I hadn’t seen him for at least six years, but ‘bumped into him’ yesterday while taking my daily walk. I used to work in the same College as he did, and then he moved away and I moved on. I never really knew him very well, but I always thought he was a nice man - a kind man who cared about students and who took the trouble to do a professional job. So why, after a few minutes in conversation with him, was I inwardly seething? And why did I find myself carrying the conversation in my head for the remainder of my walk?
I can forgive the fact that he got my name wrong (I always have trouble remembering names and it was a big college), though I was slightly annoyed that he persisted in calling me by the wrong name, even though I corrected him and told him my actual name three times. However, the substantive issue was the style of the conversation.
He was, and still is, an evangelical Christian. I was, but no longer am. He had occasionally attended the church that I used to, and started the conversation by saying that he had recently been there, but not seen me. I explained that I had abandoned my faith some time ago. I felt quite comfortable with the change in my life (very happy about it, in fact) and quite at ease in discussing the topic with him. Not having to jump through theological, philosophical, psychological, or behavioural hoops anymore was extremely liberating for me. However, once the change had been declared, genuine mutual communication seemed to cease and the conversation went downhill from there.
It seemed that from that point on three things happened.
First, equality in the conversation was lost. It started to feel that he was trying to persuade me of the errors of my ways, not as an equal adult, but as a wayward child who needed to be brought back into line. The non-verbal signals started to get severe and intense.
Secondly, mutuality of topic was lost. He wasn’t really interested in understanding why my change had taken place but became very concerned with what I understood as doing his bit for god. I suspect he had probably prayed that morning that god would overrule who he met that day, and I was just one of the answers to his prayers. God had allegedly taken me to him, so he had to make the most of the god-given opportunity. The conversation became about him giving solutions to what he thought the problem was without really understanding that for me, there was no problem.
Thirdly, the very annoying clichés started, and started to flow with some biblical superfluity. Apparently I needn’t worry because ‘god has everything under control’. But I wasn’t worried (if he had tried to listen to me in the slightest, he would have known that), and if god exists and has, why is so much in a seeming mess? Again, I needn’t worry because ‘once saved, always saved’. On one level that last one could be extremely comforting - I can continue to do what I want and need not fear the almighty. (But I wasn’t worried and if he had tried to listen to me in the slightest, he would have known that.) However, on another level it is the evangelicals’ trump card - “You may think you have got away, but you haven’t. I know that, and one day you will. There is no escape.”
Of course, if reading this he would say that I was being too sensitive and too insecure in my position. I may, of course, be wrong - but I certainly left feeling frustrated that he has appeared to cease to listen and had become concerned with stating a case. Ironically I had been genuinely pleased to see him - a chance to chat and catch up on his news and break my exercise routine by interacting with another human being. His humanity seemed to have been overshadowed by a hard, divine mask that left me feeling slightly bruised.
(See also: Coming Out.)
It is amazing how a disappointing encounter can dampen the spirits. I often feel that. I try to be more resilient but it is difficult when I feel disappointed either in myself or someone else.
I don’t chat to many people with strong religious convictions. I don’t move in their circles. But on the occasions that I do, I find that they do not truly listen, they are on a “mission”, not to convert me, but seemingly to defend their lifestyle and beliefs even though I have no intention of questioning them. I find it tiresome and as a result I tend to avoid such people. That’s a pity really as I am sure they are nice people really if I could get behind the religious stuff.
I do also find that people who were (are) friends of mine of old are awkward with me if I mention my sexuality. They find it hard to see me as the same person I was just because that one thing about me has changed. It’s as if we have lost our common ground (and yet we never talked about sex before anyway). It’s not that they say anything - I can just read the signs, the conversation does not flow well and they are less warm. They are simply different with me I suppose and I often walk away from such conversations feeling sad and disappointed and with a sense of loss.
I hope you meet someone more vitalising on your walk today.
I have to say that I think you are being over-sensitive. Do you like this man and wish to continue in his friendship? If so, then the dissonance of belief between you might be a problem but if, as it seems, you have no interest in maintaining his friendship, then what the heck does it matter? The man’s a twerp and a bore so send him packing and forget about him.
If religion had not been the issue (for example, if he had talked about your and his areas of expertise) would the conversation have bothered you as much? Or was it precisely because it was about religion? Maybe you felt he was trying to drag to back to whence you had escaped and this caused you some anxiety. Otherwise, you might have seen the funny side of it.
He doesn’t deserve anger. A little pity, maybe.
Reluctant Blogger
You wrote: They find it hard to see me as the same person I was just because that one thing about me has changed. Yes, that’s it in a nutshell. You feel the same (albeit more relaxed because of the greater authenticity), but they persist in seeing you as different, because they have made the issue you raised big enough to significantly change the person you were all the time. You can see you, they can only see the issue. I agree, that is sad.
I envy the fact that you were “inwardly seething.” I wish I could do that. I would’ve been more like “totally, obviously outwardly seething.”
I can assure you, though, that I would’ve stopped myself from slapping him. If I had your composure, I would tell people that I left the faith. Given my sensitivity towards the issue, I usually keep it to myself.
Being patronized is a horrible thing. I don’t think there is a person who enjoys it. And that’s what happened to you. Once he realized you were not “one of the saints” anymore, then he considered you a second-class citizen. He was the man. You were there child.
I wonder, though, how long did it take you to walk away?
This is a difficult one to answer. On the one hand, I can see why you were angry but also feel that perhaps you were feeling a little too sensitive about this.
You are strong enough to stand by your new altered beliefs about your former faith, and this person also feels strong enough in his beliefs to raise his own thoughts. He is perfectly entitled to do so.
I think the irritation comes from, perhaps, a feeling of condescension, he is right and you are wrong.
You do have to remember though, that once upon a time, not so very long ago, you would have been probably arguing his corner if you were that old person who still had a christian faith; up against you as the new person now who has become an atheist.
Next time, say your position yes, but then when someone you know wants to “turn you around” politely say you do not want the conversation and talk about something else. If not, you potentially will have to vememently argue your case and if you are right, based on evidence and fact, you should win hands down??
Lorena
I didn’t walk away because my upbringing followed the mantra that you don’t outwardly show too much feeling. I have spent years trying to become more authentic, but failed on this occasion!
Yes, I know how you were raised. I live in “British” Columbia. And trust me, they’re quite British around here. That’s why I stick out like sore thumb.
But for what I’ve heard from other Britons, English Canadians are even more tame than you guys. Imagine that!
I think I would fit in better in places like Quebec, Spain, Portugal, or Italy–not France.
Hi James,
I read your blog, and so much identified with your feelings concerneing the situation that you experienced.
I recall how I resigned from a Church, for various reasons, and how for many people in that Church it was almost as if i ceased to a person any more ! And that is the essence of it.
It sounds to me as if on meeting him, and telling him you were no longer a believer, that somehow he ceased to relate to you as a person, to be listened to, heard, with respect, but instead you became in his eyes an object to ’saved’, or convinced to return to the fold.
For me, one of the revelations was reading and ( making a valient effort to understand) Buber, and his talk of the I - It, and I - Thou relationship.
So often, (and I am also guilty of this as well,) we treat others as on ‘object’, to be used, talked to, ’saved’, converted, rather than a ‘thou’, a unique individual, to be encountered, valued, prised for their uniquness. As a human race we collectivly are treating the earth like this, and destroying it as a habitate that sustains human life, and we treat each other like this as well.
I sense that you were aware of this transition. The three changes that you reconised seem to me to indicate this.
1) You felt he was treating you like a waywold child, and indeed often parents do not respect their children, and treat their views with resepct. He was treating you as an object, not a a adult person
2) He wanted to give you solutions, without understanding that you did not have any problems. This sounds like he was really talking to you, in order to bolster and support his own faith. He was convining himslef of his ’solutions’, and he was no longer talking to you or responding to you as another human being, on a equal level !.
3) The third part of the conversation, ‘once asved always saved’ etc, sounds like a self script designed to bolster his own faith, again it sounds like it had nothing to do with you what so ever, but much more to do with him, and his own insecurity.
The fact that you told him three times what yu name was, and he forgot it, again reinfoces in my mind that he was not talking with you, but talking at you ! He was repeating self scripts that had very little to do with his immediate encounter with you.
You wondered if you were being over sensative, but it sounds like you were being very aware of the dynamic and flow of the conversation, and how you were being treated.
I do no tlike being treated as an object, and I try not to treat others in that way, but sometimes I fail, and sometimes I succeed !
My own experience of evangelical Christianity,is that the faith is often based on fear and certainty.
The fear is created through doctrines that tell us we are utterly depraved and worthless, and the certainity is based on an infallable Bible, that gives us the plan for salvation.
Any criticism of the scripture, or the doctrine, then triggers the fears, and that fear creates a psychological need for certanty,manifseting itself in defence of the Bible and doctrines. At the point that the person is defending their own doctrines to compensate for their own fears, they are no longer responding to you as a person !
We all do this to varieying degrees, for me it is part of my own struggle, to move towards ‘I Thou’, and away from ‘I- It’ relationships. But what I am trying, to do, seems to fly in the face of the world, that is treating people and the creation like an it, and distroying all in its wake !
But it sounds like you had an I - It encounter, and were aware of that.
Thankyou for sharing your experience.
John T