More and more the twentieth century is being pushed to decision between the two world views that compete for its loyalties. Each complex of convictions bids for the whole of personal life and for the totality of the universe. Each heralds a new order; each awaits the momentary birth of a new age. This generation’s destiny and the outcome of civilization in our times depend in large measure on which of these options in this swift-moving sixth decade commands people’s allegiance and shapes their commitment.

Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communist revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working-men of all countries, unite.—Karl Marx’s revolutionary slogan at the conclusion of The Communist Manifesto.

The above slogan is what has supplied momentum to the Communist party ever since its birth in 1916, and has swept 26 per cent of the earth’s land mass and 36 per cent of its population into enslavement by totalitarian tyrants. For purposes of world revolution the Communist philosophy of dialectical materialism, economic determinism, and state absolutism musters a crisis technique to exploit the vacuums in human society, and tries to reorganize human life on the premise of the omnipotent and omnicompetent state. It seeks to bring education, politics, economics, literature and the arts—in fact, the whole orbit of individual and group existence—into subservience to the will of totalitarian government.

While Communism’s proposed revision of society is radical, it is far less thoroughgoing than the transformation proposed by Christianity. While Marx sought to revolutionize the world by changing the social environment, Jesus Christ pronounces doom upon any social order—revised or unrevised, revolutionized or unrevolutionized—that is unredeemed and unregenerated. While Marx may split the course of history into free and slave worlds, Christ destines mankind either to heaven or to hell. The Nazarene required much more than simply a changed environment; he demanded a new race of men. “Except a man be born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” On this basis one might gain the world but lose heaven; one might revolutionize the world, yet lose one’s destiny in eternity. Even the revisionists building temporary castles in the social atmosphere remain personally in the death-dealing grip of sin.

The biblical prophets’ stinging verdict on political treachery and social injustice, in fact, is more universal in scope than Marx’s (the Communists, too, come under its judgment). Moreover, it strikes deeper, for it probes the problem of human corruption, and offers a solution based not on a speculative, materialistically inspired ideology but on a living theology that crowns a vital spiritual experience of the Living God. Into that pagan world of his time, lost in the longstanding genius for military conquest for which the Romans became famous and either steeped in thoroughgoing polytheism or dedicated to pantheistic speculation, Jesus Christ dispatched a band of redeemed men and women with a message of rescue. They were to carry the good news to every last man, woman, and child on the face of the earth.

Article continues below
All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.—Jesus Christ’s post-resurrection commission to his disciples.

It is false irony to credit the Marxist with a serious concept of history while the Christian is said to be oriented only to “pie in the sky.” Actually it is the Christian who is strategically bound by the events of history and the Marxist who in his propaganda about a classless paradise refuses to reckon earnestly with temporal history. The Christian insists on man’s free moral responsibility alongside God’s sovereign control of history. The Marxist, on the other hand, propagandizes his classless earthly paradise with no historical confirmation or evidence whatever of the possibility of a struggle-free existence on earth. The Marxist boldly professes to validate his theory by the historical process. But “this very historical process” which is “exalted as proving the Marxist premises” is, as Lester DeKoster emphasizes, “denied all implications for the Marxist conclusion (the classless society).… Clearly the conclusion does not rest upon the premises at all. It is the verdict of an act which the Marxist despises in theory, an act of faith …” (Communism and Christian Faith, p. 72). DeKoster forcefully scores these relevant points and notes it is because of the Christian’s serious view of history that “Christianity has been a powerful positive force toward social progress, while Marxism has been a powerful disruptive force toward social disintegration” (ibid., p. 64). According to DeKoster the infinite gulf between history and Marxism’s classless society shows an unwitting recognition of the fact that man requires total transformation before he can live in “paradise.” In other words, it unconsciously reflects the Christian teaching that man’s life must undergo “glorification” on earth in preparation for life in heaven. In calling for a transition from history to “post-history” (the classless society), Marxism inexplicably transcends the historical self engaged in class struggle, and postulates a self that lacks any continuity with man as we know him. Christianity, however, affirms that when cleansed by the blood of the Cross and sanctified and glorified by the Spirit of God, man the sinner is divinely given a life fit for eternity.

Article continues below
You have heard … how savagely I persecuted the church of God, and tried to destroy it.… But … God … chose to reveal his Son to me … that 1 might proclaim him among the Gentiles.… They … heard it said, ‘Our former persecutor is preaching the good news of the faith which once he tried to destroy’.… (Paul, to the Galatians, 1:13 ff., NEB.)

But in even a deeper sense we may see how Christianity, contrary to Marxism, takes history seriously and is bound thereby. For in his historical advent, Christ confronts the world with perfection in history; here are actualized in history those personal virtues and social ideals by which the human race will be judged and with which Christ will crown human history in his Kingdom of righteousness. The Christian view of the future Kingdom is bound in its character to the manifestation of that Kingdom in the person and life of Jesus of Nazareth. In him, the Kingdom of God was and still is “at hand.”

The main feature of the Christian good news is that God has accomplished something very specific in history. It is no mere speculation about some far-off event, some proletarian utopia which men are asked to believe is coming into being through the rape of Hungary, the wall of Berlin, the starvation of Red China, the militarization of Cuba. What was God’s specific achievement in history? Simply this: at one decisive point he inserted into fallen history the perfect order of biblical promise and prophecy in the coming of Jesus Christ.

Here God unveiled his heart and purpose for all to see. Thereafter the speculators of man-made panaceas must forever contend with the great fact of unveiling of the Godhead’s fullness in Jesus Christ. To this day secular dreamers of new worlds—the Communists included—have been unable to point to that moment in history when their expected perfections were achieved. It is biblical religion alone which takes seriously the supernatural world and man’s plight in sin, which proclaims the good news of the Redeemer’s coming and in that proclamation offers hope and assurance to men in sin and bondage.

Article continues below

Christian revelation calls the world to contemplate the true nature of social disorder and its remedy, as well as the proper direction of social strategy and action. In the modernist age of skepticism about the supernatural, certain influential churchmen have devoted themselves entirely to the pragmatic rectification of social distress, and have neglected the Christian way of interpreting man and the world. In this kind of naturalistic setting the Marxist philosophy seemed to supply a coherent world-view that, fired with adequate emotional drive, could revolutionize society. Subsequent loss of the biblical world-life view was the great tragedy of the twentieth century. Even today presentation of the Christian alternative to Communism—even in some churches—seldom expounds the decisive turning points of the Christian revelation: namely, divine creation of the universe and man, divine revelation of the moral law, divine judgment of the fallen race, divine redemption by grace, divine incarnation in Jesus Christ, and divine direction of history to a foreordained goal. Liberal Protestantism’s loss of the doctrine of divine incarnation (for which it substituted the ambiguous “supernatural Jesus”) meant surrendering a Christological view of origins, of history, and of destiny. Seminarians preoccupied with revising the biblical Jesus could hardly draw comfort from the emergence of Communists ready to revise Marx and Stalin. In fact, both types of theorists trace the sickness of society to man’s separation not from the Living God, but from the material means of production—which the confused churchman gratuitously characterized as sin.

Not for a moment did the early Christians lose sight of the true Lord of Glory. Not surprising, therefore, is the reward of their trust by the conversion of the arch-persecutor of their age, who set out to destroy the churches and those who worshiped Christ Jesus as the sovereign Lord.

Marxism, of course, is not the only ism against which Christianity must contend in the modern world, for Satan dons different masks in different times and places. Marxism remains, nonetheless, the most decisive form of antichrist which threatens to enslave our generation and that to come. The Christian community, therefore, must learn how to address the restless multitudes compassionately and competently, and at the same time to unmask the pretenses of Communism. The Christian understanding of nature and man and history and future destiny remains of crucial importance. The hour has struck for dedicated Christians to analyze and expose the Communist and all other satanic marching orders as misguided mandates and false directives.

Article continues below

Recently in Washington, D. C., a church school class of devoted and discriminating men decided to tackle Marx’s revolutionary slogan from the superior vantage point of the Christian revelation. They recognized the difficulty of formulating a comprehensive statement of Christian convictions simply through the technique of “parallel phrasing.” They came up, however, with three alternatives to Marx’s slogan, each of which soars far beyond the miserable banner that has led our century so dangerously to the brink of a man-made end-time. Here are their biblical motifs which unveil Jesus Christ afresh as the Lord of Glory and could well stir us to a new day of social and spiritual vigor:

Let everyone tremble at the revelation of God’s Person. The redeemed have nothing to lose but their chains. They have peace to gain in His presence and realm. Witnesses to the world, trumpet the good news!

Let sinners tremble at the righteousness of God. The unredeemed have everything to lose—their souls and their substance. There is a divine Kingdom to inherit. People of all nations, turn to Christ!

Let men of means and power tremble at God’s judgment of their stewardship. The destitute face only the loss of their souls; the unjust rich will lose both their vaunted riches and their salvation. All who repent will inherit the hidden riches of grace. Rich and poor alike, obey the royal law of God!

Wherever even one person truly confesses that “Jesus Christ is Lord,” there the all-encompassing power of state absolutism must crumble. If Jesus Christ is truly Lord, then God’s own purpose in history must prevail. Then Communists and all others who aspire to control history by their own programs for the future are put on notice to prepare for divine judgment. If in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth God has acted decisively in history for man’s redemption, then economic determinism is not the crucial lever that sets the fate of society and the direction of history. The Christ who shall come again to judge the living and the dead is even now the Lord of life. Our times are in his hands. We may indeed have marched to the brink of doom, but this is the new order, and in Him is its character unveiled.

Article continues below

END

More Liberal Confusion: Christianity And Economics

The anti-reactionists sometimes do not realize how ludicrously reactionary they themselves have become. Take, for example, some of their current prattling about Christianity and economics. Some of the very churchmen who justify their political meddling by insisting that ecclesiastical isolation from politics is impossible, are also heard arguing that economic interests should be kept free of any kind of theological support. So, for example, they deplore the conjunction of the terms Christian and economics, on the ground that no economic issue should be clothed with a religious symbol and given a theological role.

Now we swiftly agree that there is no justification for baptizing economic details with the title Christian. We wish that churchmen who are prone to give theological support to particular legislative proposals would end their pious pleading of the cause of Christian social ethics.

But we are not on that account going to be drawn into the reactionary outlook of churchmen who, while professing to transcend all connection of Christianity and economics, meanwhile employ their personal influence to advance liberal theories. In fact, we address four questions to all who think that Christianity and economics ought to be wholly detached:

1. Does this emphasis on divorce of Christianity and economics subserve a pragmatic and liberal economic philosophy which advances its own interests while scandalizing the alternatives?

2. What group (right or left) continues in the name of the Church to advocate and pressure for particular politico-economic positions?

3. Are economic interests such as private property and the profit motive to be wholly segregated from theological considerations?

4. Is theological condemnation to be removed from economic profiteering? (Or have the anti-reactionary reactionaries lost their way entirely?)

Signs Of Religious Favoritism In The Peace Corps Program?

The record of the Peace Corps has been quite gratifying. Even some who doubted its desirability or were critical at its founding have praised it. In selecting appointees corps leaders have remained above bias in respect to religion (or irreligion).

Certain elements of religious discrimination are now beginning to appear, however. Colleges like Wheaton and Berea are disapproved as Peace Corps training centers on the ground that they are “too oriented” religiously; approved, on the other hand, are schools like Notre Dame and Georgetown (of whose Roman Catholic orientation Sargent Shriver can hardly be unaware). Told that they must not promote religious convictions as part of their work responsibilities, Peace Corps personnel are being assigned nonetheless to instructional posts in religious schools. In Borneo, for example, at least a dozen Peace Corps workers—their salaries paid by the United States government—are teaching in religious institutions; ten or more of these workers are serving Roman Catholic institutions. A number of Protestant appointees have found themselves appointed to instructional posts in Roman Catholic enterprises abroad.

Article continues below

Since the permanent philosophy of the Peace Corps is still in the making and its present decisions are shaped pragmatically, every semblance of religious favoritism or discrimination should be promptly challenged before precedents harden into policy. The easiest way to encourage sectarian exploitation of the Peace Corps is to let things go their way unprotested.

It’S Tea By The Sea In Boston And What You Will On The Potomac

History sometimes repeats, sometimes reverses itself. The first can be monotonous, the second ironical.

There is at the moment a British sign on American soil which reads: “Sorry To Be Making a Bit of a Mess! Office Building Coming. Progress, You Know.”

Progress indeed, and pleasant irony. The sign is located, of all places, on the site of the Boston Tea Party. The plot was purchased for the construction of a 30-story skyscraper—by two London real estate firms. One of the firms asserted that the site recalls “a period when Boston and England were less cordial.”

In Washington, D. C., an Italian firm, Societa Generale Immobiliare, will begin at $50,000,000 construction project on the banks of the Potomac. The building will comprise 1,200 luxury apartments, 300 hotel rooms, and 200,000 square feet of office space. The meaning of “Immobiliare” apparently has nothing to do with somebody’s inability to get around. Part owner of the firm: the Vatican.

Such ventures in financial investment are not peculiar to Roman Catholic Christianity. Protestant churches often enough handle the tithes and offerings of the redeemed for similar purposes.

Investment of Roman Catholic monies close to the White House and to the Hill could, however, produce embarrassment as well as financial returns. The Italian firm has long been negotiating for permission to build its structure higher than the District code tolerates. When spring comes round again and Roman Catholics plead with Congress for Federal aid for parochial schools, this monument of Catholic finance may loom even taller than the nearby Washington Monument. Some Americans might just get the idea that a Vatican that can invest in that kind of project in Washington’s fabulously expensive Foggy Bottom area, might just be in such a financial state as to be able to help its own school system.

Article continues below
Two December Birthdays Pose Mankind’S Ultimate Choice

December marks two birthdays—the birth of the bomb and the birth of the Babe. A plaque at the University of Chicago reads: “On December 2, 1942, man achieved here the first self-sustaining chain reaction and thereby initiated the controlled release of nuclear energy.” The only written record of those present at this birth is a wine label from the Chianti used to toast the success of the experiment. The plaque may be found at Stagg Field.

Celebration of the other birth took place at a field too. At the Shepherds’ Field there was a blaze of light—without benefit of nuclear blast—and the angels sang: “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth, peace.…”

The wine label does not record that glory was given to God at Stagg Field. And subsequently it has been quite apparent that mankind has not glorified God for the fateful unlocking of nature’s secret, with its tremendous promise for service to humanity. Nor has the vast portion of mankind known peace on earth. Bombs have been the main fruit of nuclear discovery.

Glory to God and peace on earth—the two are divinely coupled. Frail man seeks futilely to wrest them asunder, his attention riveted upon the bomb rather than upon the Babe. He desires peace more strongly than justice as he stares hypnotically at the potential crucible of war, even while he turns aside from the manger of peace. His actions betray his consuming interest in saving his skin—not his soul.

The December 25th birthday … this is the one which still calls for man’s undivided attention, for his belated recognition that the Babe is sovereign over the bomb.

END

Big Labor Favors Featherbedding And Assails Right To Work

Where are the ethical sensitivities that once inspired the labor movements? Today Big Labor’s main creed is “less work and more pay,” and the likelihood mounts that, should labor leaders mobilize for a cause, that cause would be merely political and partisan.

Article continues below

When the nation’s railroads faced the fact that featherbedding was driving them to bankruptcy, they sought sensible work rules. The unions rejected every appeal and insisted on jobs and pay for little or no labor, even after Federal commissioners conceded the need for work rule changes. Supporting the legal right of the railroads to eliminate featherbedding, the United States Court of Appeals in Chicago cited evidence that the roads paid $592 million in 1961 “for unneeded employees occupying redundant positions, pay for time not worked, compensation … not commensurate with the value of services rendered, and the cost of owning and maintaining equipment and facilities” for needless jobs.

Big Labor is also taking the wrong side in its campaign for “union shop” compulsion. Recently 55,000 employees of North American Aviation, General Dynamics, and Ryan Aeronautical rejected the “union shop” which would have added $1,500,000 a year from workers’ pay checks to the UAW and IAM treasuries in compulsory dues. When Lockheed Aircraft took its stand for right to work and resisted union pressures to compel 14,000 non-union members to join the union and pay dues as the price of holding their jobs, Big Labor struck the company. During the current Taft-Hartley “cool-off” Big Labor (to achieve compulsory unionism) is pressuring government to permit the strike to proceed in order to deprive Lockheed of important defense orders.

The day has long ceased when labor’s big foe was management. The giant labor bosses now oppose right to work and favor featherbedding—and sooner or later a cause with such a waning conscience is doomed to fail.

END

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.

Our digital archives are a work in progress. Let us know if corrections need to be made.

Tags:
Issue: