Today I’m looking at an age old problem: when confined to a corrupt system, do you try to fix the system from within, or do you live outside the system?
But in this age of enlightenment and compassionate conservatism, how could the system possibly be corrupt? Let us respond in the languages available at the time of Jesus: Equo cacas. חרא של סוסים. Σκατά αλόγου. अश्वस्य गन्धः।
Elder G: Ah, the classic dilemma—reform or rebellion, collaboration or counter-culture. This question has vexed philosophers, revolutionaries, and reluctant middle managers for centuries. Fixing the system from within offers the chance to change it incrementally but risks compromising your ideals. Living outside the system grants personal freedom, but it can leave the corrupt machine rolling on without resistance.
Historically, there are fascinating examples of both approaches:
From Within: Thomas More’s Utopia dreamt of reform while More himself navigated the dangerous waters of Henry VIII’s court. Martin Luther King Jr. worked within American society to dismantle segregation.
From Outside: Thoreau went to Walden Pond. The Paris Commune burned it all down. Monastic communities preserved knowledge while avoiding worldly corruption (a bit WLBOTT-ish[1], no?).
Also…cue dramatic music…are we leaning toward revolution today, or thoughtful reform?
One the one hand, we have the story of a rich guy who askes Jesus about this quandary:
“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” (Matthew 19:21, NIV)
The man goes away sad because he has great wealth – symbolizing how hard it is to leave behind the comforts and power that the system offers. It’s one of the clearest calls in the Gospels for radical detachment from worldly structures.
[note: when I talk about Jesus, I try to wear my sociologist’s hat, rather than my bishop’s mitre, or occasionally my nun’s habit. I think it is safe to say that Jesus has been one of the most significant historical figures, and his influence has been used (often for great good), but also misused, abused, and hijacked for great evil.]
It’s fascinating how Jesus will say “x”, and later religious leaders will say, “Yes, He said ‘x’, but he really meant ‘y’.” And somehow “y” always greatly benefits the few.
For example, the WLBOTT Literary Society is currently reading Through the Eye of the Needle by Peter Brown (an extremely dense book that may take a while to get thru). So the ‘x’ means ‘y’, around the time of Constantine, where Christianity became state-sponsored (let’s say mid-300’s), Jesus’ message of “go, sell your possessions and give to the poor” really meant ‘y’ – give it to the church.
Through the Eye of a Needle by Peter Brown – review
Tim Whitmarsh on a sparkling book that rethinks the history of the Christian church
Historians, those most cynical students of human behaviour, struggle to explain altruism. Politics, economics and war are the staples of history precisely because they allow for the acquisition, consolidation or failure of power. The genetic code unlocked by the historian is a selfish one. Yet late antiquity poses a baffling problem. Why did Roman society, from the bottom to the very top, progressively adopt a religion that appeared to promote the surrender of worldly goods to the poor? And given that wealth continued to be as important as ever after Christianisation, how did the Roman world reconcile riches and moral austerity?
Peter Brown’s dashing new book explores these questions for the Latin-speaking, western Roman empire. It’s an immensely learned and authoritative study; Brown has been for 40 years the world’s most eminent scholar of late antiquity. Yet it is far from a work of arid scholasticism. His sparkling prose, laced with humour and humanity, brings his subjects to life with an uncommon sympathy and feeling for their situation.
