follow my leader

This week I watched two films about leaders, and in a week I've got a modern church history exam. This combination got me thinking: time for a coffee...

This is England tells the story of 12-year-old misfit Shaun who finally finds acceptance from a skinhead gang in the north of England, at the beginning of the 80s. Apart from a trip down memory-lane (80s games, music, sweets, fashion) the story is about how the gang takes a turn for the worse when a charismatic ex-convict Combo turns up again after his stint in jail. Under his leadership, the young kids get mixed up in the National Front scene.

Combo isn't just nasty. He's jealous, disappointed, heart-broken, fatherless - in one sense, you can see straight through him. Yet through his bullying tirades he gains the support of some young kids who don't know much better, and they end up on the brink of a world of racist violence.

Bobby came to me highly recommended, and I pass the recommendation on. A ridiculously star-studded cast play 22 characters entwined in events surrounding the day Robert F. Kennedy was assassinated, all staying in the same grand hotel. The characters are well-developed in a short space of time, each character giving insight into the different milieus and culture at the end of the sixties in America. Robert F. Kennedy plays himself in TV speeches and press coverage of the election campaign. What makes the story so tragic, is that you get the impression that he was a great man. In a day and age of vitriolic cynicism, this must sound incredibly naive, but the things he was saying, and the way he was saying them just seemed incredibly right. "America should be a country known for its selflessness." That, I thought to myself, is leadership. And then this man gets gunned down.

Part of my modern church history module has included an analysis of “das Dritte Reich” and the way my college reacted. Sometimes in Christian circles a picture is painted that the “bad liberal” people follow the crowd, whereas the “faithful conservative” people swim against the current of the trends in society. However, the truth is far more complex. The front page of a “good, conservative” Christian Alcoholics Anonymous journal from the 1930s carried a full-size photograph of Hitler with the headline: “He doesn’t drink, he doesn’t smoke…” and goes on to talk about why Christians should support the “Führer” who reads the bible and prays. Hitler talked privately with his close circle of supporters about his plans to eradicate the church… but he played the part and so most Christians thought, “Here is finally someone who stands up for traditional morals,” not recognising the direction of his home and foreign policy. "Here's a leader with Christian values - we should vote for him."

Choosing a leader is more complex than the headlines make it out to be. "One-issue" voting is temptingly simple, but is it wise? It makes you think: What does the bible say? What will historians say about our society in 100 years time? Where are our blind spots? What do we casually ignore?

In this regard: God bless America!

8 comments:

James said...

Yes indeed - a good post Sam, and an inportant and chilling reminder of how German churches compromised with Nazism to an alarming degree - have you read "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer?

I agree - single issue voting over-simplifies things. Not sure which of the main parties in the UK has more of a claim on a "Christian" vote though, perhaps the Conservatives by a nose?

Sam said...

Hi James,
I didn't know about that book - thanks for the tip.
I would not want to say one party is more Christian - I know of Christian movements in several of the main political parties, and one can see several Christian values in many parties' emphases. For example:

Conservatives: traditional family values?
Labour: social care for the disadvantaged?
Liberal-Ds: freedom of speech, conscience?
Green: our creation mandate

Equating democracy with Christianity is equally wrong-headed. A absolute monarchy can also theoretically have Christian values. It would seem to me that the form of state is a human creation which is founded upon the consensus and taste of the different cultures in the world.

thebluefish said...

Government lacks the ability to enforce the ultimate Christian thing... an end to idolatry and new life in Christ. At best it can approximate some of the implications of a Christian worldview... and each of us on conscience etc will lean toward different priorities in that I'd guess.

James said...

Sam - a friend of mine also recommends Theologians Under Hitler by Robert P Ericksen (Yale University Press, 1985) and Betrayal, German Churches and the Holocaust by Robert P. Ericksen & Susannah Heschel (Fortress Press 1999).

Bluefish (what's the significance of the name?) - agree with you, perhaps the only thing to add is that, if nothing else, we must vote for the party which does most to guarantee freedom to preach the gospel.

thebluefish said...

The name is mostly meaningless, told in a bit more detail here in an interview with guy davies.

thebluefish said...

Freedom of speech probably is something to support... of course, when Christians (at least evangelicals) make up little more than 1% of the population (optimistically?) what we think is going to be of very little significance. Doesn't mean we don't vote but no guarentee of getting what we're after.

Sam said...

Hi James,
You said: "if nothing else, we must vote for the party which does most to guarantee freedom to preach the gospel."

I would want to emphasise that the "if nothing else" is vital. The leaders of several evangelical churches and organisations used this argument and encouraged votes for Hitler because the other parties were too catholic or too "communist"!

James said...

Hi Sam
Good point well made. One wonders though how "evangelical" those churches were if they could not see the true evil latent inherent in Nazism.