Magyar Egyház, 1956 (35. évfolyam, 1-11. szám)
1956-04-01 / 4. szám
10 MAGYAR EGYHÁZ Statement by the Deputation from the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA to Church Leaders in the Soviet Union Issued on arrival in New York, March 23, 1956. Our mission was to church leaders in Russia. We knew in advance of our going that it would not be easy to achieve understanding, let alone agreement. But we believed that in a time of world tension, with deep cleavage between East and West, Christians of varying backgrounds and traditions should talk with one another with frankness in an endeavor to clarify differences and to seek areas of agreement. This we did. The experience was profitable. We understand the Russian Churchmen better as a result of our conversations. We are also confident that our clear statements face to face enabled them to understand us better. This visit should be understood as a first step toward future correspondence and other exchanges. Thus limited in objective our mission has been accomplished and we regard it a distinct success. We were received with generous hospitality. We had formal conferences as well as countless personal conversations, since we were constantly in the presence of Russian Christians. We visited many churches and shared in the worship of the Orthodox as well as the Baptists. Lutherans from the Baltic states and Armenian Orthodox joined in the discussions. We were taken to theological seminaries and academies and to monasteries. In addition we held two conferences with the Councils of the Soviet Government which deal with religious affairs. As we went for a definite church purpose, we make no comments on economic and political conditions in the Soviet Union except as they directly apply to the situation of the churches. It is apparent that Church and State have reached at least a temporary accommodation. It was stated again and again that Church and State are separate. In a limited sense this is true, by our standards. There seems to be no interference with worship in the church. Congregations were large and devout in the relatively few available churches with a preponderance of older people and of women. Enrollment in the few theological seminaries that are open is at capacity. Some churches have been repaired and a few ones are being built, though there are far from enough. The most severe limitation of the church is in the area of education; for there seems to be no religious education except in the home by parents and by priests or ministers on occasional visitations. Publication of literature is confined almost entirely to books used in worship. It is clear that the churches generally are confined within themselves. They regard their function as that of saving souls and preparing them for Heaven. They show little other concern for the social or intellectual life of their people. It was the prevailing assumption that science involves the reason, religion the feelings. Educational, economic, and political life is the concern of the state. Worship, from birth to death, is the task of the church. This sharp division of function, in a population rapidly receiving scientific education biased toward atheistic assumptions, constitutes perhaps a greater danger to the church than does political control of the church itself. This generally prevailing concept of the mission of the church is in our judgment inadequate. It has not always been so narrowly conceived by the churches now in the Soviet Union. There is obviously a fundamental difference between the concept of the mission of the church as we found it in the Soviet Union today and that which we hold in our churches. We hope that future conversation will bring both to them and to us a deeper understanding of the church’s mission. On our side, we are already grateful for a deepened appreciation of the elements of devotion and mystery in Christianity. We hope that further contacts will lead them to increased concern for the totality of life. During the last several years the policy of the Soviet Government has discouraged persecution of the churches and has regarded the clergy and other believers as loyal citizens. At the same time it has increased the aggressiveness of scientific education as the means ultimately to eradicate religion. Thus the church has more freedom than in preceding decades but at the same time confronts a more subtle challenge. It is our hope that, even within the limitations imposed by the state, the church will find effective answers and effective means for teaching to the end that the Christian faith may be maintained and strengthened. In return for freedom of worship the leaders of the churches have apparently inclined to go along with Soviet communist leadership in important areas. Perhaps the most distressing illustration is in the area of peace propaganda. We had frank discussions of that matter. We are convinced that the Russian churches and people ardently desire peace. However, the statements of the church leaders were almost uniformly identical in making vague appeals for “the defence of peace” without taking into consideration the realities of the world situation or the facts of history. It appeared to us that their concept of peace was derived not only from the Soviet Foreign Office but also from an inadequate concept of the mission of the church. We pointed out that the World Peace Council, in which church leaders from Russia have given conspicious leadership, has consistently taken the same line as that of the Soviet Government and that participants from the West have not been truly representative of Western churches. We emphasized the necessity of finding some other basis than their past positions if we are to work together for peace. We made it clear that the means to peace are as important as the end. Specifically, we set forth certain positions taken by the National Council of Churches, for example: (1) Peace cannot be achieved apart from justice, human rights, and fundamental freedoms. (2) The reduction and abolition of atomic weapons cannot be separated from effective inspection and control, nor in isolation from other armaments. (3) The goal of independence and freedom for subject and colonial peoples is best reached through processes of law and order and by free elections under international control. The contacts we have already had with the church leaders in the Soviet Union have been worth while. Despite many and difficult differences we found important common ground as Christians. We look forward to a continuation of conversations in the United States in June. We were courteously received in Russia and we hope to reciprocate here. A beginning has been made.
