I'm sure I've made similar comments before, but I have been thinking about the brethren in cult-like terms since it has been mentioned several times recently.
I don't much like the word "cult" in this context, not so much because it's inaccurate as because it is one of those words which comes with a whole lot of baggage attached, and using it means an audience immediately makes a set of assumptions which may or may not be helpful, and that discourages closer attention to the facts. So for that reason I prefer to stay out of the "are the brethren a cult?" debate.
That's why my preferred word is "tribal" when I'm thinking about the aspects of brethren life that just sort of happen, and I think of "social engineering" when considering the aspects that are managed. Notice that there is no hint of religion in either term.
Recent events have reinforced my previous conclusion that the defining characteristic of the brethren is their "us and them" attitude. What counts, to the exclusion of anything else, is "us". For a start, this is noticeable in their interpretation of all the traditional Christian teaching about being good to others: the only others who count are those who are part of "us", and it's absurd to think of loving one's worldly neighbour as oneself. It's almost like racism, in that anything can be excused because the others are in some vague but real way not considered to be people but something a little lower than that. And any goodness seen outside is like the proverbial dancing bear, remarkable in that it exists rather than on its own merits.
So inside opinions and feelings are all that count in everyday life. That's enough to make brethren dress and behave distinctively, for instance, as the possibility of being seen to be out of line by one fellow-member is enough to outweigh being definitely wondered at by any number of non-brethren. For most, it's not an inner certainty that the behaviour is the only right way that governs what they do, but simple peer pressure. That doesn't always work to the hierarchy's advantage, naturally, because trivial things often become "the thing to do" whether or not they're approved, in the way that fads spread in any community, and sometimes control needs to be seized back by means of some kind of decree.
I sometimes wonder what proportion of the brethren are really convinced by the lifestyle and doctrines, and have a feeling that a majority secretly suspect they're the only fraud among a crowd of genuine believers. That, of course, only magnifies the urge to fit in at any cost. People often take the most drastic actions when they suspect others are right to accuse them of not really believing.
4 comments:
Survivor - I'm a fairly feisty woman with long experience of working with people with complex needs in deprived and difficult places, but as I read what you have just written I found tears swelling up. You are admitting that Exclusive Brethren people actually discount others and view them as of lesser value. Your analogy with racism says it all.
For decades I have held on to a thin thread of hope that somewhere in their midst there would be a faint trace of willingness to adhere to the core of traditional Christian teaching - love of neighbour and care for the outcast.
What are we to do? We need a Martin Luther King!
I know this posting is kind of inflammatory, but I struggle to know how else to express the attitude. Any brethren would vehemently deny that they consider others of any less worth, but the fact remains. Moving from "us" to "them" brings it into sharp relief.
Whether there's anything can be done is not for me to say.
It's true that the word "cult" has more pejorative connotations than "tribal"; the precise meaning of each of them has changed over the years. The discipline of anthropology has adopted each of them and tried to give them specific definitions but as so often is the case they have been taken back by common usage and made to mean what people want them to mean. Alice was right. I approve of your choice of "tribal". "Social engineering" is another matter again.
In thinking about brethren behaviour as tribal, it's as well to recognise that "tribal" applies to a great deal of human behaviour and is a fundamental aspect of our species collective behaviour. Football fans come to mind as do silly little things like the peculiarites of how extended families behave in relation to blowing out birthday candles. To my mind, the interesting thing about brethren tribalism is that the practice of separation means that over time the extent to which brethren tribal behaviour differs from that of the wider culture in which they exist becomes greater over time and also lags more and more behind ordinarily evolving change.
Interesting blog - and somehow sychronicity striking again as I have been thinking about the literature on in-group/out-group thinking recently. So it is intersting to me to see you describing it. The minute a group has separatist views it begins to pay attention to its boundaries.
I am not sure I agree with Robert when he says that the extent to which the brethren differ becomes greater over time. It certainly becomes different but if I compare my childhood to that of EB children today I am not sure that it has become greater, just different. The language and dress were as different in those days as they are now - though we wore hats not scarves. We were not allowed music though which they seem to be today. I think my nephew Gavin knew more about the Beatles than I did when I left. On other hand we went to ordianary schools - but that brought its own problems, that of bullying and rejection as we stood out from the rest as different.
I have always know the brethren regard the outside world as evil - and lesser than me. We were the elite, the chosen ones, we had seen the light and were therefore superior. How often I comforted myself with those words when I was ostracised by my peers.
Incomplete thoughts on a Sunday morning - oops sorry a Lords Day morning.
Post a Comment