This semester, I love how my classes are each branches from the same tree. We discuss many of the same roots across my social science classes. Lately we have been discussing revolutions (in PLSC 150) and the American Revolution in particular (in HIST 220).
Today in my political science class, Professor Nielson asked us what the best definition of a "revolution" was.
Our textbook author: A revolution is "any action or event that results in a fundamental change in the form of government" (442)
A famous political scientist: A revolution is a "combination of thoroughgoing structural transformation and massive class upheavals" (175)
[Basically, definition Author is more broad, and classifies revolutions as any great change in the way the people are governed, but definition Scientist only considers social revolutions as true "revolutions."]
I liked the first definition, because "revolution" to me just means "change". The idea can be further defined by adding adjectives, such as
social revolution or
economic revolution. By definition Scientist, the American Revolution would not even be considered revolutionary. So the definition I really liked came later:
John Adams: "But what do we mean by the American Revolution? Do we mean the American war? The Revolution was effected before the war commenced.
The Revolution was in the minds and hearts of the people."
This is was first got me thinking about the similarities of our discussion with the gospel. We each need to have our own revolution, or change toward the gospel,
in our heart and in our mind. A simple "social revolution" (definition Scientist), or completion of only the visible actions required by the gospel, is not really the revolution we should be having. Of course, that's included (just as social revolutions are included in definition Author), but we need a
great big HUGE revolution within ourselves. A
full change in how we govern our lives. It might be hard fighting, and we might lose some battles, but we
must win the revolution within us.
Later in class we discussed tactics for instigating a revolution.
Robespierre: "Terror is only justice: prompt, severe, and inflexible; it is then an emanation of virtue; it is less a distinct principle than a natural consequence of the general principle of democracy, applied to the most pressing wants of the country."
Robespierre was one of many leaders during the French Revolution. Obviously, he thought that terror and violence was the only way to maintain liberty. He used this idea as fodder for the innovation of the guillotine, which he used to stifle many of his political enemies, or "counter-revolutionaries".
Not that I'm endorsing his ideas, but it struck me that that is exactly what we need to do to Satan and his temptations (our "counter-revolutionaries"): chop off their heads. Quick and unforgiving. Satan will always have more wiles in wait for us, but if we have already established a habit of sending them right to the guillotine, we can be safe.
Someone who didn't send his rivals to the guillotine (figuratively speaking) was John Adams. His best bud Thomas Jefferson loved to undermine him from the VP spot while Adams was top guy after George Washington. Though it was annoying, Adams didn't do anything about it (not that he really could have, but forget that for a moment). Eventually, Jefferson nabbed the Presidential seat out from under him. Adams was had.
Even Robespierre was ultimately killed by the guillotine by his foes. So if we don't force that change of government of our mind and heart or learn how to chop off all opposition provided by Satan, we will eventually lead ourselves to our own demise.
That's what I learned in class today.
