Willard Skousen - The Naked Communist

“I’m afraid I will have to challenge that,” said the professor. “I think every authority would have to agree that sacrifices in the Old Testament were simply to make Jehovah happy.”

The student asked, “Would you like to hear what Jehovah himself said about sacrifices, and what they represented in the Old Testament?” The professor agreed, so a copy of the Bible was secured from the library. It was opened to the first chapter of Isaiah and the professor and student read the following verses together.

“To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts; I delight not in the blood of bullocks or of lambs, or of he goats…. Bring me no more vain oblations…. (‘If these sacrifices were not successful in making better people then they apparently were in vain,’ commented the student.) When ye spread forth your hands, I will hide mine eyes from you: yea, when you make your many prayers I will not hear: your hands are full of blood!”

Then the student asked the professor if he thought the next two or three verses reflected the personality of a so-called God of Vengeance or a God of Love:

“Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doing from before mine eyes! Cease to do evil; learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow. Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool, If ye are willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land.” (Isaiah 1:11-19.)

The professor was silent for a moment, and so the sophomore gained the courage to ask the final, crucial question. “Professor, am I wrong in concluding that these passages reflect the same spirit as the Beatitudes, the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule? Am I wrong in concluding that God has always been a God of Love?”

The professor took the Bible, placed a card in the first chapter of Isaiah and said, “Have the librarian transfer this book to me.”

The student appreciated his professor’s willingness to re-evaluate what he had been teaching. And he also appreciated something else—a mother and father, Sunday School teachers and others who had encouraged him to get acquainted with the Bible. They did not tell him what he had to believe out of the Bible; they just wanted him to get acquainted with it. He was glad that he had read it sufficiently so that when someone misrepresented what it said he was able to draw his own conclusions.

Now students who come home from a lecture such as the one I have just described are frequently an enigma to their parents. A boy may come home from a philosophy class, sit down to dinner with his family and say, “Dad, are we monoists or dualists?” His father is likely to look quizzically at the boy and say, “Son, eat your soup.”

Frequently parents are unaware that their son or daughter may be coming to grips with important philosophical problems. Of course, some parents are deeply confused themselves about the fundamental values of life and therefore they find it difficult to give much assistance to their children when they first meet the challenge of materialism.

I think my professor was sincere. He was teaching what he had been taught. He was teaching materialism because he had come to believe it was true. I am sure he would have been shocked if someone had told him that in the process of teaching materialism he was also laying the foundation for one of the most important concepts in Communism. If George Washington had been sitting in that class he would have said, “Professor, I think you are wrong.” Jefferson would have said, “You are wrong.” And Lincoln would have said, “You are wrong.”

Those men established this country on the premise that there is a Divine Intelligence guiding human destiny, a God in whom we can trust. They believed the Bible and the testimony of the witnesses who said that if we follow the principles taught by the prophets, we would find happiness in them. The founding fathers had such great confidence in the way of life described in the scriptures that they built the framework of the American Government and the principles for happy living which it guarantees, on the precepts and teachings of the Bible.

The disclosures of Igor Gouzenko in the Canadian spy case taught us that freedom is not insured by atomic bombs alone. As long as we are teaching materialism to our boys and girls we stand in danger of having them grow up to be vulnerable targets in the East-West war of ideologies.

I have already quoted to you a statement by the former Commissioner of Education in the Soviet Union indicating that they despise Christian principles because “Christian love is an obstacle to the development of the revolution.” In fact the Communist leaders have indicated time and again that our greatest strength in resisting their efforts to conquer our minds with dialectical materialism is our belief and understanding of the Judaic-Christian code.

About three years ago I was invited to speak to a convention on the West Coast. During the discussion it was pointed out that one of the things which the followers of Marx despise about the American culture is the Judaic-Christian code. So I asked the members of the convention, “What is this thing we have which frightens Communists; someone tell us what the Judaic-Christian code contains.” There was a long pause. No one wanted to suggest a definition for this part of America’s strength. Finally an elderly gentleman in the back of the auditorium raised his hand, “Well,” he said, “I’m not sure I know what the Judaic-Christian code is, but I do know this—if they’re scared of it, I’m for it!

In this brief discussion there is not sufficient time to treat the entire Judaic-Christian code, but perhaps we can cover part of it. The Judaic code, for example, is built primarily around the Ten Commandments. Let us discuss each one of them briefly and see if we car, discover what there about them that would frighten a Communist.

In the first commandment God simply asks mankind to recognize Him as the Creator and Master Architect of the universe. He wants us to understand that the remarkable planet on which we live is not the result of accumulated accident. The pleasant environment which we enjoy is not the product of fortuitous happenstance. Nor is it the result of ceaseless motion among the forces of nature. He wants us to know that all of this is a product of design and careful engineering; that it is built on a system of law and order; that He rules in the heavens and that all things are moving toward purposeful goals.

In the second commandment God requires that we shall not create or worship false gods. When He has revealed his identity and purposes to mankind these teachings are not to be perverted, distorted, or changed. As we have already mentioned, the dialectical materialists not only tried to destroy worship of the Almighty, but they replaced the one true God with a false god. As one of them said, “The turning point of history will be when man becomes aware that the only god of man is man himself.” {253} 253 Henri deLubac, Atheist Humanism , p. 20. The history of the dialectical materialists will reveal that they follow the ancient pagan practice of worshiping one another.

Now, the Communist says, “If there is a God, show him to me! Have you seen God? Has your brother, your sister?” It is interesting to find that some of the early Communist leaders actually went forth in search of God, but their biographies reveal that they went forth with a blowtorch in one hand and a sledge hammer in the other. They were men who defied the Almighty to keep himself hidden from their all-searching scrutiny; and when they failed in their search, they returned savagely angry, convinced that since they did not find God, it proved that there just was not any God to find.