Beppeblog: We are not alone
View Comments (5 on old commenting system)
Over on Beppeblog, a look at how liberal Quakerism is not alone in contemplating whether diversity undermines or enriches its sense of identity, purpose, and distinctiveness.
There are some pretty amazing quotes from Reconstructionist Jews and Unitarian Universalists (one leader posits out loud that the UU's near total embrace of theological diversity has been a form of "pandering!")
Whew, you know there's something in the air when the UU's start talking this way. This kind of liberal looking back into the past seems to be widespread. Indeed I suspect it's the spirit of our age (or even the age coming up) and I think this looking up from our spiritual in-groups with curiousity and respect is not just for liberals, which is why I've been using the "Post-" term of late (as in "Post-Liberal," "Post-Evangelical," etc.)
I've been turning over Johan Mauer's observation on the comments to July 13th's post, where he says:
I�ve mostly seen labels used in a mean-spirited way. But when they�re discussed in the spirit that has prevailed here [on the Quaker Ranter comment boards] (�� more important is the conversation as we try to name our experiences�), in the interests of communicating more clearly, of enlarging our shared pool of references, of intelligently appropriating a heritage � it seems possible to be more hopeful.
I wonder if the openness Johan names is part of the "post." It's not universal--over on the Plain and Modest Dress group there was a sadly typical post this afternoon that started off "Liberal so called Quakers are so far from the Christian Faith and Practice of Early Friends I find it hard to call most of them Quakers." Sigh... I know where he's coming from, but there are many times more Christians in my large liberal yearly meeting than in his. Was it a good idea for the East Coast conservative yearly meetings to reunite with the other Quakers to create blended yearly meetings with inevitable identity problems? Now there's a question for chew on. But to just say "my yearly meeting is more Quaker than your yearly meeting" is soooo uninteresting. Purity is a much a trap as any other form of pride. If Jesus could minister among tax collectors and prostitutes, then certainly we can preach among the liberals.
Anyway: there's lots of good links on the Beppeblog post, enough to keep you reading deep into the night.
5 Comments
About Martin
I’m a Quaker from
South Jersey with a love of
outreach and ministry.
More bio and my contact information in my
about Martin
post.
Martin's other sites:
Life Stream: See Tumbld Rants for more or to comment.
Feed Subscription:
You can also sign up to get daily posts delivered by email. Enter email address:
I'm feeling a pinch about the use of "diversity" here: I think we need more of it in Friends' Meeting, not less. I know, I know, you're not using the word in quite the way I am--and maybe it's the word itself, which has come to mean something like "painless and superficial multiculturalism," which gets in the way. But my utopian dream for the night--after a miserable nine hours at the day job, which includes such pipe dreams as "diversity initiatives" and "conflict resolution"--is that Quakerism as we know it will be transformed by our own earthshaking, difficult, irresistable, overflowing love of God made manifest in everything we do. Nothing else will do it.
And tonight I imagine that when we are so filled with that love and understanding that our practice is as visible, as accessible, and as delightful to our neighbors and co-religionists as Buddhism, Wicca, and consumerism, way will open easily, and all kinds of unexpected people will recognize in Quakerism their path to God.
Which I guess is another way of saying that my discouragement is with me and *my* witness, not with the Quakers around me.
Melynda
Just a caution, Martin, that suggesting "UUs" are talking this way, based on a quote from Earl Holt, is misleading. Some UUs, maybe. A few UUs, that's probably closer. As Philocrites' post (and the Globe article) make clear, Holt understands that his is a minority viewpoint. What the Globe didn't make at all clear is that while Holt's church, King's Chapel, may be the oldest Unitarian church in America, it uses what may as well be the Book of Common Prayer in its services. (I just asked Philocrites about that, and he says King's Chapel's book is more conservative than the current Episcopal Book of Common Prayer.) This puts it squarely at the margins of Unitarian Universalism.
It's interesting to be in a yearly meeting that united Wilburite, Gurneyite, and liberal (though not Hicksite, per se) meetings. I experience New England as having a vitality as a result of dealing with each other. Sometimes, of course, NEYM seems to me to gloss over differences either out of love or out of conflict-avoidance; Friends are human, after all. But by being in one yearly meeting together, inevitably there come times when everyone's forced to talk about differences. We've recently begun a revision of Faith and Practice. Can't wait to see what we have to say about language, marriage, and recognition of ministry, just to name three.
Hi Kenneth: thanks for the context on the Unitarian Universalist quote. Where I've been seeing the "Post-" reevaluations is with Gex-X mainstream Evangelical Protestants and Roman Catholics (whether they're on the margins of their religious bodies I don't have the context to say). I've also found people in all of the various branches and permutations of Quakerism opening up to questions.
I agree that our blended yearly meetings can be blessed by the experience of being "forced to talk about our differences." There are downsides to this as well, especially around polity and identity issues, but I find it helpful to be challenged by my fellow Quakers and forced to stretch and explain myself and my understandings and openings.
Which sort of brings us to what Melynda's getting at, I think. There are all different forms of diversity. There's the painless multiculturalism that demands a maintainance of hegemonic cultural norms, with a a superficial overlay of color. You'll be let into the country club as long as you act, talk and think like us and as long as whatever difference you display is relegated to the level of fashion ("nice outfit!"). A deeper multiculturalism forces the different cultures to jostle against one another, to negotiate, to conflict, and to figure out lines that can't be crossed without losing something important. It's recognizes that strong traditions have a integrity to them that can't be reduced to fashion or outward form. Traditions also stand proud on their own merits. Maybe my loud and raucous annual family barbeque is as culturally important and significant as your toned down sedate country club gala.
(This also relates to what might be the _really big_ issue of our age: globalization. Do we really want the entire world's population to be eating at McDonald's, driving Toyotas, wearing Old Navy, drinking Coca Cola and sloshing Foster's? Then again, do we want cultures reacting against this by flying planes (al Qaida) and tossing bombs (USA) into each other's cities?)
If this blog is about anything, it's an appeal for more conversation. For more honesty. For each of us to be who we are and to express ourselves that way. And for a recognition that our united yearly meetings shouldn't be about lowest common denominator Quakerism. In Philadelphia Yearly Meeting I find the conservative-leaning Friends all being hush-hush about their identity, as if one of our blended mixes wasn't the Wilburite-dominated Philadelphia Yearly Meeting-Orthodox and as if another wasn't an unincorporated conservative Hicksite sub-group. Going away to a tiny but pure fellowship doesn't seem like a good answer to me, nor does being closeted in a blended yearly meeting that stays safe and fears celebrating the strands of its diversity.
More than once at Gathering, I found people say they were "coming out" as conservative Friends. It's a funny choice of words. I've observed that a whole lot more than 10% of the "conservative-leaning liberal Friends" I've met in person or online are gay and lesbian. I don't know exactly what to make of this apparent coorelation or of the gay liberation language we seem to reach for, but it's all fascinating.
Kenneth's mention of King's Chapel brings back some warm memories of my years at Beacon Hill Friends House in Boston (1977-80). One particular warm memory: Bible studies and brown-bag lunches in downtown Boston once every week, hosted by King's Chapel's Carl Scovel. These were sheer joy. I still have notes from one of the times it was my turn to lead the discussion, on Luke's Gospel. We were a fairly diverse lot theologically, but I never felt any spirit of judgment, either directed at me (probably the most conservative person there) or tempted to emerge from inside me.
In getting ready to post this, I snooped about the Internet looking for references to Carl Scovel. There's a mention of an article he wrote with the interesting title, "What's a Nice Christian Like You Doing in a Denomination Like This?"
Martin,
Thanks for the thoughtful "reply" post to the remarks I made on beppeblog. I would agree that the concerns the I raised have a different nuance for younger adults than for older Friends. Older Friends might view such critiques as from an "us versus them", "we're more Quaker than you are" stance versus one that questions some of liberal Friends' unspoken norms and priorities that became prominent in the last 30 years or so. I'm not sure if that's clear; unfortunately, I'm not at my home computer and I'm "speed" writing my thoughts in type so I can be ready for when my brother gets home for lunch.
Melynda,
You made an excellent point. It brings to mind the issue of discipline (as in a consisten practice to live out one's faith) and how that might be better expessed in our personal and corporate lives. I hope to blog on this issue sometime in the future. One Friend at my home Meeting surmises that some of the resistence that I have encountered regarding the Bible study is due to a discomfort, fear regarding a more disciplined walk within Quakerism. Hmm.
One question: I understand that there are differences regarding the word "diversity". In what way would you define it to connote something more possivite and desireable?
Kenneth:
Thanks for the clarification. I hoped that the links to the original article and post would suffice in making it clear that Holt's opinion was a minority one. However, I think I could have made that more explicitly clearer. Nonetheless, I'm glad that at least the issue has gotten some attention, even if it is not supported by the majority within the UUA.
Johan,
"What's a nice Christian like you doing in a denomination like this?" Indeed! I've asked myself that question many a time. :)