Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 10:53:42 GMT -5
Mary, Ma'am, sometimes shunning begins over false accusation, which because of being false changes often rapidly over time. It is what happened in my case, which is the only experience I know to speak from. Those who live with a "blame the victim" attitude or mindset simply have to know all the details, which often even people like Alan and myself simply do not know. Appreciate the kind spirit of your post as always.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 12, 2015 11:32:35 GMT -5
This doesn't answer why Alan Vandermyden was shunned. People don't shun for nothing. You're right, they usually feel quite justified in shunning. All it takes is to be told to do it by the workers. I was definitely shunned when I quit taking part in meeting at age 12. All of a sudden the friends with children my age wouldn't let their kids be around me without adult supervision. Of course at the time I wasn't aware that shunning was happening as I didn't even know what the heck it was, but I did know that people treated me different when I quit professing. They couldn't edge me completely out of the group because my parents were devotees in very good standing with the workers and it was their cross to bear that they had a daughter that was so ungrateful for all that was done for her that she would turn away from God. My father was an elder with the Sunday meeting. To have a child that was 'unwilling' was such a disappointment for them. So of course they were justified in shunning me, but guess what. No one ever would admit that this is what they did. They would just say they were protecting their children from worldly temptations. Not that I had anything I was doing that was so worldly other than not believing in their religion anymore. It is the whispers, the finger pointing and in my case the comments of how much of a disappointment I was to my parents and how could I be so selfish etc. that completes the shunning behavior. To be stuck in that situation until I was 17 years old and I could leave home and the mandatory church attendance, was one of the worst experiences I have had in life. At least when adults are shunned they can leave the group and find other like minded people to be with. They are not forced to stay in the circumstances, live with the shunning experience for years and not be able to do anything about it, let alone understand it. I was a child really and I didn't understand why it was so wrong to quit professing when I couldn't understand why the 2x2 group was the only group going to heaven. I thought it was a terrible belief that they believed all the other wonderful people who loved God but weren't a 2x2, were going to hell. I could not wrap my head around that belief and after being called down by the workers for questioning that belief, I quit professing. Don't do that obviously or you do risk the experience of shunning. But if you think for one moment that the friends and workers will come right out and actually tell you why they are shunning you, think again. It definitely won't happen, because they can't acknowledge that it's happening. If they did they would have to acknowledge just how unChristlike it is. And, we can't do that of course! But to finish this explanation on a positive note. It's the best thing they could have ever done for me. One door closes another opens and in my case it was a much better door to walk through.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Apr 12, 2015 11:59:14 GMT -5
This has touched me, I've never heard of shunning before I came onto this site. It sounds like you have stayed strong through your suffering. It's a shame people were not able to tell you openly what was wrong. Jesus was very straight like this. How can you sort a problem out if you don't know the cause? We had a storm here last night and everything that was not held down has been tossed everywhere, but anything with roots has held firm. Sometimes when we go through a storm it strengthens us. And God's love in our hearts holds us firm and and gives us the strength to get through, keeps us rooted! You held on and came out in the other side:) Jesus says in the bible where 2 or 3 are gathered together in my name I am in the midst. Even alone, if we love God then his Holy Spirit is with us, that makes 2 so Jesus will be there also! Just like Joseph, who you were talking about. God says, I will never leave you nor forsake you. So he would definitely never shun us. And if God's people love him, they won't shun anyone either, their doors and hearts will be open! God bless Mary A wonderful summary on church discipline at the following link: www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=532The Purposes of Church Discipline:(1) To bring glory to God and enhance the testimony of the flock. (2) To restore, heal, and build up sinning believers (Matt. 18:15; 2 Thess. 3:14-15; Heb. 12:10-13; Gal. 6:1-2) (3) To produce a healthy faith, one sound in doctrine (Tit. 1:13; 1 Tim. 1:19-20). (4) To win a soul to Christ, if the sinning person is only a professing Christian (2 Tim. 2:24). (5) To silence false teachers and their influence in the church (Tit. 1:10-11). (6) To set an example for the rest of the body and promote godly fear (1 Tim. 5:20). (7) To protect the church against the destructive consequences that occur when churches fail to carry out church discipline. A church that fails to exercise discipline experiences four losses:The Loss of Purity: Church discipline is vital to the purity of the local body and its protection from moral decay and impure doctrinal influences. Why? Because a little leaven leavens the entire lump (1 Cor. 5:6-7). This is the “rotten apple” problem or the “snowball” effect. The Practice of Church Discipline.The Manner:The above goals or purposes automatically govern the spirit in which all disciplinary action is to be given. Thus: (1) Discipline must be done by those who are spiritual, walking by the Holy Spirit in the Lord (Gal. 6:1). (2) Discipline must be done in a spirit of humility, gentleness and patience, looking to ourselves lest we too be tempted (Gal. 6:1-2; 2 Tim. 2:24-25). (3) Discipline must be done without bias, doing nothing in a spirit of partiality (1 Tim. 5:21). (4) Those who walk disorderly are to be admonished, warned, and appealed to in love (I Thess. 5:14-15; 1 Tim. 5:1-2; Eph. 4:15; 2 Tim. 4:2). This admonishing, is not restricted to church leaders, but may be done by any person in the body with another if that person is Spirit controlled and spiritually minded (cf. 1 Thess. 5:14 with Gal. 6:1). (5) If there is no response in repentance and obedience, then the sinning believer is to be rebuked publicly and members of the body are to withhold intimate fellowship through the process and procedure of group disapproval and social ostracism as prescribed in the next section, Procedures for Church Discipline below (2 Thess. 3:6, 14-15; Tit. 3:10; 1 Tim. 5:20). This action has a two-fold objective: It is to indicate to the offender that his/her action has dishonored the Lord and has caused a rupture in the harmony of the body. The goal is always restoration and the person is still to be counted as a brother (2 Thess. 3:14-15). It is to create fear in the rest of the flock as a warning against sin (1 Tim. 5:20). (6) If there is still no response in repentance and obedience, the church is to apply the procedures of excommunication as directed in Matthew 18:17. Several examples of church discipline are found in Scripture. The Corinthian believers were to be “gathered together” in order to take action against the offending brother (1 Cor. 5:4-5; Rom. 16:17; 2 Thess. 3:6-15; Phil. 3:17-19). This is defined by Paul as “punishment inflicted by the majority” (2 Cor. 2:6). As a protective measure, we also find that the whole church in Rome and in Thessalonica were to take action with regard to the unruly and schismatic, not just a few (2 Thess. 3:6-15; Rom. 16:17). (7) Finally, discipline in the name of our Lord always includes a readiness to forgive. The many or majority who discipline must also be ready and eager to forgive, comfort, and reaffirm their love to the sinning person (2 Cor. 2:6-8). Nathan, that will take me a while to go though, but. How can you put something right if you don't know what is wrong? It's wrong to gossip and whisper behind someone's back and not tell them what is wrong! Al didn't even know what he had done! Jesus tells us to sort out our problems! Wouldn't it have been easier just to sit down and discuss the problem with him? Instead of everyone turning against him? How can you say sorry when you don't know what you've done? And anyway its wrong to shun! We should be there to help each other, even if we fall! We shouldn't just shut our doors! If the person keeps away then that's up to them. But our doors should be open hoping they will come back! My auntie told me a story the other night about Edward Cooney, she said there was a lady who went to meetings in Ireland, but she had a drink problem and people gossiped behind her back. She turned up one night to the meeting sober, and some were talking about her. He quietened them and turned round and smiled and said to her, "well you're not drunk tonight are you" he was glad she was in the meeting! I have seen people come to our meeting with problems. And slowly they overcome them. We can't judge anyone. We just have to be here for them when they come to us What did Jesus say about forgiveness? Then came Peter to him, and said, Lord, how oft shall my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? till seven times? Jesus saith unto him, I say not unto thee, Until seven times: but, Until seventy times seven. We're not here to judge and shun, but to gather and bring to God! Even Jesus when he was crucified asked God to forgive them! We're supposed to be following him!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 12, 2015 12:07:42 GMT -5
Your post brings to mind the hymn "Alone With God". I don't know if it is still in the F&W hymnbook? I had an uncle who joined the fellowship so as to marry my aunt....never did quite "fit in" with the others. This was his favorite hymn, and he requested that it be sung at his funeral. I think I understand to some degree why. I loved this hymn. I still do. It expresses something very deep and meaningful to me. There were many times when I was still a member that this hymn gave me the courage and conviction to do what I knew was right for me, no matter how anyone else saw it. Too often, "the world" that I needed refuge from was the community of fellow members, rather than the so-called "outside world".
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 12, 2015 12:21:24 GMT -5
Sorry, but not good enough. People don't shun you for no reason. If you don't want to discuss the reason, only the shunning then you don't want people to reach an informed decision of their own. Correct- gossip, whisper campaigns and misunderstandings are probably the root of most of the shunnings within the 2x2 fellowship. It is my observation that anyone that does not engage in group think is at risk of being shunned by the group because they are seen as a threat. Bert, I can pretty much guarantee that if members of the 2X2 community were aware of the tenor of your participation on this board, you would be shunned as well. If I was still a member, I might even shun you. I suspect there are at least some current members on this board who are embarrassed by you. For myself, I can't say I ever really experienced shunning. In my exiting years, where my differences from the "group think' were becoming increasingly obvious, I was beyond caring. I was doing a great deal of personal distancing myself (aka reverse shunning) from the types of members that were inclined to shun others. I also had deep personal relationships with a handful of quality members who never shunned me then, and still haven't.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 13:41:06 GMT -5
I am sure Alan Vandermyden knows. When a kid tells you "My teacher was mad at me" I will ask, "What did you do?" and if he or she says "nothing" then I know for sure they did SOMETHING. As a kid who couldn't speak any English in a grade 1 Canadian classroom, I well remember being punished several times for "nothing" just because I couldn't explain myself. Not a good analogy.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 12, 2015 13:59:13 GMT -5
A scriptural theme that repeatedly presented itself to me, beginning in the fall of ’83, I believe (as I began my 3rd of 18 years in the work), was that of God getting people “alone,” where He could deal with him or her as an individual. I think in those early years I saw and defined this in terms of the “alone” experience, through which people were drawn into fellowship. I may have seen this, in those years, as something like a “principle” running through the scriptures, but it all became very real to me soon after Jayne and I moved to Honolulu (from Sacramento, California) in early 2003. As I posted a few weeks ago, in talking about God’s “timing,” it now looks like several of us were brought together there in Honolulu, within a few weeks of each other – a professing man had moved from the eastern part of the continental U.S., and the local workers, just a few days after we arrived, returned from conventions on Guam and Saipan and a visit to the Marshall Islands. And things began to happen for us! We can’t “prove” any of this, but it happened, and we felt it, as, family by family, the professing people in Honolulu – many of whom I had known for years – began to act “leery” of speaking with us. And it often seemed to be in a sequence of us Jayne and I trying to be friendly with someone, this certain man (the one who had just moved there) “buddying up” to that family, and then the family beginning to act as if we had the plague or something. To say it hurt – and hurt deeply – is to ridiculously understate the feeling. Life began to feel surreal, as if everything we had ever stood on had been pulled out from under us, our world had gone topsy-turvy. We cried, we raged, we begged for someone to just listen, only to be told that we “needed to forgive.” And we would ask, to no avail, what it was we were supposed to forgive. We were never told what we had “done wrong,” and of course being told we “needed to forgive” implies that someone else had “offended” us, but we were never able to “get at” that either. But back to the “alone” experience: I began to deeply relate to some of these experiences in the scriptures - Joseph, Hannah, David, Elijah, to name a few. These people grew to be much more than “the forefathers” (or mothers!) to admire – they began to feel like brothers and sisters, who had experienced the same “aloneness” that I was experiencing. Though I hoped over and over for the experience to end, I felt too like I was being brought into community with these individuals, like something was happening that was intended to happen. Because I was feeding on these experiences in the scriptures, they were of course the appropriate thing for me to share in meeting, but it became evident that they were also very inappropriate! I was aware that what I was sharing involved those in the meeting with us, and I attempted to share things in a rather general way, not wanting to point at anyone right there, but I was many times received in a deafening silence. After nearly seven years of this, while attempting to ready for Sunday morning meeting, I looked up at my wife and said, “This is weird. Here I have something that has been very helpful to me during the week, but now I’m scrambling to find something that will be accepted in meeting. She felt similarly, and we didn’t go to meeting that day. I never went again, except for a couple of meetings at the convention a few weeks after that. I still love what a worker said years ago: “No experience is complete until we can thank God for it.” And for me that does not mean “Sit down and count your blessings.” It meant, in this experience and in a few others, that I would suddenly realize, down the road somewhere, that I was actually out of the experience and I was thankful – glad! – that it had come to me. Now that I can look back on this painful time in our lives, and as I pass through other difficult encounters, I find this “individuation” to be a vital aspect of God’s dealing with humanity. Soren Kierkegaard - “the melancholy Dane” – is at times called a theologian, a philosopher, the “Father of the existentialists,” but none of these quite fit. And I love his writing! Soren insisted (he lived in the mid-nineteenth century) that God only deals with “the individual,” and will do whatever He can to help a person truly become “an individual.” In modern culture, we of course speak frequently of being “individualistic,” but we also operate largely as part of “the public,” “the crowd,” or “the mass”- “public opinion says,” “the majority feels,” etc. These are all abstract and relatively recent ideas. They have a way of lumping us all together, of treating us as carbon copies of some “essential” human being. But God only deals with the individual. Abraham was told “come out from your country and kindred.” Joseph was separated out, and when he was reunited with his brothers, could tell them, “You intended it for evil, but God meant it for good.” Elijah, after “proving” the prophets of Baal ineffectual, fled to the wilderness, feeling alone and wanting to die. It was there that God spoke telling him of others that had not “bowed the knee to Baal.” And this brings me to the other side of being made an individual - God’s intent is to create community. Israel and the church are intended as “alternate community,” living by grace and gift, rather than by debt and owing (though they most often have not lived up to this!). I don’t believe this means that there will always be like-minded people in a person’s immediate proximity, but a person does find fellowship in the scriptures, and possibly in reading in others of similar experience. Kierkegaard found himself more and more alone, unable to find understanding within the Danish Lutheran church of his time. My purpose in writing this is to define my own relationship to our experience in Honolulu. For me, it was a part of my being made “an individual,” something that can only occur through having EVERYTHING in which we have placed our confidence and trust – our security – taken from us. I cannot see the meetings as this “bad” thing over here, set alongside other, comparable, “good” things, but rather the good that God has drawn me into has “swallowed up” everything else. But! The hurtful, oppressive ways of humans do matter! I am not intending this in any way to be dismissive of anyone else’s experience – abuse, shunning, etc. I see the God of the scripture as being extremely interested in the manner in which we treat one another. But we are all a part of it too, and I see God as drawing us out, in order that we can bear the influence of the eternal into society – the light, the leaven, the seed, the salt . . . This means a right relationship with God being first established, which is really one with a right relationship with our neighbor. This is why I no longer speak that much of our hurtful experience, or of things I see as “wrong” in the fellowship. I do care about them, and in the appropriate time and place, I am most willing to talk about them. But I am no longer angry at those that were such a vital part of my learning and being made “an individual” before God. Also, I do recognize that there are valid means of analyzing the dynamics of our situation and others. I began college about two years after this experience began, deciding to major in Ethnic Studies upon entering my junior year. Ethnic Studies brought home to me how we create "others" as part of creating our own identities, as groups and as individuals. And I was watching - feeling - it happen to me right then and there in the meetings! And of course some of you can analyze these "meeting dynamics" through psychological, sociological, historic, and other means. I do not at all intend to negate these analysis in my description of how I now look on my own experience. Having worked through your story in some detail (almost an "interview" on a thread from some years ago now), and having experienced an exit ourselves, I wonder if the following insight might make sense. An ex-conservative Mennonite told me recently how an Old Order Mennonite man was abusing his wife to the general disapprobation of all the other Mennonnites who knew him. However, their culture left them without means to deal with the man, because in their culture the woman has to stay subservient to the man. You have no teeth to accuse a fellow like that because he'll justify his actions in terms of his wife's misdeeds and find Scriptural support as well. So, I understand your situation as being a victim in purely psychological and social manipulation. However, the community gave you nothing to deal with this. I'm surmising here, I might be way off. You weren't a direct victim of the actions of the friends' religion, but it gave you no means to address or remedy the situation. Often what happens in a religion is that qualities of human compassion are set aside in favour of a moral system or oode that regulates behaviour. The problem with this is that the active working principle is judgementalism, often at the expense of compassion and empathy. Fortunately, in an open society those victimised in this manner can just leave. A very simple example for us was no longer attending gospel meetings more than half an hour away. Often, people do drive a distance at some pain in terms of advertent weather, traffic or the cost of fuel. Why? Because you wouldn't want to miss what the Spirit has to give at a gospel meeting. I think that adage has the quality of being used in judgement rather than any true helpfulness in achieving unity with the Spirit or "Comforter" that replaced Jesus. Of course, our missed attendance became a giant red flag for us as far as the workers were concerned. The fact that we lived at the far end of the field and they were continuously preaching at the other shouldn't come in to it.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Apr 12, 2015 16:04:23 GMT -5
Alan, the OP is beautifully written and generously shared.
I’m assuming you are a reader of Joseph Campbell – if not, then I think you will find another kindred spirit there.
“And so Galahad decided it would be a disgrace to set off on a quest with the other knights. Alone he would enter the dark forest where there was no path.”
Joseph Campbell, The Hero's Journey: “You enter the forest at the darkest point, where there is no path. Where there is a way or path, it is someone else's path. You are not on your own path. If you follow someone else's way, you are not going to realize your potential.”
I tend to have issues with “community” and I am still working through them. I know that if one is to grow, there comes a time where you have to leave your “tribe”. And I suspect that as long as you identify with a tribe (no matter what it encompasses), that you will go through this process over and over again as you re-define your “tribe”. And yet there is something that is hard-wired in us to have a “community”.
I have the Steve Hanks print entitled “A Sense of Belonging”. It hangs on the wall of our bedroom on our farm. It means something very deep and inexpressible to me. I have made many decisions – and continue to make them – that have distanced and even ruptured relationships. It has been in the interest of having a right to be completely myself. I’m still working on figuring this out – but I would still make the choice to be an individual over “belonging” any day.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 17:22:14 GMT -5
Thanks Alan for helpful account. Are you OK if I share it with someone who might benefit from it also. not reading here? Not a problem if, no Alvin Kroeker. Birch River, Manitoba No problem! Share it as much as you like . . .
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 17:24:49 GMT -5
Your post brings to mind the hymn "Alone With God". I don't know if it is still in the F&W hymnbook? I had an uncle who joined the fellowship so as to marry my aunt....never did quite "fit in" with the others. This was his favorite hymn, and he requested that it be sung at his funeral. I think I understand to some degree why. I loved this hymn. I still do. It expresses something very deep and meaningful to me. There were many times when I was still a member that this hymn gave me the courage and conviction to do what I knew was right for me, no matter how anyone else saw it. Too often, "the world" that I needed refuge from was the community of fellow members, rather than the so-called "outside world". I love that hymn too!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2015 17:30:38 GMT -5
Thanks Alan for helpful account. Are you OK if I share it with someone who might benefit from it also. not reading here? Not a problem if, no Alvin Kroeker. Birch River, Manitoba No problem! Share it as much as you like . . . Thanks for sharing Alan, I have no reason at all to doubt your story.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 17:33:04 GMT -5
Thanks for sharing your story. It sounds like you are in a better place now. I am happy for you. I notice that when people first find religion - they thank god for it, and when they change their religion - they thank god for it. When I was in the 2x2, the workers would preach; the way we go preach is the only one true way, and if you ever leave or take a different path you will have a lost eternity. They would also say for those who once knew the truth and leave it will be much harder on them. ( Luke 12:47 … the many lashes verse). For those who leave, and then go back to their old ways (old church) they quoted (Proverbs 26:11 “.. a dog that returns to its vomit”. From these often cited verses I got the impression the workers prefer if you left them, they thought it would be better for you if you just became an atheist vs going to another denomination. The absolute worst act would be for a worker to leave the group and preach another way and so lead others astray. Did these verses or thoughts haunt you during this process, or was your decision in the end based what felt best for you? Verses and teachings similar to these came to me before my wife and I stepped away from the meetings - and there was some struggle involved with them, but it really began to sound very weird to hear them from certain people, in light of what was going on at the time. But, no, they did not haunt me in the sense of repeatedly coming back to me later. Once I stepped away, though I was angry for awhile, I don't think I ever really doubted my decision. Aside from anger, the overwhelming feeling at that time was simply relief - relief at no longer needing to engage with certain persons, relief at no longer needing to have an "acceptable" testimony ready . . .
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 18:00:23 GMT -5
Look, I am not doubting his story - I just can't figure out why he was being shunned. Bert, I specifically left much out, because my intention in telling my story was not to highlight the horrors of being shunned, or to prove any specific individual or group as being "wrong" (or to prove myself "right" and therefore "victimized".) I am interested in highlighting what I view as God's working, which I see as being for all individuals, not as being against (or for) a particular group. My mention of our "shunning" - which I see more as being "defined" in a certain way - was basically to give a little background to what I experience now. Consider scriptural stories - both OT and NT - where the emphasis is God confronting individual human beings, and the the individual's response - there are always numerous historical and autobiographical details we would love to know, but the emphasis is on "confronting" - which gives liberty to make a decision and a response. Again, there is no real intent to prove or disprove anything. That being said, yes, I was very much involved. I have pride too. I was well aware that as a former worker, and particularly right there in Hawai'i, I could someday be a candidate to be an elder. Other former and then-current workers on the California staff came to me and spoke of the "fellowship within the fellowship" of former workers. I very specifically tried to make my testimonies brief (even before this began to happen), as I was aware of some former workers who seemed to feel it was their right or duty to preach at length in meetings - and there was a certain pride even in my doing that! This brings me right back to my focal point in writing - we are all very much a part of whatever milieu we operate in, and God singles out individuals.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Apr 12, 2015 18:04:08 GMT -5
I am sure Alan Vandermyden knows. When a kid tells you "My teacher was mad at me" I will ask, "What did you do?" and if he or she says "nothing" then I know for sure they did SOMETHING. As a kid who couldn't speak any English in a grade 1 Canadian classroom, I well remember being punished several times for "nothing" just because I couldn't explain myself. Not a good analogy. You weren't shunned or punished "for nothing". I expect you were shunned or punished because you were different. Was that your fault? Of course not. BTW, I have great respect for what you've achieved in English literacy. I suspect your treatment in 1st grade helped to give you the determination to excel in English literacy?
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 18:12:43 GMT -5
Having worked through your story in some detail (almost an "interview" on a thread from some years ago now), and having experienced an exit ourselves, I wonder if the following insight might make sense. An ex-conservative Mennonite told me recently how an Old Order Mennonite man was abusing his wife to the general disapprobation of all the other Mennonnites who knew him. However, their culture left them without means to deal with the man, because in their culture the woman has to stay subservient to the man. You have no teeth to accuse a fellow like that because he'll justify his actions in terms of his wife's misdeeds and find Scriptural support as well. So, I understand your situation as being a victim in purely psychological and social manipulation. However, the community gave you nothing to deal with this. I'm surmising here, I might be way off. You weren't a direct victim of the actions of the friends' religion, but it gave you no means to address or remedy the situation. Often what happens in a religion is that qualities of human compassion are set aside in favour of a moral system or oode that regulates behaviour. The problem with this is that the active working principle is judgementalism, often at the expense of compassion and empathy. Fortunately, in an open society those victimised in this manner can just leave. A very simple example for us was no longer attending gospel meetings more than half an hour away. Often, people do drive a distance at some pain in terms of advertent weather, traffic or the cost of fuel. Why? Because you wouldn't want to miss what the Spirit has to give at a gospel meeting. I think that adage has the quality of being used in judgement rather than any true helpfulness in achieving unity with the Spirit or "Comforter" that replaced Jesus. Of course, our missed attendance became a giant red flag for us as far as the workers were concerned. The fact that we lived at the far end of the field and they were continuously preaching at the other shouldn't come in to it. I agree. Maybe this statement of yours - "The friends' religion . . . gave you no means to address or remedy the situation" - summarizes it well. But I also believe this happens in all institutions - church, nations, business, education, etc. - despite the best intentions of their various founders. We become comfortable in a mutual way of understanding things, and there are certain places "we just don't go" in our conversation. And this brings me right back to my point, that God seeks to make each of us an individual - not just in the sense of constitutionally-guaranteed rights, or in the sense of "doing my thing" - but in our willingness to forgo everything that seems so secure, to make a decision which we know will be misinterpreted.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 18:32:08 GMT -5
This doesn't answer why Alan Vandermyden was shunned. People don't shun for nothing. I appreciate reading your story, Alan. You were a worker in Hawaii for a few years. May I ask, what did this man say about you and your wife that the friends in the meetings on the island, believed in his testimony than yours? Was the man did not like you, because you married an Oriental? I know your wife, she was one of the students that professed in Uncle Leo's Bible studies on the University campus lawn like myself. Your wife is a lovely, and very kind person. I met you a few times when we were in the work.
Rumors, gossips started as a mole hill then it grew, and grew like a mountain. I have been there after I left the work. Well, people just know bits and pieces of truth, they try to gather different pieces together to form the picture in their own mind.Thanks, Nathan! Yes, I know you and Jayne have common history here on Guam - in fact, I stopped by UOG the other day and looked over that area in front of the library where Leo Stancliff held those Bible studies where Jayne first met the workers. No, I don't believe this man's issue was that I am married to an Asian woman - "mixed" (aren't we all a "mix" anyway?) marriages are very common in Hawai'i. This man held sway over a lot of people, and I believe he felt a threat from me - partially because I didn't unquestioningly take career and education advice he offered (I wasn't resisting him, but I considered things and made my own decisions), partially because he sensed the respect I had among the friends there, and partially because, as a former worker, I potentially had some idea of "how things worked." I was probably a lot more naive on that score than he thought! I am able to write at length, as I followed this man's internet postings, I listened to other professing people, who worked with him and were astounded at questionable things they were asked to do (questionable in an ethical and financial sense), and I just watched. But I refrain from saying more, as I do not wish this thread to be a back-and-forth on my "victimization." As I said in another response, I was very much a part of it, with my own pride involved too.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 18:53:02 GMT -5
I read this account three times, and feel there are big gaps in the account. You're correct, Bert, and I intentionally left gaps, so as to focus elsewhere. There are "gaps" in all writing, as a person necessarily sorts through the myriad "facts" available, and chooses material with which to make his/her point. The gospels do this, with John saying that "even the world itself could not contain all the books." I love the scriptures, and I appreciate the specific focal points of each author, which highlighted Jesus in a specific way, which the writer felt was important at the time, and from his own experience. And now, my point is that "I wouldn't have missed that experience for anything in the world!"
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 19:03:20 GMT -5
Alan do you think anyone else, say for instance me, going though the same situation would come to the same conclusions? In other words do you think reactions and conclusions will be the same no matter who the person is? Not necessarily, Jesse. This is my own experience, and I emphatically try to avoid generalizing. As I sought to stress in my post, I see it as God "individualizing" persons, and that is precisely what I mean - neither we nor God can be part of a "generalized concept." And I am not asking anyone to understand things as I do. I am "tossing my own experience out there," only in the hope that it may stimulate or open thought in some way . . . and perhaps further conversation.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 19:44:28 GMT -5
Alan, the OP is beautifully written and generously shared. I’m assuming you are a reader of Joseph Campbell – if not, then I think you will find another kindred spirit there. “And so Galahad decided it would be a disgrace to set off on a quest with the other knights. Alone he would enter the dark forest where there was no path.” Joseph Campbell, The Hero's Journey: “You enter the forest at the darkest point, where there is no path. Where there is a way or path, it is someone else's path. You are not on your own path. If you follow someone else's way, you are not going to realize your potential.” I tend to have issues with “community” and I am still working through them. I know that if one is to grow, there comes a time where you have to leave your “tribe”. And I suspect that as long as you identify with a tribe (no matter what it encompasses), that you will go through this process over and over again as you re-define your “tribe”. And yet there is something that is hard-wired in us to have a “community”. I have the Steve Hanks print entitled “A Sense of Belonging”. It hangs on the wall of our bedroom on our farm. It means something very deep and inexpressible to me. I have made many decisions – and continue to make them – that have distanced and even ruptured relationships. It has been in the interest of having a right to be completely myself. I’m still working on figuring this out – but I would still make the choice to be an individual over “belonging” any day. Thanks, Sharon! I have craved community all my life, but have found so little. It's not that I have fights with people, but I find myself so uninterested in giving myself to whatever seems so important to them - financial "security," causes, education, national or religious fervor . . . I am not saying these things are unimportant or have absolutely no meaning, but but they are not of "absolute importance" to me, as they so often seem to be to people. I sense this because it seems that when I don't join in people's fears, anger, ambition, etc., I have seen many either grow very angry or basically disinterested in talking further. I have read some Joseph Campbell, and find I have a mixed reaction. His work on mythology is compelling, with the central "hero" theme he finds in mythology. But I do diverge from his thinking on Jesus and the Judeo-Christian story. But what I want to say can become a bit complex - I think the "hero" analysis works well when "Christianity" becomes a religion (which it has for many centuries!). Jesus becomes a popular, "triumphant" hero. But I do read Jesus as an "anti-hero," not implying that he was against anyone in particular, but that he took steps away from being a "hero" in any human sense - this is where he is sometimes regarded as a failure. He didn't speak up for himself; he did not side with rebels and political opposition to the Roman government, while being condemned both by the political and religious leaders of the time. He even allowed himself to be sold! This coincides to a degree with the "letting go" we hear spoken of in modern society, but for me it is the point at which I see it being lived out to the deepest degree - incarnated. And my own response to this has led me on a path of addressing it in myself, but through obedience to the Spirit's prompts, not to varied self-help programs or whatever. I know I am using some religious language here, which is rather unpopular in some circles - and it is unpopular for good reason! But nevertheless, I do feel there is deep meaning in the language and understandings, and I am deeply engrossed in recovering those. Maybe it would be accurate to say that I feel Campbell presents an excellent description of humanity "after the fall," but that God presents a manner of lifting people above that - spoken of as grace, redemption, forgiveness, etc. And those terms have often become very weakened or distorted from their original intent. I believe Campbell presents "the fall" - the garden of Eden story - as God attempting to hide knowledge to maintain power and control. I diverge at this point, as the text says "you shall have the knowledge of good and evil" - meaning, you can judge things for yourselves. And isn't this what we humans do? We feel we can somehow reach into another person's heart and motives, determining how much blame to assign to this person or that. We try to play God, and yes, we do "create gods after our own image." But I see a scriptural God, much different from the way God is commonly portrayed and spoken of, patiently waiting and working, looking for someone whom he can individually draw out. So yes, I do find much in Campbell to which I can relate, but I do feel there is a "higher viewpoint," which we cannot attain on our own, and which has been heavily obscured by those making the claim to "have" God's viewpoint!
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Apr 12, 2015 20:10:37 GMT -5
A scriptural theme that repeatedly presented itself to me, beginning in the fall of ’83, I believe (as I began my 3rd of 18 years in the work), was that of God getting people “alone,” where He could deal with him or her as an individual. I think in those early years I saw and defined this in terms of the “alone” experience, through which people were drawn into fellowship. I may have seen this, in those years, as something like a “principle” running through the scriptures, but it all became very real to me soon after Jayne and I moved to Honolulu (from Sacramento, California) in early 2003. As I posted a few weeks ago, in talking about God’s “timing,” it now looks like several of us were brought together there in Honolulu, within a few weeks of each other – a professing man had moved from the eastern part of the continental U.S., and the local workers, just a few days after we arrived, returned from conventions on Guam and Saipan and a visit to the Marshall Islands. And things began to happen for us! We can’t “prove” any of this, but it happened, and we felt it, as, family by family, the professing people in Honolulu – many of whom I had known for years – began to act “leery” of speaking with us. And it often seemed to be in a sequence of us Jayne and I trying to be friendly with someone, this certain man (the one who had just moved there) “buddying up” to that family, and then the family beginning to act as if we had the plague or something. To say it hurt – and hurt deeply – is to ridiculously understate the feeling. Life began to feel surreal, as if everything we had ever stood on had been pulled out from under us, our world had gone topsy-turvy. We cried, we raged, we begged for someone to just listen, only to be told that we “needed to forgive.” And we would ask, to no avail, what it was we were supposed to forgive. We were never told what we had “done wrong,” and of course being told we “needed to forgive” implies that someone else had “offended” us, but we were never able to “get at” that either. But back to the “alone” experience: I began to deeply relate to some of these experiences in the scriptures - Joseph, Hannah, David, Elijah, to name a few. These people grew to be much more than “the forefathers” (or mothers!) to admire – they began to feel like brothers and sisters, who had experienced the same “aloneness” that I was experiencing. Though I hoped over and over for the experience to end, I felt too like I was being brought into community with these individuals, like something was happening that was intended to happen. Because I was feeding on these experiences in the scriptures, they were of course the appropriate thing for me to share in meeting, but it became evident that they were also very inappropriate! I was aware that what I was sharing involved those in the meeting with us, and I attempted to share things in a rather general way, not wanting to point at anyone right there, but I was many times received in a deafening silence. After nearly seven years of this, while attempting to ready for Sunday morning meeting, I looked up at my wife and said, “This is weird. Here I have something that has been very helpful to me during the week, but now I’m scrambling to find something that will be accepted in meeting. She felt similarly, and we didn’t go to meeting that day. I never went again, except for a couple of meetings at the convention a few weeks after that. I still love what a worker said years ago: “No experience is complete until we can thank God for it.” And for me that does not mean “Sit down and count your blessings.” It meant, in this experience and in a few others, that I would suddenly realize, down the road somewhere, that I was actually out of the experience and I was thankful – glad! – that it had come to me. Now that I can look back on this painful time in our lives, and as I pass through other difficult encounters, I find this “individuation” to be a vital aspect of God’s dealing with humanity. Soren Kierkegaard - “the melancholy Dane” – is at times called a theologian, a philosopher, the “Father of the existentialists,” but none of these quite fit. And I love his writing! Soren insisted (he lived in the mid-nineteenth century) that God only deals with “the individual,” and will do whatever He can to help a person truly become “an individual.” In modern culture, we of course speak frequently of being “individualistic,” but we also operate largely as part of “the public,” “the crowd,” or “the mass”- “public opinion says,” “the majority feels,” etc. These are all abstract and relatively recent ideas. They have a way of lumping us all together, of treating us as carbon copies of some “essential” human being. But God only deals with the individual. Abraham was told “come out from your country and kindred.” Joseph was separated out, and when he was reunited with his brothers, could tell them, “You intended it for evil, but God meant it for good.” Elijah, after “proving” the prophets of Baal ineffectual, fled to the wilderness, feeling alone and wanting to die. It was there that God spoke telling him of others that had not “bowed the knee to Baal.” And this brings me to the other side of being made an individual - God’s intent is to create community. Israel and the church are intended as “alternate community,” living by grace and gift, rather than by debt and owing (though they most often have not lived up to this!). I don’t believe this means that there will always be like-minded people in a person’s immediate proximity, but a person does find fellowship in the scriptures, and possibly in reading in others of similar experience. Kierkegaard found himself more and more alone, unable to find understanding within the Danish Lutheran church of his time. My purpose in writing this is to define my own relationship to our experience in Honolulu. For me, it was a part of my being made “an individual,” something that can only occur through having EVERYTHING in which we have placed our confidence and trust – our security – taken from us. I cannot see the meetings as this “bad” thing over here, set alongside other, comparable, “good” things, but rather the good that God has drawn me into has “swallowed up” everything else. But! The hurtful, oppressive ways of humans do matter! I am not intending this in any way to be dismissive of anyone else’s experience – abuse, shunning, etc. I see the God of the scripture as being extremely interested in the manner in which we treat one another. But we are all a part of it too, and I see God as drawing us out, in order that we can bear the influence of the eternal into society – the light, the leaven, the seed, the salt . . . This means a right relationship with God being first established, which is really one with a right relationship with our neighbor. This is why I no longer speak that much of our hurtful experience, or of things I see as “wrong” in the fellowship. I do care about them, and in the appropriate time and place, I am most willing to talk about them. But I am no longer angry at those that were such a vital part of my learning and being made “an individual” before God. Also, I do recognize that there are valid means of analyzing the dynamics of our situation and others. I began college about two years after this experience began, deciding to major in Ethnic Studies upon entering my junior year. Ethnic Studies brought home to me how we create "others" as part of creating our own identities, as groups and as individuals. And I was watching - feeling - it happen to me right then and there in the meetings! And of course some of you can analyze these "meeting dynamics" through psychological, sociological, historic, and other means. I do not at all intend to negate these analysis in my description of how I now look on my own experience. Hi Alan Thanks for being courageous. I appreciate you. Loneliness sux. You have discovered like many that god meets us at our point of need. He loves us and wants us to lean on him always. Like you I went through times in my life where I identified strongly with all of the characters you mentioned. Their life encouraged me so much and leaning on the words written about them knowing that Christ suffered it all as well. Makes you feel less alone. There is nothing worse than waiting for those bleak winter desert experiences to end. The good thing is they do come to an end. When they do their is rejoicing and relief and joy that is over. What has been worked in our charactor is wisdom knowledge some more understanding all to strengthen us. The dealings and trials are good for us. It brings us closer to our lord. Once we have lived through a trial we are able to identify it in others understand them and help them.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 20:47:36 GMT -5
I reread your post as a "felt experience" a second time and found it moving and edifying. Thank you. Thank you, yknot! That is how I intended it to be read, as we so often read things as something to be "proven." This might be an appropriate place to share something regarding the way in which we "discuss" concerns. This is taken from George Lakoff and Mark Johnson's Metaphors We Live By, in which the authors assert that metaphors are not simply a means of creating more colorful speech, but that there are cultural metaphors that deeply inform the way in which we view and live life. The one I have in mind right now is concerning argumentation, which I feel extends to much of our conversation now. The authors' assertion is that we view and practice "argument as war." Consider these common statements: Your claims are indefensible. He attacked every weak point in my argument. His criticisms were right on target. I demolished his argument. I've never won an argument with him. You disagree? Okay, shoot!If you use that strategy, he'll wipe you out. He shot down all of my arguments. And further: "It is important to see that we don't just talk about arguments in terms of war. We can actually win or lose arguments. We see the person we are arguing with as an opponent. We attack his positions and we defend our own. We gain and we lose ground. We plan and use strategies. If we find a position indefensible, we can abandon it and take a new line of attack. [. . .] Try to imagine a culture where arguments are not viewed in terms of war, where no one wins or loses, where there is no sense of attacking or defending, gaining or losing ground. Imagine a culture where an argument is viewed as a dance, the participants are seen as performers, and the goal is to perform in a balanced and aesthetically pleasing way. In such a culture, people would view arguments differently, experience them differently, carry them out differently, and talk about them differently. But we would probably not view them as arguing at all: they would simply be doing something different. It would seem strange even to call what they were doing "arguing." Perhaps the most neutral way of describing this difference between their culture and ours would be to say that we have a discourse form structured in terms of battle and they have one structured in terms of dance." Strange? I think it is worth some thought and effort . . . Later edit: Incidentally, Gene comes to mind as a person who does practice conversing in a different manner, with his brand of humor often making a point, while kindly attempting to refocus the conversation a bit . . .
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 22:29:24 GMT -5
Sorry, but not good enough. People don't shun you for no reason. If you don't want to discuss the reason, only the shunning then you don't want people to reach an informed decision of their own. Correct- gossip, whisper campaigns and misunderstandings are probably the root of most of the shunnings within the 2x2 fellowship. It is my observation that anyone that does not engage in group think is at risk of being shunned by the group because they are seen as a threat. In my experience it was precisely the opposite. Where I used to live, more than one person was not just shunned, but completely "banished" on specific instruction from the workers --- despite the fact that only a VERY few believed it was appropriate.
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 22:37:58 GMT -5
Sorry, but not good enough. People don't shun you for no reason. If you don't want to discuss the reason, only the shunning then you don't want people to reach an informed decision of their own. Bert, in my own case, a couple of overseers led the shunning. They don't say, "shun these people", but they start a whisper campaign, fully aware of what they are doing and its effects. They might say, "It's too bad so-and-so doesn't attend gospel meetings. It seems that the sports world has taken away too much of their time." So, in effect, the workers have just passed on the sentence of "troubled person" or "unwilling" onto whomever they just spoke about. Many friends will then begin to be very cautious in their dealings with the couple and cease to include them in dinner invites, etc. My father-in-law came to me once and said that the workers were saying that I was writing for a "2x2 hate site". I laughed and said, "Nope. Did they tell you the name of the site?" He replied "no". I asked, "Did they tell you that it was a bulletin board site where people ask and answer questions about our group and that workers and friends also use the site?" He replied, "no". I asked, "Did they tell you about anything that I have written or that had written that was untrue?" Again, he replied, "no." In other words, he was mislead in such a way as to turn against me and my family or to distrust us. Most friends do not have the fortitude of my father-in-law to go directly to the one being spoken against and ask, "Is this true?" And not just take the workers word for something. Too many of the friends swallow whatever the workers are saying as being true- often times it is not. Shunning is used as a weapon against our friends on a daily basis. The reason- to answer your question- is to control them- to hurt and punish them until they bow again to whatever esteemed worker wants from them- even if it means following a lie. Many of our dear friends have had their families ripped a part by this devilish instrument of cruelty. You are exactly right. I just posted about people in my area being banished. Actually, I was formally shunned myself. I invited everyone in the four meetings in our area to a pot luck picnic in the park with more than a dozen "professing" people who were visiting us from several states and 3 provinces of Canada. Four people showed up -- the rest were told by the workers not to join us because I was organizing a "nonconvention" for people who had been put out of meetings. Nathan knows quite well how that happens.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 12, 2015 22:39:27 GMT -5
I read this account three times, and feel there are big gaps in the account. Bert, what big gaps are you seeing?
|
|
|
Post by BobWilliston on Apr 12, 2015 22:44:27 GMT -5
Alan -- you've put words to my own experience ... as we've discussed before. I don't know that coming to understand one's own such experience really can mean the same thing to anyone else. It seems that what you learn from such an experience is more personal simply because it can be offensive to so many people who are so curious to know the "why". It's not "concrete" enough to pass around.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 12, 2015 22:50:27 GMT -5
This doesn't answer why Alan Vandermyden was shunned. People don't shun for nothing. Yes, Bert, --People do shun other people for nothing -nothing that the person has done wrong! It is a sophomoric behavior, -like a juvenile, immature, adolescent behavior that kids may do to others, -and often for the same reasons.
|
|
|
Post by Alan Vandermyden on Apr 12, 2015 22:51:01 GMT -5
Alan -- you've put words to my own experience ... as we've discussed before. I don't know that coming to understand one's own such experience really can mean the same thing to anyone else. It seems that what you learn from such an experience is more personal simply because it can be offensive to so many people who are so curious to know the "why". It's not "concrete" enough to pass around. Agreed! But I like to "pass it around" anyway in the hopes that others might find some commonality, perhaps open some ideas and discussion . . . if they aren't "convinced," well I wasn't attempting to "convince" anyone of anything! This is related to my reasons for not posting often . . .
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 12, 2015 23:32:20 GMT -5
This doesn't answer why Alan Vandermyden was shunned. People don't shun for nothing. I wasn't shunned.
It was that no one, workers nor friends, would speak up for me against what a sister worker was trying to make me do, - go with my husband, take our two young sons, leave my own house & move into my father-in-law's house so she could go back into the work.
The fact that we were offering to to take my father-in-law into our own house, -even that my husband was partitioning of a room for him, -wasn't an option with her.
When I would try to defend my position I was just met with silence. When this happens, when people just look at you & say nothing, it can only make you feel that you are the one doing wrong.
As Alan stated, I also cried, I raged, I begged for someone to just listen. Silence. ( except for one dear lady whom I never forgot for her understanding)
It was a terrible time for me & for my children as well. When a mother is so distraught it is bound to affect her children as well.
|
|