Miracle, Mystery, Authority
Considering the contemporary implications of Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor.”
Today, my class read Dostoyevsky’s “The Grand Inquisitor,” Ivan’s narrative from The Brothers Karamazov. The premise is simple: Jesus returns to earth in the sixteenth century, to a town in the midst of the Spanish Inquisition. The people flock to him, and he does what the son of God is known for: cures some disease and raises a young girl from the dead. This does not escape the notice of the Grand Inquisitor, who promptly has Jesus thrown in a dungeon. The rest of the story is the old Inquisitor railing at his captive.
The son of God is to blame for people’s suffering. The reason? Freedom. Jesus gave them the bread of heaven when they were hungry for earthly bread. Jesus allowed them to choose for themselves, rather than prove that he was the son of God. Jesus refused to be the literal king of the world, and instead died so that people could be saved, at least in the afterlife. In all of these decisions, argues the GI, Jesus was wrong.
That is why the GI has twisted Jesus’ message in order to give people what they really want: and end to their freedom. The GI posits that there is nothing more antithetical to human happiness than freedom:
Freedom, free reason, and science will lead them into such a maze, and confront them with such miracles and insoluble mysteries, that some of them, unruly and ferocious, will exterminate themselves; other, unruly but feeble, will exterminate each other; and the remaining third, feeble and wretched, will crawl to our feet and cry out to us: “Yes, you were right, you alone possess his mystery, and we are coming back to you — save us from ourselves.”
The GI asks: “You promised them heavenly bread, but, I repeat again, can it compare with earthly bread in the eyes of the weak, eternally depraved, and eternally ignoble human race? . . . Oh, never, never will they feed themselves without us!” Humans, given too much freedom will gladly lay that freedom down at the feet of those who are strong enough to offer them real authority, or earthly bread. Humans are too stupid, weak, and fearful to choose for themselves — they must be told what to do with commandments, dicta, laws. They cannot be allowed to choose the wrong course, because they inevitably will.
The GI believes that what he does is actually beneficial for the weak, depraved, ignoble human race. He is the benevolent theocrat giving to the people what their God refused to: “Judge us if you can or dare.”
There is a militarism present in the GI’s reproach, too. He states that while Jesus refused to rule the kingdoms of the world, the leaders of the church did not: “we took Rome and the sword of Caesar from him, and proclaimed ourselves sole rulers of the earth, the only rulers, through we have not yet succeeded in bringing our cause to its full conclusion.” The implication is that their war against the weak, depraved, ignoble human race is only just beginning. Their war against freedom, choice, and heavenly bread will continue in a guise of the church. The GI’s church, therefore, works against all the interests of Jesus and the Christian God.
While Ivan’s “poem” takes place in sixteenth century Europe, it is, perhaps, even more germane to certain religious and political attitudes in today’s America. Notice science is implicated in the GI’s speech blockquoted above. Science involves reason, what the Enlightenment thinkers believed emanated from God, bringing us closer to His mind through the empirical observation of His creation. Science dispels the darkness, and it can potentially answer the questions about the mysteries of the universe. Yet, science is often anathematized as a product of Satan; how can facts be evil? They are evil when they allow you to turn away from the righteous path — that set out by the GI. Facts mean little to nothing anymore in this country, just interpretations of an “elite” class.
How much of America is plagued by contemporary inquisitors? I often see the right attempting to demonize Obama in this way. After all, as Dostoyevsky’s piece warns, the GI is not far from the political realities of fascism in the twentieth century. Isn’t Obama trying to “cram” health care reform “down the throats” of the American people who don’t want it? Isn’t he trying to bankrupt an already tenuous economy by pushing for environmentally conscious policies and programs? Isn’t he really a Muslim pretending to be a Christian? A Kenyan pretending to be an American? The Devil pretending to be God?
Fascism was a political structure that enamored many of the intellectual elite at the beginning of the twentieth century. Could Obama be falling for the same ideas: that a benevolent ruler might call for a sacrifice of some freedom for the security that we crave? Does he have the best interests of America in mind, or does he have visions of auto de fé?
When economics seems to be the bottom line of “America,” I get wary. I think that Obama is trying to make some progressive social and, therefore, moral changes to this country, but his opposition is awesome. The same folks who claim to be faithful seem to be the same ones arguing against health care reform. The same folks who seem to have enough money to purchase whatever health care they desire seem to be the ones who don’t want us, the middle class, to have it. It’s like there’s a club here in ’Merica that some folks are protecting with the rhetoric of morality and economics, no matter what it costs. It’s not their souls at stake, but their pocketbooks.
We suffered though eight dark years of lies, jingoism, self-righteousness, immorality, fear, mistrust, thoughtlessness, ineptitude, and holy war. And I’m afraid that the GI might be right. Obama hasn’t had a chance, but folks are already screaming for the return of the right: “Feed us, for those who promised fire from heaven did not give it.” I hope that’s not true, yet the Democrats can’t seem to get their shit together. People are getting impatient. The Teabaggers are getting louder. The right seems to be regrouping. Though currently all they need to do is resist. Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” seems to have become the slogan for today’s Republican Party.
Perhaps the elephant should be replaced by a frowning Grand Inquisitor. Those who scream loudest about freedom seem to be the ones who want to take it away from us. I vote for more miracle and mystery, but less authority.
Originally written on Mar 17, 2010 @ 15:20.
