“We represented correctly that devotion is important, but sometimes performance and appearance were more important than the pureness of the heart and even hypocrisy occurred;

rejection is important, but we frequently rejected the man not only sin;

unity is important, but in missionary work we often searched for differences;

assessment is important, but we sometimes judged a person to quickly;

true teaching is important, but sometimes we looked down on others;

the deeds of love are important, but we disparaged personal conviction that provides the true source of deeds;

diligence is important, but the guidance of God is necessary for it, and not everyone has the same task;

the community is important, but sometimes we were overly occupied with ourselves;

the pureness of the congregation is important, but frequently we could not treat the weak and the disobedient wisely;

justness is important, but we often used a double standard;

fighting against sin is important, but sometimes we did not do it with the power and wisdom of God;

self-examination is important, but we also had deficiencies in this;

              Daily togetherness and property community were good objectives, it was only during its realization that a few things were distorted, we were against worldliness, but we took some things to extremes. We did not want to add anything to the Scripture, still expectations of obedience only characteristic of us were formed. We had habitual deeds, which could be done routinely without the guidance of God. Some had a false image of diligence, as if it was equal with activity. We were tempted to do many things out of habit, and regard them as methods, which provided us with a certain level of security, the desire to be liked, to be pure in the eyes of another, meaning religiousness. Although in recent years the congregation has become stricter and more withdrawn, thus trying to maintain its internal unity, hopefully the spirit of God will achieve reconciliation with those who want to continue loving God and were expelled from the community. God creates unity among his people.”

              This confession by Aranka explained “accurately and finely”, and I could say professionally, is on the one hand clearly an extraordinary performance by a devout Christian blessed with special abilities and attitude, on the other hand it is an impression of faith in the religious community which the refined analysis pertains to. Its spirituality on the one hand stems from the sect called the Christians, which had a considerable role in Aranka’s secondary socialization, at the same time - and in contrast with this - it attests to the ex-brother becoming an adult and overstepping her naivety. And this is not only true for Aranka, but to a smaller or larger extent practically for all of them. Even for those who have waivered, since in comparison with dogmatic self-confidence becoming uncertain may even be the anteroom of a paradigm change. 

              The majority of the brothers who left the congregation or were expelled, more precisely the little brothers (even more precisely the little brothers of the Big Brothers) have become companions: close companions of their fellows, adult companions of their former little brothers. The Two Years' Vacation or Mysterious Island of their life has concluded, which lasted for one and a half decades, and fortunately it did not descend into the horrifying, foreboding island of the Lord of Flies for any of them. They more or less became capable of adult life without family-like protection, at the same time even their families have not been able to make them forget or supplement for the religious community. Not even if in this family-like community, a characteristic of which was the dominance of older brothers, and which was in many cases characterized by an excess of endogeneity without intimacy, many felt often that they were observed, controlled, and this caused anxiety and even fear in them. The regular declaration of brotherhood and love was insufficient to release the tensions, even less so the episodic release of their asceticism (which is most similar to the asceticism of ancient Christian wandering-charismatics) by the occasional hedonism of wrestling, which was incidentally embarrassing and not pleasant for many.

              Many among the ex-brothers experienced that in this type of brotherhood - because of the absence of institutionally assured limited freedom - democracy is more difficult to implement than on the macro level, specifically here its rules were not present, thus among the brothers beside the equals the more equals and the most equals appeared.

              With the passage of time the flexibility and open mindedness of this religious movement was increasingly replaced by the rigidity and isolation of the sect, which deprived them of the diversity offered by the older generation as well as brothers in different life situations. Their activism which consumed all of their time and space prevented inwardly deepening religiousness, self-examination as well as the invention and expressing of reforms and alternatives that facilitate further development.

              An excellent analysis by one of their ex-members (which is an analysis that is simultaneously extraordinarily sensitive and intelligent, taking sociological and psychological aspects into consideration, at the same time a reflection in the spirit of the Gospels) is in a characteristic manner a proof as well as a rebuttal of the positive image that may have been formed in many people - thus in the sociologist - regarding the “Christians”, based on their teaching described on their homepage or a fleeting personal encounter. For the Christians who are to a certain extent in a dead-end street, perhaps exactly the attitude and thinking of their ex-brothers that can be characterized as “I am angry for you, not against you” may represent the way out.