| News and Views | September 1944 |
Problems of Organized Religion
WAR has never solved any of the world’s problems, and this will be as true of the present global war as of any in the past. Realization of this is now being impressed upon the people as they look forward in hope that peace soon will come. The religious world faces its problems even as does the political world. The horrors of war have brought home to organized religious groups the importance of working together for peace, and many efforts are being made to forget differences and join hands in a concerted effort to win the peace by spreading religion’s influence more effectively among the nations.
Looking ahead to Victory Day, the Federal Council of the Churches of Christ in America has worked out and published, “A Service of Worship for Use by the Churches at the End of the War.” The brief ritual is made up of hymns, quotations from the 103rd and 46th Psalms, a Litany of Dedication, a Litany of Intercession, and a number of prayers. The prayers express thanksgiving to God for the blessings of peace and a petition that He “may keep us humble in victory and forbid that we should harbor hatreds or revenge.
Judging from the religious news flashes coming over the wires from various quarters of Christendom, the formulating of a special order of service to celebrate the coming peace is among the least of the problems confronting the churches. True to the prediction of Jesus that at the time of His second presence there would be little faith left upon the earth, at the close of the war a larger proportion than ever before of the world’s population will be unbelievers. This trend toward unbelief has kept pace with the increase of knowledge in these last days. The bright shining of the Master’s presence, exposing the superstition and sham of churchianity is gradually undermining the foundation of symbolic Babylon and preparing for her downfall.
The war has not changed this trend. The dangers of war may temporarily frighten people into assuming a religious attitude, yet true Christians are not produced by the sword. Hence, when the war is over, churchianity will be confronted with more than the usual obstacles which prevent the people from accepting its conflicting dogmas. America is probably among the most religious of nations, yet, according to statistics, not more than eight million of the one hundred and thirty million population of the United States attend church on any given Sunday. Statistical reports from Great Britain indicate that only ten percent of the British people attend church. Pierre Van Paassen, writing in The Protestant magazine, has this to say concerning the outlook of churchianity in Europe:
“Adolph Keller admits that European labor is in its entirety lost to the official Christian churches whatever their denomination. Where men are not driven to the churches at the point of the bayonet, the temples of Christianity stand empty. The cathedrals that are being destroyed today will never be rebuilt. Those that remain are tombstones to the memory of the past. Many indeed have turned away. When they become free many more will turn away from an official Christianity which made common cause with the oppressors of the poor and the heavy-laden.”
On the other side of the question are reports that an Anglican bishop has visited the pope, that the Communist government of Russia and the Vatican are making overtures to each other, etc., which indicate that efforts are being made by groups ordinarily antagonistic to each other to work together in a common cause for stabilizing Europe and the world after the war. The most recent report concerning Russia and the Vatican, however, is that both the Vatican and the Soviet government have officially denied that they have been in communication regarding co-ordinated action in solving postwar social and religious problems in eastern Europe.
It will be very difficult for the political as well as the religious leaders of Russia to co-operate with the Vatican. The background of the Communist government is atheistic, and the Greek Catholic Church of Russia has for centuries been opposed to the Vatican’s religious claims and political activities. This has been emphasized during recent months by news items out of Russia pertaining to the revived activities of the Greek Catholic Church.
Ordinarily, news events pertaining to the Greek Orthodox Church in Russia would attract very little attention in the western world. The Roman Catholic Church has for centuries largely overshadowed the Greek Orthodox Church in the minds of western Europeans and Americans, so much so that what has occurred in the experiences of the Greek Church has been given but slight attention. As a matter of fact, few church people in the western world know very much about the Greek Catholic Church. If they have heard of it at all, it is merely a name to them. Actually, however, the Greek Catholic Church counts its members by the millions. At one time there was no division between the Roman and the Greek Catholic churches.
Because of the prominent part that Russia is playing in the war as a major power among the United Nations, almost anything that occurs within its borders, especially that which has to do with religion becomes international news of more than passing interest. Religiously—or shall we say irreligiously—Russia has been in the news in a very marked way since 1917, when by the Red Revolution, the Czarist regime, together with the national church which was the Greek Catholic, over which the Czar was the civil head, were overthrown. In that revolution prominent dignitaries of the church were massacred. Since then, church buildings and relics have been desecrated with the official sanction of the new Russian government. Moreover, during these years atheistic propaganda against the church and against religion has had official sanction and, many believe, the backing, financial and otherwise, of the government.
This attitude of Russia’s Communist regime has caused religionists, both Catholic and Protestant the world over, to be suspicious of anything which emanates therefrom. The pope and other prelates of the Roman Catholic Church have been particularly outspoken against Communism. Protestant ministers also have voiced their opposition to Communism’s irreligion.
Now, because of Russia’s signal military successes in fighting off the world’s number one enemy, she is being looked upon with a great deal of favor. Knowing that much of the prejudice of the people against Russia was due to the government’s open opposition to religion, the Communist government is now revealing a change of policy in its attitude toward the Greek Church within its borders.
As already mentioned, the Greek Catholic Church in Russia was overthrown at the time of the revolution in 1917. From then until 1943 whatever religious services were held were of necessity conducted with a great deal of caution even fear, inasmuch as there was no governmental protection against the anti-religious sentiments which were being inculcated in the minds of the youth by Communist-inspired atheistic propaganda.
In 1943 this situation was changed. The Soviet Government officially restored the church in the sense of giving it legal right to conduct its religious affairs. Forthwith, the recently deceased Sergei was elected Patriarch of Moscow and of all Russia. He was elected in keeping with the rules of the church by the synod of the church which consisted of six members; these members, in turn, being elected by the Russian Orthodox Congress and the leaders of Greek Orthodox Churches in other parts of the world. The patriarch assumed his post on December 9th last.
To what extent this change of policy on the part of the Soviet Government actually affects the religious situation inside Russia is probably something that will not be fully determined until after the war. One thing, however, seems quite certain and that is, it was not intended in any sense as holding out an olive branch to the pope in Rome. Since the patriarch, now deceased, assumed his post in December, official Russian news agencies have openly attacked the Roman Catholic hierarchy, particularly with respect to its political association with Fascism and Nazism. It was pointed out that the policies of the hierarchy were identical with those of Fascism and Nazism, and the plain implication was that the peace and well-being of the world depended upon their destruction.
Early in April of this year, the newly-installed patriarch of the Russian church had something to say about the pope. Some thought that this may have revealed one of the reasons why the Soviet Government decided to restore the rights of the Greek church within its borders; that is, in order that there may be a recognized official yet religious source from which attacks against the Roman Catholics could emanate. In any event, the Russian patriarch minced no words in pointing out that the pope of Rome had no Scriptural authority for his claim to be the vicegerent of Christ. He did this in an article published in the Journal of the Moscow Patriarchy, entitled, “Is There a Vicar of Christ on Earth?” What was said in this article was nothing new, so far as the beliefs of the Greek Orthodox Church are concerned. The patriarch merely reaffirmed the traditional principles of the church.
Probably under ordinary circumstances an article of this kind would not be noticed by any others except the readers of the church paper in which it appeared. But the circumstances were not ordinary, so this open attack on the pope found its way into the news channels of the world. It was published by thousands of papers and broadcast over the radio, bringing it to the attention of millions of Catholics as well as Protestants.
At the time, the Most Reverend Cyril Forster Garbett, Archbishop of the Church of England, was in New York. Newspaper reporters visited him and asked for his comment on what the Russian patriarch had written concerning the pope. The archbishop remarked that the Church of England undoubtedly is more in agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church than with the Roman Catholic Church. Both, he said, repudiate the claim of the Roman Catholic Church as to the pope.
This, of course, added further publicity to the patriarch’s challenge of the pope’s authority, and tacitly aligned the Church of England with the Church of Russia as being opposed to any authority the pope might claim as vicegerent of Christ. Naturally, this challenge of the pope’s authority received a vigorous reply from Roman Catholic sources. But these replies did not change the facts, and probably were no more convincing to Greek Catholics and Protestants than the teachings concerning the pope have ever been. As far as the Greek Catholic Church is concerned, the matter of centralized authority in one head to rule universally over God’s church was one of the fundamental points of difference which caused the separation from the authority that was claimed by Rome.
The Greek Catholic Church is what we might call national in its viewpoint of ecclesiastical government. The Greek, or Eastern church, has strong organizations in Greece and other Balkan nations, as well as in Russia, but has no universal head. The patriarch of Russia is supreme in the Russian church, even as the patriarch of Constantinople is supreme in Greece. The creed—although the church disclaims having a creed—of the Greek church in Russia and in other countries, is the same, but the church in any country where it exists has no authority in other countries. Herein is one of the major differences between the Greek Catholic Church and the Roman Catholic.
However, this is not the only difference. In fact, it was not this that finally brought about the definite cleavage between the two. It was, rather, a small item of doctrinal difference involving merely the manner in which certain words were used in a vain effort to define the trinity. Misunderstanding arose among the leaders of the Eastern church centered in Constantinople, and the western church centered in Rome, largely because ancient Greek philosophy influenced the so-called Christian viewpoint of leaders in the Eastern church, while pagan philosophy colored the reasonings of the Latin theologians.
This led to two widely separate ways of regarding and defining what was considered an important doctrine, namely, whether the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, or from the Father and the Son. The Greek theologians claimed that the Holy Spirit proceeded only from the Father, while the Romans held that it proceeded from both the Father and the Son. Political jealousies and interests intensified these disputes and at last, after many symptoms of division had arisen, the final break, came in 1054 when Leo the 9th excommunicated Michael Cerularius together with the entire Eastern church.
Now the separation was final, and the ostensible cause was the introduction by the Latins of the word filioque into the creed. It is this addition which was and still remains the cause of separation. It is this word which makes the alleged vital difference between the Roman and the Greek Catholic view of the trinity.
Enlightened students of the Bible today recognize that the trinitarian view held by both the Roman and the Greek Catholic churches is contrary to the teachings of the Bible. It was developed following the death of the apostles, and represents the admixture of heathen philosophy with the simplicity of the Gospel of Christ. All heathen religions have a multiplicity of gods, and perhaps over-ambitious leaders in the church felt that Christianity would be more appealing to pagans and orientals if its teachings could contain the idea of more than one god.
They knew, of course, the plain teachings of the Scriptures that there is but the one and only true God, the Creator of heaven and earth. They knew also, that the Bible instructs Christians to honor the Son even as they honor the Father and this, together with an erroneous view concerning the identity of the Holy Spirit, paved the way for the compromise theory that while the Christian God is one God, yet He is also three in one. This erroneous item of alleged Christian faith was officially introduced into the nominal church at the Council of Nicea, and was decreed binding as a tenet of faith by Constantine in A.D. 325.
The Scriptural teaching on this subject is clear and plain. “There is one God,” Paul tells us, “and one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, Who gave Himself a ransom for all.” (I Tim. 2:4-6) The Holy Spirit, according to the Scriptures, is not a third person, but is the power of God, exercised in various ways, and in connection with the accomplishment of all His purposes. It operates through His word in the hearts and lives of His people, to stimulate, encourage, enlighten and bless them.
The opposition of the Greek Catholic church to the claims of the pope to be the vicegerent of Christ finds ready and hearty response in the minds of all who understand the teachings of the Scriptures. From time to time prominent leaders in the Catholic church have recognized the truth on this point and have spoken out boldly in its defense. Notable among these is the Catholic Bishop Strossmayer who challenged the authority of the pope in a speech delivered at the Vatican Council of 1870. It was at this Council of 1870 that the pope was declared infallible as the vicegerent of Christ on earth. Bishop Strossmayer was one of a few at the Council who stood out against taking such unscriptural action. The following quotations from his speech point out clearly some of the Scriptural reasons why the pope could not be the vicegerent of Christ, and why he should not be considered infallible in his ex cathedra utterances.
“Penetrated with the feelings of responsibility, of which God will demand of me an account,” said the Bishop, “I have set myself to study with the most serious attention the Old and New Testaments, and I have asked these venerable monuments of truth to make known to me if the holy pontiff, who presides here, is truly the successor of St. Peter, vicar of Jesus Christ, and the infallible doctor of the church. … To my very great surprise, I find in the apostolic days no question of a pope, successor to St. Peter, and vicar of Jesus Christ, any more than of Mahomet who did not then exist.”
“Reading then the sacred books with that attention with which the Lord has made me capable, I do not find one single chapter, or one little verse, in which Jesus Christ gives to St. Peter the mastery over the apostles his fellow-workers. If Simon, son of Jonas, had been what we believe his holiness Pius IX to be today, it is wonderful that He had not said to him, ‘When I have ascended to My Father, you should all obey Simon Peter as you obey Me. I establish him My vicar upon earth.’”
“When Christ sent the apostle to conquer the world, to all He gave the promise of the Holy Spirit. Permit me to repeat it: if He had wished to constitute Peter His vicar, He would have given him the chief command over His Spiritual army. Christ—so says the Holy Scripture—forbade Peter and his colleagues to reign or to exercise lordship, or to have authority over the faithful like the kings of the Gentiles.”—Luke 22:25,26
“One thing has surprised me very much. Turning it over in my mind, I said to myself, If Peter had been elected Pope, would his colleagues have been permitted to send him with St. John to Samaria to announce the gospel of the Son of God?”
“But here is another still more important fact. An Ecumenical Council was assembled at Jerusalem to decide on the questions which divide the faithful. Who would have called together this Council if St. Peter had been pope? St. Peter. Who would have presided at it? St. Peter, or his legate. Who would have promulgated the canons? St. Peter. Well, nothing of this occurred. The apostle assisted at the Council as all the others did, yet it was not he who summed it up, but St. James; and when the decrees were promulgated, it was in the name of the apostles, the elders, and the brethren. (Acts 15) Is it thus that we do in our church? The more I examine, O venerable brethren, the more I am convinced that in the Scriptures the son of Jonas does not appear to be first.”
“The Apostle Paul, counting up the offices of the church, mentions apostles, prophets, evangelists, doctors, and pastors. Is it to be believed, my venerable brethren, that St. Paul, the great apostle of the Gentiles, would have forgotten the first of these offices, the papacy, if the papacy had been of divine institution?”
“The Apostle Paul makes no mention, in any if his letters directed to the various churches, of the primacy of Peter. If this primacy had existed, if, in one word, the church had in its body a supreme head infallible in teaching, would the great apostle of the Gentiles have forgotten to mention it? What do I say? He would have written a long letter on this all-important subject. Then, as he has actually done, when the edifice of the Christian doctrine is erected, would the foundation, the key of the arch, be forgotten? Now, unless you hold that the church of the apostles was heretical, (which none of us would either desire or dare to say) we are obliged to confess that the church has never been more beautiful, more pure, or more holy, than in the days when there was no pope.”
“What has surprised me most, and what moreover is capable of demonstration, is the silence of St. Peter. If the apostle had been what we proclaim him to be—that is, the vicar of Jesus Christ on earth—he surely would have known it; if he had known it, how is it that not once did he act as pope? He might have done it on the day of Pentecost, when he pronounced his first sermon, but did not do it; neither in his two letters directed to the church. Can you imagine such a pope, my venerable brethren, if St. Peter had been pope? Now, if you wish to maintain that he was the pope, the natural consequence arises that you must maintain that he was ignorant of the fact. Now I ask whoever has a head to think and a mind to reflect, are these two suppositions possible?”
“Finding no trace of the papacy in the days of the apostles, I said to myself, I shall find what I am in search of in the annals of the church. Well, I say it frankly—I have sought for a pope in the first four centuries, and I have not found him.”
Regardless of the extent to which the Roman Catholic, Greek Catholic or Protestant denominational churches are able to impress the world with their claims of divine authority, the Scriptures make it plain that in the establishment of the Kingdom of Christ they will all be ignored. Jerusalem, not Rome, nor Moscow, nor London, will be the world headquarters of that Kingdom. The Word of the Lord which will emanate from Jerusalem is described by the Prophet Zephaniah as a “pure language.” (Zeph. 3:9) The influence of that pure message of life and voice of authority will cause the people to turn to the Lord and to serve Him with one consent. Thus will the Kingdom of Christ solve the religious problems of the world, and the knowledge of the Lord shall fill the earth as the waters cover the sea.—Micah 4:1-4