I may have commented on this before, but I find I have two thinking modes: "brethren" and "non-brethren". The former doesn't get as much use as it once did (thankfully), but in certain circumstances it pops up effortlessly.
What is MUCH harder is attempting to use both modes at once, and somehow forcing brethren thoughts into a non-brethren framework - as is necessary to be able to explain them. There really is some kind of barrier which makes it a major challenge. I thought I'd cracked it when I started this blog, which was one reason it was so exhilarating to begin with, but it gets more difficult, if anything, as time goes on.
So how difficult is it for total outsiders? Very, I should think, although I don't agree with the ex-brethren who so stoutly maintain that nobody else can ever understand.
It struck me this week, for instance, how Orwellian brethren language can be. They can use a phrase and understand it, and non-brethren would imagine they understand it too without question ... and yet through brethren use that phrase has acquired a meaning that an outsider doesn't share and doesn't know they don't. It isn't deliberate, so far as I know, but simply that brethren customs change and the terms used to refer to them don't - however, it does please them to be obscure and they like the fact that other people know less than they think they do as a result.
Case in point: "reading", which is modified for outsiders to its old form of "bible reading". In a literal sense this is not misleading, as such meetings start with a passage of scripture. But to anybody versed in Christian customs, the term comes loaded with a set of assumptions such as textural analysis, study, search for meaning and collective focus on a sacred text. A reading among the brethren is simply a discussion around a theme that is on one man's mind with, by convention, one or more passages from the bible loosely attached. Generally speaking, that convention is all that is left of the original meaning of the term "reading".
That's the tip of a fairly sizeable iceberg, too, because you might suppose that religion in general is extremely important to these people. Well, it is and it isn't. Surely, you might say, any system which makes such extreme demands (I'm thinking of the likes of separation) must put a massive premium on the belief system underpinning it? Wouldn't everybody in such a system spend a lot of energy studying those beliefs, delving into the mind of God in whatever way they can? If you ask the brethren, the answer is "yes", and they think so. But for them, religion and practical life are the same thing.
For brethren, theology is done. Finished. They had it all figured out by the nineteen-fifties. Anybody attempting to get any further is wasting their time and probably heretical - and, as all past knowledge is summed up in the top man of the time, the only necessary thing to do is absorb what he says. The duty of the Christian is perfect his or her life on Earth, and the focus of the brethren is to chip away at what they see as the rough edges of that perfection, getting closer all the time. So there is study, reading of the bible etc, naturally, but it is done because of instruction, because they have been told that that is what a perfect life involves. What comes of it is secondary. It is, if anything, more important to dress correctly, because that is as much a part of a perfect life and is visible to others as well.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is that for brethren religion is what you do. Belief is implied by action: if you're doing the right thing, it shows you believe, and if you aren't it shows you don't. And in all cases there is only one right thing to do. In that case, it's no wonder their time, their meetings, their energy, is spent on refining the rules. Outsiders look at what passes for ministry and wonder where the religion is, but brethren honestly don't see it that way. Traditional Christian activities seem to them to be missing the point. Knowledge that makes no difference to the way a life is lived is valueless.
They would also be mystified by accusations that the rules keep changing, for much the same reason. The rules must change, because otherwise there would be no forward movement. If things were perfect, they reason, they would have been called away to glory. So they must pursue that perfection and change things as better ways are revealed to them.
It's a hard viewpoint to convey, as I say, and all the harder because it comes cloaked in familiar terms whose meaning has shifted. I think it's important to keep making the effort to cross the divide in both directions, though. It can never be insignificant for non-brethren to channel what Christianity means into the closed minds of the brethren, because you never know who might be ready for an alternative view. And I find it useful to explain to myself what my assumptions were all those years, even if it doesn't benefit many others!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The relative unimportance of theological doctrine to the Brethren has been noticeable since about 1960, but I have never been sure of the reason for its decline. Maybe theology provides just too many grounds for argument, and argument tends to undermine authority, and if you have doctrinally divergent leaders then you get schisms. Maybe theology had to be sacrificed in order to maintain a strong leadership and prevent any further schisms.
And yet the leaders today still seem to feel a need to maintain the idea that they have no rules and are just obeying the Bible. They often say so when accosted in public, and even say it with a straight face.
From the point of view of the leaders, that could be a dangerous idea, because everyone and his uncle has access to the Bible, and at least some parts of it can be understood very clearly by the rank and file. An emphasis on the authority of the Bible played a part in undermining the authority of the Pope at the time of the Reformation, and I wonder if it could become a threat to the authority of the Brethren leadership.
Certainly, if the leadership ever becomes unpopular, and a conspiracy develops to depose the whole lot of them, you can be sure that the conspirators will turn to the Bible to justify their actions, and they will have no difficulty whatsoever in finding strong, unambiguous support.
A helpful piece. Thank you.
Jesus certainly thought that his followers would be known by their "fruit", by what they did, and especially by how they behaved towards others. The Gospel records don't recount him ever asking anyone for a detailed explanation of their doctrinal beliefs.
However, I doubt very much that he'd have been concerned about whether his followers lived in detached properties or all wore the same uniform shirt to the Synagogue service. His creed was summed up in the requirement to love God with heart, soul, understanding and strength, and to love your neighbour as yourself - an exquisitely difficult and simple proposition that is both theological and practical.
Really, my point is that the brethren think they are doing what they say, and what outsiders think they aren't: following the true Christian way, and the bible. So the leaders can say so with a straight face because for them it's a fact.
It's a bit like Chinese Whispers. Something from the bible has an interpretation. That interpretation is interpreted. By the time you get to where the brethren are, there isn't much that resembles the original text, and they can safely say that anyone querying their doctrines hasn't followed the chain of interpretation as they should. As Humpty Dumpty says in Alice in Wonderland: "When I use a word ..."
And the idea of loving one's neighbours is a great favourite of the brethren, but it falls foul of the same morphing of meaning. For them, a neighbour is someone within the same community. A literal neighbour would hardly count. So they can happily quote "better is a neighbour that is near than a brother afar off", and mean only that a fellow member of the brethren is more worthy of attention than a family member.
The Brethren seem to interpret love of neighbour according to the Old Testament model of Leviticus 19:18. There it does mean exclusively those within the Hebrew community. The same chapter, though, also makes provision for love of the outsider - see vv 33-34. (Ancient Judah and Israel were surrounded by all kinds of different ethnic groups and nations and were constantly having to negotiate with “strangers”.)
Jesus told the story of the Good Samaritan to answer the question “Who is my neighbour?”. It’s intriguing that in the story the Samaritan plays the rôle of neighbour - so if I follow the logic of the parable, I have to conclude that, if I’m to love my neighbour, I’m supposed to love the Samaritan. (Samaritans were the object of strong racism at the time of Jesus and were not at all religious allies of the Jerusalem Jews). The story has layers and ambiguities. The attentive reader is required to take on two rôles at once - to show mercy and to receive mercy lovingly.
Sorry - end of sermon!
PS. It’s worrying that the Brethren have to turn their back on “stranger” kindness. Most people would welcome their Brethren neighbours into their homes for a cup of tea and a chat. The Brethren’s attitude stifles "stranger" lovingkindness. That's a real loss to their community's life.
"Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power."
The quote of the day from Eric Hofer.
Post a Comment