The Problem With Absolutes

I've tried to be emotionally neutral about being a former Witness. There isn't much good that comes from harboring unending anger towards an organization that, at the institutional level, hasn't two shits to give about my opinion. Likened to drinking poison and hoping your enemy dies, expecting them to change because of my hurt feelings is foolish. It's another example of external control psychologies that permeate society.

Sometimes, though, I think that anger has a place; particularly in the face of injustice. Humans are keen to disparities and abuses of favor. It isn't hard to spot when a person is receiving preferential treatment, and it doesn't take long for us to get tired of it. But it is so pervasive that we can see it at every level of our social structure. Carried to an extreme, it even constitutes violations of civil rights.

This is not that extreme. It's just hypocritical bullshit, unfortunately.

When I disassociated myself a few months ago, I did the superlative favor of informing my family personally, instead of having them find out through congregational back-channels. I fully understood where that would lead, and the familial bonds suffered predictably. Most of us already comprehend the depth of pain shunning can bring, so there's no need to expound on it here. We understand that there is no right of birth or basic human dignity that cannot be undone by a firmly held belief. But how and what should you feel when that belief is only as firm as the perceived offense to the shunning party's religious pride?

You see, I was raised by a mother that is really only concerned about the outward appearance of comparative piety. Were I simply inactive, it could be plausibly denied that I was an apostate, but sending that letter removed all doubt. The whole of the Organization now knows that she and my former-elder father had failed as Christian parents. Shunning is the only way they save face.

I know, that in itself is not exactly an inequity. I knew what the price would be to disassociated, and I accept that. But we also know that even tangential choices can be called into question by the congregation. Our rejection of worldly practices was supposed to be so absolute that we didn't utter holiday greetings, participate in holiday parties, or encourage the celebration thereof. I knew of households so strict about this policy that even using the word "Christmas" was verboten, being replaced instead with "X-mas" (the topic of substitute swear words also comes to mind).

So this past Father's Day, while I spent the day with my son, and neither hearing from, nor contacting, my own father, I was a bit surprised by my cousin's Facebook post to her father. Now, don't let me give the false impression that my cousin or my uncle are in the wrong. They are not Witnesses. Never were. And while she didn't specifically say "happy Father's Day", it was posted on Sunday and written directly to her dad. It was sweet, appreciative, and loving.

There, as a subscript to the post, was a heart. The heart was placed there by my mother.

It was small. Likely, no other person in the world would even care. There could be no mistaking its intent, however. My mom was endorsing a worldly holiday observance. Although it was for her non-Witness brother, it was no less complicit.

Alright... so that's how it is...

Witnesses are acutely aware that they should be acutely aware of hypocrisy. Jesus was very aware of it and pointed it out frequently. I used my better judgement and did not hijack well-wishes meant for my uncle to point out my mom's hypocrisy. But I admit, I did fume over it for a while. One is either fully invested or divested from the faith if it's to have any integrity. A little bit of straying from the path is still straying and, as my mom demonstrated, integrity is apparently contextual.

This has been one of my biggest bones of contention since I first entertained the idea of disassociation. Why? Well shunning typically arises from the dedication to moral philosophies which stand in opposition to those doing the shunning, and it is absolute. There is no wiggle room. Shunning is not invoked for something as paltry as liking a Father's Day wish, but the rejection of the holiday as a Christian activity is similarly absolute. So I'm left wondering which part of that is okay...

The thing is that it's not okay. A legitimate complaint could be lodged about this, but that brings me back to how I started this entry. Is it worth being angry about it? Does a person who doesn't have the integrity to treat everyone outside themselves with consistency deserve my energy? To be succinct, no. The don't deserve it. We have no duty to direct any of our energy to them. It certainly may be worth it if it is in alignment with our greater goals (such as spending time to write about it for other apostates), but we're under no obligation.

For me, this is just another ember in the burning bridge that tied my potential to the prison of constrained thought. The energy that I give to this is actually for the benefit of those still seeking the freedom of an unencumbered spirit. That's my greater goal. I have a deep and abiding distaste for bullies, and there is nothing quite as brutish as isolating a person because of their transient contextual differences while only pretending to have the high ground.

The Wheat and the Weeds

One of the conundrums of being a Christian is the [sometimes] explicit belief that God has a purpose for everything in creation. It was not an accident that the stars align the way they do, that the moon orbits where it does, or that there are dandelions in your yard. There were no accidents listed in Genesis. There were no footnotes explaining the exceptions. God made what He did with intent and forethought. That brings up a very worthwhile question about people who choose to follow the teachings of the Society and those who don't.

Don't all have a role to play in God's purpose for the Earth?

We all remember the parable known by the title of this entry. A servant of God sowed figurative wheat in a field. While he later slept, another came and sowed weeds among the wheat. The undesirable weeds became intertwined with the wheat and could not be plucked without also risking the wheat.

Often, those of the apostate crowd are likened to the weeds. We grew spiritually with the faithful, and though we were known to be different, we were allowed to continue until we were mature enough to be harvested along with the ripened wheat and duly separated. The weeds have no value, after all. Except... see the comment above about all of creation having a purpose.

Weeds are sometimes the only thing that will grow in an inhospitable environment. Where water is scarce, the thick and tenacious roots dig deep underground to find it. The prickly and dense leaves protect them from the scorching sun or hungry animals. They bloom flowers to attract bees that are responsible for most of the pollination world wide. They anchor the soil to prevent erosion from wind and rain. Weeds are necessary.

Accepting that this unfortunate child of creation has an undeniable and critical function in our ecosystem, is it fair to discriminate against them simply because they're hardy and coarse? Perhaps not, but we were taught to dismiss them anyway. We develop products to selectively eradicate them. We pay our children to go out and pull them for a modest fee. It is culturally normal and acceptable to exclude weeds from our gardens and yards.

Isn't that bucking God's purpose? It's kind of a subtle middle finger to the Creator if you think about it. And since we, the weeds, are part of creation and therefore from God, what is our purpose?

We all live under the burden of other people who think they are better than us. Some are vocal about it. Others, less so. It stems from the mistaken assumption that living is a competition. For them to have what they want, they believe (because they are taught to) that we must go without. In the case of Witnesses, they also mistakenly believe (because they are taught to) that they are the only source for what we want.

Our indoctrination often included anecdotal evidence that people who left the Society were miserable. This was not without merit, since we'd also been indoctrinated to find happiness in the company of spiritual brothers and sisters. In taking that away from us, they also took our happiness. The Society, intentionally or not, taught us how to imprison our own minds.

I've previously written on the concept of scotoma. It is a fancy word that encompasses a mental "blind spot" of sorts. Some may phrase it as the mind "seeing what it wants to see". I prefer to think of it as a barrier that is present only in the abstract and that we cannot see around. You know, for example, that you cannot lift a five-hundred pound barbel. Any object that you mistake for a five-hundred pound barbel will be immovable because you are mentally adamant that you cannot lift it. This phenomenon has been proven under hypnotic suggestion, so there is scientific basis for the claim.

In a similar fashion, being programmed with the mental scotoma that you cannot be happy without the association of your spiritual family can effectively prevent you from finding it. But remember that you have been classified as an undesirable weed by people who accept that everything in creation has a purpose... except you. They invalidate their own belief.

Here's the good news. Scotoma are entirely voluntary. You can get rid of them if you want to. First, be accepting that you are good. You have purpose, which no other person may define. Secondly, there are sources of happiness out there that do not rely on the fickle associations of common faith. Choose to surround yourself with people who reflect your values. It's not difficult. In seeking out that which speaks to you, you will encounter those who share your vision. Embrace them. Remember that your happiness comes from being you. Not from being who someone else wants you to be. And people who share your values will not ask you to change for them.

As you move forward in your journey, with or without the association of Witnesses, remember that no one gets to define you, except you. It is not within the grasp of any other person to understand your purpose, or quantify your value. If they do not see you as wheat, it is simply because they have not yet discerned what you bring to the table. And that failing is entirely theirs.