Over on One Quaker Take, Timothy is surprised to read a definition of “Convergent Friend” that sounds a lot like a certain flavor of West Coast liberal Quakerism. It doesn’t seem so surprising for me as it comes from Gregg Koskela, a pastor at an Evangelical Friends church. It was five years ago this month that I went to a loud pizza shop in Philadelphia to attend a “Meet-Up” of readers of emerging church blogs and realized I had more common ground with these younger Evangelicals than I would have ever thought:
Just about each of us at the table were coming from different theological starting points, but it’s safe to say we are all “post” something or other. There was a shared sense that the stock answers our churches have been providing aren’t working for us. We are all trying to find new ways to relate to our faith, to Christ and to one another in our church communities. There’s something about building relationships that are deeper, more down-to-earth and real. Perhaps it’s finding a way to be less dogmatic at the same time that we’re more disciplined. For Friends, that means questioning the contemporary cultural orthodoxy of liberal-think (getting beyond the cliched catch phrases borrowed from liberal Protestantism and sixties-style activism) while being less afraid of being pecularily Quaker.
Rich the Brooklyn Quaker was recently asking about early Friends views of atonement and heaven and hell and it’s a great post, but so is Marshall Massey’s comment about how later Friends altered the message in distinctly different ways. The different flavors of Friends have spent a lot of energy minimizing certain parts of the Quaker message and over-emphasizing others and maybe the truth lies in some of the nuances we long ago paved over.
I have a working theory that a movement of “Convergence” will feel suspiciously liberal in evangelical circles, suspiciously evangelical in liberal circles, and suspiciously worldly in Quaker conservative circles. But that’s almost to be expected. The work to be done is different depending on where we’re starting from.
I don’t think Friends are alone in these kinds of matters. I see this phenomenon in other religious denominations – the post-Evangelicals I broke pizza with back in 2003 weren’t Quakers. But Friends might have a better way out of the existential puzzles that arise. For we (generally) believe that our action should be motivated first and foremost by the direct instruction of the risen Christ working on us now. That means we can’t rely on canned answers. What worked in the past might not work now. The faith is the same. But what needs to be done and what needs to be preached is very much a here-and-now kind of proposition.
I can’t help but think of Howard Brinton. Back in the 1950s his generation managed a reunification of East Coast Quaker factions that had been warring for over a century. One way they did it was hanging out together and then redefining what it meant to be a Friend. In Friends for 300 Years, Brinton argued that tests for membership shouldn’t look at one’s beliefs or practices. It was a truce and I’m sure it made sense at the time: there was a fairly strong consensus on what Quakerism meant and the fights at the edges over details were distracting. Fifty years later, there’s little consensus among Philadelphia Friends and even those in leadership positions are loathe to talk about faith or practice except in a kind of code. I can’t think of a single Philadelphia Friend who publicly expresses Quaker belief with the clarity or passion of mid-century figures like Brinton, Thomas Kelly or Rufus Jones.
What worked in the past might not work now. What sounds like old hat to to us might be very liberating for others. Convergence isn’t very new. It’s just keeping ourselves from ossifying into our own human concepts and staying open to the direct Christ. It’s finding a way to maintain that crazy balance between tradition and the inward light. Same as it ever was.
I wonder if convergent is more of a description of many Friends’ journeys to Quakerism (I am uncomfortable with the “ism” part, but can’t seem to find a better single word or very short phrase). For many years I have felt that many Quakers are “coming together” FROM something rather than TO something. If there is an aspect of their religious affiliation that no longer seems to fit, then they have found some place where “anything” seems to fit. Inevitably, using a color analogy, this leads to either a muddled gray (actually usually a brownish color but in deference to tradition-grey (I know I used both spellings for both sides oft he Atlantic) or clashing colors. I personally suspect that Quaker Institution and Quaker “religion” are both oxymorons, at least from my understanding of institution as an established place for maintaining a given situation and of religion as a giving of allegiance to a defined set of beliefs.
I would hope that rather, than a muddled gray of spiritual confusion, we could become more of a beautiful tapestry that has very unique distinct colors (colours) but which when seen as a whole become a beautiful whole. I think the distinctive colors are critical in that each is clearly defined and does not try to claim to be the “true” color or the only color that “fits.” I also recognize that individual threads tend to get “lost” in a larger picture and that it is a collection of same color threads that provide greater impact.
My suspicions are that one of the difficulties that many, including myself, see in the Quaker “divisions ” is that each seems to claim they are the “true” Quakers. It might be better if we could somehow agree that “we” are actually widely divergent groups which claim to be derived from a 350 (2000?) year old tradition. I would hope that Convergent tends to be more of a convergence with “primitive Christianity.” This primitive Christianity revived might actually take the core of the message of Jesus as interpreted by varying sources, but which relies on “Love the Lord your God” and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” God in this context does NOT seem to be the god of the Jews, Samaritans, Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, Greeks, etc. just as neighbor also includes “our worst enemies,” (i.e. Samaritans)
Hi Tom: After I posted this article I had an unsettled feeling that perhaps
I’ve once again strayed into “Quakerism” define mode. It’s not wrong, just
somewhat pointless and a distraction from outreach. So I like the idea that
maybe the point is to simply converge toward that primitive Christianity
ideal.
Thanks Martin — I agree with your point that convergence will never please everyone, a position I’m personally happy to hold.
Martin said: “I have a working theory that a movement of “Convergence” will feel suspiciously liberal in evangelical circles, suspiciously evangelical in liberal circles, and suspiciously worldly in Quaker conservative circles”
I had to chuckle here, and add “and for the mystic, perhaps not radical enough!”
Great post and comments -
Ive been looking much at this notion of convergence in the past several weeks on everyones blogs and webpages … Im in the midst of my own personal convergence with Quakerism itself, and its fun, and invigorating, fascinating, and as all worthwhile things should be, humbling… to see the very struggles and questions and pains played out on the field of the blogpost, also here in my relationship with a brand new (to me) group of long-gathered Friends — but this is to be so for any newcomer to any group that has found security in its history of meeting…
Its so clear — just so clear — the MEETING is the convergence… this convergence that is being discussed, is played out in every soul on the planet, for all that matter — whereas every meeting with another is a meeting with God… converge with THAT! — this is the demand from God in every moment, to converge — to come together — to meet… to reexamine what “history” means and what books and quotes and sayings Ive packed up at home, and brought to the meeting with me… that needs to be re-spected, in the truest sense of the word — to “look again” … converge with that!… this is the demand on me, from God, if- if- if- I want to come to meeting with Him…
What worked in the past will work now, next year, through out eternity because it does not and will not change. Because He’s the same, as long as you have the faith of a little child you can preach, teach, and heal. The problem is the gospil has been changed into a lie. Professing themselves wise, they have become fools; having a form of godliness that denies the power. If you get with the right ones they will demonstrate it to you.
Same as it ever was. Letting the days flow by, water flowing underground. That’s a good description of trusting in God.
Just a little side note to tesmith…I, too, don’t find “Quakerism” a useful label for all this. It makes it sound, to me, like an ideology (socialism, libertarianism), a rationalistic kind of value system.
I don’t care if anyone else wants to use it, of course, but when someone else expresses the desire to find another term I always suggest “the faith and practice of Friends.”