This seems very appropriate, somehow.
If God had wanted me to be compassionate ...
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Wednesday, August 19, 2009
Spiritual on Demand
I suppose it hadn't occurred to me how odd the assumptions behind activity in Brethren meetings are until I saw the interest sparked by my comment on preparing for preachings. At some level I know it isn't standard, but it's all so familiar to me that it doesn't arouse much thought.
There is a slightly awkward mix of spontaneity and pre-planning in most brethren meetings, the result of the belief that all participation should be the result of spiritual promptings and not "the natural mind", combined with the usual pragmatism about what works in practice. Even in the most spontaneous of occasions the format is quite rigid, for example.
In a reading meeting, which is typical of the way the brethren work when gathered, one man acts as a sort of chairman of a discussion, and all questions and remarks are addressed to him. Somebody else usually has the responsibility of selecting this chairman. Theory says that whoever is asked to "take the meeting" should be ready and willing to do so, and should be open to whatever God gives him to say to get things going. Normally, though, several people refuse to do so for assorted reasons, and are prepared to accept the implication that they aren't close enough to God for the messages to get through, before somebody actually does the job. If there are too many refusals then distress can build up among those taking it all seriously, because they conclude that there is too much slackness in the company for anybody to have God's word for them. However, there is a subtle social jostling going on in all this, because taking a meeting implies acceptance of the fact that the person doing so has been given (by God) what is required for the whole company gathered, yet it is wise for the person concerned to be humble - often humble enough to deny that they should be taking the meeting at all. So the ideal situation is for them to be pressured into doing so because then they get to combine the prestige and the humility. The result of all this is that it can be quite complicated getting these meetings started at times, as people dance between what is said and what is actually meant, and the selector tries to judge whether the person they've picked on is really unwilling to bite the bullet or they're still fishing for more pressure.
Preachings actually follow a similar pattern with one key difference: the selection is not done in public. Typically two men are responsible for picking preachers in each place where preachings happen, and it is done outside meeting times. For some reason, better excuses are required to refuse to preach, although obviously nobody could practically be forced to do so. The fact remains that the stakes are altered by the lack of publicity, and I suppose that is one cause of a taboo against refusal - otherwise it could prove even harder to persuade potential preachers. There is little prestige in preaching because everybody is fully aware that the preacher is the preacher because he was asked to be (and I'm not sure why this differs from readings, but I can only conclude that the difference derives in some way from the visibility of the selection process), and so few people enjoy the responsibility.
Here again, preaching is theoretically the giving of a message from God provided at the time, which is the apparent reason why it is bad to refuse: the person refusing puts themselves in the position of declaring themselves unready to receive such a message. In reality, though, it is only human to prepare if you have advance notice, especially for the many who don't preach very often. The rationalisation of this says that God will speak to a person in the right "state" (broadly the current degree of moral cleanliness and harmony with the divine), and therefore the preacher will take extra care to be so by doing good brethren things such as reading the brethren literature and taking time out to think about spiritual matters. It is axiomatic in the brethren system that the person will then get some kind of message to give.
It is a clear enough pattern, indeed, that when a preaching follows a reading the person charged with finding the man to take charge for that reading will normally hit first on those he knows will be preaching ... because it is hard for them to claim they have no message! The only trump card in this case is to claim to be so dependent on the provision of this message at the time it is required that the reading beforehand is too early to have received it, and usually this is quite hard to pull off, not least because someone so in tune with the spiritual needs will surely also be able to perform in both cases.
Younger men, being less aware of the complex etiquette and social belief around all this, tend to be a bit blunter in their methods when asked to preach. They know they are supposed to be a mouthpiece for the Holy Spirit, but make as sure as they can that they don't dry up entirely the moment they stand up in front of everybody, and that usually means pretty blatant preparation, not least because they know for a fact that their usual lives don't bear much resemblance to the way people who get messages from God are supposed to live! Consequently it's usually apparent that they've arrived with their message spelled out in their heads to some degree, and the rest of the congregation indulge them in that. I do recall one case where a young man gave a surprisingly coherent blood-and-thunder preaching, and a friend afterwards discovered it written out word for word in his bible ... but that is very definitely frowned upon. Most at least TRY to include some spontaneity.
Other meetings have different balances, but I think this is long enough for now.
There is a slightly awkward mix of spontaneity and pre-planning in most brethren meetings, the result of the belief that all participation should be the result of spiritual promptings and not "the natural mind", combined with the usual pragmatism about what works in practice. Even in the most spontaneous of occasions the format is quite rigid, for example.
In a reading meeting, which is typical of the way the brethren work when gathered, one man acts as a sort of chairman of a discussion, and all questions and remarks are addressed to him. Somebody else usually has the responsibility of selecting this chairman. Theory says that whoever is asked to "take the meeting" should be ready and willing to do so, and should be open to whatever God gives him to say to get things going. Normally, though, several people refuse to do so for assorted reasons, and are prepared to accept the implication that they aren't close enough to God for the messages to get through, before somebody actually does the job. If there are too many refusals then distress can build up among those taking it all seriously, because they conclude that there is too much slackness in the company for anybody to have God's word for them. However, there is a subtle social jostling going on in all this, because taking a meeting implies acceptance of the fact that the person doing so has been given (by God) what is required for the whole company gathered, yet it is wise for the person concerned to be humble - often humble enough to deny that they should be taking the meeting at all. So the ideal situation is for them to be pressured into doing so because then they get to combine the prestige and the humility. The result of all this is that it can be quite complicated getting these meetings started at times, as people dance between what is said and what is actually meant, and the selector tries to judge whether the person they've picked on is really unwilling to bite the bullet or they're still fishing for more pressure.
Preachings actually follow a similar pattern with one key difference: the selection is not done in public. Typically two men are responsible for picking preachers in each place where preachings happen, and it is done outside meeting times. For some reason, better excuses are required to refuse to preach, although obviously nobody could practically be forced to do so. The fact remains that the stakes are altered by the lack of publicity, and I suppose that is one cause of a taboo against refusal - otherwise it could prove even harder to persuade potential preachers. There is little prestige in preaching because everybody is fully aware that the preacher is the preacher because he was asked to be (and I'm not sure why this differs from readings, but I can only conclude that the difference derives in some way from the visibility of the selection process), and so few people enjoy the responsibility.
Here again, preaching is theoretically the giving of a message from God provided at the time, which is the apparent reason why it is bad to refuse: the person refusing puts themselves in the position of declaring themselves unready to receive such a message. In reality, though, it is only human to prepare if you have advance notice, especially for the many who don't preach very often. The rationalisation of this says that God will speak to a person in the right "state" (broadly the current degree of moral cleanliness and harmony with the divine), and therefore the preacher will take extra care to be so by doing good brethren things such as reading the brethren literature and taking time out to think about spiritual matters. It is axiomatic in the brethren system that the person will then get some kind of message to give.
It is a clear enough pattern, indeed, that when a preaching follows a reading the person charged with finding the man to take charge for that reading will normally hit first on those he knows will be preaching ... because it is hard for them to claim they have no message! The only trump card in this case is to claim to be so dependent on the provision of this message at the time it is required that the reading beforehand is too early to have received it, and usually this is quite hard to pull off, not least because someone so in tune with the spiritual needs will surely also be able to perform in both cases.
Younger men, being less aware of the complex etiquette and social belief around all this, tend to be a bit blunter in their methods when asked to preach. They know they are supposed to be a mouthpiece for the Holy Spirit, but make as sure as they can that they don't dry up entirely the moment they stand up in front of everybody, and that usually means pretty blatant preparation, not least because they know for a fact that their usual lives don't bear much resemblance to the way people who get messages from God are supposed to live! Consequently it's usually apparent that they've arrived with their message spelled out in their heads to some degree, and the rest of the congregation indulge them in that. I do recall one case where a young man gave a surprisingly coherent blood-and-thunder preaching, and a friend afterwards discovered it written out word for word in his bible ... but that is very definitely frowned upon. Most at least TRY to include some spontaneity.
Other meetings have different balances, but I think this is long enough for now.
Friday, August 7, 2009
Prospecting in the Indexes
I'm just reading an article about Gorbachev, and how he truly believed in Communism, and that true belief is a prime reason why it collapsed - essentially, he thought it was strong enough to survive reform.
I have thought before that there are many parallels between political ideology and brethren beliefs. But what caught my eye in this case was a little reference to lip-service. Apparently by the Eighties, even most Party members in the USSR had stopped really believing in their system, yet it was necessary to claim to believe. Gorbachev himself read Lenin for enlightenment on issues, whereas for most it was a politically sensible move to have his books on the shelf but no more.
"It was politically correct to have Lenin in your library. If you had to write a speech you were keen to find a Lenin quote so you turned to the index."
Doesn't that sound exactly like a brother preparing to preach on Sunday, especially if he doesn't do it very often? My preference was always for novel phrasing of conventional doctrine, but I know many contemporaries who did it this Russian way by checking ministry indexes. It was always pretty transparent, I thought.
Incidentally, the magazine with the article is Prospect. It's one of the few magazines with enough words in it to be interesting for more than half an hour, I find, but I'm regularly disappointed to find yet more friends who think it's the very essence of dullness.
I have thought before that there are many parallels between political ideology and brethren beliefs. But what caught my eye in this case was a little reference to lip-service. Apparently by the Eighties, even most Party members in the USSR had stopped really believing in their system, yet it was necessary to claim to believe. Gorbachev himself read Lenin for enlightenment on issues, whereas for most it was a politically sensible move to have his books on the shelf but no more.
"It was politically correct to have Lenin in your library. If you had to write a speech you were keen to find a Lenin quote so you turned to the index."
Doesn't that sound exactly like a brother preparing to preach on Sunday, especially if he doesn't do it very often? My preference was always for novel phrasing of conventional doctrine, but I know many contemporaries who did it this Russian way by checking ministry indexes. It was always pretty transparent, I thought.
Incidentally, the magazine with the article is Prospect. It's one of the few magazines with enough words in it to be interesting for more than half an hour, I find, but I'm regularly disappointed to find yet more friends who think it's the very essence of dullness.
Monday, August 3, 2009
True Belief
A friend just recently gave me a nudge (in the form of a magazine article) which has pushed me onto a path of learning about Gnosticism. Not a subject I've encountered often before, but rather rewarding in an arcane sort of way. It seems to be like Christianity cross-pollinated with Eastern mysticism, and that is a mix I like.
Anyway, my primer for now is a slim book about the Gnostic Gospels, discovered around the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls but, it seems, somewhat less notorious. This book teases out apparent differences between what would become orthodox Christianity (with a small "o") and the original variations which would come to be called heresy, as shown by these manuscripts which were hidden by someone before they could be destroyed by those with power in the steadily-more-established church.
What appears to crop up repeatedly is the way rival doctrines stand or fall not because of their inherent merit - what is more influential is the difference adherence to particular doctrines makes to the structure of society. As an example, the author of this book makes the case that the literalness of Christ's rising from the dead was a necessary belief because it was from the contact with the ex-dead man that the original disciples had their authority. There would have been no credible leadership for Christians with Christ gone, had he not returned to proclaim living men the means of continuing the faith. So alternative versions of the doctrine which said that the resurrection should be understood more subtly, were also subtly undermining the leadership of the church by putting the whole of humanity on the same footing: that of spiritual-only contact, not handed-down direct physical instruction. Weakening the leadership could not be allowed, and so alternative doctrines were stamped out with as much force as was needed.
I find this interesting, because the natural tendency when looking at this with modern eyes is to be cynical. The leadership shore up their own position, and power maintains the status quo which suits it. The author is careful to point out in this book that such assumptions are careless.
Anyone spot the parallels with brethrenism? How often does the outside observer look at a typical brethren "turning of a corner", or even an established brethren belief, and think "Oh, that's very convenient for them"? Yes indeed, but it may not look cynical from the inside, and I'd say it usually doesn't.
The point is that such things are the result of a whole world-view. The leadership of the ancient church thought, of course, that they had it right. The structure of the church was, as they thought, modelled on the natural inherent order of life as ordained and blessed by God. Had they thought otherwise, why would they have risen to the top of it? It suited the way they thought, and the fact that it had worked well for them personally surely didn't feed any doubts about it. And so, no doubt, they felt compelled to defend that "truth" - the fact that they were at the same time defending themselves, boosting themselves, was merely a happy side-effect, proof, if anything, that they were on God's side.
So be careful assuming that a religious man with a message increasing his own power is a hypocrite. He may be, but it's more likely he's fooling himself first. Look for the patterns of belief the message implies, and you're more likely to find ammunition there than in cynicism.
Anyway, my primer for now is a slim book about the Gnostic Gospels, discovered around the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls but, it seems, somewhat less notorious. This book teases out apparent differences between what would become orthodox Christianity (with a small "o") and the original variations which would come to be called heresy, as shown by these manuscripts which were hidden by someone before they could be destroyed by those with power in the steadily-more-established church.
What appears to crop up repeatedly is the way rival doctrines stand or fall not because of their inherent merit - what is more influential is the difference adherence to particular doctrines makes to the structure of society. As an example, the author of this book makes the case that the literalness of Christ's rising from the dead was a necessary belief because it was from the contact with the ex-dead man that the original disciples had their authority. There would have been no credible leadership for Christians with Christ gone, had he not returned to proclaim living men the means of continuing the faith. So alternative versions of the doctrine which said that the resurrection should be understood more subtly, were also subtly undermining the leadership of the church by putting the whole of humanity on the same footing: that of spiritual-only contact, not handed-down direct physical instruction. Weakening the leadership could not be allowed, and so alternative doctrines were stamped out with as much force as was needed.
I find this interesting, because the natural tendency when looking at this with modern eyes is to be cynical. The leadership shore up their own position, and power maintains the status quo which suits it. The author is careful to point out in this book that such assumptions are careless.
Anyone spot the parallels with brethrenism? How often does the outside observer look at a typical brethren "turning of a corner", or even an established brethren belief, and think "Oh, that's very convenient for them"? Yes indeed, but it may not look cynical from the inside, and I'd say it usually doesn't.
The point is that such things are the result of a whole world-view. The leadership of the ancient church thought, of course, that they had it right. The structure of the church was, as they thought, modelled on the natural inherent order of life as ordained and blessed by God. Had they thought otherwise, why would they have risen to the top of it? It suited the way they thought, and the fact that it had worked well for them personally surely didn't feed any doubts about it. And so, no doubt, they felt compelled to defend that "truth" - the fact that they were at the same time defending themselves, boosting themselves, was merely a happy side-effect, proof, if anything, that they were on God's side.
So be careful assuming that a religious man with a message increasing his own power is a hypocrite. He may be, but it's more likely he's fooling himself first. Look for the patterns of belief the message implies, and you're more likely to find ammunition there than in cynicism.
Monday, July 27, 2009
TV Equivocation
The long gap in blogging has been extremely busy in other ways, which is the
principal reason for the gap. One change I have noticed in that time is that
for one reason and another I have been watching more television.
Those with a clear recent connection to the brethren will appreciate that
this is more significant than even a person moderately familiar with the
group would think. Even now, with all the recent changes in the brethren's
attitude to technology, TV remains a convenient shorthand for all the things
of which the brethren disapprove. I can recall the key question about people
who had departed the fellowship: "have they got a television?" The answer,
yes or no, pretty much summed up whether or not there was hope for them. So
even now on the outside the medium feels as though it has more tangible
associations than most other things I do differently.
Yet, as I say, I am watching more of it.
I still have my own quibbles with TV in general and, if anything, they have
actually strengthened with time. I have no moral objection, naturally, but
having only come into contact with the whole television system as an adult
there are aspects of it that I find incredibly odd and borderline
disturbing. It seems to me to have an uncomfortable amount in common with
devices in science fiction dystopias, where something is dispensed
continually to keep the masses occupied, something innocuous enough to be
welcomed without worry and just engaging enough to dull the need for true
fulfilment. What I see of most TV brings that thought forcibly to mind
almost every time, just because of its sheer disposability. The programming
drifts by, filling time, with a complete lack of consequence whether it's
watched or not. What value there is often strikes me as extraordinarily thin
due to the constraints of the medium - for example, the news is restricted
by a time-sensitive format, which places great responsibility on the editors
who choose exactly what viewers get to learn, both by filtering important
information and filling gaps with trivia.
Parenthetically, that also highlights a long-standing concern I have that is
specific to the UK, which is that citizens pay for the right to watch
television by funding an organisation that I feel has too much power.
I also struggle to understand the idea of live broadcast, except in the case
of, say, sports where knowing what you're watching is taking place NOW is
important. I am told by some that there is a quality of community about
watching what is on while it's broadcast, and that that quality improves the
experience by adding the knowledge that others are also watching. However,
it seems to me bizarre to simply accept one of a small choice of options at
a particular time and, with it, the need to regulate other aspects of life
around the start and end times.
Personally, I still don't have a television set, and consequently I don't
watch live television. My watching of television is by means of the
now-excellent web services available (which means, I suppose, that I have a
moral obligation to buy a TV license, but fortunately not a legal one or I
would probably abandon watching entirely instead). I like to watch
television when I need to relax and not concentrate for a while, and while
doing something that needs doing but doesn't require my full attention
(typically ironing, but I also find the slight distraction helps to avoid
getting bogged down in the detail of some thinking-heavy projects). Yet,
with weeks of programming available at any one time, I frequently find it
very difficult to come up with anything that appears even worth watching for
these slight purposes. What, I often ask myself, would be the chances of
finding something I would want to watch just when I turn it on?
This all seems very negative, but it's really all preparatory ... what I'd
like to say is that when TV is good, it can be extremely good.
Over the last few days I have watched a documentary called "How to be a
Composer", and I found myself not only enjoying it but consciously enjoying
it. The subject was intriguing - a music critic with no formal knowledge
attends the Royal Academy of Music for a year to study composition - the
format suited to visuals and the spoken word, besides the music, and for me
the whole concept just worked very well. More than that, I admired the look
of the documentary viewing it as a photographer - the framing, the lighting
(including some techniques I like to use myself), the use of selective
focus. And I found the story-telling methods instructive too, particularly
the way simply cutting to a new scene can force the viewer to consider new
information in the light of the preceding information, leading to
conclusions without ever spelling them out. I think I got quite a lot from
my time watching this particular documentary, and it also left me with an
urge to have a go at composition myself (not that I expect to have time to
indulge that urge).
There's no particular conclusion to this other than that I wish the
possibilities of television as a medium were fulfilled more often. The
populist wastelands of the schedules seem to be such a waste in so many
ways, and leave me with no wish to defend this bete noire of the brethren to
them.
principal reason for the gap. One change I have noticed in that time is that
for one reason and another I have been watching more television.
Those with a clear recent connection to the brethren will appreciate that
this is more significant than even a person moderately familiar with the
group would think. Even now, with all the recent changes in the brethren's
attitude to technology, TV remains a convenient shorthand for all the things
of which the brethren disapprove. I can recall the key question about people
who had departed the fellowship: "have they got a television?" The answer,
yes or no, pretty much summed up whether or not there was hope for them. So
even now on the outside the medium feels as though it has more tangible
associations than most other things I do differently.
Yet, as I say, I am watching more of it.
I still have my own quibbles with TV in general and, if anything, they have
actually strengthened with time. I have no moral objection, naturally, but
having only come into contact with the whole television system as an adult
there are aspects of it that I find incredibly odd and borderline
disturbing. It seems to me to have an uncomfortable amount in common with
devices in science fiction dystopias, where something is dispensed
continually to keep the masses occupied, something innocuous enough to be
welcomed without worry and just engaging enough to dull the need for true
fulfilment. What I see of most TV brings that thought forcibly to mind
almost every time, just because of its sheer disposability. The programming
drifts by, filling time, with a complete lack of consequence whether it's
watched or not. What value there is often strikes me as extraordinarily thin
due to the constraints of the medium - for example, the news is restricted
by a time-sensitive format, which places great responsibility on the editors
who choose exactly what viewers get to learn, both by filtering important
information and filling gaps with trivia.
Parenthetically, that also highlights a long-standing concern I have that is
specific to the UK, which is that citizens pay for the right to watch
television by funding an organisation that I feel has too much power.
I also struggle to understand the idea of live broadcast, except in the case
of, say, sports where knowing what you're watching is taking place NOW is
important. I am told by some that there is a quality of community about
watching what is on while it's broadcast, and that that quality improves the
experience by adding the knowledge that others are also watching. However,
it seems to me bizarre to simply accept one of a small choice of options at
a particular time and, with it, the need to regulate other aspects of life
around the start and end times.
Personally, I still don't have a television set, and consequently I don't
watch live television. My watching of television is by means of the
now-excellent web services available (which means, I suppose, that I have a
moral obligation to buy a TV license, but fortunately not a legal one or I
would probably abandon watching entirely instead). I like to watch
television when I need to relax and not concentrate for a while, and while
doing something that needs doing but doesn't require my full attention
(typically ironing, but I also find the slight distraction helps to avoid
getting bogged down in the detail of some thinking-heavy projects). Yet,
with weeks of programming available at any one time, I frequently find it
very difficult to come up with anything that appears even worth watching for
these slight purposes. What, I often ask myself, would be the chances of
finding something I would want to watch just when I turn it on?
This all seems very negative, but it's really all preparatory ... what I'd
like to say is that when TV is good, it can be extremely good.
Over the last few days I have watched a documentary called "How to be a
Composer", and I found myself not only enjoying it but consciously enjoying
it. The subject was intriguing - a music critic with no formal knowledge
attends the Royal Academy of Music for a year to study composition - the
format suited to visuals and the spoken word, besides the music, and for me
the whole concept just worked very well. More than that, I admired the look
of the documentary viewing it as a photographer - the framing, the lighting
(including some techniques I like to use myself), the use of selective
focus. And I found the story-telling methods instructive too, particularly
the way simply cutting to a new scene can force the viewer to consider new
information in the light of the preceding information, leading to
conclusions without ever spelling them out. I think I got quite a lot from
my time watching this particular documentary, and it also left me with an
urge to have a go at composition myself (not that I expect to have time to
indulge that urge).
There's no particular conclusion to this other than that I wish the
possibilities of television as a medium were fulfilled more often. The
populist wastelands of the schedules seem to be such a waste in so many
ways, and leave me with no wish to defend this bete noire of the brethren to
them.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
The Price Paid
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
Brethren in the business world
Yesterday was spent (mostly) in a business meeting. My employers have signed up with a company that provides a management system with a managed database and server, and their representatives needed to go through a long list of questions in order to tailor the software to the needs they discover.
That's interesting in itself, because it has taken less than two years to move from "no computers ever" to near normality. All the while that I've been jury-rigging systems using nothing more than MS Office, I've been saying that it would be better to do things properly, but it was never an option. Now it is, and there will soon be very little to differentiate brethren businesses from others in their systems. I'm a little bit wistful that my funny little systems with customised quirks will be less needed but, as I say, it's been something I've recommended all along. And it turns out (doesn't it always?) that the new system is not quite so all-embracing as it was first presented, so no doubt I'll be kept busy with things that need doing and in the meantime there's a major transition period.
But what led me to post was the meeting itself, which made me chuckle internally.
The brethren way is to compare notes on everything they do, and every option tried on anything that may need doing, and converge on something. So various brethren businesses have been signing up for software, and the company that comes out best is now getting a big boost to their sales ... and this is the company in question here. That happens quite often, and a particular company will suddenly become very familiar with brethren as the word goes round.
And always, they can't resist getting sucked in. It must feel like privileged access to a secret society or something. Whatever it is, they start to drop hints about things they know, people they're familiar with, and make clear how unsurprised they are at oddities in the interaction. Yesterday, for example, the meeting was structured to avoid the need for lunch. Names were dropped. Other brethren were proclaimed to have found particular features valuable. Awareness was self-consciously demonstrated of the need for some settings.
To be honest, most brethren don't like this much. As I've said before, they like to maintain a feeling of mystery, and are suspicious of people getting too interested in the detail. That often comes across, yet still these outsiders can't help it.
At one point, the main man in this case had to show off that he was well inside by claiming knowledge of policy that hadn't yet been announced. Apparently he'd been chatting to the person at the central brethren computer organisation who has oversight of systems, and got hold of the fact that company websites were on the way - so we shouldn't rule it out. Keep the option open, nudge nudge wink wink.
I do enjoy watching people interact, even if I do have to go without lunch to do it.
That's interesting in itself, because it has taken less than two years to move from "no computers ever" to near normality. All the while that I've been jury-rigging systems using nothing more than MS Office, I've been saying that it would be better to do things properly, but it was never an option. Now it is, and there will soon be very little to differentiate brethren businesses from others in their systems. I'm a little bit wistful that my funny little systems with customised quirks will be less needed but, as I say, it's been something I've recommended all along. And it turns out (doesn't it always?) that the new system is not quite so all-embracing as it was first presented, so no doubt I'll be kept busy with things that need doing and in the meantime there's a major transition period.
But what led me to post was the meeting itself, which made me chuckle internally.
The brethren way is to compare notes on everything they do, and every option tried on anything that may need doing, and converge on something. So various brethren businesses have been signing up for software, and the company that comes out best is now getting a big boost to their sales ... and this is the company in question here. That happens quite often, and a particular company will suddenly become very familiar with brethren as the word goes round.
And always, they can't resist getting sucked in. It must feel like privileged access to a secret society or something. Whatever it is, they start to drop hints about things they know, people they're familiar with, and make clear how unsurprised they are at oddities in the interaction. Yesterday, for example, the meeting was structured to avoid the need for lunch. Names were dropped. Other brethren were proclaimed to have found particular features valuable. Awareness was self-consciously demonstrated of the need for some settings.
To be honest, most brethren don't like this much. As I've said before, they like to maintain a feeling of mystery, and are suspicious of people getting too interested in the detail. That often comes across, yet still these outsiders can't help it.
At one point, the main man in this case had to show off that he was well inside by claiming knowledge of policy that hadn't yet been announced. Apparently he'd been chatting to the person at the central brethren computer organisation who has oversight of systems, and got hold of the fact that company websites were on the way - so we shouldn't rule it out. Keep the option open, nudge nudge wink wink.
I do enjoy watching people interact, even if I do have to go without lunch to do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)