“Theologians, like metaphysicians,” an English friar observes in a recent treatise on political philosophy, “are particularly susceptible to the attractions of what has been called the linotype school of history. They can easily be found to argue … that if certain ideas are applied then they arc bound to produce certain results. If all men served justice there would be no social problems—if free trade were adopted the world would be economically balanced and stable—both arguments impose a hypothesis after much the same fashion.” This method, he continues, is legitimate but only within limits.

Some time ago I did a series of articles for worldview, each concerned with some aspect of what I termed the “nuclear obsession.” I used the phrase to highlight an example of what seemed to me a tendency of the liberal community to become so preoccupied with a single issue, or value, as to lose sight of the damage done to other values held by the same community.

As one constantly fascinated with contradictions, I want now to examine the stunning and total contradictions of the two principal positions taken by some adherents of the “New Politics.”

After centuries of discussions and disputes over the church-state relationship, it would seem that there is little to say about the “Christian and politics.” The reality is that the relationship is more disputed today than it has ever been. Nor has the theology of the secular, so extensively developed over the past few years, increased the area of agreement about the perspective from which the Christian should look at the political order, how he can speak to it and to what extfent the emphasis should be placed on “Christian” or on “politics.”

There have been few political systems in man's history which have not appealed to God in one way or another for their justification or foundation or mission.

I am aware that a short visit to any country allows for only the most superficial kinds of observations. For a Western visitor, conclusions about the Soviet Union, after short visits to the major cities of western Russia, must be highly tentative, since little in our cultural, ideological and political experiences prepares us for an objective assessment of the Soviet Union. But even if personal objectivity were possible, adequate data is impossible to acquire. I found that the constant efforts of Intourist and others to provide an “official” view, an “official” explanation, an “official” insight into the Soviet people, their motivations and desires, compounded the difficulties. The visitor sees and hears what “they” want you to; exceptions to this, the most fruitful part of my trip, were hard to come by.