May 22

What Is Women’s Liberation Saying?

“THE underlying mood of women in America today is one of conflict, frustration, deep division and change.”

That conclusion comes from a poll taken of both men and women. It reflects a mood that has become widespread among women in various parts of the world, especially in the United States.

Is this to say that before our time all women were content with their lot in life? No, because for centuries many of them did have complaints. Then what is different about the situation today?

What is relatively new is how wide an area of life the grievances cover and how persistent the outcry is. Also, beginning about the second half of the 1960’s many women began to organize and take definite action as never before. They now demand changes to correct what they claim are widespread injustices toward their sex. They say that the day is gone when they will passively submit to them.

This movement has generally been given the name “Women’s Liberation.” A dictionary defines the word liberation as being set free from bondage, the quality or state of being free, having the legal and political rights of a citizen. Those advocating women’s liberation are at times called “feminists.”

What kind of freedoms do the women in this movement desire? While the freedoms they want vary in detail from one group of women to another, there are several main trends among most who support the movement. One is their resentment at being treated only as objects for the sexual gratification of males, instead of being treated as persons. Men who regard women in this way are called “sexists.” Also, these women object to the excessive or blind belief in male superiority, labeling such “male chauvinism.”

Another strong objection is the fact that when women work for a salary, they usually do not get the same pay as men who do the same work. Also, they consider it unfair that women are excluded from many occupations and positions dominated by men.

Some of the women demand equal rights in the home. They want to have the husband share equally in doing the housework so that the wife can hold a job. They consider housework ‘inferior’ and would rather work outside the home in jobs they consider more interesting, challenging, or even ‘glamorous.’

Many women demand the right to get a legal abortion if they choose to end a pregnancy. They feel that this would free them from coming into slavery to another person, the unwanted child.

Another demand is that government agencies set up child-care centers. Mothers who work as the sole support of a family want someone to look after their children. They would rather work for a decent wage than accept welfare and barely exist. But they want some arrangement to care for their young children.

Tens of thousands of women have already marched through city streets to make known their demands. In New York, about sixty women ‘seized’ the Statue of Liberty and draped it with a banner that said: “Women of the World Unite!” According to one of the women, Miss Liberty was chosen because “it is ironic that a woman symbolizes the abstract idea of liberty, but in reality we are not free.”

In the Netherlands a group of women burned a corset before a statue of a famous Dutch suffragette. They then raided men’s public washrooms to dramatize their complaint that there were no such washrooms for women. They whistled at men on street corners and discussed out loud their good and bad points. The Dutch women demanded equal pay for women, an equal division of household duties between husband and wife, legalized abortions, sex education in schools and birth-control pills for teen-agers.

Norwegian women shocked the men of their country by turning out in huge numbers to vote for their own women candidates during local elections. Numerous city councils came into their control where their candidates won the majority. This included councils in two of Norway’s largest cities.

Differences of Opinion

However, we are not to think of women’s liberation as a unified, international movement under a central control. There are many groups and individuals involved, and wide differences of opinion exist among them. There are disagreements among women of different countries and racial backgrounds. Even within a nation or racial group there are wide areas of disagreement.

For example, some want to bring women into positions of power in today’s society by working with “The Establishment.” But others want to dismantle the established society completely and replace it with a different order. While some want more equality in marriage, others want to abandon marriage altogether. There are those who want total sexual freedom, including the acceptance of lesbianism for women and homosexuality for men. But others object to that kind of sexual freedom.

The women in the movement are not sure in which political direction they should go. The National Observer remarked of meetings of those in women’s liberation: “The workshops were lively with argument. In one, a group of young women . . . got into a shouting match with older delegates about political procedures and strategy.” One woman protested: ‘Look, I didn’t drive 600 miles to argue.’

While disagreements are common, at the same time the women warn that the depth and breadth of their feelings should not be underestimated. Others agree. The National Observer noted: “For those who don’t already, it is time to take women’s lib seriously.”

This is so because, while there are many disagreements among those favoring women’s liberation, the areas of agreement are even stronger. For instance, in Europe the outcry carries the same ring as in the United States: that women are second-class citizens and suffer discrimination in marriage, education, vocational training and jobs. They, too, demand equal pay for equal work, abortion reform, nursery schools and day-care centers.

What, then, of the claims of those who support the women’s liberation movement? Do they have a point? Is there any truth in what they are saying?

Is There Any Truth in What They Say?

IT WOULD be easy to dismiss women’s liberation as being entirely the product of women who just like to complain. Many men feel that way about it.

Yet, a wise person wrote: “When anyone is replying to a matter before he hears it, that is foolishness on his part and a humiliation.”​—Prov. 18:13.

If you had a pain in your body, would you appreciate a doctor who dismissed you as being just a complainer? Or would you want him to analyze the problem and tell you what the cause is and if there is a remedy?

Another Bible principle says: “As for anyone stopping up his ear from the complaining cry of the lowly one, he himself also will call and not be answered.”​—Prov. 21:13.

So the wise person listens. He weighs the facts to discern if a complaint is valid or not. Then he takes action accordingly.

What Cause for Complaint?

If you take an unprejudiced look at history, you will be compelled to agree that women have had many reasons for complaint.

Throughout history, the political, economic and religious power has been mainly in the hands of men. But the result has been a sickening repetition of brutality. Of World War II alone the World Book Encyclopedia states: “It has been estimated that civilian and military dead totaled 55 million. . . . Civilians suffered the greatest losses. . . . from bombings, massacres, forced migrations, epidemics, and starvation.”

Of course, one cannot say that things would have been any better had women made all the decisions. When women did rule some nations, things were really no different. Read the history about Cleopatra of Egypt, Zenobia of Palmyra, Mary I (“Bloody Mary”) of England, or Mary Queen of Scots. You will find that their rule was no improvement.

Yet, the fact remains that men have been primarily responsible for wars. Also, the weapons of war have been mostly the inventions of men. Women have seen their homes demolished, their loved ones killed or maimed. And as armies swept over large areas, women by the millions were brutalized. Untold numbers have been raped.

On the other hand, how much do women protest on either side during war? In both world wars, for example, were not the German women just as industrious in aiding their war effort as the English or American women were in theirs? When was the last time you heard that the majority of women refused to go along with the wars of a nation? Some of the loudest champions of certain war efforts have been women.

It is true, however, that in various lands many women have been treated little better than animals or slaves down through history. Among other things they were taught to commit suicide when their husbands died, had their feet bound and deformed, were not allowed to eat at the same table with men, or were sold to the highest bidder regardless of their feelings. And even in peacetime, thousands of women are raped every year. The list of oppressive acts against women is long, it cannot be denied.

Even in many ‘advanced’ societies today, women do experience forms of discrimination. The New York Times stated: “American law, with its roots in a medieval society that considered women as chattels, and with embellishments added by generations of male legislators and judges, has many features that might be said to deny women the equal protection of the laws.”

In New York state, girls considered “in need of supervision” can be imprisoned until age eighteen. But the cutoff age for boys on this count is sixteen. Sally Gold, a lawyer on the staff of the Department of Consumer Affairs, says that “a 16-year-old girl could . . . be placed in a reform school for up to four years for promiscuous behavior.” “There is no such notion for boys,” she says. A sixteen-year-old boy who was just as promiscuous would not be punished.

What About Family Life?

Many women complain about their role in family life. Is there any truth to their claims? Cornell psychologist Urie Bronfenbrenner says:

“I have a great deal of sympathy for the anger and frustration that are reflected in the Women’s Liberation movement. Not only are women discriminated against in the so-called man’s world, but they have now been deprived of prestige in their role as women.

“It used to be that a mother would get recognition in her neighborhood for the fact that she had brought up her children well. Now the mother still has the responsibility for her children, but not enough support or recognition. Her husband is away most of the time, and her neighbors are often not really her friends.

“We are creating a situation where women are frustrated in both worlds.”

Many fathers shift the responsibility for training their children to the mother. As a result the mother has to make decisions and care for matters that the husband should be handling. Of this, Look magazine said:

“The American woman is accused of displacing her husband as head of the family. In her mind, she meets this familiar charge with the countercharge that she knows scarcely a household in which the mother doesn’t struggle​—in vain—​to have the father make the important decisions in the children’s lives, exercise the discipline, be a model of manliness to his sons. . . .

“By his own choice, and in the face of his wife’s protests, he leaves the vital decisions in his children’s lives​—their schooling, their sexual instructions, their religious and moral training—​to their mothers. He says that she ‘knows more about these things’ than he does, but even as he says this, he is entirely convinced that his wife robs him of authority in the home.”

Because too many men abdicate their family responsibilities, some in women’s liberation say that the family is outmoded and should be abandoned. But would that improve matters? Dr. Paul Popenoe of the American Institute of Family Relations states: “No society has ever survived after its family life deteriorated.” Harvard Professor Emeritus Carle Zimmerman said of the decay of family life in ancient Greece and Rome: “In each case the change in the faith and belief in family systems was associated . . . with enormous crises in the very civilizations themselves.”

Abandoning the family arrangement is like ‘throwing out the baby with the wash water.’ The fact that many families are happy and do cope with their problems shows that the fault does not lie with the family arrangement. It lies with people who are too selfish or unwilling to do their part.

What About “Equality”?

In nearly every field, a woman holding down a job does not get the same pay as a man who does the same work. This is a particular hardship for mothers who must work as the sole support of their families.

Because of such inequalities, some women now demand complete equality with men in all spheres of human activity. Yet, what would be the consequences if total equality were enforced?

If women had complete equality with men, governments would draft women to fight in the fields, jungles and trenches during wartime. Once when New York Times correspondent Gloria Emerson was in Khesanh, South Vietnam, the area underwent bombardment by North Vietnamese troops. She fled to a bunker which was occupied by American soldiers. Afterward she stated: “In that lonely moment I became more equal with men than I have ever cared to be. I would have gladly shared the horror of it with the fiercely fashionable advocates of women’s lib.”

Equality in every sense would do away with sound laws that govern the type of work women can be asked to do. If you are a woman, would you really want equality with men in digging coal out of a mine thousands of feet underground if men did their share of the housework? Would you really want to spend equal time plowing fields and shoveling manure with your farmer husband if he agreed to help you cook and clean at home? Is that what you prefer?

Still, some women claim it is unfair that they are consigned to the ‘dull’ housework. But other women find it challenging to manage a home, prepare menus, arrange furniture and decorations and help mold their children’s minds. To those who find this dull, many men would ask: How many ‘white-collar’ or ‘blue-collar’ jobs for men are ‘glamorous’ or ‘exciting’? Most of them are monotonous, frustrating and unsatisfying. The men are usually chained to a rigid schedule of hours, and if they deviate from that they imperil their jobs. Many of them envy the more flexible schedule their wives have at home.

Of all the working wives or mothers that you personally know, how many of them would keep their jobs if they did not need the income? Very few women prefer the monotony of a rigid job schedule over caring for a home. Ask the women, the wives and mothers, who do have to work and see if this is not so.

Recently, women were asked about this in a poll. It showed that, by a 71- to 16-percent vote, women agreed that “taking care of a home and children is more rewarding than having a job.”

Sex Symbols

Do men treat women merely as sex symbols? Unfortunately, many, many men do just that. The only interest such men have in women is the sexual gratification they might get.

To cater to this, motion pictures, magazines and advertisements are filled with females in sexually suggestive situations or poses. Who is to blame? In most cases it is the men who control the production of these things.

Yet, who forces the women to perform or pose? You will find that nearly all the women do it of their own free will.

In the United States it was recently revealed that female college students at Wayne State University were posing naked for male customers to photograph. Their fee was $15 for thirty minutes, the girls classifying this as ‘working their way through college.’ But many other girls have worked their way through school without selling their bodies to do it.

Thus, women do allow themselves to be used in ‘sexist’ ways. They do become prostitutes of their own free will. They do willingly pose for immoral purposes. And many women do wear sexually suggestive clothing, including very short dresses. So a large part of womankind must share the blame for encouraging males to be ‘sexist.’

Related to this is the fact that because abortion is still illegal in most places, women have been injured and killed by bungled abortions. That is one reason why many women now demand legal abortions on request. But where does the fault lie? Is it really wrong for the law to want to give the unborn child a chance to live? Remember, you were once in your mother’s womb. Should your mother have had the legal right to abort you?

Science News of December 18, 1971, states: “It is now possible to accurately determine who gets abortions, . . . the most common patient is a young, single, white woman pregnant for the first time.” These women ignored God’s laws against fornication and got pregnant. Who was to blame​—the unborn child? Why punish the innocent, commit murder to do it, and then demand that the murder be legalized?

Object to God as “He”

The objection is also raised that equality should even cover references to God. Mary Daly, professor of theology at Boston College, said: “God is dead for us women as long as God is imaged as exclusively male.”

However, Dr. Margaret Mead, famous American anthropologist, disagrees. The New York Times reports as follows:

“Dr. Margaret Mead declared yesterday that she had been working for women’s equality all her life, but that she could have ‘no sympathy, as a scholar, with the amount of utter nonsense’ that she said had been spoken by some members of the women’s liberation movement. . . .

“‘What in thunder is gained in reversing “God is He” into “God is She” except irritating people?’ she asked. ‘It gets us nowhere. All you get with a reversal is the opposite again.’”

Demanding an absurdity only brings scorn and diverts attention from real injustices. Also, when an absurdity is demanded, the tendency of observers is to consider other claims as possibly being absurd too. Note the following, written by a woman to the editor of the Miami Herald:

“Until recently I was proud of being a woman, proud of what she represented, proud of her role in society. Now, I’m disturbed and ashamed as I watch many of my adult female colleagues jump up and down, like a child wanting a two-cent lollipop, scream and demand certain rights​—many of which they have not earned and several which they will not use effectively.

“It seems the ‘ladies’ behind the liberation of women movement are trying, with circus dramatics, to speak for women as a unit without any consideration for those of us who are content. . . .

“I, as well as many other women, protest against being degraded by over-emotional, dissatisfied females who desire a masculine identity because they are personally unfulfilled as a woman. Exchanging a bra for a gun, demanding rights and obligations beyond a woman’s physical and emotional endurance, is not going to be the pretty picture many foresee.”

However, this does not alter the fact that women have been, and still are, suffering injustices. So, what we really need to know is this: How should men treat women? What can be the results when men treat women properly?

To arrive at answers to these questions, it would be well to analyze first just how men and women are constructed. What role is most natural for them?

Each Designed for a Role

NOTHING can change the basic fact that there are two sexes in the human family. Children are going to be born either male or female.

But how basic are the differences in the sexes? What do these differences mean? Is there a way of life that suits each better?

If you examine the living creation, you will find that there is usually a way of life that best suits each living thing. For instance, do palm trees or cactus plants flourish in cold northern areas? No, they do best in hot climates. But the Douglas fir thrives best in cooler northern climates. Polar bears do better where it is cold, but giraffes do better where it is warm.

True, to an extent living things can adapt to changing conditions. But the farther away they get from the situation that suits them best, the more problems they will have.

There are also ‘best’ conditions in the relationship between a man and a woman. The farther they deviate from these, the more problems they will experience.

Fundamental Differences

What should be recognized is that there are fundamental differences between a man and a woman that no amount of talk will change. The obvious difference is in physical appearance and in the different sexual organs. Also, the genetic code of the human family has firmly locked into it the fact that the male has the more rugged build and is stronger.

Compare, for example, the records set at Olympic Games. The Olympic record for the 100-meter (about 110 yards) dash for men is 9.9 seconds, but for women it is 11.0 seconds. At this short distance, men can cross the finish line about 10 or 11 yards ahead of women. The Olympic high-jump record is over 7 feet 4 inches for men, but less than 6 feet 3 inches for women. In every comparable event, the men run and swim faster, jump higher, and throw weights farther than women.

Why do men have the greater physical strength? Because they were created with a different role to play in life than women. They would have to do the heavier work and take the lead in providing for the family and giving it protection.

Does this make women “inferior”? Is a well-proportioned woman’s body “inferior” to a well-proportioned male’s body? Is it of less value, or less useful? Which is “superior,” the oak tree or the rose? In their own way they are each valuable and desirable.

In addition to the difference in body structure and strength, women go through different physical cycles, such as menstruation and menopause. Hence, we cannot escape the truth of the matter, that there are very basic differences between men and women physically. In fact, scientists can tell, without knowing in advance the sex of a person, whether a body cell belongs to a male or to a female. As one source points out: “All the cells of the body of the man differ from those of the body of the woman.”

Other Differences

Since there are such unalterable physical differences between men and women locked into their genetic codes, it should not seem strange that there would also be emotional or psychological differences. Rutgers University anthropologist Lionel Tiger states:

“Briefly, there is considerable evidence that differences between males and females do not result simply from male conspiracy, . . . they occur in such a wide variety of situations and cultures that the feminist explanation is inadequate in itself to help us understand them, and that there are biological bases for sexual differences which have nothing to do with oppressing females but rather with ensuring the safety of communities and the healthy growth of children. . . .

“Now we know that the intricate DNA genetic code makes it possible for the individual to inherit not only simple physical characteristics, such as size, shape and chemical makeup, but also a whole set of propensities for particular social behavior which goes with a given physiology.”

So the genetic code determines more than the physical characteristics that make the two sexes different. It also gives each sex different emotional factors that make them react differently. As a rule women have more tender qualities than men. They are more prone to be sociable, sensitive and considerate. Often they have greater patience.

Why were they created with different physical and emotional traits? Because they have different roles to play.

Where Women Excel

Nowhere is this more evident than in the woman’s role as a mother. Not only has she the physical equipment for giving birth to and feeding the baby, but she has the emotional traits to care for it.

The fact that throughout history people earth wide have seen the necessity and wisdom of having mothers care for babies surely suggests much more than just a male conspiracy. What it clearly shows is that she was created for a different role, but one that makes the woman vital to human society. How vital? Ask yourself: Where would the human family, including you, be without mothers? It would not be at all! The Bible says: “As the woman is out of the man, so also the man is through the woman.”​—1 Cor. 11:12.

Also, mother love, even more than father love, is an absolute necessity for the normal development of babies. Extensive studies of babies raised in orphanages reveal that those who lacked the loving care of mothers suffered damage from which most of them never completely recovered. They were far more likely to grow up with serious emotional, mental and even physical problems.

Dr. Peter Neubauer, director of the Child Development Center in New York, says:

“The love and affection [the child] receives from his mother or a mother-figure, most critically from his birth through age 3, will determine the path of emotional development that will carry him through his life. . . .

“About all we used to say was that a mother should hold her baby while feeding him. Now we know that it is indeed the ‘petting’ (the touching), the ‘joyful faces’ (the sights) and the ‘loving words’ (the sounds), together with the smells and the tastes, that are the urgent requirements of infancy.

“It is the nonsense talk, the singing, the smiling at and the smiling back at, the cuddling, the rocking, the hoisting and the laughing that constitute ‘love and affection.’ . . .

“If something has gone wrong, it becomes increasingly difficult to repair after the age of 3.”

Have you ever observed a loving mother with her baby? How obvious it is that she is the superior in giving the baby what it needs in early life! It is not that the father’s role is unimportant, but at the very early stage in the child’s life the mother’s role is the more vital one.

Satisfaction in Filling Role

When women understand and fulfill their role in the family, instead of fighting it, they can get enormous satisfaction. One woman wrote to the Ladies’ Home Journal: “We were created to be different in nature from man but not of lesser value. It is my fondest desire to be feminine, which is my natural role in life, and to encourage my spouse to be more masculine according to his nature.”

A mother wrote: “Speaking personally, my greatest satisfaction in life is the time spent with my husband and the things we do together. But that includes having the children around us, watching them grow up and taking pride in them.”

Another mother commented on the charge that women have an “identity problem.” She said she had none, but instead was viewed with great love, affection and admiration by her husband and two children. She pleaded: “Women, don’t liberate me from all this!”

An article in McCall’s magazine noted: “No matter what any man [or woman] says, the average woman who makes her world a better place for her family to live in accomplishes more than a dozen captains of industry who devote their lives to fabricating steam boilers or manufacturing automatic bacon slicers.”

However, when a woman has a husband, father or brother who does not understand her role and her needs and who does not treat her right, then she can indeed be unhappy. Very often these are the women seeking liberation.

But just how should a man treat a woman? How, especially, should a husband treat a wife? And is having babies her main role in life?

[Picture on page 11]

It is obvious that a woman is the superior in giving a newborn baby what it needs; yet is that a woman’s main role in life?

How Should Men Treat Women?

WHAT is the best way for men to deal with women? How, especially, should a husband treat his wife for the greatest benefit to both?

The answer to such questions can come only from the one who is the best qualified. Who is that? It has to be the One who designed and made the minds and bodies of men and women. Surely the Creator, Jehovah God, knows best how his own creation should operate for the best results.

Keep in mind that marriage is not an accident, something that just happened to develop over the ages. The first marriage was ordained by God. First, God created the man, then the woman, joining them together as husband and wife. Each was given somewhat different qualities and responsibilities. Of this, Genesis 2:18 says: “It is not good for the man to continue by himself. I am going to make a helper for him, as a complement of him.”

A complement is a counterpart, something that makes complete. It provides what is lacking or needed. In the case of the man and woman, each was created with a need that the other filled. Their qualities balanced, or complemented, each other so well that the man and woman as a married couple were considered to be “one flesh.” (Gen. 2:24) That this worked in the best interests of both can be seen by what the Bible account also says: “After that God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.”​—Gen. 1:31.

Note too that when the woman was created it was not said that her only function was to have children. The woman’s relationship to her husband as a complement, or partner, is what is singled out for specific mention. She obviously complements him in childbearing, because neither one can accomplish this alone. But she complements him in many other ways too.

God’s View of Women

Also, the relationship of the woman to her Creator, Jehovah God, was more important than her relationship either to her husband or to the children she would have. This can be seen in several ways. One was the fact that, while the man was given heavier responsibilities, the female also was given qualities that reflected God’s personality, having these in common with the man.

The woman, for example, certainly is in no way inferior to man in the quality of love, and this is the dominant quality in God’s personality. God’s Word says: “He that does not love has not come to know God, because God is love. . . . God is love, and he that remains in love remains in union with God and God remains in union with him.” (1 John 4:8, 16) That holds just as true for women as it does for men.

Then, too, the apostle Paul included, not just men believers, but also women disciples when he said: “All of us, while we with unveiled faces reflect like mirrors the glory of Jehovah, are transformed into the same image from glory to glory, exactly as done by Jehovah the Spirit.” (2 Cor. 3:18) In fact, the most conclusive evidence of God’s high regard for women is that he grants women the privilege of being among those who form his Son’s heavenly government. That is why the Bible says in this regard: “There is neither male nor female; for you are all one person in union with Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28) So God has a high and loving regard for women, dealing with them as persons, their relationship to him being just as important as the man’s relationship to God.

Who Was More at Fault?

However, in time both the first man and the first woman began to desire something that could never be theirs. They wanted to be like God in having the right and ability to determine for themselves what was right and what was wrong, instead of guiding themselves by God’s laws. The woman rebelled first, then the man.​—Gen. 3:1-6.

From this some have concluded that ‘if it were not for women we would be in the garden of Eden.’ But that is not accurate. Man was created first and made the family head with the greater responsibility. As the ‘captain’ of his ship, he should have steered a straight course even in troubled seas. But that first man, Adam, failed as a family head. Since he had the greater responsibility, he had the greater guilt. Hence, Romans 5:12 says: “Through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin.”

As a result of moving away from God’s guidance, the human family began to devise their own rules of conduct. In this, the woman in many cases has come out the loser, for man’s greater physical strength and aggressiveness enabled him to dominate the female and often abuse her, which was contrary to God’s purpose.

God’s Superior Ways Unfold

Yet, God set a time limit on permitting human foolishness. As the centuries passed, God gradually revealed what he would do to remedy the bad situation into which the human family had come.

About fifteen centuries before the birth of Jesus Christ, God revealed more of his purposes by his dealings with the nation of ancient Israel. Through Moses, he gave Israel a law code. Incorporated in it were provisions for the benefit of women. These brought the Israelite women into a situation far superior to that of women living in the surrounding pagan nations.

Centuries later, Jesus Christ introduced Christianity, unfolding God’s purposes more fully. Under the Christian arrangement, women came into a position superior even to that in ancient Israel. True Christianity was a way of life far, far superior to any ever devised by man, and woman would reap the benefits when it was practiced in the way God purposed.

Under Christianity, the role of man as ‘captain’ of the family was maintained. It was the best arrangement, considering how God made man and woman. So, as Ephesians 5:23 says, “A husband is head of his wife as the Christ also is head of the congregation.” And if there were no head in a family, what would happen? There could be constant bickering and disagreement over decisions, with no one making the final one. But it is necessary for the welfare of the family to have someone authorized to make final decisions, and God has assigned that role to the husband.

For instance, if a man is driving an automobile, and sees a difficult traffic situation developing that calls for an immediate response in direction or speed, it would only make matters worse for his wife to insist that she had a view on the matter and he should do it her way. Someone has to make final decisions, and when the husband does so in a loving and considerate way, it really does work for the best of the family.

What Kind of Headship?

But just what does the husband’s headship mean? As noted, it means that in the family he has the right to make final decisions, especially in serious matters. But how should he exercise that headship? Does it entitle him to be a boss, a dictator?

That is not at all what God has in mind, for Ephesians 5:28, 29 declares: “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.” The husband is under obligation to be as considerate of his wife as he is of himself, since they are “one flesh.”

But much more is involved. God also commands husbands to do this: “You husbands, continue dwelling in like manner with [your wives] according to knowledge, assigning them honor as to a weaker vessel, the feminine one.”​—1 Pet. 3:7.

How do you honor another person? Why, you treat that person with respect. You have consideration for that one’s opinions, likes and dislikes. You give that one the preference when there is no issue at stake. You do what Colossians 3:12, 13 says: “Clothe yourselves with the tender affections of compassion, kindness, lowliness of mind, mildness, and long-suffering. Continue putting up with one another and forgiving one another freely.”

These are the qualities that make it easy for women to love and to respect their husbands. In fact, one happily married woman, when asked what she appreciated most about her husband, replied: ‘The tenderness and consideration that he has for me.’ And that is just what God says husbands should show their wives.

Also, while at first the mother’s role in a child’s life is critical, in time the father’s grows more important. That is why God’s law tells fathers to take the lead in training their growing children in the vital things of life, such as morality, religion and discipline. While the mother also plays an important part in all this, it is the father who is to take the lead.​—Eph. 6:4.

Part of taking the lead is in setting a good example, ‘practicing what you preach.’ And here one of the finest things a father can do for his children is to love their mother. What a fine example that sets for the future mothers and fathers!

There is more. Ephesians 5:25 says: “Husbands, continue loving your wives, just as the Christ also loved the congregation and delivered up himself for it.” Yes, the husband is to have such consideration for his wife that he would be willing to lay down his life for her! That is what Jesus did for those he loved.

Now, then, what sensible woman would want liberation from a man who shows her that kind of honor, respect, consideration, tenderness and loyalty? Of course, she has her role to play too, and the Bible gives much good counsel on this. But here we are discussing primarily the responsibilities of the man.

Treatment of Other Women

How should men deal with other women not their wives? The young man Timothy was given this counsel that was inspired by God: “Do not severely criticize an older man. To the contrary, entreat him as a father, younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, younger women as sisters with all chasteness.”​—1 Tim. 5:1, 2.

A man should have respect for an older woman as if she were his mother. And he must be morally upright toward a younger woman, as though she were his sister, not considering her a ‘sexual object’ but dealing with her as a person.

Right View of Woman’s Role

Jesus had high regard for women. He did not view them as ‘inferior,’ as ‘sexual objects’ or as just baby producers. On one occasion he visited two sisters, Mary and Martha. Martha busied herself in preparing things, but Mary “sat down at the feet of the Lord and kept listening to his word.” When Martha complained that Mary was not helping her, Jesus commended Mary instead, saying that she “chose the good portion, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42) Jesus was not belittling household duties, but was showing that there are more important things than that for women.

On another occasion a woman said to Jesus: “Happy is the womb that carried you and the breasts that you sucked!” But Jesus told her: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!” (Luke 11:27, 28) He showed that a woman’s relationship to God is more important than her role as a mother. After all, only a minority of a woman’s life is involved in childbearing and the raising of children. And if a man, even a husband, asks a woman to break God’s laws, what then? The Bible principle is: “We must obey God as ruler rather than men.”​—Acts 5:29.

So when you really study what the Bible has to say about how men should treat women, you can see that God has certainly placed the women in a position of dignity and favor. True, most men in this world do not abide by God’s high standards. But that does not make the standards wrong. Instead, it exposes the wrong attitude of such men. And someday they will have to answer to God for it.

Men who are true Christians do accept God’s standards. If you investigate Jehovah’s witnesses, you will find that they do. They constantly learn how to apply these standards in their lives, with increasing benefits to themselves and the women they deal with. And when their wives, mothers and sisters also have the same high regard for God’s superior standards and play their roles properly, they find great harmony and happiness. None of them seek liberation from that, and not because they are forced to stay in that arrangement, but because they want to, seeing it as a far superior way of bringing them happiness than any other.

Still, even compatible men and women need liberation. From what? From a world filled with hatred, crime, war, poverty, sickness and death; from a world that has caused such injustices, not only to women, but to men and children too. Will such liberation ever be a reality?

[Picture on page 15]

When a woman told Jesus, “Happy is the womb that carried you,” he answered: “No, rather, Happy are those hearing the word of God and keeping it!”

True Liberation Nearing

WOMEN do need liberating, in many ways. But then, so do men. India’s prime minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi said: “Men are no more liberated than women.”

The reality is that the entire human family is in need of liberation. The Toronto Daily Star commented:

“The feeling of being trapped and unfulfilled is not confined to the female. We live in a mass, industrialized society in which a great many people are lonely, rootless, unfulfilled and lacking in a satisfying identity and the opportunity to make full use of their capacities.

“The people are both men and women. To pinpoint marriage and male domination as the causes of female unhappiness is to blindly distort and to ignore the realities of life in the 20th century.”

The industrial civilization has not proved to be the blessing many thought it would be. Much of it is proving to be a curse. It is producing large cities with teeming millions of people jammed together. Has life been improved by these ‘concrete jungles’ that wall off the sky and sun, and keep trees and grass and hills out of sight? Is it an improvement when people are afraid to walk city streets at night, and even in the daytime in some places? What about pollution, and strangling traffic conditions?

What good is a so-called ‘high standard of living’ when it cannot really be enjoyed? What pleasure is there in work when jobs become drudgery and the individual becomes an insignificant cog in a huge mass-production scheme?

Everywhere you look, men and women, and children, have serious problems from which they need liberating. For example, in the richest country on earth, the United States, about one fourth of all persons over sixty-five years of age are forced to live on incomes that the Department of Labor considers as at poverty level. Many more are forced to exist on incomes not much higher. All the time, prices rise, and many married women are forced to work away from home because their husbands’ income is not enough.

Also, consider this report from Time magazine: “About 300 million people in the world have highly visible deformities, which cause emotional problems not just for the victims but for the society around them.” And what about the mentally ill? What, too, of the poor and hungry of the world, which is the majority of the human family? Do not all these need liberation?

There is no longer any question that men, as well as women, have become victims of the oppressive system of political, economic and religious rule that has dominated the earth. That system is the end product of man and woman’s desire for independence from God. What a failure human rule that ignores God has proved to be!​—Jer. 10:23.

What this earth needs now is for God to remove the present system and replace it with his own righteous arrangement. We need his perfect wisdom, justice, love and guidance directing human affairs. But is such a hope just a dream?

No, it is not just a dream! Why not? Because God’s time limit for permitting human wickedness is fast drawing to a close. All the evidence in fulfillment of God’s own recorded prophecies shows that we are nearing the end of this oppressive system of things.

Soon, when that time limit is up, God will assert his almighty power and wipe this earth clean of the bad effects of human rule. Daniel 2:44 foretells: “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite.”

That heavenly government is the one for which Jesus Christ taught his followers to pray. (Matt. 6:10) All ruling authority over the earth will reside with it, not with humans. It will enforce God’s righteous laws all over the earth. And it will provide true liberation, in a most desirable way.

That liberation will include freedom from human oppression and injustice. It will include freedom from economic want, enabling women to play their normal role in life. And it will also provide freedom from those great enemies of mankind​—sickness, old age and death. God’s promise is: “He will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore.”​—Rev. 21:4.

Think of that! Think of a time when men and women will fulfill their roles as their Creator purposed, so that there will be no friction, grief, sorrow or tears in their relationship with one another. And with sickness, aging and death gone, what a happy life that will be! Concerning the time of such liberation, God’s Word promises: “The meek ones themselves will possess the earth, and they will indeed find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace. The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.”​—Ps. 37:11, 29.

True liberation will soon be a reality, but only in God’s way. That is why it is futile to look for relief to any part of this doomed system. It is also why God’s Word says: “The world is passing away and so is its desire, but he that does the will of God remains forever.” (1 John 2:17) Persons interested in true and permanent liberation should hasten to find out what God’s will is. Jehovah’s witnesses will be pleased to help them, free of charge, with the use of the Bible.

[Picture on page 17]

God’s kingdom will bring in true and permanent liberation, making the earth a Paradise. Even the animal kingdom will be at complete peace with man

A Ship Comes In

By “Awake!” correspondent in Germany

WHEN a ship comes in, there is more to it than meets the eye. I know, having recently had the opportunity to take a trip from Hamburg to the far-inland city of Bremen, some forty miles from the North Sea. The freighter on which I was a guest was the Weissenburg, which had come from Colombia, South America, to Hamburg, Germany. And now we sailed out of Hamburg at about 7 a.m., slipping down the Elbe River toward the North Sea.

After we traveled briefly in the North Sea, a pilot boat approached, and a pilot experienced in navigating the waters near Bremerhaven boarded our ship. But how did the pilot boat know that our freighter was coming and the exact time we would arrive? The harbor master had informed the pilot boat’s captain.

As we approached Bremerhaven, Bremen’s outer port, the radio operator notified the Quarantine physician on shore: “No epidemics or contagious diseases aboard.” The operator showed me a ship’s health declaration, which the port health official in Bremen wants.

Just how many others want information? Well, the port police are interested in the names of the passengers and crew. As soon as we tie up in Bremen these lists will be immediately compared with “wanted” lists.

Up on the Bridge

But what was going on up on the bridge was of more interest to me. Three persons were watching the ship’s course: the captain, the pilot who had boarded the ship and the helmsman. Who has the responsibility on the bridge? Even with the pilot on board the captain is still responsible for his ship. The pilot is simply an advisor to the captain.

“Are you obligated to take a pilot on board?” I asked the captain.

“No,” he answered, “but it’s too much of a risk coming in without a pilot, because within a matter of hours the depth and current conditions can change a great deal. No one knows these dangers better than the pilot. He navigates these waters every day. I’m here only once in about every three to four months.”

In the meantime darkness started to fall. As we approached Bremerhaven we could see the big beacon light on the port side. The ship reduced speed and we slipped past the festively lit Columbus Kai (Quay).

A Weser River pilot now relieved the first pilot who had helped us to reach Bremerhaven. He had brought along the exact chart for our berth in the harbor at Bremen, one of Germany’s largest ports.

A Tiring Weser Trip

We sail with the tide up the Weser, doing about fourteen knots. (A knot is a unit of speed of one international nautical mile or 6,076.10 feet an hour.) For the men on the bridge it is certainly not a “pleasure trip,” as shown by the strained look on their faces. One of the crew asserts that the trip up the river is more strenuous than the eighteen-day ocean voyage from Cartagena, Colombia. The river is full of turns and bends. In one of these curves we meet a ship sailing downstream and then three more, one right in the wake of the other. We glide past at a distance of about ten meters (about thirty feet). It looks so simple, but in reality it is more dangerous than driving a car.

We continue our journey in the darkness as if on a road leading through the countryside. In about an hour we should be docking at Quay shed No. 13 in Bremen’s Overseas Harbor. From Bremerhaven to Bremen is about sixty-five kilometers.

About ten kilometers from the harbor entrance, the radio operator on board radios the final arrival report. Moving slowly, our freighter approaches the harbor dock. Up ahead about two hundred meters, four small, tough-looking tugs get moving. Radio communication informed the captain when the ship would be arriving. Our engines are allowed to die. Silently we glide on.

On land the preparations for the arrival of our ship have already been completed. Everything stands in readiness: tug, stevedore, crane operator, tallymen, broker, officials from the harbor master, health department, customs and the harbor police.

The powerful little tugs have pulled up alongside. The towing ropes are thrown overboard. I glance at my watch. In exactly four minutes the four tugs have our ship in tow. In the turning basin, before the Overseas Harbor, the powerful tugs pull and push our giant around at a 180° angle until the stern is pointing in the direction of the harbor basin. Do you know why the ship is pulled backward into the berth? It is a safety measure taken by the harbor officials! In case of an emergency​—say a large fire were to break out—​each freighter could clear the harbor on its own power.

The harbor in Bremen is known as a “fast harbor.” Here no time is lost; each ship, is handled as quickly as possible. From the bridge I can see a great deal of activity down at the prow. The second mate, who is usually responsible for the cargo, lets the derrick swing sideways so that the harbor crane has enough room. Preparations are made for opening the hatches.

Just how much does it cost for a ship to be docked for an entire day? For a freighter of between 9,000 and 11,000 net registered tonnage, everything included, it costs between 8,000 and 15,000 DM (roughly $2,400 and $4,600). In other words, as much as two or three Volkswagens! The less time the ship lies in the harbor, the more money it saves.

We Come In and the Pilot Leaves

From the bridge it looks as though we have already touched the quay, but in reality we are still about two meters away from it. We are maneuvered exactly into our berth. Old automobile tires keep the ship’s sides from being scratched on the quay. Orders are given to the dockhands. The gangplank is being lowered. The pilot tells us good-bye and goes ashore.

How fast those three hours have flown since the pilot boarded our ship in Bremerhaven! For him it was a small section of a circle. The pilot’s fees are all put into a fund for the pilot brotherhood, and later it is divided evenly among them.

From the pilots to the stevedore, from the radio operator to the captain, all play an important part in bringing a ship in. I was happy to have met some of them on this memorable day in November. It all seems to be so simple, but now I appreciate some of the great amount of work and planning that must be done when a ship comes in.

[Map on page 18]

(For fully formatted text, see publication)

North Sea

Jade Bay

Elbe River

Weser River

Bremerhaven

Hamburg

Bremen

Music of the Twentieth Century​—How It Affects You

THE St. Croix (Virgin Island) Concert Society was proud to present the famed Guarneri String Quartet early this year. It truly was remarkable that one of the world’s finest string groups should be giving a concert on this small Caribbean island. The program consisted of a Beethoven, a Bartók and a Schumann number.

Among those in the audience were some who were greatly delighted by the Beethoven and Schumann pieces but who were left cold by the twentieth-century Bartók quartet. One of these asked her companion: “What are the players quarreling with each other about?” for that is the way the Bartók work struck her. But evidently these were in the minority, for the modern Bartók composition received far greater applause than did the early nineteenth-century Beethoven and Schumann numbers.

Obviously there is a difference between twentieth-century music and that of previous centuries. The classical music of the eighteenth century was primarily concerned with sheer beauty of melody and harmony, much in keeping with the definition musicologist Sigmund Spaeth gives of music, ‘the organization of sound toward beauty.’

In the following century music became more and more a vehicle for expressing feeling, emotion, and so is termed “romantic,” as distinguished from “classical” music. Among its composers were Beethoven and Schumann. Then toward the end of the nineteenth century and on into the twentieth century composers sought more and more to appeal to the intellect rather than to the emotions, and so modern music is stimulating to the mind, and often is quite loud and rapid as was much of the Bartók quartet played that evening.

Without a doubt this trend has served as an enrichment, as can be seen by the music of Wagner, Debussy and Stravinsky. However, it seems that many modern composers in their emphasis on the intellect and in their search for new sounds have gone to extremes, even as noted by such music authorities and critics as Spaeth, Schönberg, Kurt Sachs and B. H. Haggin. This they have done by overcharging their writing with complex rhythms and in particular by the use of dissonance.

What Is Dissonance?

By dissonance in music is meant the use of two or more tones that sound harsh to the ear when played together; although some music authorities scruple against such a subjective definition. If it is hard for you to appreciate the concept of dissonance, try this little experiment: When you happen to be near a piano, play any key and the one or two immediately next to it at the same time. The result will be a dissonance, because the vibrations are so nearly the same that they clash instead of blending harmoniously.

Dissonance is not wrong in itself and has been used by leading composers in times past and very effectively by such composers as Wagner and Debussy. But if not used judiciously, the result may be very grinding upon the nerves of many, although not necessarily of all listeners. Such music tends to leave the ear unsatisfied, not to speak of the emotions.

What of Jazz?

Jazz is a form of music that was born in the United States in the twentieth century. It makes much use of dissonance, accounting for its “blues” sound. In keeping with other popular kinds of music, such as “swing” and “boogie-woogie,” it has a highly syncopated rhythm. Syncopation may be viewed as a form of rhythmic distortion. Thus ordinarily in a piece of music written in 4/4 time, the first and third beat are stressed, receive the emphasis, such as One, two, three, four. But in syncopation the strong beat is anticipated or delayed, thus creating a novel effect. This rhythmic device is nothing new, being employed by composers of serious music from the time of Bach onward. But in jazz it is featured, made the rule rather than the exception.

While early in the twentieth century jazz was played in strict tempo, that is, four beats to the bar or measure, the passing of years has brought rhythmic sophistication. Trained musicians have begun to play jazz to other meters, namely, in 3/4 time, the meter used in the waltz, or in 5/4 time, as in David Brubeck’s “Take Five.” Then there has been the injection of more complex harmonies into jazz, many musicians making use of the chordal ideas of Debussy’s revolutionary music, as well as drawing on the harmonic contrivances of Bartók and Hindemith, outstanding composers of serious music of this century.

On the other hand, jazz has influenced composers of serious music, they having borrowed from its instrumentation, its harmonic devices and rhythmic styles and its blues. Examples of this are seen in George Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” and “Porgy and Bess” (a Negro folk opera), in Ferde Grofé’s “Grand Canyon Suite” and Ravel’s piano concertos.

What makes jazz a distinctive art form is not so much its dissonance or its syncopation as the element of improvisation. Yet here, too, improvisation in the form of a theme with variations has long been an art form. But in jazz it is not worked out ahead of time as in ‘serious’ music; it is all done impromptu, spontaneously. The jazz musician, therefore, depends upon his knowledge of the harmonic structure of the original theme and a highly developed ear in order to produce spontaneously his improvisations.

But some have gone too far, just as mentioned earlier in connection with serious contemporary music. There has come into existence that which is known as “Free Jazz.” Here there are no rules, no acceptance of anything traditional, a rejection of the chordal system that has marked beautiful music of the past. This has resulted in a sort of rebellion against all known musical theory and harmony. The result? Not only are the musically uneducated repulsed by the disorganized screeches emanating from wind instruments and other hit-and-miss attempts at something worth while, but many serious jazz musicians cannot accept these new extremes in the interest of music. It definitely is not ‘the organization of sound toward beauty.’

A Look at Rock and Roll

Rock and roll immediately brings to mind the younger generation, which has truly been engulfed by the hard, driving rhythm of this most recent of musical fads. Actually it is rather difficult to define rock and roll in terms of ‘the organization of sound toward beauty.’ Putting great stress on heavily accented beats, especially the second and fourth beats of a measure, rock and roll might be said to be 90 percent rhythm and 10 percent melody and harmony.

It is for this reason that rock and roll music has given birth to much of the wild and sexually provocative dancing of the younger generation. One pianist noted that while playing with a trio in one ‘rock’ establishment, he was able to leave the piano quite often, his absence from the trio hardly being noticed so long as the electrified bass and drums kept up the steady, loud pulsation that belongs to “acid rock,” as some like to call it. He added, “The crowded night-club seemed to be in ecstasy, appearing at times like a writhing snake pit.”

Yet it must be admitted that some ‘rock’ groups have produced at times some very tuneful music. And it is this melodious music of these groups that still lingers in the minds of both old and young and not the driving, overly pulsated music that so often causes teen-age girls to scream and faint at a ‘rock’ festival. As one noted musician stated, when people, old or young, request him to play music of the Beatles, almost invariably they ask for the tuneful, lyrical pieces that that troupe produced.

Electronic Music

No consideration of modern music would be complete without some reference to electronic music, termed “the most important new instrument since the piano.” Basically there are two kinds of electronic music: that which enhances sounds naturally produced and that which produces its own sounds.

In the case of the former, due to electronics, a weak and poor voice can be made to sound rich and full, and all other kinds of musical renditions can be given a power and a quality that they themselves do not possess. A familiar example of this is the electric guitar.

The most common form of the latter, the electronically produced music, is that of the Hammond and like organs and the eerie theremin which, when a performer passes his hand through the air above it, gives a sound much like a musical saw. In fact, by means of electronics a composer is no longer limited to the skill of human performers but can imagine any sound or combination of sounds and have them produced to his liking. As one critic noted, it offers “a beguiling array of possibilities for the exercise of fantasy in tone colors and textures, a microscopically subtle control of pitch and rhythm, and the opportunity for virtuosity and complexity in quantities limited only by the composer’s imagination and patience.”

By means of electronic devices the sound of a carillon, when speeded up, can be made to sound like a musical doorbell, and the sound of water dripping in a tin pot can be slowed down to sound like the rumble of a kettledrum. But, here again, the extremes to which electronic music makers have gone causes one to question their appreciation of the fact that music is supposed to be ‘the organization of sound toward beauty.’

So What?

From the foregoing it can be seen that as regards all forms of music one must be selective. Certainly no one has the right to look down on those whose appreciation for music may be limited to Country and Western selections. And neither should those who prefer serious traditional music, whether chamber, concert or operatic, be disparaged as being overly orthodox or ‘long haired.’

Actually those without musical education are really not in position to judge much of what they hear in the way of music, as to whether it is constructed well, displays excellent taste in harmony, is developed well rhythmically, and so forth. But a person can decide how a particular musical expression affects him. For example, let’s return to the hard, driving rock and roll discussed before. How does it affect young people emotionally? According to a study of 400 pregnant teenagers and 91 nonpregnant college girls, rock music turns young girls to premarital sex. This is not surprising, since such music produces in many young people a sort of physical abandon, marked by gyrating, and sometimes even convulsive, movements of the body, which, more often than not, are centered around the pelvic region. Immorality remains a few twists away. But let’s not forget the cause​—the hard, driving rock music.

Then again, what about the damage that can be done to eardrums when there is an excessive amount of volume, because of the music being electronically amplified? A British medical journal reported that two hours of discotheque music can adversely affect one’s hearing. Is this type of music for you?

Are you an eager concertgoer or a lover of serious music? There is much that you no doubt enjoy. But at times do you find yourself sitting for two hours listening to highly discordant music? On leaving the concert hall, do you find that you are satisfied emotionally, uplifted, or do you sense inner tension, perhaps a measure of frustration, even a sense of despair? Perhaps you need to be more selective. To satisfy, music must appeal to the heart, not just the mind.

Is jazz your choice? Then you evidently like the syncopation, the “blues” sound, and perhaps you admire the improvisation. But, remember, not everything that is improvised has beauty. How does it affect you? Do not conclude that just because it is being sold under a “jazz” label it is the kind of music that you like. Learn to be discriminating.

So, determine how the music affects you. Generally, you will find that the effect is wholesome when you select music that puts more emphasis on melody than on rhythm, on harmony rather than dissonance. When you listen to music that tends to relax you, or that moves you emotionally in an upbuilding way because of its sheer beauty, then you have found music that affects you beneficially.

Thinking of Others

● The emphasis Jesus placed on a Christian’s loving his neighbor helps one to avoid the danger that every time a person thinks he will be thinking of himself.

Old Age No Barrier to Learning Bible Truth

OFTEN persons of advanced age express the view that they are too old to learn new things. However, even persons in their eighties have made changes in the most vital aspect of their life, that is, in their worship of God. Old age, coupled with other obstacles, has not prevented them from learning Bible truth as taught by Jehovah’s Christian witnesses.

For example, there is the case of an elderly Yugoslavian woman living in Austria. She spoke very broken German and could hardly read the language. Her home was filled with pictures of “saints.” But she was very sincere and agreed to study the Bible with one of Jehovah’s witnesses. At first it took about a half hour to cover just one paragraph in the publication used as a basis for the study, for she had to be taught how to read German.

Although not much material was covered during the course of each study, this elderly woman was definitely benefiting. Her interest was aroused sufficiently to motivate her to attend the meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses. This demanded no little effort on her part. She had to walk for one and a half hours to get to the nearest bus stop and from there ride about five miles to the Kingdom Hall. What this elderly woman learned from the Bible also prompted her to get rid of her “saints,” sever her political ties and all connections with the Roman Catholic Church, as well as to quit smoking. Though eighty-two years of age, she has made it her resolve to share Bible truth with others and to get baptized.

In Bolivia, the wife of one of the traveling ministers of Jehovah’s witnesses called on an eighty-one-year-old woman who was reading her Catholic Bible. Asked whether she would like to understand the Bible, this elderly woman replied: ‘Absolutely. For years I have been reading the Bible like a parrot. I’d like to understand what it says.’

A home Bible study was started. During a three-day period studies were conducted by the traveling minister’s wife. After she left with her husband for another location, someone else continued the study. Just eight days later the elderly woman burned all her religious pictures, destroyed her images, and advised the local priest that she was one of Jehovah’s witnesses now and no longer wanted to be known as a Catholic. She has begun relating to others the things she has learned and she attends all the meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses.

An eighty-one-year-old woman in France made similar rapid progress. During her first month of studying the Bible with Jehovah’s witnesses she burned a carton of books on occult practices. She also destroyed thirty-four religious medals, some statues, her rosary and her crucifix, which she had formerly placed upon herself each night to protect her from evil spells. Five months after the first study she began to attend all the meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses. Then she started to participate in the door-to-door ministry and was later baptized.

In a Central American country a Witness arranged to study the Bible with an eighty-four-year-old woman. He thought to himself, ‘What good will come from this? She cannot even read and her son-in-law is opposed.’ At the second study, however, three more persons were present and later as many as fourteen attended. Due to the opposition of her son-in-law, the woman rented a room for herself and told the Witness: ‘Now my son-in-law can get as angry as he wishes, but he cannot stop our studying in my home.’ When asked what she did that so many persons joined in the study, she replied: ‘Well, what we are learning is so good that, in order not to forget it, I go to my neighbors as soon as you leave and tell them what I have learned.’

From the third study this elderly woman began attending the meetings of Jehovah’s witnesses regularly, always taking interested persons along with her. Though having to support herself economically, she is a zealous proclaimer of the Bible’s message. Now, as a baptized Witness of Jehovah, she, at the age of eighty-six, says: ‘I am learning to read and write. My greatest desire is to read God’s Word for myself in order to tell the people more about our Father, Jehovah.’

How true are Jesus’ words: “My sheep listen to my voice”! (John 10:27) Age certainly does not stop right-hearted persons from taking positive action in response to the truth set forth in the Bible.

Majestic Monuments of Australia

By “Awake!” correspondent in Australia

A LAND of curiosities and wonders is central Australia. In nothing is it more amazing than in its incredible rock and mountain formations. Here, for instance, is a unique wonder​—the largest single stone in the world. It is all alone, rising abruptly on a plain. Called Ayers Rock, it towers more than 1,100 feet above the surrounding plain and is about two miles long. Imagine a vast solid sandstone dome covering an area of 1,200 acres and measuring more than five miles around its base!

An idea of the immense size of this monolith can be gained by putting up against the rock face the famed Sydney Harbor Bridge (from the waterline to the top of the arch), adding to this a ten- to twelve-story building, and the two together would not reach to the top of the cliff face. Or, envision a single stone just 107 feet short of the Empire State Building’s original height or 159 feet higher than the Eiffel Tower.

During the daytime, the rock’s coarse sandstone provides striking, ever-changing colors. And during sunrise and sunset, it glows from a deep purple to a brilliant orange.

Picturesque Canyons, Chasms and Gorges

Some twenty miles west of Ayers Rock are the Olgas. In contrast to Ayers Rock, these are a cluster of enormous monoliths. Separated by deep and narrow canyons, these high, weird rock shapes cover twenty-five square miles. The highest peak, Mount Olga, is higher than Ayers Rock, being nearly 1,800 feet in altitude. White-trunked gum trees, contorted into strange and beautiful shapes, stand out starkly against fiery red rock and cool, purple shadows.

Other majestic monuments of central Australia are the Macdonnell Ranges. After a thousand miles of plains, one encounters this high barrier across the trail. The first impression is of a high and unscalable wall running east and west as far as one can see, yes, for about 250 miles. From end to end they evoke unending wonder. Why? Because, for one thing, these ranges are cut through by deep gaps, through which streams flow occasionally. Some of these gaps are only twenty or thirty feet broad at the widest point. But the walls of rock on either side are 400 to 500 feet high.

The ranges are of impressive red stone with a capping of green spinifex grass. Strangely beautiful, they come in unusual shapes, such as turtle-shaped domes, upended disks and stacked cubes. Flying over these ranges, an enthusiastic admirer described them this way: “There were razor-backs and peaks, rock monoliths, curved domes, slits and crevices and hollowed-out pounds surrounded by red hills on every horizon . . . convex, concave, scalloped, and straight up on edge or tilting over, in an unbelievable maze through which the deeply walled watercourses had somehow carved a way.”​—I saw a Strange Land, by Arthur Groom.

Among the picturesque canyons scattered throughout these ranges is King’s Canyon. Its walls tower over 900 feet high. This gaping hole is over one mile long. Also breathtaking is Standley Chasm. The 250-foot-high walls of this remarkable chasm are just eighteen feet apart. So hard is the red rock of this chasm that it can hardly be chipped with a hammer.

When the sun strikes this whole area at different angles, this ready-made stage is set afire! Colors suddenly appear where it seemed dull and lifeless a moment before, transforming it into new scenes as each hour passes. At dawn the creams, pinks and reds are transformed into a hazy blueness, and at sunset the area turns to molten gold.

In Western Australia stands another of the strange, majestic monuments in rock. This is the famed “Wave Rock” near Hyden, about 240 miles east of Perth. Composed of granite, its wavelike face is the result of wind erosion and has been blasted into the shape of a fifty-foot wave about to break.

The immensity and strikingly unusual appearance of all these landmarks have impressed those who have viewed them. Said one visitor: ‘I do not think that anyone could gaze upon the strange summits of the Macdonnells, the Olga tors, and the Ayers monolith, without his soul being deeply stirred, or return without feeling better for the experience.’ In the godly inclined person they produce an overwhelming feeling of wonderment and awe at such spectacular manifestations of the Creator’s handiwork.

Unlimited Food from the Sea?

● Writing in the article “Man, Food and Environment,” L. R. Brown and G. Finsterbush comment on the proposition that the ocean can be a major source of food for earth’s growing population:

“The closer man has looked, the more apparent it has become that the ocean is not a limitless storehouse of food forever there for the catching. . . . The open sea​—an estimated 90 percent of the ocean—​is considered a biological desert, contributing almost nothing to current world fishing and offering little potential for the future. Half of the oceanic fish supply is produced in coastal waters and a few offshore regions, together comprising almost 10 percent of the ocean area. About 80 percent of the world fish catch is landed in these regions. . . . Man dreams of farming the ocean expanses with methods similar to those used on land. Severe technological, economic, and political constraints exist, however, and the transition from fisherman to farmer in the ocean is not imminent. Man’s hope for the immediate future lies not with the ocean but with increasing the productivity of the land.”

“Your Word Is Truth”

Is It Grammar or Interpretation?

WHEN translating the “New Testament” from its original Greek into any modern tongue there are terms that can be rendered in more than one way. How shall the right translation be determined? In such cases obviously something other than Greek grammar determines what wording the modern scholar will use in translating the original.

For instance, considerable controversy has centered around John 1:1. It reads, according to the Authorized Version of 1611: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” However, the New World Translation (1971) says in the latter part of this verse “the Word was a god.” This rendering is strongly criticized by some, since it appears to make the Word (Jesus in his prehuman existence) a lesser god and not God Almighty himself. These critics appeal to Greek grammar to try to dislodge this latter rendering.

Thus one theologian says regarding the New World Translation handling of this verse: “It overlooks entirely an established rule of Greek grammar which necessitates the rendering, ‘. . . and the Word was God.’” Another comments that the translation “a god” is “erroneous and unsupported by any good Greek scholarship . . . rejected by all recognized scholars of the Greek language.” And yet another notes that it shows “ignorance of Greek grammar.”​—Italics ours.

To back up such strong language, reference is sometimes made to a rule of Greek grammar formulated by E. C. Colwell. Does his rule really prove their point? Consider what Colwell himself has actually said.

In 1933 he published an article in the Journal of Biblical Literature entitled: “A Definite Rule for the Use of the Article in the Greek New Testament.” Toward the close of his article he discusses John 1:1. The latter part of this verse reads literally in the Greek: “AND GOD WAS THE WORD.” Notice that a definite article “THE” appears before “WORD,” while no “THE” appears before “GOD.” Colwell’s rule regarding translation of the Greek says: “A definite predicate nominative [for example, “GOD” at John 1:1] has the article [“THE”] when it follows the verb; it does not have the article when it precedes the verb.” In other words, if always true, the rule says that at John 1:1 a “THE” before “GOD” is implied in the original language and should therefore appear in modern translations.

His rule appears to be true in some places in the Greek Bible. However, Colwell himself admitted that there are exceptions to the rule, that it is not absolute. (See, for instance, an interlinear rendering of Luke 20:33; 1 Corinthians 9:1, 2.) In fact, there appear to be so many exceptions that thirty years after his rule was formed, one Greek grammar book says that the rule may only reflect a “general tendency.” Well, then, what about John 1:1? Would the rule apply there?

Colwell himself answers: “The predicate [“GOD”] . . . is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it.” Notice, not any inviolable “rule,” but context is the crucial factor.

So in spite of the strong, assertive language on the part of some, Colwell’s “rule” of itself does not ‘necessitate’ one rendering over another at John 1:1. Rather, how the translator interprets the surrounding verses and, indeed, the rest of the Bible​—this is what would determine how he translates John 1:1.

That is why those above-quoted writers are so dogmatic in their statements. To them Jesus is God himself. One of them refers to “Jesus Christ, who is truly God and truly man.” Another observes that “Christ claimed equality with Jehovah.” Obviously, given a choice, would they not want John 1:1 translated to give apparent support to their own views?

On the other hand, a person who accepts Jesus’ plain statement that “the Father is greater than I am” will realize that Jesus is not equal to the Almighty Jehovah. (John 14:28) Yet this does not mean that Jesus cannot be referred to as “god” in some sense of the word. Recall Exodus 4:16; does not Jehovah there say to Moses, “And thou shalt be to [Aaron] instead of God”? (AV) But this did not make Moses God Almighty, did it? The term “god” is applied even to the Devil, since he is a mighty creature controlling the existing system of things. (2 Cor. 4:4) Certainly, then, Jesus, who has been exalted over all other creation and granted the exercise of great power in heaven and earth by his Father, can be referred to as “a god.” Such a rendering conveys the dignity and respect Jesus is due while at the same time it avoids giving any reader the impression that Jesus is God Almighty himself.

The assumed grammatical “rule” in connection with John 1:1 is only one of many that is appealed to for apparent support of certain religious ideas. But it serves to illustrate the point: the real issue involves more than grammar.

Grammatical rules are necessary to understand a language. But they have limitations. As the Encyclopedia Americana states: “Everywhere we find grammar working upon a language already made . . . the office of grammar has been, not to fix what a language should be, or must be, but to explain what an already existing language is. Grammar is explanatory and not creative.”

Accordingly, even with regard to living languages it should be remembered that, in the last analysis, their ‘grammar’ does not come from ‘grammar books.’ As a professor of English at the University of Chicago notes: “In the usage of native speakers, whatever is, is right.” Those who speak a language, especially the ‘better educated’ people​—not arbitrary rule makers—​ultimately determine what is ‘correct’ or ‘incorrect.’

This same principle holds true with regard to the grammar of Biblical Greek. Its purpose is to explain how things are said and not to try to impose on the original language what the modern grammarian thinks should be said. Such ‘grammar’ must be drawn from what the Biblical Greek text itself actually says. Even other writings in the Greek language, but of a different age or from another part of the world, are of only limited value in arriving at an understanding of the Scriptures. As prominent Greek grammarian A. T. Robertson once put it: “What we wish to know is not what was good Greek at Athens in the days of Pericles, but what was good Greek in Syria and Palestine in the first century A.D.” Yes, the Bible’s text itself in particular must reveal what is acceptable in the matter of its grammar.

Thus the person unschooled in the original Bible languages need not be overawed by those who cite grammatical rules. No rule of grammar will contradict the overall message of the Bible. Similarly, the honest Biblical teacher knows that it is the text of the Bible that is inspired. Grammatical rule books are not, though they are helpful.

Watching the World

Equal Rights for Women

◆ Congress approved the Equal Rights Amendment to the United States Constitution, which is the basic law of the country. The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification. If three quarters of them approve, then it will become the 27th amendment to the Constitution. A dozen states have quickly ratified it already. The amendment is designed to end discrimination based on sex. It would invalidate current laws or practices favoring men, such as with employment and property rights. However, it may also mean altering laws favorable to women. For instance, it may subject women to the draft, make alimony available to either spouse in divorce cases, and alter child-custody laws, which favor the woman.

Why the High Taxes?

◆ The average person complains that taxes seem to go up and up. In fact, they usually do. Why? The Wall Street Journal gives one basic reason: the continued increase of spending by government​—federal, state and local. Of all the money spent in the United States, the government now spends 22.2 percent. That is nearly three times as much as 40 years ago. And the money it spends basically comes from tax revenues. Also, the number of persons directly employed by government has multiplied four times in the same period while private employment has only doubled.

Childbirth Practices Questioned

◆ A faculty member of Northwestern University’s medical school, Dr. Niles Anne Newton, claims that some American childbirth practices are wrong and contribute to the nation’s relatively high infant mortality rate. She mentions the following, among others: health teams recommending that an expectant mother keep her weight abnormally low, though greater weight can help to avoid premature birth; compulsory separation of mother and infant in most hospitals, though facts suggest that this makes for poorer mother-child relationships; giving lip service to breast-feeding but then giving directions to mothers that result in breast pain and lower milk supply; permitting the baby to suckle only on a schedule rather than on demand, though the latter has proved superior for both mother and baby; giving drugs to pregnant women instead of warning them against their use; placing women flat on their backs for delivery, though a sitting or squatting position improves delivery.

Friendly Animal ‘Enemies’

◆ According to some authorities, so-called “natural enemies” in the animal world have no real hatred for each other. The animosity comes when they have to compete for food and territory. Joan Luckey, a director of Animal Talent Scouts in New York, says: “Practically any animal raised by a human from a very early age can learn to live with any other animal” when food requirements are satisfied. Most students of animal behavior agree that the conditioning (educating) of the young animal, not just instinct, is the main factor determining how it later behaves.

Myths About Homosexuals

◆ Dr. Martin Goldberg, Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychiatry at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, writes in Consultant of March 1972 that some long-accepted ‘facts’ about homosexuals are really myths. One such is that homosexuals are usually men. Another assumption is that homosexuality is caused by some organic or hereditary disorder. But Dr. Goldberg declares: “To my knowledge, no convincing evidence of a true organic or hereditary cause has been established. . . . Most modern psychiatrists view homosexuality as a behavior pattern that is learned.”

Running Out of Water

◆ The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization reports that the human family will run short of water within a century because of the swiftly increasing demands of industry and an ‘exploding’ world population. Some areas listed as already affected by chronic water shortages are the following: Spain, southern Italy, the Dalmatian Coast, Greece, the Anatolian Plateau, all Arab states except Syria, most of Iran, Pakistan, western India, Japan, Korea, the western and southern belts of Australia and New Zealand, the northwest and southwest African coasts, the American Southwest, Panama, northern Mexico, central Chile and parts of Peru.

Science No Longer ‘Sacred’

◆ At one time science was viewed as a ‘sacred cow.’ Many people felt it had the answers to mankind’s problems. Now that view is changing. In a recent poll, a sizable majority of Americans who were questioned, 76 percent, indicated that they believe that there has been an overbalance, too much emphasis on scientific progress and too little on the human side. There is a growing feeling that science “has failed to solve even the most elementary human problems.”

Survival Measures

◆ A science professor at the University of Hawaii believes that world famine is due in several years and will be accompanied by severe repressive measures, turning the world into an armed camp. So Dr. Jan Newhouse plans to leave for a Pacific island where he has purchased land. New Yorker magazine explains: “He has assembled an extensive survival kit that includes essential medicines, birth-control devices, and rudimentary tools. Newhouse and his wife have electively had their appendixes and gall bladders removed and all their teeth pulled, in order to prevent future need for such basic medical services.”

Paper from Garbage

◆ One American manufacturer is said to have successfully recycled unsorted raw garbage into paper that has qualities acceptable for printing. Until now, paper recycling had been confined mainly to paper separated from other garbage, an expensive procedure. The new process utilizes the whole garbage as it comes from the garbage can.

Revealing Experiment

◆ A Stanford, California, psychology professor, Philip Zimbardo, conducted an experiment to create a situation comparable to prison life. The object was to understand better what it means to be a prisoner or a guard. Young men who were considered mature, emotionally stable, normal, intelligent and from ‘middle-class’ families were chosen. They were divided equally into ‘guards’ and ‘prisoners.’ The experiment was to last two weeks. But after six days it had to be called off. The psychologist said that within that short time “the ugliest, most base, pathological side of human nature surfaced.” About a third of the ‘guards’ became tyrannical in their use of power. Half the ‘prisoners’ suffered acute emotional breakdowns. The psychologist was dismayed at the resulting ‘Frankenstein monster’ with “an unbelievable capacity for creative evil.” But long ago, God’s Word truthfully recorded that all humans are born in sin and tend toward doing what is bad, needing the vital instruction that comes from God to set their thinking straight.

Criminals Should Compensate

◆ Quebec is the seventh Canadian province to provide compensation for crime victims. However, so far the compensation has been with the taxpayer’s money. Many now want to know why the criminal should not assume his share of the burden. Montreal jurist Mr. Justice Roger Ouimet says that the criminal “should be made to pay at least part of the cost of his crime.” He added: “An offender who has served his sentence has only discharged part of his responsibility. Compensation is a far greater deterrent than a severe sentence​—and a far more positive one.” Compensation by offenders was a major feature of the law code that God gave to ancient Israel.

“They’ll Steal You Blind”

◆ That is the conclusion any manager might reach, suggests Industry Week, after employee theft in 1971 rose to a staggering $16 billion in the United States. A study by the Commerce Department shows that such theft increases about 20 percent each year. The “bluecollar” workers were said to be “small time” thieves compared to the “whitecollar” workers.

Young Burglars

◆ Police in New York city captured four burglars who had committed over a dozen crimes in two months. The group was well organized. Three of them would break and enter while a fourth carried a ‘walkie-talkie’ radio and served as a lookout. But an unmarked police car spotted the group breaking into a store after a regular patrol car had passed by and the lookout had given the ‘all clear.’ Three of the well-organized burglars were 13 years old and the fourth was 12 years old.

Skipping School

◆ Dr. Eric Briault, Chief Education Officer of the Inner London Education Authority, reports that in some classes in North London one out of three children are absent without excuse every day. In all London it is said that so many teen-agers are skipping school daily that their numbers could fill eight secondary schools. Yet, these startling figures have been branded as “phony” by many educators. They insist that the situation is far worse.

Salvation Army Dwindling

◆ Apathy toward the preaching of the Salvation Army is hurting ‘recruitment’ of new officers. The ranks of paid full-time officers around the world has dwindled from 27,000 ten years ago to 25,000 now, according to Salvation Army officials.

Whipping Still Legal

◆ Delaware is the last state to hold onto whipping as a means of punishment for any of several dozen crimes. However, while it has been a legal punishment there for nearly three centuries, it was last used in 1952 to administer twenty lashes to a convicted burglar. While some lawmakers have recommended doing away with it, others recommend reviving its use.

Assembly Line Boredom

◆ At one time the mass-production assembly line was considered the ‘last word’ in business efficiency. But now workers are starting to rebel against the discipline and boredom that are products of the repetitious and uninteresting work so characteristic of production lines. The difficulty is especially apparent in the automobile industry, where it is widely used. Absenteeism has doubled in the last few years. In many plants up to 15 percent of the work force does not report for work on Fridays and Mondays. One large manufacturer reported that almost half of its workers did not complete the first 90 days on the job in a recent year. Another reported that the equivalent of 96 percent of its work force had to be hired new each year.

College Sports Changing

◆ Intercollegiate sports are falling upon troubled times. More and more colleges are losing money on their sports activities. Student attitudes in many schools are changing, and excitement for ‘the old team’ is waning. But while attendance at sports events in many colleges drops, costs rise. Because the financial burden gets heavier; numerous schools have cut down sports programs. For instance, New York University, once a basketball ‘powerhouse,’ dropped the sport after the 1970-1971 season because “we were losing $150,000 a year,” a spokesman said. Loyola of New Orleans, once a football opponent of Notre Dame, dropped the last four sports it had​—basketball, baseball, tennis and golf, because of losing an estimated $2,000,000 in ten years. The National Collegiate Athletic Association concedes that last year college sports ran a deficit of $40,000,000.

How Many Alcoholics?

◆ Medical World News estimates that in 1958 there were about 5,000,000 alcoholics in the United States. But it estimates that the number was 9,600,000 in 1971. The rise in alcoholism was about five times the increase in population during the period. Also, in one year, 1971, the loss in wages and productivity as a direct result of alcoholism was said to be about $10 billion.

A Solution to the Drug Problem

Drug addicts need a strong incentive to quit the drug habit. They need something to live for instead of trying to escape from reality.

Something that is really worth living for and that gives real meaning to life is set out in detail in the book The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life. This hard-covered book of 192 pages will be sent postpaid for only 25c.

Please send me The Truth That Leads to Eternal Life, for which I enclose 25c.

Is Your Marriage Relationship What it Should Be?

Every wife wants a happy marriage. To achieve this, it is necessary for her, as well as her husband, to have a clear understanding of the responsibilities of each in the marriage relationship. Mutual love, respect and concern are necessary for a happy marriage.

Many couples, though faced with serious marital problems, have saved their marriages with the help of the fine marriage counsel found in the Bible. You will find a helpful consideration of this counsel in the book Life Everlasting​—in Freedom of the Sons of God. This hard-covered book of 416 pages will be sent to you postpaid for 50c.

Please send me Life Everlasting​—in Freedom of the Sons of God, for which I enclose 50c. Send also the gift booklet God’s Way Is Love.