299 - Gospel For Atheists

Gospel For Atheists
By Jan M. Lochman

What does this "gospel for atheists" really mean in our encounter with our atheistic fellow-men? What perspectives can be thereby opened up? Which ways of proceeding are thus marked for us to initiate an authentic encounter? In a preliminary way I want to answer these questions with the following proposition. The encounter of Christians with atheists will proceed correctly on the side of the church only when it is done in the spirit of the gospel and not in the spirit of the law.

JOSEF L. HROMADKA, a leading theologian at Prague, published in 1958 at Berlin a book called Gospel for Atheists. In it he attempted to develop one of the basic impulses of his theological works of the past decades. That was the investigation and the task of a humane and theologically legitimate encounter and conversation with the people of his society, above all with the ideological and political representatives of that society-with the Marxist Socialists, the Communists, and thus with the atheists. Hromádka's attempt was productive in many ways and broke open a new avenue of approach, as he helped to open up the "era of dialogue" between Marxists and Christians after years of mutual indifference. If we place our deliberations on the theme of "atheism" in line with the title of his book, we mean to indicate that we are here not talking about a general analysis of the phenomenon of atheism; rather, we speak on the basis of some practical and theoretical experiences of the past twenty years of churchly and theological existence in a Marxist-Socialist society. We will try to sketch out some lines and perspectives that have emerged from our encounter with our fellow men in our radically secularized surroundings.

Jan M. Lochman prepared this article in honor of Josef L. Hromádka's for the occasion of his 80th birthday, June 9, 1969. Dr. Lochman, a native of Czechoslovakia, is a minister of the Evangelical Church of Czech Brethren (Presbyterian) and he was recently the Harry Emerson Fosdick Visiting Professor at Union Theological Seminary, New York. His publications include Theology and Philosophy and The Church in a Changed World.

300 - Gospel For Atheists

I

The history of the encounters of the church with atheism is a history encrusted with prejudices and caricatures. It is replete with fixed battle lines and battle cries and marked by a mutual "demonizing" of the other side. This is true of both positions. How often the European atheism dealt with the problem of religion more in the spirit of an embittered antagonism than in a soberly differentiating discussion! There are traces of such conduct even in ancient times. It is there in the pathos of Lucretius Carus for whom the dissolution of religion and the arrival of Epicurean atheism signified almost a break-through on the way of liberation from basic human bondage and slavery. More traces of animosity are plainly evident in the various streams of militant "confessional" atheism in Europe of the last centuries. How frequent have been the charges by this atheism against religion that it is a "radical evil," that it is the root of all that is wrong! They were launched by the free-thinkers of the Enlightenment with their battle-cry "Ecrasez l'infame!" addressed at least against the institutionalized form of religion. In the nineteenth century for Feuerbach, the abolition of religion formed the fundamental presupposition of men's emancipation. Similarly Nietzsche considered his anti-Christian front as the way toward becoming the "superior man" (Ubermensch). Until the present time many militant atheists have continued this tendency; even within the socialist society there were propagandists to whom the dissolution of religion became the task of the cultural revolution.

We Christians know very well this "catalogue of sins" of atheists and naturally we dismiss this uncritical, absolutized, over-simplified, even mythological way of thinking. But precisely in this connection it is necessary for us to understand and to acknowledge that there is a similar way of thinking and dealing that characterizes the church's encounter with atheists. With respect to the centuries-long power position of the church in the public life of the "Christian West" it is even more conspicuous and disastrous. The history of the concept of atheism and the fate of atheists in European life and thought illustrates that at almost every step along the way. From the church's point of view, obviously atheism is a negative phenomenon. It denies God and thereby very often threatens man as well. To recognize that fact in a sober and critical way and to dis-

301 - Gospel For Atheists

cuss the matters at issue belong also to the church's encounter with atheists. But how rapidly has the appropriate critical relation toward atheism been uncritically expanded into a massive negativism! How quickly has the European man within his Christian civilization resorted to summarizing atheism as something inhuman, absolutely perverted, yes, something almost demonic! So for centuries the atheist has been regarded in public European opinion as someone basically irresponsible and untrustworthy-even immoral. Atheism itself has consequently been viewed in a juridical way as a sacrilege, a transgression, something which should be resisted with utmost retaliation, sometimes even to be punished by death.

The most crude forms of this mythologizing attitude toward atheists and atheism have vanished. The negative attitude nevertheless survived the Middle Ages. Consider, for example, the era of the " cold war." Didn't the problem of atheism play a considerable role in this unfortunate era? Didn't the political contradictions become branded as religious, or better, as pseudo-religious? Didn't many speak too generally and too simply of the "Christian West" and the "Atheistic East?" The political and social tension has been consequently radicalized to a final irreconcilable breach. It has taken on the character of an "eschatological struggle" with the "children of light" against the "children of darkness." The most dangerous means of mass-destruction which politicians had at their disposal were justified on the basis of these mythological categories. This might happen, for example, with the pseudo-theological argument that the "death of the soul" (i.e., the atheistic ideology) is more serious than physical death (even when brought by the atom bomb). Today, this mythology of the Cold War has become discredited to some degree. But vestigia terrent. Therefore it seems advisable also on this very practical ground to try to demythologize the categories we employ in our confrontation with atheism.

What does that really mean? I would say first it means simply to recognize and acknowledge the relativity of atheism. I want to explain this idea in two aspects: historically and theologically.

1. The historical relativity of atheism. We should not overlook the fact that the concept of atheism has been expressed and applied in many different ways. The concept in itself is Greek, and its various meanings were already evident in antiquity. The Greeks designated as atheists not only those declared deniers of God and

302 - Gospel For Atheists

the materialists, but also those who in the name of another faith (and that can mean a belief in another god) separated themselves from the established religion. Most of the struggles with atheists were of this type. Just think of Socrates! This procedure was then applied to the Christians, because in the Hellenistic world they were atheoi, atheists. "Down with the atheists!"' was subsequently the battle cry which many a Christian martyr encountered! But the sword point was quickly reversed and turned by the Christians on the charge of the heathen. One need only read the story of Polycarp's death. This martyr was pressed to deny his Christian faith with the cry "down with the atheists." He spoke these words indeed -but in a clear reference to his own heathen opponents. Not only against the heathen was this idea pressed into service in the course of the church's history. Even professing Christians were condemned as "atheists" by the then reigning orthodox party. We need only recall the Inquisition and the Crusades and the confessional battles of different types. Whoever reflects on these matters, and more precisely, whoever remembers the simple fact that even his forefathers in the faith were designated by the term "atheist" and were persecuted by it whoever remembers will quickly stop using the notion of atheist in an all too hasty and inconsiderate way. He will hesitate to use it as a denouncing shibboleth in an absolutizing and mythological way. It is worthwhile to remember this lesson of our historical orientation and resist that inquisition and crusade-spirit precisely when we meet those who think differently than we, and especially in our encounters with atheists.

2.The theological relativity of atheism. I want to observe the fact that atheism as unbelief (Unglaube) does not generally represent a metaphysically petrified stage in the history and historicity of human life, but rather a dialectical phase of life. It often emerges in the course of the life of faith as a "not yet" or a "no more" of believing. "I believe, help my un-belief" (Mark 9: 24). This situation is significant. Whoever understands this "relativity" will not be so easily tempted to consider the atheistic possibility as something totally alien to him, as a curse which only drives and threatens other men. He will not be able to disassociate himself from this possibility in a self-confident and self-secure way. He will not forget that all men, the pious and the worldly, here find themselves together in the same situation. In the past centuries of an almost natural and norma-

303 - Gospel For Atheists

tive presupposed religiosity, it might have been possible to disregard or to conceal this fact. It has become much clearer today for a thinking contemporary with the process of secularization, which concerns the religious and the secular man.

The acknowledgment of the theological relativity of atheism directs us even further, namely to the foundations of the life of faith as understood by the Bible. In this view atheism is no absolute position, no beginning or new beginning, no real creative act; it is something secondary, a reply, a reaction. This is, of course, no historical, phenomenological, or general philosophical assertion. This is an expression of faith which testifies to the fact that the beginning and ground of human existence does not lie within us (not even in our faith!) but lies instead in the reality which is the basis for faith-in the reality, action, and history of God. The "essence of Christianity" is not founded by faith but by the work of God, more exactly, in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. That means that this "essence" of faith cannot in any way be destroyed by un-faith. Both of them, faith and un-faith, are not "the matter itself" (although they are never to be separated from this "matter"), but instead they are a response to it. As such they are to be taken seriously, for this "matter" presses for a corresponding response; it calls for faith, and it repudiates un-faith. It is not a matter of indifference if we give one reply instead of another. In this respect there can be no relativism . And yet the gospel is not simply contained within these replies. It is not dependent on them. The gospel remains sovereign over faith and un-faith.

The structure and movement of biblical history points in this direction. Consider the covenant of Yahweh with Israel. Of course, this covenant appeals to the faithfulness of the covenant community. Its unfaithfulness toward the covenant is never calmly accepted. Instead, it is again and again uncovered, accused, and rejected. But the glory of God is never frustrated even when God gets no appropriate response. The glory of God manifests itself exactly in the fact that he himself stands by the covenant even when that covenant is broken by his people. That is a basic emphasis of the biblical witness which comes to final and over-powering clarity in the New Testament. In facing the cross of Jesus Christ, un-faith is revealed in its total failure, its harmfulness is unmasked and condemned. But beneath the cross of Jesus Christ the un-believer is received into

304 - Gospel For Atheists

the unconditional solidarity of God with the estranged man and he is brought to salvation. The real situation of mankind is brought to light: every one of us lives (whether we know it or not, whether we admit it or deny it) beneath the sign of the cross and resurrection. That means we live on the supporting ground of the saving solidarity of God. That is the decisive, truly constitutive fact of human existence according to the Bible. That is the gospel. Man is to be regarded in the light of this gospel: with his answer-and also with his atheism. But his denial appears in the Bible only against this background, as something secondary, perverted, and also as something already overcome by God's faithfulness. So atheism is not a hopeless ultimate step but is something penultimate, and in that sense, relative. That is what I mean by the theological relativity of atheism: The sovereignty of the gospel of Jesus Christ is above all human action and omission, even above man's faith and un-faith. "At the right time while we were still weak Christ died for the un-godly [!]" (Romans 5: 6). In this view atheism is not simply disregarded but it is de-mythologized.

II

The proper task of the church is to declare the gospel. That is its obligation which is due to the men of its world. As the apostle Paul said about his work (almost previewing his mission), "I am under obligation both to Greeks and to barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish. So I am eager to preach the gospel to you also who are in Rome" (Romans 1: 14-15). On other similar occasions Paul affirmed the witness of the gospel to be the one ground and goal of his labors. He also named the recipients of his testimony, the Greeks and barbarians, the wise and the foolish, and of course the Jews and heathen. These were the most evident dividing lines in society of his time. Nevertheless, he asserted that the one thing which was necessary, and necessary for all, was to preach the gospel to everyone. The exclusive theme, the gospel, is unexpectedly inclusive. It spans every chasm separation. It concerns everyone: the pious Jew and the impious (or pseudo-religious) heathen; the true theist and those who from the point of view of the pious necessarily appear to be atheists. It is also to these persons that the apostle is obligated. In our apostolic discipleship it is, therefore, our task and our responsibility: to preach the gospel even to atheists.

305 - Gospel For Atheists

It is surprising that Christians and their organized churches have so frequently forgotten these "apostolic footsteps" in their relations with the atheists, and instead of preaching an "inclusive gospel" have many times preached and preached an "exclusive" excommunicative law. Many times the atheists themselves seem to understand something of the spirit of the gospel better than the Christians. For example, the Czech Marxist philosopher, Milan Machovec, can interpret the message of the gospel as being concerned for people (a message incidentally which he often said has inspired him throughout his life) in the following way: "I could swear that millions of modern men, who are deeply aware of something like an anti-religious apriori, are still brethren, and are not excluded from the message of Christ, that he is merciful for people." Here we can see at least one insight, that the solidarity of Jesus is inclusive, that it even includes those who are severely estranged from him. How often has this central confession been lacking among Christians! So it could possibly be (and it would not be strange within the context of the story of Jesus of Nazareth) that the heathen and the estranged are nearer the kingdom than many of the righteous!

III

What does this "gospel for atheists" really mean in our encounter with fellow-men who are atheists? What perspectives can be thereby opened up? What ways of proceeding are thus marked for us to initiate an authentic encounter? In a preliminary way I want to answer these questions with the following proposition. The encounter of Christians with atheists will proceed correctly on the side of the church only when it is done in the spirit of the gospel and not in the spirit of the law. On the basis of what I have said so far, I want to develop briefly in three comments what this proposition means.

1.To proceed in the spirit of the gospel means first to proceed in the spirit of freedom. The gospel is the message of the sovereign freedom of God, and there is included in that the freedom of the Christian man. On that basis the element of freedom should be preserved in our encounter with atheists. I have already indicated how the conduct of Christians throughout the history of the past and in these present times leaves much to be desired in this respect. Recall the first part of these deliberations in which I showed how often Christians negotiated with the "ideological adversary" much more

306 - Gospel For Atheists

on the basis of law than on the basis of the gospel! The adversary became "mythologized." But that procedure will take its toll. Freedom is lost. For whenever I mythologize the other I give up my freedom with reference to him. Against a demon, a man is not free. Demons are fate-laden principalities and powers and unfathomable. Then there is no encounter. Conversation is no longer possible. Facing what is demonized places one in a position of enforced choice. There are only two possibilities: either retreat into a closed-off cell or exorcize the demons.

These two possibilities were often practiced during the church's history. The possibility of pulling back into a closed-off sector is seen in the withdrawing to a sacred precinct, the tearing down of the bridges to the world, and the establishing of prickly defenses by the ghetto church. The strategy of exorcism is developed with respect to atheism in launching crusades against it. Both ways are mistaken. What we allegedly want to save, namely evangelical freedom (the freedom of the gospel), is threatened by both approaches. For this freedom exists only where, believing in the sovereignty of the gospel, we seek and reach the other person, proceeding soberly, circumspectly, and critically, but with openness to him. The element of such a kind of freedom is the first condition and the primary sign of a confrontation with atheists achieved in conformity to the gospel.

2.To proceed in the light of the gospel and not on the basis of law means not to begin at the level of ideology. It is important to guard against an "ideologization" of the encounter. Such a procedure corresponds to the spirit of law. The spirit of the gospel completely breaks through all ideological barriers. It leads from ideology to the man.

That does not necessarily mean a devaluation of ideology, neither underestimating nor demonizing it. Ideology is a part of human existence. It is a significant part. It is a phenomenon which, among other things, raises man above the animals. It is a guiding star or a guide line for his life and actions. In this respect ideology is to be taken very seriously. But not dead-seriously! It is not the whole of human existence; it is not an incarnation of that which is human; and it is not, without qualification, his very essence. In any case, a man is not exhaustively contained in his ideology. He is more than what he thinks. He is more than an "ist," a the-ist, athe-ist, or any other kind of -ist. He transcends all his "-isms."

307 - Gospel For Atheists

With reference to our meeting atheists this assertion assuredly means that such an encounter has an ideological aspect. It would be dishonest and inhuman to forget that. We are obligated to the atheists to carry on an ideological discussion. We have to orient the members of our congregations and our Christian young people also in the matters of the atheistic ideology. But we must not consider this mandatory task as the "first and the last." It is something "second" or "penultimate," but it is not the Alpha and Omega. In the light of the gospel about the incarnation of the Son of God, man is important and not his ideology. We do not mean that we have fulfilled our obligation to the atheists when we have only ideologically questioned and denied their atheism.

If we deceive ourselves at this point, we can miss an authentic encounter. Ideology becomes more important than the man. And what is more disastrous is that the gospel becomes obscure to the atheist. The gospel's divine and human sovereignty is diminished if it is confined (perhaps in our apologetic zeal) to the ideological level of approach. The gospel becomes "ideologized," turned into an ideology or counter-ideology. Under certain circumstances that may appear to be tempting when, for example, the gospel becomes a reply ready to do battle against vulgar anti-religious propaganda. We might achieve some "victories" in the ideological conflict. But even in the best circumstances such a success is something like a sham-victory and ultimately an ambiguous "success." For in these ways, the essential matter-the gospel-is eclipsed for atheists also. The really new possibility and the one thing which we really owe to the atheist is the message about the sovereign love of Christ. That love shatters every ideological barrier in order to seek and to find man: to seek and to find the Christian and the heathen, the pious and the worldly, the theist and the atheist. And that is why we say that the way leads from ideology to the man himself.

3.To encounter another person in the light of the gospel and not on the basis of the law means that we are to meet him in the spirit of solidarity and not in an attitude of self-righteousness. The legalistic attitude implies self-assertion and self-righteousness and because of that it is basically an antagonistic conduct. The "righteous ones" stand up against the others. Yet this way of the gospel is being for others, the way of pro-existence. We can put it this way: Pro-existence is the basic form of an evangelical existence whenever it meets

308 - Gospel For Atheists

a fellow man, and that includes the atheist. Pro-existence learns to give up every self-justification and to understand the other man in his need and in his concern. There is also an intellectual aspect to this-a careful differentiating attempt to understand his proper goals and intentions. As I have tried to show in the first part of these considerations where I spoke of a demythologization of atheism, atheism is not something utterly foolish, nor is it an off-spring of hell. Of course, atheism is also something foolish and I mean that in the profound biblical (non-moralizing) sense (cf. Psalm 14: 1). A history of atheism can be written on that basis. But it can be written in an entirely different way, and that way is more useful and interesting for the Christian! Atheism can be understood as a reply to the historical unfaithfulness and guilt of the established church.

This is very evident when we think of the major atheists in the history of the Christian church. They are largely the voice of protest against abuses which should be attacked and abolished also in the light of the gospel. For example, consider Marx's atheism. It was a passionate protest against a religion and a church which had placed under a bushel the prophetic and evangelistic light and example, neglecting especially man's social life. This religion and church supported the oppressive rulers and it deceptively comforted the oppressed. In this connection the early Karl Marx should be read carefully. His is an atheistic protest but one that bore in its atheism elements which have to be emphatically championed from the point of view of prophetic faith. How could we self-righteously and confidently face this kind of atheism-as well as the criticism of religion expressed by so many thinkers of European history including countless fellow-men of our present era? How could we see in such atheism only darkness and the lack of human possibility? How could we dare to present our own tradition and achievements as utterly superior possibility? Isn't atheism also a thorn in the flesh of a sleeping Christendom, a question to the church, a questioning of us, an inquiry into how we are Christians, an inquiry into just what we have done with the gospel? Of course, we also have to put some questions to atheistic humanism from the side of the gospel, to ask especially whether the way of atheism does not threaten the very thing it seeks to preserve, that complete undiminished humanity of man. We have to ask whether, precisely in its atheism, it has not cut short the horizon of human hope. But these are the questions

309 - Gospel For Atheists

which are not posed by "self-righteous possessors" (beati possidentes) but rather by those who sit "on the same bank" with all other men, together with them in their need and joined with them, too, in the hope given by the gospel-that gospel even for the atheists.

IV

We come finally to this question: Practically speaking, how does the perspective worked out here relate itself to the encounter with atheists? Does the "gospel for the atheists" really work? Or is this purely a theological concept? Perhaps it is just a "virtue from necessity"; we in the church are driven up against the wall by modern atheism. We are in no position of strength to start retaliation. So we attempt "a flight forward" and call out that there is a "gospel for atheists."

Admittedly we cannot simply dismiss these questions, especially when we look back carefully on the last twenty years' experiences. An accounting of our ecumenical experiences, especially those of the churches in socialist countries, seems worthwhile. Certainly it is not easy statistically to enumerate the results. We admit that the attempt to adopt a new church orientation toward atheism has not led to any mass conversions. Surely we can cite some real conversions, yet they are almost always an exception. They are "miracles," signs, but no conclusive proof.

Nevertheless, one can point to one phenomenon to show that the perspective of "gospel for atheists" is not merely a motto. I refer to the phenomenon of dialogue between Christians and atheists as it has been begun and developed in the last few years. With this concept of dialogue I come now to a significant point. So far I have not explicitly touched upon it, but it is the matter which has been intended from the beginning of this article. We intended to demythologize atheism: to dissolve the fixed positions, to cast off the historical ballast-to do all this precisely for the sake of making possible a dialogical encounter. With the same intention I emphasized "gospel" and not "law" in our conversations with atheists: It is a matter of making room for an authentic encounter, one in line with the gospel, making way for a credible witness. Our theological work of the past decades has been developed with this aim-to open the possibilities of a dialogue.

310 - Gospel For Atheists

This is especially the case with the life-work of J. L. Hromádka. Already in times when there were no signs of a readiness for dialogue between Christians and Marxists, he hopefully tried to clear ground in his theological approach. Above all else he emphasized the necessity of an open, unprejudiced orientation, one that looked not to the past but to the future, and looked for new ways of theological and churchly existence in the midst of a socialist society. He struggled to overcome the spirit of resentment and understandable human bitterness; he knew that in such a spirit the gospel is easily turned into counter-ideology and the church into an opposition party. He accepted our society, even with its official atheism, and strove continually from within to render a service commensurate with the gospel.

It was not easy to follow through on these lines. Christian-atheist conversation was and is not easy. Both sides are burdened with many prejudices. Many times the stubborn mythological stereotypes on both sides crippled the possibilities of mutual understanding. The usual criticism of religion carried on in the past decades continually harked back to the criticism of religion done in the nineteenth century. According to its presuppositions, religion, crudely put, was either mythology, an outdated world-view, something which could be defended in the modern era only at the cost of intellectual integrity or in the spirit of a primitive world view. Or religion was conceived as survival from a past pre-revolutionary order of society-i.e., as an ideological crutch and shield of a reaction against present day society, a notorious obstacle on the way of social progress. In the long run the withering away of its economic and political basis would not allow for its continued existence within the socialist society.

Under the rule of such dogmas about religion, an authentic dialogue was almost impossible. Therefore, the concern of our theology was not to allow this and not to admit that the church fitted this (false) description. On the contrary, these dogmas had to be challenged in confrontation with the genuine spirit and reality of the church. In this connection, the ideological battle was by no means as significant as the reality of our congregations and a credible Christian existence questioning the validity and pertinency of those dogmas. The passionate struggle Hromádka waged to open up the church, even in a political way, toward our society is to be under-

311 - Gospel For Atheists

stood also in this way: It was, and it continues to be, the issue of the credibility of the gospel in the midst of an atheistic world.

This struggle was not entirely in vain. Many dogmas of traditional criticism of religion were shattered by the reality of a credible Christian witness. There are Christians who do not fit the traditional stereotypes. That is true not just in our country but in other countries also. The experiences of Marxists encountering Christians in western societies were of great significance. This is true especially of the work of some great Christian personalities such as Pope John XXIII, Martin Niemoller, Martin Luther King. These experiences led to this conclusion: The church is not just backward-looking and reactionary. There is the "other face of Christendom" -a humanitarian, socially concerned, even a revolutionary heritage of Christendom. That, too, should be taken seriously.

The indiscriminate judgment on religion and the church has been revised, especially by the young Marxists. This does not represent any "conversion." They still remain atheists. But they recognize the positive human possibilities of the Christian heritage. The church's realm is no longer just a kingdom of illusions and ideologically-colored mythology. There is a human dimension in religion which can be taken seriously and which is worthy of concentrated attention and discussion. Christians can be partners in a serious dialogue. So we in our country are really "on the threshold of dialogue"-and not only on the threshold. A new realm has opened to the Christian witness in the atheistic environment. It is still narrow but it has a perspective which looks promising to us.

My concluding remarks could be captured by the phrase "Socratic witness." That motto was used by Dr. Visser 't Hooft at the Fourth Conference of European Churches held in Nyborg to describe the narrow but still hopeful way of Christian witness in the radically secularized world of the European West and East. He described the way the witness does its service as "more as a midwife than as an evangelist." In this sense of the word we Christians try to serve in our society, not as those who possess perfection, as ideological masters who teach and know everything better, but as those who share the concerns and expectations of their fellow men endeavoring to serve with the one thing which is necessary for us all, to proclaim a gospel for atheists.