Monday, 4 May 2015

Excerpt from "I Was A Teenage Pharisee"

...but I grew up with people who unthinkingly turned poetry into law. Took what had been inspiring descriptions of perfect love like the love God has for us, like Jesus showed us when he lived on earth, and turned them into tools for judging others with. 
     Instead of feeling hope at the promise of what the fruit of the Spirit was going to cause, in you, you could despair over how far short you fell, from this ideal standard of rule-keeping.  
     The original message of "Christ died, and his spirit working in you will transform you into a more loving person, a beautiful person like himself" has been utterly subverted into "If you keep these rules, these rules will give you the outer appearance of a more righteous person."
    You want to see how to do that trick yourself? Watch this (picture this being read slowly by Morgan Freeman, while gentle music plays in the background):
  

love is patient and kind;
love does not envy or boast;
it is not arrogant or rude.
It does not insist on its own way;
it is not irritable or resentful;
it does not rejoice at wrongdoing,
but rejoices with the truth.
love bears all things,
believes all things,
hopes all things,
endures all things.

 
Poetry.  Beautiful.  God is love.  This is what love's like.  
     But, just by numbering those and making them into rules, you can badger your children with them, making them keenly feel how  very much they fall short, every single day of their lives, of perfectly manifesting the love of God by using their fleshly willpower to fail to keep these rules (picture this tacked up in a kid's bedroom. YOUR bedroom): 

The Fourteen Love Rules In God’s Precious Word
  1. You have to be patient. For example, with your sister. She's only little.
  2. You have to be kind. You are often unkind to your brother.
  3. You have to not envy. Not even David Jefferson. Or anyone who is showing off his family's wealth like that.
  4. You have to not boast. Not like David Jefferson always seems to be doing.  Pray that the Lord teach dear David some humility.
  5. You have to not be arrogant. Again, don't play with David Jefferson. "A little leaven..."
  6. You have to not be rude. Like you were to your mother last week when she commented on your attire.  She didn't mean anything by the words "homeless person."
  7. You have to not insist on your own way, like you always do. You have to do what *I* insist you do. And your mother.  And your teachers.
  8. You have to not be irritable or resentful. It really annoys me when you act like that. You've been very grouchy this week. Not enough sleep. I've had it with your grouchy nonsense.
  9. You have to not rejoice at wrongdoing. When John says bad things at school, you should pray for his soul, not laugh at him. And movies and TV shows and video games which involve guns and stealing are wrong, this verse tells us.
  10. You have to rejoice with the truth. You have a pretty sour face sometimes. Stop your pouting. It doesn't suit you.
  11. You have to bear all things. Even multiplication tables.
  12. You have to believe all things. Listen to Mr. Plank at Sunday School.
  13. You have to hope all things. I've heard some very negative talk from you lately. Negative talk is very unhelpful.
  14. You have to endure all things. Again, don't complain when I make you empty the trash or clean your room.
p.s. you suck at loving. Be loving like me. And your sister. Your sister is far more loving than you, in general

If you really wanted to feel crippling amounts of shame, all you had to do was take the above verse (the "poetry" version) and replace the word "love" with your own name and laugh ruefully at what a poor description of you it really was.
      Edith says:
I grew up with my Mom badgering "Be ye kindly affectioned one to another" any time my brothers and I fought. She thought that beating us on the head with that Scripture was enough and she didn't need to model kind affection for us to copy. She modelled the exact opposite.

Sunday, 26 April 2015

I Was A Teenage Pharisee

I was going to call my book Wrestling With God. But it was just as I feared.  There have been countless books written, which already have that name.  So, I went with a parody of the 50s horror movie on the left.  There were movies called I Was A Teenage Vampire, I Was A Teenage Werewolf, I Was A Teenage Frankenstein, and no doubt many others as well.
     What I did was comb through this blog and pull out posts that were along themes of culture, upbringing, legalism, Phariseeism and that kind of thing, and assemble them into the skeleton of a book.  Then I "wrote around" that a bit. Then I got people to submit quotes, giving a number of voices on the subject who weren't all just me.  It's pretty cool. It's pretty long.  It's about finished. It's not too late for you to email me (wikkidperson AT hotmail DOT com) your responses to some of the questions I asked on this blog, for possible inclusion in my book, under a pseudonym, unless you ask me to use your real name.
     Here is one example of me taking what had been a blog post, and expanding upon it:

Pharisees and Christianese


Having read the bible, I increasingly found in my late teens, that I had been raised to be the modern Christian equivalent of the Pharisees.  Those people who Jesus sparred with so much in the New Testament.  The ones who wanted Jesus Christ dead. 
     I was a teenaged Pharisee. It was a vile thing to know.  I could see that I was one of those superficially pious people.  Kids at school sometimes judged me a Pharisee, though they didn’t call it that, and I knew deep down that they were right. They saw me not going out to movies, not attending high school dances or celebrating Christmas and Halloween.  They knew there was no alcohol in our house. 
     And rather than being impressed by how virtuous we seemed, how adherent to an elevated standard of decency, they saw through it all, saw our true motives, and judged us to be religious showoffs.  People who were doing things to try to seem better than everyone.  People who were kind of cold and weird and mean inside, but outwardly rather polite.  Certainly never swearing.  But not being warm and comfortable and inviting to be around, either.  Because of that weird religious thing we had going on.
     They were no fools.  That’s exactly what was going on.  A weird religious thing.  And God made it manifest in time.  By letting everything we’d built fall down.  By confusing our languages so we couldn’t even agree what anything was even called anymore, in our tower to Heaven. 
     I knew that Jesus, not church Christians, was supposed to be my example for how I ought to have been living.  I was supposed to be and do good.  Like Jesus.  But church Christians were frequently counting on me to not act like Jesus.  Were overtly telling me to quit it.  I’d read the gospels.  I had a pretty clear idea of who he was.  And he wasn’t just one thing.  And he was difficult a lot of the time.
I was talking with Ruth the other day, and she said how dumb she always found it when school passion (Easter) plays, or movies or whatever, depicted Jesus as what she calls "Valium Jesus."  With the blank face.  Even when being tortured and killed.  Impassive.  Maybe even smiling, a bit sadly.  I always tend to call him "Stoner Jesus."  You know?  People are afraid to imagine him with emotions, so he is just kind of...blank.
     But that’s not right.  The scriptures say he cried, they have him giving a number of challenging, wild, crazy-sounding speeches, they have him being scary enough to clear an entire marketplace worth of people and animals out of the temple at Jerusalem, they have him being sorrowful and feeling betrayed, and they have him expressing a lot of frustration generally. 
Often, in the gospels, Jesus is talking to Pharisees.  One thing that was pretty clear to me, is that he treated Pharisees differently from how he treated anyone else.  Focused on them repeatedly.  Was harsher both to and about them. In public.  No attempt to be quiet, gentle, kind or forgiving to those guys.  Now what was all that about?
     Jesus of Nazareth has become nowadays, for many people, little more than the patron saint of serenity, and meek, mild tolerance and kindness.  "Gentle Jesus, meek and mild" is how a lot of people need to see him.  Someone who said not to judge, who criticized no one, and wanted us to nice to everyone.  The god of Nice. A person who’d never make anyone reconsider anything.
     I think this weird view of the man Jesus all comes back to that "control" thing.  If Jesus of Nazareth was “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief” today, conventional modern Christian culture would tell him to cheer up, to rejoice, to get Prozac, to think on whatsoever things are good etc.  Sing an uplifting song.  If he was angry or frustrated or impatient, he'd be once again told that he'd lost control of his holiness and to go fix it.  A stiff regimen of church activities, helpful books, songs and propaganda would no doubt have been prescribed.  Because that darker emotional stuff’s gotta be controlled, right? You can’t just feel those feelings!
     If Jesus of Nazareth really was the Christ, God become human to show how it ought to be done, and he cried, and shouted, got angry, was harsh or rude, frustrated, impatient and outraged and stuff like that, then wouldn't that mean either:
     a) Jesus wasn't perfect
     or
     b) all that emotional stuff didn't make him imperfect, though it doesn't sound terribly like controlling one's emotions?
As I've written before, this “gospels conundrum” has folks scrambling to argue that Jesus didn't really get angry or frustrated, or certainly didn't ever lose his temper with anyone. Or that because he was God, that this made wrath one of many things that only he could do, but that we, of course, can't. So we shouldn’t try to be like him, because we can’t. 
     Note that the latter view tidily removes the Christ from serving as any kind of role model for Christians. That it replaces a messiah with a minister. A crucified pariah with a certified pastor.[1]
     The fact is, by all accounts Jesus was continually challenging to most people.  And there was one group he seemed to keep coming back to, over and over again.  It wasn't the half-Jewish Samaritans (He even made one the "star" of a story).  He didn't rant and rave against the Romans who occupied Israel at that point.  (He even praised the faith of a Roman soldier.  Contrasted the soldier with how faithless he felt the Jews were.)  He didn’t rant about drunkenness and adultery.  Speak out and take a clear stance against gay people.  Denounce people who were shady with money. He didn’t rail against the government.  It wasn’t even the Sadducees, as much, who were the targets of his ire. 
     It was the Pharisees, the Jewish religious elite, at whom he took aim most often.  They got both barrels, over and over again.  There is no parable of the Good Pharisee.  And Saul of Tarsus had to stop being one and become a new person entirely, with a new name, before God got any use out of him.
     Jesus goes into Jerusalem, and in public places and in synagogues, quite unprovoked, warns the regular folk not to be like the Pharisees.  That they'd have to do better than the Pharisees.  That their faith, their relationship with God had to run deeper.  And he uses a word for them that he just might have been the first person to ever use in quite that way.  It's the word that in English is translated "hypocrite," though we use it differently than Jesus did.
     In Greek it’s hupokrités.  Jesus is recorded using this word no less than seventeen times.  No one in the bible uses this word but Jesus.   The word means "actor."  Literally "someone performing under a mask."  Someone fake.  Lacking sincerity and substance.  Acting.  Plastic.  Putting on a show for the world. Inauthentic.  Not revealing his or her true nature and identity.
     It looks very like no one in human history is recorded using this word for any purpose other than to speak about literal theatrical performers. Jesus had a new use for the word. And in Matthew chapter 23, Jesus is recorded saying about the Pharisees:

Everything they do is done for people to see

He is depicted earlier in Matthew 6 warning his disciples,

Take care not to do your good deeds publicly or before men, in order to be seen by them

He was trying to teach a different, better way, a way that wasn’t religious, and had to do with the kingdom of heaven, rather than human systems.  And the first thing that’s got to go, if you’re serving heaven rather than human beings?  Giving thought to how to gain their notice and approval.  Limiting your choices in case “people” might not understand, and “they” fail to think well of you.[2]
     I think it's safe to say that, along with "whitewashed sepulchres," bowls washed only on the outside but dirty inside, and "offspring of vipers," that this word hupokrités shows what Jesus' problem with Pharisees was, and how to be one today.  Backstabbing but pious-seeming fakers, showing off their religious activities to an audience.  For status.  To hold onto an image of heightened decency.  What Dallas Willard calls “The Lure of Religious Honors.”
     The Pharisees had people literally blow trumpets in front of them when they were going to the synagogue to pray.  We say grace audibly, as a group, in Macdonalds, rather than each thanking God for his Big Mac discreetly.  (To “be a good testimony.”)  The Pharisees marked up their faces to indicate that they were fasting from food.  We fasted from television and music all year long, every year, and everyone knew it.  We were terrified to walk past the front of a movie theatre, for fear someone might think we’d been inside it.  The Pharisees made a show of donating money to charity. We’ve got magnets on our fridges, and eye-catching t-shirts and bumper stickers which leave no one in any doubt about the fact that we support a cause, financially.
     It’s a hard habit to break.  Step one is becoming the sort of person who is no longer impressed with it.  Who is no longer accustomed to viewing it as normal and proper and good.  You can never control it with rules, of course.  You have to do something else instead, is all.  Follow a different path. Take your heart out of what is mainly a performance.  The lack of applause won’t be able to hurt you any more than the presence of it will be able to make you feel smug.  Do stuff for God only and see how you like that.  Pursue discretion about spiritual intimacy, and practice private good. 
    Think about how you use the Internet and social media. See how deep the satisfaction you might get out out of anything that is self-promotion as to “Christian things” really goes.  See if maybe you want something deeper.  Notice when you’re getting “likes” and supportive comments for religious activity you’ve “shared.” Notice what’s going on in your heart regarding it until you don’t feel so “into” it anymore. Until you don’t like yourself when you’re liking likes for liking “Christian stuff.”  And then do something different. See what that’s like.
     Quietly collect pledges to do a marathon run to raise money for cystic fibrosis research.  Then do the run.  And don’t tell anyone.  Don’t breathe a word of it to Facebook, Twitter or any of that.  Don’t spend the year afterward wearing a shirt that says “I Ran for Cystic Fibrosis!” Do it, but don’t announce or perform it.  Don’t raise awareness of what you’re doing and what kind of an awesome person you are to be humbled to take part in it.  Just do it, to get the money off to the people.
     Jesus did not “raise awareness” of the plight of sick people.  Everyone knows it sucks to be sick.  He either walked by them, or he helped them.  And when he healed them, he told them, quite often, not to tell anyone what he’d done. Who knows how many people were healed or helped, that never made it to the bible?
     So try making a difference without “raising awareness” of you, and see if there’s not something special going on.  Try it, not in order to follow a rule that says that advertising your charitable efforts is bad or wrong.  Try it, though, and see what you then know about yourself.  See if there’s something special in it. I can’t tell you.  It’s a “you” thing.

     I can only tell you what worked for me.  For me, every “Christian” thing I did, I was doing primarily because it had been made a rule.  A rule I was afraid of losing the trust and respect of my church culture if I broke.   So, the first thing I really seemed to have to do, was “break” that rule until it wasn’t a rule anymore in my heart.  I didn’t make a new rule, to break that rule.  I just faced my fear.  It wasn’t easy.
     In fact, my culture was a far bigger thing than I was, in my life.  Certainly a far bigger thing than God was.  So God simply took the trust and respect of my church culture away from me.  And that did the trick. 
     This finally freed me to do the thing itself because I wanted to do it, for God, and not because I was afraid of not doing it, and worried about the scorn of Brethren people.  I don’t know if He’ll do that with you.  I don’t know if you need to worry about all that or not.
     Performance isn’t bad.  It’s an art.  It’s a creative, expressive endeavour.  If you’re singing a song or acting in a play or doing a dance routine or scoring goals for an audience’s approval, do that.  Because it’s why you’re doing it, and there’s purity in that.  It’s people you’re trying to touch.  There might even be a benefit in competition.
     When it comes to spirituality and a walk with God and being transformed into the image of Christ, though?  Very different.  Because then it’s God Who you’re trying to touch.  And competition really doesn’t belong.  So maybe try both “audiences” to see the difference. God and men.
     Because it’s important.  Jesus never seemed to leave Pharisees alone.  Actually walked into Jerusalem on a few occasions and went into the temple or the synagogue and provoked an argument with the Pharisees.  Waited until they showed up before commencing, in one particular case.  Ignored his brothers’ advice to avoid them. 
     Why treat them differently than he was treating anyone else?  Why condemn rather than forgive them?

The Christ's Complaint
I don’t think it’s hard to tell what Jesus’ problem was with them.  It's clear that Jesus took exception to their venomous scheming and backbiting and treachery, in calling them "offspring of vipers." He asked them "why do you seek to kill me?" when they weren't admitting to it, even though they really were looking to have him executed.  This is very in keeping with the Old Testament, which speaks out against people who are underhanded, whose mouths are open pits, who oppress the vulnerable, who delight in the downfall of others, who lay nets for other people’s feet and whose own feet are "quick to shed blood."
     Next, Jesus uses the imagery of a tomb which is full of rotting bodies inside, but is painted gleaming white outside (along with the image of a bowl which is polished up bright and clear around the outside, but left filthy inside, where you’d pour your Cheerios).  This shows that he's looking on their hearts, rather than their lifestyles.  He's seeing people who are extremely pious-looking in their lifestyles and habits, but inside, they are twisted, decaying and dark.  If they were standing behind you, and you were doing anything good at all, they were apt to stick a knife in, to remove a competitor and better their status. 
     His only comment on their clothes is to disdain their attempts to look religious.  And he also disdains their need to sit in a special seat of honour in the synagogues.
     I think, just like today, in Jesus' time there were a whole lot of regular folks, who weren't terribly religious or terribly depraved, but who looked to the Pharisees and said, 

We average folks all do stuff we're not really supposed to.  We're not living quite how we should.  If we lived how we were supposed to, we'd be living like the Pharisees. They're hardcore.  Those guys are doing it right!

And Jesus wanted to warn everyone who would listen, that those guys were not doing it right, though they were clearly hardcore. People were supposed to get well inside, and get in touch with God and get the dented up, twisted, rusting parts of their psyches dealt with.  And they weren't ever going to succeed at that by letting Pharisees be "the religious ones" for them, nor by imitating those guys, and their focus on how upstanding they looked, and what others thought, rather than upon what was really good and would actually work.
     Jesus was there, walking the walk, telling the truth, helping people out, forgiving everyone, believing in people’s ability to turn their lives around to follow him, changing the world, and filling it up with virtue and worth.
     The Pharisees, by contrast, were going around looking religious and leaping at the chance to be the punishers of people caught looking less religious than they. Judging others makes it clear that you are the dominant, empowered, superior person.  They were worrying about being publicly seen to be giving money to charity, yearning to be famous for going to synagogue and praying a lot and looking pious and stoning people and so on. I think the response of Jesus to this can only be characterized as “disgusted,” if his choice of imagery is any indication. Poisonous snakes.  Tombs filled with putrefaction.  Bowls smeared with filth inside.
     So the Pharisees, publicly shown up by Jesus, plotted to get him killed, those sons of vipers.  Those vindictive, censoring, repressing, image-conscious hearts didn't get light shone into them and truth spoken into them either.  They worked to get rid of Jesus, to silence his ideas.  For good, they thought.  (Didn't quite work out that way).


[1] I associate this dismissal of Jesus Christ as a model for Christian social behaviour with the dismissal of all manner of things he said, as “for the Jews” or “for after the Rapture” and so on.  Dealing with them mainly by dismissing them.
[2] I think it’s safe to say that we need to rethink posed “I’m praying!” and “I’m reading the bible!” and “I’m feeding hungry children!” and “I’m teaching Christians!” action photographs and videos.  And announcing on the Internet that we’re doing these things, and claiming it is our right to express/show off our piety/Christianity in so doing.  That we’re just humbly seeking to inspire others by “being a good testimony” (to our own piety).  You could never stop others from doing this by making rules. But you could be doing something entirely different than this, yourself.

Saturday, 14 March 2015

The Everyday, Ordinary Nature of Legalism

I'm still pecking away at my book, Wrestling With God.  Here's a small section I wrote today about what makes some people tyrannize God's flock, and makes most people go along with that:



I learned recently about Jewish philosopher Hannah Arendt.  Hearing that Adolf Eichmann, a key figure in organizing and overseeing the extermination of millions of Jews during the Holocaust, was on trial in Israel in the 60s, she travelled to see the trial.  And she got to meet him.  Of course, like anyone might, she expected to meet a sneering, cruel, insane Nazi man who seemed “evil.”  Like in a cartoon or horror movie. She expected a cruel, smug genius.  She expected a psychopath with clear psychological problems.
     And the man she met was a quiet, sensible, boring, blank little pencil pusher.  A desk jockey.  Middle management.  Someone who followed the rules.  Did what he was told he must do.  Avoided thinking about or listening to anything that might tempt him to question What We Are Doing. 
     She found him not so much terribly stupid, as simply unthinking.  He had been part of an atrocity we’re still talking about today, and in the twenty years since it had happened, he simply hadn’t thought much about it. At all.  Hadn’t come to any conclusions.  Hadn’t tried to learn anything.  Had looked to “just live his life” and “move on.”  Carefully avoiding any lessons that might have presented themselves. 
     When on trial, Eichmann spoke almost entirely in clichés, in jargon and in quoting of his superiors.  Groupthink and groupspeak.  He excused every single horrific thing he’d made possible by saying he was an ordinary person who “did his duty.”  He felt like, if he was being asked to take responsibility for executing human beings, all he had to do was report that he’d been expected to do that by someone else and it was no longer his fault.  He was bowing to Nazi decisions. 
     His whole life, he’d been unable to function as an individual.  He’d always and only been a joiner of things, and someone who had trouble, and objected to being asked to, think for himself.   His biggest problem with the Second World War being over, was that now he no longer knew what group to follow along with. He needed to belong to something that told him who he was and what his role should be.
     Six psychiatrists checked him out and decided that Eichmann was very, very sane, and exhibited no emotional or mental problems whatsoever.  In fact, he was a very ordinary, simple person.  Extraordinarily ordinary.  Not remotely complex.  No childhood trauma. Nothing really to comment on besides a normal, unsociopathic lack of empathy.  More of a lazy unwillingness to bother worrying about others, rather than a clinical inability to view them as human. In Christian terms, Eichmann was not extraordinarily sinful, inside.  He was just a run of the mill follower. Interesting to contrast him with the Jesus presented in the gospels.
     Eichmann didn’t love his job, though he loved belonging to something.  He was just someone who had ways to make sure he never really contemplated the real horrors of what he was doing on a daily basis.  Things he was a central planner for.  Just didn’t think about bulldozers shoving heaps of emaciated corpses into pits. About ceiling-high heaps of dolls taking from children who would never need them again.  All this was a coping mechanism.  And it made him very able to fit in and function and get along in the regime he lived under.  Control-based regimes require followers, and are threatened by thinkers.  And followers have trouble following if they think too much.
     After publishing The Banality of Evil, Hannah Arendt faced a vicious backlash from the Jewish community, who were asserting that Nazis were specially evil, specially psychopathic human beings.  They were insisting on being anti-Germanic.  Bigoted.  Xenophobic.  But Hannah Arendt’s view was that Germans were typical human beings. That the possibility for evil exists everywhere and in everyone, and that we choose how evil to be by how unthinking and uncaring about others we choose to be.  How unloving.  How controlling.  On a daily basis.  She talks about those choices, writing:
...under conditions of terror most people will comply but some people will not, just as the lesson of the countries to which the Final Solution was proposed is that "it could happen" in most places but it did not happen everywhere. Humanly speaking, no more is required, and no more can reasonably be asked, for this planet to remain a place fit for human habitation.
Controversially, Arendt believed that the Holocaust really could have happened anywhere in the world.  But that it had happened in Europe under the Nazi party.  Just like, there had to be a Judas figure in the Jesus story, but woe betide Judas Iscariot for letting it be him.
    Now, my church group wasn’t the Nazi party, exterminating Jews.  It also wasn’t Rwanda in 1992, with two factions of Africans fighting to exterminate one another and leaving heaps of machete-hewn corpses strewn across the countryside.  But learning about these things has helped me a lot to understand how exactly the authors and architects of our silly, spiteful little divisions could make so many Christians hurt so many people.  And how, afterward, so many Christians who I know to be genuine human beings, can be induced to forever “go along” with shunning and otherwise sidelining and socially sanctioning innocent people. 
     Like Eichmann, they always make sure they don’t know any more than they need to, in order to excuse themselves from responsibility.  And if they know, they make sure they don’t think about it, or draw any conclusions or realize anything that might lead to repentance or change.  They make sure not to connect those dots. In fact, in talking to people under the power of (while personally wielding the power to enforce) legalistic systems, I have consistently seen two things:
1.      They are scared.  It’s in their eyes.  Fear keeps them from thinking, doing or feeling any number of things that would drive them to risk their reputations, status and say by connecting those aforementioned dots. Fear drives the mental gymnastics required for them to not have to change.  It keeps them from speaking with their own words. It keeps them from being anything like themselves. It pushes them to need to censor, control and correct all manner of people and things.
2.      They do not take personal responsibility for much of anything, no matter what their role is in their church culture.  It’s always that someone else (or the System itself) is making them do things they don’t really want to do.  Censoring, controlling and correcting things, normally.  They’re being bad people for the good of others.  They’re hurting good people because they themselves are dutiful people.  They are doing dubious things to keep the System together, because we need the System, right? Just as much as it needs us?  You can’t make an omelette without occasionally drowning some kittens?
To watch the mental gymnastics involved in all of this fearful dodging of personal responsibility is quite something.  I have frequently spoken to the one person who is inarguably the “power” in a tiny, tiny legalistic group, and seen this happen.  I’ve even seen it when talking to abusive husbands and parents.  As one makes inarguable, simple statements of fact regarding concrete, universally known events, about the continuation of legalistic tyranny, immediately the squirming and wriggling start.  I have seen their eyes beseech me not to make them think.  Suggestions that we “both know,” but not to make them discuss who they are and what they’re doing.  That it’s cruel to “bring up” the cruelty that’s going on.  I’ve seen an unspoken appeal for pity and forgiveness. 
     And, usually, anger.  That someone is making them think about who they are and what they’re doing.  When it’s not their fault.  When they’re not free, and are as much the victims as anyone they’re personally hurting.  They’re being made to hurt.  And they’re just doing what’s expected of them.  By a Thing that scripture does not instruct us to construct in the first place. By a Thing that people who are connected to Christ have no need of.
     But it’s hard to think about stuff, especially when one is scared, and is serving a Thing.  Easier to just do what’s expected. Hannah Arendt points out that:
    Under conditions of tyranny it is far easier to act than to think.
Arendt also notes how people who are serving a controlling system don’t even speak with their own words.  What’s coming out of their mouths isn’t self-expression at all.  She writes:
Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality.
A much less academic sounding source this reminds me of is Pink Floyd’s “Brain Damage” from their seminal Dark Side of the Moon album. On the subject of letting other people adjust your thinking until you conform to a system, Roger Water writes:
You raise the blade, you make the change
You re-arrange me 'til I'm sane.
You lock the door
And throw away the key
There's someone in my head but it's not me.
Arendt’s work makes one notice how much focus on “victims” there is, in situations that involve abuses of power.  Though this seems perfectly natural, it is also very clear that something else is being passed over: what kind of people are these leaders, deep down?  What are their weaknesses and vices?
     Leaders tend, at first, to be judged on their persona, their charm, and how nice they make us feel. On how impressed we can be with them. But, eventually, as in the case of a U.S. president in the closing months of his second term, one starts to want to talk about exactly what he did and didn’t do, while in power.  What exactly he did and did not manage to accomplish. Any mess he is leaving for everyone.


      It’s far easier to mock and scoff at leaders than actually understand them, good and bad, as real people.  Easier to view them as saints or devils than as men.  But that’s a love fail.  It allows us to act other than how we would toward someone we had any brotherly love for whatsoever.  A saint or devil isn’t someone we can love as a brother or sister.  They are above or below it, so we don’t have to.  But a leader who takes power and bad stuff happens?  That’s another human being.  How to connect to, relate to and understand them?  A leader may well insist upon a disconnected, “higher” place beyond our influence, but really, in the eyes of God, we’re human beings.  We’re supposed to love each other and act accordingly.  So there’s no getting out of that for either of us, no matter what the other decides to do.
     In the case of ecclesiastical leaders, it might be better to judge their worth, not based on a book they wrote, or how kind and gracious people thought they were.  Not even on how eloquent or informed or smart they were.  It might be better to look at the state of the group that was under their shepherding, toward the end of their tenure, and see in what condition they are leaving it.  Well fed, sensible, close-knit, solid and strong?  A safe place to bring new folks just learning about Jesus?  A place better than it was before they took power?  Or a shattered wasteland, with most people fled and a few survivors combing the ruins, trying to get by?  A place one wouldn’t feel right about sending a new convert to worship?
     And, ultimately, I think it’s always good to differentiate between what a leader of a group does, and what the group itself does.  And to wonder how much leadership actually went on, and how much of it was necessary.
     So, I think whenever people with membership and status in my birth culture exclude my parents or my friends (and their own friends and relatives) from worshipping God in their own birth culture, and being treated like regular folks in it, they aren’t Nazis.  They aren’t crazy. There are no horns.  There is no cackling delight in causing mayhem.  Not at all.  They are just thoughtless and scared and purposely in denial.  I think they can sense the present necessity for change, for repentance, approaching like a tsunami.  And I think they try to stave it off any way they can.  And hope to die before it arrives fully.  But it is already here.  And we’re staving it off with pushing people away and refusing to think about things and reach epiphanies which are standing outside our front doors.
     I have seen many Brethren people, as they become old men and women, kind of “racing toward the grave,” hoping to reach it without ever needing to object and be punished, or speak out and lose status.  Often they are used as figureheads while they do this.  They just need to keep their seats at that Table, for a couple more decades at most.  They know the consequences for not fitting in and going along with legalistic systems.  They know that repentance requires change, and they know what people think of change.  They know what has already happened to so many people who changed. 
     So their defence mechanism, their method of coping, is to be thoughtless about it.  To refuse to discuss the matter.  To shut down discussions of these things.  To try to “keep on keeping on” until death. To live in the past.  To stomp on growth. To discredit anyone who wants to consider any of it. To try to keep any deeper awareness from spreading throughout the ranks of the young.  Just as if the Truth will wreck everything, rather than set us free.  Just as if Christ is about loving darkness and doubt rather than shining a light.  Hannah Arendt writes:
The trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal. From the viewpoint of our legal institutions and of our moral standards of judgment, this normality was much more terrifying than all the atrocities put together.
What good does it do to “dwell on” the past errors?  It alerts us to present dangers.  It gives us the chance to not repeat the past.  It leads us toward growth.  It gives hope for younger people who are coming after us.  Arendt writes that:
Education is the point at which we decide whether we love the world enough to assume responsibility for it, and by the same token save it from that ruin which except for renewal, except for the coming of the new and the young, would be inevitable. And education, too, is where we decide whether we love our children enough not to expel them from our world and leave them to their own devices, nor to strike from their hands their chance of undertaking something new, something unforeseen by us, but to prepare them in advance for the task of renewing a common world
The people who try to shut down examinations of legalism, and ensure no lessons about it are learned aren’t Nazis.  But they are bureaucrats.  They are enablers. They are perpetuators of the legalistic systems.  These systems could not go on without them.
     These folks would never have chosen that the systems operate the way they do, and they wish things could be otherwise, but they’re not going to risk their own position, reputation, status and say to act according to their own best thoughts and feelings.  Nor are they going to risk upsetting everything. No rocking the sinking boat.
    And it isn’t hard at all to get the facilitators of present day legalism to admit a vague, collective error.  You can get that, but no owning up to any personal responsibility over past, present or future excesses of control.  Hannah Arendt wrote that:
When all are guilty, no one is; confessions of collective guilt are the best possible safeguard against the discovery of culprits, and the very magnitude of the crime the best excuse for doing nothing.
I’ve even seen some start to speak out and take a stand, get warned, and then fall right back into line. I’ve seen how they have been made to grovel, in some specific cases.  Really grovel. I’ve seen people sent to sit in the back row until they retract their honest views of local matters.  I’ve seen people’s impending marriages interfered with, until they take back what they’ve said.  I’ve seen people’s missionary work suddenly lose all funding and sanction, until some very innocuous letters are retracted and repented of.
     Characteristically, perpetuators of legalism speak of expediency, rather than ideology.  Of “what works and what is” rather than what should and shouldn’t be.  They speak of being realistic and being practical.  They speak of the folly of being idealistic and naive.  They claim to be serving others and not wanting to upset them.  They claim to be simplifying matters for simple people.

    These are the spiritual descendants of men and women who gave their very lives rather than say they believed things they did not.  Of people who were tortured and executed for not taking back what they believed. Of people who felt honoured to be able to sacrifice themselves for what they believed in. 
     During the Holocaust, there was a German man named Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  He was not of Jewish descent, and shouldn’t have had to fear for his life.  Hitler was “fixing” the Great Depression in Germany for people like Dietrich Bonhoeffer. There was a place for him in Hitler’s new Germany.   Bonhoeffer was a Christian theologian and writer.  He could have escaped to America or Europe, and never had to worry about the Nazis.  He could have quietly sided with the Nazis, as most of his countrymen had done.  Or he could have stayed in Germany and simply shut his mouth.  What good could he do?  But he believed as a Christian he had to do and say more about the extermination of the Jews, and it ended up getting him killed.  Bonhoeffer wrote:
Silence in the face of evil is itself evil: God will not hold us guiltless. Not to speak is to speak. Not to act is to act.
Bonhoeffer lived what he wrote, and he died because of it.  Because he didn’t fit in, and wasn’t quiet.  As a result, we still have his words, and they mean something.  I have to think Dietrich Bonhoeffer shows us a bit about what it would be like to live more like Jesus did.
     We aren’t made of the same solid stuff as those people who went before us.  We give in.  We take back true things we said.  We apologize for being who God made us.  We sacrifice the needs of our children to protect our personal, familial and church reputations.  We support people who are doing harm and silence those who would bring things to light.  We vilify and punish people with good intentions who need our support. We make choices based on how things might seem, rather than on what is.  On what people will think, rather than what people need. We have victims. The answer to all of this is love. We need to start taking it more seriously.  Loving more and fearing less.
    We aren’t Joseph Stalin or Adolf Hitler. But too often we are Adolf Eichmann.