Magyar Egyház, 1957 (36. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1957-03-01 / 3. szám

MAGYAR EGYHÁZ

11

quite natural, human rights. The Hungarians would surely deny the accusation of Prof. Hromadka, that the present Western anti-Soviet wave and the deep sympathy expressed in deeds rose only out of a preexisting and questionable antipathy, rather than out of the solidarity of the West with a people who wanted nothing else but freedom, independence and neutrality. Everybody who enjoys freedom is deeply moved by its oppression.

(9) It is only natural that Prof. Hromadka cannot take a different line when speaking of the church. He is strongly opposed to the statement of the World Council of Churches which considers the events that took place in the Hungarian Protestant churches during the revolution as the opening of a new “great day.” . . .

It was a great day because of the changes in the leadership. Prof. Hromadka admits that not everything had been in order in the churches, but he thinks that the change of bishops alone does not secure the freedom of the church. In normal conditions it really does not, but Prof. Hromadka knows quite well how much depends on bishops in a Communist regime. If the congregations are allowed to elect those whom they trust, that means a good deal of freedom. Apart from this he does not seem to know the situation and the events ... I cannot help suspecting that, in order to be able to write such an article, he did not want to see it clearly.

After the revolution was won, a general appeal was made that all the leaders of the Reformed and Lutheran Churches should resign. It was stated that as soon as possible there would be new elections and, if the congregations wanted it, all the bishops and seniors could be re-elected. But the resignations had to be made because most of them had been appointed forcibly, without the trust and will of the congregations. Prof. Hromadka should know that most of those who had time resigned, and that some even did so before the appeal; he should have read their letters of resignation. The Hungarian refugee ministers and students report that the bishops and seniors all confessed that they could not lead the church in the right way and felt that they had to retire. It was also decided that until the new elections, substitutes should lead the church. There was only one exception, the case of Bishop Ravasz. Some years ago he was forced to resign, and his successor had been appointed as bishop against the will of the church (there are documents which prove it). So according to the law, Bishop Ravasz was still the bishop, and the church needed somebody to be a leader in those very difficult days. Bishop Ravasz did not want to accept, but after a long discussion he declared himself ready to serve the church for a very short time, until the possibility of new elections.

In spite of the opinion of Prof. Hromadka, the rehabilitation of Bishop Ravasz did not mean restoration. The Bishop made it quite clear in his message on the radio that Hungary had two great enemies, restoration and anarchy. He made that so clear, not only on the wireless but in an article, in all of the discussions and in his sermons too that, so far as I know, not even the present government has accused him of working for restoration. Let me note here that the Communist government often had more understanding

for the church and its life (and probably even more so now) than some of the Eastern church leaders.

Further, the victory of the revolution was a great day for the churches because they were given a possibility to renew all the missionary activities which had been prohibited. The great change is this: until the revolution, the churches could deal practically only with those people who came to the church. Now it can go out to them and call them. Mission work is the essential function of the church. It is therefore hard to understand why Prof. Hromadka does not like the opening of new ways of serivce for churches which — as he says — are near to his heart. We hope that the Communist government will have more understanding for the churches than Prof. Hromadka has and will not force these former leaders on the church and will recognize certain rights of the churches. We have a slight ground for that hope.

After all this there remains a very important question, namely, why did Prof. Hromadka write this article and why did he write it in such a way? It would be a very simple answer to say, only because he wanted to show his faithfulness towards the Communist world, or wanted to strengthen his position at home. I must confess that the way he writes points to a certain degree to this answer. But we have to go further. Could it be that he is so naive as to believe all that he has written? I would be happy to accept this solution. But there are newspapers and radios; some facts are known in the whole world. It is impossible that he does not know them. He must for example, know that it was not a counter-revolution which took place in Hungary. He could have known this if he had thought only of his friends involved in the movement. If he lived far away from Hungary, let us say in India, I could imagine that he might not know the situation. But he lives next to Hungary, and even in India people know a good deal about the truth.

Perhaps we can find a little hint in his article as to where we should look for the answer. He speaks about the new socialistic conception of freedom and later he condemns the abstract conception of freedom and democracy. Let us compare the Christian and Communist conception of freedom and we shall see at once the great danger in which a Christian theologian finds himself if he wants to accept both. The Christian believes that the real freedom is to recognize the will of God and willingly to obey it after having known it. According to Marxism, real freedom is to recognize the necessary laws of social development and to obey them willingly. If somebody identifies the Christian conception of freedom with acceptance of the laws of social development as defined by Marxism, he can easily condemn the Hungarian revolution because it was clearly against the Communist laws of development. The revolution sought freedom for the people to choose their own leaders instead of being ruled solely by Communists; it wanted freedom for the whole population to choose their own form of government instead of the Communist dictatorship; it wanted neutrality for the country instead of being part of the Eastern Communist bloc, etc.

Although I should like to, I cannot find any