Is it a conundrum or am I just confused again ... I can live with either assessment...
An old Zennie chum and I were batting things back and forth in email. He suggested that there was a bedrock social supposition that people who led spiritual gatherings had their shit together and for that reason it was enormously dispiriting when such leaders were caught stealing funds or literally screwing members of their flock.
My question was: If anyone actually did have their shit together, what need would there be for anything akin to a spiritual persuasion?
And if that question holds any water, then the generalized social appreciation of spiritual leaders seems to have been turned on its head and the axiom/presupposition might better be stated as, "Leaders of spiritual persuasions may be assumed NOT to have their shit together."
And if that is so, what does it say about any widespread social willingness to anoint or proclaim or follow spiritual leaders? If anyone were to seek the truth and yet anoint an ipso-facto hypocrite, what right could anyone claim to wail, "Hypocrite!" or "Charlatan!" or "Liar!?"
OK, OK ... before anyone sends a couple of well-armed true-believers to my house in order to set me straight, I will state for the record that the above qualifies merely as some whimsical noodling....
Unless, of course, anyone might like to think it over.