A Great Gulf Fixed

As time goes by, one of the things I notice most is the mutual incomprehension between people who have experience of the brethren and people who don't. I think that comprehensibility gap is the main reason why ex-brethren feel the need to stay in contact with other ex-brethren.

But it works both ways. I found myself attempting to explain to various brethren at different times recently just how hard it is to make anyone on the outside see any merit at all in their separation doctrine, and I don't think any of them believed me. The assumption is that any right-thinking person would have to acknowledge the moral superiority of their position, once explained, even if they couldn't face taking that position themselves.

That does provide an answer of sorts to those who claim the whole thing is a cynical front, and none of them really believe what they claim to believe they do, at least to the extent they've allowed themselves to consider the matter.

Obviously this is a bit of a test issue in their dealings with me. So they are keen to know what I think about separation, even if they can't actually take it in. It makes for an odd conversation.

What I was trying to tell them was that it's hard enough explaining to outsiders that my family don't have anything to do with me, yet still have affection for me (so far as I know), and convincing them that the two things are not totally incompatible with each other, without also trying to explain that Christianity is the reason for the oxymoron. To everybody else on the planet, the attitude and resulting actions are so far from Christian principles that it sounds like a joke. So in actual fact, my own thoughts on the subject weren't relevant; I was talking about the effort involved in making allowances for the brethren to others.

This does seem to disturb them, even though brethren doctrine says that the unspiritual will never be able to understand the spiritual.

The specifics of separation in my case are put firmly back on me. I have left them, so the barrier is my fault. I can't expect to turn my back on everything that's good and right and still expect them to treat me with open affection. In a sense, of course, they're right, because I did take the step knowing that's what they'd do. But even so, the choice is theirs of how to treat me - whether they put more confidence in the person or the moral code. The fact that I had a pretty good idea which they'd choose doesn't mean I made the choice for them. Still, if they feel better that way, I'll let them have that bit of comfort.

It's the general case that is more fascinating. Surely, they say, even worldly Christians don't think it's good to associate themselves with just anybody, whatever their morals? And broadly, I reply, that's true, though true Christians would be prepared and ready to help others whatever the person's spiritual condition, if not to associate themselves with their morals. So what if you find that someone has been doing something evil, and you've been associating with them, they ask. Well, I say, that's been known to happen within the brethren. What's the difference? That's an easy one for them: any such people are dealt with as only the brethren can, and they'll have nothing more to do with them. And, I ask, do they suppose that other people don't change their attitudes in a similar way when they find something truly abhorent in somebody? Isn't the only unique aspect of the brethren that they presume in advance that everybody outside the circle is associated with evil? And how is that a Christian attitude?

This is where it gets sore. The master touchstone is brought into play: if I don't think it's right to do that, what do I imagine the scripture in second Timothy means? "If anyone purify himself from these, in separating himself from them".

I have my thoughts on that. But I have no interest in debating interpretations. More to the point, I say, if their favoured interpretation of a single piece of the bible conflicts with everything that is generally held to be Christian, isn't it just possible that interpretation is mistaken?

At this point it dawns on them that what we have here is a difference of opinion. I think it's an odd experience for them, especially if the conversation isn't heated.

Well, they say, The Truth is The Truth. And I agree. One piece of wisdom I have from my grandfather is that the truth and what one believes are not necessarily the same thing. Their complete conviction that they are the only ones in step doesn't, in itself, prove their rightness. But still they remain rooted to the ideological spot.

And just how much sense does any of that make to a normal human being, someone with common humanity and ethics? The strange thing is not so much that the brethren can't explain why it is more important for them to hold on to a theoretical purity than to soothe real hurt, but that they can't see why they should. For them, the burden of proof falls on the unbelievers and heretics who deny what should be obvious.

The fact that an overwhelming majority of people think differently is of no importance. That majority hasn't had the benefit of being shown the right way. Consequently, they're given slightly more credit than those of us who do know and understand what the brethren believe, yet don't agree. That's unforgiveable, and is the real reason why we must remain sundered from them.