Does Famous Equal Worthy of Praise
For better or worse, the November 2022 elections are over and the hopes of those running for political leadership are either dashed or realized. Are we satisfied with the outcome? If not, why not? This may not be a bad time to ask ourselves, what does “leadership” mean in our modern age, and perhaps even more to the point, what should leadership mean?
Societal Leadership Today
One only has to look at the current leaders of society, both political and cultural, to see people many who have gained their position for perhaps no other reason than they are rich, famous, and/or beautiful,[i] rather than intelligent, hardworking, and morally upright.[ii] Dishearteningly, it appears that these fleeting characteristics are precisely why so many follow them.[iii]
To encourage this adoration, we endure cheesy elections with all the fanfare and foolishness that surrounds political conventions of either party where those who would rule over us are presented as our humble servants. Yet, the endless stream of viscous attacks, overinflated and mostly false promises, and word games make even a Shakespearean drama seem boring. Experience tells us that no sooner do they don the toga of elected office they, like the Roman senators of old, frequently live lives that are debauched (Matt. 7:16), power hungry (Lk. 22:25), and far removed from the life of the common man whom they promised to serve and protect. Former University of Nevada professor Hans-Hermann Hoppe illustrates this reality well:
The fortunes of great families have dissipated, and their tradition of culture and economic independence, intellectual farsightedness, and moral and spiritual leadership has been forgotten. Rich men still exist today, but more frequently than not they owe their fortune now directly or indirectly to the state. Hence, they are often more dependent on the state’s continued favors than people of far lesser wealth. They are typically no longer heads of long established leading families but nouveaux riches. Their conduct is not marked by special virtue, dignity, or taste but is a reflection of the same proletarian mass-culture of present-orientedness, opportunism, and hedonism that the rich now share with everyone else; consequently, their opinions carry no more weight in public opinion than anyone else’s.[iv]
Hoppe has pointed to the harsh reality that our power elite are those of recent creation through methods unfortunately employed in both the political and business realm: a willingness to be a figure head accountable to the power behind the throne[v] that placed them there to be nothing more than “doorman” that look nice, act nice and say nice things to the public via the media[vi] are the common stock of today’s leadership.[vii]
The Natural Nobility
In opposition to the status quo noted above, Americans should desire a natural elite that would arise from amongst the community based on their character, talents, and abilities. Their performance in the social sphere as benefactors[viii] should also be thoughtfully considered, as Christ Himself preached that this was the true order of leadership that blesses all (Mark 10:42-45). To permit such a seismic shift, our state and federal legal structures must be redesigned so that special interests wither and personal qualities flourish across the “fruited plain” in the way that weeds are controlled so that grain may ripen in the sun and rain.
Thus, we desire an educational[ix] and legal system[x] that will allow for the development of a natural order of occupational leadership that, due to their own virtue, and natural economic ability would rise “naturally” to the top of their community.
In the business realm and other occupational categories we would desire the same thing: experienced economic actors who through hard work, service, and good reputation have risen to the top of their field to be considered the “true experts” among their peers. As Wilhelm Ropke clearly states:
What we need is true nobilitas naturalis. No era can do without it, least of all ours, when so much is shaking and crumbling away. We need a natural nobility whose authority is, fortunately, readily accepted by all men, an elite deriving its title solely from supreme performance and peerless moral example and invested with the moral dignity of such a life. Only a few from every stratum of society can ascend into this thin layer of natural nobility. The way to it is an exemplary and slowly maturing life of dedicated endeavor on behalf of all, unimpeachable integrity, constant restraint of our common greed, proved soundness of judgment, a spotless private life, indomitable courage in standing up for truth and law, and generally the highest example. This is how the few, carried upward by the trust of the people, gradually attain to a position above the classes, interests, passions, wickedness, and foolishness of men and finally become the nation’s conscience. To belong to this group of moral aristocrats should be the highest and most desirable aim, next to which all the other triumphs of life are pale and insipid… no free society, least of all ours, which threatens to degenerate into mass society, can subsist without such a class of censors. The continued existence of our free world will ultimately depend on whether our age can produce a sufficient number of such aristocrats of public spirit.[xi]
How can such a nobilitas naturalis develop? When, and only when mankind is freed from the slavery to sin and its consequent slavery to man so that they may do that which they were created by God to do – steward the owner’s resources (Gen.1:26-28). Man becomes fully human, and thus fully free, when he is delivered from his sin and brought into the family of God (2 Cor. 5:17). In order to permit the fulfillment of their calling as actors in history, (Gen.1:26-28) there must be no interference by individuals, corporations, or governments. This will allow for the natural development of individual talents and abilities on both an individual and corporate level which will allow for the development of civilization that in turn will reflect the talents and abilities of the citizens within it as they attain even higher levels of progress.
It must be affirmed that each individual be viewed as a true sovereign actor in history with the freedom to morally act out his or her stewardship to whatever level they choose as long as they do not interfere with the life, liberty and property of other actors.
I submit that it is only with the understanding of, and an agreement with these foundational principles, that men and women may freely seek to fulfill their purpose on earth before God, and for God, that a truly free and prosperous society can arise and survive. Herein lies the importance of both leadership and a legal system that will protect individuals, their property, and their personal stewardship of both (Romans 13:1-5).
What Must Be Done?
While it perhaps is obvious to say, we must begin somewhere. Such a societal change envisioned will not arise spontaneously. Christians ought to work hard to become members themselves of the nobilitas naturalis, and not “leave it to others.” Winston Churchill, Britain’s great wartime Prime Minister who, while sustaining considerable opposition from even his own party, withstood one of the greatest evils of the twentieth century, is quoted as stating, “The price of greatness is responsibility.”
Great leaders assume that the responsibility to act is theirs. So, what can the man in the street do? He can take care of the greatest responsibility God has ordained for him – to take care to provide the best present and future for his family. Near to the top of any list in this regard is considering the future of one’s children, what world they will inhabit, and how will they live in it. While we work today to change society through our evangelism and our vote, surely, we must also address how our children are being educated.
Starting at the end, so to speak, we should ask ourselves whether the assumptions we have grown up with about the crushing necessity of a college education is valid today.[xii] Universities always seek to prepare their graduates to live in terms of the values they have imbibed while drinking from the institutional fount of knowledge. Parents and students must ask what these values are, and should I want them to be mine?[xiii] The time has come for Christians to lead the way, to decide to play the game differently so that our young people have a chance to be truly educated.[xiv] Changing the rules of the educational “game” will reward families with tangible benefits both financially and morally.
For 50 years now, CLASS has championed a radically different path to societal leadership than most others. We were the first to provide homeschooling parents across the nation and indeed the world, with a curriculum that would not only teach your child to read, write, and count, but also help develop biblical character (Deuteronomy 6:1-7; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4) that is the foundation of all good things in society, especially biblical leadership (Ex.18:19-25).
For real world examples of godly character in men of leadership, see the following books on these famous men and their Christian Faith:
George Washington, by Mary J. Williamson:
https://www.shopchristianliberty.com/life-of-george-washington/
David Livingstone, by C. Silvester Horne:
https://www.shopchristianliberty.com/david-livingstone-man-of-prayer-and-action/
A Worthy Company, by M.E. Bradford:
Of Plymouth Plantation: 1620 – 1647, by William Bradford:
[i]https://mises.org/wire/why-do-western-celebrities-usually-support-collectivism
[ii] “As we move toward the next century, a high proportion of people in the growing cognitive elite have been given little religious or moral education in the family. The commonest religion of the elite is an agnostic humanism. Many such families are themselves split by divorce, remarriage, and subsequent third marriages. The marriage pattern in Hollywood [who produce our “culture” via videos and movies – ERS] is not universal in the United States, but the cognitive elite in Euro-America has a high divorce rate, probably averaging a third or more. The children of these divorced parents seldom have a basic religious education and are aware of the variations of moral attitude between parents, stepparents, and stepsiblings. If one compares the initial moral education of this group with that of an Irish or Polish village, the peasant education obviously provides much the stronger religious training of the two. A godless, rootless, and rich elite is unlikely to be happy or to be loved. This inadequacy in the initial moral education of what will be the dominant economic group of the next century is likely to be reinforced by their life experience. These people will have the discipline of an advanced technical education, of one sort or another, to fit themselves for their new role as the leaders of the new electronic universe. But they will learn from that only some of the moral lessons that have historically been the framework for human social conduct. By the standards of Confucius, Buddha, or Plato (500 B.C.), St. Paul (A.D. 50), or Mahomet (A.D. 600), they may be morally illiterates. They will have been taught the lessons of economic efficiency, the use of resources, the pursuit of money, but not the virtues of humility or self-sacrifice, let alone chastity. Essentially most of them will have been brought up as pagans with a set of values closer to those of the late Roman Republic than to Christianity. Even these values will be highly individualistic, rather than shared. Societies, as we have argued, can only be strong if real moral values are widely shared. The advanced nations are already moving into the situation where many people will hold weak or limited moral values, others will compensate with fierce adherence to irrational values, and few values will be held in common across the whole of society.” James Dale Davidson & Lord Rees-Mogg, The Sovereign Individual, (New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, 1997),p. 367.
[iii] “The return of Western culture to its pagan past bears striking correspondence to the pattern of Toynbee’s typology of mimesis. He was impressed by the universal tendency to pattern cultural and economic institutions after those of other peoples. The direction of the mimesis is crucial. In primitive societies it is directed uncritically toward elders and ancestors. When a civilization is being formed, the mimetic focus shifts to creative people who command a following by reason of their pioneering activities and their accomplishments. One way to evaluate the future of a society is to determine the direction of mimesis. Who admires whom and on what grounds? Who seeks to be more like whom?... At the same time the formerly-dominant civilization begins imitating the various proletariats, the latter cease to emulate those people they formerly regarded as their betters, and return to their own once-despised traditions. In the fourth century, when the barbarians in the Roman armies began keeping their own names instead of adopting those of the Romans, the Romans, including the imperial court, began aping barbarian manners, customs, and dress. Thus, Toynbee endorsed Christopher Dawson’s observation that the mark of a culture’s last stage is not decay but syncretism.” Herbert Schlossberg, Idols For Destruction, (Nashville, TN:Thomas Nelson, 1983), p. 268-9.
[iv] Hans-Herman Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, (New Brunswick, NJ:Transaction Press, 2001), p. 73-74.
[v]https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/who-rules-world-ed-straka/?trackingId=tuZW6QPRAmCuEKzvRhIyxA%3D%3D
[vi]https://mises.org/wire/modern-information-control-state-intervention-and-mistakes-avoid
[vii]https://internationalman.com/articles/the-all-important-doorman/
[viii] But he who is noble plans noble things, and on noble things he stands (Isa.32:8; ESV).
[ix]“Originally, college was supposed to teach students how to think. Robillard and Gordon highlight the contrast of students in the past being taught “to understand the world” and students today “changing the world” well before they know anything about it. In the past, when understanding was the goal, students were taught to make proper definitions of things, to understand their nature, and to form logical conclusions. In other words, they learned philosophy, and not just any postmodern nonsense that passes for philosophy these days, but “the ‘perennial’ philosophy of Aristotle and Saint Thomas Aquinas” that articulated the principles of natural law. For the writers (both of whom are well trained in philosophy), those main principles are (1) “Man, unlike other animals, bears free will to make moral decisions,” (2) “nature is intelligible,” and (3) “nature has a purpose and a goal.” These ideas animate the university and inform all the disciplines in it.
“When Thomism—or, more commonly, the Scholastic tradition that grows out of Thomism and propounds the theory of natural law—ceases to be the predominating philosophy of a university, the university simply ceases to be. This is easy to see in the way courses are taught, many of which have adopted a “neo-Marxist” philosophy: “Thomism is meant to advance actual knowledge, neo-Marxism is meant to advance propaganda, which is true to Marx’s goal of putting change (revolution) above understanding (wisdom).” Whereas one philosophical system espouses the intellect and reason, the other system emphasizes feeling and action. It’s no mystery which one is the easier sell to young adults.” Above quotation taken from online article found here:
https://blog.acton.org/archives/123894-does-college-gets-in-the-way-of-education.html
[x]https://blog.acton.org/archives/123760-natural-law-limits-government-and-arbitrary-power.html
[xi] Wilhelm Ropke, A Humane Economy, (Indianapolis, Ind.: Liberty Fund, 1971), p. 130-131.
[xii]https://blog.acton.org/archives/123894-does-college-gets-in-the-way-of-education.html
[xiii]https://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/08/gary-north/bring-down-the-ruling-elite/
[xiv]https://mises.org/wire/higher-education-crisis-problem-ideological-homogeneity