Conversations with Marxists

Christian-marxist dialogue, for many years now a common exercise in Europe, has in more recent years caught on in the Western Hemisphere. With us, such conversations have been conducted largely between liberal Christians and their counterparts in the Marxist movement. Evangelicals have been relatively little involved, because of their feeling that Karl Marx’s implacable hostility to the Christian faith made such discussion pointless.

It goes without saying that from the Marxist point of view, the principals in the discussions have not been the men who lay down policies in Moscow or Peking, nor those who command the movements of Russian tanks. But within the Red Empire there have been adherents of the general Marxist line who felt it safe to undertake some independent discussions of the ideology underlying the Communist movement(s).

Theological liberals have felt free to debate with the more “detached” representatives of Marxism, partly because of their mood of tentativeness toward new movements, and partly because of their relative lack of fear of Communism so far as our land is concerned. After all, the Iron Curtain seems psychologically remote from America, and besides—so the conventional line has been—our land has to fear only the “radical right.”

Christian leaders of broader persuasion have encountered rude shocks in their attempts to build bridges between themselves and the orthodox followers of Marx. This fact does not, however, rule out the possibility of further explorations in quest of common ground upon the part of all Christians, provided it be borne in mind that they debate with theoreticians who have little to do with day-to-day decision-making within Communist lands.

One of the major organized efforts to promote discussion between East and West has been the Prague-based Christian Peace Conference. The author has sought to follow with some care the published utterances of the CPC through the years and would venture the following observations concerning it. First, the fact of its sponsorship from within the Red Imperium made it necessary for its spokesmen to adopt an anti-Western stance if they were to continue to speak at all. Thus, denunciation of the economic and political systems outside the Communist sphere became a sort of CPC orthodoxy. Second, it was essential to play down the injustices and the suppression of freedom within the Communist world. Third—and very important—there was a tendency to consider Marxism as a whole, on the unspoken assumption that the current forms of dogmatic Marxism-Leninism might not be final.

Hope sprang eternal among the principal spokesmen for the CPC. It cannot be denied that participants on the two sides did learn from each other, though any acknowledgment of this by the persons taking part from the “socialist” lands had to be stated in a most guarded fashion.

Two events in recent history dealt shaking blows to Christian-Marxist conversations. The first was the crushing of the Hungarian uprising in 1956. Christian leaders within the Red orbit managed to take this in stride. After all, the organs of official information from Moscow saw the uprising as stemming from a plot to inaugurate “reaction within the socialist camp.”

The Soviet-led invasion of Czechoslovakia in August, 1968, was not so easily explained away. It was here that the Christian Peace Conference “fell into crisis.” We are familiar by now with the correspondence between Joseph Hromádka and Patriarch Alexei of Moscow at that time, with the forced resignation of Jaroslav Ondra as general secretary of the CPC and Dr. Hromádka’s withdrawal as its president. Most of us have read the latter’s heartbreaking letter in which he expressed his final disillusionment with Communism’s ultimate ability to humanize itself—to adopt a “human face.”

The question for those who desire continuing dialogue between East and West must now be, “Whence from here?” The evangelical will be tempted, more than ever since August 21, 1968, to shrug off the entire matter with an “I told you so.” And he did tell them so, and the outrages against the intimidated satellite lands continue. True, the dialogue did survive the shock of Stalinism and the nightmare of Hungary. Some of more hopeful outlook felt that this form of oppression and this denial of human dignity had passed. Now there is deep uncertainty at the practical level.

Today the Christian-Marxist exchange seems to be confined to a few persons on each side. Most of them are disposed to deal with Marxist theory, dissociated as far as possible from any national embodiment of it. Not only so, but there are indications of some departures from the rigid “fundamentalism” of Marxism-Leninism upon the part of some honest Marxists themselves. Roger Garaudy, for example, would scarcely pass an examination in Marxist orthodoxy administered by the Politbureau in Moscow.

The CPC seems to be in disarray, owing to the imposition of a hard line upon it by its Eastern leadership. The British representatives on the International Secretariat (David Paton, an Anglican, and Irene Jacoby, a Quaker) have ceased, for the time being at least, to participate in CPC deliberations. It seems that the conference will continue to operate, if at all, only as a front organization.

The American evangelical will ask what all this has to do with him. It is unlikely that he will have a convinced Marxist as a next-door neighbor, as his counterpart in (say) France or Italy may have. But he ought perhaps to think of a time in which he might be able to let his witness be heard among such persons. If and when this becomes possible, certainly he will not engage in the naive and uncritical form of dialogue that sometimes makes the headlines.

If and when occasion presents itself for creative conversations with Marxists, he may bear in mind certain legitimate points of contact between the two systems. Some of these are: the common desire for a better world, the concern with man’s alienation, the recognition of God’s concern with the material, and man’s irrepressible desire to seek for and move toward the Transcendent.

Above all, both seek to produce a new man. True, the Marxist seeks to produce this by the superficial method of changing man’s economic order. But he just might be touched by a vital contact with men and women who have become “new creatures” through the grace of our Lord.

HAROLD B. KUHN

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