By John Immel
Defining Insanity (Click here to listen to an Presage Publishing MP3 Audio production)
All tyranny requires these elements to be successful.
************
The following is from Biblical Eldership: An Urgent Call to Restore Biblical Church Leadership, by Alexander Strauch.
Shared Leadership should not be a new concept to Bible-reading Christians. (page 36)
By definition, the elder structure of [Church] government is a collective form 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. More 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. (page 39)
The challenge with excerpts is whether they really capture the overall point the author was trying to represent while being an effective referent for subsequent commentary. Alexander Strauch spends a full chapter discussing his take on the origins for “Bible” governmental collectivism. However he arrives at this conclusion–whatever his logical progression–I believe the quotes above fairly captures Strauch’s thesis of Collectivist theology: church government is executed via group.
Christianity is at a pivotal place in history. In some locales, we seem to be taking the world by storm. In other locales, we are profoundly irrelevant: not quite reviled but hardly embraced. But in most every place, the Church is struggling against what appears to be a profound social chaos. Through most denominations, in some form, this question is being asked: “Who is in charge?”
The motivations for asking the question vary. For some, a better form of government will enforce corporate conduct; the very loose logic being, if we get our polity right, people won’t sin. For others, a change of polity will resolve leadership abuse; if the sheep are being beat, give them voting rights and the crook will stop swinging. Then, there are those terrified church leaders looking for some form of spiritual CYA; if an apostle is at the top of the polity pyramid, then we are “covered.” And still others want to order the ill-informed and uneducated Am Herratz: the great intellectually unwashed; sheep are stupid and need a smart shepherd.
As generalities go, the above four are the driving force of the modern quest for “Biblical” Church Government. All of these motivations converge at a common crossroad: who bears the liability for the rigor of life–the individual or the collective? Said another way, are the masses incompetent or not?
It is no accident that one of Strauch’s leading rationales for collectivist government is the need to order the ill-informed, uneducated Am Herratz. He is hardly the only person promoting the “sheep are stupid” idea. In Pass the Mint Jelly, I addressed this stupid sheep need a smart shepherd nonsense. Incompetent Masses is one of five radials for the web of tyranny.
Never forget this truth: the form of government is irrelevant if the philosophical foundation for the government is tyranny. And all tyrannical governments start with the premise that the people need help getting it right. Throughout the United States, an ever-increasing refrain is indoctrinating the Church into the historic group think. The lessons of antiquity show this has ominous implications.
To cover their governmental objectives, many who advocate Church collectivism use words like precious, helpless, loving, feeding, leading, disciplining, straying, and caring. The implication is we are all a bunch of infants; naive 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, these same folks will talk of human depravity and unremitting sinfulness, and complete inability.
These Divine Nannies bemoan their plight: oh, if only the people knew how much they need our hands to guide them to right ideas and right actions. But in a twist of vicious magnanimity, these Nannies place the cause of our rejection on a state of wayward, wretched sinfulness. We need them to dictate GOOD because we can never really know how bad we are. This means the disease is the cause and effect of Church government.
This logic boils down to people are incapable and need someone to babysit. But this begs the question: who should that be? If we are all wormy, morally bankrupt people, and that bankruptcy produces moral and ethical incompetence, who then holds the reins of government? Who has the power to use the monopoly of FORCE to compel people to a given end?
Alexander Strauch argues that government structure answers the question. He advocates a flat organization, a group of interconnected, mutually accountable leaders…But most people realize that a truly flat governmental organization ends in utter stagnation. Strauch, of course, grasps this reality, knowing that without a single voice to direct action, it is impossible to organize mass conduct.
However, the moment a group begins to identify one guy at the top of the doctrinal and spiritual food chain, it starts to look like a pyramid. And that governmental structure is the hallmark of Papacy. If you are a good Protestant, avoiding the appearance of Papacy is an important goal.
So how do we have a non-pyramid…uh…pyramid? How do we pay lip service to egalitarianism yet have someone make command decisions?
The concept “First Among Equals” is gaining some traction throughout the hinterlands of modern Christian thought. This term has a Latin translation that sounds impressively academic to imply some authority. It is part of Greek political theory that has been dressed in a Miter and Simar and been smuggled into the reading of various bible passages. I discussed the source and implication in Toga Induced Christian Tribalism so I won’t rehash those things in this article.
By Strauchian logic, Church leadership is a plurality of Elders who need an Uber Elder to give a unique and focused vision. Since the Elders are theoretically subject to the same inability as the rest of the masses, they need someone to hold the reins on their faults, failures, and foibles. The group of “Equal Among Equals” provides accountability, a sort of collegial checks and balances. And one guy, the “First Among Equals,” ascends to the top of the non-pyramid…uh…pyramid. He gives the group cohesive leadership, setting the course and vision of the command team. A first guy oversees the collective leadership, who rules the collective body.
Is this the right way to organize Church Government? Actually, it doesn’t matter to me if this is a right or wrong structure. I am going to address something much more fundamental, the true source of all tyranny. Since I don’t care about the structure, today we are going to assume that it is true. I am going to let the Protestants offer their non-pyramid…uh… pyramid: Church government is a collective–elders, pastors, leaders–headed by a “First Among Equals.”
(Feel free to insert your structure as the default.)
All right… Are we clear on our assumptions?
Oh, goody. Now for the fun.
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. Strauch offers this list:
· Character
· Service
· Gift
· Calling
· Well-liked (?)
· Passion for the job
There might be others. It doesn’t matter to me 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 “Equal Among Equals”?
Okay, 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 said: “Duck…duck…duck…the Butcher… Duck…duck…duck…the Baker… Duck…duck…duck… the Candlestick Maker… You three in the tub. Thou art “Equal Among Equals.”
Okay…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 God’s actions were so utterly objective that His intended outcome cannot be argued. But God didn’t come down out of heaven and the group’s existence is not evidence of divine intent. There is no objective event where God played Duck… Duck…Governor.
Therefore, Man had to decide who rub-a-dub-dubs in the Church Government tub.
How does man decide?
Historically, we’ve drawn lots, held elections, upheld succession, accepted revelations, waited on tables until Uber Preacher pats us on the head to confer our goose status. (Duck, duck, goose… get it?) And if that doesn’t get a guy in the Church Government tub, he passes out business cards until everyone believes “Thou Art First Among Equals.”
If none of the above works in picking those in the Church Government tub, the only thing left is to watch Sesame Street. ”One of these things is not like the other…one of these things does not belong…”
Yeah, me and Big Bird.
Which is the right method for picking the guy in the tub? I don’t care any more than I care about government structure.
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 Strauchian logic, quantify who was part of the subset of “Equal 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 and then they must be able to take that action. If man cannot act on GOOD, his understanding is irrelevant.
“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.
How does man get his understanding of GOOD?
Only two options exist:
1. GOOD is objective.
2. GOOD is dictated.
The first option requires that man has the faculties to arrive at objective, measurable, knowable GOOD. Man has the ability to observe the world and grasp what he sees. His faculties are sound and under his control. He can fathom cause and context. Man can extrapolate effect and project the outcome and take corresponding effective action. This is the source of all value.
From this foundation, man can grasp that the two questions, “what is GOOD?” and “what is truth?” are the same question. And, of course, the answer is Truth/GOOD gives EVERYTHING value. From this base, man 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 says 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. This depravity disqualifies man’s grasp on reality in every meaningful sense. Man’s depravity drives him towards an inevitable self-destruction that is caused by cosmic forces beyond his every capacity to fathom.
Said bluntly, man is insane.
From this foundation, the logic is simple. Because man is 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 the authorities are Mullahs, the imposed restriction is Sharia Law. If the Catholic Church is the authority, the imposed restrictions are the canons of the Church. If Oliver Cromwell is the authority, the dictate 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 expression of authority and imposed restriction? Good question. Since man is insane, he cannot tell which representative of authority is better than the other. He can make no judgment because insanity prevents him from gravitating toward GOOD.
Does anyone else see the problem with this as the starting place of defining GOOD?
Oops, uh, dumb question. That assumes the insane man reading this blog post can reason. Okay… 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?
The world is full of men claiming to represent THE authority. Which one is right? How does one authority outweigh another authority? If world events are any indication, the answer is whoever is willing to commit the most bloodshed. One authority dictates “GOOD,” all are condemned to embrace the standard–or perish. There is no such thing as an objection because objection is the specific function of deception.
(This is why so many men seeking to rule attack the mind. They attack the mind through guilt. They NEED you compliant. They NEED you to believe you are immoral to defend yourself. )
Notice this: Demagogues of Dictated Good like to pretend they are mere servants of a higher reality as if they are innocent bystanders in the cosmic presentation of truth. As if divine powers hold a celestial draft, SOMEHOW they got saddled with the stewardship of revelation. To misdirect our attention, they like to insist that the revelation is the “authority” and they are mere servants to the revelation. Don’t fall for this intellectual slight of hand. These “mere servants” are really claiming to have a dispensation from insanity that subsequently qualifies them to steward, which really qualifies them to dictate.
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 and then taking subsequent moral action.
How can this be if all men are irreparable moral and intellectual cripples? The next progression for their intellectual hedge goes like this: We are all flawed. Therefore, 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 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 possesses “GOOD.”
Uh…if a man cannot measure his own moral action, how can he measure a Group’s moral proclamation? What, because the group members agree on the definition of GOOD, that makes it so?
Hahahaha….
It is insane to suggest that a GROUP of insane people are qualified to define moral action because they are a Group. This makes the means of “accountability” proximity. The folks in the asylum are not less insane because they are in the same geographic location.
“No, no, no,” you say. “The individuals bring their various strengths to offset the others’ weakness. This offers checks and balances.”
Yeah, this is a rich fiction. First, there is no such thing as a moral or ethical “strength.” Pervasive depravity prevents any such thing. And the very argument shows forth the intellectual fraud by appealing to the very dispensation from insanity I am pointing out.
Second, if authority dictates “GOOD,” there is no need for check and balance. Whatever Authority dictates IS good.
Let us dissect this, because it is important to understand the evasion. If Authority dictates GOOD, what then are we checking? The accuracy of the Authority?
Checking implies the ability to curtail some kind of action. But Authority defines GOOD and dictates action. What action needs to be curtailed? Or maybe, here is the better question: who has the authority to STOP the action? If they had the authority, wouldn’t it be their decree being emulated?
See, here is the rub. 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 at the bullpen is GOOD. If Authority says, “Take from the rich and give to the poor,” then stealing 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 he balance?
Whatever action Authority proscribes is GOOD. There is no just or unjust action as long as the action is in obedience to the authority. So, authority commits no unjust action. Injustice, oppression, exploitation–all assume individual rights; they presume individual freedom. Individual freedom requires an objective standard of free action. And it presumes the capacity to “…observe the 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. 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 his Glory. Even a casual evaluation of Medieval history, the height of Christian governmental collectivism, is replete with examples of tyranny perpetrated by the hands of the collective, corporate, or collegiate leadership.
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…uh…THAT…is insane.
So, this question arises: why would people so openly advocate insane doctrines that relentlessly produce the same outcome of death, disaster, and destruction?
The Gospel according to John Immel 3: 1-3 lays out the path to finding the answer.
1) All people act logically from their assumptions. 2) It does not matter how inconsistent the ideas or insane the rationale, they will act until the logic is fulfilled. 3) Therefore, when you see the masses of people taking the same destructive actions, find the assumptions and you will find the cause.
The reason for the insanity is simple. Those who advocate governing philosophies founded on the human depravity and the subsequent necessity of Dictated Good need you to abandon YOU. They need you to believe you are beyond defense. They need you to believe you have no moral worth to protect. If you will accept this premise, they know you will lay down your greatest tool of freedom. You will abandon thinking.
THAT is why the Demagogues of Dictated Good never give you tools to THINK. Or maybe better said, they will give you tools to think like they do, but diverge for a moment and be accused of spiritual sedition. They must bury your rationale under the unrelenting accusation of heretic to distract from their own crumbling intellectual house of cards.
The moment people start THINKING, they cannot 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.
Thinking defines the insanity. Go and do likewise.
