God and Man in the Dialogue with Marxism

Among the many curious developments of modern ecumenism is the continuing interest in the Christian-Marxist dialogue, an interest that assumes important areas of accord might be discovered by an exchange of views. Theologians and Marxists grind out volumes of essays; letters are exchanged and subsequently published as milestones in the progress toward dialogue. Not all the effort is by professional Christian heretics and Party mavericks; several years ago, at the close of the world meeting of Communist parties in Moscow, an official statement expressed encouragement of continued dialogue:

Owing to the considerable aggravation of social contradictions, conditions have arisen in many capitalist countries for an anti-monopoly and anti-imperialist alliance of the revolutionary working class movement and broad masses of religious people.… The dialogue between them on such issues as war and peace, capitalism and socialism and neo-colonialism and the problem of developing countries has become highly topical, their united action against imperialism for democracy and socialism is extremely timely.

Communists are convinced that … the mass of religious people can become an active force in the anti-imperialist struggle and in carrying out far-reaching social changes.

Since that time the Communists have made progress toward this goal through the medium of dialogue. They continue to make it clear, of course, that their interest is not in reciprocal cooperation but in how they can use “broad masses of religious people” to advance the Communist program.

How is it, then, that churchmen, some highly placed in ecumenical circles, have become fascinated with the idea of dialogue with Marxists? It apparently is not out of concern for those enslaved by the tyrants of this system—about the best they can say on this score is that we all have failed to reach perfection. It is not an effort to understand how so many could have fallen for this secular faith—indeed, these churchmen are quite proud of their own secular ideals. Nor is it that they propose to “convert” the Marxists in any traditional sense—heaven forbid such narrow notions! Their purpose rather is to find areas of agreement upon which common commitment and action can be based. It is the feeling that, as Professor Helmut Gollwitzer of the Free University of Berlin said, “each will have to share with the other in the world’s development.”

This purpose can perhaps be better understood in the light of recent trends in the more liberal church movements, such as the ecumenical movement spearheaded by the World and National councils of churches. Within the Church attitudes have developed that might lead to the belief that Christianity does indeed have important interests in common with Marxism. The idea has arisen, for instance, that the ultimate answer to social problems lies in the mobilization and use of power. The report of the WCC meeting in Uppsala in 1968 states that “Christian use of power aims at breaking the chain of violence that breeds violence.” This is saying, in effect, that power in the right hands can always be used constructively—a rationalization not different in kind from that used by Karl Marx as he excused the necessity of proletarian dictatorship.

This same body offered resolutions calling for world taxation, regulation of commerce to benefit “developing” nations, and the seating of Red China in the United Nations. The bulk of the long and numerous pronouncements made by the World Council can only be characterized as appeals for the churches to exercise political power to bring about prescribed political ends.

The Uppsala assembly’s report on “World Economic and Social Development” is a fair example of the WCC’s political approach. The report begins with an argument for church action in matters of changing economic and social structures. Churches are urged to pursue such reforms diligently in true “revolutionary” fashion. “The death of the old,” we are reminded, “may cause pain to some, but failure to build up a new world community may bring death to all.…” The report goes on to advocate a kind of new mercantilism, making repeated reference to the idea that “developed nations must … encourage acceptance of a new international division of labor so that debtor nations find growing markets for their new exports.”

Similar attitudes toward the political role of the churches are found in pronouncements of the National Council of Churches. In recent years the General Board, the council’s permanent decision-making body, has published resolutions opposing U. S. intervention in Cuba, Viet Nam, and the Dominican Republic; it has demanded the recognition of Red China, denounced right-to-work laws, supported civil disobedience as a method of promoting social revolution, and called for member denominations to become more politically active. Little wonder, then, that radical clerics who are willing to go even beyond such resolutions find a certain affinity with the ideals of Marx, who stated:

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest by degrees all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state … and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

The church radicals have come to view the world as man-centered, and the Church as an institution to serve man’s secular interests. Paul Oestreicher, in the introduction to his collection of readings entitled The Christian Marxist Dialogue, said:

Christians, of all people, should recognize that the world is in man’s power. Heaven and hell are of man’s making. This is not to dethrone God. It is merely to topple a superstitious view of “Christ the King” as an absent but absolute ruler over the world. This King has chosen to be man’s servant and to abdicate his power to man.

Such statements are common in the writings of theologians who write in “dialogue” with Marxists. Heaven and hell are not only of man’s making but also of his design, and God is in a position of merely seconding the bold reforms man calls into being. This is the God in which any self-respecting New Left reformer would like to believe.

After all, dreams of great social movements in which one has a hand in managing the affairs of the world are hardier food for the ego than admission of one’s dependence upon God for the working out of his will in history. In an age that increasingly ignores spiritual dimensions and looks exclusively to social engineering as an escape from the burdens of world problems, the secular route offers the cleric a means for gaining the prestige that is no longer automatically bestowed upon his profession. He may reason that if, as so many believe today, real reform can come only through the exercise of governmental power, then it is only right for the moral influence of the Church to be guiding light in such enterprises; and this reasoning, he soon discovers, does wonders for his self-esteem.

Having arrived at this position, the social-reform-minded clergyman may find it a short step to acceptance of the Marxists as kindred spirits who call for similar, if more violent, reforms. World community, economic leveling, and a classless society are all points upon which they can agree. If the Communists have failed in an attempt to produce these things, then it is simply a matter of technical difficulties—difficulties that can perhaps be overcome by the introduction of a socialized Christianity.

Then there are the obvious rewards to the ego of churchmen who see themselves as enlightened in their view of Marxism. Generous overtures to those who are widely regarded in Western society as dangerous and destructive radicals can scarcely fail to give one a sense of daring. An aura of the prophetic accompanies those who are willing to lash out at real or imagined sins of their own society and yet perceive the virtue of those who are considered its enemies.

It is perhaps in this egocentrism that the man-centered spirit of the Christian-Marxist dialogue most clearly reveals its nature. The proponents of dialogue would hardly confess such traits; indeed, they continually claim to be—and, I am sure, believe themselves to be—motivated by “human compassion.” It is axiomatic in biblical doctrine, however, that man’s attempts to put mankind in the place of God as the source that “makes all things new” lead inevitably to exaltation of self—and, as history shows, to a host of attending evils.

A. J. Conyers received his M.Div. this year from Southeastern Baptist Seminary and has been serving as pastor of Maple Springs Baptist Church in Louisburg, North Carolina. He has the A.B. from the University of Georgia.

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