A Christian Fundamentalist's Reaction To The Book, 'Read And Riot'

The following article is a reaction to Nadya Tolokonnova's (click here for a short biography) book, Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism, of which the paperback version can be ordered (click here for the book). I will be reacting to the book as a Christian Fundamentalist and I hasten to add that other such Fundamentalists would have reacted differently to the book. In addition, I call this a reaction rather than a review because I will not be going through the book as I would if I was reviewing the it.

But first, we must talk about the state of many of my religiously conservative American Christians. Many of them are in what I call an apologetic panic. Christian Apologetics is about defending the Christian faith. But currently, we are in a panic about what to say in defense of the faith. This panic is evidenced by our tendency to try too hard to say too much either for Christianity or against those whom we regard as rivals to the faith. This apologetic panic is triggered by at least 1 of 2 causes: the past social failures of the Church in history and the success of unbelievers in addressing some of today's relevant issues. 

We can see how this apologetic panic can be caused when we see the failures that the Church has experienced in the past. For example, for the past few centuries, the dominant branch of the Church in several Western nations has sided with wealth and power. We saw that preceding the French and Russian Revolutions as well as before the Spanish Revolution. An unintended consequence of siding with wealth and  power made the Church a favorite target of revolutionaries once they got power. And by branches of the Church, I am referring to the Orthodox Church, the Roman Church and Protestants. And if that wasn't bad enough, the current American Evangelical trend is that of supporting the major political party that grants the most privileges to wealthy corporations in terms of tax breaks and the cutting of social responsibility ties. Of course we are talking about the Republican Party. In addition, the American conservative Church has a rich tradition of supporting racism, sexism, and classism in American history.

The other cause for our apologetic panic are the somewhat successful attempts at identifying and/or producing solutions for social injustices by individuals and groups who are outside of the Church. Many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being told by their leaders and influencers that Christians can ignore what these secular sources say because they have not added to what Christians have said or are saying. In addition, these leaders also often believe that even listening to or reading what they groups say can be dangerous our faith. So in essence, many of my fellow religiously conservative Christians are being taught by their leaders and influencers to only listen to or read Christian sources on social justice issues. 

What we are seeing in this second cause is what we see in how many religiously conservative Christian leaders and influencers interact with the social sciences. These leaders and influencers act as if they are in a turf war with the social sciences in explaining the world. Likewise, they act very similarly when interacting with secular individuals and groups whose cause revolves around social justice issues. 

In the past, not seemingly all Christian leaders have reacted to secular social justice movements as if they were in a turf war. For example, when Martin Luther King Jr studied and reflected on Marxism/Communism, he ended with a different approach to it than today's religiously conservative Christians have taken to social justice workers. Now before reporting that, it should be noted that King wrongly conflated Marxism with Soviet Union Communism. 

King called Marxism/Communism evil and yet he also agreed with the late Archbishop of Canterbury, William Temple, who called it a 'Christian Heresy.' They called Marxism/Communism a Christian  heresy because its concern for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century Capitalism should be essential parts of the Christian life. At the same time, they called it heretical because attached to its concerns for social justice and its criticisms of 19th century capitalism were beliefs that no Christian should ever hold. King wrote about his review of Marxism/Communism and how it compares with Capitalism in his book: Stride Toward Freedom (click here and go to pg 92 to find Kings discussion on Marxism. The webpage begins with pg 90 of the book). 

After commenting on both Capitalism and Marxism/Communism, King concluded that we need to take a hybrid approach to our system by combining the best of Marxism with the best of Capitalism. He took that approach because he saw that while Communism forgot that life was individual, Capitalism forgets that life is social. And just perhaps, religiously conservative Christians like myself should take a similar approach to today's social justice movements and forms of wokism. That we need to at least develop hybrid approaches that include what social justice workers and leaders are saying with what we know from the Scriptures.

Such an approach is different from the current turf war approach taken now by the vast majority of religiously conservative American Christian leaders and influencers. It is different because instead of telling us that we can dismiss everything that unbelievers have to say about social justice, King's approach tells us that we should intently listen to and work with social justice concepts that were being promoted by unbelievers, especially by those who are real political leftists. To not do so while believing in evangelizing would be say to the world that they need to listen to us while we have no need to listen to them. Such an attitude can, for what can be inexplicable reasons for many religiously conservative Christians, turn off some people.

And so we come to Nadya Tolokonnikova and here book: Read And Riot: A Pussy Riot Guide To Activism. This book is specifically about being an activist. But in doing so, this book contains a lot of other useful information. 

Because of some of the things that Tolokonnikova practices, stands for, and says, there are some of her ideas that no Christian should ever believe and act on. But when one reads her book and learns about the concerns she has and what she is doing to help people in need, we see a kind of approach to life that all Christians should have. And so just as King and Temple called Marxism a 'Christian heresy,' we could call Tolokonnikova and the Pussy Riot Art Collective 'Christian heretics.' Doing so would not state or imply that she is a Christian however. Seeing how she selectively uses the Scriptures and misses the foundational parts of the Gospel, we can safely conclude that she is not.

Having read her book, followed her Twitter page, and listened to her speak in videos, it is downright easy to underestimate the  kind of person she is when one sees her references to sex work, her use of the word 'pussy' in talking about it beating fascists, and some of her performances with the art collective known as Pussy Riot. But to underestimate her would be to rob oneself of opportunities to learn from her. For Tolokonnikova is an an exceptionally strong person and a woman of great substance.

We can see in her the kind of strength that one would  see in any man who has suffered through and triumphed over the physical and mental grind and torture that she has experienced. She is the founding member of an art collective that practices activism, she has started a prisoner rights group and a media company (click here for Media Zone), she has helped provide contributions to various charities, she has studied philosophy, she is well read, and she has a good analytical grasp of what is going on in parts of the world in addition to her understanding of her home nation. And despite her time in prison, which she used to further her understanding of people, she is speaking out against authoritarianism, oligarchy, and consumerism though some of that could result in her reliving her prison experience or worse.

She has been interviewed numerous times by cable news channels, given a TED talk, spoken to the US Congress as well as the British and European Parliaments, has been a recipient of a LennonOno Grant for peace, and is a co-recipient of the Hannah Arendt Prize for Political Thought.

She understands what real artists are suppose to do. For real artists are not there to use their abilities to entertain in order to anesthetize their audiences from real life. Rather, real artists are the first line of society's secular prophets who tell us where society and the state have gone wrong. And so she uses her art to more vividly expose her audiences to the real world in order to get them to react. She makes a good point in saying that perhaps the anxiety that many people suffer from are signs that the world, not those feeling the pain, needs to change. Her artistic efforts are sometimes silly, gross, or absurd. But she uses the bizarre to illustrate what is ludicrous in the world. She uses what is ridiculous but tolerable stunts to illustrate absurdities that should never be tolerated.

Though much of the world is either impressed or intimidated by Putin, she logically demonstrates what a weak man he is. That he lacks all of the good characteristics that most of us associate with being human. And because of their similarities, she is also able to provide a good analysis of Trump too.

In short, she has suffered much and despite that she has accomplished much more than many people who have not suffered at all have.

But of course her book has some shortcomings. She explicitly states that she is distrustful of experts. This is especially true as it pertains to medicine and the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, she seems to accept what climate science experts have to say and makes a great point that we must reduce our consumption to address climate change. And what is implied by that is that if we were to downsize our consumption, which strikes at the heart of capitalism, we must share more of our wealth and resources to work against poverty at the same time.

But this distrust of experts would go against one of the people whom she reads and learns a lot from: Erich Fromm. In speaking against authoritarianism, Fromm made it a point to distinguish blind loyalty to authoritarian leaders from distrust of experts. It isn't that experts are always right. But they often are and a blind distrust of them can be harmful.

For example, the blind distrust of medical science during the pandemic helped contribute to America having one of the highest death rates from Covid during the pandemic. Believers in conspiracy theories from the Left, Liberals, and the Right chalked up the precautions and/or vaccines as government attempts to gain more control of us. This was especially prominent among Trump-loving Republicans but that dismissal of warning or suggestions from medical experts could be seen in people from all ideological persuasions.

That blind distrust in experts also enabled many people to participate in the January 6th Insurrection. For there, opinions from both experts in law, including judges appointed by Trump, and other government officials were blindly dismissed by those who were convinced, without evidence, that the election of Biden was because of fraud.

The point being made here is that there are times in Tolokonnikova's book where she tends to exercise some types of all-or-nothing thinking. Such think disables from making important distinctions such as which experts we can trust or what parts of the feminism she promotes should be followed and which parts should not. Sometimes, a kind of all-or-nothing thinking is part of a response to suffering trauma and the person employs that thinking so as to avoid making mistakes that could lead to suffering more traumas.

And, of course, we Christians could never accept her sexual mores or suggested alternative to families which came from an early Communist who was a feminist. It at this point that her use of the Scriptures and references to Christianity show a great selectivity. For while she will argue for equality between the sexes using a passage in Galatians where Paul states that there is  no male or female, she neglects passages that talk about sexual purity and about the roles Paul designates for husbands and wives. But here, we Christians also have a distinction to make. We have to be able  to tell the difference between Scriptural rules that just apply to Christians from those Scriptural rules that should also be applied to all in society.

Are there other things in her book that Christians cannot accept? Certainly. Are there ideas that she promotes that would not be good for society? Yes. But over all, Tolokonnikova has not only offered an inside view of the Pussy Riot Art Collective, she has provided an insightful view of as well as challenges to us in the world that would make the world a much better place should we follow some of them. I found it very worthwhile to read the book. And I believe that many religiously conservative Christians would benefit from reading it.

Today, Rage Is All The Rage

 While anger can be a negative emotion we experience because of a perceived wrong (click here for source), rage can be described as an uncontrollable anger experienced for the same reason (click here for source). But because of what that uncontrollable anger can appear to offer, rage can act as a siren call to the aggrieved. Rage can seem that way because it promises power, and thus salvation, to the aggrieved who embrace it. However, as one begins to embrace rage, one either approaches the rocks of being under another person's tyranny and thus be vulnerable to being exploited or the hazards of becoming tyrants ourselves.

At this point it is important to compare and contrast the kind of wrongs that so anger us that we feel tempted to sail toward the siren call of rage. Though the rages expressed will have its similarities, there will be a significant difference in the reasons for rage. To see that difference, please compare the official video of Rage performed by Pussy Riot (click here for the video and click there for lyrics translated into English lyrics, both sites are important to access) with the response to the raid on Trump's Mar-a-lago residence (for a range of enraged responses, click here and there). The first video  is in response to people having been abused by a harsh, tyrannical ruler. The latter video and webpage show an enraged response to a perceived wrong where the perception is called by a tribalism enabled sensitivity. 

In the first video, we saw a heavy dosage of rage. And again, the rage felt by many in Russia because of Putin's authoritarian rule is a very understandable reaction to the circumstances. In that video, we get mindless chanting of a mantra along with delusions of grandeur by the main character. 

In the second video, we see a mild case of rage. But it was enough rage to see that being enraged prohibited one from being rational. In this case, Kirk told his people to conduct the same kind of searches or raids on groups like BLM which the FBI performed on Trump. In so doing, he told his people that there would be significant differences between their searches from the search that the FBI conducted. If Kirk was rational, he would note do that. He would not do that because while Kirk wanted his people to target groups for searches simply because Kirk believed those groups were guilty, the FBI had to first present sufficient evidence for a judge to issue a search warrant. That difference alone is glaring and thus it shows how rage is adverse to being rational.

Because Trump is a leader in Kirk's and Metaxas's political-ideological tribe, rage is their response to something that was legal but challenged Trump's dignity and reputation. One of the traits of tribalism is that what is right and wrong depends on who does what to whom. And so the constant investigating of Hillary, for whom I would never vote, was kosher to the Trumpublicans while even suspecting Trump of wrongdoing becomes a severe threat to his followers.

The problem with rage is that even when rage is understandable because of the amount of suffering endured from injustices, in the end, it does not serve those who are victims. That is because rage makes us vulnerable to believing our own delusions of grandeur that our rage has now empowered us to defeat our sworn enemy. Unfortunately, all too often that power causes us to become like our enemies. Another possible outcome is that rage can be that it causes us to fall under the spell of authoritarians who are opportunists. In either case, rationality and what we prefer to think of as being humane fly out the window and are replaced by authoritarianism. And here we should note that there are two kinds of authoritarian personalities. Being vulnerable to delusions of grandeur leads one to embrace an active authoritarian role that causes one to exploit and abuse others while being vulnerable to the control of others indicates that one has embraced a passive authoritarian role (click here for an explanation of those two authoritarian personality types). The lack of self-control, along with the absence of rationality, are why rage makes us vulnerable to either form of authoritarianism.

Whether one's rage is understandable or was due to misperception because of one heightened sensitivity, there is no good end to rage. That doesn't mean that there should be no anger to the injustices suffered or that we should deny being enraged when we are. It does mean that acting out of rage does not end well. Historically speaking, those who, out of rage, lead rebellions continue the authoritarianism of the tyrants they rebelled against. Maybe those rebellious leaders showed their authoritarianism in different ways, but they still continued the authoritarian rule of those they rebelled against. 

As for the followers who allow their leaders to inspire them to be enraged, they become complicit in the injustices and atrocities committed by their leaders. And so here we need to acknowledge that specific people are not our enemies as much as it is the authoritarianism they employ. Authoritarianism is our real enemy regardless of who employs it.

On The 10th Anniversary We Need The Punk Band Pussy Riot More Than Ever

 This year is the 10th anniversary not of Pussy Riot but of their most famous performance art venture: their 2012 performance at Moscow's Cathedral of Christ the Savior. That Cathedral seems to be the headquarters for the Russian Orthodox Church and is where the Patriarch Kirill resides.

Their performance art event there was a protest against a few things such as patriarchy, the ever growing ties between the Russian Orthodox Church and the Russian government, and the authoritarianism exercised by the government. Their performance was interrupted and they were escorted out of the cathedral. Later on, 3 members of  Pussy Riot were arrested, charged with, convicted of, and were sentenced to prison for hooliganism and religious hatred. Two of those members, Maria Alyokhina (Masha for short) and Nadya Tolokonnikova served a 21 month prison sentence at a penal colony while a third member, Yekaterina Samutsevich, who received the same sentence had her charges reduced and after some time in prison and received a suspended sentence. 

Now obviously as an American Christian Fundamentalist, I have some disagreements with Pussy Riot. For one thing, I not could be in a band with that name. Also, the Orthodox Presbyterian Church in me says that I can support a female preacher. I can't support the legalization of elective abortions. And I couldn't participate in one of Pussy Riot's earliest performance art ventures of having sex in public. For one thing, I would be afraid of the laughter. In addition, I couldn't support replacing a patriarchy with a matriarchy. We all need to share power. To refuse to do so will, along with refusing to share wealth, will be our undoing as a species.

But I admire the courage, strength, and insights that members of Pussy Riot have displayed since their beginning almost 11 years ago. After having served prison sentences, Masha and Nadya are willing to risk prison again to battle injustices and authoritarianism. The members mentioned above are stronger and more courageous than I am. I don't know if I could risk going to prison again after having served a prison sentence. In addition, they know more about democracy than any religiously conservative Christian leader with whom I am familiar with.

The two YouTube videos below showing interviews with Masha and Nadya and they let us see their insights into people and democracy. They both see similarities between Trump and Putin as people. As Masha states, Putin is a product of a very authoritarian regime. Both see Putin and Trump as being authoritarian and narcissistic. Both said that Putin prefers people who don't have beliefs, such as in democracy and rights,  and morals.

                                                                Interview with Masha

Both Masha and Nadya see both leaders as threats to democracy. For example, Masha believed that a year after the 2016 election, people would not have the right to protest in public. What Masha didn't realize is that the Courts, especially the Supreme Court, were not dominated by conservatives like they are now. Many of Trump's executive orders were blocked by the courts because of the Constitutionality of his orders.

                                                                     Interview with Nadya

They both see similarities between how both Trump and Putin have treated the press only Putin treated the press that way back in the beginning of his reign and now there is only government controlled press in Russia. Now Trump talks about the press like Putin did.

Both see the need for people to be involved to preserve democracy.  Nadya stated that we must not only receive from the government, we must give back to the government to support its institutions like democracy. Masha too believes that people must get involved to preserve democracy because democracy carries with it no guarantees.  

Pussy Riot opposes authoritarianism and stands for rights and democracy. It promotes full equality for the LGBT community, which is something that religiously conservative Christians can do here without compromising in following biblical sexual morals.

The above is a glimpse of the political side of Pussy Riot. They are, after all, performance artists. The video below was released by Nadya before the 2016 election in anticipation of a Trump victory.

                                                                    A MAGA Video

While the branding, even the fake ones in the above video, of a person is tough to watch, it does capture some of the real effects of the shaming that Trump practiced on different groups. That shaming gives license for some to attack members of those groups and I believe that the hate crime statistics will support that claim.

The video below can also be tough to watch, but such is the nature of performance art. The video below is in response to the police killing of Eric Garner.

                                                      Video for Eric Garner: I Can't Breathe

Why do we need Pussy Riot now more than ever. It is because of the workings of the 2nd pandemic: Authoritarianism. We are seeing a growing authoritarianism throughout the world. And we definitely see the same growing authoritarianism in Russia and the US. And while  Russia has lost any semblance of Glasnost and the democracy that it once had, the US hasn't. But our democracy, besides under constant attack by corporations that seek to buy our elected officials, one of our two major political parties is interested in taking over and ruling our nation. For as long as Trump has a significant influence on the Republican Party, that Party will. be working for an eventual fascist take over. Trump's language and attacks on the media, his lack of self-restraint, his authoritarian nature and vindictiveness, his executive orders that were blocked by the courts, and his participation in the attempt to overthrow a fair election. In fact, Trump stated during both campaigns prior to the 2016 and 2020 elections that the only way he could lose would be if the election was corrupt. 

But now, the courts are more favorable to Trump. The leaked Supreme Court decision on the Mississippi abortion law shows a severe attack on the right of privacy. But not only that, state legislators from several states have passed election laws that make it easier for those legislators to control the next Presidential election.  And finally if we add to that the grumbling and discontent that naturally occurs from the high inflation we are experiencing today, which moves us to seek for overly simplistic causes and solutions, we find that we are not that far from electing leaders who favor a fascist takeover of the nation. We could easily lose whatever democracy we have left during the next 2 elections.

We need to speak out and be involved. But we have major obstacles ahead. The first obstacle is the counterpart of the Republican Party. The Democratic Party is often paid off by wealth-interests almost as much as the Republican Party is. And sometimes the difference between the two parties revolve around public civility.

If a Trump dominated Republican Party regains control of at least one of the two houses of Congress along with the White House,  then the person who showed no restraint in promoting the January 6th insurrection will have much more power and our democratic republic will have been lost. That is why we need groups like Pussy Riot now more than ever. We need them to enlighten us and spur us on to act in ways that defend and protect democracy than destroy democracy.