Cui Bono?

What do Marxism and Christianity each stand to gain, and what do they stand to lose, if efforts to synthesize them continue? In the “all you need is love” decade, Christians eager to prove that Jesus was indeed running with them and Marxists eager to show that they too had human faces began to seek common ground, proceeding on the assumption that both sides had everything to gain and nothing to lose. The assumption of most of these dialogues was that Marxism and Christianity were not only compatible, but virtually identical once they were stripped of superfluous appendages. Both, it was proclaimed, were essentially philosophies of social action struggling to establish peace and justice forever in this world. True Marxists (as opposed to cruel Stalinists) were better Christians than the communicants of any established and therefore bigoted church, and true Christians (i.e., civil- rights and antiwar activists) were better Marxists than any of the pachyderms of the Politburo. The struggle that mattered was not Christians against Marxists but, rather, the common struggle of all true Marxists and Christians against the orthodox establishments of their respective faiths. Someone eventually had to point out that the differences between Marxism and Christianity are fundamental, and that any synthesis is bound to do violence to the integrity of one or the other or both. Dale Vree’s book does just that, and does it so conclusively that if rationality governed in such dialogues the point would never have to be made again. He begins with a refreshingly clearheaded analysis of the historical and psychological matrix out of which the dialogues emerged. With the Second Vatican Council and the Twentieth Party Congress, the spirit of change entered a Church and a Party that owed their power and character precisely to their traditional ability to resist change. The cracks that John XXIII and Khrushchev opened in their respective monoliths inevitably turned to deep divisions. Crises of authority, credibility, and faith itself began to plague both Church and Party. As Vree observes: “What were attempts to set one’s house in order ironically intensified the disorder. What were attempts to establish credibility produced more doubt and incited paroxysms of selfdoubt.” Claims of infallibility and calls for reform do not go well together. As Vree points out, intolerance, while not itself a virtue and while not itself producing vitality, may nevertheless be a symptom of vitality; and the desire for Christian-Marxist dialogue is probably a sign of religious senescence. For this dialogue is much more actively pursued by Christians than by

Marxists: “Marxists, by the very nature of their belief system, do not seem tempted by traditional theism, whereas Christians, by the very nature of their heritage, do seem tempted by what they see as an earthly avenue to the New Jerusalem. As a result, the dialogue tends to draw Christians away from a loyalty to ‘capitalist democracy’ and toward an affinity with Marxist political ideas.” However, it is not only Christianity that loses in the dialogue.

GY

About the Author

George M. Young Jr.

What do Marxism and Christianity each stand to gain, and what do they stand to lose, if efforts to synthesize them continue? In the “all you need is love” decade, Christians eager to prove that Jesus was indeed running with them and Marxists eager to show that they too had human faces began to seek common ground, proceeding on the assumption that both sides had everything to gain and nothing to lose. The assumption of most of these dialogues was that Marxism and Christianity were not only compatible, but virtually identical once they were stripped of superfluous appendages. Both, it was proclaimed, were essentially philosophies of social action struggling to establish peace and justice forever in this world. True Marxists (as opposed to cruel Stalinists) were better Christians than the communicants of any established and therefore bigoted church, and true Christians (i.e., civil- rights and antiwar activists) were better Marxists than any of the pachyderms of the Politburo. The struggle that mattered was not Christians against Marxists but, rather, the common struggle of all true Marxists and Christians against the orthodox establishments of their respective faiths. Someone eventually had to point out that the differences between Marxism and Christianity are fundamental, and that any synthesis is bound to do violence to the integrity of one or the other or both. Dale Vree’s book does just that, and does it so conclusively that if rationality governed in such dialogues the point would never have to be made again. He begins with a refreshingly clearheaded analysis of the historical and psychological matrix out of which the dialogues emerged. With the Second Vatican Council and the Twentieth Party Congress, the spirit of change entered a Church and a Party that owed their power and character precisely to their traditional ability to resist change. The cracks that John XXIII and Khrushchev opened in their respective monoliths inevitably turned to deep divisions. Crises of authority, credibility, and faith itself began to plague both Church and Party. As Vree observes: “What were attempts to set one’s house in order ironically intensified the disorder. What were attempts to establish credibility produced more doubt and incited paroxysms of selfdoubt.” Claims of infallibility and calls for reform do not go well together. As Vree points out, intolerance, while not itself a virtue and while not itself producing vitality, may nevertheless be a symptom of vitality; and the desire for Christian-Marxist dialogue is probably a sign of religious senescence. For this dialogue is much more actively pursued by Christians than by

Marxists: “Marxists, by the very nature of their belief system, do not seem tempted by traditional theism, whereas Christians, by the very nature of their heritage, do seem tempted by what they see as an earthly avenue to the New Jerusalem. As a result, the dialogue tends to draw Christians away from a loyalty to ‘capitalist democracy’ and toward an affinity with Marxist political ideas.” However, it is not only Christianity that loses in the dialogue.