I've been thinking some more about my likening the brethren system to a serial story, and the more I think, the more I like the analogy. Obviously the parallels aren't exact - such thought exercises never are - but it is a useful way of looking at it. I think so, anyway.
One of the points I was trying to make was about plot twists. Surprises and changes that confound expectations are a good thing in a drama. They keep up interest, they provide reasons to carry on when otherwise things might be getting stale, they stimulate and, in this case, they provide the always vital sense that the story is moving forward. But only as long as they are believable. A twist that undermines what has gone on before can disengage belief, without which the story is pointless.
Which brings me to the technology issue.
From my observation, the brethren themselves seem to have swallowed this dramatic u-turn quite well. There is a little bit of cynicism in places, and I'm quite sure there will be a bit of dark muttering from some who like consistency more than development, but the great thing is that people who tend to be slightly rebellious have their interests directly aligned with the change (technology can be very useful to people who don't find brethren life itself very rewarding), while those who are most inclined to dislike the change, having invested emotional energy in hating technology, are the ones most loyal to the person instigating the move forward. That doesn't leave much room for any upheaval.
But I've had reason to chat with a few non-brethren over the last few days, ones from that specific group who have never been part of the brethren but who have reason to know them quite well. And I think the brethren management would be a little bit shocked at the cost to their public image of the switch from technology rejection to embrace.
The general feeling is that while the brethren held out against modern ways, they inspired an admiration of a kind even from those who thought the whole thing was mad. They got credit for sticking to their guns and articulating a point of view, even though it was becoming an obviously increasing disadvantage to them. People know about other religious sects who reject aspects of western life, and the approach gets the benefit of the doubt. "Not my cup of tea," says the average tolerant Briton (at least), "but hats off to them for making a go of it."
And now? Well, that benefit of the doubt has been pretty much entirely replaced by cynicism. If the brethren can change so abruptly on something which, to the world around, was a central component of their beliefs and one of the main things a person could rely on when dealing with them, then nothing they say is of much value any more. Now, people expect that as soon as there is enough reason to change, they will do so, and so their beliefs get no respect at all.
I'm a great fan of technology and what it can enable, but I can't help thinking the brethren may find they've paid a higher price than they think for that enablement. They're more reliant on the goodwill of those around than they think, and in this case they've lost the most from those who know them best and have been natural supporters.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It does seem to be a blind spot for the Brethren - their lack of awareness of how other people perceive them. Consider how they had no idea how their foray into party politics would go down with a public who knew that Brethren didn't vote because of their religious principles.
This was very much the case in the 1960s and 1970 in the UK. Brethren then appeared to have no sense at all of the concern and bafflement James Taylor Jnr's behaviour was promoting, not just among the general, newspaper-reading public, politicians and churchmen, but also among those who had previously been colleagues, neighbours or acquaintances of Brethren members. To be told that you were no longer viewed as worthy of Brethren acknowledgement, that a 'sister' or 'brother' couldn't share a cup of tea with you or stop to chat with you in the street, as s/he had done for years before, because now you weren't considered "clean" - that lost the Brethren the sympathy and esteem of many former allies and friends.
Much worse still, and the Brethren will never recover from this until Bruce D Hales starts telling the truth about it all, was the opprobrium and outrage engendered by the cruel expulsion from fellowship and family of often very vulnerable people - simply because they couldn't comply with the harsh new directives. The public is never sympathetic to religious organisations which treat people so abominably.
In my view, it was under James Taylor Jnr that the Exclusive Brethren lost all credibility. Nowadays, people are mostly cynical about the way they behave, I'm afraid.
I suspect that any one of the various changes in brethren ways could cause the same kind of negative reaction in observers, and it probably happens repeatedly.
My observation is, though, that there are very few who know much about the brethren over any length of time, and so I doubt there are many who care greatly at this distance about many of the upheavals, especially those decades ago. Whereas people who have known brethren for ten or twenty years at this point are likely to think of anti-technology attitudes and not sharing food when asked what makes brethren different. Always those two things. That the brethren have ditched one of those two identifying features more or less overnight is a trivial change in so many ways, nothing like as disruptive or hurtful as other things that have happened, and in most ways a change for the better (which is pretty rare in brethren history). But it really does have a bad effect on the perceptions of people who have tended to be positive about the brethren, and an effect out of all proportion to the impact of the change in itself.
People who know about what goes on in the brethren, and about their history, see things differently. I'm talking about casual observers with regular contact.
I have come to realise that unless one has had a strong connection or interest in Brethren activity, people generally don't care. The politics debacle created a public awareness, but I work with two people who once worked for Brethren firms, and although they appreciate their 'quirky' ways, they are not bothered about the failings of the group, other than to smile at their 'odd' behaviour. And I have found that most people don't know anything more about them.
I'm not even sure any more that their credibility is damaged by the change in attitude towards technology. I think most other businesses that they deal with will be relieved that dealings with them are far easier because of computer and cellphone use.
Unfortunately, we are so often oblivious to things until it actually affects us.
There is another price that will have to be paid. Increasing access to email and the Internet means that the rank-and-file Brethren will be increasingly exposed to a wide range of facts, beliefs and opinions.
Free flow of information and opinions has played a major part in the demise of several totalitarian regimes in the past. Do you think the Brethren leadership are aware of this risk?
I am well aware that the vast majority of people everywhere care not at all what the brethren do. However, the observation that embracing technology has harmed perceptions is taken from talking to various people, and so I think there is an effect in this case although limited to a small group. The trouble for the brethren is that that small group consists mostly of people who were positive on the whole beforehand.
Regarding the free flow of information, I can only conclude that the management is well aware of the dangers to their control. That's why they have done everything they can to limit the flow. No user has administrative control over their machine, a central system of technical people has direct access to every machine, and those with web access have their access restricted to web pages specifically approved by that central system. No control is perfect, of course, but they've done everything they can - and of course it's a lot easier for a small community with pre-approved computers than it is for the government of China, for example.
I had an experience with the Amish last year that has some parallels. I had gone to see an Amish blacksmith because I was helping to restore an old buggy and needed advice on the wheel bearings. In his shop there were several machines than ran off a central driveshaft - a saw, a lathe, etc. I asked how the driveshaft was powered, assuming there would be a water wheel somewhere or suchlike. Turns out he had a Honda powerplant outside. It's OK for them to have internal combustion engines, just not to have them in a 'mobile' environment, e.g. powering an automobile.
My response was similar to your description, in that it made me cynical of the Amish. Of course, there are other reasons to be cynical - their women are denied access to electrically-powered labor-saving devices, for example. For a telephone, the blacksmith we visited uses one that belongs to a fellow who rents some space on his farm. They rely on non-Amish neighbors for long-distance transportation, and for emergency message forwarding.
Still, they persist and appear well-positioned to do so for a long time.
I think the brethren are well-enough financed to weather the current sea change. Time will tell whether the successor to the current leader will be as adroit.
Post a Comment