Shaeffer and Solzhenitsyn, Cultural Freedom Fighters                                    By Jack Kettler

 

“If we as Christians do not speak out as authoritarian governments grow from within or come from outside, eventually we or our children will be the enemy of society and the state. No truly authoritarian government can tolerate those who have real absolute by which to judge its arbitrary absolutes and who speak out and act upon that absolute.” - Francis A. Schaeffer

 

Explanation of Francis A. Schaeffer's Statement:

 

Francis A. Schaeffer, in the statement provided, articulates a cautionary perspective regarding the relationship between Christianity and authoritarian governance. His argument can be broken down into several key components:

 

1.      Role of Christians in Society: Schaeffer posits that Christians, due to their adherence to a divine standard (Scripture), possess what he refers to as “real absolute by which to judge” the actions of any government. This absolute is derived from Christian theology, specifically the belief in the inerrancy and authority of the Bible as God’s revelation.

 

2.      Authoritarian Governments: He discusses two forms of authoritarianism:

 

3.      Growing from Within: This refers to the gradual shift of a democratic or free society towards authoritarian rule through internal political or cultural changes.

 

4.      Coming from Outside: This describes the imposition of authoritarian control by external forces, such as invasion or foreign influence.

 

5.      Consequences for Christians: Schaeffer warns that in an authoritarian regime, Christians will become “the enemy of society and the state” because their moral absolutes conflict with the state’s arbitrary absolutes. Despotic governments, by nature, seek to centralize power and suppress dissent or alternative sources of authority, including religious ones.

 

6.      Imperative to Speak Out: He urges Christians to oppose these trends actively, suggesting silence or inaction will lead to their marginalization or persecution.

 

Biblical Defense:

 

·         Role of the Church: The Bible encourages believers to act as the “salt of the earth” (Matthew 5:13) and the “light of the world” (Matthew 5:14-16), implying a responsibility to influence society positively, including against oppression.

 

·         Prophetic Tradition: Biblical prophets like Amos, Isaiah, and Jeremiah spoke out against the rulers and social injustices of their times, often at great personal risk, illustrating the duty to challenge unrighteous authority (Amos 5:24; Isaiah 1:17; Jeremiah 22:3).

 

·         Submission vs. Obedience: While Romans 13:1-7 commands submission to governing authorities as instituted by God, this must be understood in light of Acts 5:29, where Peter states, “We must obey God rather than human beings,” indicating there’s a higher law to which human laws are subject.

 

·         Justice and Care for the Oppressed: Scripture consistently calls for justice and protection of the vulnerable (Psalm 82:3-4; Micah 6:8), which can conflict with authoritarian practices that often disregard individual rights or justice for political control.

 

Logical Defense:

 

·         Moral Relativism vs. Absolute Morality: Authoritarian regimes often operate under a moral relativism where the state becomes the arbiter of right and wrong. Christianity, with its claim of moral absolutes from God, naturally opposes this, providing a logical basis for dissent against unjust laws or policies.

 

·         Human Dignity: Christian theology posits that humans are made in the image of God (Imago Dei), which inherently grants them dignity and rights. Authoritarian regimes that diminish these rights are logically opposed to this foundational Christian belief.

 

·         Historical Precedents: History shows numerous instances where Christian individuals or movements have opposed authoritarianism, from the early church’s refusal to worship Roman emperors to modern resistance against oppressive regimes, lending empirical support to Schaeffer’s argument.

 

·         Long-term Societal Health: The freedom to critique and challenge authority is crucial for societal moral and intellectual health. Christianity, by advocating for truth and justice, contributes to this health, suggesting that its suppression would be detrimental to society at large.

 

In conclusion,  Shaeffer’s first statement:

 

Schaeffer’s caution about Christians’ role in the face of authoritarianism is biblically grounded and logically coherent, reflecting a call to preserve moral absolutes in the public square against the encroachments of arbitrary state power.

 

Shaeffer’s second statement:

 

“If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God.” - Francis A. Schaeffer

 

Francis A. Schaeffer’s statement, “If there is no final place for civil disobedience, then the government has been made autonomous, and as such, it has been put in the place of the living God,” articulates a profound critique of absolute governmental authority from both a theological and philosophical standpoint. Here is an academic exposition and defense of this assertion:

 

Theological Perspective

 

1.      Biblical Basis for Civil Disobedience:

 

·         Daniel 3: Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego’s refusal to worship Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image exemplifies civil disobedience in adherence to higher divine law. Their act was not merely defiance but a prioritization of worship to God over human edicts.

 

·         Acts 5:29: The apostles’ assertion, “We must obey God rather than men,” encapsulates the principle that when human laws contradict divine laws, believers are duty-bound to follow the latter. This scriptural precedent supports Schaeffer’s argument that there must be room for civil disobedience when earthly governance contravenes divine mandates.

 

2.      Government as God’s Servant, Not Master:

 

·         Romans 13:1-7 discusses the role of government as an institution established by God for the good of society. However, this passage does not sanction governments to act autonomously or above divine law. Governments should act justly, reflecting God’s righteousness, not supplanting His authority.

 

Philosophical Perspective

 

1.      Autonomy of Government:

 

·         Schaeffer’s critique targets the notion of a government that operates without accountability to a higher moral or ethical standard, which essentially deifies the state. Moreover, this leads to totalitarianism, where the state’s will is the ultimate law, devoid of any checks, including those from moral or religious convictions.

 

2.      Human Dignity and Rights:

 

Philosophically, if government is autonomous, it can arbitrarily define human rights and dignity, undermining the intrinsic value of individuals as beings created in the image of God (Imago Dei). Civil disobedience becomes a mechanism to assert human dignity against oppressive regimes.

 

3.      Moral Accountability:

 

·         The concept of a government answerable to no higher authority negates the idea of moral accountability. Schaeffer implies that without the possibility of civil disobedience, there is no practical method for citizens to challenge or rectify moral breaches by the state, thus elevating the state to an idolatrous position.

 

Logical Defense

 

1.      Logical Consequence of Autonomous Government:

 

·         Logically, if a government is the final arbiter of morality, it positions itself as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent attributes traditionally ascribed to God. This leads to a theocratic form of governance where the state assumes divine roles, which from a Christian perspective, is idolatry.

 

2.      The Role of Conscience:

 

·         The allowance for civil disobedience acknowledges the role of individual conscience, which, in Christian theology, is informed by divine law. If civil disobedience is eradicated, the conscience, which is meant to be guided by divine truth, becomes subservient to state authority, creating a moral vacuum.

 

3.      Historical Precedents:

 

·         The effectiveness and moral justification of civil disobedience can be seen in historical movements like the civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., which was profoundly influenced by Christian principles and the necessity to oppose unjust laws.

 

In conclusion:

 

Schaeffer’s statement posits that civil disobedience is not merely a political tool but a theological necessity where human law conflicts with divine law. The absence of such a mechanism would elevate government to a god-like status, which is antithetical to biblical teaching and the logical structure of governance under moral law.

 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers, we are not simply protecting their trivial old age, we are thereby ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago: 1918-1956

 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s statement addresses the moral and ethical implications of silence and indifference towards evil. His assertion can be dissected into several key components:

 

1.      Silence as Complicity: Individuals participate in its perpetuation by remaining silent about evil. Silence does not merely ignore evil; it actively fosters an environment where evil can flourish unchecked.

 

2.      Internalization of Evil: Evil does not disappear but is internalized when it is not confronted. This internalization acts like a seed within the moral landscape of society, which, in due time, will sprout into more overt manifestations of evil.

 

3.      Exponential Growth of Evil: Solzhenitsyn suggests that this internalized evil does not remain static but grows “a thousandfold,” indicating an exponential increase in the scale and impact of evil over time due to societal negligence.

 

4.      Impact on Justice: By neither punishing nor reproaching evildoers, society fails to correct or deter wrongdoing and erodes the very principles upon which justice is built. This failure sets a precedent for future generations, undermining moral education and establishing just societal norms.

 

Biblical Defense

 

·         Silence Equals Sin: In Ezekiel 3:18-19, God tells Ezekiel that if he does not warn the wicked about their ways, their blood will be on his hands. Moreover, this implies a moral obligation to speak out against evil, aligning with Solzhenitsyn’s view that silence is complicity.

 

·         Justice and Retribution: Proverbs 29:1 states, “He who is often reproved, yet stiffens his neck, will suddenly be broken beyond healing.” Furthermore, this supports the idea that evil should be confronted and reproached to prevent further harm and to maintain justice.

 

·         Moral Accountability: Romans 1:32 suggests that those who approve of evil are as guilty as those who commit it. Additionally, this aligns with the notion that not condemning evil contributes to its perpetuation.

 

Logical Defense

 

·         Moral Decay: Logically, if evil acts are not addressed, they set precedents. Over time, this can lead to a normalization of unethical behavior, eroding societal morals. Solzhenitsyn’s point about the growth of evil can be seen as a warning against this decay.

 

·         Preventive Justice: The concept of deterrence in legal systems supports the idea that punishment or reproach is a preventive measure against future crimes. By not addressing evil, society loses this deterrent effect, thus potentially increasing the incidence of wrongdoing.

 

·         Educational Impact: Education in ethics and morality often involves learning from past mistakes. If evil is buried without acknowledgment, future generations lack the lessons necessary to understand and prevent similar behaviors, thereby weakening the foundation of justice.

 

·         Systemic Integrity: Justice systems rely on accountability to function correctly. If evildoers are not held accountable, the integrity of these systems is compromised, leading to a broader societal impact where justice is seen as optional rather than imperative.

 

In conclusion

 

Solzhenitsyn’s statement underscores the inherent dangers of societal indifference to evil, suggesting that such silence fails to address immediate moral failings and sows the seeds for future moral crises. Both biblical teachings and logical reasoning support the necessity of confronting and addressing evil to maintain and promote justice across generations.

 

In closing, another profound statement by Solzhenitsyn is:

“A state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

“But the world had never before known a godlessness as organized, militarized, and tenaciously malevolent as that practiced by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin, and at the heart of their psychology, hatred of God is the principal driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.

 

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn’s statement encapsulates his critique of Marxism-Leninism, particularly emphasizing the role of atheism within this ideological framework. His assertion can be dissected into several key components:

 

Organized, Militarized, and Malevolent Godlessness:

 

·         Organization: as articulated by Karl Marx and further developed by Vladimir Lenin, Marxism included atheism as an ancillary belief and a core tenet. The Communist Party of the Soviet Union, under Lenin’s leadership, institutionalized atheism through various state mechanisms. The League of Militant Atheists, established in 1925, was a direct instrument of the state aimed at promoting atheism and eradicating religious beliefs, which was part of a broader cultural and educational policy to secularize society.

 

·         Militarization: The term “militarized” refers to the aggressive and systematic approach adopted by the Soviet state against religious institutions and practices. Moreover, this was manifested through state propaganda, the destruction of religious buildings, and the persecution of religious figures. For instance, during the Soviet anti-religious campaigns in the 1920s and 1930s, thousands of churches were closed or destroyed, and clergy members were imprisoned, exiled, or executed.

 

·         Malevolence: Solzhenitsyn’s use of “malevolent” underscores the perceived hostility and deliberate intent behind Soviet policies to obliterate religious faith. Additionally, this is evidenced by the state’s use of coercive measures, including forced labor camps (Gulags), where religious believers were among those who suffered greatly. The suppression of religion wasn’t merely a by-product of Communist policy but was seen as necessary for the creation of the “new Soviet man” devoid of religious superstition.

 

Hatred of God as the Principal Driving Force:

 

·         Philosophical Underpinnings: Marx’s view of religion as “the opium of the people” laid the groundwork for interpreting religion as a tool of oppression and a barrier to true class consciousness. Lenin further expanded this, seeing religion as inherently counterrevolutionary and thus an enemy to be combated.

 

·         Psychological Aspect: Solzhenitsyn suggests that at the core of Marxist and Leninist psychology was a profound rejection of any divine authority, which he interprets as a hatred of God. This rejection was not just ideological but was seen as a psychological necessity to justify the immense power and control the state exerted, which would be otherwise checked by religious morality and ethics.

 

Militant Atheism as the Central Pivot:

 

·         Policy Implementation: The Soviet Union’s approach to religion was not passive but actively militant. State atheism was enshrined in policy, with laws and decrees aimed at diminishing the influence of religion. Moreover, this included the 1918 Soviet Constitution, which declared the separation of church and state but, in practice, led to the state’s control over religious affairs.

 

·         Educational and Cultural Eradication: Education systems were revamped to exclude religious teachings, and cultural products were censored to remove religious references. Furthermore, this systematic approach aimed to create generations free from religious influence, viewing this as crucial for the success of Communism.

 

Historical Proof:

 

·         Legislation and Actions: The Soviet decrees, like those in 1918 on the separation of church and state, and the 1929 law that drastically curtailed religious activities illustrate the state’s intent to marginalize religion.

 

·         Persecution of Religious Groups: The extensive documentation of the persecution of religious groups, from the Russian Orthodox Church to smaller sects, during various Soviet campaigns supports Solzhenitsyn’s view. Historians like Robert Service and Richard Pipes have detailed accounts of how religion was systematically attacked.

 

·         Survivor Accounts: Solzhenitsyn’s own experience, as well as those of other survivors like Varlam Shalamov, provide firsthand accounts of how religious belief was a frequent cause for imprisonment or harsher treatment in Soviet labor camps.

 

·         Literature and Propaganda: Soviet literature and propaganda, from official state newspapers to educational materials, consistently promoted atheism while vilifying religion, showing the depth of integration into state policy.

 

Solzhenitsyn’s critique posits that the Soviet form of Communism was uniquely hostile to religion because it viewed religious belief as fundamentally incompatible with its ideological goals. His statement, therefore, is not merely an opinion but reflects a historical reality where atheism was not just a belief but a strategic element of state policy. This historical analysis corroborates his assertion through various documented actions and policies of the Soviet state.

 

In conclusion:

 

Solzhenitsyn states: “Since then I have spent well-nigh fifty years working on the history of our Revolution; in the process I have read hundreds of books, collected hundreds of personal testimonies, and have already contributed eight volumes of my own toward the effort of clearing away the rubble left by that upheaval. But if I were asked today to formulate as concisely as possible the main cause of the ruinous Revolution that swallowed up some sixty million of our people, I could not put it more accurately than to repeat: Men have forgotten God; that’s why all this has happened.” - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

 

The above study was Groked, under the direction of Jack Kettler, and perfected using Grammarly AI.

 

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.” (2 Timothy 2:15)

 

Mr. Kettler is an author who has previously published articles in the Chalcedon Report and Contra Mundum. He and his wife, Marea, are active Westminster, CO, RPCNA Church members. Mr. Kettler’s extensive work includes 18 books defending the Reformed Faith, which are available for order online at Amazon.