fundamentalist Posts

Go check out Mobtown Blues for a great post called All paths don't lead to the same mountain. that starts off about a talk by Brian McLaren, one of the emergent church's most prominent pastors, and goes on to talk about a recent Quaker outreach at a large East Coast liberal Friends meeting:

I was distressed to hear speaker after speaker extol Quakerism for what it is not: not oppressive, not judgemental, not elitism, not closed-minded, not fundamentalist, not doctrinaire... very few spoke of what makes the faith distinctive or spiritually powerful in its own right.

And then he delivers the punch line:

A couple of my friends, a same-sex couple who had expressed keen interest in exploring Quakerism were so appalled by the self-congratulatory smugness on display at that newcomers' breakfast, by the implicit condemnation of all of those other, "less evolved" faith traditions, that they never came back to the meeting.

He hits on so many true things here: that Quaker smugness, the claim we've transcended human biases, the negatively-stated identity.

Seekers try out a religious tradition because they think there might be some truth in its teachings. We do them a disservice when we meet them at the door with a watered-down gruel. And we do our meetings a disservice, as those seekers who have come looking for a positive Quakerism go elsewhere while the newcomers that do stay come because they liked the refugee religious attitude they were presented with.

The coincidence in all this is that last night Bill Samuel commented on the blog. Bill has been one of the most tireless Quaker outreach voices, most lately with Quakerinfo.com, but a few years ago he left Friends to worship at Cedar Ridge Community Church, an emergent church pastored by?.. Pastored by Brian McLaren. And he wrote that he knew other Friends who had left their meetings to join Cedar Ridge.

McLaren is good at articulating a positive vision of church, something Friends could once do too. I've visited one of Philadelphia's emergent churches a few times, though I'm not quite ready to join Bill as a "post-Quaker." Still, how many important once-Quakers and almost-Quakers have been lost with our fear of self-identity?

Looking back at Friends' responses to the Christian Peacemaker hostages

When four Christian Peacemakers were taken hostage in Iraq late last November, a lot of Quaker organizations stumbled in their response. With Tom Fox we were confronted by a full-on liberal Quaker Christian witness against war, yet who stepped up to explain this modern-day prophetic witness? AFSC? FCNL? FGC? Nope, nope and nope. There were too many organizations that couldn’t manage anything beyond the boilerplate social justice press release. I held my tongue while the hostages were still in captivity but throughout the ordeal I was mad at the exposed fracture lines between religious witness and social activism.

Whenever a situation involving international issues of peace and witness happens, the Quaker institutions I'm closest to automatically defer to the more political Quaker organizations: for example, the head of Friends General Conference told staff to direct outsiders inquiring about Tom Fox to AFSC even though Fox had been an active leader of FGC-sponsored events and was well known as a committed volunteer. The American Friends Service Committee and Friends Committee on National Legislation have knowledgeable and committed staff, but their institutional culture doesn't allow them to talk Quakerism except to say we're a nice bunch of social-justice-loving people. I appreciate that these organizations have a strong, vital identity and I accept that within those confines they do important work and employ many faithful Friends. It's just that they lack the language to explain why a grocery store employee with a love of youth religious education would go unarmed to Badgdad in the name of Christian witness.

The wider blogosphere was totally abuzz with news of Christian Peacemaker Team hostages (Google blogsearch lists over 6000 posts on the topic). There were hundreds of posts and comments, including long discussions on the biggest (and most right-leaning) sites. Almost everyone wondered why the CPT workers were there and while the opinions weren't always friendly (the hostages were often painted as naive idealists or disingeneous terrorist sympathizers), even the doubters were motivated by a profound curiosity and desire to understand.

The CPT hostages were the talk of the blogosphere, yet where could we find a Quaker response and explanation? The AFSC responded by publicizing the statements of moderate Muslim leaders (calling for the hostages' release; I emailed back a suggestion about listing Quaker responses but never got a reply). Friends United Meeting put together a nice enough what-you-can-do page that was targeted toward Friends. The CPT site was full of information of course, and there were plenty of stories on the lefty-leaning sites like ElectronicIraq and the UK site Ekklesia. But Friends explaining this to the world?

The Quaker bloggers did their part. On December 2 I quickly re-jiggered the technology behind QuakerQuaker.org to provide a Christian Peacemaker watch on both Nonviolence.org and QuakerQuaker (same listings, merely rebranded for slightly-separate audiences, announced on the post It's Witness Time). These pages got lots of views over the course of the hostage situation and included many posts from the Quaker blogger community that had recently congealed.

But here's the interesting part: I was able to do this only because there was an active Quaker blogging community. We already had gathered together as a group of Friends who were willing to write about spirituality and witness. Our conversations had been small and intimate but now we were ready to speak to the world. I sometimes get painted as some sort of fundamentalist Quaker, but the truth is that I've wanted to build a community that would wrestle with these issues, figuring the wrestling was more important than the language of the answers. I had already thought about how to encourage bloggers and knit a blogging community together and was able to use these techniques to quickly build a Quaker CPT response.

Two other Quakers who went out of their way to explain the story of Tom Fox: his personal friends John Stephens and Chuck Fager. Their Freethecaptivesnow.org site was put together impressively fast and contained a lot of good links to news, resources and commentary. But like me, they were over-worked bloggers doing this in their non-existant spare time (Chuck is director of Quaker House but he never said this was part of the work).

After an initial few quiet days, Tom's meeting Langley Hill put together a great website of links and news. That makes it the only official Quaker organization that pulled together a sustained campaign to support Tom Fox.

Lessons?

So what's up with all this? Should we be happy that all this good work happened by volunteers? Johan Maurer has a very interesting post, Are Quakers Marginal that points to my earlier comment on the Christian Peacemakers and doubts whether our avoidance of "hireling priests" has given us a more effective voice. Let's remember that institutional Quakerism began as support of members in jail for their religious witness; among our earliest committee gatherings were meetings for sufferings--business meetings focused on publicizing the plight of the jailed and support the family and meetings left behind.

I never met Tom Fox but it's clear to me that he was an exceptional Friend. He was able to bridge the all-too-common divide between Quaker faith and social action. Tom was a healer, a witness not just to Iraqis but to Friends. But I wonder if it was this very wholeness that made his work hard to categorize and support. Did he simply fall through the institutional cracks? When you play baseball on a disorganized team you miss a lot of easy catches simply because all the outfielders think the next guy is going to go for the ball. Is that what happened? And is this what would happen again?

It was Adolf Hitler, the world's most notrious dictator, who told us that "The great mass of people ... will more easily fall victim to a big lie than to a small one.":http://www.bartleby.com/66/59/28359.html And it is in the vein that I will pass along the latest poll by MS-NBC, that has found that "70% of American people think Hussein and 9/11 are linked":www.msnbc.com/news/962627.asp?0cv=CB20. This is perhaps the biggest lie of my lifetime. I fear for the very soul of my nation, that so many of my fellow Americans would deny all evidence to allow themselves to go along with this myth. There has been no evidence of any connection. Most of the hijackers were Saudi nationals, opposed to the U.S.-backed ruling Saudi family. Al Qaeda is a group of religious fundamentalists trained in part with CIA money who have always been opposed to the secular socialist regime of Saddam Hussein. There's no mystery who the hijackers were or why they chose the U.S. as their target. Conspiracy theories aren't needed to explain the events of two years ago. So why then do we believe Saddam blew up the World Trade Center towers? Maybe there are too many of us who love our lives of convenience, who love our big cars, our big homes, our opulent lifestyles and maybe we know that deep down our lifestyle is based on control of Middle east oil. Or perhaps Saddam Hussein has become the demon we pour all our worldly fears and guilt into, so that we think all the world's troubles must come from him. Whatever the reason, the results are a kind of mass hysteria. Seven our of ten Americans believe in a conspiracy theory so divorced from any evidence that history surely prepares to mock us. every so often I'll read of the outlandish conspiracy theories running through the Arab world--like the one that the planes were manned by Israelies and that all the Jews who worked in the towers were warned not to come to work--and I'll wonder how a people could live in such a state of unreality. But then I see American's myths: just as incredible, just as based on our own demons. We have based a war and a foreign policy on the boogie-men of our subconsciences. We have killed for our fears. What if we were to wake up to reality: could we still justify the war and occupation of Iraq with the imperiousness and surety that we've shown so far?