Oligarchy of Mediocrity

Saturday November 15, 2008 • 2 Comments 

All tyranny requires these elements to be successful. 

I use Alexander Strauch–the quotes from his book– because he condenses many of the historic arguments with the imbedded presumptions and filters that so many in the Church Government tub advocate.  Never forget, the FORM of Government is irrelevant if the ideas driving the form are designed to oppress.  I could dig around in other contemporary Church Government writing and find much of the same.  Strauch just happens to have a comprehensive presentation. 

Alexander Strauch wrote this in 1991 in a book called Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership.

Furthermore, “first among equals” provides desperately needed protection from the all-too-common pitfalls of egoism, greed, personality imbalance and unholy ambition to which highly gifted teachers may succumb. An exceptionally gifted leader or teacher can lead and teach with all his zeal and might, as the Scripture commands a leader and teacher to do (Romans 12:7,8), and yet be held accountable to fellow leaders and teachers. The Christian leader or teacher who refuses brotherly accountability is self-deceived and is headed for self-destruction. The Christian leader who really knows his Bible and has an honest view of his sinfulness and weaknesses understands his undeniable need for the checks and balances (see Fallacy of Checks and Balances at the bottom of the article) provided by fellow colleagues. Only dictators fear accountability from godly colleagues. (Strauch, 48, 49)

I said this in my post titled Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit.  “So many assumptions, presuppositions, and filters are already in place that we read the bible with profoundly closed eyes.  Or maybe better said, we read the words but our conclusions are ingrained in the history of our tradition or driven by the substance of our fears.” Since I like saying I told you so, notice the implicit appeal to fear in his paragraph.  

Strauch sets the foundation of his comments at the last of this paragraph.  In the second to last sentence we find this argumentative gem:  “The Christian leader or teacher who refuses brotherly accountability is self-deceived and is headed for self-destruction.” 

This non-argument is summed up by saying: “If you don’t believe exactly what I’m saying it is because your truth knower is broken… because YOU broke it.” This illogical silliness is a Calvinist staple that gets trotted out when the perpetrator demands an intellectual pass on what he considers a self evident truth. 

What self evident truth is Strauch trying to get past critical review?  Actually, in this paragraph, he is offering four. 

1. Personal Self Awareness is limited or non-existent

2. The Highly Gifted is uniquely imperiled by measure of his gift.

3. Expressing individual gifting is a function of biblical illiteracy and self deception.

4. Moral action is the function of group pressure: “first among equals” are the only place gifted folk can prevent their implicit failings. 

So, the “Highly Gifted” are somehow more susceptible to the “pitfalls of Egoism, greed, personality imbalance and uhholy ambition.”   

Hummm… where have I heard those sentiments?  Never mind… I’ll get back to that later. 

Strauch is an Indwelling Sin guy; he presupposes that man is insane.  Since that body of doctrine casts a jaundiced eye at any human endeavor that aspires too much of any self fulfillment or self-expression, the intellectual assumptions would lead to placing the Highly Gifted under the greatest scrutiny.  But this is really a false choice based on this progression of thought. 

Isolation = failed submission to a group of “equals”. 

Highly Gifted + isolation = self deception and therefore self-destruction.  

However misplaced this logic, it has a goal.  The false choice is designed to make a liability out of virtues; it is designed to make a successful, effective, gifted, man/woman fear their ability, to view it with suspicions and look for safety.  The location of that safety is in the affirming judgment of “colleagues.” 

In a later post I will deal with the intellectual slight of hand Struach uses to establish the non-hierarchy …uhhh… errr… hierarchy called the “First among equals.” 

But I want to point out that his solution to self deception is a group of men who are somehow mutually immune to deception and the “…pitfalls of egoism, greed, personality imbalance and unholy ambition…” 

How?   What is the magic bullet?  

Since the pitfalls increase with measure of greater Gift it follows that lacking gift, lacking ability would be the antidote.  Consider the implications like this:  the Highly Gifted have a desperate need of protection from … themselves.  (?) The measure of their gift imperils them directly proportional to their lack of GROUP accountability.   The logical progression would be: less gifting = less personal peril.  Be gift-less and be immune to ego and greed.  Be Highly Mediocre and suffer no personality imbalance. 

Hahahah… that is too rich.  Hey God, make me gift-less!  Make me Mediocre!  Then I won’t suffer personality imbalance! 

But wait… I know plenty of mediocre people who are profoundly greedy, filled with overbearing ego and are personality basket cases.  So how do they escape the desperate need of the “first among equals?” 

>big eye roll< 

Strauch is the one who singled out the Highly Gifted for an increased need of governance BECAUSE of their virtue: that is the implication of his comments.   What happened to all the rest of you?  Why don’t the Highly Mediocre merit this profound warning to come lay their gift-less-ness down at the feet of the “First Among Equals?” 

You will see in a minute. 

Ambition:  This word has been transformed into a word meaning the amoral pursuit of any goal.  We inherited this philosophical assumption form Nietzsche I suppose.  

However, Ambition is not ruthless, unscrupulous achievement.  Synonyms for ambition are aspiration, dream, hope, and desire amongst others.  If I rendered Strauch’s sentence like this “…. personality imbalance and unholy aspiration or hope ….”  We would all wrinkle our brow trying to decipher EXACTLY what an unholy aspiration or hope could be.  We would want to identify the specific failing.  

But he puts the word ambition in the sentence.   If we acknowledge the word at all, we assume that the failing the “Highly Gifted” suffers is an ambition of the unholy sort.  What other kind of ambition could there be?   

Ambition is merely a relentless effort to improve.  Improve what?  Anything. Everything.  People have an ambition to get better when they go to the doctor.  People have an ambition to get smarter when they go to school.  Ambition is an amoral description of determined sustained effort for self development.  The moral quality of the effort of self development is directly attached to who pays the price for that development.  Go to the doctor to get healthy: who could see a moral failing in that pursuit?  But what if I told you a person shot three people in the head to get their flu shots before the supply ran out?   Now we have an unholy ambition.  

Since ambition is an amoral desire to improve oneself then the operative word in Strauch’s comment is Unholy.  What then is unholy?  Since he has already said that human capacity to find, arrive, and emulate ethical, moral action.  He has to find another location for such guidance.  

Struach’s predicate is: Highly Gifted people have a limited capacity tell when they’ve wandered into moral pitfalls.  Somehow being Highly Gifted means your moral development and self awareness is stunted. 

Since Gifting imperils mediocrity saves.  Sooo, Strauch’s necessary solution is a group of Highly MEDIOCER “First among Equals.”  They define the Unholy part of the Ambition.  The UnGifted Have-Nots get to define the proper moral limits of the Highly Gifted Have’s aspiration and expression.

I suppose that seems like a boon for the Highly Mediocre.  The Hightly UNGifted Have-Nots unite to bring gifting justice to the world.  The evil Highly Gifted Haves are making themselves better at the expense of spiritual proletariat. 

People State of Heaven Unit! 

Ehem!! 

This is awesome government: Oligarchy of Mediocrity.  Highly Gifted souls must subordinate their gifts to a group of less… gifted.  Why?   Because the gift-less are Holy?  They have no ambition to corrupt? Their moral clarity is effective?  

That means a group of men (or women) with the least gifting are setting the standard of personal improvement.  The logical outcome of this silliness is utter enforced passivity.   

I know, for those of you who don’t have anything to offer-lacking any gift of note-you just breathed a sigh of relief.  

The pressure is off. You don’t have to produce with your gift, as small and insignificant as it is.  The “First among Equals” will level the playing field and keep bad things from happening by keeping the Highly Gifted from excessive … success?  

But wait.  What if you decide you don’t like your lot in life?   What if you want to develop your gifts and use them for the glory of God?  You and I both know they are modest gifts, not amounting to much, but hey… we all want to make a difference.  

What happens to you? 

Hahaha… hahahhahaha…   

The guy who has NO GIFT WHAT-SO-EVER is gonna set the limits on your holy aspirations.  And if you “…. refuses brotherly accountability is (You are) self-deceived and is (you are) headed for self-destruction.”   You’re stuck with your mediocre lot in life.   Your passivity is essential to avoid being deceived.  Sucks to be you!  

And this is what Struach (and others like him) is really after.  He is advocating passivity. The reason he doesn’t paint a broad brush over everyone’s propensity to fall into “egoism, greed, personality imbalance and unholy ambition …”  is because what makes most people “average” is their passivity.  They are willing to accept the shepherds crook without too much fuss and feathers.   

Most government structures need a docile body politic.  Tame men are easy to order about, ambitious men… not so much.  And since Strauch is positing a very thin distinction between the governors and the governed in his “First among Equals,” he needs a very heavy tonic to keep the body politic compliant.  He needs you to fear the very gift you have been given.  He needs you to utterly distrust yourself and your capacity to know and follow the truth: your ability to define, and make the choice to act on ethical (read Holy) action. 

The reality is, most people have profound gifts but never set out to exploit the content of those gifts because of the twin paralizers: fear and passivity!  It is easier to be passive.  It takes courage to embrace the potential of your own life and work towards its highest and best expression.  Fearlessness is the product of moral clarity-the foundational assurance that you are right to pursue your course of action.  It takes ambition fueled with the moral clarity that using your gift is the RIGHT action.  

And this is what Strauch (and others like him) implicitly know: the “gifted” tend to be movers and shakers.  The success of their gift is usually because of their work ethic: the successful Highly Gifted is NOT passive.  He tends to be self motivated and self appointed and self confident.  

This is Highly Gifted tendency UNLESS they are terrified into forfeiting their self motivation. 

And if I read the parable of the three men and the talents right, the two men who exploited their ability, taking actions to expand to double their stewardship were rewarded.  

The man terrified of his stewardship, fearing failure and the judgments of his master, buried his talent demonstrating his utter passivity. 

What was his judgment again?  

Filed Under Leadership, State of the Church


Defining Insanity

Friday November 7, 2008 • 5 Comments 

 

Shared Leadership should not be a new concept to bible reading Christians.  (pg 36)
By definition, the elder structure of [Church] government is a collective from of leadership in which each elder shares equally the position, authority, and responsibility of the office.  There are different names for this type of leadership structure. Fore formally it is called collective, corporate, or collegiate leadership.  In contemporary terms it is referred to as multiple church leadership, plurality, shared leadership, or team leadership.   (pg. 39)

 The problem with all excerpts is weather they really capture the over all point the author was trying to represent.  Alexander Strauch spends a full chapter in his book discussing his take on the bible origins for governmental collectivism.  However he arrives at this conclusion-whatever his logical progression-I believe the quotes above a fair distillation of the theology of Collectivism: Church leadership is made up of a group. 

In Pass the Mint Jelly, I addressed the “sheep are stupid therefore they need a shepherd” idea.   The commentary on this particular doctrine is far from exhausted.   Remember, the form of government is irrelevant if the foundation of the government is tyranny.  And all tyrannical governments start from the premise that people need help getting it right. (Think: “We are Borg.  Resistance is futile.”)

Many of the Church collectivist ideology use words like precious, helpless, loving, feeding, leading, disciplining, straying, and caring to discuss the need and objective of Church Governance.  The assumption is we are all a bunch of infants, naïve, and pure, and needing mommy’s loving touch.   This is the Brady Bunch interpretation that sounds churchy and wholesome but it’s really just marketing and packaging.  In another breath or three those same folk will talk of human depravity and unremitting sinfulness, and utter culpability.  This means that the disease is the cause and affect of Church government.   

It boils down to people are incapable and they need someone to look after them, hence Strauch’s collectivist advocacy.  By Struachian logic Church leadership is a plurality of Elders who need an Uber Elder.  And since the group of Elders needs someone to hold the reigns on their faults, failures, and foibles he identifies a “First among equals” who ascends to the top of the non pyramid …uh… pyramid.    

The Idea of “First among equals,” is gaining some traction in the hinterlands of Christian thought.  Eventually I’ll talk about what that means… what it REALLY means.  But not today.  Today we are going to assume that it is true.  That Church Government is a collective-Elders, pastors, leaders-headed by a “First among equals.” 

(BTW: the Equals of Strauchian logic are not equal with the church masses.  They are equals amongst themselves.  Strauchain Church life is not a classless society.  Marx would NOT be proud.)

All right… where was I?  Are we clear on our assumption?  Church Government is a collective.

Goody.  

Who makes up that collective?  Who gets to make up the “Equal of Equals?”  How do we know who they are? 

Those who are qualified?  

That is what I thought you would say. And I’m betting-a small amount of money-that some of you have a list of qualifications in mind: 

Character

Service

Gift

Calling

Well liked (?)

Passion for the job

There might be others.  It doesn’t matter because I am asking the most fundamental question.

 How do we KNOW?

 Remember Sheep are stupid and Shepherds protect sheep.  So, how do we KNOW in the midst of our stupid sinfulness?  

God appointed the “equals among equals”?  Ok, fine… God appointed them. But how do we KNOW he appointed them?  

Let’s assume that God came down out of heaven, had a bunch of men sit in a circle and say:  “Duck… duck… duck… the Butcher…. Duck… duck… duck …. The Baker … duck… duck … duck… the Candlestick Maker…  You three in the tub, your talents go together.  Thou art “Equals among Equals.” 

Ok… wait… the problem with what I just said is: “God came down out of heaven.”  This is an absurd way of illustrating this equation: The group exists because God ordained it, God ordained it because the group exists.  The premise to justify the group’s existence presumes that God’s action was so utterly objective that his intended outcome cannot be argued.  But God didn’t come down out of heaven and the groups existence is not evidence of divine intent.   There was no objective event where God played Duck… Duck…Governor. 

Therefore, Man had to decide who rub-a-dub-dubs in the Church Government tub.   Historically we’ve drawn lots, held elections, upheld succession, accepted revelations, waited on tables until Uber Preacher patted us on the head to confer our goose status.   (Duck, duck, goose… get it?)   And if none of that gets a guy in the Church Government tub, he passes out business cards until everyone believes “Thou art Equal Among Equals.” So the task of picking those in the Church Government tub requires folk to watch Sesame Street.  Remember Sesame Street?   ”One of these things is not like the other … one of these things doesn’t belong…”  

Yeah, me and Big Bird. 

Which is the right method for picking the guys in the tub?  I don’t care.  

Whatever the method, PEOPLE had to DECIDE how to arrive at the conclusion.  For people to decide they needed a set of values to measure group inclusion, or by Struachian logic, quantify who was part of the subset of “Equals among Equals.”  Value judgments require the ability to define GOOD.  GOOD then shows what puts the Butcher, the Baker and the Candlestick Maker in the same tub.  Said another way people need to know “GOOD” before they can take Moral action. 

“GOOD” and “moral action” goes hand in anthropomorphic hand.  Unless one can define “GOOD” he does not know how to act.  Or maybe better said, he does not know if his actions are good or evil.  So, man cannot know the moral value of his actions until he understands “GOOD”.    

How does man get his understanding of GOOD?   Only two options exist: GOOD is objective or GOOD is dictated.  

The first option requires that man has the faculties to arrive at objective, measurable, knowable GOOD.  All men have the ability to observe the same world and grasp what they see.  His faculties are sound, and under his control.  He can fathom cause and context, extrapolate effect and project outcome.  From this foundation it is possible to realize that “what is GOOD?” and “what is truth?” are the same question.  From this foundation man can answer the question: “What is Truth.”  From this foundation man knows the answer.  Truth/GOOD is that which gives EVERYTHING value. From this foundation he can take action and measure the content of those actions because truth is entirely within his grasp in every meaningful sense. 

 Like I said, “GOOD” and “moral action” goes hand in hand.   

The second option requires that man is an irreparable moral and intellectual cripple.  Whatever GOOD may be, man has no capacity to arrive at GOOD apart from direct intervention.  Because man is so innately depraved, man can never grasp GOOD-to will or to do.  Man’s depravity inevitably drives him towards his inevitable self-destruction.   Said bluntly, man is insane.  Because man in insane, the definition of GOOD must be provided by an authority.  The authority intervenes in man’s self-destructive actions imposing restrictions on action to save man from himself.  

What authority?  What imposed restrictions? 

These are excellent questions.  The answer depends on WHO is the authority.  Since authority defines GOOD, moral action is the product of the authority.  Authority dictates values and man is obligated to emulate them like a street mime: vacant, empty, mute, robotic, without consent or embrace.   

So if Mullah’s are the authority the imposed restrictions are Sharia Law.  If the Catholic Church is the authority the imposed restriction is outlawing divergent ideas: burning heretics at the stake.   If Oliver Cromwell is the authority it was the eradication of Christmas and Easter Festivals (among other things) If the Branch Davidians are the authority it means the leaders can take all the women and female children for sex. 

Which one is the right blend of authority and imposed restriction?  Good question.  Since man is insane he can not tell which representative of authority is better than the other.  He can make no judgment because his insanity prevents him from gravitating toward GOOD. 

Does anyone else see the problem with this as the starting place of defining GOOD?  

Opppsss dumb question.  That assumes the insane men reading this blog post can reason.  Ok… for the rest of you who accept that man is fully capable of arriving at GOOD, all by his lonesome.    You see the problem right?  

How does one out authority an authority?  The world is full of men claiming to represent THE authority.   Which one is right?   If world events are any indication the answer is whoever is willing to commit the most bloodshed.  Once authority dictates “GOOD”, all are condemned to embrace the standard-or perish.  There is no such thing as objection because objection is the specific function of deception.  

(This is why so many men seeking to rule attack the mind. And they attack the mind through guilt.   They NEED you to believe you are immoral to defend yourself.  They NEED you defenseless.  They NEED you compliant.) 

The Demagogues of Dictated Good say that God provides revelation and revelation is the authority; they are just mere servants to the revelation.  But this is an intellectual slight of hand.  This requires that the “mere servants” have a dispensation from insanity.   Like I said above, “Value judgments require the ability to define GOOD.  GOOD then shows what puts the Butcher, the Baker, and the Candlestick Maker in the same tub.”  SomeONE still has to define a good revelation from a bad one.  This requires that someONE has rational faculties capable of defining GOOD. 

How can this be if all men are irreparable moral and intellectual cripples?  The loose logic goes like this.  We are all flawed so to prevent individual error we will join a group for checks and balances.  (As if Groups of people cannot be wrong.)  We like the idea of checks and balances.  We like the idea so well we let the Demagogues of Dictated Good get away with two profound evasions.     

How did the group arrive at the substance of ethical action?  SomeONE had to identify it.   SomeONE had to measure GOOD action-the qualification for joining the authority group. 

Demagogues of Dictated Good say that man has no ability to identify “Good” but he can know it when the Group possess “GOOD”.  If a man cannot measure his own moral action how can he measure a Groups moral proclamation?  It is indefensible to suggest that a GROUP of insane people are qualified to define moral action because they are a Group.  

As absurd as that is I still haven’t gotten to the real evasion: the Fallacy of Checks and Balances. 

If authority dictates “GOOD” there is no need of check and balance. Whatever Authority dictates IS good.  So, there is no such thing as injustice, oppression, exploitation, or infringements of freedom.  

If Authority dictates GOOD, what then are we checking? The accuracy of the Authority? Checking also implies the ability to curtail some kind of action.  But Authority defined GOOD and Dictates action.  What action needs to be curtailed?  The dictated actions ARE GOOD.  If Authority says: “Kill the Infidel,” the action of killing is GOOD.  If Authority commands “Stone homosexuals”, then warming up in the bull pen is GOOD.  If Authority says “Take from the Rich and Give to the poor,” then steeling a man’s substance by force, is GOOD.    

If Authority dictates GOOD, what are we balancing?  In context Balancing implies a rational objective standard; the ability to weigh both sides of a moral equation.    How did we see the need to offset one side of the teeter totter with more weight?  Man is insane, how CAN we balance? 

Whatever action Authority proscribes is GOOD.  There is no just or unjust action as long as the actions are in obedience to authority.   So authority commits no unjust action.   Injustice, oppression, exploitation, all assumes individual rights: they presume individual freedom.  Individual freedom requires an objective standard of free action.  And it presumes that capacity to “…observe the same world and grasp what they see.  His faculties are sound, and under his control.  He can fathom cause and context, extrapolate effect and project outcome.” 

The Demagogues of Dictated Good-the collectivists-eradicate the concept of individuality.  Individuality cannot exist when Authority defines value.  Man is merely a commodity in the ultimate expression of authority. EVERYTHING is sacrificed to the highest expression of Authority. 

From this foundation the answer to the questions:  “what is GOOD?” and “what is truth?” are also the same.  But the answer to the question: “What is Truth,” is utterly different.   Truth/GOOD = authority, and authority = truth.  Value is dictated.  Moral action is irrelevant because actions are dictated.   

This progression has always led to rivers of blood, and terrible destructions, and profound abuses, and unrelenting spiritual tyranny all in the name of God and to his Glory.  How could it be otherwise?   The whole house of cards is built on the assumption that insane men can grasp GOOD and dictate GOOD to other insane men.  

And THAT  is … uh… insane.  

Here is the reason for the insanity.  Those who advocate governing models founded on the assumption of human depravity and Authority need you to abandon thinking.   THAT is why the Demagogues of Group Good never give you tools to THINK.   That is why they always advocate that your THINKING is the highest moral or spiritual betrayal.  

Thinking points out the insanity.  The moment people start THINKING they can not be tyrannized.  Thinking people will not willingly be forced into dictated actions.  Thinking People understand GOOD and MORAL action and resist spiritual tyranny with every fiber of their being.  

**********************

Alexander Strauch Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership

Filed Under Foundational Thoughts, Wolf Religion


Next Page »