Lochman, Jan Milic. Translated by Edwin Robertson. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 197

Eriksson, Vincent E.

English

Scholars Commons

Encountering Marx: bonds and barriers between Christians and Marxists

Wilfrid Laurier University

ConsensusVolume 5 | Issue 2 Article 64-1-1979Encountering Marx: bonds and barriers betweenChristians and MarxistsVincent E. ErikssonFollow this and additional works at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensusThis Book Reviews is brought to you for free and open access by Scholars Commons @ Laurier. It has been accepted for inclusion in Consensus by anauthorized editor of Scholars Commons @ Laurier. For more information, please contact scholarscommons@wlu.ca.Recommended CitationEriksson, Vincent E. (1979) "Encountering Marx: bonds and barriers between Christians and Marxists," Consensus: Vol. 5 : Iss. 2 ,Article 6.Available at: http://scholars.wlu.ca/consensus/vol5/iss2/6BOOKS IN REVIEWENCOUNTERING MARX: BONDS AND BARRIERSBETWEEN CHRISTIANS AND MARXISTSJAN MILICLOCHMAN, tr. Edwin H. RobertsonPublished by Fortress Press, Philadelphia,1977, 136 pp., paper, $4.25Chapters: “Introduction,” “From Anathema to Dialogue,” “The Image of Man in theYoung Karl Marx,” “The Challenge of Marxist Criticism of Religion,” “The DisputeOver the Biblical Heritage,” and “Future and Hope in the Christian-Marxist Dialogue.”The author, formerly a member of the Comenius Faculty at the University of Prague,writes out of the context of the discussions that culminated in the “Prague Spring” of1968. His purpose appears twofold: to show Christians the ways in which Marxismhas common points with Christianity, and to show how the Marxist analysis and pre-diction differ from the Christian.One finds references to Ernst Bloch, Roger Garaudy, and Jurgen Moltmann —some of the same authors mentioned by Harvey Cox in On Not Leaving It to theSnake (MacMillan, 1964, 1965, 1967). But in comparison with Lochman’s exhaust-ive treatment, Cox appears superficial and “trendy.”In order to follow the argument of the book, it is necessary to understand Marx’sstatement that religion is the opiate of the people. This statement has often beeninterpreted as an incorrigible and radical atheism on the part of Marx and Marxists.While it is true that Marx was an atheist, the statement itself is not necessarily atheistic.Marx’s atheism was derivative, not primary; a product of his social analysis not a pre-condition of it. As Lochman expresses it (p. 83), “(T)o Marx (r)eligion is not the root ofall evil — a perverted world is the root of religion.” He saw religion not as the villainbut as a tool of villains, along with philosophy, popular culture and patriotism. ’Much of the recent Marxist-Christian dialogue in Europe surrounded Marx’s earlywritings — Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts. Written in 1844, these writingswere not published until 1932 and were suppressed in Russia by Stalin’s “orthodoxy.”In these early writings, Marx discussed man in his social relationships, using categoriessimilar to those of the New Testament. Work is fulfilling, but man has come to worshipthe product of work, i.e., “money” (later called “Capital”). Man has allowed it, and itsm.anipulators, to direct his life; under such conditions, work is no longer fulfillment buthas become slavery. “The natural aim of economy is to satisfy human need — (u)nderthe rule of money all this changed. The purpose of economic activity now becomes.1. Kcrl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (New York: New World Paperbacks, 1969),p. 39. (This work dates from 1845-46.)31Consensus32not to satisfy needs, but to create them” (Lochman, p. 61)It is in this situation of the distortion of ends and means that those who controlCapital use religion as an opiate for the people they control, claimed Marx. He sawprivate property as the root of all evil. Taken this way, the parallels with Jesus saying,“You cannot serve God and mammon” (Matt. 6:24) and Paul’s “The love of money isa root of all kinds of evil” (I Tim. 6:10) in the context of his criticism of those who con-sidered godliness a means of gain (I Tim. 6:5,6),are obvious.In Europe, however, sincere Marxists have been forced to re-examine their position. Ifprivate property is the root of all evil, of all unhappiness and alienation, then theabolition of private property should have brought happiness, equality, and the end ofthe exploitation of power-relationships. This has not happened in those countrieswhere private property has been abolished.In Czechoslovakia, with its tradition of the Hussites and the concept of Christianbrotherhood, many young Marxists then looked for Christian comparisons, e.g., hopefor the future, eschatology, transcendence. As well, they re-examined Marx’s explan-ation of alienation. These Marxists had found the earlier “orthodox” rejection of allmetaphysics and of all religion inadequate.Some of this new trend among Marxists, Lochman points out, has led to strangeinterpretations of the Bible. Some of them read the Bible as a document composed oftwo strands — an equalitarian, revolutionary strand of the common people, and arepressive “official” and “priestly” strand. Passages which stress revolution are thenemphasized. The serpent’s words, “You shall be as gods,” are interpreted by ErnstBloch as the true goal of man (Lochman, p. 102)In criticizing the position of these young Marxists, Lochman points out that thetheme of the Bible is God’s reach for man, the incarnation, not man’s prometheanseeking to be equal with God (p 108). The way to God is more appropriatelydescribed by Irenaeus (“He became as we are so that we might become as he is.”)rather than by Ernst Bloch, for whom original sin is to refuse to become like God(p. 102).^In general criticism, Lochman makes several points: Marxism’s erasal of Godremoves the criterion for a proper valuation of man (p. 127); its substitute, the histor-ical process, is inadequate. Secondly, Marx rightly recognized one source of alienation— the economic — but he felt this was the only one. This, Lochman says, is an over-simplification and an illusion (pp. 71, 72; cf. p. 17).Thirdly, Marx too easily identified the corruption of Christianity in “Christian states”which resembled the use of religion in oriental despotisms (pp. 83, 124) rather thanseeing the other possibilities in Christianity (p. 85). Fourthly, Marx too easily adoptedthe view of religion and the glorification of the autonomy of man (thus, too, theatheism) of the bourgeois Enlightenment, whose economic and political ideas he hadrejected (pp. 85-90).One would hope that Lochman will write more on the subject. Though there isdepth in examination, the range covered seems less than it might have been.Vincent E. Eriksson2. The same point was made independently by the British 19th-century art critic, John Ruskin. See hisPolitical Economy of Art (1857).3. Perhaps it was. See Jesus' words in John 10:34,35 — but Christians have believed that the devilencouraged a "snatching" at this status — see Philippians 2:6.4. Cf. Cox, On Not Leaving It to the Snake.

https://scholars.wlu.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2247&amp;context=consensus

Encountering Marx: bonds and barriers between Christians and Marxists

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Scholars Commons

Wilfrid Laurier University