In Tucker Carlson's recent interview with Bob Lighthizer, the two both lamented the destruction of the middle class and hearkened back to the days when a robust middle class made for a healthy egalitarianism. Much as I share their hope for a restoration of the middle class in America, I was struck by the choice of this word "egalitarian" to characterize it. As the culture comes to terms with the distinction, along an egalitarian spectrum, between equity (which simply means fairness, but which has recently been defined in communistic terms as equality of outcome) and equal opportunity, some light needs to be shed on that which stands apart from the egalitarian, that which we often rush to associate with the so-called elite, a term that has its etymological has roots in the idea of election, selection, uniqueness. That leap to an erroneous conclusion, to be clear, amounts to a thoughtless assumption that the "elite" are somehow chosen for or destined to such privilege such by virtue of (1) merit, (2) wealth, and/or (3) influence, when, in fact, they are often more easily distinguished by either their perceived lack of and lust for one or more of these. So, my aim here is not to argue for the legitimacy of the "elite," and certainly not according to these secular, worldly, temporal, human categories.
On the other hand, scripture and theology have spoken for millennia of God's "election," his "calling" to service, his choice of certain people to bear certain responsibilities. This divine election does not make such people "elite," as such. Jesus warned his disciples that unbelievers lord it over one another, but it is not to be that way among his followers. Rather, they are to be servants to one another. Centuries earlier, Moses was described as the humblest of men, and yet he and Aaron were attacked by the Korahites for the uniqueness of their elect position as God's chosen spokesmen, which offended what I have elsewhere called Korah's "hyper-egalitarianism." (See Numbers 16; see also my exegetical essay on "Numbers 12," in Waste Not the Fragments: A Commentary for Year D: Advent). But, as we have said, Moses was not set apart from the people by way of his privilege or arrogance, for he was actually outstanding for his humility. Whatever privileges fell to him as a result of his calling were not the cause of his election, but a gift enabling him to fulfill his responsibilities. As Paul says in 1Corinthians, the members of the church have different gifts, though it is the same Spirit who gives and activates these gifts in the members as they exercise their vocation, the same Spirit who unites the church as the body of Christ (1Cor 12).
The Corinthian church was a divided mess because so many people were all jockeying for elite status based on what they assumed was the superiority of their spiritual gifts, their wealth, etc. Korah, by contrast, tried to homogenize the people entirely and failed to honor God's right to call whom he chose to particular service and — wow! — what a disaster befell Korah and those whom he enlisted in his hyper-egalitarian rebellion. But how much worse is it to think of oneself as "elite" — quite apart from God, quite apart from any sense of "vocation," responsibility, or gratitude to God — by virtue of purely worldly categories (wealth, status, privilege, power, education, esthetics) that simply inflate the ego.
All of this is simply to say that, if the middle class is going to indeed see a renaissance (and I hope it will) and if the secular elite — globalists and the most calculating exploiters of the gargantuan graft machine that is currently being exposed for all the world to see — are to receive an overdue corrective that may even offer some hope for their improvement, I hope that any attendant revival of egalitarianism will not eclipse the crucial need to respect and honor God's "election" of some to divine vocation, because the alternative — as Korah's descent into the abyss attests — would be disastrous.
On the other hand, what blessings arise when honor is given to whom honor is due.
