Variations on Enforced Absence

In a sideways sort of way I have described the various stages of disfavour among the brethren before, but today the subject has been raised with me again.

The most obvious difference between the longstanding attitudes to these things and how they are now is that there are so many more blurred edges. It used to be that when there was any kind of action taken against a person, everybody knew where they were and what was expected of them. These days some totally contradictory requirements have been layered on top of the old harsh realities, and that leaves everybody unsettled.

When somebody is shut up, they might not necessarily know that it had happened. One blurred edge is that somebody in trouble might be encouraged to stay away from meetings and other brethren-related activities, without actually formally giving the action a name. Then later, depending on what anyone feels is necessary, they might apply the "shut-up" label retrospectively. These days punishment is a long way from people's thoughts, as the instruction has come down from above that nobody must be seen to be harshly treated or alienated. So actions are taken with the aim of getting the person themselves back on side while demonstrating to everybody else that nothing substandard is being allowed to pass. These days the accused is only ever brought back to a meeting if the verdict is to be favourable - anything else is done in their absence.

The men (always men, of course) who decide these things are known as the priests. Even then it isn't as clear as it was. Myself, I don't appear to have priests. Two men came to see me and talk things through initially, which is classic, but one has hardly been back since, while the other has moved away up country. The usual visitors I get are, I think, self-appointed and unofficial, and therefore don't qualify as priests. Technically, from the brethren's point of view, somebody should be in charge of my case, but I don't know who it might be.

I am shut up now, as far as I know. Even then, though, I have had a lot more contact with various brethren than I would have expected before. Social contact of sorts, although on their terms. What's more, nobody seems worried that I socialise with non-brethren frequently.

I can't comment from experience on being withdrawn from. Certainly it's regarded as the ultimate sanction, undertaken to "protect" the fellowship from somebody who has been proved to be unsuitable. Even so, everyone is very careful to make clear that it is not final, as too many people have got in trouble for abandoning those they have excommunicated. I will be interested to see in due course just how stark the cut-off proves to be once it happens.