It all depends on a method of extracting meaning from the bible called "types" - that is, that particular people and events should be read as referring specifically to something else directly relevant to the here and now. Brethren are so accustomed to this that they barely notice they're doing it. The modern meaning is so taken for granted that it is an effort to notice the original sense. And this carries through to many other things, so that a statement that can be loaded with meaning for brethren could be utterly meaningless to an outsider.
Some outsiders may have already noticed that.
So a long-standing way for the big chief to draw attention to his position and authority is to talk about the apostle Paul. This is always taken to refer to himself, but in a purely impersonal way, so that it is humble at the same time. Each reiteration of Paul's utter indispensability to God's plans, or component thereof, reinforces his own standing. And it is now very difficult for modern brethren to make any mental distinction between the two.
Then more recently, it has become very much the method of choice to directly boost the previous leaders. This of course works in the same way, with some added advantages. Firstly, the connection is not so ingrained, so the listeners or readers have to do some of the mental work themselves, which makes it feel more like their own conclusion. Secondly, there is of course considerably more freedom of reference in recent lives. But most importantly, it subtly puts the rest of the congregation in their place.
This is because each scrap of information about a previous leader is accompanied in the audience by a sense of guilt that they hadn't known or seen it before. So they redouble their efforts not to miss anything in the currrent leader.
To sum up, it's not really possible to understand the stuff brethren live on unless you've grown up with assumptions.
8 comments:
From the fragments of recent "ministry" made public it also seems as if the adulatory references to previous leaders reinforce two images. The one being the "unbroken line" of leadership since Paul, if not Christ. The other supporting the theme of continuing "revelation" through the MOG.
Both of these in support of the present EB Papist structure.
Thanks for your reflections. They help in understanding the obscure.
Rome claims Peter as their rock — EB claim Paul. Is this a catholic vs protestant issue or something EB has invented?
Facetious comment though this may seem to be, the Peter - Paul issue may be a Tweedledum - Tweedledee matter. Akin to the Hales "paperclip" ministry!
Outsiders - yes indeed much of the 'brethren speak' is meaningless to them but perhaps to us too who have been out for a long time. I think this might go some to explaining why therapists just dont get it!! Many former members of cults who have been in contact with me asking for advice/help etc say the same thing - they find that therapists often just dont understand and dont seem able to understand.
I dont think this phenomena is exclusive to the exclusives!
As Eric says your reflections do help us undestand the obscure!
This reminds me of a favourites dictum of J. H. Symington. Many times he said you can only get to Christ through Paul. His henchmen repeated it endlessly, with wise, knowing looks, to show that they understood what it meant.
Well, he could hardly say, “I am the Pope and the sole route of communication with Christ,” could he? That might sound a tad boastful. It had to be in code.
I've often wondered about the Peter/Paul situation. Not being an authority on church history I've no idea when or why the difference came about.
But observation and bible reading tells you that Peter had an official position from Christ himself, and the Catholics obviously go by the official line. So far as I know Paul has no official position, but is shown in various places as telling Peter how to behave ... and that's where the brethren come in. Never mind the officialism, get the authority.
But if anyone wants to tell me the real reason, I'd be interested.
Why did he difference come about?
The early church in Jerusalem was clearly a sect within Judaism. Jesus never renounced the Jewish law, and the Apostles in Jerusalem were not inclined to do so either.
However, historical research suggests that quite a few pagans were attracted to the church because it promoted social justice, which the 1st Century versions of Paganism within the Roman Empire had signally failed to do. Not only did the Church preach social justice, but it had the mechanisms in place to put it onto practice.
Moreover, Paul preached a theology that Pagans could understand. He was familiar with the Pagan traditions of a God-Man Saviour and identified him with the Jewish Messiah, thereby showing that this was no newfangled religion, but one that had ancient and venerable roots. The only snag was that Pagans didn’t really fancy all this circumcision malarkey, and massive books of rules.
So it is not surprising that tensions arose. The dilemma was not at all trivial. If the Church threw out the Law, then they would seem to be making a major break with what Jesus did and taught, whereas if they didn’t, then they would never be able to fulfil their mission to make disciples of all nations.
Paul in his epistles depicts the dispute as a pretty bitter one, whereas the Acts makes it sound much more amicable.
But why did the RC Church claim to derive its authority from Peter, while the EB declared “I am of Paul”. The RC story is that Peter got the Keys of the Kingdom and became Bishop of Rome, and passed his authority to all his successors.
The EB can’t very well use the same story, because they have condemned so many popes in very strong language. So they make up their own parallel story about an unbroken line of succession from Paul to B. D. Hales, with apostolic authority being passed on down the line.
I wouldn’t give them any marks for originality, but they must be admired for their audacity.
Right, Ian, thank you.
Er, what more can I say?
Post a Comment