Men of Words

tb 001 “The men of words are of diverse types. They can be priests, scribes, prophets, writers, artists, professors, students and intellectuals in general… Whatever the type, there is a deep-seated craving common to almost all men of words which determines their attitude to prevailing order. It is a craving for recognition; a craving for a clearly marked status above the common run of humanity.”

~Eric Hoffer

“Mass movements do not usually rise until the prevailing order has been discredited. The discrediting is not an automatic result of the blunders and abuses of those in power, but the deliberate work of men of words with a grievance. Where the articulate are absent or without a grievance, the prevailing dispensation, though incompetent and corrupt, may continue in power until it falls and crumbles of itself.” (“The True Believer”, by Eric Hoffer, HarperCollins Publishing, New York, pg. 130)

Here Hoffer is describing the climate of a society before a mass movement begins, but I think we can also apply this statement to a mass movement that has passed its “dynamic stage” but the original fanatical leadership has not yet stepped down, and is in fact doing damage to the movement. The men of words can rise up again at this stage in the movement, inspiring the masses to change the leadership to a practical man of action.

“The preliminary work of undermining existing institutions, of familiarizing the masses with the idea of change, and of creating receptivity to a new faith, can be done only by men who are, first and foremost, talkers or writers and are recognized as such by all. As long as the existing order functions in a more or less orderly fashion, the masses remain basically conservative. They can think of reform but not of total innovation. The fanatical extremist, no matter how eloquent, strikes them as dangerous, traitorous, or even insane. They will not listen to him…

“Things are different in the case of the typical man of words. The masses listen to him because they know that his words, however urgent, cannot have immediate results. The authorities either ignore him or use mild methods to muzzle him. Thus imperceptibly the man of words undermines established institutions, discredits those in power, weakens prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and sets the stage for the rise of a mass movement.” (pp. 130-131)

Again, even after the movement has begun and has been running for several years, the men of words can do the same thing to the established authority of whomever started the movement. As shown in my last article about Hoffer’s book, the most important people to the leadership of a mass movement are the lieutenants. It is these lieutenants that can and should be swayed by the man of words if one wants to see a change in leadership.

What is a man of words like?

“There is apparently an irremediable insecurity at the core of every intellectual (man of words), be he noncreative or creative. Even the most gifted and prolific seem to live a life of eternal self-doubting and have to prove their worth anew each day.

“‘…he has much more vanity than ambition; and he prefers consideration to obedience, and the appearance of power to power itself. Consult him constantly, and then do just as you please. He will take more notice of your deference to him than of your actions.’ (Hoffer quotes Alexis de Tocqueville, Recollections [New York: Macmillan Company, 1896], pg. 331.)” (pp. 132-133)

The man of words is fickle, pledging loyalty to whomever will give him an ear.

“However much the protesting man of words sees himself as the champion of the downtrodden and injured, the grievance which animates him is, with very few exceptions, private and personal. His pity is usually hatched out of his hatred for the powers that be.” However, “When his superior status is suitably acknowledged by those in power, the man of words usually finds all kinds of lofty reasons for siding with the strong against the weak.” (pp. 133-134)

“It is easy to see how the faultfinding man of words, by persistent ridicule and denunciation, shakes prevailing beliefs and loyalties, and familiarizes the masses with the idea of change. What is not so obvious is the process by which the discrediting of existing beliefs and institutions makes possible the rise of a new fanatic faith.

“The genuine man of words himself can get along without faith in absolutes. He values the search for truth as much as truth itself. He delights in the clash of thought and in the give-and-take of controversy.” (pp. 139-140)

But, the future that the man of words hopes for, a society of free thinking people, is usually not what comes. Rather, what is created is a “corporate society that cherishes utmost unity and blind faith.” (pg. 139)

“The tragic figures in the history of a mass movement are often the intellectual precursors (the men of words) who live long enough to see the downfall of the old order by the action of the masses.” (pg. 141)

A Conflict of Visions (Book Overview)

“A Conflict of Visions” was written by economist/philosopher Thomas Sowell.

Here is the description from Amazon:

In this classic work, Thomas Sowell analyzes the two competing visions that shape our debates about the nature of reason, justice, equality, and power: the “constrained” vision, which sees human nature as unchanging and selfish, and the “unconstrained” vision, in which human nature is malleable and perfectible. He describes how these two radically opposed views have manifested themselves in the political controversies of the past two centuries, including such contemporary issues as welfare reform, social justice, and crime.

Here are some of my notes on the book:

Part I ~ Patterns

Our visions shape our theories — visions can not be tested, they are presuppositional, and they tend to be simple.
Our theories can be tested by facts. Facts can not prove theories, but facts do cause us to disregard bad theories.

The Constrained Vision

There are realities about this world that can not be changed. Therefore, rather than wasting time and effort trying to change them, one needs to learn to work within them.
One needs to learn to make the most of the possibilities available within the constraints of reality.
The constrained vision deals in trade-offs — choosing the better option and accepting that there are no ideal options.
When there are people suffering in this world through poverty, war, etc., some would want you to continuously feel bad (or guilty) for those who are suffering — your guilt = their suffering. Thus you will be motivated to help them. The constrained vision says that it is useless for you to continuously “feel” their suffering (and it is unnatural as well) — better to embrace your natural inclination for self-improvement.
Facts = Reality
Virtue = the best possible trade-off/prudence
Your desire for self-improvement forces you to work with and for the benefit of others. Thus, as people work to improve their own lives, they end up working to improve the lives of others — the world becomes better for all people. This improvement is unintentional, but it does happen, and it happens without a human power to plan it.
The leaders need to be educated “down to” the level of the masses.
Self-interest is a better motivator than guilt and it has better results for the suffering too.
People’s selfish desire for self-improvement motivates them to get the job done — this is better than depending a person’s disposition for their motivation.
“Do right because it is in your best interest” rather than “Do right because you know it’s the right thing to do.”

The Unconstrained Vision

We can change the world for the better.
We can change human nature if only: The right people were in charge; The right institutions were created; People were educated properly; etc…
Whereas the Constrained Vision says that bad institutions are a result of flawed humanity, the Unconstrained Vision says that bad institutions are the cause of flawed humanity.
We can feel other people’s needs as well as our own (if not better).
Self-interest is the negative result of bad institutions.
There are individuals who are intelligent enough to know how to fix all our problems, and these individuals should be given the power to do so, even if it causes suffering and limited freedom for the masses.
The masses need to be educated “up to” the level of the leaders.
Idealism = Reality
Virtue = Final solutions to problems
An institution’s intentional benefits to society are the greatest virtue. Unintentional benefits to society are not acknowledged. We can always know what is good/bad for society and why that is so, and plan accordingly.

Note: The way in which Sowell uses the word vision, the word world-view could be used as well.

Note: Constrained Vision does not necessarily equal Conservative while Unconstrained Vision equals Liberal (although that seems to be the norm). One can be a Constrained Conservative or an Unconstrained. For example: a Constrained Conservative would not want to send troops into Iraq as the cost of human life and military resources would be too great for an unpredictable outcome, whereas an Unconstrained Conservative would want to send in troops believing that they could create a successful democracy in Iraq. Or, a Constrained Liberal, although wanting a large government, wants governmental power to be spread out through several government departments, whereas an Unconstrained Liberal wants an “all-knowing” leader to have sovereign control over the decisions affecting society.

Note: Nobody holds 100% to one vision and 0% to the other. There are various degrees between of course. Sowell himself clearly holds to the Constrained Vision.

Knowledge ~ The Constrained Vision

No one person, or small group of individuals, knows enough to make good decisions for society (or even for himself).
The collective knowledge of the culture and its history is best for making decisions.
Even if we don’t know why what is best is best, we can trust the experience of history and can still benefit.
We should be slow to criticize the cultural norms of our society as these norms are built on the experience of millions of people both in the past and in the present.
Defects in society are not in themselves reason for radical change — rational small adjustments over time will give us the best possible options for the future.

Knowledge ~ The Unconstrained Vision

Nothing is sacred just because its old.
Wisdom of the ages = ignorance of today
Old = untrustworthy
Reason and meditation is better than partially explained (or unexplained) historical collective wisdom.
People who hold to old traditional views need to be enlightened before any progress can be made in society.
If history’s collective wisdom is represented by a-x (x being today’s constrained generation; y being today’s unconstrained generation), x is ignorant because a-w is obsolete and irrelevant now.
Whereas with the Constrained Vision a-w is so ingrained into our minds we can’t always explain the wisdom or benefits of it, the Unconstrained Vision only considers y as having the proper knowledge to advance society.
y is the wisdom in the hands of a select few who must then lead society.

Knowledge ~ Reason and Rationality

There are two “kinds” of reason: A) cause and effect; scientific method — B) to justify one’s actions.
In the Constrained Vision A and B are far apart, whereas in the Unconstrained Vision, A and B are closer together.
Constrained Vision: We don’t always know why things are the way they are.
Unconstrained Vision: We know why things are the way they are and we should be able to specify those reasons.
Religion: God is unconstrained while humans are constrained.
Law: With the Constrained Vision laws are something passed down to us by previous generations, and with the Unconstrained Vision laws are seen as something to be invented afresh today.
Sowell quotes Hayek: “The most dangerous state in the growth of civilization may well be that in which man has come to regard all these (old) beliefs as superstitions and refuses to accept or to submit to anything which he does not rationally understand. The rationalist whose reason is not sufficient to teach him those limitations of the power of conscious reason, and who despises all the institutions and customs which have not been consciously designed, would thus become the destroyer of the civilization built upon them.” (F.A. Hayek, The Counter Revolution of Science: Studies on the Abuses of Reason [Indianapolis: Liberty Press, 1979], pp. 162-163.)

Knowledge ~ Social Policy

The Unconstrained Vision wishes to see more economic and social equality among the masses — even if the decision making process to produce that equality is itself unequal –> equality imposed by an unequal power structure.
The Constrained Vision is not so much concerned with societal inequality as it is with inequality in the power structure.
In regards to social planning, with the Constrained Vision, each individual sticks to what he is specialized in and allows the systemic process to determine social outcomes. When each person does his/her part (fulfills his/her role) the systemic process functions normally. If you’re a physicist, stick to physics. If you’re a carpenter, stick to carpentry. You will only corrupt the system if you get involved in areas in which you have no knowledge or experience.
In regards to social planning with the Unconstrained Vision, each person needs to act in ways which they feel will promote equality in all of society. If you’re a business owner, hire people who you feel are at a disadvantage. If you’re a teacher, bring up social issues in your class which you feel the students should be aware of, such as gender equality.
The Constrained Vision sees individuals, for example businessmen, as being unqualified to make decisions for the greater society. The businessman can best serve society by doing what he knows how to do for his own self-interest — the benefits to society will come through the systemic process. If he tries to “fix” society intentionally, he will only do damage.

Knowledge ~ Sincerity Vs. Fidelity

Sincerity is imperative in the Unconstrained Vision. Each individual must be sincere and sincerity = being right.
With the Constrained Vision, sincerity = believing what you’re doing is right. But you may not be right. (Hitler was very sincere.) With the Constrained Vision, fidelity is a virtue –> faithful commitment to one’s role in life within the sphere of one’s competence. Sincerity is not that important.
For example: A constrained judge is loyal to the existing law; an unconstrained judge sincerely wants to change the law for the “greater good”.
Because sincerity is held at such a high regard in the Unconstrained Vision, the sincerity of one who holds to the Constrained Vision is looked on suspiciously — “What are his real motives?” Whereas those who hold to the Constrained Vision are much less concerned with sincerity as the societal system is so complex that even the most sincere person can still be mistaken.
“The first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie.” (Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis [New York: Oxford University Press, 1954], pg. 96).

Knowledge ~ Youth and Age

Constrained: Wisdom is of the older. Prudence is of the wise.
Unconstrained: Youth are unstained by the past prejudices and therefore are more capable of embracing new and better ideas.

Social Processes

Order and design –> some processes are more ordered than others –> Like a wild growing of vegetation versus a planned garden.

Social Processes ~ The Constrained Vision

There is no designer, but yet the processes work.
Like language — A language can be created, but a created language will be no where near the complexity of an evolved language.
Dictionaries of “true” languages are written after the language has developed. While dictionaries of made-up languages are written before.
Language does change over time, but this is not done quickly or under the design of a “master planner”.
Individuals plan for themselves, but no authority plans for the masses.
Social processes, then, evolve on their own over time as millions of individuals make decisions throughout their lives and throughout the generations.

Social Processes ~ The Unconstrained Vision

We can design, like an engineer, social processes which will work.
One starts engineering the social processes by figuring out society’s needs, then one assembles all the relative facts, and then solutions can be found and planned for.
We can predict the outcome of our plans like in science.
Properly educated people can/must make these plans.

Social Processes ~ Time

With the Unconstrained Vision, the social decisions (concerning liberty, government, law, etc.) of the past generations limit the benefits of the present and the future, therefore flexibility is most desired in the ability to change past commitments as new information becomes available. Each current social decision to be made must be approached as if for the first time. Past decisions/commitments for the same issue need not be considered as the information they had in the past was less than what exists today.
The Constrained Vision asks these questions: Just how much more information (knowledge, rationality) do we really have now than before? What is the cost to society when making “moment to moment” decisions?
Where the belief is held that knowledge increases greatly over time, people tend to want to change things more quickly. In contrast, where the belief is held that knowledge increases slowly over time (or not at all in regards to rationality or wisdom — a growth in scientific or technological knowledge does not mean a society is growing wiser) the people tend to resist change and stay committed to past decisions.
Elsewhere, Sowell give these three questions to ask when about to make a change: Compared to what? At what cost? What is your hard evidence? He says that most liberal arguments are dispelled by these three questions.
Constrained Vision: Society runs better when there are rules applied to everyone, which everyone knows, and were decided on over time.
Unconstrained Vision: Rules are decided upon as relative issues come up based on their merit right now.
Constrained Vision: Right or wrong/for better or for worse, I am a citizen of my country first.
Unconstrained Vision: I am a citizen of the world first, country second.
Constrained Vision: A nation evolves slowly over time — to take it apart destroys it — it can not be put back together again in a different way.
Unconstrained Vision: We can build a nation how we want — take apart the building blocks — and put them together another way.
From the book: With the Constrained Vision, “…the incremental gain in individual knowledge by avoiding commitments is trivial, compared to the accumulated experience of the society.” (pg. 82)

** I’m not going to finish overviewing this book. It’s too much. Just buy it and read it yourself.**

***

No Bad Trees in the Garden

God put two special trees in the garden. The “Tree of Life” and the “Tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil.” Adam was allowed to eat of any tree as much as he wanted, but he could not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Why then did God put that tree in the garden? Some would say, “Well, God wanted to give Adam free will and the ability to choose to be evil. And, God wanted to know if Adam really loved Him, and He couldn’t have known that unless Adam had a choice to not love Him.”

That’s a good Sunday school answer, but it makes God sound like somebody’s insecure girlfriend. “Adam, sometimes I just don’t know if you love me anymore!” Also, if that reason is the only reason, then the tree could have simply been called the “Tree of the knowledge of Evil” since Adam already knew good–in fact, that’s all he knew.

But the tree was called the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps a better way to say it would be “the tree of being able to discern the difference between good and evil.” Being able to discern the difference between good and evil is called wisdom. If we could only choose a select few in our societies to have this wisdom, who would we choose? Our leaders of course.

In Canada, our leaders have declared that gay marriage and abortion are good things. They have lost their ability to discern the difference between good and evil. What is clearly a hateful thing in God’s eyes has been declared a “right to happiness” in our government’s eyes.

In the bible you will see that the great kings and leaders were also great judges. Solomon was known among the nations for his wisdom, a wisdom that allowed him to discern good from evil. The whole book of Proverbs is a laying out of what is good and what is evil. At the beginning of the book of Judges, we see that everyone was doing what was right in their own eyes. That’s why God sent in the judges–to discern good from evil. When ever a king lost this wisdom, the whole nation suffered.

Nebuchadnezzar was a great king. In his vision of the statue he was the head of gold–the greatest of all the empires to follow. He had another vision where he was a great tree. All the peoples took shade under his branches. What was that tree in his vision? It was the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The wisdom to discern good from evil is given to kings.

It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
~Proverbs 25:2

You’ll notice that with the Old Covenant (the law and the Mosaic priesthood) it was all about bread. The bread of life. But when Jesus came to establish the New Covenant He added something more: wine. And while the bread stayed, the emphasis was placed on the wine.

And He took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is My body which is given for you; do this in remembrance of Me.”
Likewise He also took the cup after supper, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you.”
~Luke 22:19-20

He said the cup was the New Covenant, not the bread. Wine is a symbol of maturity. It takes time to prepare good wine. And while you can give a child plenty of bread, you won’t give him wine. The bread of life and the wine of maturity. The Old Covenant (the bread) prepared the way, and Jesus (the wine) brought the covenant to maturity. Jesus is King.

Back to the garden. The tree of life was the bread. The tree of knowledge of good and evil was the wine. Adam was called to be king. But he was not ready to be king right at the beginning. He needed to mature first. If Adam had obeyed God, the time would have come where God would have said, “Adam, you are ready to be king. You may now eat of the tree of knowledge.” But instead, Adam took a short cut, and in doing so forfeited his ability to eat of both trees.

Jesus Christ was called to be king also. When He was tempted in the desert by Satan, He was being tempted to take a short cut. Satan offered Him all the nations. Did Satan have the ability to give Jesus the nations? Absolutely. Satan had authority over all the nations except Israel. But Jesus did not give in. Instead, He bound the strong man and took the authority from Satan through His death and resurrection.

Jesus is the second Adam. Where Adam fell short, Jesus conquered. And now, we who believe, can rule as kings with Him, being brought into maturity by His blood.

Take Over the World for the Glory of God

Right at the beginning of creation, humanity received from God what could easily be called our first “Great Commission”.

God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
~Genesis 1:28 NASB

“Take over the world for the glory of God” is basically what we’re commanded to do.

Skip ahead to Babel and read what the people’s two reasons were for building the tower:

They said, “Come, let us build for ourselves a city, and a tower whose top will reach into heaven, and let us make for ourselves a name, otherwise we will be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth.”
~Genesis 11:4 NASB

They wanted to make for themselves a name (above God’s name and for their own glory), and they did not want to be scattered abroad; which is exactly what they were commanded to do: “…fill the earth, and subdue it”.

So, God scattered them. God scattered them by using different languages to cause division.

Right after the Babel story we are introduced to Abram, later to be named Abraham, the father of many. Starting with Abraham, God enters into a covenant with the Hebrew people, and for many hundreds of years, deals only with these people.

Did the Church exist in the Old Testament, or was that some different dispensation? Absolutely the Church existed in the Old Testament. Israel was the Old Testament Church; they were also of the same ethnicity. All those who were saved in the Old Testament were saved by the person and work of Jesus Christ. The animal sacrifices and the temple were types and shadows.

The old system under the law of Moses was only a shadow, a dim preview of the good things to come, not the good things themselves. The sacrifices under that system were repeated again and again, year after year, but they were never able to provide perfect cleansing for those who came to worship.
~Hebrews 10:1 NLT

Now we can jump ahead to Pentecost.

At the beginning of the book of Acts, Jesus gives the Great Commission.

“…but you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be My witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and even to the remotest part of the earth.”
~Acts 1:8 NASB

And this is what happened when they were filled with the Holy Spirit:

When the day of Pentecost had come, they were all together in one place. And suddenly there came from heaven a noise like a violent rushing wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them tongues as of fire distributing themselves, and they rested on each one of them. And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance.

Now there were Jews living in Jerusalem, devout men from every nation under heaven. And when this sound occurred, the crowd came together, and were bewildered because each one of them was hearing them speak in his own language.
~Acts 2:1-6 NASB

The miracle of Pentecost was not that they spoke with other tongues. The miracle of Pentecost was that all the people present, from “every nation under heaven”, heard “the mighty deeds of God” (Acts 2:11) spoken to them in their own languages.

At Pentecost God used different languages to bring the people together.

At Pentecost God did the reverse of what He did at Babel.

Where as before God was only dealing with the Jewish people, now God was opening His arms to the gentiles as well.

The miracle of Pentecost was not that God was creating the Church in some new dispensation. The miracle of Pentecost was that God was taking the gentile nations and grafting them into the Church, which already existed as Israel, the true Israel.

Now reread the Great Commission as stated in Matthew:

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.”
~Matthew 28:18-20 NASB

“Take over the world for the glory of God.”

The Great Lake of Beer

I should like a great lake of beer to give to God. 
I should like the angels of Heaven to be tippling there for all eternity. 
I should like the men of Heaven to live with me, to dance and sing. 
If they wanted I’d put at their disposal vats of suffering .
White cups of love I’d give them with a heart and a half. 
Sweet pitchers of mercy I’d offer to every man. 
I’d make heaven a cheerful spot, 
Because the happy heart is true. 
I’d make men happy for their own sakes. 
I should like Jesus to be there too. 
I’d like the people of heaven to gather from all the parishes around. 
I’d give a special welcome to the women,
 The three Marys of great renown. 
I’d sit with the men, the women of God, 
There by the great lake of beer 
We’d be drinking good health forever, 
And every drop would be a prayer.

~Saint Brigid of Ireland(?) b. 453 AD