the statement issued on the matter by them.

29, isss

Mr. Hayd*rt C, Corlhctflii 12U Oolnahia Haight* RrtOldyn 1, Mew lark

Deer Mr. Ccrisgton

The attached trriaed Teraice of "Jatavah¹* HltaeeaM and Blood Tranjfualona* and tha fore far *ft*fuMl to Forftit Blood TrtoBfoeixm* hav* bean praparod by eteff of thfl inerioan Hoapltal Association and Aaarloan Modi' oal Aaaociatlcn in light of oaaaauta halved th* lut tin* a Taraion of this atataiKiit wu circulated, Tbo ■tatataant and fom are new going to Mwbar* cf th* ocmitt** for a vote.

Would you pleat* consider th* atatvient carefully acai diftrnw it with fir. Lloyd Oeatcq, st. Luka’a Hospital, Mav fork, Naw fork, ohadntafi of th* oCwiitt***

WhflB staff Mahore got togatter to miji thia etatoMnt a few day* ago* it wea fait that vs ahculd ask you to do whit yw can to urge Jehovah¹* VLtetosMS to alga a re-fu**l to accept blood fora which will b« [ruantod by boa pi tala j atkl to urge Jehcrah^ra mtnaasoa to take the initiative at the iitaa of Lptorriewv with hospital *d« Kitting officer* in dwlariAu their ri*w* on blood trM-fuslon*.                                                    *

Vo hope ycai will find th* atatenent eatiafactoiy*. Sincerely

OoOTcil, on frofeaeional prectioe

•Ct Zk-. Gaatcn

(Jlllnor* / a 0057 of autanent and font

1* M        the* te» t&UwiM polite n*i" wMitartetoa by f<j*pit*ii

la tea Um *£ ftTMM Mll$iXM* lUte pgeteMte te» tttaifui^

1. H *te Utlttl 1« Ml Dteli, a W1<M* Ufiml la rso«to4d *O MmIm te» te*pi1t«l» CM fhyilalu « ptyMilaaiji     tel crtter u*tetlo« T'l ir—

fftM ^lability, if *ay, for UM Allun to atetteater bleed■

t* if the patim 14 Xapii? t«o y«*M “ “te ^hl*                wttt»

"Ml Of «b* f*™n. If inliuii, *teulA W Mound. (Id MfttU ****"*m« team ten taumoH te mteoiiM tnufiuioai to >ta>r« s* ■pit* of te* tejHtieai «r tteu

3* l> tetxMMiM, Mm nioDM «f te* P*X*at* frf Dlaffti 1* Mt ottelte-*U, 1» W5M14 te «9Mte< IMt tebte WMld te MirltUrrt vtaa Wt lit Tilly IdUoom* usIdm rIddf tn* ooovlMlM triteoM 1* at Mad ttet th* vatiaDl, IC ‘"1M1TJ1, er the pDTMtf tf 1?WMOtj will KfuM tnufukfi,

*► M*Wi witeama ondter *lw< terlwunt thjHtiaatWj, fct 4d»t *M**¥ to kk UM af ¥1004 BtWlWl.

5* ItoTHMtatina «f JaMtM’* Yltaa*"* *teta, *the* a             ia cat

*f J*tewk'a VllaMMD W. M**rtiai to hit Mliof te te* MAL*. »♦■■>■ Uaoi, if k» «M MMOtetelauly te aO. tbto T««ter*4 for tta PMloot Mo tea M          or vte to** Mt tateaata teat te la oca Of Jitnan

MftaHwv, mm af^teair w** -M® untmaiy proltewdMte /V*rMo* It. 3r M kUru to VitMnir U4WM of eaualntiow objastlc^ Yl~rt tnathrtlM teaH « nUdaua taru^n*, Md te aty pnfttteOAtely M » *iu»m mcIom tested te tb* ftetaat, te mt ten the uu owt Hotter fkrvtefan."

1» ri*r Of te* fon*fiUc fancr^ It i* tealidU* teat pnttetat Ada tetete tn kNkitad fw the afaiaiatratm or hi«4 to patiaota to ut

tfl ita LM, te tta ante teat tattete staff aateoro ira          to

teittrtM Hood ta«c*M of te*lr WlULteS teUafa.

The form entitled “Refusal to Permit Blood Transfusion'* that they felt was acceptable would show the name of the hospital and the date and hour the form was signed. It reads: “I request that no blood or blood derivatives be administered to----------during this hos

pitalization. I hereby release the hospital, its personnel, and the attending physician from any responsibility whatever for unfavorable reactions or any untoward results due to my refusal to permit the use of blood or its derivatives and I fully understand the possible consequences of such refusal on my part.” The form would be signed by both the patient and that one’s mate, if married. In the case of a minor or one incompetent to sign for himself, some other authorized person may sign, indicating ms reiauonsmp to rne patient, ana rua signature should be witnessed by another person.

It should be noted that these statements do not represent the policy that Jehovah's witnesses have recommended for the hospitals to follow, but they are statements by the American Hospital Association and represent their position, with a view to protecting their interests.

While doctors have taken an oath to apply what is considered by men to be good medical treatment to their patients, they should recognize the fact that Jehovah’s witnesses have taken an oath before Jehovah God to obey Him. His laws require that they do not take blood into their systems, and doctors should honor that superior obligation. In every case doctors should honor the request of patients who for Scriptural reasons refuse blood. They should in no way seek to circumvent the request of Christian parents that no blood be given to their children, thus violating their freedom of worship. Even in cases of emergency, where it has not been possible to obtain a signed release, they should take into consideration the known tenets of the religious persuasion of the patient as to blood transfusions and then act as they would conscientiously want to be treated in similar circumstances if they had the same or similar tenets as the patient.

Although hospital staffs and doctors may know the position of Jehovah’s witnesses as to blood transfusions, one who wants his religious beliefs in this matter to be respected will have to take the initiative i_n requesting it. It is usually best to bring the matter up at as early an opportunity as possible. In those cases where members of the hospital staff have overlooked the above recommendations of the American Hospital Association, reference to it may result in a clarification of their viewpoint of the matter.

AMONG the commands that Jesus gave his followers was that they should celebrate the Lord’s supper or evening meal. Concerning the institution of this arrangement, which took place on the night of his betrayal, an eyewitness writes:

"As they continued eating, Jesus took a loaf and, after saying a blessing, he broke it and, giving it to the disciples, he said: ‘Take, eat. This means my body.’ Also he took a cup and, having given thanks, he gave it to them, saying: ‘Drink out of it, all of you; for this means my "blood of the covenant” which is to be poured out in behalf of many for forgiveness of sins.’ ” —Matt. 26:26-28.

The accounts of Luke and of the apostle Paul further tell that Jesus commanded: “Keep doing this in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19) Who may and who may not partake of the bread and wine at the Lord’s evening meal, thus “doing this in remembrance of me”? Anyone? Or are there certain conditions? What purpose is served by the Lord’s evening meal, and how often should it be celebrated?

As to who may and who may not partake of the Lord’s supper or evening meal, also termed "communion,” Christendom in general practices either "open” or “close” communion. In open communion all are welcome and each one decides for himself his fitness to partake. In close communion it is the responsibility of the pastor to see that each one that presents himself for communion is worthy as to belief and conduct. Those advocating close communion, such as the strict or orthodox Lutherans, usually insist on four qualifications: baptism, possession of one’s mental faculties, adherence to the teaching of the church on the subject of the Lord’s supper, and freedom from any public offense against morals.

Which of these communions finds its support in the Scriptures? Neither. For one to be eligible to partake of the Lord’s evening meal not only must he be a dedicated and baptized Christian, enlightened as to God’s will for him and living in harmony with God’s righteous requirements, but he must also have evidence that God is dealing with him as a spiritual son, having implanted in him a hope of life in the heavens. He must be able to say with the apostle Paul: “The spirit itself bears witness with our spirit that we are God’s children.”—Rom. 8:16.

Do not all Christians have this witness? No, because the Scriptures show that among Christ’s followers today there are two classes, the one being made up of those who will gain life in the heavens and who are referred to by Jesus as the “little flock” who will inherit God’s kingdom, and the other, described by Jesus as “other sheep,” is made up of those who will gain everlasting life on earth. This is also borne out by the fact that at the time of instituting his evening meal Jesus said to his faithful apostles: “You are the ones that have stuck with me in my trials; and I make a covenant with you, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.” Other scriptures show that only 144,000 will share this heavenly kingdom, ruling “as kings with the Christ for a thousand years.”

—Luke 12:32; John 10:16; Luke 22:28, 29;Rey. 20:4; 14:1,3.

Those in line for the heavenly kingdom began to be selected from the time Jesus first chose his twelve apostles and more particularly from Pentecost onward, when the holy spirit was poured out on the 120 disciples gathered in an upper room in Jerusalem. However, after the apostles fell asleep in death there was a great falling away, even as both Jesus and Paul foretold, and from then until modern times it appears that but few came in line for the heavenly prize. Especially since the 1870’s and until about 1931, large numbers gave evidence of being called to the heavenly calling. Since that time and particularly in more recent years the number of those professing to have evidence of this heavenly call has kept decreasing so that in 1958, at the some 17,800 congregations of Jehovah’s witnesses throughout the world, of the 1,171,789 in attendance only 15,-037, or approximately one in eighty, partook of the emblems of bread and wine.

God’s original purpose regarding the earth and man will yet be realized, for he assures us that none of his purposes will fail. The 1,156,000 and more that did not partake of the emblems at the Lord’s supper have the opportunity of being a part of the New World society today, and after God ends this wicked system of things at Armageddon, the battle of the great day of God the Almighty, those who have proved faithful will have the privilege of transforming this earth into a Paradise and there enjoying endless life in health and happiness.

While these do not partake of the emblems, they nevertheless are keenly interested in those of their brothers who do partake. More than that, they will realize the purpose of the Lord’s evening meal even though they do not partake. And what is that?

It may be said to be a threefold purpose. The recounting of what took place on the night of Jesus' betrayal should help all to grow in appreciation of God’s love for us and of the great victory he gained In Jesus' having kept integrity. Secondly, it should help us to grow in appreciation of what Jesus himself did for us. And thirdly, it should make us more determined than ever to follow his example in keeping integrity in spite of what may come.

When should the Lord’s evening meal be celebrated? Some do so weekly, others monthly and some quarterly. Since Jesus instituted the memorial of his death on the annual Passover, which commemorated the deliverance of Israel from Egypt, it is but reasonable to conclude, in the absence of any specific Scriptural commands, that the memorial of his death should also be celebrated annually, and on its date, Nisan 14.

When is Nisan 14, 1959? Nisan was the first month of Israel’s lunar year and began with the new moon nearest the spring equinox. This year the new moon nearest the spring equinox will first be seen by the naked eye over Jerusalem on the evening of March 10. Therefore the 14th of Nisan will fall on March 23, after sundown. On that date throughout the world Jehovah's witnesses will assemble to commemorate the death of Jesus in obedience to his command. Ascertain the nearest Kingdom Hall to where you live and attend. Share in the spiritual blessings that come to all those who thus come together.

am the tme vine, and my Father is the cultivator. My Father is glorified in this, that you keep bearing much fruit and prove yourselves my disciples.—John 15:1, 8.

Disaster at Sea

# The Hans Hedtoft, a Danish passenger-cargo ship, set out from Copenhagen on January 7 carrying ninety-five persons on its maiden voyage. The craft, with its hull divided into nine water-tight compart, ments, was believed to be unsinkable, It was also furnished with the most modern radar equipment. The Hedtoft made its way through perilous icy waters—u n t £ 1 it reached a point off Cape Farewell, Greenland, Then from it came the message, “collision with iceberg,” About four hours later another radio report declared that the "unsinkable" Hedtoft was sinking. An extensive eight-day search for the Danish vessel proved fruitless. The Hedtoft, with its ninety-five passengers, had descended into a cold watery grave in the North Atlantic.

Cuba's Governmental Reform

<$> Cuba’s cabinet suspended four articles of that nation’s constitution on January 30 so as to hasten trials of “war criminals" of the overthrown Batista regime, said to number 1,500, The ninety-day suspension makes it possible to hold arrested persons in jail for more than seventy-two hours, provides for prisoners to be tried anywhere in the island, permits courts-martial of war criminals and allows for the establishment of additional courts, A new law enacted on February 10 reduced the required age of Cuban presidents from thirty-five years to thirty years. The road to the presidency was thus opened for 32-year-old Fidel Castro, who maintains, however, that he is not seeking the post.

Honduran Insurrection

<& A revolt against the administration of President Ramdn Villeda Morales flared up in northern Honduras on February 7. With little difficulty rebel forces seized control of barracks in Santa Barbara, 150 miles northwest of the nation's capital, Tegucigalpa. A declaration that "the revolution has begun” was broadcast by the insurgents over Santa Barbara’s radio station. Quick action by governmental forces, however, quelled the revolt and by February 9 it was announced that Santa Barbara had been retaken by federal troops. On February 10 President Villeda Morales stated that within a few days the revolt would be entirely suppressed.

U.S. Charges Soviet

with Attack

<$> An unarmed U.S. Air Force C-130 transport carrying seventeen persons was forced down in Soviet Armenia on September 2. The U.S. State Department released on February 5 the transcript of a purported recorded conversation of Soviet fighter pilots during the incident. The transcript indicated that the U.S. plane had been attacked. Though the Soviet union released the bodies of six occupants of the craft, eleven others were never accounted for. In a February 7 radio broadcast the Soviets termed the recording a “fake.” With reference to the incident U.S. President Eisenhower stated on February 10 that occasionally navigational errors or weather disturbances may result in accidental crossing of Soviet borders, but the U.S. chief executive observed: “Once in a while we believe there are false radio signals that will take a plane out of course.”

Communist Congress

® At the opening session of the Twenty-first Congress of the Soviet Communist party, Russian Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev declared before 1,200 delegates from seventy nations on January 27 that his country had begun "mass production of intercontinental ballistic missiles." The Russian leader also held that his new Seven-Year Plan would eventually culminate in the development of true communism. Communist China’s Premier Chou En-lai and Poland’s Wladyslaw Gomulka spoke on January 28 criticizing “revisionists,” with Chou speaking out particularly against Tito and Yugoslav Communists. On January 30 Mikhail G. Pervukhin and Maksim Z. Saburov were called to account for alleged complicity in an antiparty plot to take over the Soviet government on June 18, 1957, Perukhin confessed his "mistake” before the Congress on February 3, as did Saburov on the following day. The delegates ratified Khrushchev’s Seven-Year Plan and voted to hold the next congress in 1961,

Franco*# Spain

< Spain's monarchists have long desired the return of Don Juan to the Spanish throne. Their hopes, however, were upset on February 4 when Generalissimo Francisco Franco declared that his country Is presently a "monarchy.” Franco himself is now the ruler and maintains that when he dies a king or regent will take his place. In the meantime agitation against the present Spanish administration will not be tolerated.

Cabinet Crisis Continues

Italy's Premier Amintore Fanfani and his cabinet resigned on January 26, plunging that nation into a governmental crisis. Only five days later, on January 31, Fanfani resigned as leader of Italy's Christian Democratic party. Though Italian Preside n t Giovanni Gronchi requested that Fanfani withdraw his resignation and submit to a parliamentary vote of confidence, the former premier was later replaced as party head by Antonio Segni, who accepted the task of forming another government. Segni continued with the necessary consultations and was said to be seeking a four-party coalition, though his attempts were hindered somewhat by a split in the Democratic Socialist party.

No Vote for the Ladies

In a nationwide referendum on February 1, Switzerland’s male populace refused to grant, women voting rights and privileges of being elected to national office. The extension of suffrage to the womenfolk would have necessitated an amendment of the federal constitution. The ladies did score a majority in three of Switzerland’s twenty-two cantons but, according to a final tally, the male balloters re-j e c t e d the proposed amendment by a vote of 654,924 to 323,307.

Paris Parley

The initial meeting of the Executive Council of the French Overseas Community took place in Paris on February 3 and 4. French President Charles de Gaulle met with the Community’s Secretary General Raymond Janot, French Premier Michel Debri, ten of his ministers and twelve African premiers. A final communique announced plans to establish a Senate and a Court of Arbitration for handling disputes between the republics within the Community. Special committees on economic, social and other affairs will also be set up.

De Gaulle and the Algerians

Algeria’s rebel leaders were invited by French President Charles de Gaulle on January 30 to come to Paris for discussions on an Algerian ceasefire. In this, his first nationwide radio and television broadcast since an ascent to the presidency of the Fifth French Republic on January 8, De Gaulle also requested support of his new economic policies. That the Paris government does not intend to relinquish its sovereignty over Algeria was made apparent by French Premier Michel Debr£ on February 8. Arriving in Algiers for a visit, Debrd stated: "I give you the assurance, in the name of the Government, that we shall forthwith bring a new determination to bear for the French sovereignty which covers this side of the Mediterranean as it does the other.”

Greek-Turkish Accord on Cyprus •$> The administration of the British Crown colony of Cyprus was the topic of talks between Greek and Turkish premiers and foreign ministers meeting in Zurich, Switzerland, beginning on February 5. On February 11 it was announced that Greek Premier Konstantin Karamanlis and Turkish Premier Adan Men-deres had agreed that Cyprus should become Independent. Formerly Greece and Greek Cypriotes had desired independence and eventual union of the island with Greece, whereas Turkey and Turkish Cypriotes had held out for partition of Cyprus. A constitution must yet be drafted by a conference that will Include Greek, Turkish, British and Cypriote representatives. The British have ruled Cyprus for eighty-one years and, though the island is to become a free republic, Britain will apparently retain its military bases there.

Malta: “Day of Mourning”

♦ Last April Malta's Labor government headed by Prime Minister Dom Mintoff quit, Mintoff resigned and Britain subsequently suspended the island's constitution. Labor party head Mintoff called for a “day of mourning” recently in protest of Britain’s action. Thus, on February 3, Malta’s port workers stayed off their jobs, theaters and shops were closed and a general strike blanketed the island. Though a few persons were arrested by British authorities, there was virtual quiet throughout Malta on its "day of mourning.”

Monaco’s Crisis

Prince Rainier III suspended Monaco’s constitution on January 29. The tiny 370-acre land’s legislature was also disbanded and the populace were forbidden to assemble and demonstrate in the streets. No disruption occurred as the principality’s 21,000 inhabitants went about their daily chores. Monaco’s National Council had refused to accept Rainier’s annual budget figures. In taking his action the prince stated; "We are acting with full strength to avoid a dangerous confusion of powers.”

Congo Conflagration

Mass demonstrations broke out in Leopoldville, capital of the Belgian Congo, on January 4, following a Congolese political meeting there. About three weeks later, on January 25, the Congo's major port city, Matadl, also experienced considerable unrest. New riots flared up In Leopoldville on January 27. African demonstrators stoned white autoists, and there were numerous acts of looting and vandalism in the European sector of the city. Though unrest rose to fever pitch, order was finally restored and all was reported quiet there on February 3. The government subsequently began to round up many of Leopoldville's transient and unemployed residents. A plan for parliamentary reform and the development of a new governmental arrangement in the Congo was advanced by Brussels on January 13, and on

January 30 Belgium’s minister to the Congo, Maurice van Hemelryck, reported some success in gaining support for the plan among Congolese leaders.

Clash in Chad

<& Fort-Lamy, Chad, in French Equatorial Africa became the scene of mass unrest on January 27. Parading demonstrators, numbering 200, pressed for new elections and the dissolution of Chad’s Legislative Assembly. A number of persons were wounded and several were arrested before the demonstrations were brought under control. Chad has the status of an autonomous republic within the French Community.

Somaliland Toward Self-Rule

<$> British Colonial Secretary Alan Lennox-Boyd declared on February 9 that British Somaliland will eventually be accorded privileges of self-rule. Steps will soon be taken, it was said, to give that land’s populace “executive responsibility” in the government. A majority of Somalis is expected within the Legislative Council by 1960.

Central Africa Party

It was announced on February 9 that a new political party was being formed in the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Termed the Central Africa party, the new political group will apparently be headed by Reginald S. Garfield Todd, former Southern Rhodesian prime minister. Party candidates were to participate in the scheduled March 20 elections in Northern Rhodesia. The Central Africa party replaces the United Rhodesia party, with members drawn from the federation comprised of Nyasaland and the Rhodesias.

& *favt-aui-ffo"            (tyti&C?---

James said, ‘Be not hearers only but doers.’ (Jas. 1:22) Are you one who says, ’How can I when I am not learned?’ (Isa. 29:12) For instance, could you write a composition on a given subject? Could you prepare and deliver a talk to edify a congregation? Could you explain the difference between true and false religion? Could you go from house to house as Jesus did preaching the good news? Could you make return visits and give qualified instruction in the Bible?

It can be. But how? The Bible says faith follows the report, and the report is through the word about Christ No place aside from the Bible itself is the word about Christ Jesus given more prominence than in the columns of The Watchtower. As a result this outstanding Bible journal for almost eighty years has been building faith in its readers and stimulating them to works of faith. It has carried them through severe trials that have tested their Christian integrity to the limit. But more trials and more serious testings are still ahead. Fortify yourself. Build your shield of faith so strong it can even quench the fiery missiles of God’s adversary, the Devil.

Mail the coupon below at once.

WATCHTOWER          117 ADAMS ST.          BROOKLYN 1, N.Y.

I am enclosing fl for a year’s subscription for the Watchtower magazine. With the subscription I am to receive tree the three Bible booklets: God’s Way is Love, After Armageddon—God’s New World and “This Good News of the Kingdom.”

Street and Number

Name...................................................   or Route and Box ...........................................................................

City............................  Sone No.........State ...........................................................„...........

in: AUSTRALIA address 11 Beresford Rd., Strathfleld, N.S.W. ENGLAND: The Ridgeway, London N.W. 7. CANADA: IS® Bridgeland Ave., Toronto 19, Ont, SOUTH AFRICA: Private Bag, Elandefontein, Transvaal.

32                                           AWAKE/