Truth Magazine

By Glenn L. Shaver

Jesus Christ prayed for his followers to be ONE (John 17:2-22). The apostle Paul wrote to the church at Corinth reproving them for their divisions and exhorted all to be of the same mind and judgment, speaking the same things (I Cor. 1:10-13). He also wrote to the Ephesians exhorting them to “keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace” (Eph. 4:3). Thus, it is Christ’s will for his people to be united and not divided.

Yet, there is division among Christ’s followers today, just as there was in the 1st century. Some of the problems causing differences in the 1st century were: circumcision, keeping of the Law of Moses, heathen feasts, worshiping of angels, etc. Some of the current problems are: “Missionary Societies” and “Sponsoring Church Cooperation” in preaching the gospel; “Educational Institutions” taking funds from the churches to edify; “Benevolent Organizations” to do the work of relieving the needy for the churches; “Socialized Gospel Movement” in building “recreation and fellowship halls,” “youth camps,” etc. to entertain and provide recreation for the young people, etc.

These “human organizations” set up to do the work for the churches are causing division among the followers of Christ. The promoters of such “human institutions” are guilty of “driving the wedge that split the log.” Remember, “these six things cloth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:” (What is the seventh thing?) “He that soweth discord among brethren” (Prov. 6: 16-19).

When faithful and sincere brethren ask for the scriptural authority (precept, approved example, or necessary deduction or inference) for the above practices, the promoters of such practices cry, “You are trying to kill the good works we are doing.” No, no, beloved, we are not trying to kill any good work, but we are asking that the good works be ordained of God and that the churches work in the manner God has appointed.

Truth Magazine VI: 3, p. 1a
December 1961

By Richard Weaver

The Church Is a Kingdom

The division and resulting confusion of the religious world today will continue until the leaders of the sects recognize that the church of the Lord is not a democracy whose practices are to be determined by majority vote or by conferences and councils of men. Jesus in the Word has taught us that the church is a kingdom. Read Matthew chapter 13 that records parables of the kingdom which refer to the church and Matt. 16:18 where He spoke of building his church, then in the very next verse referred to it as the kingdom. See also verse 28 of the same chapter in which Jesus said, “There shall be some standing here, which shall not taste of death, till they see the Son of man coming in his kingdom.” Moreover, Paul wrote, “God hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son” (Col. 1:13). Jesus himself “is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of Kings, and Lord of Lords (1 Tim. 6:15).

 

Divine Order of Government

 

Those familiar with secular government know that in a democracy the people rule either directly or through elected representatives. In an aristocracy the ruling class is composed of a few, but in a monarchy the king has all power, which he may delegate if he chooses. In a democracy there are three separate branches of government: the legislature, to make laws; a system of courts, the judiciary, to interpret the laws; and the executive branch composed of officials to enforce these laws. In a monarchy the legislative, judicial and executive powers are ALL vested in the king. So also it is in the divine order of government for the kingdom, the church. Of this divine kingdom Christ is King, ruling over his subjects who are members of his body, the church, and citizens of his kingdom (1 Cor. 12: 20, 2 7; Phil. 3: 20 ASV).

 

Jesus Has All Authority

Jesus said unto his disciples, “All power (or authority the American Standard Version says) is given unto me in heaven and in earth.” Inspired by the Spirit, Paul wrote, “Then cometh the end, when he shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father; when he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” (1 Cor. 15:24). Hence, Jesus now has “ALL RULE AND ALL AUTHORITY AND POWER.”

We must listen, therefore, to Jesus in all matters religious rather than to the ideas of human, fallible man who has no authority whatever since Christ has it all. Jesus further stated to h s disciples, after having declared that he had all authority, “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Spirit-ASV): Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.” (Matt. 28:19-20). Jesus in giving this worldwide commission stipulated the conditions of the apostles’ preaching, namely, they were to observe all things commanded them by him, and not by any man or group of men in conventions or synods.

 

Cause of Division

The reason so much religious confusion exists is because too many people take what some preacher says rather than listening to what Jesus and the apostles plainly teach in the scriptures. Following the transfiguration of our Lord, God spoke from heaven saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.” Let us listen to authorized teaching from the Son of God, who pleased well the Father and who has been given all authority in Christianity.

Protestantism apologizes for its divisions on the ground, “We can not all understand the Bible alike.” This is not true for when we understand anything, we must of necessity all understand it alike. Many people, however, misunderstand the Bible! What we need is more study and belief of just what the Bible says!

The underlying cause of division in the religious world is a lack of recognition of AUTHORITY. Groups of men convene to determine the practices of their denomination and forget or disregard the divine standard of authority, the teaching of Christ and the apostles contained in the New Testament. It should, though, ever be remembered that Jesus said for us to observe all things whatsoever he has taught. He has all authority! (Matt. 28:18; 1 Cor. 15:23.) Also, hear the words of Peter preached on Solomon’s porch, “For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A Prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; (Moses was speaking of Jesus) him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass, that every soul, which will not hear that Prophet, shall be destroyed from among the people” (Acts 3: 224-23) .

 

Innovations

 

Many members of denominations will admit that the Lord authorizes a certain act in a specific way but they say, “I don’t think it’s wrong to do it another way.” They then disregard divine authority and set themselves up as the end of all wisdom.

Pope Stephen II in 1311 introduced sprinkling as a substitute for scriptural immersion.

The New Testament teaches that baptism is a burial (Col. 2:12; Rom. 6:3-5), a going down into, a coming up out of the water (Acts 8:38-39; Mt. 3:16-17). Whether you accept sprinkling or immersion for Bible baptism is an index to whom or what you recognize as authoritative!

In 658 Pope Vitalianus introduced instrumental music to accompany the scripturally authorized singing of New Testament worship. These are the New Testament scriptures which authorize singing in acceptable worship to God: Rom. 15:9; 1 Cor. 14:15; Eph. 5:19; Col. 3:16; Heb. 2:12 and 13:15 and James 5: 13. There is no authority in the New Testament to use mechanical instruments such as the organ, piano, trumpet, etc, in the worship of God.

Jesus said, “But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mt. 15:9). Therefore, in subscribing to those doctrines and practices unauthorized by Christ and hence commanded by men, ones worship is in vain. No man has the right to make religious laws binding upon the church nor has any conference or council of men.

The word of Christ which is to dwell in us richly (Col. 3:16) and by which we are to live and ultimately be judged (John 12:48) is our authority in Christianity. Since we are to be judged by this divine standard, the teaching of the New Testament of Christ, let us diligently study it that our lives and religious practices may conform thereto.

 

Additional Innovations

 

1. Since 1910 churches of Christ have contributed, from the treasuries, to Orphan Home Corporations and Old Folks Home Corporations. There is not one passage in all the New Testament of Christ that authorizes the church to contribute to another organization except to a church of Christ which is in NEED (Acts 11:27-30; 1 Cor. 16:1-4; Romans 15:25-31; 2 Cor. 8 & 9). When men “go beyond that which is written,” (1 Cor. 4:6), and corrupt God’s plan for taking care of the needy their worship is in vain (Matt. 15: 1-9).

2. In recent years brethren have solicited and accepted church contributions to Colleges and Schools. There is not one scripture that teaches by precept or statement of fact, by approved example, or necessary inference that churches of Christ may contribute to an Educational Society. The beloved apostle wrote, “Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God” (2 John 9).

3. During the David Lipscomb College Lectures in the Spring of 1960, “Prophet” Marshall Keeble said, “I prophesy that we’ll have Church of Christ Hospitals in the next few years.” Friends, there is no authority from Christ for such. Certainly Christians, as individuals, are to visit the sick for Jesus said, “I was sick, and ye visited me” (Mt. 25:36), but this does not authorize churches contributing to a church of Christ Hospital Corporation.

Indeed, all need to recognize the importance and seriousness of these matters and “continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine,” (Acts 2:42), and ever be content to “abide in the doctrine of Christ,” (2 John 9). Then when “we walk in the light, as he is in the light” we will “have fellowship one with another” (1 John 1: 7).

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 22-24
November 1961

By Bryan Vinson, Sr.

The following statements enumerated are of such character as to be regarded as self evidently true to all who are familiar with the New Testament scriptures. They were not formulated by me, but by brother Foy E. Wallace Jr., to whom I gratefully acknowledge my indebtedness, not only for them but for much of the little I have learned of God’s Will. The observations and comments on each of them are substantially my own. These are made in order that the reader may be assisted in appreciating the relevancy of the basic truths to the present day issues, and, consequently, be the better able to discern the merits of the points in controversy among brethren today.

1. No Congregation Has the Preeminence.

This is a statement of fact insofar as the New Testament record reveals, and as being true in the apostolic era. However, the succeeding centuries record the struggle for preeminence by several congregations, with five emerging as rivals. Finally, the struggle came to be between two–Rome and Constantinople, with the former gaining the final ascendancy in the eleventh century. Today, among congregations of the Lord’s people, we see some emerging to a point of power and prestige above others that finds assertion in, among other things, a campaign to outstrip the other in Bible class attendance.

To secure the victory, famed entertainers and athletes have been engaged to attract and secure the needed number for victory. Also, we have seen instances of one of these most successful “on the march” churches putting pressure on smaller congregations to enlist their financial contributions to the varied general work carried on by this sponsoring church. This has occurred even to the rupturing of the small congregation located in the shadow of the big promotional church.

2. No Elders of a Church are to be an Ecumenical Eldership (a board for the whole church).

This, however, is exactly what exists in act and in fact when the elders of one congregation oversee a work of a plurality of congregations. Weak and wildly imaginary efforts in exegesis have been resorted to, designed to support such an arrangement. A prime example of this is Acts 11: 29-30.

They suspend a defense of current practices on the assumed probability of elders in the Jerusalem church, and none in the other churches of Judea. Why the assumption? Paedobaptists have assumed for centuries that probably there were infants in the household of Lydia, and on such an assumption they defend their sprinkling of infants. Will brethren who so reason be agreeable to accept the consequences of their doctrine. This I would like to know.

3. No Coordination of local churches functioning through one eldership.

This poses the thought of equality of cooperating congregations while being overseen and controlled by the eldership of one, which would mean they were not the elders of one congregation but of many–a thing not known in the New Testament. Some have thought there were elders of the church in one city, with several congregations, as per Titus 1.5. But Acts 14:23 nullifies such a contention.

4. No pressure of one church on another, or others.

No one would deny this being true of churches in the days of the apostles. Can it be successfully denied today? When brethrel1 call meetings of elders and preachers of a number of congregations to deal with one, which incidentally is absent, it would be difficult to deny such a condition.

5. No Force in the church except of being and doing right.

Every principle of morality and human dignity that Christianity recognizes and enjoints forbids any other force!

6. No function of elders outside the church in which they are elders.

This fundamental truth, if recognized and respected, would silence every voice and stop every effort directed toward brotherhood wide operations by any and every congregation in the land. Yet there is heard no firm and clear affirmation of a contrary nature, though some have sought by implication to deny it in the construction of Acts 11:29-30.

7. No action of one church is authoritative on other churches, for binding decisions; otherwise there would be an authority other than the scriptures infallible.

The contrary of this has produced and sustains the claims of the Papacy; that is, the pre-eminence, and, therefore, the binding authority of the See of Rome. Present day cooperation has brought about a state of affairs where some participants therein have acted in concert to suppress and endeavor to destroy congregations and preachers who dissent from certain practices. This is affected by one congregation sometimes initiating an action of excommunication, and being acquiesced in by others; hence, it involves a course which smacks of collusion as virtually synonymous with cooperation, with lesser influential congregations becoming guilty of connivance by their acceptance of the decrees, lest they become the victims also of excommunication. The whole procedure rests on an implied acceptance of the thesis of an infallible authority residing in, and being exercised by, a congregation under its elders. Of course when such is done, there is the pious appeal to Romans 16:17-18. But when a request is made to prove those th us charged with teaching and practicing that which is “contrary to the doctrine ye have learned,” the request is treated with complete silence! The edict thus is founded on the presumed infallibility of those who pronounce and issue it.

8. No Feudal authority can be vested in an eldership. Feudal: an over lording of one state over other states – holding of relieves, revenues, aids, properties or that which is another’s.

However, we actually have this state of affairs presently existing. We have congregations that are holding companies, having in their possession large sums of money, amenable to no one, without responsibility or accountability to anyone among all those whose money it is, and who have entrusted it into their keeping. Supplementary thereto, there is now being solicited the legacies of Christians through the provisions of their wills, when such ones are not even members of the soliciting congregations. The idea of building up huge wealth and property vested in the church finds its counterpart in Roman Catholicism, and not the New Testament Church. Where there is a concentration of wealth there is a corresponding accumulation of power, be it in the government or in the church.

9. No elders of one church can become the voice of the churches of Christ, assuming the prerogative to state doctrine for the whole church, power to commit the church to a statement of doctrine.

This, however, is done when one church oversees and determines that which is broadcast greeting the public with: “The Churches of Christ salute you,” thereby, in effect, speaking for the churches generally. Every contributing congregation is bound to that which is taught on the Herald of Truth, while having no voice in determining that which is taught. Notwithstanding, some offer the defense that such is not an intrusion on and a breach of congregational autonomy! If there is to be an activation of the “church universal,” then a delegate system would be preferable, inasmuch as such would not be “taxation without representation” Of course this would be wrong also, since there is no scriptural way to activate the church in its universal character inasmuch as it has no organic and functional character on earth.

10. No eldership has authority to operate a human institution.

This is so obviously true to anyone even reasonably conversant with the New Testament, that it is astonishing to find members of the church who do not either know better, or despite the truth, endeavor to reflect against it by suggesting that a human institution is made scriptural by the simple process of placing it under an eldership. The authority of elders is restricted to the congregation of which they are elders or bishops. They have no jurisdiction over anyone or anything other than the congregation constituted of its members, and as the overseers and leader; of its activities as a church of Christ. Their authority here is subordinate to, as defined and restricted by the Word of God; any self-asserted authority beyond that which is defined and delineated in the scripture is an unwarranted assumption. The idea that elders can make scriptural any organization by assuming the oversight thereof is the very essence of presumption. This, however, lies at the very base of a widespread and fallacious attempt to justify the church created and supported benevolent organizations among us today. The notion is so firmly implanted in the mind of some, that the Superintendent of the local orphanage takes the view that we shouldn’t distribute any papers among members of congregations as expressing sentiments contrary to the “convictions of the elders” thereof. He should be careful, then, to never send any literature to a Digressive church containing any truth on the subject of instrumental music in the worship, because such is contrary to the convictions of the elders of such a church Just when did elders become empowered to function as a board of censors for the churches? Also, this superintendent sought to make the sending of this page parallel to the giving and receiving involved in his institution. Now, if we were soliciting and receiving funds wherewith to do the teaching for all the churches through such medium, then he would have a parallel. Such, however, is not the case at all, and he and all others should be able to see it.

11. No eldership of a sponsoring church in the New Testament.

The truth of this statement resides in the fact there are no such churches in the New Testament. Not an instance can be cited where any congregation set itself up as a sponsoring church to do the work of churches generally, and solicited funds from them to do their work for them. This is widely practiced today, and congregations, which refuse to become contributing churches, are being stigmatized by those thus engaged. It would be far more appropriate and fitting, if rather than so reacting, that those advocating this practice would first prove by the scriptures that such is good: “Prove all things, hold fast to that which is good” (1 Thess. 5:21). Nothing in religious faith and practice is good unless first proved by the scriptures to be so.

12. No organization of any kind in New Testament for inter-church work.

Co-operation is not equivalent to co-congregational; that is, one church overseeing and directing the work of many, doing a collective work (evangelistic or benevolent) through one congregation. Each congregation is adequate to do all the Lord enjoins upon us to do in any organizational capacity, so far as the scriptures reveal, and they have supplied us with all that pertains to life and godliness. In fact I hereby challenge anyone to point out one thing God requires of Christians, which they cannot perform, either in their individual capacity or congregational relationship. The local congregation is the only collective body revealed in the New Testament, and the relation of Christians is intra-congregational rather than inter-congregational in their work and worship. Work and Worship affords the justification for a congregation existing.

 

Conclusion

 

These facts, while not all that might be cited for lack of space, are set forth to challenge the thinking of all who are devoted to the principle of abiding in the doctrine of Christ. Those otherwise minded cannot be reached; these can.

We have long prided ourselves as a people who can support our faith and practice by a “thus saith the Lord.” Shall we supinely and apathetically react to this kind of appeal by disparaging its virtue and repudiating its force today in these present issues? Shall Christians react as do Sectarians, generally, when their position on any point is challenged, or will they examine the scriptures to see whether these things be true?

These matters vitally affect the questions of fellowship and the liberty we enjoy in Christ. Any attitude and action on the part of elders and preachers which builds an iron curtain between them and the most intelligent and able brethren in the church, among living preachers, reflects a seriousness that surpasses anything witnessed in our time.

Truth Magazine VI: 2, pp. 16-19
November 1961

By James D. Bales

(Read Psa. 14:1-4.) Why should a Christian be interested in the subject of Communism? Is it not simply a political system? It has political manifestations — so do some religious bodies — but it is far more than politics. It is a philosophy of life, a way of destruction and death. We who are believers in God must be against a system, which denies God and endeavors to work for the destruction of faith in God. Communism is the largest atheistic organization the world has ever known–the Communist Parties throughout the world have over 35,000,000 members.

We who believe that Christ is the Savior and died for sinners must be against a system, which denies that Christ is the Savior and that man is a sinner in need of spiritual salvation.

We who believe that men are men for whom Christ died must be against a system, which views men as economic and class animals.

We who believe that it makes a difference what one believes can find in Communism an outstanding proof of this fact. It shows what men do who act on their belief than man is not a creature of God, but an evolved creature. It also shows that although atheism may be advocated by respectable men in America, who are upheld in their character by a religious background and influence, atheism in reality debases man.

One does not have to visit Russia in order to learn about Communism, any more than one has to visit Rome to learn about Roman Catholicism. People did not have to visit Hitler’s Germany to learn about Nazism. One can learn from a study of their writings what one could never learn by a tour through their countries–a conducted tour.

Contrast what the Communist leaders demand of Communists with that Christ demands of us. For example, the point on Communism as a totalitarian system. Also stress that Communism has its great commission– conquer the world by subversion, teaching and violence–while Christians are under the Great Commission to convert the world. Who is working the hardest at it? They circulate millions of copies of books on atheism. How many do we buy and read and circulate concerning faith in God, the Bible and the gospel?

 

Communism Versus Religion

 

Is permanent peaceful coexistence possible between Communism and religion? From time to time the Communists have tried to leave the impression that peaceful coexistence is possible. An understanding of Communism, however, proves that the Communists do not believe that peaceful coexistence can continue; instead, religion must be finally destroyed. Communism is basically antireligious. What in the philosophy of Communism shows the such is the case?

First, Communism is militant atheism. It is therefore antagonistic to faith in any Supreme Being. Karl Marx was an atheist before he became a Communist, and he made atheism an essential part of Communism. Lenin emphasized atheism in his pamphlet on Religion. At the Bandung Conference, Chou En-lai said: “We are still atheists.”

It must be kept in mind that the Communists emphasize the necessity of spreading their beliefs. Karl Mark, in the VIII Thesis on Feuerback, stated that they were not interested simply in understanding the world, but in changing the world. At the 20th Congress of the Communist Party, Soviet Union in 1956, Krushchev said: “Revolutionary theory is not a collection of petrified dogmas and formulas, but a militant guide to action in transforming the world, in building communism.” (Report of the Central Committee, p. 116) This indicates that the Communist is determined to build a world, which will reflect his beliefs, and his beliefs include atheism

Second, Communism is against religion because Communism is a totalitarian system, which demands the undivided loyalty of its subjects. It endeavors to control the inner and outer life of man. Thus communism is in opposition to religion which says that there is a higher will, law and allegiance than that of the State or Party.

In his booklet on How To Be a Good Communist, Liu Shao-Chi emphasized three things. (a) The Communist must be thoroughly indoctrinated in Marxism-Leninism, which includes atheism. (b) He must be wholeheartedly dedicated to the Party. (c) He must be willing to do anything demanded by the Party leadership. The claim of this totalitarian system on the whole of the life of its followers is summed up in Lenin’s statement that the Party is the mind, the honor and the conscience of this epoch. Since Communists are called on to be totally committed to the world view of Marxism- Leninism, the Communists will not forever allow, in countries which they control, any religion, for all religions have a world view which is contrary to Communism.

Third, Communism is anti-religious because Communism claims to be a Scientific World View. Religion, Communism claims, is a superstitious survival from an unscientific and anti-scientific worldview. As Stalin put it: “The Party cannot be neutral towards religion and it does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science.” (Leninism, Vol. 1, p. 386)

Communism claims to be scientific socialism. It maintains that Marxism is the scientific understanding of nature and society. Religion is considered to be unscientific because religion does not agree with Marxism. Therefore, religion is to be opposed.

Marxism, however, is not scientific. A1though a communist may do scientific work in some particular field of scientific research yet he cannot have the scientific frame of mind. For the scientific mind is open to truth regardless of the direction from which it may come. But the Communist must toe the Party line when so demanded, as is indicated by the Lysenko era in Russian biology.

The Communist must ignore or deny the evidence for the reality of the spiritual life. This is being unscientific.

Communism involves atheism. Atheism is not scientific. Atheism assumes that nonliving matter created life; that non-conscious matter created consciousness; that non- religious matter created man with his religious aspirations; that non-moral matter created man with his moral sensitivity and his sense of duty; that non-thinking matter created man with thinking ability. For all of this there is not only no scientific evidence, but all the evidence we have points to the fact that life comes from life, etc.

If atheism is true, matter in motion is the only reality, and thus, as Lenin maintained, thought is but matter in motion, which has been set in motion by internal and external physical pressures. If this is true, how can one claim that the thoughts, which matter forces us to think are rational. One could not have any grounds on which to claim that anything, including Communism, is rational. Materialism must deny that man can reach any conclusions on the basis of the evaluation of evidence and of logical thinking. For all that exists is but matter reacting -to matter.

Marxism has not been established by the scientific method; it has never been proven by experimentation or on the basis of the study of nature and of society.

No great scientific discovery has taken place as a result of the application of dialectical materialism.

According to dialectical materialism, the clash between opposites should produce progress. However it may produce a stalemate, mutual destruction or a backward step.

If Marxism is scientific, as they claim, it should have enabled them to make scientific predictions based on the Marxism analysis of society. Instead, however, things have not worked according to the way that Marxism says they must work.

According to Marxism, the first communist revolution should have taken place in an advanced capitalistic country, but instead it took place in Russia, which was not an advanced capitalistic and industrialized country.

According to Marxism, the worker in an advanced capitalistic country should be getting poorer and poorer; but in the most advanced capitalistic country in the world, America, the workingman has the highest standard of living in that this world has ever known. He has material prosperity, and what is better, he has freedom.

According to Marxism, a change of economic system results in a change of ideas and not the other way around. And yet, the ideas of Marx and Lenin resulted in a change of economic system in Russia so that today they have an extreme form of State Monopoly Capitalism under the control of a ruthless dictatorship.

According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat builds up a classless society, whereas in reality they have created a ruthless and new exploiting class–as Djilas has pointed out in his book The New Class.

According to Marxism, the dictatorship of the proletariat builds a worker’s paradise, but as a matter of fact it has built an iron curtain and a bamboo curtain to keep the workers from fleeing from the so-called worker’s State.

Marxism originally taught that when the dictatorship of the proletariat established socialism, the dictatorship withers away; but in reality it is the people who wither away under the dictatorship. In Hungary the proletariat tried to overthrow the so-called dictatorship of the proletariat, and they were crushed by Russian imperialists.

Marxism, we conclude, is not a scientific analysis of society.

Fourth, Communism is anti-religious because it maintains that religion is the tool of the ruling class and the opiate of the masses. The rulers use religion to protect their interest (The Communist Manifesto), and to paralyze the will of the masses so that they will not overthrow the rulers (V. J. Jerome, “Let Us Grasp the Weapon of Culture.” Political Affairs, February, 1951, p. 207). The rulers promise the people a reward in the world to come, in order to dope the people so that they will be content to let the rulers have the material things of life while the people dream of the rewards in the world to come. Religion, said Marx, is an opiate whereby the masses deaden themselves to the misery of their existence. Khrushchev recently reiterated the Communist claim that religion is an opiate (see also V. I. Lenin, Religion, p. 12).

It is true that religion may be perverted and become a tool and an opiate. But such is not the essence of religion. Anything may be used by someone as a tool. Communists, in fact, try to use religion as a tool in order to conquer the world. Thus the leadership of Russian Orthodox Church in Russia constitutes one of the mouthpieces of Soviet home and foreign policy.

The philosophy of Communism is the opiate which the Russian Communist Imperialists use in order to give them power over the members of the Party. While promising the members of the Party that in a few years they will live in a Communist Society, the Communist leaders use these people for their own selfish purposes. In a few years there will be peace and prosperity, if you will let the Party direct your lives and determine how material goods are to be used now. This is the promise of the Party Leaders. But it is a promise, which they do not fulfill. On Oct. 2, 1920, Lenin promised the generation “which is now fifteen years old” that they would be “living in a Communist society” in “ten or twenty years time.” (V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953, p. 37). But what was happening in 1940, which was twenty years after? Some of these same Communists were in their grave, having been put there at Stalin’s orders. And Stalin was on the throne, ruling ruthlessly. Even Khrushchev admitted, in February, 1956, that Stalin had done some very cruel and ruthless things even against members of the Party.

Thus we see that by promising their followers a prosperous tomorrow they control them for the selfish purposes of the Party leaders today.

Fifth, Communism is anti-religious because it views religion as a symbol of man’s alienation from himself. Religion leads man to look outside of himself for help, and thus keeps him from bringing about his own emancipation. It is true that religion asks man to look beyond himself because there is a spiritual realm and God does exist. It is not degrading to man to bow before the Absolute, but it is degrading to bow before the relative and make ourselves the slaves of the arbitrary whims of man. And yet, this is exactly what the Communist Party leaders require of their followers. Their followers must reject their own will and submit unquestionably to the will of the Party. This was emphasized by Liu Shao-Chi in How To Be a Good Communist. Communism is thus guilty of that of which it accuses religion, it is a symbol of man’s alienation from himself and of his abject submission to the will of the Party leaders.

Sixth, Communism is anti-religious because religion teaches the reality of moral law while Communism maintains that there is no moral law and that a thing is right if it serves the interest of a class. And, according to Communism, the interest of their class is determined by the decisions of the Party leaders.

The Communist Manifesto maintains that morality is but a mask behind which lurks in ambush the interest of the ruling class. A moral system is but a means whereby a class justifies its interests, protects its interests, and extends its interests. And Lenin put it: “In what sense do we repudiate ethics and morality? In the sense in which it is preached to the bourgeoisie, who derived ethics from God’s commandments. We, of course, say that we do not believe in God, and that we know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords and the bourgeoisie spoke in the name of God in pursuit of their own interests as exploiters. Or, instead of deriving ethics from the commandments of God, they derived it from idealists or semi-idealist phrases, which always amounted to something very similar to God’s commandments.”

“We repudiate all morality taken apart from human society and classes. We say that it is a deception, a fraud, a befogging of the minds of the workers and peasants in the interests of the landlords and capitalists.”

“We say that our morality is entirely subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

“That is why we say that for us there is no such thing as morality apart from human society; it is a fraud. Morality for us is subordinated to the interests of the class struggle of the proletariat.”

“What does this class struggle mean? It means overthrowing the tzar, overthrowing~ the capitalists, abolishing the capitalist class.” (V. I. Lenin, The Tasks of the Youth Leagues. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1953, pp. 20, 21, 22.)

This means that Communism utterly repudiates moral law. It further means that the Communists believe that anything–absolutely anything–is right if it carried out the will of the Party and overthrows those who oppose them. This means that Communism in its view of morality is in opposition to religion.

Their concept view of morality means that their moral system or scale of values will not only be different from but in opposition to ours, since they maintain that their class interests are in opposition to ours and morality must further class interests. Thus one of their leading philosophers in America wrote that opposing classes have values which are not only different but which are also in opposition. (Howard Selsarn, Philosophy In Revolution. New York: International Publishers, 1957, p. 137).

To illustrate what this means with reference to morality we can take three moral laws.

First, thou shalt not steal. The Communists maintain that this is but the law of a ruling, property-holding class, which enables them to protect their property. Of course, if theft be wrong, the institution of private property cannot be wrong. The Communists maintain that their interests are opposed to ours, therefore it is right to steal if it will help the Party. This does not mean that he will be an ordinary thief stealing the ten-cent store articles but that stealing is right if it helps the Party. The Communist revolution in Russia was financed in part by bank robberies (Bertram D. Wolfe, Three Who made a Revolution).

Second, thou shalt not commit adultery. The Communist maintains that this is based on the idea that the wife is the private property of the man. Thus this law is a means of protecting his private property. The Communists maintain that it is right to commit adultery if it will advance the interests of the Party. Thus Elizabeth Bentley, in her book Out of Bondage, tells of the use of women by Communists to trap men in order that they might blackmail them or so demoralize them that they can use them for Party purposes.

Third, honor thy father and thy mother. Communists maintain that this is based on the idea that the child is the private property of the parents and therefore should obey and honor them. The Communist Manifesto indicates that the family is based on the idea of private ownership and that when Communism finally arrives the family will be abolished. They believe that children should dishonor their parents if so commanded by the Party. Thus children in Communist countries are taught to tell the authorities if their parents have and express any ideas contrary to Communism or for religion. In some countries, such as Red China, this has led to the death of the parents, and the child has been held up in the classroom as a hero. In Red China today in some of the “People’s Communes” they are trying to destroy the family.

This shows what the Communists mean when they say that morality is but a means of furthering class interests and that since they represent a different and opposing class in society, according to them, their moral system is different from and in opposition to ours.

Seventh, Communism is against any religion, which teaches love and good will toward people of difference classes in society. Communism teaches that one must be ruthless and that he must hate and destroy all class enemies. And anyone is a class enemy if he is so resignated by the Party leadership. “Democratic and socialistic culture in Czechoslovakia was always imbued with the ideas of true humanism–that of the struggle of the oppressed against the oppressors. This is seen in the splendid thought of the Czechoslovak poet, Jeri Wolker, whose works sincerely and seriously reflect the problem of love for man. He says: ‘Let us assume that class hatred could disappear in a class society. Nothing could be more harmful to the working class than that. They would be degraded to a position of oxen under an eternal yoke, for it is only hate that helps to maintain the worker’s human dignity–class hate which one day will abolish all classes.”‘ (Shtoll, Ladislav: “The Class Struggle and Humanism,” World Marxist Review, Nov. 1958, p. 28)

Communism is against any religion, which teaches progress can come through good will, since Communism believes that revolution is inevitable and the way to true progress. The Communist Manifesto appeal to workers of the world to unite and to revolt against their governments is quoted with approval in a recent Communist publication. “The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims. They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions. Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win. Working men of all countries, Unite! ” (As quoted from the Manifesto in C. Obichkin, On The “Manifesto of the Communist Party of Marx and Engels. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1955, p. 38). V. Koxlov declared that it is necessary to overthrow by revolution all capitalistic states (Bourgeois Nations and Socialists Nations. Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1954, p. 26). Mao Tse-tung said that revolution is necessary and inevitable, and that the period of peaceful coexistence is but the period before the bomb is ignited (On Contradiction. New York: International Publishers, 1953, p. 50). The period of peaceful coexistence is not a period wherein they endeavor to reach an understanding through good will with their class enemies. Instead they endeavor to do at least four things, which will hasten the coming of the revolution: (a) Consolidate their gains. (b) Divide their enemies. (c) Intensify subversion. (d) Conduct psychological warfare to lull their enemies to sleep with false hopes or to paralyze them with false fears.

Thus we see that in its emphasis on deceit, class hatred and violence Communism is opposed to any religion, which teaches integrity, good will and mercy.

It is in the light of these basic antagonisms between communism and religion that we can understand the statement of Earl Browder, a former chairman of the Communist Party of America. He said: -” . . . We Communists do not distinguish between good and^-bad religions, because we think they are all bad for the masses.” (What Is Communism? p.149)

When we understand this, we understand that there can be no peaceful coexistence between any vital religion and Communism. He who thinks that there can be does not understand either religion or Communism.

Truth Magazine, VI:2 pp. 4-9
November 1961