The brethren don't go as far as the Calvinists, in claiming that one's destiny is pre-ordained and unchangeable, and as is so often the case when religious positions are close, they would strenuously deny any similarity. Yet they do believe that there are many aspects of an individual's life that are set in place by God, and even when those things are in the power of man to alter, it would be ungodly to do so.
Looking from outside, the most visible expression of this is the elect vessel himself. Chosen by God before birth, and protected from fallibility (not personally infallible) for the sake of his position, it would be folly in the brethren's eyes to challenge him. God has seen to it that he is where he is, and wishing or working to change that would be to set oneself against God.
But viewed from within the fellowship, it is a person's own life that is most affected. While it is clear that brethren are free - and encouraged - to better their circumstances, the same does not apply to changing one's position relative to others.
That means, for example, that a man can never be free of the authority of his father, as, even in old age, and even when his faculties are diminished, the relative position remains unchanged. In practice, of course, common sense is applied, but that remains the working assumption.
It applies, too, to employment. Whatever the relative merits of the people concerned, those in charge have a different status to the workers, and that must be recognised by both sides.
It is important to realise that such distinctions are not intended to affect anyone's view of the inherent worth of any individual, even their view of themselves, though many find that difficult to apply. More, it is as though as a person and a christian, each is given a different set of tasks to learn from. For some, those tasks include authority, and to be a good christian they must apply it rightly, while for others it includes obedience, and they must learn subjection. Most people, of course, get a mixture of both, and it would be equally wrong to wish for more power or less. One must work patiently within the parameters set to prove one's worth.
I am reminded of Shakespeare's "all the men and women merely players."
In fact, gender roles are very literally roles. The old brethren saying about the line of authority is "God, Christ, Man, Woman". That is, that it is so ordered that each is subject to the authority of the preceeding. A male, by virtue of his gender, is a source of authority, and his responsibility as a christian, on finding himself in that position, is to exercise it rightly. Someone born into the female role, while held to be of equal personal worth, is required to be subject to that authority as her responsibility as a christian. These are parts to be played.
The attitude extends into many areas. The brethren find it hard to understand, let alone accept, the modern idea of "equal rights". For them it is axiomatic that everybody has different rights and responsibilities, and that God would have it so.
Many find it a great relief to have their paths defined for them in this way, even as they chafe against specific aspects of it. Knowing one's place is a proof against many kinds of stress. That, of course, doesn't make it right.
6 comments:
Suggest you remove an "l" from equallly and then delete this comment.
Mr E., Where does Orwell's "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" fit into this matter which the Lord has placed before us today?
Mr.E., Also, would you share your thoughts on Genesis 1:27, "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." Would this mean the physical image, which I'm told would not be appropriate for women? Or would it mean that men alone were created in God's image, and women, as it were, were placed "without the camp"?
There is one thing I cannot get my head around and that is the role expected of women to be subject to their husbands.
Yet, if the husband decides that it is in the interest of the whole family to leave the fold, on many occasions, she will remain in the fold and is no longer subject to her husband.
Are you saying that her role as a Christian means that she ignores her husband and sacrifices the rest of her life to solitary status if she remains within the Brethren?
To whom is she being subject now?
Of course, I am painfully aware (from a personal experience over 40 years ago) that the husband cannot just leave the Brethren, only the Assembly has a right to withdraw from him. But whether he leaves of his own accord or is withdrawn from for whatever reason, the wife suddenly is no longer subject to him?
1. I don't like to delete comments. Let it stand as a visible token of personal fallibility. See, I get things wrong.
2. So far as I know, Orwell's ministry is not admissible. But I'm sure it would link. As for the creation, I was under the impression that God created MAN in his image, and woman is merely a modification of the original model. An improvement, some would say.
3. I've added some further thoughts in a new post, but really I have to hold my hands up and admit to being baffled by some things.
Of course, with personal fallibility, you had no chance of becoming MoG, so better to get out now!
Well someone has removed the ell too many ... unless my eyes do decieve me
I seem to recall ell featuring in the Aberdeen tape?
Post a Comment