Dare To Be A Daniel Ellsberg?

Recently I watched a documentary called The Most Dangerous Man in America.

This gave an insight into what Daniel Ellsberg did to release what is known as the Pentagon Papers, a top secret government document that gave startling revelations of the relations America had with Vietnam. The scandal arose around the significant discrepancies between public perception of the reason for war and the actual motives behind it as reinforced by successive administrations from Harry Truman to Lyndon Johnson.

Among other things the documentary looks at the journey Ellsberg took to get to the point where he broke the law to reveal what he felt was essential for the American public to know about how an unjust war costing the lives of millions had been in effect sanctioned by them by deceit.  This was no light decision to take and resulted in his being ostracised by his peers as well as being a target of a government campaign to discredit him and prosecute him to the point of facing a possible jail term of 115 years.  As it documented the court hearings took place around the same time as the Watergate break-in scandals and as evidence emerged his case was called a mistrial and indirectly lead to the resignation of President Richard Nixon.

It is a fascinating story and was delivered in a way to appeal to the viewer as to how a man places integrity and principles above career advancement.  Yet that decision still ended up with him losing friends and colleagues, being labelled a traitor and facing the possibility of never being able to hold down a job of influence ever again.

Watching it made me consider what would I do in a similar situation.  Having had brief and limited experience of working for central and local government, I am aware of the Official Secrets Act which prohibits employees of the government from divulging certain information of what takes place.  It can be used as a reason to justify the importance of secrecy wherein all manner of untoward and corrupt handling can be sustained without scrutiny.

I was thinking what if I came across something that seriously offended or went against my deeply held convictions about what is right, and potentially affected the lives of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions.  Would I have the courage to try and expose these dealings?

As Ellsberg found out, however, even if you do that, if the desired result is to change the opinion of the public, that might not always happen. What might happen is that the public will be taken up with the scandal of the issue, then of the personalities, then take it all with a pinch of salt and do nothing about it, essentially because their life agenda makes it difficult for them to be mobilised to address such injustices.

So if I were in a situation like that, what would be my desire, and aim?  Were I just to resign from office and say nothing, would that still make me complicit to that which is wrong?  If I broke the law to expose them, would I be doing something wrong there as well?

Whilst watching the end of the documentary, also, I was intrigued at considering biblical episodes of righteous people involved in high government who take their conscience and godly convictions as priority over their position.  People like Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach and Abed-nego in the Babylonian government.  Queen Esther in her situation is another example.

It is not unusual to find lots of political intrigue in the Bible from the early bouts of Abram messing with the political rulers of the day, through to Moses taking on Egypt, Joshua’s conquest of Canaan, the ongoing skirmishes of Israel against the neighbouring forces, the Monarchy years and the split kingdom with subsequent impact on how they are captured and placed under captivity.

All these narratives run side by side with the overall narrative of the rule of God in the affairs of man and is certainly evident in Jesus’ engagement with religious and political influencers of his time, and the consequences of Pentecost on how the early church engaged with the rulers of their time.

It’s almost as though today we, as church, are not that aware of that narrative especially in how the rule of God is counter to the desired status quo and the decisions on a small and large scale made every day in the places that matter which seek to further compromise people’s positions when it comes to what’s right.

I am by no means suggesting Christians engagement in politics should be to impose some level of a theocracy – the church in a lot of cases isn’t run by a theocracy, so it would a joke to think the diverse states in which we live are going to kow-tow to that.  Yet it is about knowing Kingdom values, living Kingdom principles and when it comes to it putting those at priority even when it jeopardises what is valuable to us.

Would I dare to be a Daniel, even a Daniel Ellsberg?

For His Name’s Sake

Shalom

C. L. J. Dryden