But we must remember that as human nature is constituted, resentment of ill treatment is in reality a virtue, or at least it is a virtue so long as the ill treatment deprives us of valid essentials to growth, in other words, if it represents the failure of some one else to do his duty. Oh, if we only had the power always to see our duty without being reminded of it; but most of us must be prodded. And so there is a very real sense in which the class struggles, let us say for industrial rights, may be defended fully from the standpoint of a Christian program, because it is only in this way that every man can have his chance, only in this way that the common good comes to be recognized.

(2) Let us remember too that there is a morality in efficiency. If I attempt a piece of work and do it poorly, I do a grave injustice to my fellows. A train is wrecked and it is shown afterwards that there was a defective rail. Somewhere some man was inefficient, consciously or unconsciously, and his fellows suffered the consequences. Our American people particularly need to learn the immorality

of waste, as well as the immorality of skimping our job. We do a grave injustice to our fellows when we loaf at our task.

(3) But we cannot admit that inefficiency is immoral unless we also admit that efficiency is moral. And here we strike I think one of our very greatest difficulties. The "iron man" is tremendously efficient, but he tends to spoil the man of flesh and spirit. How then can such efficiency be moral? Well, evidently there are limitations to the morality of efficiency. Evidently a higher principle must be invoked. And is not the principle this, that industrial efficiency must be gauged not merely by its return in terms of things made, but also in terms of the effect of the process upon those who participate in it? This brings us, does it not, to a consideration of the correlation of profits and service. Business is based upon the idea of profits. Well, what is an honest profit? Has anybody any right to profit from a business that does not serve humankind? Is serving humankind giving them something they want, whether it be deleterious to them or not? These are serious questions. I see no answer except by invoking the general con

sideration that after all the effect upon the character of people must be the vital test of the efficiency of industry and business, that in some way the productive processes must be so arranged, the scale of profits so adjusted, that the welfare of people shall be the main

concern.

We may put the matter another way. We may use science for man's benefit or his destruction. One scientist isolates a disease germ, another compounds a deadly gas. Explosives are used to clear land for crops and to blow a whole platoon into eternity. We have the same need for determining the best use for economic laws as we have the laws of science. Shall business make or unmake men? There is of course but one answer. A business must be tested by profits, yes, but not alone by profits, and, in fact, in the long run, not chiefly by profits.

Another aspect of the problem of reconciling ethics and efficiency is suggested by the dictum that "this is a competitive world." It is a competitive world. Individual and racial rivalries are almost the most conspicuous phenomena of life. The economist even asserts that

human progress is due, not to the desire of the individual or the group to improve, but to the desire to excel some one else. I see no solution except in the effort to substitute competition in effective service for rivalry in acquiring and possessing and displaying.

Evidently, there is little hope that we can make progress in this labyrinth of problems and difficulties, unless we can create a group conscience, develop group morality, learn how groups may deal with one another on much the same basis of ethical relationships as highminded individuals may use together. The worker must have the joy of work. He must have the spirit of service. He must have the sense of personal obligation. Otherwise we cannot have a Christian civilization in an industrial age.

4. The Good of All Humankind

We may not stop here in the application of the Christian principle of obligation, of pouring forth the spirit and attitude of love and friendliness. Our sympathies must not be parochial and narrow. They must be as wide as the human race. Here come all such ques

tions as antagonism between industrial groups and social strata, and races of entirely different origin and nature from our own, the mitigation of excessive nationalism. This problem is, I think, largely a matter of balancing of loyalties. Surely one must "to his own self be true"; that is, he must be loyal to himself. He will be loyal to his family. One is expected to be loyal to his community, to his class, to any organization to which he has joined, to the state, to the nation. But why stop here? Is there not also an obligation of loyalty to all humankind? And what are the largest loyalties, let me ask you? To one's self, to one's family, to one's community, to one's class, to one's favorite institution, to the state in which one happens to live, to the nation whose flag is our own, to the race in which we happen to be born, to the whole world of men and women? We cannot stop short of world thinking and world obligations. For as another has said: "Most of all for the healing of the world is the greater soul needed, with the world consciousness, some knowledge, some sympathy, some hope for all mankind."