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 The same privileges are withdrawn from others who are not fitting in as they should, but there is no standard term to describe those people.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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
The "mobility" factor within the social structure is intriguing. It's obviously part of a "carrot and stick" control device used also in other hierarchies. I understand that a similar approach applied even within the Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution.
You write "These days, this is complicated a little by the fact that nobody can afford to be seen to be written off....", suggesting that this outlook is fairly recent. Assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that this stance comes from those with the power to excommunicate, how do you explain it?
Please keep writing!
The different levels are a problem for other religions also. The Roman Pope recently abolished Limbo. Now for all those millions of souls living there for millennia that must have been quite disruptive!
Two comments really - one slightly tongue in cheek, eb-secapee I wondered when the Pope abolished Limbo where are those poor souls went! Did he even think of that ....
Secondly - as I read intrigued through this wonderful expose of all these different levels I wondered,,,, is this christianity? In what way could this behaviour towards members be called christian.
I think I will retreat to my own limbo now...
Don't worry Jill. I'm sure the pope explained it all as "the Lord turned a corner."
I hadn't thought of the Limbo situation. If the Catholics are anything like the brethren, then one day Limbo was full of intermediate souls, and the next day it had never existed at all. Religious truth has a convenient way of back-dating like that.
As for writing ex-brethren off, the very fact that someone has to be removed from fellowship is seen as a failure of sorts these days. That means people are very keen to undo it if they can - not for the benefit of the leavers, but their own standing.
There were actually far more souls in Limbo than in Heaven, Hell and Purgatory combined.
This is because the great majority of human oocytes never implant in the womb and never develop further than a little microscopic blastocyst, or ball of cells. And yet they all have immortal souls acquired at the time of fertilisation, if the Church’s teaching is to be relied on.
When we get to Heaven we must remember not to look down on these tiny blastocysts, or on their tiny ghosts, and especially not to trample them.
I must confess I am not entirely convinced by the Roman Catholic teaching on this matter, but it is arguably a bit more scriptural, a bit more rational, and a bit more compassionate than many of the Brethren teachings.
Post a Comment