Christian Elitism

 

For two or three years I listened to a broadcast called, the Whitehorse Inn, a Reformed-minded discussion among four Christian men who occupied positions of leadership in God’s Church. The ‘usual cast of characters’ on this program were: Michael Horton, Rod Rosenbladt, Kim Riddlebarger, and Ken Jones. I enjoyed their work, and benefited from it. I especially liked the following three series that they collaborated on: Recovering Scripture, Christ-less Christianity, and Post-Christian Culture. Their views were solid; their delivery was proficient; their banter was tolerable; their elitism was under the current. 

One day their elitism broke the surface of the current, and its ugliness was exposed to view. It came into view by the mouth, I think, of Michael Horton. It happened during a question and answer period before a live audience. A young lady asked what manual the men turned to for their theological terms or etymological definitions, something like that. The Whitehorse Inn panelist—Michael Horton, I think—answered by giving a political non-answer. It was clear that he didn’t want her—or the rest of us—to know what manual he made such good use of. After he gave his non-answer, she put the question to him in a pointed way that left him no way out. She said something like: “But what is the actual manual that you use because I want one for my own studies.” He would either tell her, or be embarrassed in front of everyone and possibly off the stage. Grudgingly, then, he told her what the manual was. 

I tried to listen to the Whitehorse Inn after that shameful moment of elitism. But I could never get the elitism out of my mind as I listened; after trying a few episodes more, I quit listening completely. 

A leader in God’s Church is supposed to be a teacher, never an elitist, never a cabalist, never mason-like. He should not want to lord it over his listeners as if threatened that someone among them might, by listening or by turning to his own enlightened sources, become as knowledgeable as he is. He should be like Moses, who said, “Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the LORD’s people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit upon them!” (Numbers 11.29.) Not to argue for women holding positions of leadership in God’s Church by quoting this verse to support my protest, but to apply its principle. The sin that Moses reproves Joshua for tempting him with, this he calls ‘envy.’ It was Joshua who envied; but Moses was tempted by Joshua to envy too. The word ‘envy’ means to be zealous in a bad sense. It is bad to be zealous concerning a high station in life, which inevitably involves looking down on others who are not so highly occupied. It is one thing to envy someone for having what you want but do not have, as in Rachel envying her sister for having children (Genesis 30.1.) It surely must be worse to envy someone for his or her potential to have what you have. It must be worse because in this case you want, not merely to equal the status of another, but to deny someone the status that you have. Wanting to keep someone down must be worse than wanting to rise up to where someone is. And where knowledge is concerned, as in the issue between the lady and Michael Horton, the sin of envy is great indeed. The lady was not envious. She wanted the knowledge, understanding, and instruction that Solomon commands us to get. And this is what God commands the leaders in God’s Church to communicate to those who ask for it. These facts are so obvious to any persons who have read the Bible that they are unnecessary to prove by verses or even citations. 

Envy is an ugly thing; it is what love does not do. “Charity envieth not” (1 Corinthians 13.4.) One time I invited an old buddy from Ontario to Alberta and into my apartment so that he could find employment in my city. Once there, he gathered information on a line of work that I also was desirous of looking into. But he refused to share what information he had found. I, like he did, simply wanted a job; he was envious concerning knowledge. Withholding knowledge about work is almost not worth mentioning beside the suppression of a manual that knowledge about sacred things might be gleaned from. 

To support the Whitehorse Inn, listeners were solicited to sign up as Innkeepers, Architects, or Reformers. The Whitehorse Inn’s ‘usual cast of characters’ could not come up with a scheme by which all signers would be accorded a ‘Reformer’ title? The temptation in this pitch was that a listener would be called a ‘Reformer’ if only enough money were given. Anyone with only ‘two mites’ to give would have to be called something less, even though this kind of giver is the kind praised by the Lord (Mark 12.41-44.) And what does exclusive name-calling do but tempt persons to envy? 

It is interesting and revealing that only the term Innkeeper evokes the blue-collar worker, which is the one that is given the lowest station in the scheme. Sixteenth century Reformers did not look down on low stations in life, but wanted the plowboy to know as much as the man in Oxford or Cambridge knew. The best of them, at least, were not elitists. “I had rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God, than to dwell in the tents of wickedness” (Psalm 84.10.) I do not say that the Whitehorse panelists dwell in the tents of wickedness; but the verse lacks sense if quoted in part. It is more than okay, says the Bible, to be an innkeeper, even though at the Whitehorse Inn it is the lowest place.     

The Whitehorse Inn is not necessary in the age of digital abundance. Puritan sermons and Puritan books may be accessed by anyone who desires the virtues that Solomon advises everyone to obtain. Given the meticulousness of Puritan material, it is evident that these holy giants did not begrudge anyone the acquisition of knowledge. They were not envious. They were not Christian elitists. The Whitehorse Inn table-talkers could confess their elitism, turn away from it, and what Christian would not believe in God blessing them for it? If it has not happened yet, I hope that it will. Their show, if they still do it, could do a lot more good than they realize because sound theology, which is what they broadcast, is not popular, but perennially necessary. Their show is not necessary; but sound theology is; and it might as well come through them as through anyone.