Eldership and Under-Running One's Guide

Martin,
One thing I have enjoyed about your blog is the level of self-disclosure you bring to it. You respond more from the s/Spirit and the heart and less from the intellect. I have been a proponent of Friends' sharing our vulnerabilities as a way to build and sustain a covenant community: How can we know how the Spirit is working in and through our lives if we only share how the kids are doing in school or how frustrated we are with current events reported in the media?
     In reading a pamphlet or two online about elders among Friends, I have come across a couple allusions to one of the function of elders as having the ability to draw one out more fully, to "hear a Friend into Truth," or something like that. I think our own deep sharing with one another brings forward something similar--by sharing of myself deeply, another is given the permission to do the same, especially when such sharing is held tenderly... as if we are in a perpetual Meeting for Worship, and we are simply to receive, listen deeply, rest, and receive again.
     Thanks for bearing witness to your leading, and being as faithful as you are, moment by moment.
     Blessings, Liz

Martin,

Thanks for this post. I don't know if I've ever communicated to thee fully how much thy blog has to do with my current practice. When I was first searching, I'd gone to one Quaker meeting but had a hard time going up to people and saying "What is this really like? What is this really about? How do you live? What do you remember? What do you think about when you're sitting across from me on a bench?" without the answers these questions I felt intimidated and disoriented, and like your experience with Woolman's journal, the books I was finding were fascinating, but fundamentally unsatisfying.

Finding this blog, and later, the ones linked to it, opened up the humanity of Quakers, as well as a whole galaxy of challenging thought and devotion beyond what I could expect to recieve on a daily basis in my meeting.

I'm very careful on my own blog to document both the process and the results of my own explorations, so that I'm not just dumping half formed manifestos into the internet and declaring "This is Quakerism". So far my comments and e-mail account have sometimes served as an impromptu elders-committee. Judging by its fruits, I'd say that so far I think the blog experiment is wonderful.

Martin - hmmmm, eldership for a blog. I think it is a very legitimate form of support to request.

Confession: I never thought of asking for it myself, which (I'd agree) puts me outside the discipline patterns of early Friends. It isn't as serious a breach, however, if one is a self-confessed Ranter rather than representing himself or herself as a normative Friend or authorized spokesperson.

I also did not ask for eldership when I was an editorial writer for Quaker Life. At one of the first board meetings of Friends United Meeting after I began the QL editorship, the other editors and I asked for and got some general guidelines; and we had a team of volunteer correspondents with whom we sometimes discussed ideas. However, the "eldering" was mostly provided by readers via letters to the editor, just as we can write comments here about your entries.

I began my "Can you believe" weblog in part because I missed the exercise and discipline of writing those Quaker Life editorials. Judging by the numbers of comments, I may be writing for myself alone a lot of the time; nevertheless, the need is fulfilled. Presumably if the things I write raise any alarms among Friends, they'd tell me so; and if I had a pattern of ignoring good advice, there would probably be grounds for contacting Northwest Yearly Meeting and suggesting that my recording as a Friends minister be reviewed.

Some of the specific criteria that we would associate with early Friends' standards may no longer be applicable if applied rigidly, but they might suggest more contemporary queries that those of us with public visibility (however tiny) might well consider:

" avoiding notions" - avoidance of ungrounded theological speculation that treats holy topics and God casually; rejecting the spirit of one-upping each other in favor of earnest advocacy of our own insights; seeking an intelligent biblical grounding with help from the community

"plainness" - modesty, awareness of others' sensitivity, avoidance of conspicuous consumption and, in general, avoidance of creating spectacle and of putting the ego forward; body comfort without flaunting

"Gospel order" - submitting our leadings to group wisdom before engaging in advocacy in the name of Friends; dealing tenderly with offenses and not noising them abroad beyond those who were originally affected; respecting the interconnectedness of our monthly and yearly meetings

Wow, it looks like this is pulling together some advices for spiritual blogs here. We've been talking her of getting comments from others, but the inverse of course is giving comments. If comments, given in the right spirit, can act in the manner of eldership, how do we determine the right time to comment or not comment?

Sometimes I find myself really wanting to respond to an outrageous post. Usually I'm most upset when it's someone who really doesn't understand Quakerism very well posts with an air of authority. It shows up a lot with younger Friends who grew up with completely inadequate religious education (i.e., 80% of FGC young Friends) and don't know what they don't know. You get what I call the "I'm a Quaker" fallacy: a question will come up about what Quakers believe and someone will respond "well, I'm a Quaker and I believe...," followed with a theology that's some mix of Tori Amos, Oprah and the Indigo Girls (just read a few random posts from "Livejournal Quaker":www.livejournal.com/community/quakers/ for examples).

Sometimes I start a response but I know it's not helpful to post. If I'm just denouncing it won't be received; besides, this sort of denunciation is not in the spirit of Christ. I need to trust that the Spirit is at work and that I am a simple servant. It's not for me to fix Quakerism but to be ready to listen and share when the Spirit has opened the door for that.

Still, my half-started post can be useful. Sometimes the ideas I write will find their way into a related conversation or blog post. And I've learned that that feeling I get--that feeling of outrage and frustration--is something to pay attention to. There's usually a lesson in it, a lesson of humility and acceptance for me. But the discipline of not responding is a tough one.

Martin, that's a great concern, and one where Friend Johan's advice on ”avoiding notions” is very applicable. I have severely curtailed my participation in message-boards and anything that smells of online debate, even if I feel I'm sooooooo right, because of these very concerns.

I also trust quite a bit in the wisdom of my online-elders. I know that if I post with too much authority on this or that subject there's going to be someone showing up in my blog to tell me so. I'm grateful for this.

I never even thought of having elders assisting me with the blog that I write! Of course, I never considered it a ministry either. Then again, should everything we do as Friends be a ministry? Wait! If we believe that all of life should be under the sacred guidance of the Spirit, then I suppose that includes blogs???

I have to sadly agree that I'm uncertain that I could trust the guidance of (at least) a number of Friends from Meeting to be elders. I mean, do they even understand what I'm referring to? (well, on the other hand, do I understand what they are referring to either - that is, is our understanding of things spiritual so individualistic and different from each other that we can't even offer ourselves the kind of spiritual community that we profess to desire so much?)

OK, I'm starting to do a blog post here in your comments.

Keep ranting (at least for now...)

    What I know of myself is that (1) I have a lot to say; (2) I need a lot of time to be with what it is I might wish to say, so that I can say it from a place of love and/or spiritual leading, not from a place of irritation and impulsiveness; and (3) writing posts to listserves and comments to blogs has a pace that is extraordinarily different for me than, say, writing in a journal or sitting in worship as I listen for God's guidance for me.
     Typing at a computer is dangerous for me because it is so easy to hit that SEND button before I've really considered where my ego is and where God is. It IS true for me that when I feel a pull, nudge, or leading to express something publicly about Quakerism--as a workshop presenter, as a committee clerk, as a newsletter editor, etc.--I have become more consistent in seeking eldership to help me understand and test the line between my agenda (orchestrated by frustration, jubilation, and everything in-between) and God's Order (orchestrated by a desire/design for peace, love, joy, etc.). And of course, the more controversial my thinking/sharing, the more important it is that I be grounded in the Spirit, having done some intentional discernment before I open my mouth or hit the SEND button.
     I agree that comments to posts can be one PART of eldership, the part that allows Friends to test their leadings. But commenters as elders...? Something is missing for me in that concept. As a commenter myself, I can say that I usually don't listen for the Spirit before I hit the "send" button. And I don't seek the Spirit together with you, Martin, as you create a new post. It seems to be a separated, sequential experience (you seek, you blog, I/we comment, you thresh) rather than a joined, synergistic experience (we seek together, you-in-the-Spirit post on the blog, we-in-the-Spirit review and test comments, etc).
    And there is the commenter to consider: how do we know the level of involvement that the commenter has among Friends? What sort of spiritual personal relationship exists between the commenter and the blogger? ...Early Friends who traveled in the ministry--and modern ones today--didn't just take anybody along with them, but rather someone who could "hear them into Truth," or something like that. Not to mention, if indeed comments made after the fact are a form of eldership, consider the "eldership" that James Naylor received after his little pony-back ride…
     I think we need to be careful in what we lift up as eldership and what we lift up as feedback, testing, or even support. But I also think it depends on the potential "weight" of the post, presentation, article, epistle, etc., that will guide whether to seek an elder [I didn't on this post], run it by a fellow Quaker [I shared the gist of my response with someone in my worship group], or trust our own discernment and intentions [I let this sit for a day and edited it before hitting SEND].
     I wonder if what we are sharing, by blogging and commenting, is a form of cyber worship-sharing, rather than eldership...? In any case, I appreciate and ENJOY the sharing we are doing. It gives me an opportunity to consider what it is that I can offer to the discussion.
     Blessings, -Liz

Glad you're back, Martin.

I really resonated with your reaction to Woolman's _Journal_. Back in the day, as I explored my own convincement after being raised as a Friend, I had this very intense reaction to a small and relatively unimportant segment of Fox's _Journal_: he's gone to dispute with an Anglican priest, and as he wanders through the garden expostulating, the priest interrupts him to say, "Don't walk on my flowers, don't walk on my flowers, stay on the path!" Whereupon Fox leaves in a state of fury, because no-one who pays attention to such trivial things should have the title of priest or professor.

Well, my sympathies were all with that village vicar, who cared about his garden. In fact, my sympathy became a stumbling block to my convincement. I thought about the times young men had shared with me--in loud and demanding, even arrogant, ways--the changes their Light required of me. I thought about the care we can take to create something of beauty and refuge around us and how we try to share that, and how painful it is to have it harmed by someone's impatient carelessness. I thought about Fox's lists of priest stricken with illness or misfortune after they disagreed with him. And I just about argued myself into Episcopalianism.

Even now, when people talk about the glory days of the Valiant Sixty, I think to myself little wormy thoughts like, "Oh, yeah? And what was life like for your children while you were in jail making a point?" or "Well, yes, it *is* important to stand up in other people's churches and denounce them for conscience's sake--as long as they don't come to Meeting this First Day and do it to us!"

Eldering for me is a way of submitting the wormy side of my thoughts to the sunlight of other people's judgement. Maybe not every word needs someone else's attention; maybe I shouldn't assume that my ideas are always an adequate representation of Quakerism. There's got to be some middle ground there, no?

Or is that my closet Episcopalian speaking?

Melynda

Martin I have not been to read your blog for a few weeks, and when I came back I saw this subject and I have to confess it twinged my conscience a little. I had not only struck out on my own with a blog but participated in others, and none of it under the eye of a clearness committee or any other connection to my meeting.

I hadn't even thought of it, to be honest. But when I read this article I have to say I felt like I should have at least talked about this with my meeting.

So today after waiting worship I approached a couple of people who are connected to that committee and explained my attack of conscience.

To my quick surprise I was told in the friendliest of manners that so long as I was speaking for myself and not for the meeting or as an oficial, sanctioned "authority" of the RSoF there couldn't - in their mind - possibly be anything wrong with it, and they encouraged me to go ahead - "site" unseen (Ok bad pun).

I will admit to being relieved, because I would never want to go out from under my meeting - which is such a gift to me at all times. I simply forgot to think about talking about it.

It was a lot like worrying about going to the doctor and then having him tell you you're fine and thinking; gee, it was worth going just to know that.

I believe everyone doing blog-work or writing in general should ask themself if they need to have it "go through" their meeting. I think it is probably the right thing to do, but each case is different.

We have a very diverse meeting, btw.

To tell you the truth, I wish the Meeting challenge us more about our blogs. Even as I seriously ponder coming off my self-imposed sabbatical from meeting (long story), I suspect my most important ministry will continue to be via the web and travels. If the Meeting barely knows about this side of my work, then I feel unknown to what should be my primary worship body. Is it that your meeting gave you permission or that they blew off responsibility for oversight? (For the record, I think you should keep blogging, I recognize the Spirit moving through your blog!)

No here's how it happened Martin; the letter I sent to Friends Journal was published in this month's issue and people were coming up with very positive things to say. I got to the point where I felt there was a little too much attention being thrown my way. How silly is it to come to meeting for worship and have people treat you like a celebrity or something...? Sort of the wrong thing to have happen, you know?

Then I read your note here and honestly felt very out of bounds. I read the words "under-running" and felt it described my recent activity, a pang of conscience. Whatever it was, I was not comfortable.

Last Sunday I approached two people about what I was experiencing, and - no - I really did not get the idea they were blowing it off, in fact the message I got was just as I said - because they have seen this before and already developed a sense of it.

Also, Martin, I think there is a different paradigm working at the Downers Grove (IL) Meeting - we have a very diverse meeting of which I bring up sometimes a more poltiically conservative side of things. We have Christians and people not exactly Christians. There is a lot of respect and care given across opinion lines at Downers Grove - and I say this as someone who really doesn't know most of the people who attend! It is a palpable feeling and the proof is the attendence every week. More proof, I believe, is that in an era where meetinghouses are going unused or underused, and some meetings are experiencing flux in their numbers and their status - Downers Grove is building a new (plainly beautiful!) meetinghouse.

If you are ever in Northern Illinois - please do come and see us.

And thank you for your kind words about the work at the blog-in-question. I'm going to keep it up because writing just naturally happens, and it is important for me to identify what is happening to me, if nothing else, to myself.

I am keeping the idea of a good reconciliation with your meeting in the Light.

RW, like Martin, I was concerned intially at how quickly it seemed Friends supported you in your blog-writing. I'm glad you shared a bit more fully about that experience, and I'm also glad you were faithful to your own pang of consciousness. This discussion earlier had triggered my review of a list of resources about eldership that I had bookmarked, and I'm sure there's more where that came from.

I agree that there is the caution of not speaking on behalf of Friends, which sometimes can be tossed out there too casually for my tastes. But there remains for me the caution of not doing things for vanity, fame, riches, etc., no matter how seemingly unimportant. This is precisely where my own struggle lies (the vanity part), and so I am grateful to have a couple Friends who have agreed to view my blog from time to time, check in with me, etc.

(Martin-- thanks for the link to my blog at the start of your post!)

Oh if we're going to be giving references, here's two pieces I recently rediscovered, from Brian Drayton: "A Historical Note about Elders":http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/ministry/elders-drayton.html and "Recording Ministers in the Society of Friends":http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/ministry/recordedministers-drayton.html.

PS: Yes, some might think it's odd that the webmaster of FGC is talking about "rediscovering" things on the FGC website. Yes I actually put them online (and certainly read them at the time!) but with over 600 pages of material, even I forget what's there!