It's a reasonable theory: that a guru who supposedly is "god in human form" isn't a liar, lunatic, the Lord, or a legend.
He or she is a loyalist, someone who carries out the role of a divine person because he or she is loyal to the person/organization who elevated them to their gurudom.
This was what I argued in "Who is the guru?"
Is there another L-word that better fills the bill? One springs to mind: loyalist. Perhaps when a successor is appointed to fill the shoes of a highly-regarded guru, loyalty both to his predecessor and to the surrounding organization prevents the newcomer from crying out, “Hey, I’m not God! I’m just a man filling the role of a guru.”
A new video by David Lane, a.k.a. neuralsurfer, adds weight to this hypothesis. It's called "Charan Singh and the Way of Surrender."
David addressed this question in a response to someone on his Radha Soami Studies discussion group. Here's part of what he said.
Charan didn't opt out of the role for a whole variety of reasons (family loyalty, I believe, being number one), and from my perspective (American, individualistic, atomistic) I think he should have done a radical Faqir Chand move and stopped the madness...
He should have said, in my opinion: GAME OVER.
Now I have had a number of Indian T.A.'s [teaching assistants] working with me for years and the more I got to understand how tight an Indian family can beit gave me a deeper understanding of the pressures inherent in such a complex......
Clearly, one can argue that Charan's loyalty to family (or, more precisely, HIS PERCEPTION of such loyalty) is what led to him to accept the role of guru and not really buck the system.
It may be partially understandable on some level, but let's be clear (and I agree with Gloria on this point), IT IS NOT ENLIGHTENED. It has nothing to do with "truth" as a spiritual path.