Hungarian Church Press, 1968 (20. évfolyam, 2. szám)

1968-06-01 / 2. szám

HCP Tol XI Special Number - 157— (07913)

1968 No 2

There seems to be a considerable.confusion in the company cf the Christian churches ás far as the assessment of this extremely dangerous development is concemedc This is explained on the one hand, by the fact that the churches, staggered "by the revelation, after World War II, of the atrocities committed by-Hitlerism against the Jews and tormented by* the realization of their own sins, made-an energetic start to revise their traditional and, in general, bankrupt theological views cf the problem of Israel and to return to the Biblical view,'their initial, zeal soon abated and their project of a new'theological orientation was left unfinishede Within the scope of its main themtf, the Evanston Assembly adopted a plan of studying this problem but, owing to certain circumstances, the plan’wag .never realized»

Then, on-the other hand,/certain "human factors" may alsó account far this confusion of the churches* We mention the most important of these, the difference of political views* We believe that the events of the recent past have served a twofold lesson to the Christian churches; first, that the preplan cf Israel, as a theological problem, must be kept on the agenda and efforts must be made to find in the Scriptures what amount to more than half-way solution^., and, secondly, that this problem, while being a permanent thane of theology, will also pose a- serious problem which is in the horizon of the peaceful- coexistence of peoples*

Ip assessing the present situation, we cannot overlook the fact that the circumstances of the founding of the new state of Israel and the drawing of the boundaries of the Middle Eastern states are serious reminders of the grievous heritage of colonialism and of the selfishness of great nations (alas,. Christian nations)« This further complicates the problem»Iet today, in the atomic age, the pro sent situation reflecting that grievous heritage can no longer serve as an absolute point of departure for assessing the Israelii-aArab war* We agree with those statesmen and negotiating bodies that maintain that no oder can be brought into the "jungle of international politics" (the expression is taken from the report of Section III of the World Conference on Church and Socity) in the interests of peaceful oo~ existence, unless the nations cf the world mutually respect the frontiers that developed or were drawn after World War II. The solution to the problem of the Lebensraum (let us remember how-the demand for this pushed the world into Y/órld War II! ) - a problem, which is being raised again and again in our time - should not be sought by "reconquering" lost territories or by the acquisition of new ones, but by the realization of the higher form of peaceful ooexistence, that is, pro-existencej This implies the obligation that the individual nations guarantee equal Lebensraum to all the racial,linguistic, cultural and religious groups within their countries!'

"V

The state of Israel, however, had not only failed to fulfill the latter obligation, but she resorted to wary Therefore, when we take the position that the state of Israel is just as responsible as any other state, statesman or political leader for acts committed against the^dwelling together of natipns, then we are, free from all prejudices of theological or