Magyar Egyház, 1958 (37. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1958-11-01 / 11. szám

MAGYAR EGYHÁZ

11

have kept back Hungary from involvement in the last war; should have defied the government by taking the side of the persecuted and of social progress; ought to have fought against anti-communist and antisoviet attitudes.

Instead of this Kadar sees the Reformed Church led by Ravasz as one burning in a “fascist enchantment”. It was “revisionist”, “anti-semitic” and “anticommunist”.

Although the author does not (and cannot) praise the unjust and grievous Trianon peace-treaty, yet disapproves of the Hungarians who in 1939 “reacquired the Ukrán populated parts of Czechoslovakia” (this is the way, Kadar speaks of Kárpátalja, the region from where the majority of Hungarians in America came!); on the other hand he believes with the Swiss theologian Barth, that the Czech soldiers would have fought “on the side of Christ” (if they had fought).

Of the “anti-semitic” László Ravasz the author is compelled to acknowledge that he opposed a certain “materialistic mentality”. He also acknowledges that Ravasz strove for “exemption” for the persecuted, opposed the prohibition of mixed marriages, even that from his sick-bed he dared to write to the dictator Szálasi in December 1944 in the interest of those suffering persecution. What more Ravasz did in those years, — in the Upper House and elsewhere in public life fighting against anti-Jewish laws — is almost unparalleled; of this Kadar is silent, but Albert Bereczky did write and publish in 1945 the account of Ravasz’ strives and efforts. This does not hinder Kadar to accuse Ravasz of antisemitism throughout his book.

The charge of anti-communism is similarly repeated on almost every page. The leaders of the Church ought to have recognized the peaceful intentions of the Soviet Union; also the basic difference between fascism and Communism the former being anti-Christian while the latter a rather harmless atheism. “Anti-Communism”, says Kadar, is nothing else but a “modern fashionable form of Christian idolatry.”

Ravasz and his circle are accused in the post-war period of having pursued a “false prophecy”: instead of denouncing the sins of the past they drew attention to present mistakes.

However not all is gloom, there is also light in the picture-in the person of Bereczky who succeeded Ravasz in 1948 as bishop and somewhat later as president of the General Conventus and of the Synod. Bishop János Péter appears also as a bright light, but is not discussed at length. While for the author no accusation of Ravasz was enough for his “obedience to the higher powers”, the same author appreciates this same attitude in Bereczky. What was vice on one side — the adaptability of the Church to governmental policy — on the other side became a virtue. Bereczky is the true prophet of the Church: he pronounced the “Yea” and helped the Church to be favourable to socialism. In Kadar’s view, the post-war revival, the renewal of the Church, as well as her role at international Protestant forums, the appreciation of her work in the fight for peace — all are connected with Bereczky’s prophetic leadership.

The author is silent on several points: what did the prophetic leader do against the deportations, concentration camps, the inhuman persecution of the “kulaks”, the nationalization of our ancient colleges years after the State-Church agreement—he has nothing to say. He mentions in passing that the “deformations of socialism” had its projections also in the life

of the Church, however, he hastens to add, the official leaders of the Church were on the way to eliminate the errors and to purify church government.

After all this, it is no wonder that the author describes what happened in the Church during the revolution as mutiny or rebellion. In this way he refers to the time when the people of the Church demanded that the cleansing should start at those who are primarily responsible that the situation became intolerable: the leaders of church government. The congregations asked for a general election for higher offices, due to the lack of confidence in those in offices, — and in the meanwhile a temporary committee had to take over the leadership until the time of elections. The leader of the committee, Dr. Ravasz, called back by popular demand, spoke of the pre-revolution church leaders with great moderation in the Free Kossuth Radio, saying: “they were permissive, beyond necessity, to the force and manipulations of that political power which is in deadly enmity with the Church.” Ravasz asserted that the changes the committee brought about were done “by the command of public opinion and need of the Church” so as to “restore the freedom of the World and of conscience”. And yet Kadar does everything he can think of to show all this as “the work of such a group whose central interest was power and not the Church.” After many years of silence the first free discussion in the Church is described by him in this way: “The participants of the November 1st rebellion have erred more in one day against the laws of the Church, than all the members of the church government did in the years since the liberation.”

The author as a chronicler is dilettant and biassed. His point of view is the opposite of that of the Reformed Hungarian people. His language, no Western reader can fail to recognize, is the language of the propagandist. That is why we read in the “Ecumenical Review” of the World Council of Churches the criticism that sums up the book together with some other postrevolutionary articles as follows: “How far removed from the truth they appear to be!” The American - Hungarian people of the Reformed Church agree with this view. It seems to them that the book of Imre Kadar indeed reflects the Hungary of János Kádár.

—f.n.—

TWO AND A QUARTER BILLION DOLLARS

A total of $2,206,593,817 (that is two and a quarter billion dollars) was given by U.S. Protestant and Orthodox church people for all church purposes in 1957 according to a survey recently completed by the Department of Stewardship and Benevolence of the National Council of Churches.

More important than the record figures is the fact that 20.1% of this money was given for benevolences — for missionary and relief work.

The highest per member giving was made by the Seventh Day Adventists with $160.

Check the figures of your congregation — did they give 20.1% of their budget to “others”, for missions, relief work, benevolences? Then divide your congregation’s budget by its membership and find out how close (or rather how very far) you are from $160...