I have written previously in life about the difference, biblically speaking, between "election," which is of grace and unconditional, and "selection," which is where a thing is chosen because it is better than others things in the group of things (as when I select a melon at the store from among the several melons, upon the basis of my judgment of which is best). However, in this research paper we will observe how Paul in his Corinthian epistles contrasted God's elect with the world's elite.
The social and cultural world in which the Corinthians lived in the first century is not any different in our day as respects the world's standard for judging "status" or "class" in society, whether one is "elite" or "slave" (or as in India's "untouchables" or in the non elite). When we think of the "social elite," the "high born" or "noble," what qualities or assets set them apart or characterize them? Likewise, those who are not elite, what is their status and character? These are the very kinds of questions that the apostle Paul, by the Spirit's inspiration, will seek to answer in his first epistle to the ancient Corinthians.
Let us begin by defining "elite." Wrote one source:
"An elite is a relatively small group of people with the highest status in a society, or in some domain of activity, who have more privileges or power than other people due to their status. Elitism is believing in or promoting this sort of arrangement, whether that be in the academic world, politics, art, sports, or anywhere else. The word elite was originally French for ‘select’ or ‘chosen’ and comes from the same Latin root, eligere, as elect." (See philosophy terms)
Today, as in the first century, we have "academic elites," and "Hollywood elites," and "Sports elites," etc. Notice too how "elite" is closely associated with "elect." When I was in one of my advanced Sociology classes in college I recall the professor walking into class one day and asking - "has anyone ever heard of the concept of the elect?" I recall that I was the only person to raise my hand! Of course, I was thinking more of the religious concept of "elect" while she was thinking of the social concept. Let me also add that these two concepts are not mutually exclusive, and certainly not so in Corinthian society where religious thought is intertwined with social and political thought.
Our source continues:
"In socio-political philosophy elitism is the belief that societies must or should be ruled by an elite, and theorists of elitism study how the elite gain and maintain their status, and what they get for it." (ibid)
Who is destined to rule the world? Well, ultimately, it is "God's elect." So Paul says to the Corinthians - "do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world?" (6: 2) Yet, the saints (God's elect) do not rule the world now. Rather, the world's own chosen and elite are now ruling and reigning. But, of these things we will say more later. Let us return to the definition of "elite" and "elitism." Under "The History of Elitism" our source says (emphasis mine):
"We know enough about our ancient past to be able to say that most ancient civilizations, once they were big enough to have cities, had elitism. Human civilizations have always had power relatively concentrated in the hands of a few, and the elite have often received that status from parentage and wealth, although with many exceptions; at times, the strongest, smartest, or boldest individuals have been able to raise themselves to elite status. In some societies priests, intellectuals, and/or artists have had the potential to gain elite status, although usually only in cooperation with the political and economic elite. In any case, although there have been scattered anti-elitist voices throughout human history, elitism has been a relatively unquestioned and universal feature of human societies until the past few hundred years." (ibid)
Notice that "elitism" has been around since the dawn of human communities. Ancient Corinth was a big and important city at the time of Paul's ministry there.
Sociologist speak of "social mobility" which deals with how people may move within a "class system." Its definition is as follows:
"Social mobility, movement of individuals, families, or groups through a system of social hierarchy or stratification. If such mobility involves a change in position, especially in occupation, but no change in social class, it is called “horizontal mobility.” An example would be a person who moves from a managerial position in one company to a similar position in another. If, however, the move involves a change in social class, it is called “vertical mobility” and involves either “upward mobility” or “downward mobility.” An industrial worker who becomes a wealthy businessman moves upward in the class system; a landed aristocrat who loses everything in a revolution moves downward in the system." (Britannica - see here)
Notice that "mobility involves a change in position." Think of the "change of status" or "social mobility" that occurred to the Corinthians when they became Christians! They became children of God! Born of nobility, yea, born of God! What a change of position! But, more on that later.
Again, we have these scholarly words:
"Perhaps the most controversial debate concerning elitism, is whether it is the best thing for everyone in a society. Throughout human history, most people have believed that the elite ruled by right; that they deserved to be the elite, and had better personal qualities than the rest of us, whether that was supposed to be because of the families they came from, because they were chosen by God, or because they competed for their status with superior strength or intelligence. This idea was not often questioned before the past 400 years and remains a common belief today. In Asia, even more than America, people tend to believe that the leaders of powerful corporations are superior human beings who have rightfully earned their privileges. But even if you reject heredity and God as sources of elite status, you may believe that the people who are raised in the best environments and receive the best educations are going to end up most qualified to wield power."(ibid)
"Those who argue in favor of elitism on a rational basis, usually make two main claims: That the existence of some kind of elite is necessary for a successful society, and That it is better for all of us if people with superior breeding, intelligence, and education have that elite status; because they will make the best decisions anyone could make. Those who argue against elitism also make two claims: That power corrupts; that elite groups will always use their power for selfish ends, rather than doing the best for the rest of us, and That it would be possible to run a healthy society without elite privilege if people of all different types were cared for, educated, and empowered properly." (ibid)
Next, our source cites these words from Winston S. Churchill:
"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Yes, but we could also say of some cases - "the best argument against rule by elite few is a five minute conversation with them," meaning that the world's elite are rarely humble, generally snobbish, and condescending in their demeanor with inferiors. The "ruling elite" are too often drunk with pride and hubristic bullying, and humiliation of inferiors, and of the weak, poor, and uneducated.
Further, just who decides who is superior? There are generally many elite. Do they decide among themselves who rules? Who becomes the elite of the elite, or super elite? Or, do the masses democratically decide which of the elite or superiors do the ruling?
Wrote one writer:
"Elect is a related term of elite. Elite is a related term of elect. As adjectives the difference between elite and elect is that elite is of high birth or social position...As nouns the difference between elite and elect is that elite is a special group or social class of people which have a superior intellectual, social or economic status as, the elite of society while elect is one chosen or set apart." (From "Elite vs Elect - What's the difference?" here)
The Greek (or Roman) standard for determining character and social status is what Paul and the sacred writers would call a worldly or depraved human standard. The criteria used to judge a man's worth and destiny is different for the world than it is for God (or for Paul or for scripture). In the next chapter we will take up that part of our subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment