Fraternity-Testvériség, 1955 (33. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1955-11-01 / 11. szám
4 TESTVÉRISÉG ture, had to fight one of the stiffest uphill battles among all the immigrants in America. The fact that we, comparatively speaking, came here at a late date and also the fact that there was an alien language barrier to overcome, made the struggle more difficult. Having once shot our roots down into the social and economic soil of this strange land, however, we became habituated as fast as any other race, barring none — not even the more fortunate and privileged Anglo-Saxon. Our people were obliged by common circumstances to band together for self-protection, and especially for the preservation and propagation of their culture and religion. It was because of these compelling conditions that they organized churches and formed fraternal societies. It is understandable why our older and first generation stubbornly held on to their mother tongue. It was their only means of effective communication and social contact. Moreover, it is also understandable why our fathers wanted to retain their precious culture. That’s what they lived by. Their roots having been torn up in their native land, it was not easy for them to have their lives transplanted in a new and unfamiliar country, however promising it was. Some could never accomplish this to their dying day. It took their children and their children’s children, born and bred here, to become fully established in and identified with their new country — to these later generations: their land of birth. It has been said — and I firmly believe it in its modified form — that our fathers built churches out of nothing. More precisely, it wasn’t exactly nothing with which they erected these living and lasting monuments. You see — they had faith, the Faith of our Fathers, the stuff of immortality; and they had brawn, raw physical strength. It was the happy combination of these two unbeatable elements out of which grew our churches, our homes and our benefit societies. This National Elders’ Conference was organized for the express purpose of bringing together the leaders of our churches and providing them with an opportunity to discuss their mutual problems. And this they have been doing admirably well for a decade now. The accomplishments of these years speak for themselves. Looking ahead and facing the burning problems of the present, the question we have to wrestle with — and to some extent resolve — is: What can and must we, the elected and responsible leaders of the church, do to keep our second and third generation in our churches? Other races, notably the Swedes and the Germans, have held onto a large majority of their offspring. Why not we? Yes! why not? I repeat. To hold on to our sons and grandsons we must compete for their allegiance. It’s almost like having to sell ourselves — what we are and what we have — to them. In this strenuous undertaking, training and education are paramount. What we impart through precept and example will determine whether they are proud to receive and share our heritage or are ashamed of it. I honestly believe that this is the crux of the matter. Secondly, how utilitarian and — yes! — how beautiful are we making our church buildings so that they will want to come and want to stay in our midst? These immediate descendants of ours are alert and observant; they know whether we are on the ball or not. You see, it is not enough to remind them that they are Hungarians and consequently must remain in our churches; or glibly to tell them that we are as good or even better than any other race of people when they see with their own eyes that we are often not willing to back up our lofty claims with equally lofty deeds. True, we are as good or even better than any other immigrant group of people, but — and this is a big BUT! — only when we out-perform, out- sacrifice and out-pray them. Only when we honestly pass this acid test do we have any moral right to claim even a semblance or degree of excellence. In other words, and to put it in Biblical analogy — when our hand coincides with or outstrips in daring deeds the ponderous allegations of our voice. For, when a large percentage of our income — even in these crucial years — still comes from sources other than outright giving and individual pledges, we, the leaders, ought to be profoundly disturbed and should, at least, stop rationalizing this whole business. Just how do we, as churches, expect to live —- let alone effectively compete for the loyalty of our sons and daughters — if we fail to measure up to what is required of us, or if we choose to take violin lessons from Nero? Dispiriting but true — the length of the future of our Hungarian churches hinges on how much we sacrifice for them NOW, and not on the high-sounding but sometimes pseudo-patriotic platitudes we utter among ourselves or on the ingenious declarations we publish in our language-newspapers. It is coming down to the point where we will have to, soberly and without fear and equivocation, look ourselves in the eye. I am thrilled to see that there is an increasing number of young men and women of Hungarian extraction who have carved promi-
