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

1968-06-01 / 2. szám

HOP Vol XX Special Number - 108 - (07812)

1968 No 2

Bui, with regard to both cases, we must emphasize: the historical process in itself* is never revelation» It is impossible for us directly to decipher God’s will in the historical events« The right Christian assessmait of historical events is always a confession of faith: we merely surmise God’s hűden steps in the history of the world (Deus absoonditus) and we never make statements of absolute and unquestionable validity about this experience, Our Christian statements about historical events are made coram Deot in God’s sight, and not in God’s name, in nomine Deic It is absolutely necessary to make this distinction lest we apply a false philosophy of history to our ethical -appraisal of revolutions, thus mistaking the believing interpretation of world history for the certainties of God’s revelation.

Our third question is: is revolution a "worldly matter" or the essence of Christianity? In the theological debates on revolution today we often meet the argument that Christianity, in its essence, is but "revolutionary humanism"; that Christianity is "the true and all-comprehensive revolution" far excelling the other forms cf revolutionary change whioh do not affect the real depths of human life (Richard Shaull)? Still more widespread is the apparently Biblical argument which finds the ground of the Christian’s attitude to revolution in "the basic revolutionary element of the Gospel" (H,D0 Wendland) t or in the "revolutionary character" of the conversion, new birth and new life of the Christian (V, Borovoy), The line of this argument is as followst, since the "essence" of Christianity is the non-continuous and profound inner transformation, that is, the dynamic appearance of the Kingdom of God in this world, Christianity in view of this essence and inner nature, can never come into conflict with any form of the just and necessary changes of revolutionary character which are taking place in the world,

T/e must confess that, on the face of it, this argument seems to be very convincing*, It was put forward both at the Geneva World Conference on Church and Society and in the theological, debate at the Sofia meeting of the Christian Peace Conf erence0 Granting tha.t this argument has certain elements of truth, we nonetheless believe that this direct coupling cf Christianity with the revolutionary processes of the world is not permissible for, in fact, it causes a theological short-circuit«

If the thesis of the said argument were true, we could first of all ask: how is it possible that it is only now, three hundred years after the beginning of tbc revolutions cf the Modern Age and fifty years after the so far mightiest social and economic revolution that Christianity is just beginning to discover its own "revolutionary essence"? On the other hand, if there is indeed such a close and essential kindiip between the modem revolutions and the "revolution of Christianity", then their rivalry would be almost inevitables the pitting cf the "true revolution of Christianity" against the economic and social revolutions of the modem world (see this line of argument in Ro Shaull;s writ ing) 0 And so it would be only in a nev/ form, namely in the field of revolutions, that the churches would repeat