What Elephant?

What the hell, it's been a year of nothing but curve-balls. So why should I be surprised to have my dad (the only family member not to make direct contact with me since my disassociation) make direct contact with me? The invitation was simple, just checking on welfare and sharing some family news. I couldn't help think on the numerous demands that Watchtower places on members, including how to shun your family, should they become unbelievers. "Ad Nauseum" pretty well covers it.

So when I got the invitation, I felt an immediate wave of trepidation. It was a pretty normal psychological reaction, being proximate to the most traumatic events of my life. Our relationship has been very neatly defined over the past few years. Feelings weren't really much of a motivator, so the clean delineation of behavior at least provided a reliable point of reference. But, holy shit, someone decided that the rules could be put on pause. So I was faced with the dilemma - hold the line that was agreed upon by both of us, or peek behind the curtain and see if I made a good deal.

Let's be clear on one thing - the question was not "will this hurt", but "how much will this hurt."

The conversation carried on longer than I anticipated. There were even jokes and lighthearted laughter. Conversations like these are rivers; the same kind you can't step into twice, or emerge from the same as you were when you entered. This one didn't disappoint. That trepidation I mentioned made it difficult to ask open ended questions, or answer them. I was frequently at a crossroads where I had to choose whether to advance the conversation, or let a line of discussion wither on the vine. In all, it felt like a forced conversation with an awkward coworker. Engaging someone who has made hard judgements against you, without actually knowing your side, is painful. More so when the subsequent conversation doesn't even acknowledge that rift.

So there you have it. That's the setup.

At every level, conventional wisdom says this is a bad dynamic. Leaving unresolved feelings in the warming drawer never did anyone any good, and I was chewing through my lip to keep myself from spewing my frustration. I spent a long time coming to an understanding of myself and my value system, and I feel as if I thumbed my nose at that progress while participating in this call. I frankly thought myself more resolved to stand my ground.

The end result was predictable disappointment. It's easy to put aside grudges when you are hopeful of rekindling a relationship, and hearing my dad's voice brought a level of comfort that I didn't expect. Ending the call, dad shared some loving sentiment, or at least as much as he was able. Dad isn't really the effusive type. But it still left me feeling more positive than not.

Fast forward a few weeks, and I heard from a family member that also endured abuse at the hands of a relative; not the same as I. When approaching my parents on the topic, I was met with the same apologist rhetoric. In fact, I had to ask mom to address my question, instead of redirecting the conversation. But true to form, she defended the "truth" with no regard for facts. The growing voice of abuse survivors, even within my own clan, demands to be heard. With dogged determination, however, my parents hold the organization blameless, even though it is they who enact the policies that permit this to happen.

This, as a matter of fact, is absolutely true. It's bad people who commit the crimes. It's imperfect men who investigate those crimes. None of them can be expected to always make the right decisions, however, that decision making process is handicapped by Watchtower protocol. This all but guarantees that the decision that is reached will have the least vested response possible. Let me illustrate how deeply this penetrates the thinking of elders.

Back in about '95, I was at a special-day assembly in St. Louis, Missouri. Shortly after the afternoon session began, an attendee began having trouble breathing. He quickly declined into full cardiac arrest. As he sat, immobile in his seat with people beginning to panic around him, I watched a group of elders stand around and question whether EMS should be called. In the midst of a medical crisis, they couldn't even determine basic life-saving steps. Sadly, the man passed away. And while it is likely that the severity of his coronary precluded medical intervention, it is certain that trained medics arrived many minutes later than they could have.

This is the fundamental flaw. People who are not qualified to resolve human health and safety risks are trained not to include those who are. Police, paramedics, social workers, therapists - professionals who are trained to deal with human trauma should be the ones investigating and responding to crisis situations, and yet, as one of Jehovah's Witnesses, these matters are left to citizen-ministers. And how does one justify this practice?

Simple, sow distrust. Remember first that the government, and all assets thereof, are under control of the Devil. Involving secular authorities, much like their stance on post-secondary education, is expected to cloud one's view of the organization. Authorities will "misunderstand" and persecute Jehovah's people. Funny thing is, when the Catholic church was exposed for their handling of child abuse, Watchtower was quick to classify it as an attack on Babylon the Great, thus heralding the end times. But when it happened to them, it was further proof of end times since they were being unjustly persecuted.

Now here's where I'm going with all this - having a different stance for organizations that experience the same scandal as your own is hypocrisy. There are several logical fallacies that will adequately describe this but, at the end of the day, it's pride that prevents them from owning their choices. They cannot, or will not, view the scandal objectively. They are unable to accept that their scandal is every bit as bad as someone else's.

Room, meet elephant.

I have worked very hard to develop my own code of ethics. It centers around honesty, humility, and ownership. My room is filled with those things, and I only have space for those who share these values. Those who bring baggage of subjective ethics need not apply.

"Go sell crazy someplace else. We're all full here."