So much for being lonely.
After the first week of solo living, the number of brethren calling on me has steadily increased, and I have now had visits last Wednesday, Friday, Sunday, last night, and I'm expecting another tonight. I missed two on Saturday because I wasn't there, so they don't count.
The odd thing is that none of these have been official visits in any sense, as I haven't seen the "priests" for nearly four weeks. Admittedly one of them has been ill during that time, but even so I am a little surprised.
No, all visits so far have been from concerned friends and relatives. Mostly they phone politely first, but sometimes, as last night, they just appear and tap on the door. Then we share some discussion about assorted irrelevant things. The phrase "elephant in the room" comes to mind. Some have touched lightly on important issues, but only quite briefly. Last night's visitors, for example, wanted to book an appointment for more serious talk, as they have read and worried about my written statement. Apparently they have been delving into some of the undeniable problems that had been beneath the carpet until I wrote them down, and want to report back on their findings.
Meanwhile tonight's visitor (not confirmed yet, but expected) wants to visit on his own, on a friendly basis, but is just back from Australia after a last-minute invitation. Make of that what you will.
Frankly, I have never heard of so much contact with anyone who has purposefully left the fellowship.
And is it good? To be honest, I have mixed feelings about it all. Obviously it's nice to see friends, and there is a sense of continuity. And, now the meeting place is mine, I have a certain amount of control, and I needn't trouble to play down the range of my books, or the computing equipment, or the music, or the DVDs ... even so, it was a bit naive hoping that I would become suddenly immune to disapproval about such things. I can do a pretty good impression of total lack of concern, but that isn't quite the same thing. Just as a conviction that possession and use of them is moral, normal, and OK, is not quite sufficient to quiet the awareness that others think differently. More to the point, though, conversation while avoiding big subjects is not really either enjoyable or companionable.
I think that's the point of the visits. A friend told me of some he knew that have never let go of the brethren life, and remain fearful that the brethren will discover the things they do and take more action. I begin to see how that could come about. At whatever level, the brethren know it, too, and hope that regular contact with them, in some form or other, will provide an inoculation against "worldly" things.
Being polite and inoffensive to a fault, I will find it hard to do anything about this, but I may have to start. Not in a hurry - that wouldn't be my style - and not so as to precipitate further moves before I'm ready, but an awareness that I need to move beyond this point should help me at least during the visits. And act as a reminder any time I'm tempted to minimise or conceal something just to keep the peace.
8 comments:
You seem to have this "friendly invasion" well in hand. The simple (but not easy) awareness of dichotomies and ambiguities is a great step in the direction of handling them in a civilised manner.
These visits could become a real learning experience for the visitors. It's probably wishful thinking on my part, but I keep turning over in my mind, "the straw that broke the camel's back". What does that have to do with anything?
At least you know that you are well-respected from both inside and outside the closed circle. Quite a feat in my opinion!
If you are able to explain to them, as lucidly as you have done here, the steps you have taken to get to where you are today, and if you share some of their reaction here, your unfolding chapters will make extremely interesting reading.
I have to freely admit that, since I have been priviliged to read these musings, I find my attitude to the brethren changing somewhat.
I too experienced this to a certain extent. I received invites to brethren-events within the UK and abroad. I turned them all down, and I'll explain why in a minute. As I emphatically stated that I would refuse to accept personal visits or phonecalls, all but three respected my wishes. This was not bad, bearing in mind that the Brethren consider themselves to be above the law of the land, let alone above the wishes of a erring member. (My friend told me I was being considered by the priests as "awkward" - this made me chuckle, as the Priests simply hate obeying rules of people that are below them, yet they are so used to setting rules themselves!) I received letters, some dangling me over hell a little bit, but most friendly and purposely avoiding anything religious. The minute I was officially "shut-up", all contact ceased immediately, with the exception of that of one rebel friend. Many months later I was "withdrawn from", and even the rebel friend ceased his contact with me. Just too scared, I would think. I knew all this would happen of course, (and I'm sure you must too, Survivor), and this is why I had refused earlier offers of practical (as well as "priestly") help and acts of kindness. Although at the time, the intention of kindness is genuine, (and the brethren as individuals are remarkably kind and lovely), it has an underlying motive of eventually getting you to back among them and fully toeing the line. If I was a bastard, I could have milked this for all it was worth, and delayed my excommunication for years, possibly all my life. But for what purpose? I wanted to LEAVE, not to teeter, and very sadly, by refusing their offers of friendship, I had to be cruel to be kind, to try to demonstrate the flaw in their own system, that such friendship they were offering was purely on their own terms. I also didn't want to be seen as the guy who accepted help and kindness, and still threw it back in their faces by leaving them.
None of this is to try to suggest to you that what YOU are doing is inappropriate. We are all different and deal with things in different ways. Also, the Brethren have moved on even since I left four years ago, and contact with the "unavailable" may well be viewed far more favourably now, and allowed long-term. I just wanted to share my experience a little, with you and others.
I know you're not a fan of the television, but you could have some cheeky experiments with the boundaries of various brethren who visit your flat! Would they all be prepared to sit in your lounge with a TV present? Switched on? "Monty Python's life of Brian" playing? Now THERE's an exercise in "creative living"!
Survivor - you are obviously a very special person.
I'm an outsider, but I wonder whether your departure (or anybody else's for that matter) worries the faithful in the sense that if one person leaves, then there's a risk that others may follow that example. Is a one-off departure viewed as undermining to the whole group? Are they ever anxious about the possibility of a numerically significant defection from their ranks?
In your case, maybe there is extra concern because you are known to be someone who can and does write well. Do they fear exposure from anything you might publish?
Please tell us more, George, about your changing attitudes. Are the brethren mellowing, or are you?
A personal blog - belonging to someone else - is not the place to conduct a discussion.
I would suggest that this space is for comments on the blog, not comments on comments.
If you really wish to know the answer, please feel free to contact me direct.
I'm not inclined to make life too difficult for these people, though I have given warning that I may start to say "no" when people ask to come along. As it is, I leave things on display, but don't actually have anything playing. One at least has had to fight quite hard against the temptation to press play on the little white Apple remote.
As for their worries, I take them at face value, which is that they hate to lose anyone. It may be harder for them to overcome that hatred in my case, because I haven't caused trouble first, but I think it would be there for most.
I don't detect any fear of the domino effect, and only the occasional hint of worry about future publication.
I can well-understand your consideration to your visitors and resisting the urge to play some music.
Near the end of his life, my father had joined the Renton Group after Aberdeen, and shortly before he died, he came to visit us for three days.
Out of courtesy, we had refrained from playing music, listening to the radio or watching TV, but as there was an election going on, I was keen to see the latest news.
Much to my surprise, he told me he had no problem if I wanted to watch the TV. Emboldened by this, we then asked him if he'd like to hear some Sibelius. "Who or what is that?"
As I knew an excerpt of Finlandia was his favourite hymn-tune, we played the record. Although he had never heard of "Sibelius", as we listened in silence, tears rolled down his cheeks. For the first time in his life, he had heard the full orchestral version of what - all his life - he thought had been the "definitive" Finlandia.
My lasting memory of this occasion was when the notes faded away, he looked at me with a twinkle in his eye and said: "That's music to my ears!"
Coming from a man who had come a long way in many more ways than one, this must be the biggest understatement of the 20th Century.
Post a Comment