Over the last couple of weeks I've been attempting to take life easy. For some reason this time of year is one that I find difficult and I start to get stressed. So in this case one thing that has taken a back seat is the blog.
However, I have had reason to think a little bit about the brethren's attitude to their leadership. One thing that is obvious from the outside, yet baffling, is that they consider their leaders to be infallible, whatever the circumstances.
The thing is that brethren doctrine ties the spiritual very closely to the earthly. It is an important piece of truth to them that it is possible - even required - for each person to be perfect, and so it has also come to be important for them to have proof of that possibility by claiming that it is already achieved by the leader. Who else would they look at for proof? Then, once that step has been taken, it cannot be undone so they are obliged to accept whatever the leader does as perfect.
It isn't actually as hard for them is it would appear. Another article of faith is that God cannot be understood by the natural human mind, and another is that God communicates His thoughts directly to his representative on Earth. Therefore anything strange is not so much unexpected as ineffable. What right has any human creature to understand what might be done as God's will?
This is then backed up by their conviction that, as God's chosen people, they must be misunderstood and hated by the world in general. So it isn't surprising that they might be required to do some things that would look bad to the outside, and the very fact that anyone outside objects is then taken as proof that it has worked and is justified.
Of course, viewed rationally, all this is very dangerous. It leaves the possibility of blatant abuse of authority very open, for a start. And many might say that such abuse has happened on occasions. Yet infallibility, once accepted, is something that can't be backed away from, and so the brethren are stuck with it.
1 comment:
The notion of infallibility occurs in many Christian denominations. The Roman Church claims a sort of infallibility for the Pope; the Brethren claim a sort of infallibility for their leader; numerous sects and cults do exactly the same for their leaders; at one time the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings meant that the King was always right; I have heard the same claimed for parents; and many Protestants believe in the infallibility of the Bible.
I wonder if there is something in the human psyche that yearns for certainty, and invents it if necessary. Or is the assumption of an infallible source of guidance simply a pragmatic, though arbitrary means of settling any divergences of opinion? Is it just a way to avoid schisms? Or is it a way to protect the leader’s teachings from any form of criticism, and thereby maintain his ability to wield power over his followers?
Some of these possibilities could be ruled out if we knew where the notion of infallibility came from. Did it come down from the leadership or did it come up from the laity? Who invented it?
Post a Comment