Signs and Symptoms of the Revolutionary Spirit

Why so many who want to change the world are the least qualified to do so

I wanted to put down some thoughts on what some of us have been calling the “rise of the revolutionary spirit.” At this point I have no idea how many thoughts there will be, how they’ll be organized, or in what state of hygiene they’ll be in once they get here. I’m also not going to call it a series because that word triggers the shameful reminder of twenty years of various series attempts I lacked the fortitude to complete.

Maybe we’ll just call it a collection. Or a batch. Or the term for whatever formation swine travel in.

First off, take note that I’m not here arguing against revolution as a valid category. By extension, I am not disqualifying those revolutionaries involved in legitimate revolutions, ( i.e., The American Revolution, the Eastern European Revolutions in the late 1980s, the Scientific Revolution, etc.).

By “revolutionary” I am thinking primarily in terms of settled disposition, embodied in the kind of person who is eager to challenge authority and dismantle establishment structures not because he longs to see the recovery of healthy authority and establishments, but because he resents the presence of any authority or establishment outside himself. The modern revolutionary is defined not by his commitment to truth and justice but by his hatred for whatever would thwart the exercise of his desires.

Unsurprisingly, most definitions of revolutionary are relentlessly positive. I say unsurprisingly because we swim in the waters of revolution. It is the air we breathe. It is the yellowish, sulphur-smelling water we drink. This is evidenced in how both progressive and “conservative” revolutionaries despise the old — notice how “boomers” are referred to with the same acidity as “traditionalists.” This also explains the general irreverence that frequently characterizes the modern revolutionary — a kind of patronizing smugness that surrounds him like a backed-up septic tank.

Underneath the valorous rhetoric you will find common grievance: a simmering resentment for authority, envy for those perceived to “have it better” (boomers or billionaires), and an unshakeable commitment to the virtue of their own opinions. Paul sums up the revolutionary spirit in a few sentences, “they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions, and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain.”

The Rise of Hireling Culture

Why are such people so dangerous?

Jesus identifies the main reason in John 10, where he distinguishes his own character and quality as a shepherd against those “shepherds” for whom godliness is a means of gain. They like leadership only for what they can get out of it.

Jesus is a good shepherd — he leads his sheep to green pastures and refreshing rivers. When the wolves come, he lays down his life for them. The bad shepherds are opportunists. They notice the wandering, leaderless crowds and are moved not, like Jesus, by compassion (Matt. 9:36), but by the prospect of greater influence. When the wolves come, they run away, “because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep.”

“Influencers” like Fuentes, Yiannopoulos, Webbon, Tate, Mahler, and Owens love to proffer themselves as a safe space for disillusioned young people, especially men. These, and many like them, are happy to say whatever keeps them relevant. They will not say what young men need to hear — that they need to abandon the victim narrative and pick up a shovel — but what they want to hear — that they are justified in their envy and resent. Hirelings do not care about the destructive impact of their “ministries.” They do not care about consistency, which is why, when they’re cornered, they see no problem adjusting their positions, even when it contradicts something they said earlier.

It needs to be said that the ones most gunning for revolution today are the ones least qualified to lead one. They don’t know what it is to submit to anyone or anything. They don’t want to be held accountable for anything they say. They want to be leaders, but avoid the sacrificial responsibility of leadership. Most are utterly disqualified on the most basic test of ruling their own households well.

If there is to be a revolution, they are not the ones you want leading the charge. Not that they would want to anyway.

Another danger of the modern revolutionary is his preference for reductionisms. You can’t have a revolution without malcontent, and the best way to stoke malcontent is to identify some legitimate concern (indiscriminate military action, unregulated immigration) and then reduce the entirety of the problem to that concern (Saving Palestine will save the West! Remigration will save the West!)

But the West’s fundamental problem isn’t Immigration. Immigration, at the levels we’re seeing, certainly is a problem. It is even certainly the kind of problem which will exacerbate all our other problems. But it isn’t THE problem. The fundamental problem is the moral environment that sacralized multiculturalism in the first place. It was this concession that led to the conditions that eventually resulted in open borders.

Even if we could institute remigration tomorrow, we would find ourselves in the exact same state of degradation two years from now. The efforts of the modern revolutionary fail because of a spectacular absence of self-awareness. They have convinced themselves the main problem is “out there” when really it is “in them.” And in you. And in me.

And a revolutionary who can’t be honest about himself is doomed to fail before he starts.

Application: Don’t be a sheep without a shepherd

One of the reasons so many bad actors have gained such a foothold is that many people, including many professing Christians, are not physical members of a local church. They will refer to Jesus as a good Shepherd but don’t actually believe themselves to be in need of shepherding. If they do attend a church, they do so on their own terms — they are not interested in accountability, responsibility, or the rigours of discipleship. But as I’ve mentioned before, a sheep who is “free” from a shepherd, and a flock, is only free to be eaten by wolves.

To insist that one doesn’t need the church is the quickest way to be ensnared by lies and bad actors. Jesus warned about the “false christs and false prophets [who] will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.” Do you honestly believe yourself to be an exception? Then I can honestly say you are deceived. This insistence on autonomy is just another manifestation of the revolutionary spirit — “Whoever isolates himself seeks his own desire.”

I can’t count the times I’ve heard professing Christians boast about their churchlessness, “No way I’m going to get brainwashed by some denomination.” Meanwhile they, and their households, suffer under the brainwashing of their own brains. The way to avoid the revolutionary spirit, in ourselves and in others, starts with humbly receiving God’s gifts; it starts with humbly acknowledging we’re not actually safer on our own.

Chesterton said it best, “The true soldier fights not because he hates what is in front of him, but because he loves what is behind him.” If there is to be a revolution, let’s make sure we’ve lashed ourselves to those who are fighting for something bigger than their own ambitions.