We are assaulted daily by globalist terror fronts like the WHO, whose leader continues to call for a “more aggressive response to anti-vaxxers”. Or the WEF, which tells us that humanity can only be saved from climate catastrophe if 7 out of every 8 humans now living are destroyed. Or the UN, which tells that we must abandon our nationhood and traditions, rejecting the freedom and prosperity that springs from holding personal property, in favour of a dispossessed existence in which all but the elites “will own nothing, and be happy”. In each case, these atheistic, neo-Marxist, anti-human policies relating to health, economics, food, energy, religion, and our very survival as a species, are all based upon exalted opinions of the modern elite class of high priests—more commonly known as ‘experts’. Indeed, to an increasing degree, it is under the yoke of their distortion of truth and reality that we now labour, and from which we must at all events extricate ourselves.
One has to actually be receptive to hard truth and logic for much of it to take root. Many politicians today tout the importance of following so-called experts in setting policy, seemingly without question. It is right to point out that it was the very path charted by such experts who got us where we are now, and then began an offensive wrapped around concept of common sense. This highlights one of the defining aspects of what our governance was supposed to be: an expression of the will and wisdom of the citizenry and not that of a select, self-appointed ‘elite’.
This rule of experts is rooted in the Progressive Era of the late 1800’s and early 20th century. Reformers and academics in the West disdained legal guardrails and railed for more central planning, with authority placed into the hands of specialists. This simple rootstock has grown into not just a huge tree, but an entire forest, an expansive administrative state with branches touching every aspect of our lives.
This chosen breed of experts is insulated from the results of any policies created and forced upon the people originally intended to collectively sit above them. The different pods in this bureaucratic labyrinth are directed by an almost faceless gang of government ghouls, who rise to their positions with little real world experience or responsibility. Anthony Fauci is a classic example: a lifelong bureaucrat who joined government fresh out of medical college, who overruled the experience of eminent doctors who had been face-to-face with patients for decades.
We must choose the correct path when confronted by such experts by invoking common sense. Despite all of the theorists and leftist pundits, conservatism is nothing else but common sense. Indeed, this is the main slogan used by Pierre Polliviere and his CPC. It is the retention and application of what works—also known as ‘conservatism’, by which we seek to preserve what is valuable, what is beautiful, and most of all, what is true.
The government was not established to direct our lives; it was instead founded to secure our liberty. All of the justice, domestic tranquility, common defense, and general welfare was for the sake of liberty. That liberty says that individuals have the right to make decisions guiding our own lives and the society we share. Each of us is the expert on our own lives and its direction, so long as the rights of our neighbours are respected.
Experts have their place. We all need advice from time to time about different matters. From a doctor, a lawyer, an accountant, an engineer, a scientist, a teacher, or a stock broker. Their role is to consult—not to rule. All of us consult experts occasionally; but if the relationship is proper, we can either accept their opinion or reject it. We might even seek a second opinion, and a third.
Another example would be the relationship between our military and the Executive Branch, or at least the way it was intended. The civilian, democratically elected authority is supposed to have the final word. Generals and Admirals are experts—hopefully—but the final say must be with the civilian commander-in-chief. War is too cruel and important to be left entirely to those who might relish it. The same is true of government.
Those entrusted to operate government are to be selected not according to the letters after their names, but by the trust they establish with the governed. Hence the need for secure and fair elections. Advanced degrees to do not necessarily bring wisdom. As King Solomon writes:
Our original system is intended to say that those with dirty shirts and muddy boots can have wisdom, which is the most essential element of any decision. Enough to form the direction of not just our own lives, but that of the nation we choose to call ‘home’.
Have we finally arrived at the place where a wisdom born of a thirst for liberty, mingled with an Everyman common sense, can put experts in their place and free us from what has been their arrogant and entitled reign?
To answer this question, we must first ask: what is an expert for, anyway?
One of the unavoidable issues regarding matters of “misinformation” and “disinformation” is who is going to determine what speech qualifies to go in either category. Proponents of speech surveillance and selective censorship have given some indication, regarding such issues as COVID policy, “climate change”, the Ukraine war, and gender issues, that the appropriate authorities to make such determinations are acclaimed “experts”.
As a threshold matter, we can assume that the term “expert” is not a synonym for “infallible”, “objective” or “unbiased”. There is no reason to think the label of ‘expert’ makes their pronouncements perfect, or that they are not subject to the same prejudices, self-interest, ideological biases or temptations as everyone else.
An expert may know more than anyone else in the world about a particular subject and still not be qualified to determine what is and what is not disinformation. If something is factual, and widely acknowledged as such, then the declaration of an expert is superfluous.
Experts are most useful in matters that will not admit of easy certainty. It is only when we would benefit from an educated guess about something that cannot otherwise be ascertained that an expert has anything valuable to add; and censoring something because an educated guess has determined that it is misinformation or disinformation is both arrogant and foolhardy.
G.K. Chesterton is credited with the observation that “there cannot be such a thing as someone who specializes in the universe.” This simple truism brims with practical wisdom. Chesterton’s point began with the observation that someone can truly be an expert only in exceptions to ordinary experience. There is little need for an expert in common sense, for the simple reason that it is common. Experts are not needed to love one’s child; this is the common experience of the majority of humankind. It is only when the exemption arises that the expert may contribute something worthwhile.
An expert cannot specialize in everyday experience—the general and mundane events familiar to everyone—because of the paradox that they occur commonly but are experienced individually. An expert may seek to absorb the totality of knowledge about laughter, laughter being common, but be unable to emerge from the laboratory with a joke that everyone finds hilariously funny.
Experts were heeded during the uncertainty of COVID for the simple reason that COVID was extraordinary. No one claims that catastrophic climate change is the norm, and the anomaly is used to justify the unearned regard that so-called experts in the field claim. The eccentricities at the heart of radical gender ideology create a demand for the intervention of newly discovered experts. Experts are not needed to discover that the experience throughout human existence is that children are the result of heterosexual mating activities.
Chesterton’s observation contains another insight, related to the first. If we take Chesterton’s claim that experts can be specialists only in exceptions, and that their contribution in common matters of everyday life is no more valuable than that of anyone else who pays attention to the world, then we notice something novel about the current insistence that matters of public importance be left to experts.
The usual role of experts is to provide insight regarding circumstances deviating from the expected. They are to help people contend with unfamiliar situations, uncommon problems, and the uncertainly they create. That usual role has changed. Experts no longer help navigate abnormal crises absent controversy regarding how to contend with normality. Now the expert is weaponized to establish that the normal and familiar is abnormal. It is as though experts have decided that the sky is the wrong colour, the sun rises over the wrong horizon, or humans should not have opposable thumbs.
Experts now tell us that variations in temperature patterns extant since before the dawn of man are not in fact normal, but are now a catastrophic consequence of modern society. Experts claim that the idea of sexual reproduction between a man and a woman is a grave deviation from the norm of gender fluidity. We are assured by ‘experts’ that the institution of the family is a dangerous fad infringing upon the more natural condition of state oversight of child-rearing, and that the primal procreative instinct of wanting children is somehow pathological. We are assured by experts that the refusal to prosecute criminals is nature’s way of making us safer, and providing free drugs to addicts is the logical approach to preventing the life-shattering consequences of addiction. The inherently correct claim that normal things are normal is now ‘disinformation’.
The modern fervor for expert intervention in normal life goes even farther. Experts are now presented not as useful counselors. To guide the deliberations of democratically elected decision makers, but instead as the unelected and largely unaccountable lawgivers. Citizens of a free and democratic society are no longer expected to consider the advice of experts; rather, we are expected to blindly submit to it. The limited, usual, and customary role of experts that governing elites now urge is the anomalous exception that must be discarded in favour of “progress.”
Experts can be useful to the point of being indispensable. It is certainly desirable to have experts involved in the highly extraordinary phenomenon of powered human flight, or in diagnosing and treating various afflictions that endanger us. However, when experts undertake to redefine what is normal, and the motivation for doing so is to legitimize what is ideologically desirable, they are not longer experts in the useful sense of the word. Rather, they are activists. They must be treated as such, and we need not care what they consider to be disinformation or truth.
The tyranny of experts transcends even into macroeconomics. Over the last century, global poverty has largely been viewed as a technical problem merely revising the right “expert” solutions. Yet all too often, experts recommend solutions that fix immediate problems without addressing the systemic political factors that spawned them. Further, they produce an accidental collusion with ‘benevolent’ autocrats, leaving dictators with yet more power to violate the rights of the poor. For example, the disastrous economic decisions made by Justin Trudeau during COVID, all of which were backed by the expert advice of Dr. Theresa Tam, will have short and long term impacts for Canadians that promise to be generational.
In The Tyranny of Experts, economist William Easterly, best-selling author of The White Man’s Burden, traces the history of the fight against global poverty, showing not only how these tactics have trampled the individual freedom of the world’s poor; but also how doing so suppresses a vital debate about an alternative approach to solving poverty: namely, freedom. Presenting a wealth of cutting-edge economic research, Easterly argues that only a new model of development—one predicated upon respect for the individual rights of people in developing countries, that understands that unchecked state power is the problem and not the solution—will be capable of ending global poverty once and for all.
According to Easterly, the technocratic approach to development, which disregards the importance of freedom and individual rights, is one of the primary reasons why some nations are remain impoverished. Incremental improvements in freedom, enabling societies to enjoy greater rights, would stimulate economic wellbeing. They would thereby help to overcome the hurdles to economic and social development posed by autocratic regimes that base policies upon the biased opinions of experts and technocrats.
According to Easterly, the technocratic approach to development never focuses on individual rights and freedoms. Overemphasis upon material development may indeed result in the reorientation of our attention away from individual rights to development without rights— which is obviously the current globalist motto. Technocrats, consultants, policy experts, or in general terms the ‘development community’, undermine the role of governance, especially in developing countries. In the end, all policies are reduced to a technical level with a passive voice in reports and speeches that does not reflect who would have a say in policy making processes, and which may also determine the relative lack of influence of the poor in these processes.
Easterly makes a compelling case for individualistic value in contrast to collectivist ones prioritizing nations. Individuals are conceived to be the driving engines of society, and therefore are the key players who hold and accumulate knowledge at the grassroots level. Conversely, the central planners and experts cannot access local knowledge. Thus, their approach paves the way to asymmetric and incomplete information, as well as a lower degree of understanding of local conditions. If individuals are free from the grips of the central planners, and if central planners can set a freer environment allowing spontaneous orders to flourish, then a whole society might develop with the help of greater freedom and individual rights. This might be simulated if central planners do not crowd out local knowledge, which is neglected especially when we forget the painful lessons of history and try to start from scratch.
But where does the church stand in all of this, as truth and meaning are being redefined on all sides by secular “experts”? What happens when we as the church of Jesus Christ stop depending upon God’s word for guidance in favour of experts? Is it not the church as a whole which must take responsibility for truth, rather than so-called ‘experts’?
The history of Christianity provides us with a stark warning to beware the tyranny of experts. At the trial of stand before the Diet in the City of Worms, Johann von Eck, the Presiding Officer, asked Martin Luther if he would withdraw the books he had written or at least the parts which offended against the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church. After a night of prayer, Luther made his famous response:
“Unless I am convinced by testimonies of the Scriptures or by clear arguments that I am in error—for popes and councils have often erred and contradicted themselves—I cannot withdraw, for I am subject to the Scriptures I have quoted, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. It is unsafe and dangerous to do anything against one’s conscience. Here I stand; I cannot do otherwise. So help me God.”
Luther’s purpose was to give God’s word to the people. When Luther was branded a heretic, he sequestered himself for a year in the Wartburg Castle in Northern Germany. The very first task to which he dedicated his towering intellect was translation of the Scriptures into the language of his theologians—handing over God’s written word to the people for whom it was intended, and to whom it belonged. John Calvin too fled to Basel before coming to Geneva, helping Peter Robert translate the Bible from Greek into vernacular French. John Wycliffe, an early Reformer of 14th Century England, translated the Bible into English and organized his followers to travel the English countryside, reading it aloud to the commoners who could not afford a copy or could not read it themselves. So too William Tyndale between 1524-25, translated the New Testament from Greek into an English version that “even a ploughboy could understand”. It was published in Germany and copies smuggled back to England via couriers. The Reformers burned with zeal to arm God’s people with His written word. Tyndale was burned at the stake for his efforts in the cause of Truth.
Returning then to the subject of experts, what of our own generation? Will future Christian historians view our age as the one in which we gave our Bibles back to the theologians; back to the experts?
We still have our Bibles on the bookshelf and next to our beds, but have we retreated to the days when it had to be interpreted for us by experts? Have we returned to a state of dependency upon human mediators?
Prior to the Reformation, people had little or no access to the Bible and when they did, language barriers and Church doctrine hid its truth. Luther and Tyndale alike were appalled by profound ignorance of the Scriptures, even amongst the clergy. The Israelites were commanded to dwell upon the Words of the Law day and night, and to teach them diligently to their children. King Jehoshaphat, “his heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord”, sent his officials and Levites throughout all Judah, carrying copies of the Scriptures to open it to the people (II Chronicles 17).
Upon the return from exile under Ezra and Nehemiah, the people insisted that the Book of the Law be brought out to them. Ezra complied and it was read to a huge assembly of men, women, and children, possibly with simultaneous translation into Aramaic—which would have been the only language of some there (see Nehemiah 8). Remember also the commendable spirit of the Bereans who “examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true”(Acts 17).
And what of us today—especially the Churches of the Reformation—do we allow experts to determine what we should believe from the Bible? Which parts are reliable? Which parts are in error? Which parts being pre-scientific, must be discounted? Which must be allegorical because they do not fit with the teachings of science? Darwinian rejection of the Eden story is one such example, as are certain modern Pharisees, who pose as evangelists teaching that the many miracles performed by Jesus in the Gospels need not be taken literally and indeed are not even an essential part of Christianity.
How did this happen? How has it come to this?
Ours is the age of experts, the modern priesthood. Society is dissected into myriad areas of study, each ruled over by its own priesthood of the initiated, the ordained. Day in and day out, we are patronized and terrorized by the opinions of those who know and presume us incompetent to form a reasonable, common sense opinion of our own—of the medical practitioner, the psychiatrist, the electrician, the auto mechanic, the economist, the lawyer, the journalist, and even the theologian.
I suspect that the Reformed Churches of Dutch heritage have been softened to this gradual betrayal of true Biblical reformation by the concept of ‘sphere sovereignty’. According to its teaching, different callings under God are regarded as ‘spheres’ over which those with that vocation are sovereign under God. The practical effect is that we are discouraged from challenging the specialized knowledge of the teacher or economist, since these are their spheres, not ours; and they, not we, must answer to God for them. This may well be a misunderstanding, or at least a naive over-simplification of the original concept of sphere sovereignty—but it is nevertheless a widespread perception. Thus we are prepared and urged to surrender to the tyranny of experts.
But does this not simply avoid facing our own responsibly to truth? From experts come the best and the worst. The great exegetical works and the basest heresies come from theologians. The keenest political insights and the most tragic injustices come alike from economists. Scientists divine life-saving medicines and surgical techniques to prolong our earthly lives, but also mutilate confused children in the name of something called ‘gender affirming care’. As Christians, we are charged with acting responsibly before God in all things. We cannot claim the false advice of experts as an excuse before the Throne for our own faithless and foolhardy decisions.
The people of the Kingdom are both charged and equipped to test and approve in all matters:
“To the Jews who had believed in him, Jesus said ‘If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free.” (John 8:31-32)
That whole section is a warning and comfort concerning false teachings. The Apostle uses the word “know” repeatedly. We can know we are true disciples when we find a desire and capacity to live obediently to God’s commandments (v.3-6). There are those who “know Him/the Father” (v. 13-4). In the face of Antichrists and their false teaching—particularly concerning the person of Jesus—John reminds us that our anointing from the Holy One equips us to “know all things” (v. 20):
“The anointing you received from him remains in you, and you do not need anyone to teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about all things... remain in him.”
It is clear that true knowledge is not the domain of some inner circle or elite. This passage must at least refer to the sphere of knowledge of God—and can also be applied more generally. It is accessible to all God’s children as a consequence of the Holy Spirit dwelling within us. Jesus promised that when the Spirit of Truth came, he would lead His disciples into all truth (John 17:17), and he does. John does not despise teachers. He is himself a teacher; but the crucial point is that we are not dependent upon teachers for knowledge of truth. Our fate, our access to truth, our capacity to make godly decisions in any matter, are not determined by the teachers, the so-called experts around us.
As believers, we are all anointed for office. We are all both laymen and experts. Each of us is expert in some field or another; and even the most esteemed particle physicist is a novice at golf or stamp collecting. Consider your own area of expertise. Sober reflection ought to persuade you of its fragility. It is the same with all experts. Sometimes, that veneer is no more than a specialized set of words whose chief purpose is to hide meaning from the unwashed, the uninitiated. Sometimes it is a shell of learning after 3 or 6 years at university or 20 years on the job; but still it is a gross distortion to pretend that essential concepts cannot be communicated to everyone.
I am firmly persuaded that someone who really understands their field should be able to explain it to novices. If they cannot, then it is likely since they do not actually grasp their own pretended area of expertise. We are often disinclined to explain because we get a buzz from being part of the inner circle, the priesthood of experts. Just like the Gnostics of Biblical times, we enjoy being distinguished by our hard-come-by knowledge. The tyranny of experts is nothing more or less than the technocratic version of Gnosticism, which we explored deeply in a previous GreyMatter commentary.
We must resist the temptation to despise experts and instead consider their views soberly, with a full sense of our own accountability. I do not here suggest that qualifications should not be sought, nor that they need be ignored. It is sensible when ill to pay particular attention to the advice of your physician, rather than to your plumber. Copy the golf swing of Tiger Woods, not Donald Trump. But our attention to qualified advice must never be unqualified. If your GP advices abortion or Covid vaccination, then ignore them. If your dentist urges root canal or puberty blockers for your two year old, then seek a second opinion. When ultracrepidarians like Bill Gates tell you to eat bugs instead of red meat because cow farts are killing the planet, then cook yourself a big, juicy steak and savor it.
In precisely the same way, let us all cease bowing down to the technocrats of the Church—the theologians. Take back your Bible from the so-called Professors and check to see that it is all still there. It is God’s only written communication to you, as well as to them, and as such, it is both precious and unassailably true.
