I was not surprised when he lashed out at western liberals for their moral decadence. They reacted as if he owed them something! I would like to see more men and women stand up for what is right and against that which is wrong.

Many worldly folk would say, “Who is to say what is right or wrong or who are you to impose your view of what is right on me?”

God Almighty has already determined what is right and wrong. A human being can only choose to do what is right or what is wrong.

So much of what he wrote is worth rereading because, like all things true, it’s true forever. One essay in particular is Live Not by Lies (originally published as Samizdat) where he chastened and exhorted fellow Russians during the great Soviet oppression:

So in our timidity, let each of us make a choice: Whether consciously, to remain a servant of falsehood–of course, it is not out of inclination, but to feed one’s family, that one raises his children in the spirit of lies–or to shrug off the lies and become an honest man worthy of respect both by one’s children and contemporaries.

And from that day onward he:

• Will not henceforth write, sign, or print in any way a single phrase which in his opinion distorts the truth.
• Will utter such a phrase neither in private conversation not in the presence of many people, neither on his own behalf not at the prompting of someone else, either in the role of agitator, teacher, educator, not in a theatrical role.
• Will not depict, foster or broadcast a single idea which he can only see is false or a distortion of the truth whether it be in painting, sculpture, photography, technical science, or music.
• Will not cite out of context, either orally or written, a single quotation so as to please someone, to feather his own nest, to achieve success in his work, if he does not share completely the idea which is quoted, or if it does not accurately reflect the matter at issue.
• Will not allow himself to be compelled to attend demonstrations or meetings if they are contrary to his desire or will, will neither take into hand not raise into the air a poster or slogan which he does not completely accept.
• Will not raise his hand to vote for a proposal with which he does not sincerely sympathize, will vote neither openly nor secretly for a person whom he considers unworthy or of doubtful abilities.
• Will not allow himself to be dragged to a meeting where there can be expected a forced or distorted discussion of a question. Will immediately talk out of a meeting, session, lecture, performance or film showing if he hears a speaker tell lies, or purvey ideological nonsense or shameless propaganda.
• Will not subscribe to or buy a newspaper or magazine in which information is distorted and primary facts are concealed. Of course we have not listed all of the possible and necessary deviations from falsehood. But a person who purifies himself will easily distinguish other instances with his purified outlook.

No, it will not be the same for everybody at first. Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest. On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence or toward spiritual servitude.

Spiritual independence or spiritual servitude. What greater call to freedom is there?

On a personal note, I owe Solzhenitsyn a lot. When I was younger and first becoming aware of the larger world, “One Day in Life of Ivan Denisovich” had just been published in the West. I can’t say I understood what all the fuss was about, but I did understand that I needed to understand it. And so I started watching this man named Solzhenitsyn. A few years later the very first performance of the play was scheduled at the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis. I remember cajoling my dad for the car and I went and saw it. I must have been sixteen at the time and went alone. I still remember it.

I remember too when the Harvard Address (A World Split Apart) was first published. I still have the original newspaper reprint of the speech. Again, it was like the play — I knew something here needed to be understood and in due course I might understand it.

A few years later I stumbled across the speech again at college. By that time I had figured a few things out and was astonished at the spiritual depth of Solzhenitsyn’s critique of the West — something I did not comprehend when I was younger. It led me to Orthodox Christianity.

I will always admire Alexander Solzhenitsyn for his moral courage. He stared brutal tyranny in the face and through the power of a word spoken in truth ultimately defeated it. It was not without cost. He was exiled for twenty years as punishment. Truth always exacts a price — Christians call it bearing your cross. But because Solzhenitsyn bore his, millions were freed.

May his memory be eternal.

You’re absolutely right. Solzhenitsyn’s life was dedicated to fighting a particularly evil ideology, but he never was an ideologue himself. His critique was based on an authentic Christian anthropology, not a political platform.

His Harvard Address is well worth reading. Excerpt:

Political and intellectual bureaucrats show depression, passivity and perplexity in their actions and in their statements and even more so in theoretical reflections to explain how realistic, reasonable as well as intellectually and even morally warranted it is to base state policies on weakness and cowardice. And decline in courage is ironically emphasized by occasional explosions of anger and inflexibility on the part of the same bureaucrats when dealing with weak governments and weak countries, not supported by anyone, or with currents which cannot offer any resistance. But they get tongue-tied and paralyzed when they deal with powerful governments and threatening forces, with aggressors and international terrorists.

Should one point out that from ancient times decline in courage has been considered the beginning of the end?

Our politics have become saturated with ideology to the exclusion of genuine thought. Christian traditions of all varieties, who should serve as a bulwark against ideology in all its forms, have largely succumbed as well, at least on the offical level. Ideologies degrade humanity. Unfortunately, human beings have an almost infinite capacity for creating and latching on to ideologies instead of allowing ourselves to be human. Possibly due to spiritual sloth and hubris.

Solzhenitsyn’s vision and leadership should not be forgotten, indeed we should be inspired to think more deeply about the meaning of his vision in our current day and for ourselves. We should resist the temptation to consign him to a dead period of history so we don’t have to be any longer troubled by his wisdom.