The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1886-05-17
SOCIALISM AND THE FAMILY.
The Last of Rev. DR.. Behrends's Series Of Ser
mons on the Labor Question.

structlye course of lectures on christianity and
Modern Socialism by Rev. DIR. Behrends, il
the Central Congregational Church. was brought
to close this evening, the concluding discourse
being on Modern Socialism and the Family
AS usual the commodious edifce was filed to
its utmost capacity. That the sentiments ex>
pressed and the arguments made bv 'sr Beh-
rends have met with the approval of his eagerly
attentive congregations there was no doubt but
toward the last this fact has been sealed by the
irresistible outbreaks of applause which have
on several occasions, emphasized the acknowl-
edgement that however positive and radical the
propositions of the speaker, the hearers were
with him. He began with the announcement
that, whatever the wrongs and irregularities
under which the relations between capital and
labor were suffering, the lessons contained in
the word of God and the teachings of Jesus
Christ and His spostles were all sufficient for
the purposes of perfect and satisfactory solu-
tion The spirit Of this proposition has been
maintained in every discourse. and the dis
cussions, beside being entirely free from what
might be called polemics and dogma, have been
essentially independent and manly. The argu-
ments have been directed to the intellect and
the reason, and Dr. Behrends has sought al
ways to exalt the supremacy of brain and in
telgence as against ignorance and slavery in
the ranks of those who claim identity with the
laboring classes. His plan has been to vindi-
cate the dignity Of labor from the assaults of
demagogues and petty despots, who aim at
the Office of leadership. In tr eating the topic
in its relations to the family this evening, he
said:
II am aware that shall invite the charge of
ignorance and OF bigotry against myself by say
ing that modern socialism is anti -reigouS and
anti domestic in its temper. But the urterances
of it's recognized leaders too plain and num-
erous TO parry the damaging charge. Schaffie,
who will not be denounced as partisan, is com
PEELED to admit that the socialism of the day is.
through and through, irreligious and hostile to
the church. And it is only necessary to read
such book as Gronlunds cooperative Com
monwealth' to be convinced that the supremacy
OF the new philosophy would involve a modifica-
ton of domestic life equivalent to a revolution
Marriage would become affair of purely per-
sonal contract, terminahie at will, or it would
become communal institution regulated By the
state. In either case its ethical significance and
its peculiar sanctity would disappear. This is
not said by way of alarm, but by way of en-
couragement. For the disappearance of Christi
anity is the last thing of which there need be any
fear; and motherhood has invincible energy
OF its own, resisting the endeavor to absorb it
into communal instinct Human nature is struct
uraly religious and domestic, and no insti-
Lu5iOuS can Uo perudN0uI bHdb duCdEOulZ6
or ignore these constitutional energies. 1t
would perhaps be more correct to say that the
decay of religion is the most potent cause of
industrial discomfort, that the materialism of
the rich has provoked the envy Of the poor.
When the employer becomes a mammon wor-
shipper, the laborer will not read and heed his
Bible; and there is more pressing duty than
that of preaching the gospel to the rich. So,
too, it may be said that socialism is only push
ing to its logical issue the widely prevalent
etriu at mar 10 q civil
the creation of the state, and terminable at it's
pleasure. There is no more pressing need than
a thorough discussion of the institution of
marriage for true homo life is the secret of
industrial prosperity and of social security The
individual is not the unit of society, but the
family. The state builds upon the household.
Here are the secret springs of its life, and here
must be nodded the character of its cit-
zeps. The original law of the household, there
fore, takes precedence OF all statutory enact
ment. In opposition to the philosophy with
which modern socialism allies itself. we affirm
monogomy to have been the primitive form of
home life. 1t is not the development. By force
and fraud, of communal marriage, as Mcclellan
and Lubbock maintain. There is not vestige
of historical proof for the latter affirma
ton. The Indo European races never seem
to have known any other form of wedlock
than the marriage of one man and one woman
The polygamous nations of Asia surround
riage with special ceremonies, that however
numerous the inmates of the harem there is only
one wife, The polygamy is really legalized con-
cubinage, based upon monogamy. The Song of
Solomon holds its own in the canon of Scripture
the most impressive testimony, In an age
when polygamous customs were general and by
a man who was swept away on their corrupting
tide. that monogany is the virginia. and inviola-
BILE law of the household. This is the law of
nature. God so created man that monogamy is
the necessity of his social life The numerical
equality of the sexes proves this There is a
deeper reason. Conjugal love, in its very
nature, is exclusive; and no charge of jealousy
can ever make it anything else. So long as man
is man and love is love, monogamy must create
the home From this it follows that marriage is
an ethical relation and state. The sexual diff
ference is neither the sole nor the controlling
factor. In true wedlock, heart is welded to
heart, and soul is joined to soul. The ethical
factor should dominate the household from
the beginning, and ultimately supplant
every other attraction. The love should
deepen with the years, becoming
more and more refined in quality and
force, until death transhgures it into holy
memory and an abiding heritage. Out Of c.lis
ethical relationship grows the peculiar unity of
the household. Domestic clubs are not homes
There must be free and living coalescence Of
interests, giving to family life its peculiar and
inviolable integrity. Here we touch the biblical
doctrine of the domestic headship of the hus-
band whose relation to the wife is not repre-
sented as that of king to his subject, nor that
of master to his slave. nor that of man to
MS properly, out as grounded In love, limited
by the law of Christ, and as determined by
balancing of claims as subtle and intricate as
that by which body and soul act and react upon
each other And this view. again. leads to the
conclusion that marriage is ideally indissoluble,
that it can terminate only by the act of God, or
by fragrant violation of its essential law. by
death or by adultery. Only the latter supplies
Scriptural ground for divorce with the right Of
re-marriage. And even then, the right of di-
vorce is not the duty of divorce. Public opinion
is only too lenient of the man, when 1t is cruel
to the shining woman; and the scales of justice
should be held with an even and impartial hand.
In conclusion, some say that the widespread
discomfort of our time is not an evil, if we only
deal with it wisely and bravely 1t is the com
motion of life. the unrest of a new and better
a message, obedience to which by rich and poor
will bring in the era of peace and of permanent
prosperity