Cycling Around the Rules

I remain somewhat puzzled by my experiences of leaving the brethren. The complete - if reluctant - rejection I had been led to expect has not transpired. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, exactly, because all along I have found that nobody worries as much about what I do as others would say they should.

Is it just me, or is it wider? If it is wider, as I suspect, is it a change, a tendency, temporary or permanent?

To judge by history, the most accurate estimation is that it's a temporary shift. But that doesn't quite do justice to the complexity of the way these things work.

Although I am not old enough to have experienced any of the major crises in brethren history, I have been around for long enough to see the wheel turn. These things usually have a geographical aspect, and here in the UK there was a distinctly slapdash period in the early nineties for those of my age. Many a blind eye was turned as we did almost whatever we liked. I imagine those older would like to think they were unaware, but if they were honest I think things were simply out of their control. It wasn't official doctrine to be loose, just that they couldn't face the consequences of what official doctrine demanded in such circumstances.

Then, at some point, something has to be done. There is normally some trigger, and then action is taken. From that point, the rules (which always existed) are enforced more vigourously, as everyone is horribly aware how easily behaviour can slip beyond what feels possible to correct. That continues as long as the memory lasts, which means the cycle tends to be a generational one.

At the same time, there is a slightly mismatched doctrinal cycle. The emphasis can be either on maintaining the purity of the assembly, which implies harsh treatment in reality, or the pastoral care of precious individuals, which leads to apparent overlooking of serious faults. I've never been sure what drives this cycle, but it's quite obvious. "The review" was merely the most abrupt shift I've seen, not the only one.

However, things never return to a previous state exactly. For one thing, each shift has to have a stated justification, which amounts to new doctrine. That then cannot be ignored in the future, because nothing is ever wrong - the most that can be allowed is that statements were misinterpreted.

So the current situation is one in which the rules are enforced, and few around here, by my observation, are doing much outside the rules. However, the shock of the change in emphasis a few years ago is still very strong in official minds, and therefore the treatment of the few who don't toe the line has a noticeable kid-glove component. That's an unusual combination as far as I can remember. I would have expected a return to grieved harshness by now. I can only think that the shock has rendered that almost impossible. It will take some very serious reinterpretation of the recent instructions to go back to instant ejection, even though I consider the current framework to be absolutely impossible for anyone wishing to be consistent.

My less official visitors tell me that they feel much better about the way things are now, and that they are relieved that the more official ones are no longer compelled to issue harsh treatment. Some even seem to think that they weren't so much compelled as keen to exercise their power, but I haven't seen that for myself. As with any shift, the new way is the way things should always have been, and it is very sad that it was ever otherwise. Always, always, it is the fault of mistaken or evil individuals that history is as it is, not the system.

Only time will tell how much of the current easing will continue. Cynicism says the pendulum will swing, but observation says that it will take more effort this time.