Religion and Socialism in the Long 1960s

University of Groningen

Toth, Helena; Weir, Todd

Publishedin:

Contemporary European History

DOI: 10.1017/S0960777320000077

IMPORTANT NOTE: You are advised to consult the publisher's version (publisher's PDF) if you wish to cite from it. Please check the document version below.

DocumentVersion

Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record

Publicationdate: 2020

Link to publication in University of Groningen/UMCG research database

Citationforpublishedversion(APA): Toth, H., & Weir, T. (2020). Religion and Socialism in the Long 1960s: From Antithesis to Dialogue in Eastern and Western Europe ContemporaryEuropeanHistory, 29(2), 127-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077

Other than for strictly personal use, it is not permitted to download or to forward/distribute the text or part of it without the consent of the author(s) and/or copyright holder(s), unless the work is under an open content license (like Creative Commons).

The publication may also be distributed here under the terms of Article 25fa of the Dutch Copyright Act, indicated by the “Taverne” license. More information can be found on the University of Groningen website: https://www.rug.nl/library/open-access/self-archiving-pure/taverneamendment.

Take-down policy

If you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediately and investigate your claim.

DownloadedfromtheUniversityofGroningen/UMCGresearchdatabase(Pure):http://www.rug.nl/research/portal.Fortechnicalreasonsthe numberofauthorsshownonthiscoverpageislimitedto10maximum.

Download date: 27-04-2024

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory(2020), 29, 127–138 doi:10.1017/S0960777320000077

INTRODUCTION

ReligionandSocialismintheLong1960s:FromAntithesis toDialogueinEasternandWesternEurope

HelénaTóth andToddH.Weir

HistoryDepartment,Otto-Friedrich-University,Fischstrasse5/7,96047Bamberg,Germany helena.toth@uni-bamberg.de

OneofthemostremarkabletransformationsofEuropeansocietyandpoliticsduringtheColdWarperiod wasinrelationsbetweensocialismandreligion.Extremehostilitybetweenrevolutionarysocialismand Christianityhadbeenastructuralcomponentofmajorpoliticalconflictsinthetrans-warperiodof 1914to1945.WithaneyetoviolenceagainstchurchesinMexico,SpainandtheSovietUnion,Pope PiusXIhaddeclaredin1937that ‘forthefirsttimeinhistorywearewitnessingastruggle,cold-blooded inpurposeandmappedouttotheleastdetail,betweenmanand “allthatiscalledGod”’.Uponthe GermaninvasionofhisnativeNetherlandsin1940,Europe’sleadingecumenicalspokesmanWillem Visser ’tHooftsimilarlyspokeoftheChristianstruggleagainstgodlessnessas ‘awarbehindthewar’ thathadbegun ‘longbeforeSeptember1939andwillcertainlygoonlongafteranarmisticehasbeenconcluded’ . 1 ThishostilityflowedintotheacceleratingpolarisationofEuropeanpoliticsanddiplomacyinthe immediatepost-warperiodthatledtotheColdWar.2 EventssuchastheexchangeoflettersbetweenUS PresidentHarryS.TrumanandPopePiusXIIin1946confirmingtheChristiancoreofWesterncivilisationortheshowtrialofCardinalJózsefMindszentyinHungaryin1949weremomentsofdeepsymbolic significancethatweldedreligiontothesolidifyingpoliticalrhetoric.3 AsDianneKirbywrites, ‘formany wholivedthroughtheperiod,theColdWarwasoneofhistory’sgreatreligiouswars,aglobalconflict betweenthegod-fearingandthegodless’ 4 Inthe1960s,however,thesituationchangeddramatically. NewencountersbetweenMarxistsandChristianschallengedthemilitantanti-religiousandanti-socialist rhetoricthathaddominatedEuropeforalmosthalfacentury.IftheAmericanmovie GuiltyofTreason (1950)aboutthetrialandtortureofCardinalMindszentyencapsulatesatleastinparttheplaceofreligion in1950sColdWarculture,thespiritofthemid-1960swascharacterisedbyPaoloPasolini’ s TheGospel AccordingtoMatthew (1964),forwhichtheItalianMarxistdirectorearnedhighpraisefromCatholicand ProtestantcriticsalikeandwonthespecialjuryprizeattheVeniceFilmFestival.5

1 DiviniRedemptoris,§22(AAS29[1937])Vaticanencyclicalsonline: http://www.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encycli cals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19370319_divini-redemptoris.html.JurjenA.Zeilstra, EuropeanUnityinEcumenical Thinking,1937–1948 (PhD,Utrecht1995),inpartic.80.

2 WilliamInboden, ReligionandAmericanForeignPolicy,1945–1960:TheSoulofContainment (NewYork:Cambridge UniversityPress,2008);AndrewPreston, ‘TheReligiousTurninDiplomaticHistory’,inFrankCostigliolaandMichael J.Hogan,eds., ExplainingtheHistoryofAmericanForeignRelations (NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016),284–303.

3 DianeKirby, ‘HarryTruman’sReligiousLegacy:TheHolyAlliance,ContainmentandtheColdWar’,inDianeKirby,ed., ReligionandtheColdWar (London:PalgraveMcMillan,2003),77–102;PaulBetts, ‘Religion,ScienceandCold-War Anti-Communism:The1949CardinalMindszentyShowTrial’,inPaulBettsandStephenA.Smith,eds., Science, ReligionandCommunisminColdWarEurope (London:PalgraveMcMillan,2916),275–306.

4 Kirby, ReligionandtheColdWar, 1.Morerecentstudieshavefocusedonthepoliticaldimensionsofpersonalpiety: MoniqueScheer, ‘CatholicPietyintheEarlyColdWarYears,orHowtheVirginMaryProtectedtheWestfrom Communism’,inAnetteVownickel,MarcusM.PaykandThomasLindenberger,eds., ColdWarCultures.Perspectives onEasternandWesternSocieties (NewYork:BerghahnBooks,2013),129–51;seealsothechapteronreligiousrevival duringtheearlyColdWarintheUnitedStates.StephenJ.Whitfield, TheCultureoftheColdWar (Baltimore; London:TheJohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,1991),77–100.

5 Onthereceptionofthe GospelAccordingtoMatthew:LloydBaugh, ImaginingtheDivine:JesusandChrist-FiguresinFilm (KansasCity:Sheed&Ward,1997).DavidTollertonrightlypointsoutthatthecriticalacclaimofthefilmdoesnot

©TheAuthor(s)2020.ThisisanOpenAccessarticle,distributedunderthetermsoftheCreativeCommonsAttributionlicence(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/),whichpermitsunrestrictedre-use,distribution,andreproductioninanymedium,providedtheoriginal workisproperlycited.

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077

Asignatureeventofthe1960swastheappearanceof ‘Christian–Marxistdialogue’.Thefewhistoricalstudiesofthismovementdepictitasanintensiveburstofencountersthattookplaceinthe mid-1960s.AccordingtoLeonardSwidler,thedialogue ‘brokeout’ around1964 ‘almostsimultaneouslyinanumberofEuropeancountries:Czechoslovakia,Italy,WestGermany,andFrance’ 6 The dialoguetranscendednationalbordersandachievedaEuropeanandindeedglobaldimension.Ata seriesofconferences,theinternationalPaulusSociety(Paulusgesellschaft)broughttogetherMarxist philosophers,scientists,churchrepresentativesandtheologiansfromtheentireChristianspectrum andfrombothsidesoftheIronCurtain.The1965Salzburgconferencemarked ‘thefirstlarge-scale internationalconversationbetweenChristianityandMarxism’ 7 Followingaconferencein Herrenchiemsee,Bavariain1966,thefirstconferenceinasocialistcountrywasheldinthe CzechoslovaktownofMariánskéLázně in1967.TheProtestant-dominatedWorldCouncilof Churches(WCC)welcomedEasternEuropeanMarxistthinkersforthefirsttimetoitsconference inGenevain1966.

Yet,soonafter1968,theChristian–Marxistdialoguebegantofounder.Thiswasinpartduetothe crushingofthePragueSpringinAugust1968,whichputachillontheexchangeeffortsacrossEurope. However,itwasalsopartofawider ‘religiouscrisisofthe1960s’ inWesternEurope,when,according tothehistorianHughMcLeod,the ‘moreself-confidentandoptimisticreformism’,ofthemid-sixties gavewayafter1967toan ‘apocalypticmood...withitsgrowingpolarisationbetweenradicalsand conservatives’ 8

ThisreligiouscrisisfoundcertainstructuralparallelsontheothersideoftheIronCurtain,albeit thereittooktheguiseofacrisisofsecularism.Stalin’sdeathin1953hadopenedthewayfornew antireligiouspoliciesintheSovietUnionandwithintheEasternbloc.WhereasStalinhadtakena pragmaticapproachtocooperatingwiththechurchesduetotheexigenciesofwartime,Nikita Khrushchevstartedacampaigninthemid-1950stopromote ‘scientificatheism’.Unlikeitspredecessorduringtheinterwarperiod,thecampaignthistimemeantnotonlyamererepressionofreligion, but,simultaneously,involvedanattempttogiveconcretecontourstoatheism,or,asVictoriaSmolkin putsit,to ‘fillSovietCommunism’ssacredspacewithpositivemeaning’ 9 Yet,bythemid-1960sthis atheistprojectalsoseemedtohavereachedanimpasse.

Thus,the1960s,particularlytheperiodbetweentheSecondVaticanCouncil(VaticanII)andthe endofthedecade,appearsasawindowintime,uniqueinEuropeanhistory,duringwhichconversationsbetweenreligionandsocialismwerenotonlypossible,butactivelypursuedonabroadscale.

Historianshavesometimessoughttoexplainthiswithreferencetoeventsimmediatelypreceding thisperiod.Intheseaccountsthepreconditionsofthedialoguewere ‘de-Stalinization,relaxations necessarilycorrespondtoitscontemporaryreceptioningeneral,especiallyamongtheologystudents.DavidTollerton, BiblicalReception,4:ANewHollywoodMoses:OntheSpectacleandReceptionof Exodus:GodsandKings(London: Bloomsbury,2017),6.

6 LeonardSwidler, ‘Christian-MarxistDialogue:AnUnevenPast – ARevivingPresent – ANecessaryFuture’ , TheJournal ofPeaceandJusticeStudies,2,2(1990),29.Swidlerhasoftenreprisedthisnarrativesincethen,mostrecentlyinhis The AgeofGlobalDialogue (Eugene,OR:PickwickPublications,2016).Also,PaulMojzes, Christian-MarxistDialoguein EasternEurope (Minneapolis:AugsburgPublishingHouse,1981).PascalEitleralsoagreeswiththisperiodisation: ‘Gottisttot – Gottistrot’:MaxHorkheimerunddiePolitisierungderReligionum1968 (Frankfurta.M.:Campus Verlag,2009),344–5.Inaddition,thespecialissueof JournalofEcumenicalStudies, 15,1(1978), ‘TheVarietiesof Christian-MarxistDialogue’,offersacrosssectionoftheparticipants’ waysofhistorisingthedialogue.

7 RogerGaraudyquotedinErichKellner,ed., ChristentumundMarxismus – Heute (Wien,Frankfurt,Zürich:Europa Verlag,1966),11.

8 HughMcLeod, TheReligiousCrisisofthe1960s (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,2007);HughMcLeod, ‘TheReligious Crisisofthe1960s’ , JournalofModernEuropeanHistory/ZeitschriftfürmoderneuropäischeGeschichte/Revued’histoire européennecontemporaine, 3,2(2005),205–30,221.

9 VictoriaSmolkin, ASacredSpaceisNeverEmpty:AHistoryofSovietAtheism (Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2018),5.

128HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

ofEast–Westtensions,thepontificateofJohnXXIII,andVaticanII’ 10 Indeed,theSecondVatican Council(1962–5)loomslarge.Itsencyclicals PaceminTerris (1963)and EcclesiamSuam (1964),as wellas GaudiumetSpes (1965),markedacleardeparturefromtherigidanti-communismofthe Catholicchurchandlaidthefoundationsofanewopennesstowards ‘theworld’ throughdialogue in ‘social,politicalandevenreligiousmatters’ 11 Theseencyclicalsareseenbyhistoriansascrucial fortheemergenceofCatholicradicalismbothinEuropeandmostfamouslyinLatinAmericain theguiseofliberationtheology.12 Yet,therearegoodreasonstowidenthetimeframeandspeakof whatthelateArthurMarwickcalledthe ‘long1960s’,runningroughlyfromtheSuezCrisisof 1956totheendoftheVietnamWarin1975.13 InhishistoryofreligionofWesternEuropeinthe 1960s,HughMcLeodhasmadeuseofthisperiodisationandhaspointedtotheimportanceofdevelopmentsinthelate1950stowhatwouldfollow.14 Significantsocialchangeswereunderfootthatcorrespondedtoa ‘cautiousopennesstochange’ inreligiousandpoliticalattitudes.

Itwaswithaninterestinreframinghistoricaldiscussionofreligionandsocialisminthelong1960s thatweinvitedagroupofscholarstotheUniversityofGroningenforaconferenceinJune2017.15 Thiswasthesecondconferencetoemergefromtheresearchgroup ‘ReligionandSocialisminthe TwentiethCentury’,thefirstofwhichwasdedicatedtothe ‘Interwar Kulturkampf’ . 16 Inourintroductiontothisspecialissue,wesummarisesomeofthekeyfindingsofourdiscussion.Inparticular,we drawattentiontothoseearlydynamics,oftenoverlooked,thatwerepresentinEuropeinthe1950sand thatlaidthefoundationsfornoveldialoguesofthelate1960s.Theaftereffectsoftheseremarkable eventscontinuetoreverberatetothisday.

OvercomingtheAntithesis:ChristianSocialisminthePost-WarEra

Whateventsfirstsignalthefundamentalshiftsinthepatternofhostilitythatgenerallyconstituted religious–socialistrelationsinthefirsthalfofthetwentiethcentury?Onestartingpointisfoundin thecallissuedbytheDutchpoliticianWillemBanningin1946fora ‘breakthrough’ (Doorbraak) inthewallbetweensocialismandChristianity.BanningwasaProtestantministerwhojoinedthe DutchSocialDemocraticPartyaroundtheoutbreakoftheFirstWorldWarandrosetobecomealeadingfigureintheparty.HewasnotthefirstEuropeanChristianSocialist,indeedtherehadexisteda Christianelementtosocialismsincetheearlynineteenthcentury.However,pre-warChristian Socialistsweredoublymarginalised.Theywereoftenlookeddownuponbyrankandfilesocialists, whoweredrawntotheradicalpotentialofanticlericalismandthenaturalscientificworldview.At

10 PaulMojzes, ‘TheCurrentStatusoftheChristian-MarxistDialogueandSuggestedGuidelinesforConductingthe Dialogue’ , JournalofEcumenicalStudies, 15,1(1978),3.Ormoredetailed: ‘thepreconditionsofitscommencement werethedeathofStalin(1953),theTwentiethCongressoftheCommunistPartyoftheSovietUnion(1956),polycentrism amongCommunistparties,emergenceofhumanisticMarxism,improvedinternationalrelationsinlightofthegradual cessationoftheColdWar,thepontificateofJohnXXIII,theSecondVaticanCouncil,Protestantreluctanceofabsolute condemnationofcommunism,andparticipationofEasternEuropeanchurchesintheWorldCouncilofChurches’.Paul Mojzes, Christian–MarxistDialogueinEasternEurope,36.MostrecentlyabouttheeffectsofVaticanIIinEasternEurope: PiotrH.Kosicki, VaticanIIBehindtheIronCurtain (WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,2016).

11 Gaudiumetspes,point28. ‘Respectandloveoughttobeextendedalsotothosewhothinkoractdifferentlythanwedoin social,politicalandevenreligiousmatters.Infact,themoredeeplywecometounderstandtheirwaysofthinkingthrough suchcourtesyandlove,themoreeasilywebeabletoenterintodialoguewiththem.’

12 Gerd-RainerHorn, TheSpiritofVaticanII:WesternEuropeanProgressiveCatholicismintheLongSixties (Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress,2015).

13 ArthurMarwick, TheSixties:CulturalRevolutioninBritain,France,ItalyandtheUnitedStates,c.1958–1974 (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,1998).

14 McLeod, TheReligiousCrisisofthe1960s.

15 TheconferencewasgenerouslyfundedbyaRoyalDutchAcademyofScienceinternationalconferencegrantandbythe FacultyofTheologyandReligiousStudiesoftheUniversityofGroningen.Theeditorsgratefullyacknowledgethisimportantsupport.

16 Seethecontributionstothespecialissue ‘Europe’sInterwar Kulturkampf’ , JournalofContemporaryHistory,53,3(July 2018),guesteditorToddWeir.

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory129 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

thesametime,theyweregenerallyscornedbytheirchurchbrethren,whohadtraditionallydefended monarchy,authorityandtheChristianstate.WhatwasnewwithBanningwastheattempttoovercome thismarginalisationandtocreateasocialdemocracythatembracedreligiousandsecularfollowers alike.

AsArieMolendijkarguesinhiscontributiontothisspecialissue,the Doorbraak ideaproposedby Banningin1946aimedtoestablishanewsocialparadigminDutchsociety.Attheendofthenineteenthcentury,anotherDutchReformedminister,AbrahamKuyper,thegreatarchitectof Neo-OrthodoxyandinspirationtomodernAmericanfundamentalism,hadarguedthatDutchpolitics andsocietywerecleavedbyan ‘antithesis’ betweentheChristianandthesecularparties.Kuyperand hisfollowersusedtheantithesistoargueforseparateschoolsandotherinstitutionsforCatholicsand theNeo-Orthodox.Thusratherthanone(secular)nationalcultureenvisagedbyliberals,DutchsocietyunderwentapillarisationintoCatholic,Neo-Orthodox,liberalandsocialistmilieus.Ratherthan tryingtoChristianisethesocialistmilieu,Banningwantedtoovercometheantithesisaltogether. This,weargue,wasacrucialstepinmakinglaterencountersbetweensocialistsandChristianspossible.Banningwasbothatypicalintellectualprecursorofsocialist–Christiandialogue,aswellasan architectofthelaterparadigmshiftinEuropeansocietyandpolitics.Hispioneeringeffortsanticipated bymorethanadecadethe1959BadGodesbergProgramofthe(West)GermanSocialDemocratic Party(SozialdemokratischeParteiDeutschlands;SPD),whichisfrequentlyheldupasthepointat whichWestEuropeansocialismdepartedfromamandatoryMarxism.Oftenoverlookedinthehistory ofGermansocialismisthatthissecularisationoftheSPDwasaccompaniedbyearnestencounters withchurchleadersandaphilosophicalrejectionofapoliticsofworldview.17

Preciselyhowsocialistconversationsofthe1950swerereflectedinChristiancirclesisshownby anotherbiography,thatofErnst-WolfgangBöckenförde,whobecameoneofthemostinfluentialconstitutionalthinkersofpost-warWestGermany.Inthelate1950sthisCatholicconservativecametoa strategicembraceofsocialdemocracyoutofcommitmenttodemocracy.Historianshavearguedthat socialdemocraticpartiesinpost-warEuropedistancedthemselvesfromMarxismoutofpolitical rationalitytoenlargetheirelectoralbasisandinresponsetothepoliticalexigenciesoftheCold War.18 However,Böckenförde ’sstoryspeakstoamorefundamentalengagementbysocialistswithreligionandanticlericalismandnotmerelytacticalmanoeuvring.AsMarkRuffdemonstratesinhisarticlehereonBöckenförde,thejuristcarefullymonitoredchangingsocialistattitudestowardsideology andreligionbeforejoiningtheSPD.Takentogether,thebiographiesofBanningandBöckenförde showhowthecrucialstepstoovercometheantithesisdirectlycontributetowardsthetrendofdepillarisationofEuropeansocietiesinthe1960s.

Christian–MarxistDialogue

EncountersthathadbeenunthinkablebeforewerenowturningintoemblemsofanewkindofrelationshipbetweenMarxismandreligion.Inthemid-1960sboththeVaticanandtheWCCopenedup avenuesfordialogue.InthewakeoftheSecondVaticanCouncil,theCatholicChurchestablisheda SecretariatforNon-Believersin1965thatgaveaninstitutionalformtothenewemphasisondialogue.19 Ayearearlier,thePaulusSociety,anorganisationestablishedbytheGermanCatholicpriest ErichKellnerin1955tofosterconversationbetweenMarxistsandChristiansaboutnaturalscience, shifteditsfocusandgrewintooneofthemostsignificantforumsfortheexchangeofideasbetween ChristiansandMarxists.Itheldanumberofhigh-profileconferencesbetween1965and1967.

17 KarlDietrichBracher, ZeitderIdeologien:EineGeschichtePolitischenDenkensim20.Jahrhundert (Munich:Dt. Taschenbuch-Verl.,1985).

18 StephenPadgettandWilliamE.Paterson, AHistoryofSocialDemocracyinPostwarEurope (London:Longman,1991),13, 110.

19 JeonghunShin, KirchealsWeltforum.ZumDialogverständnisinkirchlichenDokumentenseitdemZweitenVatikanischen Konzil (Berlin:LitVerlag,2010).

130HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Thedialoguewasconductedamidsteverincreasingmediaattention,inpartduetotheextended coverageoftheSecondVaticanCouncil,andinpartsustainedthroughitsownjournals. 20 Karl Rahner,oneofthemainparticipantsofthePaulusSocietyandakeytheologianoftheSecond VaticanCouncil,co-foundedthe InternationaleDialog-Zeitschrift in1968;inAustria, NeuesForum, aperiodicalestablishedwithfundingfromtheCongressofCulturalFreedomin1954,became, afterbreakingitstieswiththeCIAintheearly1960s,acentralforumforpublicationsonthedialogue underitseditor-in-chiefGüntherNenning.21 Otherplatformsfordiscussion,especiallysincetheearly 1970s,alsoemergedoverseas,notablytheUS-based JournalofEcumenicalStudies. Alongsidethese forums,thedialoguebecameestablishedasatopicinacademicprogrammes:whethertheMonday DialogicSeminarsofMilanMachovecattheCharlesUniversityinPragueorthecoursesofthe DarmstadtchapteroftheProtestantStudentUnionstartingin1963underthedirectionofMartin Stöhr.22

ErichKellnerformulatedthecoreaimofthedialoguein1966: ‘letmebeclearaboutthis.Forthis society,adialoguebetweenChristiantheologiansandMarxistideologuesisnotamatterofpolitics, tacticsormethod,butaquestionofscienceandhumanity.Evenmoreradically:amatteroftheselfrespectofthehumanspirit’ . 23 Thechallengesofthetechnologicalrevolutionorthethreatofmutual nuclearannihilationwerenon-partisanissuesthatbothChristiantheologyandMarxistphilosophy hadtorespondtoregardlessoftheimmediatepower-dynamicsoftheColdWar.Thepurposeof theconversation,accordingtoKellnerandRahner,wasnottoinformpoliticalactionbuttoidentify (ordevelop) ‘corepositions’ thatenabledconversationinthefirstplace.24 WhenRogerGaraudy,a memberoftheCentralCommitteeoftheFrenchCommunistPartyproposedinhis From AnathematoDialogue (1965)thattheChristianpositiononsubjectivityandtranscendencehadrelevanceforMarxism,itsentthemessagethatanewkindofconversationwaspossiblewithultimately higherstakesthanchangingpoliticalconstellations.25

WhenKellnerandhiscolleaguesframedthedialogueinsuchambitiousterms,theymadeanearnestcasefortheurgencyofdevelopingaframeworkforagenuineexchangeofideasbuttheyalsodistancedtheirdialoguefromothertypesofChristian–Marxistencounters.JanMilič Lochman,a CzechoslovakProtestanttheologian,distinguishedbetween ‘politicaltheology’ and ‘politicisedtheology’ . 26 Hearguedthattruedialoguewouldgeneratethefirstone:atheologythatreflectsonthepoliticalandsocialresponsibilitiesofchurchinmodernsociety,whilethesecondoneamountedtothe

20 ForacollectionofnewspaperreportsandothermediacoverageofthefirstconferencesofthePaulusSocietyseeErich Kellner,ed., DokumentederPaulus-Gesellschaft, 15(München:Paulus-Gesellschaft,1966).Eitler, ‘Gottisttot – Gottist rot’ , 246–51.OnthemediacoverageoftheChristian-MarxistdialogueattheWorldCouncilofChurches,Ondřej Matějka, ‘SocialEngineeringandAlienationbetweenEastandWest:CzechChristian-MarxistDialogueinthe1960s fromtheNationalLeveltotheGlobalArena’,inMichelChristian,SandrineKottandOndřejMatějka,eds., Planning inColdWarEurope (Berlin,Boston:DeGruyter,2018),165.

21 DavidMcLellan, ‘Christian–MarxistDialogue’ , NewBlackfriars, 49,577(June1968),462–7.

22 Matějka, ‘SocialEngineeringandAlienation’,178;ChristianA.Widmann, ‘VomGesprächzurAktion?Der “christlichmarxistischeDialog” unddiePolitisierungdesProtestantismusinden1960erund70erJahren’,inKlausFitschen,ed., Die PolitisierungdesProtestantismus:EntwicklungeninderBundesrepublikDeutschlandwährendder1960erund70erJahre (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2014),128.Also,seethedescriptionofthecurriculumforacourseonthe Marxist-ChristiandialogueinRobertG.ThobabenandNicholasPiediscalzi, ‘TeachingaCourseonthe Marxist-ChristianDialogue’ , TheJournalofEcumenicalStudies, 15,1(1978),178–96.

23 ErichKellner, ‘DialogausVerantwortung’,inErichKellner,ed., ChristentumundMarxismus – Heute (Wien,Frankfurt, Zürich:EuropaVerlag,1966),18.

24 RolandBoerdescribesthisphaseofthedialogue: ‘thedesirefor “ core ” positions;relativelylittleengagementwithactual texts;atendencytoromanticisecommunisminlightofMarx’searliertexts;anditsextraordinarilyEuro-Americanfocus. Againandagain,oneencounterseffortstoidentifythecoreofbothMarxismandChristianity’.RolandBoer, Red Theology:OntheChristianCommunistTradition (Leiden:Brill,2019),119.

25 HarveyCox, ‘TheMarxist-ChristianDialogue:WhatNext?’,HerbertAptheker,ed., MarxismandChristianity.A Symposium (NewYork:HumanitiesPress,1968),21.

26 JanMilič Lochman, Marxbegegnen.WasChristenundMarxisteneintundtrennt (Gütersloh:GütersloherVerlagshaus, 1975),116.

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory131 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

involvementoftheologyinpolemicsorjustifyingpoliciesborneoutoftheexigenciesofthepowerand politicalconstellationsoftheday.

Reconciliationwasnottheonlymodeofdialogueinthisera.Arguably,thePaulusSocietyorganisersalsoconstructedtheirforumasanalternativetoChristian–Marxistencounterscharacteristicfor the1950s:dialogueasastrategyofchurchpoliticsincommuniststates.The topos ofdialoguewasan establishedtoolincommunistchurchpolitics,asHelénaTótharguesinhercontributiontothisspecialissue.Itfulfilledaseriesofroles.First,incombinationwithrepressivemeasuresagainstthe churches,itfunctionedasamethodof ‘divideandrule’.Dividingchurchrepresentativesinto ‘reactionaries’ and ‘progressives’ helpedcommunistregimestostartaconversationwithonegroupwhilemarginalisingtheother.Thiscouldtakeseveralforms.Someofthemwereinstitutionalised,suchasthe so-called ‘peacepriest’ movementinHungary,CzechoslovakiaandPoland,inothercasesthestrategy wasappliedmoreflexiblyontheleveloflocalpolitics.27 Thefactofaconversationbetweenchurchand state – withintheunequalpowerdynamicsofstatesocialism – presentedseveraladvantagesforthe state:itservedasevidencetotheoutsideworldofthefreedomofconscience,therebystrengthening thestate’slegitimacyabroad,whileitalsocreatedconflictswithinchurchstructures.Thisdiscursive strategywasmostoftenappliedtogetherwithphysicalviolenceandintimidation.Second,socialist statesalsodeployedthe topos ofthedialoguebetweenChristianityandMarxismasameanstobrandmarksupposedideologicalenemiesorreinforceMarxistorthodoxy.

SwitchingSides:ApologistsasAgentsofDialogue

Aremarkablefeatureofthe1960swerethemanymomentsofpersonaltransformation,whereby antagonistsswitchedsidesoratleastcametoassimilateelementsofthe(former)ideological enemy.Thiswasasurprisingtwistinthehistoryofapologetics.InthecourseofthenineteenthcenturytheEuropeanchurchesdevelopedahostofuniversitychairs,popularjournalsandlayorganisations,designedtodefendthefaithinthemodernera.Bythelatenineteenthcenturysocialism featured,alongsidesecularismmoregenerally,asthegreatestthreattothechurchesinmanyregions ofEurope,outstrippingorcomplicatingtheexistinginter-andintra-confessionalstrifegeneratedby competition.Yet,asarguedelsewhere,theconceptofapologeticscanbeusefullyappliedtounderstand socialismandsecularismaswell.28 Likethechurches,socialistorganisationsandcommuniststatesfelt thesameneedtorefutethecriticismsofthoseoutsidethecamp,tostrengthentheconvictionsofthose within,andtowinnewconverts.Theyoftendevelopedspecialisedorganisationstaskedwithcombatingchurchinfluence.

Inthe1960smanyapologeticorganisations,whetherclericalorcommunist,changedtheirfunction. Insteadofservingasbastionsofdefence,theystartedtofunctionasconduitsforconversationsand conversion.Fromitsoriginsintheearlytwentiethcentury,theProtestant-dominatedecumenical movementhadusedjointoppositiontothethreatofsecularismasagluetoholdChristianstogether. Fromitsfoundationin1948theWCCsawitselfasabulwarkagainstcommunism.Yet,bythe1960sit hadbecomeanimportantarenafordialoguewithsocialismandothersocialmovements.

SimilardevelopmentscanbeshowninCatholicorganisations,inparticularCatholicAction,a wide-rangingeffortlaunchedgloballybyPiusXIinthe1920stofightsecularismthroughanetwork oflayorganisations.GerdRainerHornhasshownthatalreadyinthe1940sCatholicActionbecamea seedbedforthedevelopmentof ‘workerpriests’ inFranceandBelgium,who,outoftheirsympathyfor theplightoftheworkingclass,begantodevelopsympathyforsocialism.Someofthesepriestswerean

27 PeterC.Kent, ‘ReligionandtheChangingWorldOrder:TheRomanCatholicChurchandtheGlobalCrisesof1956’,in CaroleFink,FrankHadlerandTomaszSchramm,eds., 1956:EuropeanandGlobalPerspectives (Leipzig:Leipziger Universitätsverlag,2006),265.

28 ToddH.WeirandHughMcLeod,eds., DefendingtheFaith:PoliticsandApologeticsintheTwentiethCentury (Oxford: OUP,forthcoming).

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

132HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir

inspirationtotheLatinAmericanleadersofliberationtheologyofthelate1960s.Hornhasalso revealedthatmanyoftheleadersoftheNewLeftofthelate1960shadbegunthedecadeasmembers ofCatholiclayorganisations.29 InItaly,formermembersofCatholicActionofthelate1930sforgedan influentialcircleofintellectualswhoduringthewaningyearsofthewarsoughtto ‘makeMarxism cometruewithinaChristianperspective’.Afterthewartheybecameknownasthe cattocommunisti (CatholicCommunists).30 ParalleldevelopmentshavebeennotedamongleadingCatholicintellectuals,suchasJacquesMaritain,whomovedfromhostilitytosocialismtoanaccommodationwith itinthecourseoftheirshiftawayfromconservativeaffinitiesinthe1930sand1940s.31

Therelevanceofapologeticstounderstandingreligious–socialistinteractionsislesssurprising whenoneconsidersthatthedesiretodefendwasalsocombinedwiththedesiretoconvertand thatbothstimulateddeepencounterswiththe ‘faith’ oftheother.Theefforttoovercomethe enemywasakeycomponentoftheinterestthathadoriginallymotivatedpartnersfrombothsides intheChristian–Marxistdialogue.AsaMarxistphilosopherattheCharlesUniversityinPrague pointedoutattheendofthe1960s: ‘tenyearsago,webegantotalktoeachotherwiththethought atthebackofourmindsthattheothersidewouldslowlywitherawayorbreakup’ . 32 Someofthe prominentWeimar-erasocialist ‘apologists’ movedfrombeingadvocatesofanticlericalismtoadvocatesofdialogue.TwoofthesupportersoftheSPD’s1959BadGodesbergProgramwereWilli EichlerandPaulLöbe,eachofwhomhadoncehadimpeccablesecularistcredentials.Theformer hadledasplintergroupthrownoutoftheSPDin1925foritshardlineanti-religiousagitation, whilethelatterwasactiveintheBreslauFreeReligiousCongregation,whichpropagatedanimmanentist,scientificworldview.Yet,afterthewar,bothbecameprominentamongthosesocialistsseekingto reconcilesocialismandChristianity.

Therevivaloftheanti-religiouscampaignintheSovietsphereofinfluenceafterStalin ’sdeathalso setinmotiondynamicsthatultimatelyresultedinapologeticsgeneratingdialogue.Thepurposeofthe campaignwastoreturntoobjectivesmorecharacteristicofearlySovietreligiouspolicyandtooperationaliseatheismineverydaylife.Despitethedifferencesintheconstellationsofdomesticpoliticsof individualstates,thisgeneratedcomparableinitiativesacrossEasternEurope:inEastGermanyWalter Ulbrichtdeclaredthe ‘tencommandmentsofsocialistethics’ in1958,andthesameyearin CzechoslovakiafirstsecretaryoftheCommunistParty,AntonínNovotný, ‘emphasisedthenecessity offorging “moralandpoliticalunity” and...closelylinkedthiskindofunitywith “finishingtheculturalrevolution”’ 33

InHungary,too,startingintheearly1960s,partyofficialsinchargeofcultural politicsaimedtoclosewhattheyconsideredanincreasinggapbetweeneconomicdevelopmentand alaggingculturalrevolution.Incontrasttotheanti-religiouscampaignoftheinterwarperiod, whichwasbasedonanassumptionthatdestroyingtheinstitutionalbasisofreligionwoulddisrupt religiouspractice,inthelate1950ssocialiststateschangedtheirgoals,methodsandstrategies. Whiletheystillaimedtoreducereligiouspractice,therewasanincreasingawarenessandacceptance ofthefactthatthiswasgoingtobealongprocess.34 Whileintimidation,physicalandpsychological, againstclergyremainedpartoftherepertoireofchurchpolitics,socialiststatesincreasinglyinvested intothestudyofthephenomenontheywantedtodefeat.

Startinginthelate1950sexpertgroupsweresetuptostudyreligionfromavarietyofacademic perspectives:ethnological,anthropologicalorsociological.Oneunintendedconsequenceofinvesting

29 Gerd-RainerHorn, WesternEuropeanLiberationTheology.TheFirstWave(1924–1959) (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2008);Gerd-RainerHorn, TheSpiritofVaticanII:WesternEuropeanProgressiveCatholicismintheLongSixties (Oxford: OxfordUniversityPress,2015);contributiontothe2017Groningenconference.

30 DanielaSarasella, ‘TheMovementofCatholicCommunists,1937–45’ , JournalofContemporaryHistory,53,3(July2018), 644–1,650.

31 JamesChappel, CatholicModern:TheChallengeofTotalitarianismandtheRemakingoftheChurch(Cambridge,MA: HarvardUniversityPress,2018).

32 QuotedinMcLellan, ‘Christian-MarxistDialogue’,463.

33 Matějka, ‘SocialEngineeringandAlienation’,170.

34 Smolkin, ASacredSpaceisNeverEmpty,133–41.

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory133 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

intosuchresearchwasthatsocialscientistsoftenturnedfromexecutorsofanideologicalprograminto keyfiguresintheChristian–Marxistdialogue.35 MilanMachovecattheDepartmentofPhilosophyat theCharlesUniversityinPraguebelongedtothisgroup,becomingaregularparticipantatinternationalChristianconferences.36 Similarexamplescanbefoundalsoinsocialistcountrieswithno comparableliberalisationtothatofCzechoslovakiainthe1960s.Withsomecaveats,OlofKlohr, chairfor ‘scientificatheism’ attheUniversityofJenainEastGermany,couldalsobeincludedin thisgroup.Klohrattendedandorganisedinternationalconferencesonthesociologyofreligionand atheismandarguedforthenecessityandpossibilityofaChristian–Marxistdialogue.37

Thesecondunintendedcorollaryoftheatheistcampaignandthebroadscientificstudyofreligion wasanewunderstandingofreligiouspractice.InhercontributiontothisspecialissueJustineQuijada showsthisshiftthroughthecasestudyoftherepresentationofshamanisminatheistjournalsinthe SovietUnion, Atheist (Bezbozhnik)and ScienceandReligion (Naukaireligiia ).Whileintheearlier stagesoftheatheistcampaignshamanismwaspresentedfroma ‘socio-cultural’ perspective,articles inthelate1960streatedalteredstatesofconsciousnessasa ‘bio-chemical’ phenomenon,worthyof furtherstudy.38 Theimplicationofthefirstapproachwasthattheshamandeliveredmerelyaperformancetodeceivehisflock,thesecondwaspotentiallysympathetictoreligiousconsciousness.Quijada arguesthataslongasreligionwasunderstoodexclusivelythroughthecategoriesofpowerrelations andclass,theSovietstatehadaclearpositionasanopponentofreligion,but ‘ifalteredstatesofconsciousnessareduetouniversalhumanbiology,thearticles[inatheistjournals]offer[ed]noclearindicationofwhattherelationshipbetweenalteredstatesofconsciousnessandtheSovietstateshouldbe’ . Thearticlesaboutshamanisminthelate1960sreflectabroadershiftinattitudetowardsunderstandingbeliefandrituals:insteadofpresentingthemasamereinventionofreligiousinstitutions,creators ofsocialistculturenowwereconvincedthattheyfulfilledafundamentalanthropologicalfunction. ThisshiftrevealsastrikingparalleltodevelopmentsinWesternEuropeandtheUnitedStates, wheresomeanthropologistsbegantoseeshamanismnotasaprimitiveformofworshipbutas onewithcounterculturallessonsfortheWest.39 Creatorsofsocialistculturecametotherealisation thatdespitetheideologicalandinstitutionaladvantagesthatthespiritualplannedeconomyofstate socialismbestoweduponscientificatheism,theyalsohadtocompeteinanincreasinglybroadfield ofspiritualpossibilities.

DecolonisationandOpeningupEcumenismtoSocialism

Secondaryliteratureontheglobalisationoftheecumenicalmovementusuallycitesthe1961New DelhiconferenceoftheWCCasthebeginningof ‘theconversionoftheWCCfrombeingamovement largelyofWestEuropeanProtestantchurchestobeingatruly world movement’ . 40 TheDelhiconferenceframedtheglobalexpansionoftheWCC,withtwenty-threenewmembers,whichincluded membersfromAfricancountries,furthermembersfromAsia,LatinAmericaand,alsoforthefirst time,fourOrthodoxChurchesfromEasternEurope,includingRussia,Bulgaria,Romaniaand

35 Furtherexamples:ZsuzsánnaMagdó, ‘RomanianSpiritualityinCeauşescu ’ s “GoldenEpoch”:SocialScientistsReconsider Atheism,ReligionandRitualCulture’,inBetts, Science,ReligionandCommunism, 90–1;PatrickHyderPatterson, ‘The Shepherd’sCalling,theEngineers’ Project,andtheScientists’ ProblemScientificKnowledgeandtheCareofSoulsin CommunistEasternEurope’,inIbid.,55–76.

36 OndřejMatějka, ‘BetweentheAcademyandPower:CzechMarxistSociologyofReligion(1954–1970)’,inUlfBrunnbauer, ClaudiaKraftandMartinSchulzeWessel,eds., SociologyandEthnographyinEast-CentralandSouth-EastEurope. ScientificSelf-DescriptioninStateSocialistCountries (Munich:Oldenbourg,2011),107–33.

37 OnOlofKlohr,seethecontributionofHelénaTóthinthisspecialissue.

38 BirgitMenzel, ‘TheOccultUndergroundofLateSovietRussia’ , Aries,13,2(1Jan.2013),269–88.

39 AndreiZnamenski, ‘TowardtheAncientFuture:ShamanismintheModernWest’,inAndreiZnamenski, TheBeautyof thePrimitive:ShamanismandtheWesternImagination (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2007),233–73.

40 MadathilparamilMammenThomas, MyEcumenicalJourney (Trivandrum:EcumenicalPublishingCenter,1990),252.

134HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

Poland.41 Thisexpansionpromptedthedevelopmentofanewattitudeintheecumenicalmovement towardssocialismintwo,somewhatconflicting,ways.First,itchallengedtheEuro-centrismofthe WCCandlentmoreweighttothosememberswhohadbeendevelopingtheirownideasofa Christian–socialistsynthesisinthecontextofdecolonisationfordecades;secondly,itraisedthequestionofwhetherandtowhatextentchurchrepresentativesfromsocialistcountrieswouldtrytomove theWCCtowardsadoptingamorepositiveattitudetowardssocialism.

TheOrthodoxchurcheswerenotthefirstchurchrepresentativesattheWCCfrombehindtheIron Curtain:ProtestantchurchesfromHungary,CzechoslovakiaandalsoEastGermanyhadbeenrepresentedamongthemembersthroughthe1950s,evenifwithseverelimitations.42 Theinclusionofthe RussianOrthodoxChurch,however,raisedsuspicionsofthepossibilityofSovietinfluence. 43

InhisarticleforthisspecialissueUdiGreenbergtakesthe1966GenevaconferenceoftheWCCon ‘ChurchandSociety’ asthestartingpointofhisexplorationfortheshiftsofeconomicthoughtwithin theorganisation.InmanywaystheGenevaconferencefitswellintothespiritoftheage,where ChristiansandMarxistslookedforcommonsolutionsforwhattheyconsideredthejointchallenges oftechnicalprocessandrapidsocialchange.Initsfinalstatement,theconferenceidentified ‘nationalisingthemeansofproductionintheframeworkofcentralplanning’ asthebasisforaChristianand socialistorder.Greenberg,however,makesacasefortracingtheevolutionofthisChristian–socialist synthesistothecollapseofEuropeanempiresandtheriseofAfro-Asiannationalism.Eversincethe nineteenthcenturyProtestanteliteshadbelievedChristianity’svitalitydependedonitsexpansionin AsiaandAfrica.Theunfoldingofdecolonisation,manymaintained,meantthatevangelisationcould onlysucceedifitembracedandsupportedthenationalmovementsinIndia,Vietnam,Ghanaandelsewhere.DenouncingWesternimperialismandcapitalismasintertwined,AsianandAfricanleaders –bothChristianandnot – oftenviewedsocialismasnecessaryforpost-colonialliberation.Greenberg tracesthelinkingofanti-colonialismwithleft-wingcritiquewithintheecumenicalmovementsince thelate1940sandshowsinturnhowEuropeanProtestantelitesstartedtoabandontheirprevious anti-socialisminthe1950sandevenadvocatedforradicalsocialistpolicies,suchasglobalredistributionofwealth.By1966,accordingtoGreenberg,theshiftinecumenicalthinkingaboutredistribution, almosttwentyyearsinthemaking,hadbeencompleted: ‘socialism,oncematerialism’sdisturbing manifestation,hadbecomeecumenism’sally’ . 44

TheCrisisof1967to1969

Theawarenessthatdialoguewithsocialismwasdesirablewasalsoaccompaniedbytherealisationthat theconditionsthathadmadeitpossiblemightalsobeunderminingChristianity.Thus,justasecumenicalleaderssoughttoextendthecircletoincludedialoguenotjustwithCatholics,Orthodox andJews,butalsowithsecularmovements,suchasMarxism,theyrealisedthatthismightleadto adissolutionoftheentireprojectofecumenism.In1966theheadoftheinformationserviceofthe

41 KatharinaKunterandAnnegrethSchilling, ‘DerChristfürchtetdenUmbruchnicht’,inKatharinaKunterandAnnegreth Schilling,eds., GlobalisierungderKirchen.DerÖkumenischeRatderKirchenunddieEntdeckungderDrittenWeltinden 1960erund1970erJahren (Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht,2014),32.

42 ThepoliticalbackgroundofEasternEuropeanmembersoftheWCCwascomplex:churchrepresentativesallowedto attendtheconferenceswereusuallybriefedbytheStateBureauofChurchAffairsoftheirrespectivecountriesand theiractivitieswerecloselymonitored.TheyalsooftenusedtheplatformoftheWCCtoendorsepro-Sovietpolicies. PeterMorée, ‘AlliesAgainsttheImperialWest.JosefK.Hromádka,theEcumenicalMovementandthe InternationalisationoftheEasternBlocsincethe1950s’,inKunterandSchilling, GlobalisierungderKirchen, 167–88; TiborFabiny,Jr. ‘TheHungarianRevolutionof1956anditsAftermathintheLutheranChurch.TheCaseofBishop Ordass’,inHertmutLehmannandJensHolgerSchjørring,eds., ImRäderwerkdes ‘realexistierendenSozialismus’ . KircheninOstmittel-undOsteuropavonStalinbisGorbatschow (Göttingen:Wallstein,2003),31–40.

43 LucianLeuştean, EasternChristianityandtheColdWar1945–1991 (London,NewYork:Routledge,2010);Gerhard Besier,ArminBoyensandGerhardLindemann, NationalerProtestantismusundökumenischeBewegung.Kirchliches HandelnimKaltenKrieg1945–1990 (Berlin,Duncker&Humblot,1999).

44 SeeUdiGreenberg’sarticleinthisspecialissue.

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory135 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

WCCPhilippeMaurywrotethat ‘manyyoungpeopletodayareturningawayfromtheecumenical movementitself,andnotjustfromitsinstitutionalmanifestations – theecumenicalCouncil,youth movements,Christianorganisations;theyaredemandingthatthemovementbewidenedtoageneralised,simplyhumanecumenism,thatdoesnottakeChristianityasacriterion’ 45

TheambivalenceisalsoapparentintheCatholicdominatedecumenicalorganisation,Concilium, whichin1970publishedabookwiththeremarkabletitle Post-EcumenicalChristianity. Init,the GeneralSecretariatofConciliumsuggestedthatChristian–Marxistdialoguecouldbeseenaspartof the(post-)ecumenicaldirection,evenifitwasnottechnicallyecumenical. ‘Theconfrontationbetween allreligiousconvictionsshouldleadtoasituationwherebeliefisnolongerdivisivebutunifying,and thuscanplayitspartintheunificationofmankind.Thebasisofecumenicaldialogueremainsthe historicalsolidarityofmankind,inthevitalawarenessthatthissolidarityisconstantlythreatened’ . 46 Yet,likehisProtestantcounterparts,YvesCongarwasawarethatthisstepwasalsothreatening Christianity.Thedangerof ‘secularecumenism’ wasthat ‘anadjectivecaninfactdevouritsnoun’ Inotherwords,secularismmightwinoutoverthespiritual. 47

Therapidshiftinthelate1960stoadeepcrisisofconfidenceintheecumenicalmovementwasparalleledbydevelopmentsinChristian–Marxistdialogue.Bytheendofthe1960stheriftbetweenacommitmenttoworkingonacommongroundforfirstprinciplesandtheimperativeforpoliticalandsocial actiongrewintoaninsurmountabledifference.Althoughtherewasnotonecataclysmiceventthatbroke thedialogueapart,onesymbolicmomentwasthePaulusSociety’s1968conferenceinBonn,where,for thefirsttime,representativesofthenewleftwereinvitedtoparticipate.48 Thestudentsandmembersof theextra-parliamentaryopposition(AußerparlamentarischeOpposition)refusedtofollowthePaulus Society’sestablishedpatternsofdiscussionculture.ThestudentstookovertheBonnconferenceand wantedtopassaresolutionaboutthemassacreofstudentsinMexico.Theorganisingcommittee refused,andwhentheylefttheroomtheconferencewasdeclaredafailure.Thestudents,broadlyleft totheirowndevices, ‘proceededtosingtheInternationale,buthadseriousdifficultieswiththelyrics’ . 49 AsGüntherNenning,theeditorofthe NeuesForum formulated: ‘thePaulusSocietywasblownupbythe students’ 50 Thedifferencesran,however,notonlyornotstrictlyalonggenerationallines.Students foundinspirationandalliesinprominentfiguresofthedialogue,notablyErnstBlochorProtestanttheologianHelmutGollwitzer,whosehousebecameameetingpointand ‘refuge’ forsuchemblematicfigures ofthestudentmovementasChristaOhnesorgandRudiandGretchenDutschke.51

WhilenewleftistsinGermanywereaccusingthedialogueofimpotenceandirrelevance,itsMarxist representativesinCzechoslovakia,mostofthemproponentsofthe ‘thirdway’,werebeingtargetedas potentialenemiesofthestateafterAugust1968.52 TheChristian–Marxistdialoguecountedamongthe markersofliberalisationthattheSovietUnionrefusedtotolerate.53 Intheperiodof ‘normalisation’

45 Asquotedin:YvesCongar, ‘DotheNewProblemsofourSecularWorldmakeEcumenismIrrelevant?’,inHansKung,ed., Post-EcumenicalChristianity (NewYork:HerderandHerder,1970),11–21,quotation11.

46 ConciliumGeneralSecretariat, ‘EcumenisminSearchofanIdentity’,inKung, Post-EcumenicalChristianity,145–60, quotation160.

47 Congar, ‘NewProblems’,14–5.

48 Widmann, ‘VomGesprächzurAktion?’,121–49.

49 KarlRüdigerDierth, ‘EvolutionoderRevolutionderGesellschaft?InternationalerKongreßderPaulus-Gesellschaftin Bonn’ , JungeKirche,29(1968),731–2.

50 GüntherNenning, ‘Paulus-Gesellschaftstudentischgesprengt’ , NeuesForum,15,178(1968),633.

51 ClaudiaLepp, ‘HelmutGollwitzeralsDialogpartnerdersozialenBewegungen’,inClaudiaLeppandHarryOelke,eds., Umbrüche.DerdeutscheProtestantismusunddiesozialenBewegungeninden1960erund70erJahren. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Rupprecht,2007),227.GretchenDutschkewritesaboutthefour ‘fathers’ ofthemovement:György Lukács,HelmutGollwitzer,HerbertMarcuseandErnstBloch.GretchenDutschke-Kotz, ‘DievierVäter:Lukács, Gollwitzer,Marcuse,Bloch’ inG.D.K.,JürgenMiermeisterandJürgenTreulieb,eds., RudiDutschke,DieRevolte. WurzelnundSpureneinesAufbruchs (Hamburg:Reinbek,1983),10.

52 Lochman, Marxbegegnen, 7.

53 OnspeculationsontherelationshipbetweentheconferencesofthePaulusSocietyandthePraguespring:WilfriedDaim, ‘FragenzumDialog’ , JungeKirche,29(1968),318–20.

136HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

followingtheinvasionMachovecandhiscolleagueswerepunishedforpromotinga ‘theologicalform oftheanti-communisttheoryofconvergence’ andwereforcedoutoftheiracademicpositions.54 The crushingofthePragueSpringalsoforcedparticipantsofthedialogueoutsideofCzechoslovakiato redefinetheparametersofChristian–Marxistencounters.The InternationalDialogueJournal (InternationaleDialog-Zeitschrift),forexample,restatedperhapsmostradicallytheircommitment tothedialogueasawhole:theeditorialintroductionofthefirstissueof1969referreddiscreetlyto the ‘EuropeaneventsofAugust1968’ andformulatedanewmissionstatement: ‘sterilepolemics willbeavoided.Instead,thejournalwillsoonpublishcontributionsbyprominentpersonalities formtheUSSR.Thedialogue,asitispracticedhere,doesnotexcludeanyoneonprincipleandit isnotfixatedonaspecificsocialmodelasifitwastheonlyoneworthyofenteringintoadialogue with’ . 55 Thissentimentwasnotsharedacrosstheboardbetweentheparticipantsofthedialogue: whiletherejectionofpolemicswasnotcontestedandneitherwasapreferenceofaspecificsocial modeldebated,theSovietinvasionofCzechoslovakianonethelessraisedfundamentalquestions aboutthelimitationsofthedialogue.

Conclusion

Inapapergivenatasymposiumin1967andpublishedayearlater,HarveyCoxclaimedthat

ThedialoguebetweenChristianthinkersandvarioustypesofMarxistsisnotasnotasnewas recentreportswouldsuggest.ItgoesbacktotheverybeginningoftheMarxisttradition,and thepresentvigorousdialogueismorearevivalthanabeginning.Howeverharditistoimagine now,futurehistoriansmightchronicletheperiodofPopePiusXIIandStalinasthehighpointin anepisodeofnegativeantagonisminwhatcouldeventuallybeanoverallhistoryofactiveand mutuallyvaluablediscussion. 56

Thearticlesinthisspecialissuebothconfirmandcontradictthisstatementbythispreeminent Americantheologianofsecularisation.Wehaveseenthatthatintellectualhistoryofreconciliationproceededfromtheinterwarandwartimeperiod.ItwasconductedbyfigureslikeWillemBanning,who camefromtheminorityofreligioussocialists,butalsobyfiguresonbothsidesoftheinterwarculture war,suchasJacquesMaritainandWilliEichler,whoinreactiontofascismandwarswitchedfrom persecutorstomediators.ItisalsotruethatthepassingoffirstStalinandthenPiusXIIwerecrucial openingsfordialogue.

However,wefindthatwhatCoxcalledthe ‘negativeantagonism ’ andwhatwehavecalledthe antithesiswasnotaninterregnuminanotherwisehealthydialoguebetweensocialismand Christianity.Instead,theantithesiswastheconstitutiveframingoftherelationship,whichfullymarginalisedreligioussocialism.ItbegannotatthestartofthepapacyofPiusXIIorevenPiusXIbut stretchedbackintothenineteenthcentury.Theweakeningofthisantithesisalsobeganearlierthan Coxproposes.Transformationsofthereligiousfieldwerealreadypalpableinsomecornersinthe early1950sandthesepreparedthegroundforthedialoguesofthe1960s.Alongsidedepillarisation inEurope,decolonisationwasaglobalprocessthatfedintothistransformation.

InCox’ sessay ‘TheMarxist-ChristianDialogue:WhatNext?’,theauthorgaveanoptimisticanswer tohisownquestion.HecouldnotbeawareofthecrisisthatwouldengulfthedialogueinAugust1968. TheSovietinvasionofCzechoslovakiaandtherisingrevolutionarymovementsinSouthAmerica posedthequestionoftheprimacyofcooperationoverconversationwithnewurgency.Participants

54 AsOndřejMatějkapointsout ‘Ironicallyenough,MilanMachovec(oneofthefoundingfathersofCzechscientificatheismintheearly1950s)earnedmostofhisincomeforthegreaterpartofthe1970sfromhispart-timejobastheorganistat SaintAntonin’schurchinPrague-Holešovice,whichheobtainedthankstohisdialogicreputationinCatholiccircles’ Matějka, ‘SocialEngineeringandAlienation’,186.

55 ‘VorwortderSchriftleitung’ , InternationaleDialog-Zeitschrift,2,1(1969),1.

56 Cox, ‘TheMarxist-ChristianDialogue:WhatNext?’,15.

ContemporaryEuropeanHistory137 https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077 Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

inthedialogueandhistorianssincehavewonderedwhethertheturntocooperationwasaresultof changingpoliticalcircumstancesorwhetheritwasanalmostinevitableoutcomeofthedialogue itself.57 BytheendoftheColdWartheChristian–Marxistdialogueappearedtobelongtothepast.

JohnPaulIImadeapartialreturntotheantithesisandpromotedavigorousanti-communismand suppressedliberationtheologywithinthechurch.MikhailGorbachev’ssuddenopeningtothe RussianOrthodoxChurchandtheirjointmillennialcelebrationofSt.Vladimirin1988mightbe takenaspartofthelastactofSovietstatesocialism,ratherthanasafreshstart.58

57 ManfredSpieker, NeomarxismusundChristentum.ZurProblematikdesDialogs (München:Schöningh,1974),227. WilliamW.Mayrl, ‘TheChristian-MarxistEncounter:FromDialoguetoDétente’ , SociologicalAnalysis, 39,1(1978), 85.ChristianWidmanndistinguishesbetweenvariousphaseswithinthedialogue:the ‘dialogue’,the ‘metadialogue’ (i.e.thediscussionaboutthedialogueitself),andplacesliberationtheologyinthecategoryofthe ‘postdialogue’ Wiemann, ‘VomGesprächzurAktion?,’ 139.

58 Widmann, ‘VonGesprächzurAktion?’,137.ManfredSpieker, NeomarxismusundChristentum.ZurProblematikdes Dialogs (München:Schöningh,1974),227.

Citethisarticle: TóthH,WeirTH(2020).ReligionandSocialismintheLong1960s:FromAntithesistoDialogueinEastern andWesternEurope. ContemporaryEuropeanHistory 29,127–138.https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077

138HelénaTóthandToddH.Weir

Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 94.212.218.239, on 30 Nov 2020 at 11:24:20, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at

https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms https://doi.org/10.1017/S0960777320000077