According to reports from behind the Iron Curtain, the church in the lands of socialism is completely separated from the state. But this is far from true. In these lands the union of state and church exists in a reversed form. In the classical union, as practiced during the past centuries chiefly by Roman Catholicism, the church gained a controlling grip on the state and its resources and used them for her benefit. In Communist countries the state holds the churches under its firm rule, using church organizations, influence, and international connections for the advancement of socialism. But the union exists.
Such a union is a demonstrable fact. The Communists originally set out to destroy the churches together with the bourgeois system. As is well known, they failed in their effort to annihilate religion as much as they fell short in their plan to create a classless society or to solve economic problems by the application of strict Marxist principles (indeed, whenever they made a few steps of economic progress they had to cheat Marxism).
The new attitude of the Communist party toward the churches is a temporary change of tactics compelled by the unalterable fact of religion. Religion exists in Communist lands in spite of adverse indoctrination, suppression, and outright persecution. If there must be religion at least for a while in Soviet lands, and if religion appeals to a great mass of people both at home and in the free world, it is reasoned, Communists might just as well use it to serve the socialist cause.
Churches can well be used behind the Iron Curtain to mollify the feeling among the farmers against the detested collectivization. The church is a very suitable instrument in the Communist peace movement. This movement is an insidious method of planting seeds of distrust against the “war-mongering West” while at the same time creating an admirable image of the “peaceful Soviet.” Through the controlled churches, the atheistic regime can point to the biblical injunction for Christians to support the government as a solemn duty.
The Club And The Carrot
A certain degree of freedom of the churches and some well-publicized government assistance to denominations will mitigate, the Communists expect, the effect of the previous harsh treatment of Christians in Communist lands. Many millions of Muslims, Buddhists, and Hindus reject Communism in spite of its glittering material promises just because they are afraid of a system that suppresses religion. Communists thus are trying to change this unfavorable image of their system by relaxing their severe methods and by granting the churches token assistance.
Today the governments behind the Iron Curtain, notably those in the satellite nations, actually extend financial help to rebuild a church here, install a new organ there, or pay part of the salaries and pensions for active and retired ministers. This financial aid is just a small portion of the modest salaries given to ministers, but the governments are taking the full equivalent of the money they grant. The subsidy justifies government control over the churches and presents opportunities for the most desirable type of propaganda. The support given pensioned ministers may also be used effectively in getting rid of a few unbending churchmen, forcing them out of active service before their retirement age. The Communists hope that with the decreasing number of ministerial candidates, it is a matter of time until the ministry will be too weak and too small to save the churches from mortal atrophy. This expectation is worth all the financial assistance they give to religious bodies. Moreover, the very valuable humanitarian aspect of such aid can well be used to create a favorable impression of the Communist governments among people of the free world.
Marxists have not publicly denied their original irreconcilable antagonism against religious beliefs. Whatever they now do in supporting churches and tolerating religious practices is a well-calculated move to serve the cause of Communism.
Channels Of Control
The firm connection between state and church behind the Iron Curtain is demonstrated by the government’s strict control of the churches. The supreme administration of all religious bodies is in the hands of irreligious Communist government officials. These officials do not trouble themselves with theological issues, liturgical questions, or denominational controversies. Fields of ecclesiastical or doctrinal friction do not interest any government agency. The theological and biblical arguments on which church leaders spend many written and spoken words are for Communists unintelligible babblings. These disputations are segments of the liberty Communists allow the churches to enjoy. The government officials control the churchmen through whom they execute their will.
Churches are not free to elect pastors, nor are conventions free to choose secretaries or presidents. Denominations cannot freely select teachers for theological schools. The actual secret appointing power is in the hands of the proper officials in the “Office of Church Affairs.”
Although churches and conventions still go through the routine of “elections,” the candidates are cleared first by the “Office,” and whom the powers want to see elected is well known. Churches that took a chance in calling pastors whom they liked soon learned that the Office of Church Affairs would not go along with their choices. The churches had to drop the matter, of course, and had to find out whose election would please the government and vote accordingly.
Although travel to and from the Iron Curtain countries is no longer prohibited, it is still restricted. No church officials can invite any foreign clergyman to visit as a fraternal representative without first obtaining permission from the proper government functionary. No churchman can receive a passport to travel to the West without a statement of approval from the Office of Church Affairs, in which it is declared that the planned travel of the churchman is in line with the country’s interests—i.e., the Communist system. The governments behind the Iron Curtain jealously protect the appearance of the “freedom” granted the churches. The “clearing,” “approval,” or “disapproval” is done discreetly.
Members of churches and convention delegates learn by word of mouth in what persons the government’s confidence rests. To elect anyone else would be wasted time and would be regarded as a challenge to government authority. And if, by chance, a favorite who is disapproved by the government “Office” emerges as a serious candidate, he receives friendly “counsel” to decline the honor of being elected.
The show of church freedom is one that every official in church circles respects. No one in a trusted position would dare divulge that a suggestion or a rejection on which committees, churches, or conventions must act comes from the government. All voting activities must appear to be done as a free expression of the will of the church organization concerned.
The government has its hand in the removal of ministers and church officials. A minister may carefully adhere to the directives set by the central office of his denomination, which in fact is a mouthpiece of the government, yet make himself obnoxious in the eyes of the Office of Church Affairs. He may be too successful or too popular. His church may grow faster and have a greater outreach than the Communists like to see. Action will then be taken: a shift of ministers will be suggested, and the one in disfavor will be relegated to an insignificant or difficult post. Thus his efficiency and popularity will be rendered harmless.
God’S Sword Thrusts
By the time pearl harbor struck I had returned to America, but my husband was facing Japanese soldiers in China. He was forced to live in semi-house-arrest away from his missionary work until March, 1943, when he and 1,700 other “enemy aliens” were moved to an internment camp in Shantung Province. Even the Red Cross was unable to establish communications with war prisoners in Japanese camps; my pile of letters at Red Cross headquarters was returned to me. Would the camp life mean harsh treatment—or starvation? What fears and forebodings preyed on my mind!
Early one morning I could stand it no longer. While the baby my husband had not yet seen still slept, I slipped into another room and sat before the Lord. Too discouraged even to kneel, I sat with bowed head and honestly told God everything. “Father,” I said, “I have reached the end of my faith. I cannot go on speaking in churches and giving a victorious testimony.”
Quick as a flash came the answer, “I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not” (Luke 22:31a). My heart warmed. “If Jesus prays for me I cannot fail. His faith is mine.” Fortitude and restfulness were given from that very hour. Nine months later the “Gripsholm” mercy ship brought my husband home.—LAURA C. TRACHSEL, Taiwan, Free China.
Establishing new missions and churches is not forbidden. But since there are hardly enough ministers to serve the existing churches, it is practically impossible to begin new ones. The number of ministers is efficiently controlled by the Communist system. Ministers are required to have a state license that must be revalidated annually. The minister who cannot obtain or renew a license is not permitted to preach anywhere within the jurisdiction of the Communist government.
In Communist jargon, that something is not forbidden does not necessarily mean it is permitted. The predicament of the first and only Baptist church in Moscow clearly demonstrates what can be done by invisible government control. There is a definite need for at least two or three more Baptist meeting places in the Russian capital. The Baptist leaders feel it, and the Soviet government is aware of it—but new churches are not being established. No Baptist minister could start a new church. This would not be openly prohibited, nor would anyone be given a written denial of permission for opening a new meeting hall. Whoever insisted on founding a new Baptist church in Moscow, however, would find himself “promoted” to a faraway, secluded section of the country and would eventually lose his ministerial license.
One must not forget that in Communist countries the Office of Church Affairs is not maintained for the benefit of the churches and for the peaceful advancement of the religious work. On the contrary, these offices are established for one purpose only: to check the progress of religion and slowly, subtly stifle the life of the organized churches. As a byproduct of this union of state and church, the Communists are enjoying favorable publicity. This publicity is, however, given unwillingly by the churches.
Communists are freely using corruption in their effort to hasten the euthanasia of religion. There are in every religious organization a few men who desire to gain positions such as chairmanships, presidencies, and bishoprics, and thus wield power emanating from the government. Obviously the Communist authorities do not require moral and spiritual qualifications in those whom they support and through whom they control the churches. The government seeks men who will serve the system, and the only “ethical” requirement is unswerving loyalty to the government. The road to power and leadership leads, not through the churches, but through the Office of Church Affairs.
Denunciation, whispering defamations, secret information may unseat any denominational official, and the one who has proved faithful and vigilant in confidential reporting will be put into the saddle. Such men serve Communist purposes well. They help discredit the churches and undermine the spiritual standard of leadership of the religious organizations. And when they are in leading positions, these men will effectively check for the government the intimidated ministry.
The Communist Office of Church Affairs can point with satisfaction to one significant success of its effort of corruption: the fellowship of the Christian ministry has been poisoned. Fear and mistrust are part of the natural atmosphere in Communist lands. There are secret informers in every religious organization. Ministers feel isolated and in many cases lonesome. The divide et impera diabolical principle is applied well, with sad results for Christian leadership.
The Power Of True Faith
There are at least two encouraging aspects of the religious situation behind the Iron Curtain. First, it appears that the Communists, confronted by the realities of living religion, will eventually be forced to reinterpret Marxist theories about religion. They will have to accept a “peaceful coexistence” with the churches. Who will last longer? Who will bury whom? We cannot help believing that year by year it will continue to be more difficult to uphold Marxist atheism before the deep spiritual conviction of a large segment of the people behind the Iron Curtain.
In the second place, the great majority of Christians are aware of Communist machinations. They know of the power struggle among ambitious church leaders, the favorites of the governments. They make it quite clear in their confidential utterances that the government appointees are not the true leaders of the churches and that their spiritual example should not be followed. There is a prevalent hope that these testing years will come to an end and that a church victorious will emerge. Until then, Christians patiently accept the realities of the time and comfort themselves by whispering, “There had to be a Judas even among the disciples of Jesus.” And even the world recognizes the falsity of those high-sounding statements about freedom of religion and separation of state and church behind the Iron Curtain.
There is more than awareness among the Christians in Communist lands. There is genuine faith. When the Marxists failed to capture the mind of the masses, they missed the mark in their avowed aim to control the hearts of the people and to eradicate faith, which is the gift of God.
Bela Udvarnoki is professor emeritus of social science at Chowan College, Murfreesboro, North Carolina. From 1939 to 1947 he was president of the Baptist Theological Seminary in Budapest, Hungary, a post in which he succeeded his father. He holds the Ph.D. degree from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville.
The Prodigal
He came back from the gray dust
of alien streets and the smell
of the swinecote, back to love.
Two things he would never understand:
why he had fled love for the dark streets
and the black wine, or why,
when he quit the swinecote, love
ran to meet him on the road.
But he did not need to understand.
It was enough that music from the house
washed over him, and that he was kissed,
and that the words fell on his spirit:
This, my son, was dead, and is alive again:
he was lost, and is found.
LON WOODRUM
