The tribute given to Saul Alinsky on his death in 1972 indicates the attention paid in our age to the problems of community organizing. Most citizen groups formed in response to such threats as urban renewal, danger to the environment, or mandatory busing face problems of factionalism, inefficiency, lack of money, and even conflicting loyalties of their members, unless they have the direction of someone like Alinsky, who earned his reputation as a professional organizer. The alternative is to found a group imbued with an ideology which can be characterized as radical (“as a kind of mental and moral discipline”) and an organization which consequently reflects this discipline. The existence of such political organizations, “specially designated and organized bands of men [who] might play a creative part in the political world,” of individuals motivated to join forces “with any man who might help them without regard to the older bonds of family and neighborhood” have a historical origin: they were the contribution of the religious wars in sixteenth-century Europe. The Calvinists were the ancestors of the Bolsheviks.

Every state church has a two-sided history. On the one hand, as a religious institution it contributes to and is influenced by currents of theology and modes of ecclesiastical organization transcending national boundaries. On the other hand, as part of the constituted authority of a particular state, the church is affected and even controlled by secular and national policies having little or nothing to do with mankind's earthly pursuit of divine purpose.

In the political system of imperial Germany, the personal interplay between the Kaiser and the chancellor was the single most important factor in the formulation of policy within the government; and this seems especially true during the reign of Kaiser William II, whose vivid personality lent distinctive nuances to the form and manner of Germany's domestic and foreign policies. This paper will attempt to analyze the relationship between William and Prince Chlodwig Hohenlohe, German chancellor from 1894 to 1900, and the effects of that relationship on three major issues of policy: antisocialist legislation, naval expansion, and reform of court-martial procedures in the German army and navy.

Rather than direct himself to a serious discussion of the important substantive issues involved, Professor McGrath chose to reply to our interpretation of some of Freud's motives with a series of angry assertions. We are disappointed, but we still have a few comments on his response.