GETROUW, the Dutch monthly publication of the International Council of Christian Churches, in its first issue of 1979 featured J. Boelema’s extendedsummary of an important speech of Dr. A. Troost under the above title. A number of Dr. Troost’s sharp observations are as applicable to our situation as they are to that on the European continent. The substance of his talk translatedfreely from the Dutch, may interest our readers.
Democratic Western Free Socialism
Marxism appears in many forms, such as Maoism and Stalinism, which may bitterly oppose one another and yet have a close spiritual affinity as they have Karl Marx as their common father. Professor Troost obser ved that democratic, western free socialism, although closely related to Marxism is a more moderate and less consistent form of it. Communism regards socialism as a necessary transition stage to a communist society. Communism aims to completely rule the world and. it presses its crusade toward such a triumph by way of this socialist transition.
Moderate Methods
The moderate, socialist form of this movement has been influencing Christendom for almost 100 years and it does this especially in the Netherlands today.
About 1900 the “social gospel”movement began in the United States. The expression meant that the gospel was the good news for poor, underprivileged, oppressed, for people whose rights had been denied, and the practical ideals of the “social gospel”readily blended with the socialistic trend of thought. For a short time about 1890 Abraham Kuyper was under the influence of this movement, but from Groen van Prinsterrer he learned to see how this socialistic movement drew its spiritual inspiration and nourishment from unbelief and. revolution. Therefore Kuyper came to concentrate his attention on an antirevolutionary doctrine and an anti–revolutionary view of the state. Accordingly Kuyper confessed that all authority has an official character, is responsible first to God and must be respected by those who are subject to it, with the reservation that they must obey God more than men.
Developments
There have been further developments since Kuyper’s time. What the perceptive could already see in the 30s and 40s became more obvious and public in the 50s and 60s. The principle of authority lost its faith-foundation andaccordingly also its practical influence and meaning. Barthian theology which dominated those years followed Karl Barth in preparing the way for spiritual and military disarmament against Marxism and communism. While after the second World War some Christians deserted the Christian political parties, now Dr. Troost observed an opposite movement in which socialistic mottoes and ideals are being adopted by Christian parties.
Spiritual Forces
In this curious development, Dr. Troost observed the work of spiritual forces. These forces operate like the wind which irresistably moves the tops of the trees in one direction until the upper parts of those trees grow to conform to the direction of the . prevailing wind. Besides this constant infiltration of communism in the Netherlands as well as in the whole western world, one must also observe the rapid undermining, weakening and secularizing of Christendom. One need not understand this as a loss of all faith, but rather as emaciation, as political unproductiveness of faith. This is not caused by modern theology, but, on the contrary, modern theology, like the modern socialistic politics of Christians, is the product of derailed, undermined and anemic spiritual life.
This also accounts for the weak defenselessness against socialism and the naive readiness to receive and to follow socialistic catch-words and programs on the part of theologically orthodox people and Reformed churches.
Democratizing
Although some of the extremes and sensationalism of the protest movements have passed, the struggle with their ideas continues. Experience has shown that the Marxists are most successful when they operate under the slogan of “democracy.”
Many no longer recognize the enormous difference between the “democracy” promoted by unbelief, in the French Revolution and the Christian principle that official authority, as established by God, must be respected. Many Christian politicians and educators have also forgotten this distinction. Nobody wanted to be labeled “conservative” and therefore all were for democracy. In this way the catch-words of the anti-authoritarian education have been constantly propagated. All order, discipline and achievement were caricatured by generalizing from faults or abuses. The results were that many teachers and parents became unsure of their course. This uncertainty has been encouraged in every area of life and among Christians, especially in matters of faith and morals.
Application in Schools
Prof. Troost called attention to examples of this movement in the schools. Children were taught to admire the Soviet paradise, which must not be called Russia, but the Soviet Union. Education must become democratic. Sex Education was required and made as explicit as possible; p*rnographic films must be observed because they covered up nothing and if parents objected, this could be held against the children. The principle implicit in all this was that changing society must begin in the elementary schools.
Criticism of Society
Along with “democratizing,” “social criticism” and “social change” are also magic words with which socialism everywhere breaks into churches, schools, universities and even conservative political parties. Our society is obviously no good. Nobody is happy with it. One must keep hacking away at that dissatisfaction. Change must come, change of mind and change of structure. Marx taught that society is divided into free and oppressive relationships. Western Europe is still a repressive society and it must change. The defenders of this repressive social system are naturally the authorities in state, church, the army, etc. Everyone who is not in an established position is automatically oppressed, mistreated, plundered and humiliated. A group of “critical educators”worked this out in a brochure entitled “Authoritarian Education.” It maintained that the educational establishment is authoritarian and conservative and is a willing servant of the repressive class of capitalists, and that the students are the great mass who are being denied their rights. Lesson plans are prepared for them. They must obey established school rules. They are dependent on the good will and whim of the teachers. The students are the purpose of the education. They are the product that must accumulate more knowledge in the learning process. The are compelled to submit to the process which does not depend upon what they want to know or what is really important to their development. Most students know that they must pass the examination in order that their school education may be properly recognized by society. Therefore the student regards it as to his advantage to study the educational materials in order to pass the final examination which gives access to a higher position in society. And. so the fetters are locked on him. He has identified himself with the educational system. Teachers as well as students are in fact being exploited. They are not doing what they have themselves consideredand come to recognize is necessary for the welfare of society or for their own development. Will they ever recognize that they are being sacrificed? Certainly not, as long as they have not experienced that the reformation of education is important to all teachers and students. Until that time they will emphasize the positive points of the existing education and will defend it because otherwise they could give no explanation for the fact that they have been involved in this education. Only people who have come to understand the reason for the present educational problem, can see what must be reformed.This is the line of the socialistic educational “reformers.”
Society is authoritarian and is directed by the great conservative, economically advantaged classes. The brochure goes on to describe how the reformation must be achieved. It is by way of action to elicit conflicts and. protests, for it is only by way of conflict that the students and teachers become aware of their slave-status. The “Red Book for Students” advises, “Go with your demands – which you call petitions –to the administration. If they give in, your demands were not important enough to justify action. If they deny them, then you are where you must be. You gain nothing by talk.”
This method has been enormously successful in the universities. A student paper said, “On every approval of a demand we must have a new one ready.”
Speaking from experience, Prof. Troost observed that it is saddening to observe that administrators are so unimaginably fearful of conflicts and unbelievably concessive to the demands of students. Actually this is not surprising because they themselves have been misled by the unbiblical preaching of reconciliation, community, solidarity, service, humanitarianism, etc. They have undermined their own authority and on the first or second confrontation with the revolutionary leaders they have given up their authority and turned it over to the dictatorship of the so–called democratic majority.
Free Discussion
When the first phase of the revolution has succeeded the second arrives. In schools and educational institutions the contents of study must be “democratically” determined. Any further talk of an authoritarian relationship between teacher and student is out of question. There must be open discussion without anyone because of his position being permitted to say what is or what must be.
It must first be agreed. however, that every department must be freed from its social uselessness and mad.e fruitful for the changing of our capitalist society. The critical teachers already mentioned wrote that in the present school the students and teachers are told from above what they must do. The teachers carry out the education laws and require the students to submit to them. The testing of their factual knowledge by way of examination rounds out the oppression.
What is ideal? Students and teachers will together determine what they must do. It is obvious that they will work with more pleasure and. interest when they themselves determine what they do. Assigned studies and factual tests can be dropped as illegitimate means of oppressing the students.
Another citation: The repression by authorities must make way for self-government. In this way workers in education will not work for the school, but for life. This kind of developing social consciousness by consistent use of language can be used to poison the intellectual atmosphere, Dr. Troost observed.
Marxism knows only one fundamental antithesis: The opposition of the oppressors to the oppressed.
The spiritual and military resistance to communism is undermined by an alliance between Christendom and socialism, accompanied by numerous ecclesiastical and communistic actiongroups. Communism is making steady and patient progress toward governing the world in the game played by ignorant and short-sighted leaders, by what is called the betrayal of the intellectuals.
Need of an Active Campaign Against Marxism
Dr. Troost proposed to his hearers that Marxism, also in its moderate forms of all kinds of socialistic tints of pink and rose, remains in the first place a power that is an enemy of God. In opposition to the true salvation of God, given us in Christ, it preaches a doctrine of salvation that promises to deliver more socially than Christ does with all of his fine promises of eternal salvation. Instead of the totalitarian rule of Christ the Marxist doctrine of salvation preaches the totalitarian rule of man. This rule of man, led by a prophetic elite with a socialistic doctrine of salvation, by means of the totalitarian power of government, must then be called the “Kingdom of God” by Christians. Today we must recognize, according to Dr. Troost, a spirit of error, which God has brought as a judgment upon apostate and secularized Christendom. It is this spirit of blindness which has made possible the present-day alliance between a demoralized Christendom and a moderate Marxism. This alliance seems, on one hand, to restrain and delay the coming of anti-Christ, and, on the other hand, cannot prevent his coming because opposition steadily weakens and territory is steadily being lost (to it).
Theological error and church decay promote the present spiritual decline of western culture as much, if not more, than the practical materialistic greed and craving for pleasure of the great mass of people who become indifferent and blind to this spiritual struggle. The struggle demands cross-bearing and following Christ in His sufferings.
A Desire for Salvation
In conclusion, Prof. Troost said that all people in the world suffer the consequences of the break with God, sin. That is the cause of all suffering and misery. Therefore all people too long for salvation consisting of peace, joy, freedom, wellbeing, the flowering and fulfillment of life. The Bible describes that salvation. Mankind, apostate from God, intends itself to achieve this on the basis of good will and proper means.
The great error of a steadily more socialistic Christendom is the assumption that these goals are the same for all and that they can be achieved in the same way as the Marxists expect to achieve them.
Throughout the world the lie has been accepted that Marxism is connected with freedom and righteousness and that Christendom is connected with oppression and exploitation.
Now the last point has in part been true. Can Christendom with its external worship and theology, its enormous ecclesiastical institutions and cathedrals, and its great theological libraries and learning help us? The Only One who can help us is Christ. Therefore we may pray with the prophets, “Turn us, O Lord, and we shall be turned.”
Bearing on Our Educational Problems
Reviewing the speech of Dr. Troost, one observes that a number of his comments on the Dutch situation appear to apply also to ours in North America. Especially striking is his highlighting of certain common educational ideas whose socialistic or even Marxist affinities we do not usually recognize.
I cite an example from the February-March issue of the Christian Educators Journal (pp. 6ff.) in which Mr. Harrow Van Brummelen writes on “Teacher Training in our Christian Colleges: Is Improvement Necessary?” and a professor from Calvin College and one from Dordt College reply. Mr. Van Brummelen, Education Coordinator for Christian Schools in British Columbia, after visiting more than a hundred classrooms with 2,500 students, is especially critical of the way in which many of the teachers still use a structured, orderly, disciplined. traditional class-room procedure instead of the in.formal, relaxed, open, less–structured arrangement, adapted to the child’s individual “needs” and “creativity.”* Professor Peter De Boer, Chairman of the Education Department of Calvin College, replies to Mr. Van Brummelen rather defensively, that Calvin College tries to teach a variety of teaching methods including substantially those which Van Brummelen advocates. In the same magazine Professor Mike Vand.en Bosch of Dordt College’s department of Education calls attention to the obvious bias of Van Brummelen’s criticism, and to the opportunity which the unstructured classroom provides not only for the good student to study but also for the poor student to squander his time. He recalls one memorable lecture by a seventh-grade teacher which provided guidelines for his own years of future study which would likely never have been discovered by any student fumbling at research on his own. He points out that the resentment against any “teaching” because it implies “authority” is derived from an anti–Christian philosophy. Christians ought to recognize God-given authority to teach. And he observes that education with a well-considered direction is much more apt to go somewhere than one which opposes any direction.
This exchange in the Christian Educators Journal clearly shows how secular educational theories with Marxist or other anti–Christian affinities are at work also in our Christian schools. We must prayerfully and patiently oppose them and seek to bring up our children in the “training and discipline of the Lord.”
*Mr. Van Brummelen wrote in a similar vein in his essay in the 1972 Wedge (AACS oriented) book. To Prod the “Slumbering Giant” which I reviewed in the January, 1971, OUTLOOK in an article, “Where are We Going with Christian Education?”
