Spiritual Revival? Or Gulag Nation?

Complimentary Story
   “I have spent all my life under a Communist regime, and I will tell you that a society without any objective legal scale is a terrible one indeed.   But a society with no other scale but the legal one is not quite worthy of man either.” (Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, in a 1978 commencement address at Harvard University).

   Although most readers of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago draw strong political conclusions from it – the oppression of totalitarianism, robotic indoctrination, etc. – Solzhenitsyn himself denied that Gulag was a political statement.   Instead, in Pauline fashion, he blessed prison for being a part of his life, because it led to a deep examination of his conscience, to serious reflection on his weaknesses, and, as he put it, to a nourishment of his soul.   Basically, he considered Gulag to be a documentation of that process (Chronicles, 12/20).  
 
   Still, we can draw some general political implications from Gulag that relate to America in 2021.   For example, when he says in no uncertain terms that the trials and problems confronting mankind are basically spiritual in nature, he is also saying, in effect, that political solutions are not the answer.   Indeed, we can see in the present day that as government burrows deeper into the minutiae of our lives, many or most of its “solutions” are not only counterproductive but are sometimes harmful.   

   Another assumption made by most people who are familiar with Solzhenitsyn is that after leaving Russia in exile and living in the West for nearly 20 years (primarily in Vermont), he became an advocate of democracy.   But this wasn’t the case.   In his 1978 Harvard commencement address, he stated that he could not recommend democracy for a post-communist Russia because of the crime, pornography, “vulgar music,” inexorable pursuit of pleasure, and the spiritual emptiness that he observed after four years here.   He said: “Through deep suffering, people in our country [Russia] have now achieved a spiritual development of such intensity that the Western system in its present state of spiritual exhaustion does not look attractive.” (Chronicles, 12/20).

   Solzhenitsyn’s experience here led to the view that democracy and freedom fail because the people fall too easily into decadent ways.   (He referred to democracy as “a surrogate faith for intellectuals deprived of religion.”)   His preference was an authoritarian government to keep order and minimize excesses — i.e., a benevolent authoritarianism, one that would be non-despotic, non-ideological, and in no way obstruct man’s spiritual quest.   For example, he expressed admiration for Spain’s Franco, who governed with “firm tactics” but permitted basic freedoms and kept his country Christian in the face of moral decline in the rest of western Europe.   Also, after he returned to Russia, he supported Putin, who at that point, had resuscitated the Eastern Orthodox Church.

   What about his statement that democracy and freedom fail because the people fall too easily into decadent ways?   Basically, he believed that Americans and others in the West have too much freedom, and because that creates so many external options and distractions in daily life, most people neglect their inner, spiritual lives.   Therefore, he felt, freedom needs to be reined in by a benevolent authoritarian.   (We note with chagrin that the decadence in America now is far worse than during Solzhenitsyn’s 20 years in Vermont, which ended in the ‘90s.)   Let’s examine his basic point. 

   Solzhenitsyn was probably naïve about whether an authoritarian government could actually be benevolent for very long.   However, he was undoubtedly correct not only about the fundamentally spiritual nature of mankind, but also in his observation that here and in virtually every Western nation, the majority of people easily abandon their inherent spirituality for the myriad temptations of the material world.   The result in America, mostly over the last 50 years, is that the majority of Americans are non-believers or just nominal believers.   

   As we know, all people have God-given free will – and those who hear the Gospel can choose to believe and be free from sin’s captivity, or they can reject belief and remain in the chains of flesh and the devil.   That’s true whether they live in a libertarian or democratic society, under a repressive dictatorship, or even if they are in a physical prison, like Paul.   It’s a fundamental level of freedom of mind and soul that can’t be taken away by any government.   

   Of course, release from the chains of sin through faith in Christ doesn’t mean you can do anything you want (like keep on sinning).   It means you’re free to do good things that glorify God – for example, things that help your neighbor, things that help your church and church family, and things that may have once embarrassed you, like sharing the Gospel with strangers.   And the crux of the matter is that this basic and true freedom doesn’t happen without Jesus.   

   Of course, a non-believer would scoff: “What kind of freedom is that, where you can just do these so-called ‘good’ things?”   Stated another way: “Where’s the fun in that?”   The answer is simple: if you are truly in Jesus, you want to do only good things – and every time you carelessly veer from that path, you feel the need for repentance.   

   By the way, if all people were true believers in Jesus, pure democracy would likely work.   But when this nation was founded, even though a clear majority of new Americans were true believers, the founders understood that men were prone to wickedness – particularly those not held in check by religious belief who might attain a majority in the future (like now) – and they wisely created a constitutional republic with checks and balances, a separation of powers, strong federalism, and safeguards for minority views.   Today, a dwindling minority of Americans are true believers, and our new government would like to tear up the Constitution and marginalize us (or worse).   

   What, then, should be our involvement with these new politics for at least the next few years?   At this writing, we have already seen a number of executive orders that will start the country down a steeper part of the slope that leads to disaster, depravity, and despair.   Here’s what Franklin Graham says:

   “God is in control of men and nations.   Our part is to pray, repent of sin, share the hope of Christ, and trust in His wisdom, love, and sovereignty to lead us and guide us in the uncertain days to come.”

   Prayer, then, is a must, including praying that our new leaders receive God’s wisdom.   Should we try to get involved otherwise?   Yes we should, especially with pushback on specific issues that challenge Biblical truths – such as abortion, encroachment on our constitutional freedoms, so-called “gay marriage,” and the claimed normalcy of “gender dysphoria.”   And overall, we need to resist socialism, which (adversely) affects these issues and many more.   Push back gently, but push!

   Ultimately, though, the lasting survival of this country as a free nation can come only through a widespread revival of faith in Jesus Christ – and it would be as an achievement for His glory, not bragging rights for believers.   But revival and survival will not come easily.   Indeed, to go back to Solzhenitsyn’s point, we as a nation may well have to endure a protracted period of suffering to achieve the “intense spiritual development” needed.   Time to get ready.

   “Blessed is the one who perseveres under trial because, having stood the test, that person will receive the crown of life that the Lord has promised to those who love Him.”  (James 1:12).

Email comments to:
NKuk@PioneerCable.net

Learn how to email this article to others