Civilization at Bay

In its November 24, 1961, issue, CHRISTIANITY TODAYpublished an interview with Dr. Charles H. Malik, an Orthodox layman and former president of the United Nations General Assembly. Dr. Malik addressed himself to some of the great issues in the world today, and did so in a Christian context that recognized political realities. Here are excerpts of the interview, conducted by Dr. Carl F. H. Henry, then editor ofCHRISTIANITY TODAY:

Question. World history in our generation seems to be running on a Communist timetable. Do you see any outward signs, like those that once marked the decline of the Roman Empire, to suggest that the Communist thrust has passed its zenith?

Answer. I don’t think so. I think we can expect it to register further gains. The question obviously takes one into the realm of sheer conjecture and prophecy, and I disclaim any prophetic powers. But I can only say realistically that the Communists are still very vigorous, and the rest of the world is relatively rather weak.

Q. What are the symptoms of the free world’s deterioration? Do you think it is now too late to avert the final decline of the West?

A. Certainly it’s not too late. It’s never too late, given the freedom of man and given the grace of God. But symptoms of deterioration in the Western world are very evident. First and foremost is the lack of unity among the various components of the Western world. The statesmen congratulate themselves over that lack of unity, on the ground of their freedom and equal partnership. All this is fine—but what is the use if one keeps on losing?… One aspect of Western lack of unity is the nationalism which is eating and corroding the life of the Western world. They have NATO, true, but they squabble.… To this squabbling I would add, as a weakness, materialism—sheer, crass materialism. I am not sure your Western materialism is better than the Soviets’. Another sign of weakness: Christians aren’t speaking with conviction.… I could recite twenty or more signs of moral weakness in the Western world which are highly disturbing—weaknesses of people who ought to know better, people with a great tradition behind them, whose tradition alone can save them and the world ten times over if they understand it, and live it, and rise above their failures.

Unless the intellectual, the political, and the economic are put in their proper place as instruments willed by God for the sake of man, they always have a tendency to overwhelm the human spirit and to rebel against God.

Q. How then do you define the decisive issues underlying the crisis of the twentieth century?

A. The issue, as I see it, is this: a rebellion within the Western world in the form of Marxism and Leninism has for its ultimate objective the destruction of the accumulated values that we have inherited from the Greco-Roman-Christian civilization. Against this terrific rebellion our civilization is now engaged in a life-or-death battle. This rebellion gathers to itself all kinds of supporting forces in the world which have grievances against that civilization. Hence there is a mobilization of all forces in the world which hate freedom, man, God, objective truth, and the name of Jesus Christ.

Q. Granted that Christian values are compromised on all the secular frontiers today, how would you assess the free world and the Soviet sphere in terms of biblical ideals? How would you measure the extent of the revolt in the West and the East?

A. I don’t agree with Karl Barth at all that it is, as it were, “six of one and a half dozen of the other.” The governments of the Western nations have not become totalitarian. They have not turned against the Bible, against the Gospel. On the other hand, the totalitarian governments have taken a stand against the Gospel and Jesus Christ. The governments of the West are at least neutral with respect to the propagation of the Gospel. While we see very virulent movements of secularism and atheism in the West, yet organized society in the form of governments has taken no formal, official stand against religion, and against Christ, and many members of these governments are believers, at least outwardly. When it comes to real faith in Christ, of course, the West has become very worldly, very soft. Still the Church is there, and the Bible is there, and Christians are living a free life, and it is their fault if they don’t make good their claims.

Q. What bearing has the biblical view of God and man on the modern controversy over human rights and duties?

A. Every bearing in the world. Man is made in the image of God. Man has a dignity with which he is therefore endowed by his mere humanity; he has certain natural rights and duties which stem from his being the creature of God. It is interesting to note that this whole conception of rights and of the oneness of humanity and of the universal dignity of man has arisen only within the Christian tradition.

Q. Does Christianity bear also on property rights?

A. I believe that private property, including the ownership of the means of production, provided it be carefully and rationally regulated—and science and reason and moral responsibility are fully able to supply the necessary regulating norms—is of the essence of human nature, and is a Christian pattern. I believe therefore that the abolition of all private property, including the abolition of the private ownership of every means of production, is not just.

Q. What is the real hinge of history, Dr. Malik?

A. The real hinge of history to me is Jesus Christ.

Q. If that be so, how can the Christian remnant recover an apostolic initiative in witnessing to the world?

A. Not by magic; not by mechanical techniques which call for a special conference at six in the morning and another at eleven; not by many of the ways suggested in American theological literature, with their emphasis on methods and techniques of worship and of invoking the Holy Spirit; not by mass organization simply. But especially by ardent prayer for the Holy Spirit to come mightily into the hearts of men.

Q. Where dare we as Christians hope for a breakthrough?

A. In the field of Christian unity there are great signs of hope, I believe. I am encouraged by the awakening of people as a result of suffering and the sense of danger, and by the way people are giving themselves once again to the discussion of fundamental questions. The greatest possibility for a breakthrough exists in prayer for the coming of the Holy Ghost.

Q. How effectively and properly, in your opinion, has organized Protestantism addressed the politico-economic crisis?

A. Economics and politics are certainly realities, but not the primary realities with which the Church has to deal. The Church can examine these things in the light of the Holy Ghost and with the mind of Christ. But primarily the Church ought to be above politics and economics, ought to feel that it can thrive even in hell. If it is going to wait until the economic and social order is perfect before it can tell you and me individually that right here and now we can be saved, no matter what this politico-economic order is, it will never accomplish its proper work. Think of Jesus Christ saying to us: “You’ve got first to perfect your government, to perfect your social system, to perfect your economic system, before you take your cross and follow me.” He would never say that!

Q. Do you feel then that there is too great a tendency for the Church to shape and approve particular programs of political and economic action, parties, and platforms, while principles are neglected?

A. This happens at times and is very unfortunate. This does not at all mean that the Church does not have something to say about everything. But what it says about any situation should never so tie the Gospel down to that situation that the Cross and Christ and salvation and hope and faith and love become secondary and dependent upon such programs and pronouncements.

Q. What is the main dynamism on which the Gospel of Christ relies for social transformation?

A. The love of Christ. The indebtedness to Christ. The first commandment. I think that if Christians are infused with the mind of Christ and are socially conscious—believing in the reality of the social orders, and in their groundedness in man’s nature as a social being—such Christians will be social and economic revolutionaries. They won’t stand for injustice in the social order, and will do everything they can to transform it.

Q. Today we often hear it said that the United Nations is “the world’s best hope for peace.” How do you feel about this?

A. That formula is like all other clichés. While there is something to be said for it, it is more of a propagandistic cliché than a real statement of truth. The United Nations is a very interesting thing and has its own possibilities—possibilities that should never be minimized. But the United Nations isn’t a cure for every problem. The United Nations is a great institution, it should be supported, it has done very well during the last sixteen years. But it could have done much better. It isn’t such that we can go home and rely on it alone.

Q. Do you consider the Church more than the United Nations as the real bearer of peace on earth?

A. Yes, sir! Certainly.

Q. Do you expect the Gospel of Christ again to become culturally and socially significant in our lifetime?

A. Yes, even in our lifetime. Undoubtedly. I hold Christ to be relevant to every situation. I hold him to be present even though we don’t see him.

Q. In our quest for world peace what posture ought the Christian Church to assume in the struggle against Communism?

A. The Communists say they want peace; the Christian Church wants peace. But there is “peace” and peace! Some kinds of peace seem to me to be unchristian, and the Church cannot condone them unqualifiedly. A peace that is based upon tyranny is not real peace. A peace that is based upon fighting God and Christ is not the right kind of peace. And a peace that is based upon international peace but is simultaneously waging class war is not Christian. The Christian Church ought to say, “We’re all for peace, but we want a peace that respects God and Christ and men; we want a peace that is not based on tyranny; we want a peace that is ‘all out’ peace—peace between classes as much as peace between nations.”

Q. What new ideology ought the Christian to look for as he peers beyond Communism into the future?

A. A Christian ideology can only be one that is integrally grounded in the mind of Christ. Such an ideology would place spiritual things about material things; would affirm God the Creator, Christ the Redeemer, the Holy Ghost and Giver of life; would stress the Church; would stress man and his absolute dignity as the creature of God, created in his divine image and later redeemed by the blood of Christ. It would certainly have a social message, an international message of peace, equality, and mutual respect. The strong will come to the support of the weak, and the weak will be humble and not rebellious. The infinite potential of science and industry can be turned to the enrichment of human life in a completely unprecedented manner that would bring blessing and happiness to all mankind, insofar as these depend upon material things. Because of human sin and human corruption, government and order will be of the essence.… Education will be stressed. But unless the intellectual, the political, and the economic are put in their proper place as instruments willed by God for the sake of man—who is created in God’s image and has fallen away from that grace, and yet, thank God, has been redeemed by Christ—they always have a tendency to overwhelm the human spirit and to rebel against God.

Paul D. Steeves is assistant professor of history and director of Russian studies at Stetson University in Deland, Florida. He has the Ph.D. from the University of Kansas and specializes in modern Russian history.

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