Humanity From Without

Two moments of encouragement today.

I don't think the non-brethren at work had noticed any difference in my situation. I'd hardly noticed myself. So it was a surprise to the warehouse worker I spoke to today when I asked him about his experience renting, and told him what was happening. He was supportive in a way I hadn't expected. I suppose I'd imagined that it would be unsettling for anyone at the company, brethren or not, to have the clear dividing line between the two suddenly break down, but he seemed well able to grasp what was involved without it disturbing him at all.

What was particularly touching was that he later pressed his phone number on me, saying that he knew I would be totally on my own, and wanted to help in any way he could.

Then later I had an osteopath appointment. For some unaccountable reason, I've been getting strain in my neck and shoulders.

"Any reason?" she asked.

I was very wary, as the practice has a lot of brethren patients, and she had always been very respectful, but I explained what was going on, presenting it as a simple difference of opinion but one that meant an all-or-nothing action. She asked a few questions, and I answered without putting my family or the brethren in a bad light.

Finally she said "Well, I think you're very strong."

It was hugely encouraging to discuss it from there. She approved, and thought that this struggle now would be a great help for the future, a chance to build moral fibre if you like. And her opinion counts for something to me, because she has no reason to be anything other than impartial, having seen plenty of brethren at their most respectable.

Obviously I have reached my own conclusions independently. Yet outside opinion counts for a lot in reality, as mixing with people is what life mainly means. Here were two people at random, both of whom have, if anything, reason to be loyal to the brethren, and both of them wished only the best for me. That does, to my surprise, mean quite a lot.

A Key Week

"I believe that it is probably true that fortune is the arbiter of half the things we do, leaving the other half or so to be controlled by ourselves."

Last Friday I took the day off work and arranged a day around lunch with some potential new friends, which left me the morning to go from office to office seeing Letting Agents in two towns. I didn't forsee too much problem, as my requirements were remarkably vague: two bedrooms, quick availability, and a five mile radius. What's more, I have funds. Not huge, but enough to cover the rental period.

Interestingly, I find that even if a web search shows a multitude of properties, once you sit down opposite an agent, whatever you're looking for becomes very rare and difficult. Although they'll do everything they can, of course.

Anyway, after collecting papers and business cards from numerous agents, all of whom promised to let me know the instant anything that matched my tricky needs became available, I caught a train into town with two viewings arranged for the next day.

So I turned up to the first with my head swirling with advice from many sources. Be very careful, don't get caught out, they all said. I have the distinct impression that the letting industry is populated with sharks. In the event, I was taken aback to find that everything seemed pretty much ideal. Not only was the woman showing me round friendly and helpful, and willing to offer tips on renting in general, the property was perfect.

It was very small, but a house rather than a flat, and situated in a commuter development rather than among social housing and retirees (no offense). The area felt comfortable. The place itself was so spick and span that I couldn't see any points that would need to go on a list of faults at move-in.

I looked at a maisonette in a theoretically better area, and it had none of the good points, the only advantage being a small workshop in the garden. And the area was actually not as good by a long way.

The afternoon was a time for dithering, as I was kind of suspicious that the right place had appeared first time. I considered the total expense I was committing to, any pitfalls that might appear, what my parents would think of the suddenness. I pondered whether, even knowing that I would be reconsidering my location later, I would be better making a down payment on a purchase rather than spend out for no return.

Then I walked back down to the agent and put my deposit down. As I was handing it over, a woman came back with her deposit for the same place. I'm choosing to take that as a good sign.

Now I have only to arrange my references, and I can move in on Friday/Saturday. I was a bit worried about the employers' reference, as if they chose, they could make it awkward, but I think it will be OK.

That leaves two worries. The furniture and assorted home-making needs, of which I am guaranteed to forget some until I need something immediately, but also my broadband connection. How will I survive the two to three weeks it takes to transfer? It's a good thing I have a laptop. I may become a familiar sight at wifi-enabled coffee shops.

Gradations of Degradation

While I'm at it, I ought to complete the set. Then I can get back to chronicling my personal experience.

It might easily be thought that when a person has been formally removed from among the brethren, by being "withdrawn from", that there would be no further levels to attain in an outward direction. That isn't so, and the misconception is probably part of the reason why those who are "out" get confused by how they are treated.

The highest form of out-ness is seen in those who completely submit to the brethren's handling of them, and live quiet lives exactly as though they were still among the brethren, never making any new links elsewhere. They may well even arrange their lives around the times of the meetings they cannot attend. This is the ideal, and if these people are fortunate enough to attract the attention of a current member, they will probably be reinstated very quickly and become instantly important.

If, however, they behave exactly like this, but have the audacity to hold a grudge - or worse yet, a doctrinal quibble - they are evil and must continue to be shunned. This detail can shunt a person many levels down the "out" hierarchy.

The next category consists of those who try their hardest to become normal "worldly" people. They leave the brethren behind, take no further interest, and plunge themselves into all the forbidden things that they couldn't do before. The brethren feel that these people are entirely understandable, and often hold out hope that they will see the error of their ways once they realise that these earthly activities will never satisfy their souls. Consequently, contact will probably be maintained, because the brethren hope to nudge them towards that realisation and step in with heroic help when it happens.

Strangely, it's worse if ex-brethren are happily Christian and lead moral lives connected with a church of some kind. This is downright suspicious, as nobody who has experienced the fellowship can be satisfied with an alternative. They have succumbed to wrong doctrine and "eaten at a rival table". The more similar the group they have joined is to the brethren, the more reprehensible this behavior is, with the absolute worst being other forms of brethren.

Then comes the group of those with doctrinal or philosophical differences. Whatever their behavior, these people are evil. Great trouble will be taken to make sure there is no contact whatever, for fear of either becoming contaminated by their ideas or giving them any kind of ammunition to use.

Finally, and worst of all, come those who go out of their way to oppose the brethren. They are tools of the Devil himself, as opposing the brethren is his main occupation. That makes them fair game for any action at all. Even unChristian actions are acceptable. The likelihood of any congenial behavior towards somebody who has been placed in this category is miniscule unless there might be political advantage in it. It's war.

I'm still waiting to see which category I fall into. This blog, reasonable or not, may plunge me straight into the abyss of the last one, but it hasn't yet.

Gradations of Glory

Although brethren are all just brethren, and everybody is nominally on the same ground, some are actually more equal than others.

I don't think anybody would be surprised at this apart from the way that brethren are adamant there is no such variety of position. Since the previous lot of important people were deposed and sidelined, it has become crucial that you deny all knowledge of any personal importance when gaining a bit of power. If you look as if you know you're important, you're on thin ice.

It will be clear that I don't have any direct experience of the upper levels of the fellowship. For one thing, I'm not married, and one must be both male and a householder to advance above the plain membership in the smallest degree. That's quite apart from my reluctance to toe the line. So, more than usual, my observations are just that.

These days, at least, the rungs of the ladder upwards are practical rather than ministerial. So the tasks that come the way of most brethren are the key. If a person can gain responsibility for something quite visible, they will gain in importance as a result. Within one's own meeting, this is not too hard to do, as there are plenty of jobs to go round, and most people notice who does them. Anything with wider responsibility than that is more difficult to come by for those who want it. The person will need to have demonstrated competence in something local first, but it is even more important that they did the job obediently than effectively. They will also need to have time and resources to spare, which means normally that they will be the owner of a successful business. Technically, if they are merely extremely capable but still employees, their bosses could allow them the time and resources, but most seem oddly reluctant to do so. Last but not least, they will need to have good connections with others on the rungs above so as to get their name attached to the particular responsibility desired.

I've condensed two levels into one discussion point there, but that's OK because neither of them have names. There are enough people in the local responsibility group that it could probably be considered the normal level of householder membership.

When somebody has hung onto their extra-local task for a while, it will begin to be noticed that they have a little bit of power, and they will get respect for it. They will be known, and will be higher up the list of desirable people when somebody is needed to address the brethren in one way or another. They will also be likely to get small gifts of money from meetings around. Once the person is secure at this level, he is a "help". He is known to be "joined in the work and labouring".

The more visible a responsibility, the more likely a person is to be put to ministerial use, which is more prestigious and comes with more recognisable benefits such as regular travel and increased contact with the brethren who count for something. I'm never entirely sure on what grounds anybody progresses from level to level, but it has something to do with capability in practical affairs, a lot to do with whether they're acceptable to those already in those kinds of positions, and very little to do with their gift for ministry.

A while ago, a person could (without admitting it) aspire to the level of an "area man". This has been thoroughly discredited. There should be nobody between the brethren anywhere and the man at the top. Unless he puts them there for his own convenience, and then that's not the same thing at all.

The only clear upper level is now the one of "three day meeting man", and even that isn't as clear as it was. It used to be a designation for life, once achieved, unless disaster occurred. Now, it arrives with a bang when a person is named as ministering for a weekend at a meeting, then fades away if they don't do more. The benefit at this level, apart from prestige, is that the gifts of money are doubled in size, and will probably arrive more often, too.

Beyond that is a secretive world I know little about with a small circle of favourites. I have no idea what qualifications they have apart from the fact that someone likes them. Maybe that's enough.

Does this sound like politics?

Fine Gradations of Trouble

I haven't got very far yet, but I am working my way slowly through the levels of ex-exclusive-brethren-ness. This seems to be another issue that confuses many people unfamiliar with it, so an explanation is probably in order.

Theoretically at least, there are only two levels at which a person can be fully in fellowship: the man at the top, and the remainder. In practice, there are many more than that. The upper levels are a matter for another time, but I have been exploring the lower ones for a while.

The majority of the brethren are just plain "in fellowship". The vanilla membership comes with the standard package of benefits and responsibilities, including guaranteed employment, a full social calendar, tips and advice, and occasional travel, plus the requirement to be grateful for all of these, and contribute both verbally and financially. The standard member will also be given tasks to do with instructions on how to do them.

Just below this are those "under a cloud". Strictly this designation only applies to those who have been important and have slipped up, and can also be known as "sitting back" because such people normally move from their regular seats on the front row. The same privileges are withdrawn from others who are not fitting in as they should, but there is no standard term to describe those people. These folks are not permitted to be involved in the more delicate and responsible tasks, but it will be noticed that they begin to get an increasing share of the menial tasks so they can feel involved. It would be felt unusual for them to contribute verbally more than minimally, although the financial responsibilities remain, and any travel they do will be much more local.

Below this the distinctions become murky, and can be lumped together as "going through things" or "troubled". This has been my situation for a while, formalised because I neither signed up to the letter setting out the rules for involvement in travel to special meetings, nor subscribed to the required publications. That obviously cut the travel right out, and I also minimised my monetary contributions. The tasks, oddly enough, actually increased, but I don't know if that would be standard. This level also has the special benefit of regular informal chats with people keen to help.

Last week, I discovered a hitherto unknown micro-level of fellowship. I haven't named it, and I've never heard it mentioned before, but it consists of everything being fine "but it's best if you don't come to the meetings".

Then comes what has always been termed "shut up". This now has a number of other designations. When the action is taken, it is called "shrinking from" the person, and is a matter of regret. The person themselves is then "restricted". It may also be said that they are "not available", usually in the context of some task they might otherwise have been doing. A person in this situation is expected to live as the brethren do, but without contact with the brethren, and without what are seen as the privileges. I've had this for a week now, and it's not like it used to be. Brethren hoot their horns and wave when they see me, and I've hardly noticed the difference at work except for a diffidence in discussing brethren affairs. The plan at this stage is meant to be to move back up to the full "in fellowship" level again, and, to this end, people come along to try to facilitate that at intervals of not longer than one week. Of course, if they find that the person has been filling their increased time with unsuitable activities, they may be obliged to move them down a level instead.

That, of course, is the "withdrawn from" level. At all the other levels, one is considered to be in fellowship, but that stops here. All official contact ceases, and the person is then to be shunned completely. These days, this is complicated a little by the fact that nobody can afford to be seen to be written off, so there is in actual fact a bit of space for some non-official contact.

Once again, there are levels even of being withdrawn from, but I'll have to come back to those.

I have often thought that a marvellous board game could be made of this. I detailed it once to some brethren, but they winced even though they could see the attraction. Maybe its time has not yet come.

But ...

I have been writing a long essay about my history, and attempting to sum up, in terms understandable to brethren, why I cannot continue among them. Reading through what I've written so far, and also through my previous postings here, it is very clear that I have a favourite word: "but".

I think it's a good word, and along with its relations "although", "despite" and sundry others, the enemy of the absolute.

The word "but" lets you put opposing ideas and facts next to each other without fighting. With a "but", you are forced to acknowledge that there is more than one side to an issue. It's a peacemaker between contradictions. It marks out a method where you at least attempt to take into account something that disagrees with what you're trying to say.

Personally, I think that's healthy.

I try to understand, really I do, and I'm willing to keep talking to those brethren who wish to persuade me to stay among them, because I would genuinely like to reach some kind of mutual comprehension. It's very one-sided, because they aren't approaching it the same way. However, that's the way I work.

It's that approach that makes me try to explain rather than condemn. I don't believe I have to agree with something to understand it, and it is only by understanding fully that I can decide whether I agree or not. I'm surprised to find that this is disconcerting to a lot of people.

That's enough of this post-modern self-referential blog entry. I need to get back to my essay. It's a devil of a job trying to be comprehensive. Write down everything that troubles me? I could be at it for months.

Blessings Measured in Money

A very touchy subject.

There's no getting round the fact that the brethren as a group are wealthy. I don't think most within the group actually realise this: their idea of normality has been revised upwards over years so that what most people would consider comfortable appears to be poverty. I think that mismatch of standards is why they cannot understand any accusations of being money-obsessed.

I'm very uncomfortable with many aspects of the money situation. Most obviously, it worries me that it is deemed to be necessary to live so expensively to be a true Christian. That seems contradictory to me.

But there is a more subtle problem. Although the brethren claim to consider material things totally subservient to the life of the spirit, in practice they have come to measure spiritual health to some extent by financial means. The thinking is that if one does God's will in every detail, then He will ensure that one's physical comfort is assured. They would deny this in official doctrine, I suspect, but it runs deep and shows itself in so much.

I'm no theologian, but there are obvious pitfalls in this viewpoint. One is that those with monetary resource become the ones with status, but more worrying is that those without money have to labour under the suspicion that there is something morally wrong with them. I thought it was plain in basic Christian teaching that that was wrong. In addition, there is moral hazard in dependence on money, because money is essentially ammoral and likely to distort decision-making processes.

As I think about the issue (and I've done that a lot over years) I can see one clear parallel: that of physical health.

You might suppose from the way brethren view material circumstances that they would also think that a pious life would be rewarded with physical fitness. That would seem to follow from their assumption that financial health follows from a righteous life. But they don't. Sickness is seen as a sign of God's love: "whom he loves, he chastens". The associated troubles are a means to learn God and his ways better, and the entire congregation are meant to share in this learning. I think that's a good way of looking at it.

But I do think that the monetary side parallels the health issue. When Job was tested, his wealth was removed long before his health. I think the brethren could learn a lot from poverty. Not that I wish it on anybody.

I'm a bit worried about it myself. I don't have a lot of resource, yet I'm used to living comfortably. I expect to have to manage on much less, quite suddenly, and in my head I thoroughly approve. Restrictions are a positive thing, both for creativity and personal growth. But I can't help wondering whether I'll find it hard to adapt.

It's a start, at least, to identify an outlook I've been influenced by, even if I'm not too confident I'll overcome it.

Apostasy

While I'm on the big subjects ...

I think I can deal with this one quite fast. Apostasy, as the brethren use the term, is the renouncing of Christian truth that one previously believed. I can see that accusation creeping up on me, and as sins go, they don't come much bigger. It seems to be the very deliberateness of it that makes the sin so fearful.

My definition above has several arguable terms, namely: "renouncing", "christian", "truth" and "believed". Any or all of them could be the focus of a vigorous defence against the charge. I don't propose to do so, as I'm convinced that anyone receptive to the argument can see it for themselves.

My choice of response is a favourite quote from someone who was accused of inconsistency: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Will that do?

Friends Old and New

You can choose your friends but you can't choose your family.

That's a saying which has been on my mind over the last few days. Once without family, you can't replace them directly. There's marriage, agreed, but that's a consciously constructed entity, whereas there's an organic inevitability about family. Certainly about mine.

Friends, though, are another matter.

Obviously there is a large entry on the debit side of leaving a set of friends. Besides the emotional side and the impossibility of replacing individual personalities, there's a shared investment in time and experience. That means that there is a mutual shorthand which maximises understanding while minimising effort. How long does it take to get to the point where a group can laugh together after a single word, all knowing exactly what hasn't actually been said?

But there is a more cheerful side. Some while back I read a psychological study on matchmaking which seems to apply, and it made me reason the following way. It applies in the plural to friends as much as in the singular to romantic attachments.

It's tempting to assume that there is a perfect type of person for you, and maybe even a perfect person. If that is the case, then the chances are very tiny that you've ever met this person, and not much bigger that you ever will. That's simple logic based on the sheer number of people in the world. If you assume that this person is likely to have a similar background to yourself then the odds improve slightly.

If you accept this assumption, then you would expect to be surrounded by many unhappy and lonely people, as very few would ever hit on their perfect partner. As this is clearly not the case, the assumption must be wrong. If so many people are happy together, that means there must be very many more they could have been happy with if they'd looked further afield. They can't all be ludicrously lucky.

My conclusion? There's plenty for everybody. Be friendly, and you'll get friends, some of them people you really didn't expect. Of course, it will take time to build up a deep understanding, but if it's not there at the beginning, that doesn't mean it won't come.

That's what I'm hoping.

What If We're Wrong?

It's an intriguing mental exercise to imagine for a while that, after all, the Exclusive Brethren are exclusively correct. About everything. No, don't shy away. Make it a little test of open-mindedness.

Now, I'm a great fan of believing six impossible things before breakfast, but this thought experiment doesn't usually take too long to stop at something very hard to swallow. For some it may be that George W Bush and John Howard are God's chosen men in government, and apres eux le deluge. For others I can understand that it would be very hard to accept that of all the many religions who KNOW theirs is the one true way, the real one is a little group of self-obsessed separatists. Sorry folks, this great cosmic truth really was well concealed.

But for me, the sticking point is science.

The world was created in six days, just as it is now, six thousand years ago. Before that was a waste and empty period when all kinds of other things might have happened, but it was nothing to do with anything around now. If physics says that it wasn't that way, then Physics is wrong, and those sad people who presume to know better than God have been frittering away their lives. If Biology says that life was more primitive in the past, and tends to improve with the passage of time, then Biology is not only wrong, but evil for suggesting that God couldn't get life right first time.

What's more, everything that is wrong with the world is your fault because you won't stop sinning, but you mustn't try to fix it because that would be working against divine plans.

Enough. You get the idea.

All this has always puzzled me and done more than anything else to undermine the brethren's other less disprovable claims. I know the bible says that God created the heavens and the Earth, but why that gives anyone the right to decree the methods He used, I do not know.

It's not as though the brethren aren't used to reading the scriptures metaphorically. If leprosy always means sin, then why should the six days be literal instead of being figurative of a certain moral order? And I don't see why God shouldn't have chosen to use evolution, either. Everyone knows God moves in mysterious ways, even those who think He's a metaphor Himself.

I think all this is sad. There's plenty of wonder in how the world really is, and that wonder can lead to worship for those so inclined. I do not understand the urge to strip the reality away.

Emotions

So far, quite controlled.

As everybody always says, the biggest price you pay in leaving the close-knit society of the brethren is an emotional one. Not only one's own feelings at having to leave people behind, but the secondhand torture of those others' feelings too.

I suspect the full impact has yet to strike me, but the sadness is currently well balanced with exhilaration, albeit still slightly frustrated. And the wary avoidance I was braced to see in other brethren has yet to show. In some ways it feels like the best of all worlds right now, as I'm equally free to enjoy the company of anybody, but I can't enjoy it because my family aren't. It's for their sakes that I had hoped events would move faster, as a quick break would let them move on instead of rubbing their noses in our differences. Yet even they seem cheerful. It's as though they can't believe I won't see sense soon. With all of us living in varying degrees of denial, who knows what emotional storms are to come.

Two things so far have brought me to the brink of tears, and I don't know why. Both were musical.

The first was playing Chopin's Raindrop Prelude on the piano. The second was the following:

"As one someone long prepared for this to happen,
In full command of every plan you wrecked,
Do not take the coward's explanation,
That hides behind the cause and the effect."

As I say, I don't know why.

Things to Learn

Nothing very much has changed.

I've been learning that it takes time to rent a place. Also that unless I actively do something, nothing happens. It's as though everyone is hoping the problem will go away if they take minimum action and act nicely. Both those aspects actually work well together, in that they both use time: it would be awkward indeed if I was hurried in one way and held up in another.

But one change in myself is quite unexpected. It's only just over a week since my last meeting, and already I'm finding it hard to work up any interest in the brethren's goings-on. That may not bode well for the general interest in my writings, and I have been thinking that I had better move quickly and add some more posts while I can still summon up some strength of feeling on a few subjects. I, at least, would like to look back in the future at what I used to think about it all.

General life remains quite daunting. I have realised a little belatedly that a current job is a useful item in one's baggage. I have warned my employers that I will be going, but I can see that it will be very handy to postpone the official giving of notice until after meeting the bank and after agreeing terms of rent. People feel much safer dealing with an income than a bank balance.

I have much to learn.

Marriage

After a long, lingering, focus in close, the camera pulls back to the wider view ...

Outsiders and leavers all seem to have the impression that marriage is practically forced on all young men among the brethren at the earliest possible age. That may once have been so, but it isn't now.

These things go in cycles, to some extent, and the current rules state that nobody gets married before the age of twenty. That's been the case for some while now. The wheel has turned on asking permission, too. When I was just old enough to feel some kinship with those of marriageable age, it was universal to ask the man at the top about getting married, or at least someone close to him. That practice died off, and I remember one young brother who got through being told fairly briskly that those near at hand would know best whether he was suited for marriage. Now it has swung back the other way, and I think everybody would at least try to get a personal OK.

Interestingly, the answer is very often not a straight "yes". Many who ask about getting married, particularly those who've very obviously arranged it just as soon as they can after the permissible age, are told to wait either six months or a year. I've seen more than one girl of twenty (sorry, but they are girls, not women) in tears at that point. It seems to be thought that all, male and female alike, should have a decent amount of life experience before jumping into an irrevocable commitment. Which is sense to me.

Gradually, too, the habit of older men asking younger men why they aren't yet married has dwindled and died, mostly as the men who did it died themselves. I think that says something about the changing attitudes. After all, marriage is a very big thing to do, especially with no prospect of divorce, and it is very short-sighted to pressure anyone into it unless it is considered a useful way of caging people. Anyway, I have never experienced that pressure to get married myself, although some of my age did.

Ironically, I am personally at the point now where I would like to settle down with someone, and that is a key motivation in making the jump. I decided years ago that marriage within the brethren group was not an option. It's not fair to take that step without being prepared to commit to the way of life for good, for the sake of the family you're setting up. Besides, there are precious few people available who are able and willing to have thoughts of their own, and that, for me, is the very first requirement in a life partner. So out I must go, to seek fortune and companionship.

Not Yet Halfway

It feels odder to be writing about the process of leaving than I thought it would, mostly because of the very personal nature of the happenings.

As of last night, I am officially "restricted", which, for those who know about some of this, means the same as "shut up" but means it more delicately. The other phrase provokes winces these days, as it carries memories of harsh treatment, so now the same thing is done but with a smile and a different name. To quote Dilbert, "it's the same thing, but we've made huge advances in what it's called".

There are now three men dealing with me, and they're all very anxious to be cordial, and to make utterly clear that this is just a temporary unpleasantness that can swiftly be resolved. I'm sure they mean it, too. I have a little suspicion that once someone's been given a task such as my situation, they look at it as a personal failure if it doesn't end happily from their viewpoint, but I am also sure that they genuinely want the best for me within their own outlook. I can't dislike them for it, and nor would I want to. Of course, that only makes it harder that we simply don't agree. I hate disagreeing with anybody.

Still, it was a good deal less stressful this time, as they were purposely brief, and stuck to finding points of agreement as far as possible. And they had a main message to convey, which was a suggestion that I write down everything that troubles me. That, I have to say, is a genuinely good idea, and something I didn't expect. I shall do that with great relief and it'll be good to have it all out on paper in a way I find myself incapable of saying face to face. Presumably they will then want to counter the points one by one, but that's fine.

What is worse is the reaction of friends, who are more affected than I feared. The best are sad but accepting, but even that's hard when there are more of them than I thought. It's not just the pain of parting, but, for them, it must be like watching a loved one wandering into some fearful danger while deluded. I know it's not so, but I can't help them.

So what's next? I still have a job for now, which it looks like I will be leaving slowly and may end up keeping some of it for longer on a consultancy basis. That limits my movements somewhat. I want to move out, but I'm painfully aware of my naivety in things like renting, and I don't want to put all my resources into property. I have a business to start, but need another director.

At this point it comes forcibly to my attention that I was absent for many lessons in life. I have some serious catching up to do.

Reporting from Limbo

As expected, my writings have forced events into motion.

So far, low key. I can honestly say I've never had harsh treatment at any time, and in spite of the fact that my family, my friends and those required to deal with the problem are all clearly very hurt by the public nature of my complaints, there's no change now. I'm not being ejected, and the person keenest for me to leave is me.

The pleas from loved ones are hardest to take. I do have to concede that a totally selfless person would stay by them at any cost, even if that argument cuts both ways. It's very hard to disagree with anyone who obviously has your best interests at heart, however much you may consider them mistaken in their conclusions. I hate to disagree with anyone at any time, and this is heartrending on all sides.

Talking with those deputised to sort me out is different. Ne'er the twain shall meet. They simply cannot understand my conclusions, let alone accept them (which is just as well, or they'd jump ship too), and while I'm over-familiar with their point of view, it doesn't make any more sense to me than it ever did. At root, it always comes down to accepting things as they are and trusting that there is concealed sense behind the nonsense. That we can't understand God's ways and therefore shouldn't presume to question. And that where things have been wrong, it's down to people, not the system. We amicably but tensely talk past each other. I emerge from the discussions with less patience for it than I had before, which I'm sure wasn't the idea.

However, at this point I have to seriously plan for life apart. For all my thinking, I find I'm not well-prepared. I don't actually know what to do next, and as I don't want to run out on work or family members who need assistance at this point, it may take a while to sort out.

Anyone who's opened a cage door for an animal will recognise the situation. Mostly, however much you think they'll run, they hang back in a corner.

Confessional

One important thing I haven't yet covered: why am I writing?

The reasons are mixed, as such things often are. Initially it was from a desperate need to do something, after what could be called a final straw. But that doesn't explain why this.

I've tried to say these things before in two ways. Firstly to individuals among the brethren, and secondly in writing to others outside. The first is painful and unproductive, the second enjoyable and unproductive. That's nobody's fault, it's just the way it is.

I absolutely hate telling anyone something that pains them. Combined with the fact that I already know what someone in fellowship thinks, and knowing that I'm not going to change their mind, that makes it unbearable talking things over with those inside. This way, I can kid myself that the unpleasant truths are not hurting anyone in particular, and that makes it possible to say.

Then again, the public aspect is important. This is what I think. Here, it can't be brushed under the carpet. I've said it, and I stand or fall by it. I wanted an irrevocable step, and this is it. I'm painfully conscious of my own weakness and inclination to back down rather than hurt someone, and I don't want to give myself the option.

So to those reading this: if you enjoy it be my guest, and if it pains you then I'm sorry. The intended audience is neither of you, merely the big "out there", which is why I've taken the trouble to distance myself from any use of my writing.

And with any luck it will be my passport to a new and more honest life. Fighting one's demons in public can have useful side effects.

Education

This is a subject I've been avoiding, because my opinions remain incomplete and a bit contradictory. It does seem to be number two in the general interest stakes, though, so I'll put down some random thoughts.

Like anyone else who values the life of the mind, I detest the very idea of ghettoised schooling. The notion that, by controlling education, the whole thought processes of a generation can be shaped to order ... well, it's abhorrent. To add to that, the early stages of the project were marked by frighteningly amateur teaching, and the early guinea pigs must have learned very little.

So far, I doubt any onlooker would disagree.

The positive side comes from the fact that it's a grand scheme, and grand schemes rarely work out as they're meant to. The brethren schools are a classic case of the unintended consequences being at least as important as the intended ones.

One thing that might have been expected is that the teaching quality is now quite good. That's because the teachers are professionals, well paid, and insist on doing their work properly. Unless some brethren somehow get qualified themselves, they can't change that.

Now, though, I don't think they'd want to, because of the bigger, more subtle, unintended consequence.

That is that the brethren have been forced to take education seriously. In the past, school was something of a necessary evil, and the community outside school would constantly belittle and downgrade its importance. That can't happen now the community runs its own schools. The attitude hung on for a while, but the project couldn't have survived without a concerted effort to make good education seem of serious value. It's costing a lot, after all.

I still think the children are disadvantaged, because they are losing out on the skills required to deal with the wider world (as intended). But I find my feelings unexpectedly mixed after seeing the whole group infected with the education-is-good virus. The children are emerging more capable in some ways, simply because they are no longer getting mixed messages about what they're doing. That has to be good, even if it's hard to decide whether the costs and benefits balance.

My suggestion to those worried about all this is to be careful where you apply pressure so that you minimise the damage to the unexpected good as you try to change the bad.

How to Increase Your Amen Level

Step One: take a standard brethren concept or stock expression.

Step Two: strip the standard brethren phraseology from it and see what it really means.

Step Three: see if the actual meaning is something you're happy to say (they aren't all).

Step Four: if it is, then think of the simplest way of saying it in plain English.

Step Five: aim and release.

Step Six: wait for the enthusiasm as the brethren realise they understand what you just said, and in spite of it sounding as though it's a completely fresh thought you just had, they actually agree with it!

Just like magic.

Priests Have Problems, Too

Those who have had harsh treatment from the Exclusive Brethren in the past may find it difficult to believe and accept the impact recent developments have had.

I can remember a time when anyone wanting to be taken seriously would have to be as harsh in practise as they were loving in speech. It was a form of oneupmanship to be intolerant of small infractions, and ready with severe consequences for anything that might warrant them in case someone else proposed them first and got the credit for adhering to the principles. No doubt many on the outside would wince at similar recollections.

The easing of a few years ago has mostly worn off, as can clearly be seen. But the effects are more subtle than an observer might think.

That period had many people rattled who thought they knew how the system worked. You see a sin, you deal with it. But suddenly it became a sin to deal with a sin wrongly. Some got into serious trouble for doing what, a few years previously, had been the right and obvious thing to do. Retrospectively, it became more important to deal with the person than the sin. This was when many past actions were undone.

Now it's a lot harder. Knowing that any action they take could be examined in future, and that it would almost always be possible to think of a better action to take (hindsight being like that), people are understandably very wary. If you could equally be hammered for taking unnecessary action as for not taking action when you could, suddenly you'd better be very sure what you're doing. So it's an easier course to stand back and wait. Or, for very troubling cases, ask what to do. It's no longer enough to protect the position; you must do that AND make the offender see the error of their ways, all while offending nobody.

That's a tall order.

It may explain my position, too.

The odd thing is that now that's how things are done, all at once it's the way things have always been done whenever they were done right. History, for brethren, is very malleable like that.

Post Archive

Having deleted the earliest posts for reasons that I'll explain later, I'm preserving the content of them here for posterity.

Post Leicester Low

Late June is a good time to begin a blog about the Exclusive Brethren.

The universal meetings have come and gone, and the usual fevered anticipation of radical "tests" and other bombshells has given way to the usual air of let-down that nothing much was said out of the ordinary. It rarely (I was going to say "never") is. I don't know why brethren expect sweeping changes in June, they just do. I suppose it suits everybody, leadership and all, because, post-hype, even obvious banalities are picked over in search of something about them that must be deep in some way. It must be nice to be at the apex of that, and all you have to do is throw out some seeds to get the credit for a whole blossoming of ministry.

If you know nothing about the brethren, then the above has a lot that needs explaining. The universal meetings are a little like the World Series, in that they are only universal if you discount vast swathes of the universe; in this case, starting with everything that's not Earth, then everything that's not human, then everything that's not brethren, and finally all the brethren who don't count. Other than that, they're universal, and at least somebody from everywhere where there are brethren is present. If your blinkers are set narrow enough, that's pretty wide. And exceedingly important. And they happen once a year, in June, and since 1994 (I think) have been in Leicester, UK. It's a long weekend of sitting and listening to the dear leader, sorry, the Elect Vessel. More than that I wouldn't know, because I've never been.


Computers

I've been chuckling to myself a lot lately.

It's the incongruousness of OPENLY using a computer in a brethren office. I do it, the girls do it ... but not as much as the bosses do. It's not called a computer, of course, and it's custom built and comes with pre-approved applications, but it is so obviously a computer that I can't help smirking All this time my computers have been illicit, and here's the new approved item taking pride of place, and everybody loves it. Well, not quite, but those who are doubtful are the suspicious characters who have no faith in the way we're being led.

It makes me think a bit, though. I'm sure not so long ago Bill Gates was described as "a prototype for the Man of Sin", which is quite damning, even for brethren. So why are the brethren computers all, without fail, exclusively Microsoft affairs? Besides this footling issue of principle, surely there would be less risk of brethren getting the hang of this PC stuff who ought not to, if it was all a tightly locked-down open-source system? It's not as though the high command wanted a cheap off-the-shelf system. Maybe that's just too simple. There's an element of mystery to these things, as might be said in a meeting.

Another thing it makes me think is that I really dislike Word. Mind you, what with a capitalised Word and a Brother printer, computers don't get much more brethren-friendly. But seriously, what an obstructive application that is. I get given the awkward computer jobs to do, because I know more about it (and why would that be?), but Word is doing a very good job of making me seem not TOO familiar with PCs. I've had Office on my own computer since 1999 if I remember rightly, but never got into Word. Excel is OK.

And don't get me started on the mythical laptops that appear provided from some central source whenever something officially important is going on. I'm all for computers in general. Great labour-savers. But let's please use them properly, so they actually save labour.


Time To Get Personal

After two posts, anyone might say "why do you stick with these idiots?".
They have a point.
The lifestyle is restrictive to the point of absurdity, without the consistency of other hyper-conservative sects. There's a lot of pressure in numbers of ways, mostly a variety of requirements to conform. To measure the narrowness of outlook would need a whole new system of microscopic units. And, not least, it gets more tiring than you'd think giving the impression that you believe every single dull yet specific pronouncement.
So why not get out?
That's something I often wonder. Really, it's the people. How such a good-hearted set of individuals can combine to make such a mean-spirited group is hard to understand. I would (and probably will) miss many friends after leaving, and that's without considering the agony of breaking up a family. One thing the Exclusive Brethren understand very well is that you can make people value something by imposing high costs both on keeping it and losing it. So the restrictions while in are matched by promised restrictions once out, in the form of an utter severance from everybody you know and care about. Of course, that wouldn't matter if there was nobody worth caring about, but there is. I have many friends, and the fact that they believe unbelievable things doesn't stop them being friends.
Then beyond that is the difficulty of making a new life once well into adulthood. Among the brethren, you get everything on a plate, from what to do with your time upwards. Jobs are provided, and help given if you start a business, and because brethren don't get worldly qualifications, it would be very hard to match your earnings with an outside job. And while dealing with that, you need to find a new home, new friends, all the components of life that you need to feel human. Brethren get more reliant on close society than I think they realise.
So, to sum up, if you think it's hard to be in the Exclusive Brethren, you will struggle to see how hard it can be to go. That's why many ex-members are so bitter even after years. They resent having to make such an intolerable choice.


Beatles Ban Anniversary

It just occurred to me today that we have now had a Beatles-free year. What we suffer to remain pure!
Back in the sixties the group became personnel non grata (sorry), and then gradually OK again, but we're in a time of sixties revival so maybe it's not so surprising that this ban should revive as well. In another way it's strange though, because through the seventies and eighties, a lot was made of music, and it was said that all music was of God. Well, I'm sorry to differ in this, but as far as I'm concerned the Beatles' music still is. I'm not so sure about Elton John, who's the other banned person so far, but on the Beatles I won't budge.
Actually, it doesn't make a big difference to me. If I want to listen to the Beatles I can. But I have to say there's not much to match their songs for a good singalong. And now that's out, and I have missed it.
We'll see if the ban lasts longer than it did four decades ago.


Care Meetings

Care Meetings have changed in feel over the last few years. Maybe it's just where I am, but I don't imagine that can be all it is.

It's some time since it was a kind of free-for-all, giving away a medium-size pot of money to deserving causes (within EB parameters) and making decisions on the spot. It gradually developed into a pre-arranged list of donations (sorry, "gifts"), with the fig-leaf of a check with the assembled company that it met with their approval.

These days, there is very little scope for any input at all. Fixed sums of cash to Levites (the catch-all name for men who've achieved a certain minimum status among the brethren) take up about half the amount to be disposed of, and the list is stitched up in advance. It has to be, because only people in the know can tell if a particular person qualifies.

The real let-down is in the area of what might cynically be called real need. There are funds for poor brethren in deprived areas, funds for those with large travel costs, places with building expenses for their meeting halls - and in the little world of the exclusive brethren, these count as real deserving causes. It used to feel good selecting one or two of these for some money. But more recently, most of them have been lumped together into one or two "general funds", and it's left to some central committee to decide who gets what. Donations are required to be large, but they must all go to the shadowy organisation who knows best what to do with them.

What's more, the building costs have been separated out into a collection of their own at another time of the month, so the drain on the wallet has been doubled. And even that isn't consistent. I heard of one place where they collected some really big sums of money, really sacrificing significant quanitites of their income for a few months, because they knew they'd soon be starting work on a meeting hall themselves and would want funds to draw on. Then, when they started their building work, they applied to that same fund, and were told they wouldn't be getting any funding because they'd proved there was enough money in the place to provide for themselves. I haven't heard whether they're still collecting much for that fund.

But to return to Care Meetings, it may not be long before brethren only meet together quickly to rubber-stamp a single payment directly to the Man of God(tm). That's because the instruction from on high is to send something every month, but to vary the amount. The net result? Well, when you have everybody anxious to show that they appreciate the leadership at least as much as everybody else, and hopefully more, then it's very difficult to vary that amount downwards. The ratchet effect should ensure that eventually there is no money left for any other causes.

Hypocrisy for Beginners

I realise I've been circling around the same point for a while now. I apologise, but I think it's important.

In essence, that point is "why am I neither in nor out?" Sitting on the fence has very little in common with the moral high ground. Well, I don't think I can give a simple answer.

Let me deal with the hypocrisy side of things. I'm guilty as charged, but it doesn't feel as bad as it may look. I have principles (and if you don't like them, I have others, as Groucho Marx said). Honestly, I do. First among them is not to say what I don't mean. So I don't say I agree with things that I disagree with. I don't praise things I think are stupid. I don't say "yes, that's good," when it isn't. That may mean spending a lot of my time quiet, but that's OK. It also means the occasional clash, but not very often. I think people must think I'm joking.

Second is to make sure secrecy doesn't tip into outright deceit. That means that although I don't advertise my activities, I don't deny them when asked. I'm constantly amazed by how little trouble that causes. There has been a shift in attitudes that, although slight, seems to have far-reaching effects. I'll get back to that.

This leads me to the ideas of freedom and integrity.

The thinker who has probably influenced me most once wrote "The fundamental sense of freedom is freedom from chains, from imprisonment, from enslavement by others. The rest is extension of this sense, or else metaphor."

I'm fortunate that I'm free. To talk about lack of freedom among the brethren is extension and metaphor, because it's in the mind. I think one should always remind oneself just what true disadvantage can be. Many years ago, when starting down this road, I thought I was "getting away with things", but it's not so. I am free, truly free, to do whatever I want. And the corollary is that the brethren are free to remove me from their grouping, just as the justice system is free to fine me if I exercise my freedom to drive as fast as I like. Once I realised this, things became a lot less stressful. I set my own boundaries, and one of the judgements I have to make is whether an activity is worth the trouble it would cause; but at least that's my decision to make. I know the brethren's rules, and in my opinion they have a right to make rules if they wish. But "rules" is all they are, and it's not a matter of good and evil whether I obey them.

That may be difficult for others to understand. I think it's a little bit like civil disobedience to an unjust law. My position is that as long as I'm not claiming to believe and obey rules when I'm not, my conscience is clear.

That's not to say it wouldn't be better not to have to make all these rationalizations.

Why oh Why?

Hard as it may be to believe, there really are people who cannot understand why anyone wouldn't be happy among the brethren. There are a good many more who think that while there are problems and faults, the overwhelming balance is towards the benefits.

That's the way any conversations about leaving tend to go.

The first question is "where else would you go?" which is easy to answer. There's no need to go anywhere. Out is out, and the move doesn't come with a requirement to join an alternative group. That's a scary thought to many, accustomed as they are to props on all sides.

The next is "what benefit could be so great as to make you give up all the amazing things about being in fellowship?" and that one I like to turn around. There is no benefit so small that I wouldn't trade all the brethren's perceived wonders for it. Actually, I've said that one in my head a lot more than I've said it in real life, because the question is mostly asked rhetorically in circumstances that don't allow for reply.

After that, the pattern varies. One other query I've had more than once is "how can you possibly think that you're the one person who's right and all the brethren are wrong?" That makes me laugh. Anyone who can ask such a question without seeing that the true situation is that I've joined the multi-millions-to-one majority who think the brethren don't have all the answers, is beyond irony. It's not worth arguing over this one, as those billions of people outside don't count for anything. They're wrong.

Another point of attack is along the lines of "there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". A creditable thought, but it has its limits. I am assured with great positivity that if I could only accept things as they are, I'd find I was happy immediately. I'm sure that's true, but it's hard to explain why I'm uncomfortable with modifying my mind to the extent that the acceptance becomes possible. Supplying our wants by lopping off our desires is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes, as a better religious thinker than me once said.

It's surprising how often I've had promises that things will improve, too, if I only hang on. All the problems, I'm told, are because the brethren, as individuals, are not as they should be, and as everyone gets right everything will become wonderful.

This is where I really disagree. The reason I haven't departed years ago is, admittedly, in small part lack of confidence that I can survive, but the biggest reason is those very individuals. It irritates me that the system is held blameless while the poor struggling people are apparently all that is stopping the fellowship being paradise on Earth. Literally. Some of those individuals love me, and would blame themselves and suffer enormously if I were to leave them, and even knowing that they're wrong about that doesn't make it any easier to land it on them. And these are also the people who are to blame for everything else too?

We don't usually get too far. And the same questioners often seem to escape coming back for another discussion. I can't think why.

Through a Glass Darkly

For today's exercise, class, I'd like you to imagine you're a person in a very restricted community, surrounded by friends who are happy and enthusiastic about the community. You, however, know more about the world outside the hedge than they do, and don't share either their fear of the mythical horrors or their half-admitted hankering after the overrated pleasures.

When one of the community, seeing that you aren't enjoying the benefits as much as you ought, sits down to discuss what they could do for you, you tire of vagueness and say that you'd rather be outside. They, living and breathing the community, are dumbfounded. Why would you want to? What forbidden activity do you wish to indulge in? You, quite honestly, say that there is nothing that you can't do already, and that you don't expect to gain much. All they can ask is "Why?"

What is your answer? You have ten minutes to think, then we'll discuss it.

Everybody ready?

Those who said "to gain congruence between my internal and external lives", you can award yourselves two points. And take one of them away again for expressing the thought so pompously. But you're right in large part. Humans are not made to accept ideas and reality clashing all the time, and will get stressed.

Those who said "to gain freedom", you only get half a point. What does freedom mean if there is no specific activity you wish to gain? But you get that half point because there is a difference between open and private enjoyment.

I'll let you think about it a little more, and give you my answers next time.

Many Talents

To adapt the old comic-book joke, there are those with many talents as they knew them in bible days, and there are those with abilities.

I believe there are many very able people among the brethren. Those who look down on the entire group are confusing intelligence with education. The wider world has many examples of successful autodidacts, and even more examples of natural ability. So unless the brethren are operating Darwinian selection in a downward direction, a group of however-many-thousand should have a reasonable proportion of people who can hold their own in various fields of endeavour.

What I'm getting at is that I'm not particularly unusual. I can write. That doesn't mean anything at all about my upbringing or the society in which I live. I'm mildly insulted that anyone should think that only a person who's already left the fellowship would be able to string words together.

There is an odd thing I've noticed while thinking about this. The people who are most successful at living the brethren life fall into two groups: the lower-to-middle intelligence bracket, which I'll widen to include those who may be more intelligent but lack self-confidence, and the very intelligent. Those who are most dissatisfied are the merely intelligent.

Before going any further, I should make clear that I'm not talking about classical intelligence so much as the modern broad definition, which as I understand it can signify any ability to grasp and manipulate concepts, from the physical arena, to interpersonal empathy, to the highly abstract.

If I were being cynical, I could say that it would take a very highly developed intelligence to grasp the unyielding principles that underlie the shifting brethren doctrines, but that's not quite what I mean. What I'm tentatively observing is that some people seem to be able to move beyond the troubling inconsistencies, and treat the whole thing as an interesting exercise in creative living, and that those same people manage to get into positions where they can live very comfortably within the rules. It is certainly possible to live well among the brethren. Those who are intelligent enough to see the inconsistencies but don't have what it takes to do anything about it are the unhappy ones. I count myself among them.

Interestingly, it is beginning to seem as though the tide is turning a bit, and the brethren are starting to value classical intelligence too. The best pupils in the brethren's schools are being strongly encouraged to stay on for further education in practical academic subjects like law and accountancy, with businesses guaranteeing them jobs at higher pay after the delay. It's too early to take that as a good sign yet, but it makes a pleasant change. It will be interesting to see how the challenge of blending academic thought with unquestioning acceptance is met.

A Letter to the Community

It seems that I have readers. OK, I guess that shouldn't be a big surprise, as public writings are there for people to see. However, it hadn't occurred to me that there would be much interest in something so personal.

I am not happy about being in the spotlight. What's more, I think it's very bad manners to make use of my musings without checking first. It seems as though the self-appointed ex-brethren management is much like the brethren management, in that they are completely unilateral in deciding what's best. Thank you very much, and I hereby disassociate myself from your use of my writing.

Having given a few days' consideration to the matter while removing the blog from public gaze, I have decided for the moment that "too many readers" is a very slightly preferable situation to having none. So the blog is public again on a trial basis. Readers, please bear the following in mind.

Sorry to sound selfish, but I'm writing this for myself. You're completely welcome to disagree with me on any and all points, to think it's all a spoof ... or even enjoy it for what it is. Be my guest, and don't expect me to worry what you think.

I'm writing partly because I'm bored, and like a challenge with a sprinkling of risk to add spice, but mostly because I want to record what I feel while I feel it and I'm not disciplined enough to keep up a diary. So scandalous revelations are unlikely, and I'm not in the business of dirty laundry except in so far as a particular situation weighs on my mind. Writing about something that troubles me helps to clear my thoughts.

For that reason, I may seem negative. Don't take it seriously.

I expect to find myself quietly ushered out of the fellowship. I also expect to gain consolation from documenting the process. But I won't take kindly to anyone bringing the event nearer, and I might mention that I already have a poor opinion of the zealots of ex-brethren-ness.

Thank you for your patience during this interlude. Normal service will be resumed shortly.

Networking

There is one benefit of being among the Exclusive Brethren that is extremely hard to replicate. That is the sheer number of people willing to share information and experience.

Admittedly it's not the advantage it once was, as ad hoc communities form and dissolve via modern means all the time these days for that very purpose. But the EB network is still ahead, particularly in some areas. Business, for example.

In fact, that's a good example to take. There are other business-to-business networks, but I doubt any of them have the mutual trust and consistency of the brethren community. For most, business is competition, and if you find a way to get ahead, you guard it. Not so among the brethren. It's long been the case that if you had a problem there would be someone somewhere with the experience to solve it, but now it's even beyond that, with active programs of coaching in business methods. That means that if you start in business, you have a large pool of expertise to call on, both general and specific. People will know what works in your area, and others will almost certainly know about the particular business.

That explains, of course, why you see the same types of business repeated over and over in different places. Some may have opinions on why so much trouble is taken to seed and develop business success, but although cynical about many things I like to think it's mostly altruism, at least in individual cases.

It works in other ways, too. Any professional person good enough to impress one brother or sister can expect an increasing flood of custom from others in the future, as anyone within reach with a similar problem will be directed to the solution that's worked best in the past.

If you've never had a network like this, it's probably difficult to imagine. I think it must be unusual to feel you can trust the opinions of several thousand people as much as your closest friends.

Obviously I don't know, but I am assuming that the sudden removal of that network must be among the hardest things to adapt to after leaving. I picture myself doing almost anything that needs doing, from finding where to live to earning an income to making friends, and all of it needs connections. Not only do I have little idea what choices to make for myself, but many things involve others deciding whether to choose me. How will they get an idea of my worth as a person when I have no pieces of paper to say I can do anything, and no people to call on to vouch for me? Will I get a chance?

There's a clue there for anyone wondering why I'm blogging.

The Uses of Criticism

Not to mention the uselessness of abuse.

The brethren don't get a good press. In many ways that's unfair. In the big scheme of things, brethren are a lot closer to trivial than evil. What's more, only their blunders get noticed, although there are areas of success if anyone cares to look. I'm not minimising the suffering of those who've found themselves caught under the wheels of their drive towards earthly perfection, but all organisations get hated these days. Look at the World Bank, AT&T, the Kurds.

What many people probably don't realize is that the brethren actually find the bad publicity useful. I wouldn't go so far as to say that the management actively invite negative coverage, but it certainly isn't as unwelcome as the rest of us might like to think.

If you've invested decades of doctrinal effort in proving a way is uniquely and absolutely right, and at the same time asserting that a sure way to tell that it is right is that it comes under attack, then it would be a worry if nobody disagreed with it. The brethren consider their whole way of life to be a blatant criticism of the world around. The Devil is more at war with the fellowship than any other entity on earth; would he not use any means at his disposal to attack it? Including the media, which is a nest of literal demons? And the internet, which is undiluted evil?

What this means for those who'd like to make a difference is that you're almost certainly wasting your time. The brethren have an impenetrable force field. Any attack is proof that they're right and you're wrong, because if you were right you wouldn't allow the Devil to act through you.

And what's more surprising is that the attitude is as strong in waverers as it is in true believers. I know several who've been disenchanted, found a way to look outside, and been shocked to discover that what they've always been told is true: people do hate the brethren. That has been enough to persuade them that perhaps everything else they were told is also true. They take it personally, and that renews the links they were beginning to loosen.

So is criticism pointless? No. It makes me feel better, and I suspect that's true of others. Just let's not kid ourselves we're serving any wider purpose.

Christianity

Is it surprising that so far there has been very little mention of Christianity in these posts? It's hard for me to tell.

Ostensibly, the brethren are all about Christianity. It's the source, the reason, the excuse for everything. There are none more Christian, as though the affairs of the soul were a competitive sport. And that's part of the problem. Christianity is meek, forgiving, loving in attitude, and finds its strength in those characteristics, which makes it a difficult thing to impose by decree, let alone force. What you can do, of course, is control behaviour to an extent. If behaviour is all that counts.

There are a lot of difficult questions here.

The brethren, very consciously, make it easier to obey the rules than to break them. They provide a structure in which to live, with the aim of producing "perfect" lives. Assuming for a moment that all those rules genuinely do add up to a perfect life, how much value is there in a person who's been moulded to fit that life? Is the life itself sufficient, or should it be harder work than that, with the very struggle itself of value?

I don't claim to have the answers. But I have asked the questions. I have spent long nights finding out what I do believe, and as a result I can rely on the faith I have. By comparison, I look around and wonder whether most of my brethren have beliefs, or merely assume they do because they've always told themselves they have. They may be too busy checking themselves for infractions to find out. I don't want to imply that everyone is like that, because there are many who are really Christian and it shows, and I have a lot of respect and affection for those people. But they aren't the ones driving the Exclusive Brethren Project forward.

So what do I believe? Sorry, but that's between me and my creator, and you can take that any way you choose.

A Questioning Attitude

One of the most difficult things to be among the exclusive brethren is a thinking person. Thinking, it's safe to say, is not encouraged.

That's worried me for a long time. I mean, whatever else, a person should have their private thoughts. Cogito ergo sum. As far as I'm concerned, a person without thoughts of their own is barely a person in their own right - but perhaps that's the point. Not to be an individual, merely a small part of something.

But the situation is that each brother (and sister, but of course they count for less) must have a good enough connection to God to know precisely what He would wish to have done about anything, no matter how small or trivial. And the test of whether you have it right is whether it matches with what the man at the top thinks. If it doesn't, you are automatically wrong, and you must change your thoughts at once. No consideration must be given to why you originally thought what you did, and there must be no pause to check whether the new thoughts make sense, because that would be questioning the Lord's word. Delayed obedience, we are often told, is disobedience.

Yet, to me, this ban on questioning is more troubling in itself than any of the individual things that might be questioned. Mostly, about those, who really cares? But at root, I feel that only truths that have withstood all the questioning I can throw at them are truly truths. Truths which must not be questioned are immediately suspect. Why no questioning? Is anyone afraid they might not stand the harsh light of intelligent investigation? Often I feel I'm entirely alone in feeling that way.

That makes it more troubling that this attitude is not only being emphasised more and more, but that the envelope is being pushed too. It's as though there is a deliberate campaign to stretch what the general body of the brethren can accept. They've rationalised the last lot? OK, let's see what they make of this. Corners are being turned right left and centre, so to speak. Anyone stuck in their old thoughts is not keeping up. And we hear that The Man has spoken of deliberately appearing to be fake, which of course makes everybody even more eager not to doubt, however ludicrous a suggestion might be. I can't escape the suspicion that he's preparing the ground for an expansion of his working latitude. In the past, the scope for new rulings has always been somewhat limited by an inability to accept that any previous ones might have been wrong. But I believe we have almost reached the point where the entire rulebook could be ripped up, and the brethren generally would applaud the "new light".

Ex-Exclusives

I have sometimes wondered whether being among the brethren is permanently damaging to the psyche.

Probably not in every case, but what's worrying is that many of the people who've left the group seem to come across as much obsessed as those who stayed in, with the only difference being that they've switched sides. It's as though "us against them" has become such an ingrained attitude that they need to keep it up, and those they left behind are the most obvious candidates. I'm not minimising the mental agonies some/most will have gone through, but in a normal situation most people grow beyond such things.

That's one of the scary things about contemplating leaving. Will I be obsessed too? Will I be able to leave it behind? Can I make a life for myself in which I don't ever think of myself as "used to be brethren"? Some people must do, but I don't see many.

For real gnawing of fragments of old lives, take a little look at www.peebs.net - you probably already have if you've found this blog, as the site comes high on a google search for exclusive brethren. These folks are people who all, without exception, proclaim themselves to be delighted at their freedom from the evil cult that the brethren are. Yet they spend a large amount of their time (as far as I can see) discussing, criticising, taunting, etc etc ... the very group they've glad to have left. Is it me, or is that unhealthy? I've spent far too long in a political atmosphere, and become far too cynical, but it says to me that these people are not sufficiently sure of their ground to just shrug and let it go. By keeping at it, they quieten the voice in the back of their heads that queries their lives as they now are.

Anybody's free to point a finger at me. Here I am criticising the brethren myself, and more besides, and I haven't had whatever it takes to do anything about it. In my defence, all I'll say is that at least I'm prepared to admit to doubts of various kinds, and that I'm surrounded by the brethren all the time. I can't help thinking about them. And frankly, if I don't let off steam somewhere, I'll suffer a breakdown.

Plus, in my long wrangling over the deepest religious and moral aspects of it all, the biggest conclusion I have reached for sure is that IT DOESN'T MUCH MATTER. Does God care about the little details? I'm utterly certain He doesn't. So I'm not any more inclined to beat the brethren over the head with what they do and believe than I am to subscribe to it myself.

How to Manage the Priests

It feels like time to be useful, and this is an area where I have a bit of experience. So here's my top ten tips for dealing with those awkward men who feel they have to deal with certain aspects of your life and character from time to time.

Rule no.1
Always be friendly and cheerful, whether in a proper talk or casual conversation. Never give the impression you don't want to speak to them, even if it's true. Brethren priests are only human, and they'll find it much harder to see you as properly sinful if you seem to like them. People like to be liked.

Rule no.2
Don't cause trouble. Feel quite free to flout the rules, but don't rub anyone's nose in it, and make it easy to ignore, and at all costs avoid forcing anyone to notice, because they'll be obliged to act. Similarly, don't be seen to spread doubts or influence others.

Rule no.3
Make it quite clear that you could cause trouble if you chose to. This has the double benefit of making them grateful to you because of your restraint, and making them very wary of doing anything that might tip the balance.

Rule no.4
It should also be obvious that you don't care if they do take action. And frankly, if you do care about potentially being thrown out, none of this is any use to you. I doubt you can pretend well enough to make a difference.

Rule no.5
Wherever possible, answer a straight question with a straight answer. Be open, not evasive, but even more than that, SEEM open. If they scent that somewhere beneath the surface you're ashamed of something, they will become sure they can win. If you yourself think you're wrong, that makes them right, and you can be sure they'll push the point. If necessary, one of your straight answers can be "I'm not going to answer that," but see rule six.

Rule no.6
Before a talk starts, decide what areas are not up for discussion, and stick to that, both keeping off those subjects and not adding other non-discuss subjects partway through. Whatever you do, don't dither over whether to answer, because they will then focus on the subject. Think carefully, because too many out-of-bounds areas will stop you seeming open.

Rule no.7
Have a handy grievance. This should be something they cannot solve, something you can openly disagree about without offending them, and really should be something that doesn't affect you directly. Good examples are wanting to know why the rules have changed on cellphones or computers, and disagreeing with locking meeting hall doors while claiming to be a public building open to all. But better than either of those is anything specific and original that actually does trouble you. If it doesn't, you'll have a hard time stopping the subject being dismissed.

Rule no.8
Find something fundamental that you and they can agree about, ideally some very basic Christianity. If you can solemnly and seriously assure them that you know you're saved, it will go a long way, and any point of agreement will tend to be remembered above the disagreements. Don't let yourself admit to any "but"s if you do genuinely agree on something. Keep doctrinal differences to yourself unless they're going to help.

Rule no.9
Keep any formal talk slow, with gaps, always remembering rule two. It'll make it look as though you're taking it seriously, and give you time to think.

Rule no.10
Leave them with work to do. Ask for information they haven't got, for example. They can't do much with you unless all their loose ends are tied up. Keep finding them new ones.

I think that's enough rules for now, though I may think of more. They have just kind of grown over years for me, in which time I have had numerous "priestlies" and never yet been out of fellowship. And that's in spite of them knowing full well all that time of most of my activities. I don't know if that's entirely a good thing, as it means that it's become a game for me, and leaving the brethren means losing it.

Relocation

The moving of brethren from place to place continues to rumble on. I'm kind of surprised we haven't had another shift in the testimony yet, but this one looks set to continue for a while yet.

Some move of their own accord, some are told to move, some meetings start up where there was none before, others are told to shut down and shift elsewhere. Busy busy busy.

That, I have become convinced, is the key to this one. To use an old cliche, the whole Exclusive Brethren system is like a shark: if it doesn't keep moving, it dies. Brethren need challenges and changes to keep them occupied, and make them feel as though there is meaning in their lives. From my reading, it seems that Communist autocracies know the benefits of grand projects and use them in a similar way. Really, it's an extension to the root philosophy of the brethren, that you will value more what costs you something, and if you keep ramping up the cost, most people will ramp up their appreciation of the paid-for benefits directly in line with that. It's human nature.

In that respect, uprooting brethren and transplanting them elsewhere is a stroke of genius. It has that "big picture" feel, in that each move is adding a small personal push to the overall aim of benefit to the group, even if that benefit is a bit vague for most. It causes enough problems (in all sorts of ways) to feel really virtuous, yet as with all such changes, allows people to feel that they just might be able to make it a change for the better if they play their cards right. And, of course, as it's a divinely-approved and leadership-approved step, it's positively guaranteed to work out well. So personal interest and altruism and management strategy are neatly aligned. Nice thinking.

What's more, it keeps things stirred up. Nobody can build up a fief in shifting population centres, either where people are coming or going. And everybody is too busy trying to sort out the practical details to make other kinds of trouble.

Having said all that, it really annoys me. One positive thing I've learned is that friends are not irreplaceable. But I don't like losing them, even to distance. One thing I can guarantee: if I'm told to move anywhere, I will be gone from the fellowship as quickly as I can arrange it. I'm not likely to go through the wrench of a total swap of acquaintances, work and surroundings without at least gaining my freedom. It might almost be better for those whose meetings are closed down (or entire countries - those poor South Africans), as the bridges are burnt and there's nothing to look back to. Plus, if there's no meeting where you went, you might well fall through the cracks and escape the regular checks to see if you've yet realised how wrong you were to leave.

Leading Men Among the Brethren

An old title, that, but still relevant, although the "men" is gradually becoming "man".

Personally, I'm anti-authority. People have told me I am, and I believe them. Ho ho. No, but seriously, I find it very hard to treat anyone who's in charge with any more deference than I think every human being deserves. Most people have something I can learn from, I find, and my regard for them (in the sense of being prepared to accept what they say) is adjusted according to how they prove themselves in that.

And I think that's the Christian way. I don't say that meaning that it's all the justification required, but as a statement of fact. The apostle Paul says "Let him that is a prophet or spiritual recognise the things that I write to you, that it is the Lord's commandment". (Quoted from memory, but I think at least the gist is correct). Now, I doubt many brethren would agree, but I take that to mean that Paul didn't expect to be obeyed because of who he was, but because anyone with any moral capacity would measure what he said and find it to have merit. The message is important, not the messenger.

This is something that has slipped a long way among the brethren, and unashamedly so. The most frightening thing I have heard in years is "we'll do the thinking, you do the doing", especially as it's treated as a statement of great wisdom. It's held to be a sign of someone barely Christian if they're questioning something that's been said; even the questioning attitude is an ongoing sin.

I'll come back to that another time.

What I was coming to in this case is that, given all the above, you would expect anyone in authority to be fairly special, and have proved themselves to be source of help, wisdom, and above all, guaranteed correctness in the sense of having been proved repeatedly right about things.

But no. What actually counts is the following:

- Money
- Name
- Connections
- Information
- Obedience to the point of slavish idiocy

I've put them in that order, because they depend on each other. If you would like to be important among the brethren (and more fool you, because it's likely to be a short ugly career), you won't get anywhere unless you have serious cash by comparison with others around you. Then you need connections, as most often importance spreads by contagion, and you need contact to catch it, and the most likely way to get connections is to have the right name. It's not impossible without, but it's much harder. Then what proves you're important is that you have information, which is a currency even more valuable than, well, currency.

The last point is an ongoing one. You must be prepared to do exactly what you're told, however ridiculous, and do it that very second. Anything else will prove that you're attempting to compete with the top man, and that's the ultimate sin. What's more, you must also be prepared to accept that it was totally your own fault if anything went wrong with what you did, even if it was under instructions, and be prepared to go back to nonimportance again for not seeing the hidden meanings in the instructions you received. I've seen this happen.

And brethren wonder why I don't take much notice of these people.