Live Not by Lies

I remember the night the Berlin Wall fell and the world seemed to change overnight. The bogeyman of so many stories ceased to be quite so real as in the Soviet Union dissolved in the following years.  It seemed like a significant phase of history, if not history itself, had ended by declaring Western capitalistic democracy the victory.

However, I met a Ukrainian exchange student while I was at college who told me that things weren’t quite as simple as they seemed. And then, when listening to a missionary speak in the early 2000’s, I learned that portions of the former Eastern Bloc were still “pink”—the formal police state may have ended, but many of the Communist thought processes were still in place under new leadership.

Then, in more recent years we’ve seen the increasing popularity of Che Guevara t-shirts in the U.S.—an amazing ploy to market the image of a Communist thug using capitalist principles. There have also been an increasing number of people that are willing to declare that the First Amendment should be abolished, full on Communism is desirable, and mass murderers like Stalin and Lenin are to be preferred over America’s founders. Add to that the weird logic by which anyone who doesn’t agree with racially based discrimination against whites is racist and we find ourselves in a topsy turvy world in which it is not hard to imagine attempts to force orthodox Christians underground.

Live not By Lies

Rod Dreher’s recent book, Live Not by Lies, is a warning of the possibility of “soft totalitarianism” in our future. As Progressives celebrate the latest invention of alternate reality in the pursuit of the deconstruction of humanity, there are an increasing number of people on the political left calling for the punishment of those who disagree with their orthodoxy. Do you affirm the innateness of sex within biology? Then you must not be allowed to work in a public-facing job. Do you still hold to the fundamental human understanding of marriage as a union (romantic or not) between people who are of biologically distinct sexes? Then you should be hounded from the public square and humiliated, if you are not physically harmed. There is an ever-thinning wall of civilization between reality and the coming storm. Anyone who denies the possibility of soft totalitarianism is not paying attention.

Dreher’s book takes its title for an Alexander Solzhenitsyn essay. Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago is a masterpiece that traces the evil of Soviet socialism through the experiences of many people who passed into, if not through, the grinder of the Gulag system. That larger work was intended to expose the horrors of the hard totalitarianism of the Soviets to a world that had frequently glamourized it. Solzhenitsyn’s essay speaks to those who are being called to deny truth to live at peace. In other words, to those who are facing a soft totalitarianism. The essay is a call to live in truth and not to succumb to lies for the sake of comfort.

What Solzhenitsyn warns against in his essay, and Dreher discusses, is a soft totalitarianism. This is a term defined more clearly by Vaclav Havel, a dissident poet who because a longstanding president of Czechoslovakia after the people peacefully ousted the Communist regime. As Havel documents it, particularly in essays like his “Power of the Powerless,” the Communist rule in much of the Eastern Bloc countries was driven by internal social pressure rather than by tanks, guns and dogs. There was a real threat of police enforcement, in some cases, but the deeper threat was through social ostracization and removal from the marketplace based on non-conformity to the untruth of the Communist platform.

Soft totalitarianism is the condition in which someone who refuses to affirm the preferred worldview of the dominant social order can be effectively marginalized within society without formal coercion. Do you decline to wear a rainbow pin at work for pride month? There go your promotion opportunities. Does your business decline to post a Black Lives Matter poster for any of a number of valid reasons? Prepare for the fake, negative reviews, belligerent activists coming in to harass your employees and customers, and, perhaps, having your business set alight by “protesters” fighting against “fascism.” Did you post online about a political candidate disfavored by the “right” crowd? Be ready to be denied admission to a university or to have your children denied admission.

In hard totalitarianism conformity to the external constraints is generally sufficient. One need not believe or state that Communism is good to get by. One needs only avoid getting caught with more goods than allotted, show the right papers when required, and not actively and openly declaim the controlling regime.

Soft totalitarianism is much more insidious because it demands not mere conformity but expression of support for something that violates the conscience. This is what Dreher describes in Live Not by Lies as a possible near-future for the West, including the United States, and there is reason to believe he is at least partially correct. We may be nearer or farther from the point where certain beliefs—common among humans for millennia—are ruled entirely out of bounds in polite company. What cannot be denied is that such a soft totalitarianism is the overt goal of an increasing number of people, especially those on the political left. It also cannot be denied that technology is making it easier to enforce soft totalitarianism through corporate and governmental means.

Dreher’s book is a call for Christians to hold fast to truth, but also to be prepared to go underground to avoid what he views as an inevitable and near-at-hand persecution. He combines research from sources like Havel and Solzhenitsyn with contemporary interviews with those that survived under Communist regimes to create a very readable, journalistic volume that may be helpful in preparing for the storm to come.

Analysis

If one approaches Dreher’s work primarily through his books, the content of them appears quite different than if one follows Dreher’s blog. Being fair in reading Dreher’s books requires reading them as a distinct genre from his online work.

I have not seen Dreher describe his work this way, but his three most recent books form something of a trilogy. If readers begin with Crunchy Cons, followed by The Benedict Option, and then come to Live Not by Lies then you will find a helpful, cogent, and perfectly reasonable stream of thought that is quite helpful. In fact, reading the books together might be the simplest way to avoid seeing Dreher as excessively reactionary.

Though the books span more than a decade of a rapidly shifting culture, they all tie together to form one consistent message: there is an objective reality that explains the order of the world and we should seek to live in a way that honors that. To the extent that cultural forces demand that we deny the objective reality of the world, we must be prepared to resist and hold fast to our witness to the truth.

Critiques of Dreher’s work are generally muddled because part of his vocation is to put out content for The American Conservative on a regular basis. He has a blog to feed to stay relevant and employed. He also is very engaged with his readers, who through their networks have access to some of the worst examples of progressive thought and social abuses. As a result, Dreher’s primary public discourse is often reactionary and colored by the conduits through which he gets his material. Because he is publishing in the moment, there are times when his takes turn out to be factually incorrect or unhelpful as part on an ongoing public conversation. Immediacy can be detrimental to nuance. That is the nature of a journalistic blog and Dreher does not escape that.

Dreher’s books are much more carefully constructed than his blog posts. In much of the discussion of The Benedict Option after its publication, it became clear that many critics had not read that book, but were instead responding to what Dreher had blogged about. I expect the same to be true of Live Not by Lies. It really is helpful to keep the two genres of Dreher’s work separate, because his books are much more consistently balanced and carefully argued than his blogs.

Time will tell whether Dreher is right or wrong about the oncoming soft totalitarianism. I tend to think that he is right that we are trending that direction, but that it may take longer than he thinks to get there. However, the power of algorithms, the ubiquity of social media to be engaged as a citizen, and the lack of catechesis among Christians may turn out to make Dreher’s concerns nearer than I suspect.

Whether the timing is right or not, the central message of Dreher’s most recent book is correct: Christians need to improve the way we live in the world, but not of the world. All signs point to an increasingly progressive shift in the anti-culture that surrounds us, which is largely alien to reality. The Church will increasingly need to find ways to live in ways consistent with truth, in a society that considers truth repugnant.

A Concluding Caution

There is no question that we live in a polarized world that is becoming increasingly hostile to a Christian worldview. However, within that context there is a strong tendency to seek allies in the fight. So, if the progressivism of the Left is bad, then we align our selves with the political and social forces on the Right. Or, if the xenophobia of the Right is bad, then we align our selves with the “inclusivism” of the Left. If one side is wrong, then the temptation is to default to the opposite extreme, or at least to tolerate extreme views on one’s own side.

Truth is not the property of Right nor Left. Neither is it something that is “centrist.” Approaching questions of truth from a primarily political angle, rather than one driven by ontology and epistemology is reactionary and unhelpful.

Even as we join coalitions in resisting soft totalitarianism, we have to be careful that we do not allow their different conceptions of truth to sway us from the True Truth of Christianity. Being a Christian dissident is like being an Ent: We are not really on anyone else’s side, because no one else is really on our side. That is to say, while we may share a common goal of resisting a creeping soft totalitarianism, our ultimate goal is to the spread of the gospel to every tribe and tongue and nation. In the first goal we may find ourselves in agreement with nationalists or atheists. Regarding the ultimate goal, we will find ourselves alone. There is a strong temptation when we find a point of alliance on an important goal to neglect the ultimate goal and to fail to see points at which pursuit of the ultimate goal may cause us to compromise on other significant objectives.

Dreher’s book does not displace True Truth with resistance to soft totalitarianism as the ultimate goal. However, because it is a book about the second and not the first, incautious readers may find themselves driven toward that extreme. Our duty as Christians is to the True Truth, which should always remain our ultimate goal in whatever political circumstances we find ourselves.

Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents

By Dreher, Rod

Buy on Amazon

NOTE: I received a gratis copy of this volume with no expectation of a positive review.

Offense and Oversensitivity

Perhaps one of the most dangerous threats to truth, meaningful communication, and human liberty is the increase of calls to regulate people's thoughts and speech. There is a terrible idea floating around that people have a right to avoid encountering ideas they don't like. As this approach to public speech expands from the most militantly postmodern enclaves to the broader culture, it is destroying lives and will eventually contribute to the intellectual crippling of the population.

The Insecurity of Safe Spaces.

One need not look any farther than the so-called Safe Space movement on college campuses. These are areas set aside where students can recover from being exposed to ideas--no matter how genteelly expressed--which conflict with their existing worldview.

One troubling concern with this approach to truth is that trains young people who should be exploring the deep truths of the world that they can live in a bubble of ideas that match their presuppositions. While this sort of thing might help prevent students from being converted to conservative viewpoints or having to go through the admittedly challenging process of figuring out in rational terms why they believe what they do, it seems to be very unhelpful for society in the long term.

Attempts to shield people from competing ideas is exactly what creates bigots (used in the traditional meaning of the word). This is the approach to truth that leads to people who are, in fact, narrow minded and incapable of seeing anyone else's perspective. In present times, the sheltered minds are saved from realizing their status as actual bigots by the convenient redefinition of the term to include people that hold positions that are out of vogue with the folks that edit the online dictionaries.

Of course, the reaction to the bubble forming culture can be (and presently is) just as bad. This is the point a lot of modern discourse has gotten to where prominent political candidates become popular simply because they are willing to say things intentionally to offend people or Twitter mobs swarm anyone who dares raise a point criticizing their dear leader. That sort of reaction is based on the same foundation used by the creators of safe spaces--emotional response instead of dialogical engagement.

Sometimes comedians are the best cultural exegetes. This is not always to say they are right, but that they often see things and are able to point out issues in ways that many of us can see. John Cleese, who is no theological conservative, commented on the dangers of silencing debate and extreme forms of political correctness earlier this year. He frames his concern as a loss of comedy, which is his livelihood, but the same concerns could be applied to the ability to think any thoughts beyond the thought patterns presently approved by society.

Whether it is in the recent attempts to prosecute anyone who funds, talks about, or openly questions the extent of climate destabilization or the rabid pillorying of anyone who disagrees with a novel and popular expression of sexual ethics, attempts to shut down speech by force are not helpful and, in fact, endanger the sort of dialogue that makes democracy possible. It also intellectually cripples those that are never exposed to any challenges to their worldview.

Intellectual Crippling

The complaint that contemporary society is forming people who lack the ability to think critically and engage in meaningful dialogue is not new. It can be found plainly in the pages of C. S. Lewis' essay, "Men Without Chests," and just as clearly in Dorothy L. Sayers' plea for classical education, "The Lost Tools of Learning." Both call for an approach to learning the recognizes emotions, but calls reason to work despite emotions. In other words, it is necessary to move toward something that approximates absolute truth rather than simply something that merely feels good.

Setting aside for a moment the important, but very large question about the nature of truth and whether there actually is any objective truth, let us presume that there is an objective reality that is not merely socially constructed but actually extant. Even accepting the realistic and valid corollary that we biased, finite, and flawed humans can never fully comprehend the totality of objective truth, we can approximate it more or less well. However, in order to consider approaching anything like the objective truth we must be willing to engage with thoughts that we do not already have.

Environmentalists rightly complain about monoculture in the contemporary factory farm. This is the proclivity to plant the same crop year after year on the same fields. The trouble with this approach is that each type of plant draws only certain nutrients in a particular ratio from the soil. To replace those nutrients, scientists have developed various fertilizers in laboratories that help replenish the needed elements in the soil. However, there is evidence that the chemical cocktails are not quite adequate for proper replacement. Eventually, despite the best attempts or replenishment, monoculture has the tendency to deplete the soil. This is analogous to what happens when only a single ideological perspective is made available to people.

Used by CC license. Mere by Natural England. http://ow.ly/iT1K3005ycH

Over time, if children and adults are only exposed to one worldview and all others are either excluded or dismissed without engagement, the soil of the culture will be depleted. Even if the ideas that are popular are right or better than others, the basis on which the ideas are held will be neglected if opposing viewpoints are not considered. The increasingly anemic culture that remains unchallenged can be artificially supported through propaganda, emotivism, or violence. However, sooner or later the crop will fail or a heavy rain will come and wash away the depleted soil, which has been made vulnerable due to its abuse.

The present milieu is one that promotes ideological monoculture through safe spaces and ironic but belligerent accusations of bigotry for deviations from whatever the popular orthodoxy of the day is. There is still resistance to this intellectual abuse, but that resistance is increasingly being legislated against, sued, and assaulted in the public square. It remains to see whether the so-called politically correct monoculture will triumph, but signs point to its growth rather than its diminution. 

What then?

The natural reaction to intellectual violence of the advocates of ideological monoculture is to try to fight fire with fire. If they take words out of context, then it seems fitting to do the same. If they overreact to your words, then you overreact.

If the monoculturists were sufficiently self-aware, then this might help them recognize the irony of their actual attacks on people who dare to express contrary positions in their presence.

In reality, fighting fire with fire threatens to burn the whole place down. 

The answer must be something else. It is likely that in casual interactions, the ideological monoculturalists are unlikely to ever except a contrary view, especially if they are challenged in public.

I don't think there are any quick answers. Things seem to have only gotten worse since Lewis and Sayers wrote, and we're farther from the foundations of classical education. I do think that part of the solution is working toward a society that values critical thinking and reasoned arguments more than cheap shots and cheesy entertainment. In the present climate, I'm just not sure how to get started on the project except by cultivating my own little garden of children at home.