WHY NOT BROTHERHOOD?

The distressing division within the Harvard community over the use of Memorial Church is the logical if not inevitable result of sectarianism. Zealous sectarians rise to power within sectarianism and have an irresistible urge to use it for sectarian ends. What is the source of this evil which divides every community, every country and the world? More important, what can be done to curb it?

Accident of Birth

Sectarian preference is, for most of us, but an accident of birth--we accept the religion of our family. The fact that few Christians, Jews, or other sectarians change from "the faith of their fathers" to another sect leaves no doubt that family determines sectarian allegiance. This is true of theologians and other religious leaders as well as of the unlettered. Yet, our young people, impressed by the reputation or position of a sectarian leader look upon him as an authority and feel a sense of security. The "authority" (bound by a childhood commitment) is in reality but the authority of the cradle. It is particularly effective with zealots and other emotionally immature persons.

We do not choose our sect--it is indelibly branded into us by indoctrination in childhood much as calves are branded on a Western ranch. THE GREAT AND INEXCUSABLE TRAGEDY IS THAT MEN OF THE HIGHEST INTELLIGENCE IN NONRELIGIOUS FIELDS AND OF THE GREATEST GOOD WILL REMAIN DIVIDED AND IN CONFLICT BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO EVALUATE OR PERMIT OTHERS TO EVALUATE THAT WHICH THEY ACCEPTED IN IMMATURE AND INEXPERIENCED CHILDHOOD.

The Sectarian Mind

Members of the board of trustees and faculty of a college in Rhode Island subscribe annually to the doctrinal statement following: "We believe in the Scriptures of the Old and the New Testament as verbally inspired by God and inerrant in the original writings, and as the supreme and final authority in faith and life." Could any but a sectarian mind believe that a loving, merciful, just God would harden Pharoah's heart (Exodus 11:10) so that he would not let the Israelities go, then kill in each Egyptian family because he would not (Exodus 12:29)? Surely the slaughtered children were not to blame! the sectarianism at Harvard may be less crude than at the Rhode Island college, but sectarianism is basically the same everywhere--a blind and blinding belief which will not permit the sectarian to make free use of accumulating knowledge or other evidence which disproves or casts doubt on the basis of the belief.

Conspiracy of Silence

Persistence of sectarianism is promoted strongly by the "conspiracy of silence" or so-called "religious toleration." There is a deadly parallel between the "conspiracy of silence" on sectarianism today with the "conspiracy of silence" on the "social diseases" a few years ago. So long as people were "too nice" to mention the social diseases the diseases were largely untreated and ate away at countless victims. Because we are "too nice" to call attention to the errors and other evils within one another's sectarianism, they eat away at our religious life. While critics of sectarianism generally remain silent, zealous sectarians urge their points of view with emotional fervor. Free and frank evaluation would reduce many of the evils of sectarianism, but sectarian leadership does not willingly submit to such evaluation.

The conspiracy of silence seems as prevalent among educators as among others. The president of the West Liberty State College of West Virginia wrote me that he approved of Truth First discussion groups in religion but that the discussion should never question doctrine or belief. Reminds us of the cautious mother who readily gave her daughter permission to go swimming, then added "hang your clothes on a hickory limb but don't go near the water."

Channels of Communication Closed

Many channels of communication are restricted or closed to those who would evaluate sectarianism. The Editor of Free World wanted to publish my article "Brotherhood: New World Religion" but some members of the editorial board objected and it was never published. A paper in a neighboring city has just refused to run the ad, "Which is Wiser? To remain divided into the hundreds of religious sects into which we happened to be born, or to unite in an inclusive Brotherhood to replace existing sects?" on the ground that "Our publisher feels that the interests of the greatest number of our readers are best served by avoiding controversial subjects of a religious nature."

When I submitted an ad of my Toward World Brotherhood to World Report, its Vice President in Charge of Advertising returned the check with the comment: "We do not think, however, that our columns can be available for this type of advertising, since we are quite sure it will involve us in a controversy with other sects. If you feel there is some other way of writing your copy so that the controversial angle will not appear, then we'd be perfectly happy to run it." Is there any field except sectarianism where a great national magazine feels it must avoid a controversial issue?

Calling itself "Holy," a sect considers any "attack" on it too wicked to be tolerated in the public press. Would any but a group unsure of itself deny its critics the opportunity to sell their points of view in an open market of ideas? Is that which must protect itself by such censorship really worth protecting

Bulwarks of Sectarianism

These, then, are the four bulwarks of sectarianism: (1) Childhood indoctrination; (2) Reluctance of sectarians to reexamine their beliefs freely; (3) "Conspiracy of silence;" (4) Closing of the lines of communication to those who would evaluate sectarianism.

Can anything be done to break through or by-pass the bulwarks?

Brotherhood Offers Most

Brotherhood Religion defends six theses:

1. Refusing to examine itself critically or to face searching questions by others, a religious sect retains obviously untrue and harmful--even degrading--items side by side with items that are true, helpful and elevating.

2. Mutual, frank evaluation of points of view by various sects is very much better than silent indiscriminate toleration by each of anything and everything that another calls religion.

3. A great proportion of the resources of each sect, given in the name of religion, is wastefully used up in just keeping alive and in promoting self-centered sectarian ends rather than in ministering to the religious needs of individuals and communities.

4. Unless Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and other sects are merged into or replaced by a great World Brotherhood, sectarianism will continue to divide the world, isolate peoples, and stimulte conflict which is deadly dangerous in the atomic-space age. (Sometimes it is inter-sect strife which causes destruction and death, as in India. Sometimes it is the point of view of a sect or sectarian which hinders effective action, as with the student in my Survey of Civilization course who wrote, "World peace is an ideal which can never be reached, for when Christ cast Adam and Eve out of the Garden of Eden he condemned them and their descendants to sickness, pestilence, death and destruction.")

5. Religious life should and will be integrated in a new World Brotherhood which should and will absorb or replace existing sects.

6. The intelligently religious person, knowing that religious preferences which divide people into sects are the result of indoctrination in childhood rather than of the greater truth, plausibility or superiority of any sect, will not hesitate to change to Brotherhood.

Are Brothers Fools?

Are those who try to organize a "new" religion of Brotherhood but fools rushing in where even the bravest angels fear to tread? At least we have received much encouragement from many who could scarcely be called foolish. Some comments on my Toward World Brotherhood which suggested and explained the Brotherhood Movement are:

"You have struck a very important note in the problem of world organization and unity. In fact I think the most important one as well as the most neglected and most needed. There is almost a conspiracy of silence on this phase of the problem--not deliberate, but certainly testifying to the immense strength of the sectarian evil you so ably discuss. Yours is almost a voice in the wilderness."--John Dewey.

"....your book which I am sure will make a real contribution to our present day thinking."--Rabbi Joshus Loth Liebman, Temple Israel, Boston.

"I am confident that it will do much to contribute toward the advancement of the high objectives which it so eloquently urges upon American public opinion."--Sumner Welles, former Under Secretary of State.

"You are stressing one of the most important phases of religion that the world needs at the present time."--Ernest John Chave, Divinity School, University of Chicago.

"I am referring your book immediately to certain members of our faculty and a committee which is now concerned with the development of a program in religion and ethics for The State College of Washington."--E. H. Hopkins, Vice President.

"Your booklet is a fine statement."--Henry Noble MacCracken, former president of Vassar College.

"Its contents are undeniable facts. ---- It is a masterpiece, and should accomplish the purpose for which it was written."--Thomas L. Clarke, Justice of the Peace, Brown City, Michigan.

"I have placed it in the Library of International House where I am sure it will be profitably read and appreciated."--Helen Taubenblatt, Director of Admissions, International House, Chicago.

"It will prove a fine addition to our reference shelves."--Jean M. Murdock, Librarian, Public Library, West Bridgewater, Massachusetts.

"....it will be the re-making of the world."--Eleanor V. Young, Boston.

"I agree with every word in the book."--Carl C. Taylor, former president of the American Sociological Society.

"If at any time you form an active unit of this sort, I should like to be considered for membership."--Herbert J. Redfern, Keene Teachers College, Keene, New Hampshire.

Just Another Sect?

Is Brotherhood just another sect to divide religious people still further? There is a vast difference between an inclusive Brotherhood, modern in outlook and knowledge, where varying points of view are adjusted in the search for a fuller brotherhood, and the excluding, binding authoritative tradition built up over the centuries about a personal Savior or a chosen people.

Freedom of Faculty Endangered

MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY ARE RIGHT IN FEARING THAT A STRONG SECTARIAN TREND WOULD ENCHROACH ON THEIR FREEDOM. The sectarianism in Memorial Church is but a symptom of something much deeper and more widespread. To get rid of it there and have it continue vigorous among Harvard men would be like clipping a few inches off the whiskers of a tiger and leaving the temper and the claws of the tiger intact. And the temper of the sectarian tiger is anything but wholesome now on account of the fear-inspired gloom and emotionalism of current theology.

The Basic Issue

SHALL YOUNG MEN COMING TO HARVARD BE ENCOURAGED TO HERD THEMSELVES ACCORDING TO CHILDHOOD COMMITMENTS AND HAVE THEIR SECTARIAN PREFERENCES (AND PREJUDICES) DEEPENED BY ASSOCIATION WITH "THEIR OWN KIND" OR BE ENCOURAGED TO EXPLORE FREELY WHAT THE BROADER BROTHER-HOOD MOVEMENT HAS TO OFFER? So far as their religious life (in college and later) is concerned, it makes little difference whether their sectarian points of view are reenforced in Memorial Church or elsewhere.

A Brotherhood unit is needed at Harvard to enrich the religious life there and to lay the foundation for an enriched religious life when college days are over. Every Harvard man owes it to himself, to his family, and to the community in which he will live after graduation to look into the merits of the new Brotherhood Movement. Joseph I. Arnold, Ph.D. '34   1737 Cambridge Street, Cambridge 38   Telephone: Eliot 4-1839