Restored Christianity as a Counterproposal to Expanding Marxism

The atheistic ideologies of the world, backed by political, economic, and military powers at the national and international levels, are an immediate threat to the future of religions and religious values in all the nations. This threat exists on several levels:

First, these ideologies (whether the Stalinist-Leninist doctrine of the Soviet Union, the Marxist-Maoist doctrine of China, or the Leninist-Juche doctrine of violently communist states like North Korea) are clear in their wish to annihilate religion. They are also clear in their desire to use short term cooperation with the Western religions, especially in the regard to social issues, in an effort to undermine confidence and hope in Western republican forms of government.

Secondly, the philosophies of these governments (which amount to ideologically doctrinal positions) and the groups through which they are acting worldwide, do not simply exist as casual world forces. They are convincing, violently activist ideologies designed to conform the behavior patterns of their peoples to a particular, atheistic, view of reality. Also, they are implicit in their teaching of divisiveness and mistrust as the key to destroying democratic forms of government and the church, which Lenin himself referred to as its “stooge.”

Thirdly, totalitarian Marxist ideologies rely on the present condition of Christianity as the key to their eventual success. Their writers point to the closed vision and complacency of Christianity in face of their own revolutionary activities and, further, use this accusation as a basis for undermining public confidence in the social power of religion.

The verdict of history seems on their side; their claim of Christian failure in the West hope to allow (1) the work of Communist groups to go on unopposed in the West and (2) the necessary evidence that religion, especially Christianity, is itself a contributing cause of social ill in the West. These global persuasions are powerful because of the political history and social record of Christianity in the secular- capitalist West, especially since the colonial times, an argument Marxists have used to create violence in Africa, again particularly motivated against the Church.

Fourthly, the state of Christianity seems to recognize neither the threat these powers impose, nor (more importantly) the elements in Judeo-Christian theology itself and its potential social position which could effectively halt the Marxist social revolution through a completely religious reply in ideology and action. Such a theological and social reaction by religions of the West, a constructive revolution, could restore the social and moral force of religion, and bolster the remaining Western democracies with citizenry responsible and enlightened enough to maintain these unique constitutional governments which are dedicated to liberty, the morals of religion and human and civil rights.

Christianity and Movements of Revolution: A Historical Perspective Christianity’s Historical Record:

In an age of growing social awareness and concern by Christian and humanist alike to aid the peoples of the world, embarrassment has fallen upon the Church. Socially-minded persons question the potential effectiveness of these “spiritual inheritors” of the Kingdom of God. Can they actualize the tenets of Jesus, finding solutions to the various problems of urbanization and industrialization?

Will the other-worldliness of Christian teaching continue as a loophole through which leaders of the faith escape responsibility to change the lot of mankind? Two thousand years have passed since the death of Christ. War, tension, chaos, poverty, and disease are still abundantly manifest within nations of largely Christian population. The life of the Church and the life in society have been dichotomized into “religious” and “secular.’· Economic, social, political and scientific concerns have been relegated to the “secular” category and the Church at large fails to deal effectively with these. Status -quo has even been supported by scripture, alluding to “meekness,” “humility,” “turning-the-other-cheek” and “looking to Heaven” for a spiritual reward in the life beyond this earth. St. Augustine writes in the City of God “Slavery is a punishment for sin… And this is why the Apostle (Eph. 4,5) admonishes slaves to be subject to their masters, and to serve them with good heart and good will, so that, if they cannot be freed from servitude, they might find freedom in servitude, by serving not in fear but in love, until the time when iniquity passes away and every human mastery is brought to nothing and God will be all in all.”

In an encyclical of Pope Pius X, Quadragesima anno, the following appeared: “The workers will accept without rancor the place which Divine Providence has assigned to them.” These are the challenges and accusations that Christianity faces today.

From Marx forward, Communism has been all too ready to point out Christianity’s failures and use them to discredit the Church. Accusations are often made in the works of Marx and Engels as to the ineffectiveness of religion in dealing with the mass of human ills befalling society. Under the guise of sanctity, the Church has been criticized for promoting rather than relieving poverty and misery among the lower classes, and supporting the bourgeoisie in the repression of the workers for personal gain. Thus, in Edward Heimann’s Reason and Faith in Modern Society Communism states that Christian teachings and life style have driven a wedge between workers and their employers. The alternative to the alienation and separation caused by religion is the philosophy of communism. This philosophy provides the concepts of collective self-rule and the autonomy of human rationality. Instead of alienation one achieves self- realization.

In The Origin of Russian Communism Nicholas Berdyaev explains communism as militantly atheist, compelled to anti-Christian propaganda. In riding the world of religion, especially Christianity, it sets itself up as a religion, answering “the religious questions of the human soul” and giving meaning to life. Communism sets itself as a religion of the state. Marx’s idea was “not religious freedom of conscience but the freedom of conscience from religious superstition” (Berdyaev, 1966, p. 159). Frederich Engels, Marx’s life-long companion, fellow philosopher, and translator was equally as eloquent in deprecating the spiritual life as any answer to the realities of human existence: “A person who makes his whole being, his whole life, a preparation for heaven cannot have the interest in earthly affairs which the state demands of its citizens… “ He characterized the religious man as one who has striven to achieve the highest goal and failed, settling for his ardent faith instead of accomplishment. Thus, the Christian man was caricatured as a weakling, relying on some unprovable, unseen Supreme Being on whom he could depend on a substitute for the realities of existence.

Along with his predecessors, Nicholai Lenin joined the depreciative tendencies of these founding fathers of his philosophy. He deplored the way religion was used to exploit the masses, saying, “Religion is one aspect of the spiritual oppression which falls everywhere upon the masses who are condemned to eternal labor for others by their need and their loneliness.” He further defined it as follows: “Religion is one aspect of the spiritual brandy in which the slaves of capital drown the image of their humanity and their demand for some sort of worthy life.” From the actual words of the three greatest spokesmen for Communism, it is obvious that religion, especially the Christian religion, was not their friend. The systematic removal of religious bodies and the persecution and mass murders of Christians and other religious men behind the borders of Communist lands are obvious proof that atheism has definite applications in the context of Communist world rule.

In theory, Communism propounds answers to solve the social economic, political and scientific problems which Christianity largely leaves out of its realm of responsibility. Therefore Communism as a materialistic and revolutionary philosophy threatens to continue conflict and aggression. Christianity can no longer afford to sit back and be comfortable but must act from God’s side to solve the problems on earth. To do this it must use a philosophical counterproposal which will logically defeat communism by providing answers from Christ’s teachings. Jesus prayed for the Kingdom of God on earth and it is the Christian mission to actualize this through an expansion of his teachings to include all aspects of life, especially those formerly called “secular.”

Modern Alternatives:

Valid attempts to answer this problem have come through such movements:-rs Christian-Marxist dialogue, the Social Gospel, Liberation theology and Black Theology. Let us briefly treat each one of these, commencing on the benefits and drawbacks of each.

Christian-Marxist dialogue is proposed as a method of achieving a certain convergence of ideas and ideals between these two ideologies. However, at the heart of this interaction is the impasse of theism versus atheism. Although the ideal of a perfect society is the goal of each, the Communist methodology of violent revolution is repugnant to most Christian thinkers. To bridge between the spiritual and the material philosophies, a deeper ideology must be developed answering the internal need of man to aspire towards a higher spiritual level along with satisfying concerns of his physical existence. The nineteenth century brought great Christian reformers of Protestant persuasion who endeavored to answer the problems of the sweatshop, the company town, the urban slum and unemployment. Advocating the interdependence of all aspects of society in his doctrine of “social solidarity,” Richard T. Ely of the Social Gospel movement maintained that humanity, rich or poor, rose and fell together. Matthew Arnold in his book The Social Law of Service states, “Culture or the study of perfection, leads us to conceive of no perfection as being real which is not a general perfection, embracing all our fellow men with whom we have to do. Such is the sympathy which binds humanity together that we are indeed, as our religion says, ‘members of one body,’ and if ‘one member suffer, all members suffer with it.’ Individual perfection is impossible so long as the rest of mankind are not perfected along with us.” Advocating social reform and even influencing legislation through their moral energy, the movement was eventually weakened through over-simplified belief that moral fervor alone could affect social change. There was a lack of a realistic outlook on the problems they undertook, and inadequacy of a clear theological position.

In recent years answers to the poor and downtrodden especially in Latin America have come from a revolutionary brand of Christianity called “Liberation Theology.” Latin America, strongly influenced by Marxian ideals and socialism which seek to bring change to the oppressed masses, has begun to marry a political and mystical brand of faith for the forging of a new society. Salvation for them is the liberation of the poor from the bondage of the rich through a real class struggle. Gustavo Gutierrez, in an essay entitled “Liberation, Theology and Proclamation” articulates his cause as “an effort to forge a society in which the worker is not subordinated to the owner as the means of production, a society in which the assumption of social responsibility for political affairs will include social responsibility for real liberty and will lead to the emergence of a new social consciousness.”

In its orthodoxy the Church has sided with the political power structure and the wealthy few, offering religious platitudes to the largely impoverished populations of the Latin states. In an effort to imbue the Church with a new standard of conscience liberation, theologians are philosophically moving to the political left to achieve their aims. While eschewing Marxism’s atheistic materialism and advocacy of violent revolution, Argentinian theologian Jose Miguez Bonino espouses a Christian socialism, non- violent revolution and solidarity with Marxian ideals for an ultimate utopia of peace, prosperity and human dignity.

Attacking the white Church in America is Black Theology. Christ is taught as the standard bearer of the poor of his own time and a revolutionary against their oppressors. Since he was of the Semitic race, he is not considered white by black theologians; therefore, he represents a savior sympathetic with black people. In Black Theology and Black Power James H. Cone decries the enslavement of the black man to this day by the white population, especially pointing the finger at the white Christian. He calls the Church to repent for establishing itself as a racist institution, to change its attitude toward the essence of Christ’s teachings (brotherly love) and to identify and act to overcome the oppression of the black race. J. Deotis Roberts calls blacks and whites together for the Christian act of reconciliation as a further step toward the Christ-like life. Liberation of the black race can only occur through its acceptance as co-equal with the white race. Part of this liberation is looking at the Messiah through the eyes of black people from the context of the black religious experience. Simply stated, “The Black Messiah liberates the black man. The universal Christ reconciles the black man with the rest of mankind.”

In the “growing pains” of modern Christianity, struggling with its earthly responsibilities, many avenues are being explored. However, it is necessary to give warning about the dangers Christianity faces as a religious, spiritual force if it adopts too closely the tenets of Marxism. The philosophy of communist nations is still one of ascension to power by any means. It is not beneath them to adopt the facade of Christian brotherhood and sympathy for the oppressed. These here before mentioned causes, championed by well-meaning Christians can and have been later subverted in now-Communist countries by communists committed to particular totalitarian Marxist states. Dr. Fred Schwartz has written extensively on this subject, warning Christians that the hard-core doctrine of Communism is atheism and the hard- core fact of communist ideal is a state without religion. He speaks extensively of the takeover of Christianity in China and killing the Christian opposers of the Maoist regime. In their place were put preachers paid by the communist regime to spread political propaganda. As will be discussed later, dogmatic pronouncements of materialism as pseudo-scientific philosophy are aimed at the negation of spirit or cause, and the elevation of the concept of matter in motion as the basis for the universe.

Evolution of man as a super-ape, with consciousness but no Creator, is the inevitable conclusion from a materialist point of view. Necessarily, there is a denial of anything supernatural above or beyond the natural. If Christians can understand materialism and its fallacies and render an ideology which supersedes Marxist doctrine, the answer to the praxis of Christian faith as a a viable alternative to limitations inherent in Communist philosophy will come. It will be a compelling force to realistically establish the hope of Christianity: The Kingdom of God on Earth.

Marxist Dialectics and the Christian Counterproposal: Introduction

The dialectics of Communism treat the same areas with which religion is concerned, but with a methodology compatible to science. Here, the Marxist idea of reality based on contradiction and struggle in material has tremendous implications.

To the Christian, the obvious counter-proposal to a philosophy of contradiction is a philosophy of complementarity based on the trinity. At a deeper level, the chinking Christian realizes man’s inherent contradiction occurs through sin. Recognition of the problem of sin explains man’s contradiction, while the physical universe exists as a balanced complimentarity. Marx stated the contradiction as universal to all things. He made no distinction between man and his material environment. Through the Christian concept of man’s “fall” one can surmise an original state of being in which contradictory nature was non- existent. This would imply the nature of man’s ideal status. However, the very recognition of the value of the dialectic can be construed as a key to man’s sorting out his direction toward that ideal. This is because it allows a system where the nature of man’s religious thought is compatible with the patterns of science.

However wrong the integrated system propounded by Marx may be, it is far ahead of the West in its methodological sophistication. This muse cause the chinking Christian to ponder his lack of connection between ideas of humanism or religion (those concerning man and his spirit as central) and the world of science. The scientific community of the West, integrated with worldwide science, is already in tune with the methodology of dialectical materialism despite its weaknesses in explaining phenomena. Theology, on the other hand, has seen no breakthroughs to applying its methodology to mechanistic systems. Because of this, the non-atheistic world has provided an adequate model arguing for a religious ontology based on rational analysis and experiment. Lacking such an approach, the Western philosopher- theologian was left with no counterproposal when Marxism failed to solve the problem of reconciling its materialistic ontology with modern genetics and quantum physics. Except for the individual commitment of some scientists to the heavily anthropomorphic and mythological explanations of religion, the scientific community at large has disassociated itself from “Christian” teachings as not complementary to its view of reality. Meanwhile, materialists continue to forge a “unified system” seemingly complete but fraught with dogmatic rather than truly logical conclusions. Unfortunately, as Dr. Y. O. Kim has pointed out in her development of a dialectical theology, Christianity is no competition for materialism. Rather, it continues to adopt an other-worldly view negating the possibility of activism in the world at any effective level.

Christiani.y must not lose its chance to provide the answer to the central materialist accusation. This is that man loses his rational relationship with reality when he pursues questions of origin to the point where matter disappears and what emerges is only an equation. Rather, the Christian would suggest that this is precisely the point of emergence of logos, that is, a spiritual principle of development. Here, in this equation all the “stuff” of the universe can be fit in at its various levels and magnitudes of expression and complexity, as expressing succinctly the creation as made by invisible God. Here, man is not lot, but has a claim.s the image of this internal equation of God.

In short, the claim of God must move from the world of belief to the world of demonstration. If God is a reality then men of religion must have an ideology allowing His reality to be fully clarified. Further, an ideology can be judged as true only if its Logos can be transferred from idea into practical daily life. If Christianity is to be effective against Marxist materialism it must have this consistent base with science. Only this can give democratic nations mobility cowards solutions of basic social and human problems.

Characterization of the Dialectic

The atheistic materialist dialectic must be characterized, and the relationship of its content to a more powerful theistic statement suggested. Since the literature of this synthesis is extensive, a review is necessary. Reviewed below is the current development of dialectical theory from its simplest base to the most complex. I have divided the material into (1) statements of the dialectic or polarity paradigms and (2) statements of its application or implications in religion.

1. All material participates in a dialectical or polar relationship of two [remaining a fixed base of organization regardless of external appearance or organization].

2. The dialectic or polarity exists in a (1) “vertical” polarity of “internal nature or character” and “external form or substantiation” [or in the physical world organization from a lower level to a higher level]. (2) “horizontal” polarity of dialectical or polar expression at any one level-positive and negative charges, protons and electrons, male and female, etc.

3. These polar aspects are complementary parts of one entity [not in Marxian dialectics — there they are posed as contradictory or in struggle].

4. Union of the “relative aspects” creates a third and new magnitude of existence, that is, the two compliments relating as one, thus having a third new set of characteristics.

5. One of the poles or “relative aspects” has priority of position. Consequently, circular motion is the result, creating coequality of continuous action of exchange of position.

Religious Implications: The continual interplay of the relative aspects of vertical and horizontal comprise the sustained process of a time and space dynamic. These views of complementarity parallel many religious insights: Tillich’s “ground” and “form,” Hegel’s “internal character” and “external form,” and the “inner” and “outer” (Yin-Yang) paradoxes of Lao Tzu. In this way the nature of God as transcendent and immanent are explained. In addition, the polarities of positive and negative, male and female, and their ensuing circular motion demonstrate the nature of man in social relationship as the complete image of God, and as a guide for ethical standards of human interaction.

6. The relation of the relative aspects or poles in time manifest themselves as a diamond-shaped pattern variously called “The Absolute, Relative and Synthesized” [Hegel], “Origin, Division and Union” [Lee], “Representation, Alternative, Realization [Locker], or “Thesis, Anti-thesis, Synthesis or Origin, Thesis/ Antithesis/Synthesis” [Marx, Engels, Stalin]. It describes the dynamic in relationships of space and time.

7. The activity of this rhomboid- shaped configuration or “quadruple base” constitutes the relation of an “identify maintaining” level which preserves identity within diversity, increasing organization or complexity.

8. Circular motion through time takes on a spiral motion. Planes through the spiral are designated as periods, epochs, paradigms, etc.

Religious Implications: 1. the “quadruple base” model has been thoroughly explained by S.H. Lee as a dynamic system accounting for the maintenance of identity on one hand and the multiplication of diversity on the other. This model is equivalent to a dialectical model of the trinity acting through time. It is a basis for understanding how God, standing outside of time and space, creates His own image: a universe reflecting the dynamics of His own nature. This is compatible with the structure of inner specifications and evolutionary processes characterized by science.

2. The trinity outside time and space and the trinity creating in its image within time and space are the dynamics of the two-inane-model directly pointing to the nature of Logos, the transfer of ideal to substance. Logos (or “ideal plan”) can be characterized as two great time/space-non time/space complements or polarized-base relative aspects of God. This concept is consistent with modern theories of the nature and relationship of matter, forming a pattern through which theology can be wedded to science. It provides for science a method of comment on values, ethics and norms of morality.

3. Upon this understanding Christianity can effectively confront atheistic Marxism. Relativity, macroscopic and microscopic systems, quantum theory, systems philosophy, anti-matter, parapsychology, and other theories can be explained and further elaborated, thereby supplanting the purely materialistic viewpoint.

4. Through its clear perspective of the relationship between God and material, it provides a new perspective on Koinonia, that is the role of the Church as Christ’s representative in the world.

Counterproposal to the Atheistic Dialectic: The Concept of Polarity in Religious Thought

Among contemporary theologians, Paul Tillich has articulated the Trinity in dialectic form in his Systematic Theology “The Doctrine of Trinity… is neither irrational nor paradoxical but, rather, dialectical… the Trinitarian symbols are dialectical; they reflect the dialectics of life, namely the movement of separation and reunion… If it is meant as the description of a real process, it is… a precise description of all life processes.” Obviously, this is a basis for a view of God compatible with those natures which have formerly been divided into the terms “spiritual” and “natural.”

According to Tillich, trinity is the innate answer to man’s situation. He bases this belief on the notion of three natural needs of mankind mirrored in the developments of what is called revelation history. First, there is the tension between the concrete elements in man’s life and those in which he experiences of the

Absolute, Second, man inevitably relates his life to a “divine ground” of being. Third, man experiences religious reality as creative power, salvific love, and transforming ecstasy. Man and his God develop their relationship (finally, union) under conditions of their existential separation. le is this independence of being which makes love possible, as has been recognized in the traditional notion of trinity. This is especially true in the connotations surrounding the term “hypostasis.”

For Tillich the three concepts of God as “Father,” “Son” and “Holy Spirit” are essentially derived from the three basic ontological needs of man. The first two persons of the Trinity, God the “Father” and God the “Son,” correspond to what Tillich calls an inner, intangible “ground” and an external substantiating “form.” This means that there has to be a (1) vertical dialectic of a nature and character outside space and time (“Father”) relation to a (2) form or image of that character within the dimensions of space and time (“Son”). Finite man and his relationship to the universe can be compared to the idea of God Transcendent and God Immanent. We know God by His manifestation or substantiation on earth, Jesus the Christ. The Third Person of the Trinity is established after the concrete development of the relationship between “Father” and “Son.” As Jesus says “If I do not go away [to the Father], the Counselor [Holy Spirit] cannot come to you.” (John 16: 7) We can then see God the “Father” (Transcendent) and God the “Son” (Immanent) as two necessary aspects of the Triune God. This we can perceive as a complementary dialectic the relationships of the persons of God, described by St. Paul in Ephesians as a unity bound together in the perfect love of the Holy Spirit.

Further, this line of reasoning is translated to the relationships within the family unit: man, woman and child. As man and woman (husband and wife) form a bond of love, their union produces a child, “procreated” by the parents. The child becomes the most personal object of the love shared by man and woman. The “procreation” of the third person of the family, therefore, expands the dimension of the family unit and reflects the dual natures of husband and wife in one entity. Through this three-dimensional relationship, three types of love are given to the child: those of Father, Mother and Parents. St. Paul says, “…let each one of you love his wife as himself and let the wife see that she respects her husband.” And “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother’… “ Above, or more correctly, as the center of this relationship in Christian marriage is God whose image man reflects. Through the marital relationship, man and woman as coequal parents form the complete image of God (Gen. 1:27) with God at the center of their unit. The child as image of God and image of parents completes the unit (see Fig. 1). Christologically speaking, when the Christian, through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit accepts Jesus as Savior, he also becomes the mystical or “spiritual” child o’ Jesus and the Holy Spirit, thus forming the mystical family of God (see Fig. 2).

This interaction of two forming a unit and creating a result or “new creation” has many a[•plications. Stamen and pistil produce seed, male and female animal produce offspring, positive and negative magnetic fields in generators produce electricity, etc. The implications from this are evidenced ad infinitum in our physical environment: unities producing results which again can, through other interactions produce results again, thus multiplying and recreating phenomena through time. In this “blueprint” we can see the Logos of God as Creator and Facilitator of the universe. Through this dialectic we can see the image of God substantiated not only through individual creations, but creations in relation to one another which perpetuate all life and motion.

Retrospect: Some Limitations of the Atheistic Dialectical Materialism According to Marx

Dialectical materialism is the name commonly given to the communist philosophy developed by Marx. Contrary to Christian dialectics the two elements in Marx’s dialectics are not relative or paired but contradictory. Dialectical materialism contends that all things change, move, and develop because these contradictory elements struggle against each other. In all things and processes there are necessarily two contradictory elements: affirmation and negation. They need each other on the one hand and reject each other on the other. The relationship of mutual need is union and that of mutual rejection is struggle. Equating this to the struggle of opposing elements in society, one replacing the other by force or repulsion, all relationships in nature exist in this dichotomy of unity and struggle. Engels in his Dialectics of Nature greatly expanded the idea of dialectics to biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, dynamics and mathematics. Thus, the Marxist view is a unity of contradiction or opposition, rather than one of complementary pairs.

Hegel’s philosophy of two diametrically opposing elements (dialectics) was combined with Feuerbach’s materialism to create Marx’s basic and resultant philosophy, dialectical materialism. From Hegel came the notion of contradiction through negation, the term used in describing the dialectical process of contradiction in Marxian communism. According to this idea, there is no common purpose in the relation

of the two elements-aside from the negation which resulted in a “unity of contradiction” or a “unity of opposition.”

Looking at the “unity of contradiction” from a point of view of social development, struggle undeniably has been the historical dynamic. But one cannot recognize this within nature. Natural development results from the unity of complementary pairs: positive and negative charges which unite and neutralize-like the harmony between proton and electron in atomic structure. Hence, to the Christian, development in nature does not take place through struggle but through united mutual relationships of harmony, cooperation and correspondence. Hence, one must distinguish and explain the development of society, as it seems accomplished through struggle, from the development of nature brought about by mutually complementary elements. This is where the Christian proposes the answer involving “sin.” Let us consider an example of how the imposition of contradiction in reality becomes illogical.

The Marxian-Hegelian idea of negation states that within every element is an antagonistic element. In the process of struggle the element is transformed into the antagonistic or opposing element. For instance, a seed during its growth process will maintain unity with the germ (the opposing element), but in development it will be negated by the germ and finally become a sprout. The sprout, the negation of the seed, did not abandon the seed completely, but absorbed the content of the seed. Here the previous state is sublated (aufaeben) and its positive part (seed) is preserved and embraced in the negation. Thus dialectical negation is developmental negation. Since this is allied with contradiction, such a concept of negation process; is not harmonious.

If one closely looks at this example one sees that the seed shell does not exist for the negation of the sprout but to protect it until such time as it can grow by itself. Thus the shell is in a complementary relationship with the germ inside it. The seed coat grows and becomes a sprout, not through negation or opposition but through mutual cooperation, affirmation and reconciliation. Nature works through harmonious process, not contradiction. We can clearly see that Marx’s concept of contradiction and negation are in this case completely erroneous. His allusion to negation and contradiction were to lend credence to the idea of violent struggle and revolution as a “natural” phenomenon and to make his philosophy a guide to that revolution. He did not perceive the alternative Christian idea of “fall” and restoration. Thus he conveyed the hopelessness of man onto all reality.

In the relationship of matter and what has primitively been called “spirit,” the conclusion of Engels and Marx should be even more interesting to the Christians. According to dialectical materialism, there is neither God nor soul. However, man does have a spirit. His spirit is an emergent quality of his human speculative ability and consciousness. This observed “spirit” comes from matter, but not simply any matter, only what has evolved in man as brain tissue.

Yet even in this case, the matter is the subjective component, as Marx points out that the emergent spirit can be altered by drugs or brain damage. But their concept of an emergent quality of spirit has some unique aspect to prevent it from being inevitably idealistic. The emergent spirit of the brain is not a product, which could exist independently, but is an expression of function. In other words it would correspond not to the relationship of a fetus and mother, but to the hands of a clock and a clock mechanism. If the materialist admitted the former, then a soul could perhaps exist. This would lead to idealism or religion.

The Marxian proof of spirit as a function of brain cells is based on the mental disorder caused by brain damage or inflammation of tissues. This has no basis in logic the one idea does not necessarily follow the other. The brain may be a receiver and transmitter of thoughts of invisible mind. When the receiver is damaged, as in the case of a radio receiver, the signal will not be clear and precise. The reasoning behind this Marxian explanation demands that material remain the base for the existence of all things.

The developed aspect of dialectical materialism is the occurrence in matter of both motility and historicity. Mechanistic materialism and its precursors distinguished between movement and matter. They regarded matter not as a moving body but as a mere objective dialectic, movement is not only an attribute of matter, but its very mode of existence. There cannot be matter separate from movement or vice-versa, because movement not only involves movement through space but the more subtle dynamics of physical and chemical movements in evolved life-systems. For the materialist, movement must be attributed to matter. If not, it must originate somewhere. This opens the possibility of a super material cause, the ramification of idealism, even God. Modern dialectical materialists are wise enough to see that mechanistic materialists admitted de facto to God by allowing such assertions. This is why Hegel’s concepts of spirit and matter had to be rejected. Instead, movement is the changing process within self-cause by matter itself, and the origin of this movement is the unity and struggle in contradiction.

All matter has the dialectical interaction of two contradictory elements, continuously accepting and rejecting each other. This is the dialectical interaction expanded through time and space as the Quadruple or Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis (see Fig. 3). Because Marxism is not concerned with cause, its model has a collinear implication. The problem of cause can also result in idealism. However, in demonstrable phenomenon originating at one point, as in reproductive processes at the cellular level, the Quadruple would consist more of Origin, Thesis/ Antithesis (as the contradiction) and Synthesis (see Fig. 4).

But, even if matter itself has mobility this does not rule out the possibility of an Original Being. To be truthful and not merely dogmatic, dialectical materialism must deal with the source of motion for all material. Communist dialectics also state that movement is the result of the unity and struggle of contradictory elements. Accordingly, everything contains contradiction and through the interaction of this contradiction, movement and development occur. Contradiction is the origin of movement, since movement is the attribute and mode of existence of matter. But, there are two viewpoints to explain the reason why contradiction is contained in matter: the theistic solution and the atheistic solution. If matter is the ultimate origin of the universe, the atheistic viewpoint is valid, but if matter is thought of as product, the theistic viewpoint becomes valid. Matter as result implies a Cause or God who gave matter its mobility. Marxism has not clarified this issue and as such cannot deny the existence of God by the concept of mobility of matter, since its only argument is being dogmatic about its atheistic assumptions.

Marxism’s Devaluation of the Individual as Opposed to Man in the Image of God

Marx holds that since all of matter has time and space, and movement results within time and space, every entity is an object both of recognition and practice. But, Marx proposes that practice is the important and significant quality, not recognition. What follows, then, is the fact that the value of the individual is not recognized as primary, but only the relationship of the individual or the quality of its practice within the whole.

Engels states in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific:

“…the metaphysical mode of thought… in the contemplation of individual things, forgets the connection between them.”

This is not inaccurate in itself, since religion too has failed to state a proper balance of the individual and the whole, but the Marxian viewpoint, offered by itself, takes on a brutal force. It is a system that not only places the prime importance on the role of the individual in practice defined by the whole, but also considers the human whole as objective to matter, that is, conditioned by the material or environment. The Feuerbach-Marx extrapolation concerning matter and spirit, (from Hegel’s original dialectic) follows from the materialistic view of evolution from the lowest to highest. Its conclusion is: if instinct in animals is the result of programming to the environment by adaptation (through mutation and natural selection), and if the instinct (corresponding to “spirit”) is conditioned, man, as the higher animal, must then take on his “spirit” in relation to his conditioning. Hence, we see the basis of the Marxian imbalance of seeing man as manipulated and manipulator, and why the totalitarian Marxist states have taken on the image of the “programmed” society.

“Practice” in Marxism is expanded to action, labor, and production. Man takes on his own role as the former of matter and this is where the proper ideology can allow him to form himself. Since history is the expression of this progression, Marx concludes,, and man is to discover and recognize his position by attainment of the materialistic dialectical vision, man must form history into the advent of utopian materialism through revolution and establishment of the man and culture truly knowing the nature and workings of reality. Thus, history develops through a repeated series of three stages of movement-thesis, antithesis, synthesis.

This is a concept that has had much power and much inevitable result in the oppression within Communist societies. Hence, it is important to stress its biblical counterproposal concerning religious man. It can be done in the same mode. From the point of view of Genesis 1:28 Christianity can argue from the idea of dominion over material things. If man is to be a Son of God (True Adam) he should be able to dominate creation with the love of God and the truth afforded him by scientific discovery. Through God’s purpose as origin, unity of man and creation as complementarity, and the Kingdom of God as result (see Fig. 5) the same goal of a world of peace and brotherhood can be achieved. Through man becoming one in harmony with his fellow man and with creation, man can know the true nature of reality according to the will and purpose of his

Creator. This is: to be the expression of God’s own image of harmony and complementarity. What religious man is saying, then, is that the problem of history is the problem of fulfilling the Logos is as simple as the transference of an idea or ideal to its reality. This is the challenge for Christianity as the radical counterproposal to Marxism.

Jesus spoke of the realization of brotherhood when he said, “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” (John 13:35). This absence of relationship with God has been characterized by Karl Heim as the cause for the rise of secularism. Unfortunately, the appearance of secular and atheistic dictatorships has become more and more commonplace in our contemporary world as secularism spreads and has replaced the true vision of man’s mission to achieve what Christianity calls “the Kingdom.” Bonhoeffer asserted that history involves the relationship of struggle between a community of meaning (Gemeinschaft) and a community of purpose (Gesellschaft). He bemoaned the fact that man’s communities have never achieved the ideal of the latter.

Truly, this ideal has never been achieved by Christian or Communist. Relativism has plagued the Christian community and it has too often settled for standards far below those taught by Jesus, standards thought of as too abstract or too idealistic to be achieved. Yet, Neibuhr asserts that Christianity must offer tangible, reachable goals, and Moultmann says that Christianity is called to save the world, not to leave it. Berdyaev sta res that true Christianity must be coupled with a tangible idea of history and progress. Tillich insists that the Church should be at the highest standard at any given moment. Nothing less ct.an the actualization of the standard of Christ appears as still central in the trinking of Christianity. However, the relative standards which vary from church to church throughout the hundreds of denominations in the Body of Christ have left us with a lack of effective ability to stand and carry out the role of Christianity: the realistic establishment of God’s Kingdom on earth.

On the Communist side we can really observe the relationship of an effective Logos to the realization of political power. Mao Tse-tung, in his assumption of power in China, stated immediately the goals of Chinese education: to produce from childhood citizens who would reflect the Communist view of reality. Such power cannot be manifest in the present divided and flaccid Christianity.

Instead, on the worldly level it stands ineffective against a strong Marxist Logos, which has become a pseudo-standard for the Kingdom of God. The Communist Logos stands squarely in opposition to the ontological concepts of the Christian Logos. It stands on the difference between contradiction and harmony. It is here that it can be successfully attacked by Christianity as an ideology. Christianity can take the dialectics of Marx and make them into a strong expression of God and creation. In doing so, it can create a religious world view compatible with science and form the base for the religious holistic fulfillment for man. The dialectics of Marx have laid open a powerful house of truth, only to be twisted at the end to exclude God. It must be obvious to Christianity that this challenge is the central one. Religiously evaluated, the elements of dialectics are elements for understanding God, His Image, and His Creation. They are also the base for religious unity with science and technology. The emergence of Christianity as an ideology effective on this level will allow it to carry out its physical responsibility: the establishing of God’s Kingdom on earth.