I'll be honest: I have been avoiding this subject. But I have a few minutes before this evening's official visitors arrive, so I will note the little I know.
And that's the key. Politics and the brethren are an explosive mix, number one in the interest stakes, generating actual, real news in the wider world, not just among former brethren. But I know practically nothing about it.
It's no secret within the brethren that there is a program of engagement with government. There is a wide pool of people deputised to study what goes on, with the aim of applying influence - and prayer - early to any issues that may affect the fellowship. That is co-ordinated, and letters are regularly read out at meetings summarising anything that is felt to be important. So everybody is aware that things are happening.
That's where my information stops. All this is presented as dealing with government, not politics. Nobody among the rank and file ever hears about the deeper involvement, or the money spent. It's only recent that the brethren have even taken sides in elections. The old attitude was for prayer to arise for "more suitable government" if the current one was not to taste, or for "the continuance of good government" if it was, but it was always felt to be way below the standard to be for or against particular people or associations of people. That has shifted, obviously, and brethren in general are awe-struck at the wisdom of the new doctrine that they should openly favour those who have the best policies for them. It's held to be very open-minded and large-hearted to care so much about the mass of heathendom outside.
Brethren do hear about the negative news coverage, but never about the causes for it. Consequently it is always proof of the devil's attack against right actions. I have said before that it may be mistaken to wish for media campaigns, and it is in this arena that I have seen the effects most clearly. Negative reporting and comment merely leads to a discounting of external views.
When you consider that brethren are conservative in social matters above all, and positively Victorian in their attitudes, it's not surprising that they tend to favour parties of the right. It's not a foregone conclusion, though, and if neither party is prepared to make any noises about moral matters, I'd guess the brethren will sit back as before and attempt to influence whoever wins. That's how it has been in the UK, although it may change.
But then the brethren may have been pumping money into the system already, and may have a big embarrassing campaign waiting to go. I have no way of knowing, and nor will most others on the inside.
It's all a big puzzle. The whole thing seems such a grave mistake, and with so many downsides, that I wonder if there is more to it than meets the eye. Can there be some master-plan that will reap dividends out of the seeming shambles? Or is it all as stupid as it appears?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
The Darby line which persisted until relatively recently was that "Christians are citizens of another country". He expressed disdain for any form of participation, other than prayer, in the political process. Of course he was also an elitist and contemptuous of democracy.
I suspect that the current EB involvement is more an attempt to favourably (to them) influence financial and small business benefits than it is with moral and spiritual matters.
There is a facade of the latter, as with "gay rights", "abortion", and so on. But when it comes to putting up big money, I'm sure they see it in terms of dollar/pound return.
You wrote: "But then the brethren may have been pumping money into the system already, and may have a big embarrassing campaign waiting to go."
Can you elaborate please. Embarrassing for whom? The politicians or the brethren?
I'm sure money is very close to the heart of the programme. But remember that the notion of money following morals is very ingrained. However base the motives, I doubt brethren could believe they would be allowed to gain financially from supporting anyone whose moral stance was at odds with their fiscal one. In this world view, social conservatism leads to enrichment in a literal sense because blessing follows doing the right thing. They really believe it, you know.
As for embarrassingness, I'm afraid I was being selfish and thinking of me. I'm very liable to be embarrassed on others' behalf, especially if I still feel somewhat associated with them.
Thanks for responding to my somewhat provocative comment. I didn't really expect you to say so much about politics,but, thank you. From an observer's point of view the phenomenon of Exclusive Brethren and politics is quite curious, as Alice would say. Here in Australia, we have a very interesting scene about to unfold. Our Prime Minister, John Howard, is not only facing a likely loss of government to Labour at the Federal elections which are being held before Christmas but is also in danger of losing his own seat in the electorate of Bennelong in Sydney. It just so happens that Bruce Hales lives in the same electorate. Quite a bit of publicity has been given recently to visits by Bruce Hales to John Howard in his political office. The Labour candidate likely to overthrow the PM happens to be a woman who is a well-known figure in Australia as a national TV presenter. Given what are widely seen as dirty tricks campaigning in New Zealand and in the Australian state of Tasmania recently any Exclusive Brethren campaigning will be closely scrutinized. I think it is likely that any significant adverse publicity is quite likely to translate into public inquiry into some Exclusive Brethren practices which are seen as unethical or immmoral, particularly in relation to family law. This is especially likely to be the case, if as is likely, there is a change of government. In the greater scheme of things at a total world population of 40,000 and an Australian population of 15,000, Exclusive Brethren are not normally seen as very important figures generally but in the area of politics, active campaigning which involves punching above their weight is likely draw unwelcome attention.
Are politics freely discussed within a Brethren home?
Politics is not "discussed" in brethren homes, because it is taken for granted that everybody has the same opinion about it all. People may well exchange comments on how dreadful everything is, and swap stories they've heard of political incidents, sayings and meetings. But no discussion.
Did Brethren realise at all that they were the catalyst in the resignation, both from his position as party leader and as an MP, of their favoured conservative politician in New Zealand, Don Brash? Do they not understand that their support can be the touch of death, and immediately brings an elected politician into further disrepute?
Do Brethren take the view that the end justifies the means? Could that be why it was viewed as OK to hire a Private Detective to investigate the private life of the elected Prime Minister of New Zealand?
J N Darby would be as baffled as we are!
May I pursue this please?
Robert asked if the Brethren would be "gunning" for Gordon Brown. Now, call me a bit dim, but would "gunning" mean going and supporting or "gunning" as in shooting down?
The reason I ask is that I am confused that Gordon Brown is nominally left-wing and I have always considered the Brethren to be right wing.
Leave aside for the moment that Tony Blair and his cronies are probably more right wing than the traditional Conservatives, can Survivor tell us if the Brethren will be rooting for David Cameron?
I can't answer for who the brethren might support. They liked Tony Blair to begin with, and then turned very much against him latterly (much like the rest of the country). I had heard that there had been a meeting with David Cameron and he was found to be someone they could work with. During the Tory leadership election, he was the one with brethren support, and a good many MPs were told of his good points in time for the voting. But he is decidedly liberal on many awkward issues such as gay rights, so that may have changed.
Whatever Gordon Brown's merits in the money area, I can't see brethren going so far as to actually support him. My gut feeling is that they couldn't really get behind either of the main parties in the UK at the moment.
I was assuming Robert meant the gunning as negative, but I may be wrong.
As for reactions, the brethren's slowness in realising how counterproductive their actions have been is the main reason I wonder if there's more behind it. I don't have the answers.
"... is the main reason I wonder if there's more behind it..."
I have been wondering - puzzling actually - exactly the same thing for a few weeks now.
Sorry about the ambiguity. I meant gunning as in artillery; I assumed that EB would favour the Conservatives over Labour, but I can see from the discussion that it is more complex than that.
Post a Comment