religion, christianity, articles
elitism, Bill Lockwood, religion, Bible, Christianity, church, God, Christ, Holy Spirit,
Holy Ghost, faith,  Christian, Politics, Roman Catholic, Church of Christ, Baptist,
Catholic, Non-denominational, Methodist, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, National Education Association,
Hillary Clinton, verbal inspiration


By Bill Lockwood

religion, articles, christianity

There is a built­in danger to learning. It is an elitist attitude that frequently becomes part of one's character as advancement is made in scholastic endeavors. To be "elite" is to think too highly of self on the basis that "I am in the know" and my neighbors are not.

Opposing such an outlook is allegiance to King Jesus which causes us to bow to his character building, unity­making command, "[D]oing nothing through faction or through vainglory, but each counting the other better than himself" (Phil. 2:3).

A recent example of this "elitism" is the 1995 "State of the World Forum" sponsored by the Gorbachev Foundation in San Francisco, and attended by a grand gathering of powerful politicians, educators and media moguls. As Mikhail Gorbachev kicked off the sessions he announced, "From the outset I would like to suggest that we consider the establishment of a global Brain Trust to focus on the present and future of our civilization." He went on to insist that "this idea of a Brain Trust can only succeed if endorsed and actively pursued by people who are widely respected as world leaders and global citizens." It is within this atmosphere of self congratulation that Barbara Marx Hubbard wrote regarding population control that we need to "eliminate one­fourth" of the world's population. Not to worry, however, "you are not responsible for this act. We are. We are in charge of God's selection process for planet Earth." Here the "elite" assume to themselves the powers of population­planning - the architects of the world!

On the Educational Scene

The National Education Association mandates what should be done with children, frequently disregarding the wishes of parents. Recent conventions of two national teachers' unions served as forums to promote "big­spending, anti­parent, feminist and homosexual agendas." The NEA, for instance, in September adopted several resolutions which indicate disgust for parental interference with their own children's education. One specific resolution called for "Opposition to federally or state­mandated choice or parental option plans" (AFA Journal, October, 1996, p. 9). Once more, policy­making elitists cannot hide that they believe parents know too little to be entrusted with the education of their offspring.

Far beyond mere public classroom materials, many teachers indoctrinate to revamp attitudes and replace "old" world­views. Listen to James O. Dobbs, long­time stalwart for the gospel and American freedom:

In education ... a widely­accepted epistemology holds that truth can only be approximated, never really known. By this deceit we are placed in the awkward position of never being sure, of never experiencing the strength that comes from a realization of what is right, and thus of being robbed of conviction. This means we can never oppose with confidence what we may believe to be error, that we cannot take strong stands, that we must be forever chained by the silken cables of modulation and appeasement (A Significance For the Individual, published in Vital Speeches of the Day, p. 688, originally delivered to the Graduating Class, Abilene Christian College, May 29, 1961).

On the Familial Scene

Identical haughtiness is easily observed in the "children's rights" movement, in which Hillary Rodham Clinton has been a primary spokesman. When she has called upon our legal system to remove the presumption that children are minors under parental control, she brazenly displayed the same pompous disposition. In effect, her attitude is: "We of government, the educated doctors of law and human behavior, know what is best for you. Just get out of the way and let us manipulate." If one supposes I have overplayed it, consider her own words written in 1974 in which, not merely referring to exceptional cases of child abuse, she argued for a broad­based general rule for all children:

I want to be a voice for America's children ... advocating ... the immediate abolition of the legal status of minority and the reversal of the legal presumption of the incompetence of minors in favor of presumption of competence; the extension to children of all procedural rights guaranteed to adults; the rejection of the legal presumption of the identity of interests between parents and their children, and permission for competent children to assert thoseindependent interests in the courts (Harvard Educational Review, 1974, quoted in the Phyllis Schlafly Report, 10­92).

The first lady continued:

We are talking about everything from compulsory school attendance to driving privileges to nurturing requirements ... decisions about motherhood and abortion, schooling, cosmetic surgery, treatment of venereal disease, or employment, and others where the decision or lack of one will significantly affect the children's future should not be made unilaterally by parents (Teacher's College Press, 1979).

Note Hillary's population­planning by which she would "lord it over" America:

The basic rationale for depriving people of rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves and consequently need social institutions specifically designed to safeguard their position. Along with the family, past and present examples of such arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation system.

As Schlafly comments, "That is vintage 1970s feminism." The ruling elite considers God­ordained marriage as an arrangement kin to slavery which treats wives like second­class citizens. The attitude seems to be, we know what the country needs, in spite of what you plebeian persons say you desire.

On the Religious Scene

Of particular disturbance to Christians is the snubbing of the "ordinary" Christian by the educated class of theologians who seem to enjoy flaunting their Doctor of Divinity degrees. The sin here is particularly egregious, not only because it is in direct violation of the moral code of King Jesus, but it occurs in the place where we least expect it-in religion. And, it is no coincidence that the "doctors and lawyers of God's Word" are typically extremely liberal in their approach to the Bible. But perhaps the most dangerous aspect of grandiose attitudes in religion is that those with advanced educational degrees appear to be under the collective impression that they are beyond prejudice, which is the worst prejudice of all. It is almost as if with educational advancement comes a continual inoculation against the possibility of discovering something amiss in our confusions.

Consider for a moment the first two paragraphs of The Five Gospels, What Did Jesus Actually Say?, edited by Robert Funk, Roy Hoover and the Jesus Seminar:

The Five Gospels represents a dramatic exit from windowless studies and the beginning of a new venture for gospel scholarship. Leading scholars - Fellows of the Jesus Seminar-have decided to update and then make the legacy of two hundred years of research ... a matter of public record.
In the aftermath of the controversy over Darwin's The Origin of the Species, ... American biblical scholarship retreated into the closet. The fundamentalist mentality generated a climate of inquisition that made honest scholarly judgments dangerous. Numerous biblical scholars were subjected to heresy trials.... However, the intellectual ferment of the century soon reasserted itself.... By the end of World War II, critical scholars again quietly dominated the academic scene.... Critical biblical scholarship was supported, of course, by other university disciplines which wanted to ensure that dogmatic considerations not be permitted to intrude into scientific and historical research.

And all of that in only the first two paragraphs! In the business world this would amount to me being called into question for shady financial dealings, then auditing myself to reassure the world of my innocence. The sly seminar has in effect not only cornered the market on honest scholarship - but has labeled conservative dissenters as "dogmatic fundamentalists" who know nothing of "fair­minded" even­handed study.

Those who accept the verbal inspiration of the Scriptures are ruled as prejudiced dogmatists. Sadly, our own academic institutions fall down at these scholarly trumpet blasts to do obeisance. If you wish to be educated in halls of learning by our own brethren, you will be forced, in many institutions, to breathe this stale air of pompous nonsense.

Published February 1997