|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 6, 2014 7:26:08 GMT -5
As I read Muriel’s story in VOX magazine I thought of all of the similar accounts from formers 2x2s I received during my research and still receive from those who have read my book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement.
Muriel, a former Jehovah’s Witness writes: ‘In 1980 there was a big article on “Time” magazine about the Jehovah’s Witnesses organisation. Two elders from Dublin went over to the US to find out what was happening and they came back with lots of serious issues and questions.
The huge result was that I left the Jehovah’s Witnesses. That was traumatic. My family were still JWs and when you leave, they cut you off completely. All my friends turned their backs on me. It was hard when my family wouldn’t speak to me. Over the years, they softened a bit but it has never been the same.
When you are questioning all the beliefs you have had since childhood, your head is left in a state of meltdown. I didn’t know what to believe any more. My whole life was wrapped up in being a JW. . . .
I remember one day on the bus reading Romans 8 about how God can adopt me and I can become His child. I thought “that’s it!” I was still afraid but right there on the 51B bus I gave my life to the Lord. It was a leap of faith jumping into the unknown, but I knew I needed Him. The witnesses don’t believe that Jesus is God so that was a revelation. I remember walking across a field trying to figure out the Trinity. I couldn’t seem to get my head around it and then I felt the Lord saying, “Just rest in that.” Jesus is Lord and that was it! Even now I wonder how I got to this amazing place considering where I came from. It is just the Lord’s grace.’
‘Muriel’s Story’ Taken from VOX magazine Issue 22.
|
|
|
Post by xna on Apr 6, 2014 7:43:23 GMT -5
As I read Muriel’s story in VOX magazine I thought of all of the similar accounts from formers 2x2s I received during my research and still receive from those who have read my book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement. I am reminded of a quote by Steven Weinberg "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 8:26:47 GMT -5
A direct and equal comparison with the JW's is neither fair nor accurate. I don't know of a time when there was ever a common complete cut-off of family leaving the meetings (I am sure there were some cases but I don't personally know of any offhand) such as the JW's have practiced or the RCC use to practice when someone went Protestant. Yes, there was a "distancing" to varying degrees depending on the family. Today, families with kids who have left are quite involved with their unprofessing kids....I see it all the time.
The distance that 2x2's feel toward their non-professing family is similar to what Christians feel about Muslims...... only not that bad.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 8:47:35 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell.
I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 8:53:05 GMT -5
As I read Muriel’s story in VOX magazine I thought of all of the similar accounts from formers 2x2s I received during my research and still receive from those who have read my book, Two by Two the Shape of a Shapeless Movement. I am reminded of a quote by Steven Weinberg "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion." en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_WeinbergChange 'religion' to 'ideology' in your sentence, and religion may or may not be an ideology, as the case may be, and I will agree.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Apr 6, 2014 9:15:01 GMT -5
It is great that ostracizing is not as "strong" and prevalent as it once was , BUT many many many people have been and still are ostracized for leaving the meetings. To assert otherwise, is simply throwing "salt" in the wounds who have paid dearly for their decisions. People have gone to their deathbeds without resolution , and the only "reason" was because they "left the meetings". Of course, the victums "need to get over it already" , but it sure has and does happen. It goes both ways, and both "sides" suffer, but the religion is the "reason'. Yes, there is lots worse, but it sure was prevalent when we left. fwiw Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 9:15:07 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. Shunning will continue to occur toward people who are viewed as active enemies.....ie people who will say only bad things about the meetings and try to convince people to leave the "evil bondage". That's more based on fear and survival. People who leave today and do so on friendly terms are much more likely to experience mutual respect than a self-righteous-based shunning.
|
|
|
Post by CherieKropp on Apr 6, 2014 9:18:38 GMT -5
A direct and equal comparison with the JW's is neither fair nor accurate. I don't know of a time when there was ever a common complete cut-off of family leaving the meetings (I am sure there were some cases but I don't personally know of any offhand) such as the JW's have practiced or the RCC use to practice when someone went Protestant. Yes, there was a "distancing" to varying degrees depending on the family. Today, families with kids who have left are quite involved with their unprofessing kids....I see it all the time. The distance that 2x2's feel toward their non-professing family is similar to what Christians feel about Muslims...... only not that bad. I understand that a cut-off of family occurred with Truitt & Walter Oyler's extended Family in Montana. And that numerous families were exed because they would not renounce the beliefs and teachings of Starkweather & Oyler. The 1990 Montana purge led by Everett Swanson excommunicated all the F&Ws who would not renounce the beliefs of Truitt Oyler and John Starkweather. After a number of warnings, Truitt Oyler was told to step aside from the ministry for preaching “divisive doctrine” (also referred to as “false doctrine”). Two other brother workers also preached this same doctrine and they were also put out of the work, John Starkweather in Texas and Walter Oyler, Truitt’s brother. Everett Swanson toured Montana and held gospel meetings where he preached a view that countered the “false doctrine” of others, and at the end of the meeting, he asked the friends who agreed with him to stand. Those who didn’t stand to their feet were disfellowshipped. This method of cleansing the church of said “false doctrine” caused much havoc in the church and grief in families. Families and churches were split apart. "Truitt's Doctrine", written by Truitt: There were never ungodly lusts, desires or passions in Jesus and never a spirit unacceptable with God. Jesus was in the likeness of Adams creation except he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit was on him from birth. The power of the Holy Spirit prevented him from becoming a sinner. Jesus was pure in heart and mind always. It would have been necessary for Jesus to have lost the Holy Spirit and its power to have sinned. Jesus paid the redemption price in full. The death he died was in fulfillment of all the curse that the sinner was under.And then things blew up in Alaska too, with substantial carnage over the same issue.A Friend residing in AK at the time wrote: “The state was in an uproar. The elders, having received a cold informal letter stating the removal of Bob and Truitt, did not appreciate not only the spirit of the letter, but that their input had not been considered. Elders from all over the state gathered for a meeting with the likes of Jack Price, Sydney Holt, Willis Propp, Paul Sharp, Eldon Tenniswood and others…There were many public meetings, emotions ran high, and true colors were revealed. The ugliness of it all was a real shock to many and impossible to ignore. Almost over night we lost respect for workers. Even workers we were close to put the church before truth through honest communication. In the minds of some workers as well as some friends, for the sake of holding the church together, ‘lives had to be sacrificed.’ It was organized religion at its worst.
“All Alaska workers were under suspicion at that time and within a year dispersed to other states. Judy Dudley was sent to Alberta where, after a question/answer grilling from Willis Propp, she was put out of the work. Five years later she married Truitt Oyler.” Others were sent home to "rest." One never returned to the work (her choice). Several were sent to Washington state. One was sent to Colorado.
”Things did not quiet down very soon. A year later there were still problems between many of the friends and workers. The powers that be brought in more VIP in the church to win the people over. That's when Leslie White came to Alaska. Initially many viewed him as the Great White Hope, the one who could help make things right. We quickly saw how weak and ineffective he really was.”
”Many of the friends lost their meetings and other privileges. In time division among the friends came about. A "troublemakers" meeting was created in Anchorage for some who had openly protested how things had been conducted. The only reason people were not "put out" was because the numbers were too great and there were some very influential friends with strong connections in other states. To put out everyone that did not support the behavior of the workers would have had a devastating and far reaching domino effect. The whole Alaska experience was the beginning of many of the friends re-examining just what it was they were a part of.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 9:18:44 GMT -5
It is great that ostracizing is not as "strong" and prevalent as it once was , BUT many many many people have been and still are ostracized for leaving the meetings. To assert otherwise, is simply throwing "salt" in the wounds who have paid dearly for their decisions. People have gone to their deathbeds without resolution , and the only "reason" was because they "left the meetings". Of course, the victums "need to get over it already" , but it sure has and does happen. It goes both ways, and both "sides" suffer, but the religion is the "reason'. Yes, there is lots worse, but it sure was prevalent when we left. fwiw Alvin It will have a lot to do with how much of a threat you appear to be, whether it is a real threat or not. There has certainly been no shortage of shunning in the past and it still occurs when it is fear-based. Remember (or realize) Alvin, they are probably more scared of you than you are of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 9:21:39 GMT -5
A direct and equal comparison with the JW's is neither fair nor accurate. I don't know of a time when there was ever a common complete cut-off of family leaving the meetings (I am sure there were some cases but I don't personally know of any offhand) such as the JW's have practiced or the RCC use to practice when someone went Protestant. Yes, there was a "distancing" to varying degrees depending on the family. Today, families with kids who have left are quite involved with their unprofessing kids....I see it all the time. The distance that 2x2's feel toward their non-professing family is similar to what Christians feel about Muslims...... only not that bad. I understand that a cut-off of family occurred with Truitt & Walter Oyler's extended Family in Montana. And that numerous families were exed because they would not renounce the beliefs and teachings of Starkweather & Oyler. The 1990 Montana purge led by Everett Swanson excommunicated all the F&Ws who would not renounce the beliefs of Truitt Oyler and John Starkweather. After a number of warnings, Truitt Oyler was told to step aside from the ministry for preaching “divisive doctrine” (also referred to as “false doctrine”). Two other brother workers also preached this same doctrine and they were also put out of the work, John Starkweather in Texas and Walter Oyler, Truitt’s brother. Everett Swanson toured Montana and held gospel meetings where he preached a view that countered the “false doctrine” of others, and at the end of the meeting, he asked the friends who agreed with him to stand. Those who didn’t stand to their feet were disfellowshipped. This method of cleansing the church of said “false doctrine” caused much havoc in the church and grief in families. Families and churches were split apart. "Truitt's Doctrine", written by Truitt: There were never ungodly lusts, desires or passions in Jesus and never a spirit unacceptable with God. Jesus was in the likeness of Adams creation except he was conceived of the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit was on him from birth. The power of the Holy Spirit prevented him from becoming a sinner. Jesus was pure in heart and mind always. It would have been necessary for Jesus to have lost the Holy Spirit and its power to have sinned. Jesus paid the redemption price in full. The death he died was in fulfillment of all the curse that the sinner was under.And then things blew up in Alaska too, with substantial carnage over the same issue.A Friend residing in AK at the time wrote: “The state was in an uproar. The elders, having received a cold informal letter stating the removal of Bob and Truitt, did not appreciate not only the spirit of the letter, but that their input had not been considered. Elders from all over the state gathered for a meeting with the likes of Jack Price, Sydney Holt, Willis Propp, Paul Sharp, Eldon Tenniswood and others…There were many public meetings, emotions ran high, and true colors were revealed. The ugliness of it all was a real shock to many and impossible to ignore. Almost over night we lost respect for workers. Even workers we were close to put the church before truth through honest communication. In the minds of some workers as well as some friends, for the sake of holding the church together, ‘lives had to be sacrificed.’ It was organized religion at its worst.
“All Alaska workers were under suspicion at that time and within a year dispersed to other states. Judy Dudley was sent to Alberta where, after a question/answer grilling from Willis Propp, she was put out of the work. Five years later she married Truitt Oyler.” Others were sent home to "rest." One never returned to the work (her choice). Several were sent to Washington state. One was sent to Colorado.
”Things did not quiet down very soon. A year later there were still problems between many of the friends and workers. The powers that be brought in more VIP in the church to win the people over. That's when Leslie White came to Alaska. Initially many viewed him as the Great White Hope, the one who could help make things right. We quickly saw how weak and ineffective he really was.”
”Many of the friends lost their meetings and other privileges. In time division among the friends came about. A "troublemakers" meeting was created in Anchorage for some who had openly protested how things had been conducted. The only reason people were not "put out" was because the numbers were too great and there were some very influential friends with strong connections in other states. To put out everyone that did not support the behavior of the workers would have had a devastating and far reaching domino effect. The whole Alaska experience was the beginning of many of the friends re-examining just what it was they were a part of.
I am making comments about what is likely to occur today, not what occurred 25 years ago. However, in the case of what is viewed as serious doctrinal differences like the Olyer situation, those people will be viewed as a threat to the system and definitely shunned even today. Again, similar to the Christian/Muslim comparison.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 6, 2014 9:58:33 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. What Hat ~ I'm beginning to feel that the "systemic shunning experience" is all about where you live?
I'm right in the center (heart) of the Bible Belt in Middle Tennessee and I can say that it's alive and well down here. I professed for 30 years, but when I left the fellowship of the F&W's in 1995, the response was total silence and indifference from the 2x2's. Nobody even called to see if I was still alive, which included both the friends and workers. It was as if I never belonged in the first place!
While I professed, I tried my best to be friendly with everybody within the fellowship, but never felt fully accepted in this meeting area by some due to my Yankee background (from the Northeast) and more liberal point of view. Since my husband had his "fill" of meetings early on due to the attitudes of the friends and senior workers down here, he left in October 1981 and later became an agnostic/atheist. He had professed for 10 years prior to this decision and thoroughly lost all interest in religion in general since then.
I continued on for another 14 years, although not pleased with my cool reception down here either, which eventually led to my departure of the group one (Union) Sunday morning mgt. in April 1995. I remember saying to myself back then that "I don't know where I'm going from here, but one thing for sure, I'm never coming back!" I have been true to that vow for a number of years now and feel perfectly at peace with my new life and the large Baptist Church in my home town where I attend. The people at my present church treat me so much differently! Also, I have learned so much about the Bible and the true meaning of the Christian faith and the real gospel message, that it blows my mind. It was like having a veil lifted from off my eyes, allowing me to understand the scriptures in a whole new light. It also opened up a completely different worldview for me, which I will forever be grateful. As a result, I'm reminded of II Corinthians 3:14 in relation to this change in my life since leaving the 2x2's.
biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-14.htm
I do realize that there has been some "surface changes" outwardly within the 2x2's regarding certain things allowed within the home (bedroom closets?) and dress standards among the young, in recent years. However, back when I professed it was very obvious that the workers were in charge and would comment on any infarction they viewed within the group which deviated from the "unwritten rules" you were supposed to follow. It was pretty much the same way when I left in April 1995, too.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 10:23:00 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. What Hat ~ I'm beginning to feel that the "shunning thing" is all about where you live?
I'm right in the center (heart) of the Bible Belt in Middle Tennessee and I can say that it's alive and well down here. I professed for 30 years, but when I left the fellowship of the F&W's in 1995, the response was total silence and indifference from the 2x2's. Nobody even called to see if I was still alive, which included both the friends and workers. It was as if I never belonged in the first place!
While I professed, I tried my best to be friendly with everybody within the fellowship, but never felt fully accepted in this meeting area by some due to my Yankee background (from the Northeast) and more liberal point of view. Since my husband had his fill of meetings early on due to the attitudes of the friends and workers down here, he left in October 1981 and later became an agnostic/atheist.
I continued on for another 14 years, although not pleased with my cool reception down here, which eventually led to my departure of the group one Sunday morning in April 1995. I remember saying to myself back then that "I don't know where I'm going from here, but one thing for sure, I'm never coming back!" I have been true to that vow for a number of years now and feel perfectly at peace with my new life and the Baptist Church in my home town which I attend. The people at my present church treat me so much differently! Also, I have learned so much about the Bible and the true meaning of the Christian faith and the gospel message, that it blows my mind. It was like having a veil lifted from off my eyes, allowing me to understand the scriptures in a whole new light. It also opened up a completely different worldview for me, which I will forever be grateful. As a result, I'm reminded of II Corinthians 3:14 in relation to this change in my life since leaving the 2x2's.
biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-14.htm
I do realize that there has been some "surface changes" outwardly regarding things allowed within the home and dress standards among the young, in recent days. However, back when I professed it was very obvious that the workers were in charge and would comment on any infarction they viewed within the group which deviated from the "unwritten rules" you were supposed to follow. It was pretty much the same way when I left in April 1995, too.
Geography can make a difference, but time is making a difference too. You quit 20 years ago, WH quit very recently. There are other factors too. When you quit, you may have gone cold turkey and the friends figured you didn't want them pestering you. What Hat is an affable outgoing person who would also telegraph his continuing respect for the local friends he knew, so they would feel comfortable connecting with him now and in the future. I think TMB member someguy would tell much the same story as WH, recognizing though the subtle distance between him and his professing family. It's a two way street. I realize it's easy for someone leaving to feel in the minority and like a victim, but the friends are just humans too and are no less faced with cognitive dissonance than those leaving, only the friends don't realize they are struggling with their own cognitive dissonance. I often see both sides as victims of a "way of thinking" rather than good guys vs bad buys.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 10:31:05 GMT -5
It is great that ostracizing is not as "strong" and prevalent as it once was , BUT many many many people have been and still are ostracized for leaving the meetings. To assert otherwise, is simply throwing "salt" in the wounds who have paid dearly for their decisions. People have gone to their deathbeds without resolution , and the only "reason" was because they "left the meetings". Of course, the victums "need to get over it already" , but it sure has and does happen. It goes both ways, and both "sides" suffer, but the religion is the "reason'. Yes, there is lots worse, but it sure was prevalent when we left. fwiw Alvin This does happen but shunning doesn't seem to be baked in to the theology, as it is with some groups, for example, some of the conservative Mennonites in this area. I also think there are some people who will take umbrage in me stating my actual relatively positive experience even though I nowhere indicated that that experience was general. I can see where social stigmatization might occur, and that is, if the ex-s behaviour is seen as threatening, whether it actually is threatening or not. And from the perspective of the ex- it may not seem to take much. However, some of the exit letters I've seen, which turn on doctrinal issues, are going to polarize people. That's one reason we didn't send an exit letter. And it's possible we could still experience some kind of stigmatization further down the road for something I say or do. I'm not really worried about it. What I can say quite certainly is that I don't see or expect anything like that systemically or routinely. To my experience there are lines you don't cross in almost any church. We meet every few weeks with a few couples, some of whom are active in local church communities and they all say they can't or shouldn't speak against the set theology of their church.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 10:38:18 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. What Hat ~ I'm beginning to feel that the "systemic shunning experience" is all about where you live?
I'm right in the center (heart) of the Bible Belt in Middle Tennessee and I can say that it's alive and well down here. I professed for 30 years, but when I left the fellowship of the F&W's in 1995, the response was total silence and indifference from the 2x2's. Nobody even called to see if I was still alive, which included both the friends and workers. It was as if I never belonged in the first place!
While I professed, I tried my best to be friendly with everybody within the fellowship, but never felt fully accepted in this meeting area by some due to my Yankee background (from the Northeast) and more liberal point of view. Since my husband had his "fill" of meetings early on due to the attitudes of the friends and senior workers down here, he left in October 1981 and later became an agnostic/atheist.
I continued on for another 14 years, although not pleased with my cool reception down here either, which eventually led to my departure of the group one Sunday (Union) morning in April 1995. I remember saying to myself back then that "I don't know where I'm going from here, but one thing for sure, I'm never coming back!" I have been true to that vow for a number of years now and feel perfectly at peace with my new life and the large Baptist Church in my home town where I attend. The people at my present church treat me so much differently! Also, I have learned so much about the Bible and the true meaning of the Christian faith and the real gospel message, that it blows my mind. It was like having a veil lifted from off my eyes, allowing me to understand the scriptures in a whole new light. It also opened up a completely different worldview for me, which I will forever be grateful. As a result, I'm reminded of II Corinthians 3:14 in relation to this change in my life since leaving the 2x2's.
biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-14.htm
I do realize that there has been some "surface changes" outwardly within the 2x2's regarding certain things allowed within the home (bedroom closets?) and dress standards among the young, in recent years. However, back when I professed it was very obvious that the workers were in charge and would comment on any infarction they viewed within the group which deviated from the "unwritten rules" you were supposed to follow. It was pretty much the same way when I left in April 1995, too.
I think the major determinant isn't location, but as Clearday indicates, how much of a threat you appear to be. If you find another church community you might be seen as a wayward influence by some friends, and moreso by the workers. This is neither fair nor right, but a reality. A part of our situation is that we never cemented that well with the conservative, "I'm fourth generation" types, and our particular social circle is much more moderate in outlook, generally speaking.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 6, 2014 11:01:30 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. I've been quite "distanced" and forgotten mostly. Not even the elder who I grew up with has bothered to keep intouch....the second elder tried for a time but now isn't. I know that it came about due to the pressures and gossip juices given out by IH's kindred....simply because they want to negate anything that I may have(they don't even have proof that I have said or done anything in relation to that situation as far as the local church is concerned. But I do know I's oldest living sister was very much into starting gossip and untruths immediately after I had sent my exit letter to all of those I met with in mtgs. And she sent her gossipy and untruths about me via email that she had erroneously hit "reply" instead of "send"....I sent it back to her and told her that she was full of untruths in that email she had intended to send to the other worker brother JH....I have NO idea if she sent it all then to JH or not, but from local response or lack of it, tells me she likely sent even worse! I guess I can kind of understand her denial behavior in regards to IH's criminal somewhat of an admission, and thus she wanted to put the turkey on someone besides him....and I was a really ripe one to put the "wrongs" onto though I had nothing to do with IH's criminal behaviours. Sheesh, I would have hated it if she'd had corresponded with some of IH's victims and then when they tell the truth about dear brother IH, she'd put the onus of the untruths upon the victims...but hey, that's what the workers have been doing since day one in dealing with the victims and their families.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 6, 2014 11:08:49 GMT -5
It is great that ostracizing is not as "strong" and prevalent as it once was , BUT many many many people have been and still are ostracized for leaving the meetings. To assert otherwise, is simply throwing "salt" in the wounds who have paid dearly for their decisions. People have gone to their deathbeds without resolution , and the only "reason" was because they "left the meetings". Of course, the victums "need to get over it already" , but it sure has and does happen. It goes both ways, and both "sides" suffer, but the religion is the "reason'. Yes, there is lots worse, but it sure was prevalent when we left. fwiw Alvin This does happen but shunning doesn't seem to be baked in to the theology, as it is with some groups, for example, some of the conservative Mennonites in this area. I also think there are some people who will take umbrage in me stating my actual relatively positive experience even though I nowhere indicated that that experience was general. I can see where social stigmatization might occur, and that is, if the ex-s behaviour is seen as threatening, whether it actually is threatening or not. And from the perspective of the ex- it may not seem to take much. However, some of the exit letters I've seen, which turn on doctrinal issues, are going to polarize people. That's one reason we didn't send an exit letter. And it's possible we could still experience some kind of stigmatization further down the road for something I say or do. I'm not really worried about it. What I can say quite certainly is that I don't see or expect anything like that systemically or routinely. To my experience there are lines you don't cross in almost any church. We meet every few weeks with a few couples, some of whom are active in local church communities and they all say they can't or shouldn't speak against the set theology of their church. What Hat I revised my earlier post to fill in a few gaps with details that I had left out before. But, I do agree with you that a "divided home," which ours became after my husband quit attending meetings only after four months, undoubtedly contributed to the "coolness" which was felt from some within the meeting. My husband had professed for 10 years before we moved South due to a job offer he received in Tennessee, after his plant had closed up North due to the recession in 1981. After we had relocated down South and bought a home, his job totally fell through and he was unemployed again. He had to go back to school to re-train in a new field as a result of this misfortune and I went back to work to support the family in the meantime with three young children, which ranged between 4 years and 8 months at this time. It was a hard time in our lives, but we managed to make it through and come out on top about 3-1/2 years down the road. However, unkind rumors abounded regarding our fate and workers even suggested we move back to the Northeast where we would be more accepted within the circle of the friends and find new employment, since the Northeast faired better during this deep recession of 1981 than the South. Well, that senior workers' visit to our home was the straw that broke the camel's back in my husband's life, since it came at a time when we were faced with so many unforeseen circumstances in our life. The misunderstanding and rumors that were generated as a result of that recession among the friends really turned my husband's stomach and he left out of disgust shortly after the "elders' visit." The good news was that we did survive and pulled through this crisis in our lives even with three small children at the time ~ although it was 3-1/2 years down the road before we saw the end of the tunnel. My husband did find a new job after completing his re-training in another field and things eventually returned to normalcy for us. However, I have no doubt but the "divided home" situation that resulted afterwards did contribute a lot to how my children and I were viewed by the F&W's in meetings down South. When I left the Truth that Union Sunday morning, I had not made any acknowledgments of my personal feelings to any within the meeting. They would have had no idea as to what happened in my case, but they never even made the slightest effort to inquire afterwards as to why I wasn't in meeting. It was as if they were glad to see me gone and could have cared less! That reality stayed with me for months afterwards until I finally reconciled things in my mind and moved on in my life to a new church home and perspective on life in general.
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 6, 2014 11:09:40 GMT -5
We've been out three years now. We don't have as much contact with the friends, and of course, don't have the contact we had at conventions and meetings. We're not in the loop on church potlucks or the like but those are infrequent anyway. But we still see perhaps a dozen or two friends fairly regularly, some couples, some individual friends who drop by at work. We don't see some of our closer friends as much as we would like, but that's our fault as much as anything. We have a lot of new things on the go. So, is there systemic shunning? There has been none whatsoever as far as I can tell. I think some ex-friends could experience distancing based on lifestyle issues. But Mrs. Hat and I haven't changed all that much. I'll concede that I have acquired a taste for craft beers, but one is my limit. Unless someone else is paying, then two. Shunning will continue to occur toward people who are viewed as active enemies.....ie people who will say only bad things about the meetings and try to convince people to leave the "evil bondage". That's more based on fear and survival. People who leave today and do so on friendly terms are much more likely to experience mutual respect than a self-righteous-based shunning. Not really true here in the southern Midwest....idealism reigns supreme in the area's 2x2 church members.....very few exiting people are kept up with by professing workers/friends, esp. after the first 2 years have gone by and the exiting usually is felt to be a reproach that the 2x2's do not feel they should have to bear and they will keep their "hurt feelings" against the exes for showing them that the way they believe/worship has some serious problems. They consider anyone exiting is truly criticizing the 2x2 religion and I guess they may be right except they have the broader meaning to it, then what the exes feel their reasons for leaving are about! A lot of idealism and denial reign supreme. Strange part of it for me is, when I was participating in the 2x2s my own sister was so jealous of me she made my life a living hell, but as soon as I'm out of it, she is willing to try and get along better! This happened back years ago when I left the first time. She has to feel she has done something I haven't done!
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 6, 2014 11:44:58 GMT -5
What Hat ~ I'm beginning to feel that the "systemic shunning experience" is all about where you live?
I'm right in the center (heart) of the Bible Belt in Middle Tennessee and I can say that it's alive and well down here. I professed for 30 years, but when I left the fellowship of the F&W's in 1995, the response was total silence and indifference from the 2x2's. Nobody even called to see if I was still alive, which included both the friends and workers. It was as if I never belonged in the first place!
While I professed, I tried my best to be friendly with everybody within the fellowship, but never felt fully accepted in this meeting area by some due to my Yankee background (from the Northeast) and more liberal point of view. Since my husband had his "fill" of meetings early on due to the attitudes of the friends and senior workers down here, he left in October 1981 and later became an agnostic/atheist.
I continued on for another 14 years, although not pleased with my cool reception down here either, which eventually led to my departure of the group one Sunday (Union) morning in April 1995. I remember saying to myself back then that "I don't know where I'm going from here, but one thing for sure, I'm never coming back!" I have been true to that vow for a number of years now and feel perfectly at peace with my new life and the large Baptist Church in my home town where I attend. The people at my present church treat me so much differently! Also, I have learned so much about the Bible and the true meaning of the Christian faith and the real gospel message, that it blows my mind. It was like having a veil lifted from off my eyes, allowing me to understand the scriptures in a whole new light. It also opened up a completely different worldview for me, which I will forever be grateful. As a result, I'm reminded of II Corinthians 3:14 in relation to this change in my life since leaving the 2x2's.
biblehub.com/2_corinthians/3-14.htm
I do realize that there has been some "surface changes" outwardly within the 2x2's regarding certain things allowed within the home (bedroom closets?) and dress standards among the young, in recent years. However, back when I professed it was very obvious that the workers were in charge and would comment on any infarction they viewed within the group which deviated from the "unwritten rules" you were supposed to follow. It was pretty much the same way when I left in April 1995, too.
I think the major determinant isn't location, but as Clearday indicates, how much of a threat you appear to be. If you find another church community you might be seen as a wayward influence by some friends, and moreso by the workers. This is neither fair nor right, but a reality. A part of our situation is that we never cemented that well with the conservative, "I'm fourth generation" types, and our particular social circle is much more moderate in outlook, generally speaking. What Hat ~ I don't see how I appeared as a "threat" to anybody, unless you consider my moderate/liberal perspective didn't fit well with some in my southern environment who were more conservative and did go back to the 4th generations within the Truth?
I was also not B&R, but was an "outsider" who joined later in my teenage years, which also gave me a different outlook on things in general. My husband was also an outsider who I introduced to meetings during my college days.
However, when we first moved here, I tried my best to be cordial with all within our meeting area and tried not to make waves. It seems that our sudden change in circumstances brought about some "unsightly rumors" within the fellowship which never went away? I felt "isolated" within the fellowship, as I was excluded from any of the get-togethers with professing couples after my husband left the faith. There was only one family that included all the friends in Nashville (without exception) on a yearly get-together (pot-luck picnic) and I was usually invited with my children. However, before the divided home situation, we did have friends and workers within our home for visits and meals. I tried hard to create the same environment I enjoyed back home in Connecticut with the Friends, but never seemed to succeed in my efforts. I guess we were just too different in our ways for some down here to accept?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 11:49:02 GMT -5
There is a professing young people's group called Youth 323. Trust me, if you bring up issues that are brought up here,YOU WILL BE CENSORED and asked to leave because of "your spirit". There is a facegroup called "professing open-air" where you can discuss the things we discuss here. Get on Youth 323 and discuss William Irvine, the Round Rock TX excommunication, Jim Knipe tapes, the Starkweather-Olyer-Swanson affair in MT, dresses and buns, TV ban, divorce-remarriage/marriage to outsiders and SEE WHAT HAPPENS! You will be told that your spirit isn't right or your posts don't edify-if you don't change, you will have to leave the board. Funny thing is that these youths look so worldly....girls in pants or shorts, guys with tats visible in swimming attire etc. Yet the exclusive (US vs. THEM) is as strong as ever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 11:51:31 GMT -5
I have shunned people also. 20 years ago, I didn't want anything to do with weak saints and worldly people. I thought I was better than those who didn't share our professing beliefs. It wasn't just something I felt but something I offered others. And I am very sorry for the way I felt towards others.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 6, 2014 11:59:26 GMT -5
It is great that ostracizing is not as "strong" and prevalent as it once was , BUT many many many people have been and still are ostracized for leaving the meetings. To assert otherwise, is simply throwing "salt" in the wounds who have paid dearly for their decisions. People have gone to their deathbeds without resolution , and the only "reason" was because they "left the meetings". Of course, the victums "need to get over it already" , but it sure has and does happen. It goes both ways, and both "sides" suffer, but the religion is the "reason'. Yes, there is lots worse, but it sure was prevalent when we left. fwiw Alvin Alvin ~ Thank you for validating my feelings! It definitely was like having "salt rubbed into the wounds" for us, considering the many unexpected changes that came into out lives shortly after we moved South, due mainly to the deep recession back in 1981. I was fortunate to find a job within the government when my husband needed to return to college for re-training in another field. We were going through a lot of "shifting gears" at this time in our lives with three young children, ranging in ages from 8 months to 4 yrs. old.
I wasn't expecting to return to work at this time, but under the circumstances, we had no other choice if we were to survive. We did what was necessary in hopes of life returning to normalcy again someday. It was just all the rumors and misunderstanding that result from these circumstances that turned our world upside down at this time. I was accustomed to being well received by the Friends in the Northeast and we often had group get-togethers at our home in Connecticut. When we moved South, our whole world changed shortly afterwards and it was hard to adapt in the beginning, but we managed and lived to tell about it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 12:01:39 GMT -5
I think the major determinant isn't location, but as Clearday indicates, how much of a threat you appear to be. If you find another church community you might be seen as a wayward influence by some friends, and moreso by the workers. This is neither fair nor right, but a reality. A part of our situation is that we never cemented that well with the conservative, "I'm fourth generation" types, and our particular social circle is much more moderate in outlook, generally speaking. What Hat ~ I don't see how I appeared as a "threat" to anybody, unless you consider my moderate/liberal perspective didn't fit well with some in my southern environment who were more conservative and did go back to the 4th generations within the Truth? I was also not B&R, but was an "outsider" who joined later in my teenage years, which also gave me a different outlook on things in general ~ my husband was also an outsider originally.
However, when we first moved here, I tried my best to be cordial with all within our meeting area and tried not to make waves. It seems that just our sudden change in circumstances brought about some "unsightly rumors" within the fellowship which never went away? I felt isolated within the fellowship and was excluded from any of the get-togethers with professing couples after my husband left the faith. Their was only one family that included all the friends in Nashville (without exception) on a yearly get-together (pot-luck picnic) and I was invited with my children. However, before the divided home situation, we did have friends and workers within our home for visits and meals. I tried hard to create the same environment I enjoyed back home in Connecticut with the Friends, but never seemed to succeed in my efforts. I guess we were just too different in our ways for some down here to accept?
It's not too difficult to be seen as threatening, but I have no idea if you were seen that way or not. It depends SO much on context. For example, we don't have family in the fellowship, and I haven't spoken to a worker since we left. There is no family dynamic involved and that can make things much more complicated. I think someone with a family of friends could encounter the "Master's Son" complex. If there has been a lifestyle change someone's siblings might think you're trying to get away with something, essentially because they're jealous you're doing something they can't do. And they want to make sure you don't get anything from the "Master's table". The other factor you mention is the "divided home" idea. I was in that situation for 4 months, and did not like it at all. Suddenly you have lost all your privileges because your spouse is not attending. When I've mentioned on the odd occasion, to friends outside the fellowship, that we were considered a "divided home" some people begin laughing! I mean, we've been married for close to 40 years. For me, the demotions that resulted around being a "divided home" were a major contributing factor to my own exit.
|
|
|
Post by faune on Apr 6, 2014 12:20:55 GMT -5
What Hat ~ I don't see how I appeared as a "threat" to anybody, unless you consider my moderate/liberal perspective didn't fit well with some in my southern environment who were more conservative and did go back to the 4th generations within the Truth? I was also not B&R, but was an "outsider" who joined later in my teenage years, which also gave me a different outlook on things in general ~ my husband was also an outsider originally.
However, when we first moved here, I tried my best to be cordial with all within our meeting area and tried not to make waves. It seems that just our sudden change in circumstances brought about some "unsightly rumors" within the fellowship which never went away? I felt isolated within the fellowship and was excluded from any of the get-togethers with professing couples after my husband left the faith. Their was only one family that included all the friends in Nashville (without exception) on a yearly get-together (pot-luck picnic) and I was invited with my children. However, before the divided home situation, we did have friends and workers within our home for visits and meals. I tried hard to create the same environment I enjoyed back home in Connecticut with the Friends, but never seemed to succeed in my efforts. I guess we were just too different in our ways for some down here to accept?
It's not too difficult to be seen as threatening, but I have no idea if you were seen that way or not. It depends SO much on context. For example, we don't have family in the fellowship, and I haven't spoken to a worker since we left. There is no family dynamic involved and that can make things much more complicated. I think someone with a family of friends could encounter the "Master's Son" complex. If there has been a lifestyle change someone's siblings might think you're trying to get away with something, essentially because they're jealous you're doing something they can't do. And they want to make sure you don't get anything from the "Master's table". The other factor you mention is the "divided home" idea. I was in that situation for 4 months, and did not like it at all. Suddenly you have lost all your privileges because your spouse is not attending. When I've mentioned on the odd occasion, to friends outside the fellowship, that we were considered a "divided home" some people begin laughing! I mean, we've been married for close to 40 years. For me, the demotions that resulted around being a "divided home" were a major contributing factor to my own exit.What Hat ~ I can see that you understand the "divided home" situation within the 2x2's and how it can impact your lifestyle within the fellowship considerably. I have also been married to my husband for almost 42 years now, so I can relate to your sentiment when you departed from the Truth over the "demotions that resulted around being a divided home." That contributed a lot to my own decision, too. I'm a very social person and didn't enjoy being left out of the "professing loop" simply because of my circumstances. It definitely contributed to my departure along with the "cold shoulder" treatment I also received, but I don't regret the changes it later brought into my life down the road.
I also have no family within the fellowship just like yourself these days. Since my older sister was the only other one within my family who professed, and left two years after I did in 1997. What's funny is that she also professed two years after I did (1965) back in time in 1967. She has also found another church home and is very content with her life since the 2x2's.
Although it took about eight (8) years of searching afterwards before I found a new church home that suited my tastes and where I could feel accepted, I don't regret my choice to depart 20 years ago. It eventually opened up a whole new world for me with new insights being gained, for which I'm very grateful. However, one of these insights gained regarded Christian theology, which I discovered I had very little knowledge of during my 30 years of professing. That's why I refer to it as my discovery of what the "true gospel" of Jesus Christ really conveyed and it had nothing to do with the "exclusive pattern ministry" that the workers still claim as their only "gospel message" and the only way of salvation. Personally, that POV is pretty "narrow" compared to what Jesus presented in John 3:16 as His own mission statement, IMHO?
www.gotquestions.org/true-gospel.html
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 6, 2014 14:06:33 GMT -5
I noticed a little bit of distance and the tendency for elders and adults to talk to me about my not professing anymore, but I never experienced outright shunning. There was a lot of pressure on me to profess again because of my age when I quit. There were some friends with children that didn't want their children around me alone anyway and so I was shunned a bit that way. At the time I didn't connect it to my quitting professing and living a worldly lifestyle, I just thought they didn't like me. Now I see it was a way to protect their children from my influence. I never went to another church and just said I didn't believe in God anymore so maybe a combination of my young age and my not believing in something else made the difference. When I left home no one contacted me but I really didn't expect them to and really didn't want them to so I didn't connect it to shunning. I guess it could have been, but if it was I was just as guilty. When I went home I was always involved in outings and visits with the friends and that never changed. They all seemed happy to see me again when I did join their outings. There wasn't a lot to talk about of course because our lives were so very different, but they did make the effort and I never felt left out. I did feel they judged me as 'wanting' a bit, but I never cared about that because I didn't want what they had anyway. I think it would be harder for those who were Christian that left and still continued to be Christians. To not be considered brothers and sisters in Christ because you went to a worldly church would likely be harder to take than me just not believing period. My heart goes out to those who had a bad experience that way. To just leave and never have anyone contact you must be very hard to take. We like to think we made some sort of impact on the lives of people we shared a belief and life style with I would think?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:12:21 GMT -5
What Hat ~ I don't see how I appeared as a "threat" to anybody, unless you consider my moderate/liberal perspective didn't fit well with some in my southern environment who were more conservative and did go back to the 4th generations within the Truth? I was also not B&R, but was an "outsider" who joined later in my teenage years, which also gave me a different outlook on things in general ~ my husband was also an outsider originally.
However, when we first moved here, I tried my best to be cordial with all within our meeting area and tried not to make waves. It seems that just our sudden change in circumstances brought about some "unsightly rumors" within the fellowship which never went away? I felt isolated within the fellowship and was excluded from any of the get-togethers with professing couples after my husband left the faith. Their was only one family that included all the friends in Nashville (without exception) on a yearly get-together (pot-luck picnic) and I was invited with my children. However, before the divided home situation, we did have friends and workers within our home for visits and meals. I tried hard to create the same environment I enjoyed back home in Connecticut with the Friends, but never seemed to succeed in my efforts. I guess we were just too different in our ways for some down here to accept?
It's not too difficult to be seen as threatening, but I have no idea if you were seen that way or not. It depends SO much on context. For example, we don't have family in the fellowship, and I haven't spoken to a worker since we left. There is no family dynamic involved and that can make things much more complicated. I think someone with a family of friends could encounter the "Master's Son" complex. If there has been a lifestyle change someone's siblings might think you're trying to get away with something, essentially because they're jealous you're doing something they can't do. And they want to make sure you don't get anything from the "Master's table". The other factor you mention is the "divided home" idea. I was in that situation for 4 months, and did not like it at all. Suddenly you have lost all your privileges because your spouse is not attending. When I've mentioned on the odd occasion, to friends outside the fellowship, that we were considered a "divided home" some people begin laughing! I mean, we've been married for close to 40 years. For me, the demotions that resulted around being a "divided home" were a major contributing factor to my own exit. we had a deacon that was in a divided home and no one ostracised him we even have a home where the elder is professing but his wife is not anymore...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:37:25 GMT -5
Shunning will continue to occur toward people who are viewed as active enemies.....ie people who will say only bad things about the meetings and try to convince people to leave the "evil bondage". That's more based on fear and survival. People who leave today and do so on friendly terms are much more likely to experience mutual respect than a self-righteous-based shunning. Not really true here in the southern Midwest....idealism reigns supreme in the area's 2x2 church members..... very few exiting people are kept up with by professing workers/friends, esp. after the first 2 years have gone by and the exiting usually is felt to be a reproach that the 2x2's do not feel they should have to bear and they will keep their "hurt feelings" against the exes for showing them that the way they believe/worship has some serious problems. They consider anyone exiting is truly criticizing the 2x2 religion and I guess they may be right except they have the broader meaning to it, then what the exes feel their reasons for leaving are about! A lot of idealism and denial reign supreme. Strange part of it for me is, when I was participating in the 2x2s my own sister was so jealous of me she made my life a living hell, but as soon as I'm out of it, she is willing to try and get along better! This happened back years ago when I left the first time. She has to feel she has done something I haven't done! Why is it that people feel that after they leave the meetings that the workers or friends should "keep up with them"? The logic of it escapes me. If I left the meetings, I wouldn't expect the vast majority to "keep up" with me, since the vast majority don't do so now. Even those with whom I have ongoing personal relationships I would expect most to drift away at least a bit, not having the meetings in common anymore. These are natural, normal occurrences as one chooses changes in life activities, not shunning or ostracization!
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 6, 2014 14:43:24 GMT -5
It's not too difficult to be seen as threatening, but I have no idea if you were seen that way or not. It depends SO much on context. For example, we don't have family in the fellowship, and I haven't spoken to a worker since we left. There is no family dynamic involved and that can make things much more complicated. I think someone with a family of friends could encounter the "Master's Son" complex. If there has been a lifestyle change someone's siblings might think you're trying to get away with something, essentially because they're jealous you're doing something they can't do. And they want to make sure you don't get anything from the "Master's table". The other factor you mention is the "divided home" idea. I was in that situation for 4 months, and did not like it at all. Suddenly you have lost all your privileges because your spouse is not attending. When I've mentioned on the odd occasion, to friends outside the fellowship, that we were considered a "divided home" some people begin laughing! I mean, we've been married for close to 40 years. For me, the demotions that resulted around being a "divided home" were a major contributing factor to my own exit. we had a deacon that was in a divided home and no one ostracised him we even have a home where the elder is professing but his wife is not anymore... Nor was I ostracized, if you take a minute to read my other posts. As far as having or allowing an elder with a non-professing wife, doesn't that make the situation worse? It sounds like playing favourites when you arbitrarily apply a rule which is specious to begin with. Kinda like the cop pulling you over for a burnt out tail light when he just doesn't like your looks. The workers told me we could no longer have once-a-month Bible study, let alone have Union meeting or Sunday meetings as we had had. I don't begrudge the man in our meeting with a "divided home" who had had Bible studies in his home for years. I think that all "divided homes" should be allowed the privilege of Bible study and meetings if the non-professing spouse does not mind. But in our case, the stated reason for pulling the meeting was the "divided home", so I suspect there were other reasons, but by then I had had enough. I am grateful that God gave me such a clear sign to move on.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2014 14:44:34 GMT -5
It's not too difficult to be seen as threatening, but I have no idea if you were seen that way or not. It depends SO much on context. For example, we don't have family in the fellowship, and I haven't spoken to a worker since we left. There is no family dynamic involved and that can make things much more complicated. I think someone with a family of friends could encounter the "Master's Son" complex. If there has been a lifestyle change someone's siblings might think you're trying to get away with something, essentially because they're jealous you're doing something they can't do. And they want to make sure you don't get anything from the "Master's table". The other factor you mention is the "divided home" idea. I was in that situation for 4 months, and did not like it at all. Suddenly you have lost all your privileges because your spouse is not attending. When I've mentioned on the odd occasion, to friends outside the fellowship, that we were considered a "divided home" some people begin laughing! I mean, we've been married for close to 40 years. For me, the demotions that resulted around being a "divided home" were a major contributing factor to my own exit. we had a deacon that was in a divided home and no one ostracised him we even have a home where the elder is professing but his wife is not anymore... I agree. My observations are that the friends are not only friendly to a person from a "divided home", but are also friendly and interested in the health and welfare of the non-professing spouse or non-professing family. I saw that happening just this morning in three instances. Of course the attention does vary in intensity due to several factors (not all exactly fair), but there is certainly no ostracization whatsoever. It takes a reason (fair or unfair) for people to avoid others, it is not automatic or systematic whatsoever as the OP is wrongly alluding to.
|
|