I suspected this was too big a subject for one post, and so it proves.
The first extra thing to say is that these pieces on the beliefs and attitudes of the brethren are reported as seen, while they're still fresh in my mind. To do that, I put myself into the brethren mindset. There is not much of my own opinion.
Frankly, I don't know why it is so important that people stay where they're put and make the best of it. It is very deeply ingrained, as those who asked me how I could think it right to leave where I'd been placed by God preferred to think that others should stay in atheism or Islam rather than admit that people should move on.
There are also many other awkward questions. If one is in a position under another's authority, and that person wishes things to be contrary to one's own convictions, which comes first, subjection or conviction? And, more painfully, can there be a point at which the two are so opposite that the authority must be rejected? If so, where does that leave the general principle?
Again, I don't know.
My observation is that once again the brethren are much more pragmatic than principled. If the conflict is with something that is very important to the culture (note, not principles as such), then the sovereignty can be freely ditched. So mostly women should be subject to the closest male relative (ideally, a husband), unless he is threatening the fellowship in any way. As I've said before, I reckon the ultimate aim of the brethren group to be purely its own survival, and nothing ever stands in the way of that. So somebody wanting to leave will have no authority that counts in any way at all, not to his wife or anyone else. I haven't seen it happen, not being privy to many couples' private lives, but I suspect the same would apply to any other destabilising commands.
I suppose this could be justified within the rules by saying that it is a primary assumption that God wishes all brethren to be in fellowship, so therefore that piece of sovereignty trumps any others. That's the great thing about all this: if you can be utterly sure of knowing what it is that God wants, then the reasons and actions all fall into place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Survivor, I really appreciate your insights into what to me consists of a group which is more than a "sub-culture" but slightly less than a "culture".
Have you ever considered a career in anthropology? We need a modern day Margaret Meade on the scene to explore both the rich and the impoverished cultures of the world. All of which strive in Darwinian unison to self-perpetuate. Unless of course an exciting new vision or technology drops by and seduces them (<; Could the computer be it?
Your Darwinian model of the evolution of the brethren is neatly summed up in your words, “I regard the ultimate aim of the brethren group to be purely its own survival, and nothing ever stands in the way of that.”
This model helps to explain a lot. For example, some of the rules may seem puzzling, because they seem to be entirely arbitrary and without any plausible support from scripture or tradition, and their net effect seems to be to make lots of people miserable, but the rules might be explained simply as survival tactics. They don’t help individuals to survive, nor do they help the human race to suvive, but they help the group to survive.
The analogy may be with our genes, which are adapted to ensure their own survival, even if, in some circumstances, that means impairing the survival of the person carrying them.
However, I suspect the Brethren’s driving force is more complex than this model suggests. I suspect that the Brethren collectively have other aims, which may conflict with the aim of the group’s survival. They could, if they chose, decide to give up and disband. Sects occasionally do. Some sects even commit suicide. Genes don’t give up, and don’t commit suicide.
“Be content with your present circumstances.” “One’s station in life” was the 19th Century way of putting it: “Don’t have ideas above your station. Accept God’s sovereignty.” Maybe this ethos was a useful means of preventing too much striving for power and influence, and rivalry among leaders. Or maybe it was just a way of consoling those at the bottom of the heap.
A partial explanation for the phenomena you observe under "Sovereignty" is simply that social evolution fuelled by movements which could loosely be called "civil rights" have resulted in the world around brethrenism changing while it has stood still. Three generations ago the vast majority of women were subgect to their husbands and workmen to their masters in the British world. Other isolated fundamentalist groups in other parts of the world exhibit the same conservatism. I do think, as Ian implies, that many socially progressive changes (in the wider world) are swimming against the biological tide but that's a whole other subgect.
I'm quite sure the situation is more complex than my Darwinian survival scenario. Few things can be explained in terms of a single model, and I doubt the brethren are one such thing. But I keep coming back to the same viewpoint, and continue to believe it has a big part in any explanation.
The connection with an innate conservatism is interesting. It ties up well with the right-wing politics. I can also confirm that all sorts of prejudices that modern society would shudder at are alive and well among the brethren. It all fits together.
Post a Comment