Underground

But to steal the words from Humbert, the poet/criminal of, Lolita, I need you, the reader, to imagine us, for we won’t really exist if you don’t. Against the tyranny of time and politics, imagine us the way we sometimes didn’t dare to imagine ourselves: in our most private and secret moments, in the most extraordinarily ordinary instances of life, listening to music, falling in love, walking down the shady streets or reading Lolita in Tehran. And then imagine us again with all this confiscated, driven underground, taken away from us.

-Nafisi, 6.

In her memoir, Reading Lolita in Tehran, Dr. Azar Nafisi beautifully recounts the story of an Iranian woman’s book club during the Islamic Regime. She writes not to point out some religious problem or even political one, but more so to show the dangers of oppression itself. She writes to show the value of freedom, of going underground, and of insubordination—a mixture that could be seen as immoral, amoral, or moral depending entirely on its context.

In the first section of her book, “Lolita,” Nafisi depicts the various women who entered the living room of her home in order to study literature. All were women from the local university, each entering behind the veil of her scarf, yet leaving discovered. The discovery, however, did not come easily. It came slowly—the result of Nafisi’s careful hospitality and leadership, delivered through the means of literature.

The first of these works of literature was Lolita. Lolita, whose name was originally “Dolores,” (Spanish for “pain”) was a twelve year old little girl that a man named Humbert molested, captured, and oppressed. As Nafisi put it, Lolita was a double victim: “not only her life but also her life story is taken from her.” (41). What greater pain could exist?

As I read Nafisi’s memoir, I could not separate the concepts and words before me from a Christian Worldview. I knew the origins of these concepts (as Nafisi wrote them) was Islamic, but I could not help but notice how they would be interpreted within a Christian worldview—the place from which I come. Let me explain. The problem Nafisi was addressing was the repression of the human spirit, rather than the freeing of it. Freedom is central to the Christian faith, and the story of the Bible is one of a battle between oppression and freedom, two concepts that are embodied by specific characters in Nafisi’s works.

Nafisi did not believe the women’s enemy was the Ayatolla. No, she slowly showed that the enemy was far less conscious of his own oppressive acts than a dictator would be. Through telling the story of Lolita, Nafisi showed that the oppressor didn’t even view himself as the oppressor. In fact, he considered himself the savior. In his eyes, Lolita was seductive and unruly; he was correcting her. Of course, such logic falls quickly before us in the context of the “me too era,” but its roots are more seductive than we often give it credit I believe.

Through understanding Nafisi’s book club, the women in it, and the stories they engaged, I believe we can see far more similarities in our own society and, unfortunately, the church than we might wish to admit. How is this?

The United States is seen by many as the world’s beacon of freedom. So also is the church. I would unwaveringly agree with the second sentiment, and remain neutral on the first. I’m not here for politics. What I am here to say is something we can always agree on: with any power, comes great responsibility. With the power of the church, I believe that responsibility can be and has at times been abused, so we should always check ourselves.

The tremor of Nafisi was that Humbert, like the women’s oppressors, believed he was in the moral right. He called himself her “guardian-lover” (35). As the moral regulator for society, the church finds itself eerily close to the same circumstance. Any God-fearing Christian would hope to be both loving and guarding. Such words are absolutely moral. Yet, some of humanities worst travesties have occurred in the name of “morality.” I need not remind us here of Hitler’s horrid reasoning for the Holocaust here. So, we must ask a question; what is truly moral? Truly, what i moral?

Getting this question wrong could change it all.

From a philosophical, Christian perspective, I answer this question quickly: morality is rooted in God’s character and word. It is given by the Holy Spirit to the hearts of believers and the world via the revealed word of God. No other moral system will work unless it shares a similar objective, external source of origin. Yet, this philosophical discussion is not the one I want to have over this book. The discussion I want to enter today is more practical.

We often miss morality in the name of our own wants and desires.

What on Earth am i angling at?

Well, no one who told these girls not to read these works of literature would say they were being oppressive. In fact, they would say they were keeping these girls safe from the hostile, sinful ideologies they perceived to be taught in these books. But, were they keeping these girls safe? Many works these girls were reading are classics in Europe, The United States, and the rest of the world. In fact, according to Nafisi, the ones censoring these books may not have even read them, nor understood them.

So, what was the true goal? Suppose that the ideas in these books were indeed immoral. The problem with these girls’ oppressors was the same of problem Humbert possessed: “like most dictators, [he] was interested only in his own vision of other people [or things]” (48-49). He decided what was moral or immoral for Lolita before ever investigating what Lolita was even doing. He himself did not know if her activities or choices would be immoral or moral; instead, he removed any choice at all from her. She could not choose the book.

I fear that many times we are tempted to unintentionally commit this same mistake in the church. In our desire to protect our flocks from evil, we restrict their choices before ever investigating or allowing an investigation of the morality of such choices first. If we were tasked with removing such choices from our flocks, the Holy Spirit would not need to be in each individual at all. It would only need to be within the hearts of the leaders. Then, the leaders would simply translate the commands of the Spirit down through the flocks. Yet, this is not the case. Each believer is given the Spirit, capable of following his or her own individual journey of discovering God.

See, God is not a dictator. He has absolute power and command, but he is not a dictator. Instead, he leads us gently, as a shepherd. We are indeed obligated to obey his word and command—He is also Lord. But, His commands lead to freedom, not restriction. They lead to the expression of the human spirit, not its suppression. Moreover, they are given through one mediator, Jesus Christ, not an unknown oppressor

This line is a fine one; we could talk over it for several days if we had the time, coffee, and tea for it. But, I believe opening the discussion would do many of us leaders well. So, I leave you with some questions based on Lolita in Tehran.

Are you building your kingdom or God’s?

Are you leading in fear or hope?

Are you leading in ignorance or trust?

Are you trusting the Spirits leadership in the life of your flock?

Are you knowing your flock based on your experiences or theirs?

Are you creating space or restricting it?

Are you creating a Lolita, or a Nafisi?