A friend forwarded an article to me by conservative, Christian commentator David French today. The article is titled "Why Christians Bond with Corrupt Leaders." As I was reading through the article, it brought to mind the state of California's attempt (many years ago) to rein in the financial abuses of the leadership of the now defunct Worldwide Church of God (more particularly, the mismanagement of Herbert Armstrong and Stanley Rader).
I remembered how, at the time, church members rallied around Armstrong and Rader and viewed the state as being malicious, evil and inspired by Satan to persecute the church (an attack on these leaders was viewed as an attack on the institution). Likewise, most members were incredulous that the CBS television news magazine "60 Minutes" would dare to slander "God's apostle" and "God's Work." The charges of corruption were dismissed out of hand - they weren't even considered by most of the rank-and-file membership of the church!
In his article, French reminisced about how a number of similar scandals within the modern Evangelical Movement were received within that community. He talked about Jerry Falwell Jr. and Liberty University, Ravi Zacharias, Mark Driscoll, and Kanakuk Kamp.
French also referenced what happened with Moses when he struck the rock to provide water for the Israelites and failed to acknowledge that God was the real source of the miracle. French went on to show how this was analogous to a phenomenon that he believes to be behind what has happened in many of these modern scandals - that people forget the real source of the benefits which they have derived from the works/organizations of these failed leaders. He wrote: "But here’s the reality: We often fail to distinguish between God’s love and mercy for us and God’s approval or favor or endorsement of the man or woman who built the institution or delivered the message."
French went on to point out that it is very natural for some of us "to attribute to man what comes from God" or to give that person our trust and loyalty. He observed that this natural inclination often plays itself out in three steps: "Step one is already outlined. It’s the leap from receiving a benefit or blessing through a person to granting them excessive appreciation or loyalty. A sure sign of excessive loyalty is extending trust to a man or a woman in a way that you wouldn’t extend it to anyone else...Step two is when the personal becomes tribal. The leader becomes an avatar, a representative of us and our community. The difference from step one can be subtle, but it’s still profound. It’s the turn from saying, 'I have loyalty because I’m grateful to this man' to 'I have loyalty because he represents me.'...A siege mentality leads to step three: the refusal to hear criticism from the outside and crediting critique only from the inside. In part because of my three-decade experience defending religious believers, I’ve been prone to make exactly that mistake... I often considered the source of criticism (hostile media, angry bloggers) before I considered the substance of criticism."
French's evaluation of this process really resonated with me - I recognized myself in this process in times past. Don't we all sometimes forget the source of our blessings and begin to imagine that some leader has produced these benefits for us? We look to a man or men, instead of looking to God. And, when we do that, all criticism becomes illegitimate - we don't even consider it. We tell ourselves that it's bitterness, sour grapes, bad attitudes or jealousy. And, as French points out, we sometimes do the same thing with political leaders (I'm thinking of the recent phenomenon of Trumpism). We accept and condone behavior from our heroes that real Christians would NEVER condone or accept in someone else. What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment