BiblicalInsights.net

James Bales published, Communism, Its Faith and Fallacies in 1962.  Chapter nine of this book is titled, “The Communist Attitude toward Religion.”  In this chapter, Bales gives nine reasons why Communism is opposed to religion.  While Communist propaganda insists that there can be peaceful coexistence between communism and religion, that notion is false.  The basic tenets of communism makes it an enemy to true religion. The following content is largely taken from Bales work on communism.
Reason Number One:  Communism is militant atheism.  Therefore, by its very nature it is antagonistic to theism.  The goal of communism is to change the world.  That change involves the total acceptance of communistic ideology. Khrushchev said to the 20th Congress in 1956 that “Revolutionary theory is not a collection of petrified dogma and formulae, but a militant guide to act in in transforming the world, in building communism.  Marxism-Lenninism teaches us that a theory isolated from practice is dead, and practice with is not illumined by revolutionary theory is blind” (163).  Communist fight for the full victory of atheism.
Reason Number Two:  Communism is a totalitarian system which demands the complete loyalty of its subjects.  It demands control of the inner and the outer life of man.  Thus, by its nature, it must oppose religion which says that there is a higher will and law than that of the state or Party.  Communism is a world-view that is in direct conflict with the Christian worldview.
Reason Number Three:  Communism is antagonistic to religion because it claims to be the scientific world view which must oppose religion because religion represents an unscientific and prescientific world view which is opposed to scientific progress.  Stalin said, “The Party cannot be neutral towards religion, and it does conduct anti-religious propaganda against all and every religious prejudice because it stands for science, while religious prejudices run counter to science, because all religion is something opposite to science” (164).
Reason Number Four:  Communism maintains that religion is a tool of the ruling class for the perpetuation of its power and the control of the masses.  Lenin looked upon religion as a tool in the hands of the “oppressing classes.” He said, “All oppressing classes need two social functions to safeguard their rule:  the function of the hangman and the function of the priest.  The hangman is required to quell the protests and the indignation of the oppressed; the priest is required to console the oppressed, to paint for them the prospects of mitigation of their sufferings and sacrifices (this is particularly easy to do without guaranteeing that these prospects will be “achieved”), while preserving class rule, and thereby to reconcile them to class rule, wean them from revolutionary action, undermine their revolutionary spirit and destroy their revolutionary determination” (164-165).  Religion stands in the way of success in pursuing revolution and overthrowing the ruling classes.  In  order to overthrow capitalism and establish socialism, religion must be opposed.
Reason Number Five:  Communism is anti-religious because, as a corollary to the above, it claims that religion is the opiate of the masses which leads them to be submissive to their masters and more or less content with their lot.  Karl Marx said that ‘Religion is the opium of the people’ (165).  Marx believed that religion is an instrument of the bourgeois reaction whose aim is to defend exploitation by stupefying the working class (165).  To the Communist, religion functions to deaden the conscience of the oppressed masses and so must be removed.
Reason Number Six:  Communism is anti-religious because it regards religion as a symbol of mans’ alienation from himself.  Religion, as man’s reaction to mystery and misery, leads man to look outside of himself for help, and thus keeps him from bringing about his own emancipation.  Communism is basically humanistic.  Consequently, it must oppose religion which focuses upon God.  Communists view religion as standing in the way of man’s own self-actualization.
Reason Number Seven:  Communism is against any religion which teaches the reality of moral law.   Bales devotes chapter ten to the Doctrine of Communist Morality.  The communist repudiates the moral values of Christianity and of Judaism.  He repudiates the so-called values of the bourgeois society.  Morality cannot be the expression of the will of God because the communist does not believe in God.  Morality to a communist is but a means of achieving class interests.  Marx wrote, “Law, morality, religion, are to him so many bourgeois prejudices, behind which lurk in ambush just so many bourgeois interests” (195).  Bales illustrates the communist view of morality by considering the command “Thou shalt not steal.”  The communist maintains that this is the law of a property-holding class whereby they protect their property. It is thus subordinated to class interest.  If theft be wrong, the institution of private property must be right although it may be abused.  The communist maintains that the institution of private property is wrong, therefore the law, “Thou Shalt not steal” is but a way the property-holding class maintains its hold on its ill-gotten gain.  Since the communist represents a class with interest which oppose that of the property-holding class , he believes that it is right to steal if stealing will help the Party (198).
Reason Number Eight: Communism is against any religion which teaches love, since class hatred is the way of progress. Communist must be “hard as steel.”  They must not know what pity, mercy, and compassion are.  Revolution is advanced through class hatred and struggle.  In a revolution, one cannot be soft.
Reason Number Nine:  Since communism may be aptly described as the Communist Crime Syndicate, an international organization of criminals directed by cunning and ruthless thugs in the Kremlin, it must be antagonistic to any religion which stands for any measure of truth, holiness and justice. Earl Browder wrote in What is Communism, “Communists do not distinguish between good and bad religions, because we think they are all bad for the masses” (167).
Bales concludes:  “These elements of the communist world view justify the conclusion that communism is basically anti-religious” (167).

Can love express itself in a rebuke?  In John 13:1, Jesus expresses His love for all of His disciples.  In Matt. 16:21-23, Jesus rebukes Peter.  The answer to our question is, “yes!”  A rebuke is a verbal correction.  Whenever a person’s thinking is not in harmony with God’s thoughts, purposes and will, there is a need for correction.  A rebuke is an attempt to bring a person’s thinking into to harmony with God’s thoughts.  Truth by its very nature is corrective of error. The desire to have individuals walk in truth is an act of love.  The key to success in giving a rebuke is when love prevails in the heart of the one administering the rebuke and love prevails in the heart of the one being rebuked.  As noted above, Jesus loves Peter.  Peter also loves Jesus (John 21:15-19).  The rebuke will bear fruit when love is present in the hearts of all involved.
The Prophecy (Matt. 16:21).
Through the suffering of Jesus before and during the crucifixion, salvation would be provided for all people.  Suffering will provide divine atonement for sin.  Jesus affirmed that He would “suffer many things.”  He suffered mockery, ridicule, humiliation, beating, excruciating pain and death.  In Isaiah 53, the prophet predicts the suffering of the Servant of God who would consequently provide spiritual healing, “But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed” (v. 5).  Truly, Jesus suffered in our place and on our behalf.  Jesus’ suffering provided for our forgiveness of sin (expiation) and appeasement of God’s wrath (Rom. 5:8-9) thus justifying us and saving us.  His suffering was a free act of love and grace.  Jesus also affirmed that He would be killed (put to death) and that He would rise again the third day.  His suffering would be followed by His triumph over sin and death.  The death, burial and resurrection of Jesus are the heart of the Gospel of Christ (I Cor. 15:1-4).  They are also the hope of the world.
The Denial (Matt. 16:22).
Peter denies the truth expressed by the Lord, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.”  Peter’s response indicated a “strong negation” of what Jesus had just stated.  Would God allow Jesus to suffer such degradation?  The thought seems incongruous to Peter.  Peter makes an emotional response to the Lord’s words instead of receiving them by faith.  Perhaps he considered that Jesus’ statement contradicted the fact that He was the Messiah and the Son of God which he had earlier confessed (Matt. 16:16-18).  Peter also seems to miss the triumph that Jesus would have over death–namely, His resurrection from the dead.
The Rebuke (Matt. 16:23).
Jesus responds to Peter’s words with a strong rebuke, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offense unto me: for thou savorest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”  The use of the term, Satan, indicates that Jesus recognizes that Peter had become an adversary to Him.  Peter’s denial of the prophetic truth put him in the role of tempter.  He stands in the place of Satan as tempter to Jesus.  Peter’s role is now changed from being a great confessor of Jesus to being a great denier of Jesus.  Jesus demands distance, “get behind me” and shows that separation involves protection.  Jesus also said that Peter was a cause of stumbling to Him.  Peter’s denial of Jesus’ suffering and death and triumph over death was a stumbling block to the progress of redemption.  Peter’s thoughts are entirely on the human level.  What a contrast to his confession of Christ given earlier where Jesus recognized the source of the content of the confession as being from heaven (God the Father).  Peter does not savor the things that be of God at this time.  Peter failed to associate the words of Jesus with His mission–being the Messiah and providing atonement though the power of His blood.  Peter’s denial deserved rebuke.
The Lessons.
First, the rebuke was corrective.  The correction was needed to redirect Peter’s thoughts from the flesh to the spiritual things of God.  Love corrects.  Love chastens in a verbal correction.  Love rejoices in the truth.  If Jesus had said nothing to Peter, the denial would stand.
Second, the rebuke affirms and defends the truthfulness of the prophetic declaration concerning Jesus’ suffering, death and triumph over death.  Jesus will experience these things as a necessary part of the scheme of redemption.
Third, Peter’s denial attacks the integrity of Jesus.  Peter’s denial amounts to calling Jesus a liar which would contradict Peter’s own confession.  If Jesus is the Son of God, He would never tell a lie.  God cannot lie!  Peter needs to change.
Fourth, the rebuke reveals Christ’s character manifested in the relationship with Peter.  Plain speech tests loyalty and love in the relationship.  Jesus loved Peter and desired that he be led by heavenly purposes and plans and not merely emotional yearnings.  Yes, it would be painful for Peter to see Jesus suffer and die, but only through this experience could Jesus redeem people from sin.  Peter’s own salvation was involved.
Fifth, the rebuke warns the other disciples not to make the same mistake that Peter had just made.  Do not reject the truth, even though it is difficult to accept, because of human feelings.
Finally, the rebuke shows us that Jesus’ suffering was a necessary aspect of our salvation (Heb. 5:8-9).  “Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered, And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those that obey him.”   Through Jesus’ suffering and death, Satan, is defeated (Heb. 2:14) and we can have the spiritually optimal life now (John 10:10) and eternal life in the world to come (John 3:16).