The NCC will either support or strangle its publication on religion in Communist-dominated areas
Never has the religious situation in Communist countries been more confused and ambiguous than it is today.
Except for Mao’s China, where the fury of the barbaric “cultural revolution” strikes hard against Buddhists and Muslims as well as Protestants and Catholics, a relative calm and a sort of “peaceful coexistence” now seems to prevail between governments and various religious groups. Church delegations from Communist countries visit the United States and other Western nations almost routinely. Various churches of the Soviet Union and other Communist nations have been permitted to join the World Council of Churches and international denominational bodies. Roman Catholic representatives from most Communist countries were able to attend the sessions of Vatican Council II.
The greatest breakthrough in church-state relations in the Soviet Union was the first visit of the head of the Soviet Union to the Vatican in January of this year, the fiftieth anniversary of the Bolshevik Revolution. Church dignitaries are now more often invited to official state receptions in Communist capitals though they are not yet asked to say grace at banquets given by Communist leaders. It is becoming almost routine for the officials of ministries of foreign affairs and other high state offices in Communist nations to be present at the arrivals and departures of national and foreign ecclesiastical dignataries.
A superficial observer might be easily tempted to misinterpret such phenomena. He might conclude, hastily and optimistically, that the churches behind the Iron Curtain are now much better off than before, that the coexistence between religion and Communism works, and that a promising new era of a dialogue between Christians and Marxists is at hand. American churchmen, knowing neither the language nor the extent of complex problems in these areas, often make inaccurate and misleading appraisals of the religious situation. Their opinions tend to reflect wishful thinking rather than historical realities. A distorted picture of the situation not only disadvantages Christian brethren in Communist nations but also confuses churchgoers in the United States and other countries.
The need for reliable information about the religious situation in Communist countries was apparently one main reason that, five years ago, the National Council of Churches started a modest semi-monthly publication, Religion in Communist Dominated Areas (RCDA). It is published by the Department of International Affairs and edited by two experts on religion in Communist countries, Paul B. Anderson and Czech-born Blahoslav Hrubý, and it garners surprising amounts of information on attitudes and practices of Communist parties in regard to the life, work, and vital concerns of Christians and people of other religions throughout the Communist world. Few publications issued by the National Council of Churches are so urgently needed, and none give so balanced a view of the problem of religion under Communism. RCDA publishes translations of articles and documents—regarding religion in Communist nations and originating from these countries—most of which can be found in no other publication. In its very first volume, RCDA discovered a viciously anti-Semitic author, T. Kitchko, whose Nazi-like anti-Jewish book Judaism Without Embellishment (published by the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences in Kiev) was condemned by the world press as well as by major Communist parties.
Perhaps the most important documents published by RCDA were two letters by two courageous Russian Orthodox clergymen, the Rev. Mr. Eshliman and the Rev. Mr. Yakunin of Moscow. Last year RCDA first disclosed to the American public their protest against the harassment of the Russian Orthodox Church, a protest addressed to President Podgorny as well as to Patriarch Alexei. These documents are a telling story of a continuous Soviet struggle against the Russian Orthodox Church and other churches, and they irrefutably detail numerous serious violations by Soviet authorities of Paragraph 124 of the U. S. S. R. constitution, which guarantees freedom of religion to citizens of the Soviet Union. RCDA has also published interesting material about dissent among the Soviet Baptists and the Czech Presbyterians.
RCDA tries to cover the whole Communist world, with an eye not only on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe but also on Communist China, Viet Nam, and Cuba. This is highly important at a time when the monolithic type of Communism belongs definitely to the past and when a pluralistic type is more and more in evidence. RCDA editors handle about 150 foreign-language publications. Along with translations of articles from these sources, they supply factual comments and explanations that make such reports comprehensible to persons unfamiliar with particular areas. The publication is now being mailed to readers in almost sixty countries, although only a limited number of copies reach readers in Africa and Asia because of lack of funds. Ecclesiastical and academic spokesmen, as well as various private and governmental institutions and organizations, consider it an invaluable source of balanced information about religion and Communism.
One would think that such an important ecumenical project serving people in so many countries would have the moral and financial support of the most important denominations affiliated with the National Council of Churches. The truth, however, is that only the Episcopalians, Lutherans (National Lutheran Council), Methodists, United Church of Christ and United Presbyterians have supported this project, and their modest grants are not sufficient to balance the RCDA budget.
Jan van Hoogstraten, director of the NCC’s Church World Service for Africa, asks whether “some people here in the United States on occasion feel” that RCDA is embarrassing their efforts to create “better relations” with the Communist world. He stresses the importance of making known to the larger non-Communist world what is largely printed for home consumption in the Communist world.
Rumors are rife that RCDA is in dire financial straits. If this is true, the ecumenical churches may discover too late that they are neglecting a worthy project. The financial situation of RCDA is apparently so serious that its survival beyond June of this year is now uncertain. If this publication’s objective reports on religion under Communism are halted, the field will be wide open to peddlers of slanted news. They will tell us that churches in Communist countries are full and that religion is now much better off than before.
We must ask two questions at this point. First, has the National Council of Churches done all that is necessary to provide sufficient funding for this important project? Or has it capitulated to pressures by those individuals and groups who vocally and illogically peddle one-sided peace in Viet Nam, one-sided coexistence, one-sided dialogue between the Christians and Marxists, and almost anything one-sided that appeals to their soft “liberalism”? One would hope that Dr. Arthur S. Flemming, not only as president of the NCC but also as president of the University of Oregon and as a former leader in government, would recognize RCDA as a vehicle for information that is particularly needed today in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, as well as elsewhere. Instead of letting it die, the NCC should take pride in this balanced publication.
The second question must be addressed to various member denominations of the NCC that contribute little or nothing to support this effort. Why? Some denominations spend thousands of dollars to invite churchmen from Communist nations to the United States. We have no objection to a re-establishment of communication with Christian brethren after many years of separation. Such visitors should, however, be chosen with more care.
It is a known fact that Communists are using some churchmen as agents to spread Communist propaganda. A typical case is Milan Opočenský, a young theologian from Prague, Czechoslovakia, who has been invited to the United States at least five times in recent years. Recently, he joined the staff of the World Student Christian Federation in Geneva, Switzerland, as its European secretary. Opočenský never forgets to propagate the Communist regime while sprinkling his propaganda with allusions to the Gospel, Karl Barth, Bonhoeffer, Tillich, and others. He is quite successful in confusing the minds of American youth and students who are already disturbed by all kinds of theological nonsense. While students of European history know that Czechoslovakia was brought under the Communist dictatorship by Stalin’s interference in Czechoslovakia’s affairs, Opočenský repeats again and again that his country was not able to solve its problems in 1948 and that the Communists had no other choice but to take over the Czechoslovakian government. He also defended Stalin and his policies when Stalin’s cult was shattered by Khrushchev. American Christians pay thousands of dollars for Opočenský’s travel expenses while Communists in Prague laugh at how cheap and easy it is to spread Communist propaganda in the United States.
Several American denominations spend thousands of dollars to send delegates to various meetings of the Christian Peace Conference (CPC) in Europe, or to bring its representatives to the United States. CPC headquarters is located in Prague, Czechoslovakia. It is a meeting place for many Christians from Communist countries who otherwise would have little chance to travel abroad. CPC statements and manifestos have the classical trademark of a Communist-front organization.
If some American denominations spend so much money for such projects offering one-sided and unbalanced information, why do they not give money to support RCDA? Have the American churches no moral duty to support this effort to provide balanced information on religion in Communist countries?
Communists take RCDA seriously; they would like to see it disappear. Churchmen from several Communist countries have expressed appreciation for RCDA. They have reason to believe that Communist governments are sensitive to a publication that keeps constant tabs on their behavior toward religion. We are not in a position to divulge details, but we know of Communist attempts to interfere with RCDA by personal threats and harassment. When these tactics did not work, Communists spread word through their church emissaries in the United States that RCDA hurts East-West relations between nations and churches. Some naïve churchmen apparently believe this Communist nonsense and seem to be trying to do what the Communists have so far been unable to do—eliminate RCDA.
We hope that the NCC and its major member churches will see that RCDA is continued and assured of moral and financial backing. If they fail, other American Christians and local churches will do well to give this publication full moral and financial support. Church members reluctant to support other phases of NCC work may designate their contributions for this purpose. Gifts (which are tax deductible) may be sent to Religion in Communist Dominated Areas, National Council of Churches, Room 566, 475 Riverside Drive, New York, New York 10027.
Plaudits for “A Man for All Seasons” and rebuke for “Hawaii”
As a vehicle for communicating the Christian message or portraying the lives of its dedicated spokesmen, the commercial motion picture has rarely avoided being tawdry, innocuous, or offensive. The lecherous activities of Elmer Gantry, the magical absurdity of The Robe, and the superficial scannings of The Bible have led thoughtful movie-goers to expect little of real worth from films with a religious orientation. But two major pictures currently playing to packed houses may well be the worst and the best of all such efforts since Cecil B. DeMille’s pioneer production of King of Kings. The worst is George Roy Hill’s Hawaii; the best, Fred Zinne-mann’s Academy Award-winning A Man for All Seasons.
Hawaii, based on James Michener’s best-seller, recklessly distorts the message and methods of the first Congregational missionaries in the Islands. The film presents Hawaii as the idyllic setting of a beneficent pagan religion until corrupted by Christian missionaries who arrived from New England in 1820. The principal missionary, Abner Hale (Max von Sydow), is depicted as a sincere but senseless emissary of the message of God’s wrath who crudely imposes iron-clad pietistic religious practices on the happy and innocent natives. For a generation he preaches of a vengeful god despite the gentle pleadings of his wife Jerusha (Julie Andrews), limited conversions, and the flattening of his church by a hurricane. After a horrendous epidemic and the death of his overworked wife, Hale realizes his folly. He then devotes himself to the cause of social improvement, sees the Arrival of Progress, and is ultimately removed from his pastorate by mercenary homeland ecclesiastics who consider him unsuitable for the new cause of capitalistic Christianity.
This gross caricature of the message, methods, and accomplishments of early missionaries is an affront to evangelical Christianity. Dr. Abraham Akaka, native Hawaiian pastor of Honolulu’s Kawaiahao Church, says the film is “a knife in the back of our Christian missions and must not be allowed to pass as truth.” Hawaiian historian Albertine Loomis, a descendent of an 1820 Congregationalist missionary, cites four basic historical distortions in the film.
1. “Christianity filled the void of a broken society” in Hawaii; but the film shows joyless missionaries “invading a Hawaiian paradise where everybody is having fun, where Kane, the ‘god of love,’ presides over a simple, joyful, pagan religion. Nothing could be farther from the facts.”
2. The missionaries preached love, not the Old Testament wrath of the movie’s Abner Hale.
3. The missionaries made the entire Hawaiian population literate in less than twenty-five years, instead of merely teaching the chiefs, as the film implies.
4. “Missionaries and Hawaiians were co-workers in building the church,” to such an extent that by 1848 the mission board “considered Hawaii no longer a foreign mission field but a Christian country.” Miss Loomis maintains that “no such incredible bigot, no such detestable fool” as the Hollywood version of the missionary could have effected such a change.
The irresponsible distortions of Hawaii damage the Christian witness—but only in a limited way. Fortunately, the film’s pathetic dramatic quality—cardboard characterization, dragging pace, even minimal use of Hawaii’s natural beauty—prevents it from striking a serious blow at Christianity.
But if Hawaii hits a new low in religious film epics, A Man for All Seasons magnificently scales the peak of excellence in dramatizing a message of personal and universal significance. From Robert Bolt’s remarkable play, Fred Zinnemann has, with historical reliability and compelling power and beauty, brought to life the story of Sir Thomas More’s determined refusal to approve dissolution of Henry VIII’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon so he can wed Anne Boleyn. The film probes a human crisis where a man must choose between surrendering his convictions or surrendering his life. As Sir Thomas makes his decision, viewers too will face the question of whether expedience or ideals will rule their lives.
Oscar-winner Paul Scofield portrays More as a man of impressive bearing, honest kindness, and unflinching inner strength. Many Protestants will not appreciate the endorsement of papal authority that results from recounting More’s courageous act in support of the Roman Catholic position on Henry VIII’s marriage. Yet all will be moved by More’s determination to follow conscience and carry out his understanding of God’s will.
Commercial motion pictures may never be the medium for communicating the Gospel of Christ in its fullness. But they can greatly help or hinder men groping for the light of truth. A Man for All Seasons demonstrates that authentic and artistic films depicting man’s predicament and his need to live in accord with highest principles can be successful box office attractions. We hope more filmmakers will strive to produce religious motion pictures with the same high standards.
Church Leaders Put The Squeeze On Kodak
Leaders of five Protestant denominations who often flail the churches for their extensive financial investments are now attempting to use their churches’ $5 million holdings in the Eastman Kodak Company to pressure it to yield to the demands of “professional radical” Saul Alinsky’s FIGHT organization in Rochester, New York. The churches (Episcopal, United Presbyterian, Methodist, United Church of Christ, and Reformed Church in America) are withholding their proxies so they can battle management at the stockholders’ meeting this month.
The controversy revolves around FIGHT’s claim that Kodak agreed to hire 600 Negroes recruited by the civil-rights organization. Kodak officials deny that a statement signed last December by an unauthorized executive constitutes a contract. They contend that Kodak cannot be a party to any contract calling for discriminatory hiring and obligating them to employ people recruited exclusively by another organization. They further point to their excellent record in advancing equal-employment opportunities: (1) in 1962 Kodak was the first company to join Plans for Progress; (2) in 1966 the Rochester plant hired 600 Negroes; (3) in 1967 they helped form an interfaith-industrial corporation to guarantee 1,500 jobs for unemployed Negroes.
FIGHT claims Kodak has broken a contract with the poor. It feels the company should hire and train the 600 Negroes it recruits whether or not Kodak hires other Negroes. The Rev. Franklin Florence, FIGHT president, contends that “the right to a job transcends the right to profit.” He also holds Kodak responsible for civil-rights troubles that he expects in Rochester this summer.
Members of denominations backing FIGHT must consider whether their churches should be so deeply involved in big business, and whether their stock voting power should be used to harass responsible private enterprise.
Every Christian must be committed to equal-employment opportunities for men of all races. But race is not the only issue in the Rochester controversy. The basic issue in all agitation aroused by the Saul Alinsky forces centers on changing the economic structure of our nation. Church members should repudiate and withhold financial support from leaders who back such rabble-rousing causes. All Christians should become involved in the Church’s foremost enterprise: sharing with men poor in spirit the unsearchable riches of Christ.
Peace Through Boycott?
Martin Luther King has proposed a nationwide boycott of war. He suggests that whites and Negroes alike protest U. S. involvement in Viet Nam by becoming conscientious objectors. Moreover, he links his opposition to the war with the cause of Negro equality in the United States. We feel he is making a serious mistake.
King says Negroes and poor people generally are bearing the heaviest burden of the war. He is probably right. But if King himself were in armed combat, would he regard it as helpful to learn that his replacement had turned CO?
This boycott idea hurts the American cause and detracts from the possibility of a just peace. It also injures the cause of the American Negro, as a number of King’s previous supporters have already noted.
King seems to think that all we need to do to secure peace and stability in Southeast Asia is to lay down our arms. That kind of thinking is naïve. It presumes innate human goodness and a universal desire for peace.
If this is the most viable alternative, it may indicate the wisdom of the present American course in Viet Nam, painful as that may be. We need vigorous discussion, even criticism. But let’s not determine U. S. foreign policy on the basis of emotion.
Powell Before The House
Unlike the old soldier in the ballad, moral issues seldom fade away. And neither does Adam Clayton Powell. This month the Harlem congressman is in the news again, and the question—What do we do with a fallen Adam?—is again before the House.
Neither Adam himself, nor Federal Court Judge George L. Hart, Jr., nor voters of the Eighteenth Congressional District, have made the task before Powell’s peers any easier. The Negro congressman has failed to settle libel damages against Mrs. Esther James, the Harlem widow whom he defamed. Federal Judge Hart dismissed Powell’s lawsuit against the House of Representatives on grounds that the judicial branch of government has no authority to order the House to seat its ousted member. And Harlem voters, far from repudiating Powell, this month returned him to office with a record 86 per cent of the vote in a special congressional election. The only dark spot was an apathetic turnout at the polls: only half as many votes were cast as last November.
So what will Congress do? Will it install the Reverend Mr. Powell or defrock him? The issues have not changed. Whatever the outcome, the House would do well to adopt an objective code of ethics, with means for enforcement, to apply across the board to every member.
