Jan 31

Looking at North American Friends and theological hotspots

Over on Friends Jour­nal site, some recent stats on Friends mostly in the US and Canada. Writ­ten by Mar­garet Fraser, the head of FWCC, a group that tries to unite the dif­fer­ent bod­ies of Friends, it’s a bit of cold water for most of us. Offi­cial num­bers are down in most places despite what­ever offi­cial opti­mism might exist. Favorite line: “Per­haps those who leave are noticed less.” I’m sure P.R. hacks in var­i­ous Quaker orga­ni­za­tions are burn­ing the mid­night oil writ­ing response let­ters to the edi­tor spin­ning the num­bers to say things are look­ing up.

She points to a sad decline both in yearly meet­ings affil­i­ated with Friends United Meet­ing and in those affil­i­ated with Friends Gen­eral Con­fer­ence. A curios­ity is that this decline is not seen in three of the four yearly meet­ings that are dual affil­i­ated. These blended yearly meet­ings are going through var­i­ous degrees of iden­tity cri­sis and hand-wringing over their sta­tus and yet their own mem­ber­ship num­bers are strong. Could it be that seri­ous the­o­log­i­cal wrestling and com­pli­cated spir­i­tual iden­ti­ties cre­ate health­ier reli­gious bod­ies than mono­cul­tural groupings?

The big news is in the south: “His­panic Friends Churches” in Mex­ico and Cen­tral Amer­ica are boom­ing, with spillover in el Norte as work­ers move north to get jobs. There’s sur­pris­ingly lit­tle inter­ac­tion between these newly-arrived Spanish-speaking Friends and the the old Main Line Quaker estab­lish­ment (maybe not sur­pris­ing really, but still sad). I’ll leave you with a chal­lenge Mar­garet gives readers:

One ques­tion that often puz­zles me is why so many His­panic Friends
con­gre­ga­tions are meet­ing in churches belong­ing to other denom­i­na­tions.
I would love to see estab­lished Friends meet­ings with their own
prop­erty shar­ing space with His­panic Friends. It would be an
oppor­tu­nity to share growth and chal­lenges together.

Mar 21

For other uses, see Light (disambiguation)

Even though my last post was a five minute quickie, it gen­er­ated a num­ber of com­ments. One ques­tion that came up was how aware indi­vid­ual Friends are about the spe­cific Quaker mean­ings of some of the com­mon Eng­lish words we use–“Light,” “Spirit,” etc.(“disambiguation”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disambiguation in Wiki-speak). “Mar­shall Massey”:http://journal.earthwitness.org/the-quaker-magpie-journal/ expressed sad­ness that the terms were used uncom­pre­hend­ingly and I sug­gested that some Friends know­ingly con­fuse the generic and spe­cific mean­ings. Mar­shall replied that if this were so it might be a cul­tural dif­fer­ence based on geography.

Con­tinue read­ing

Oct 15

Quaker Testimonies

One of the more rev­o­lu­tion­ary trans­for­ma­tions of Amer­i­can Quak­erism in the twen­ti­eth cen­tury has been our under­stand­ing of the tes­ti­monies. In online dis­cus­sions I find that many Friends think the “SPICE” tes­ti­monies date back from time immemo­r­ial. Not only are they rel­a­tively new, they’re a dif­fer­ent sort of crea­ture from their predecessors.

In the last fifty years it’s become dif­fi­cult to sep­a­rate Quaker tes­ti­monies from ques­tions of mem­ber­ship. Both were dra­mat­i­cally rein­vented by a newly-minted class of lib­eral Friends in the early part of the twen­ti­eth cen­tury and the cod­i­fied by Howard Brinton’s land­mark Friends for 300 Years, pub­lished in the early 1950s.

Com­fort and the Test of Membership

Brin­ton comes right out and says that the test for mem­ber­ship shouldn’t involve issues of faith or of prac­tice but should be based on whether one feels com­fort­able with the other mem­bers of the Meet­ing. This con­cep­tion of mem­ber­ship has grad­u­ally become dom­i­nant among lib­eral Friends in the half cen­tury since this book was pub­lished. The trou­ble with it is twofold. The first is that “com­fort” is not nec­es­sar­ily what God has in mind for us. If the frequently-jailed first gen­er­a­tion of Friends had used Brinton’s model there would be no Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends to talk about (we’d be lost in the his­tor­i­cal foot­notes with the Mug­gle­to­ni­ans, Grindle­to­ni­ans and the like). One of the clas­sic tests for dis­cern­ment is whether an pro­posed action is con­trary to self-will. Com­fort is not our Society’s calling.

The sec­ond prob­lem is that com­fort­a­bil­ity comes from fit­ting in with a cer­tain kind of style, class, color and atti­tude. It’s fine to want com­fort in our Meet­ings but when we make it the pri­mary test for mem­ber­ship, it becomes a cloak for eth­nic and cul­tural big­otries that keep us from reach­ing out. If you have advanced edu­ca­tion, mild man­ners and lib­eral pol­i­tics, you’ll fit it at most East Coast Quaker meet­ings. If you’re too loud or too eth­nic or speak with a work­ing class accent you’ll likely feel out of place. Samuel Cald­well gave a great talk about the dif­fer­ence between Quaker cul­ture and Quaker faith and I’ve pro­posed a tongue-in-cheek tes­ti­mony against com­mu­nity as way of open­ing up discussion.

The Feel Good Testimonies

Friends for 300 Years also rein­vented the Tes­ti­monies. They had been spe­cific and often pro­scrip­tive: against gam­bling, against par­tic­i­pa­tion in war. But the new tes­ti­monies became vague feel-good char­ac­ter traits–the now-famous SPICE tes­ti­monies of sim­plic­ity, peace, integrity, com­mu­nity and equal­ity. Who isn’t in favor of all those val­ues? A pres­i­dent tak­ing us to war will tell us it’s the right thing to do (integrity) to con­truct last­ing peace (peace) so we can bring free­dom to an oppressed coun­try (equal­ity) and cre­ate a stronger sense of national pride (com­mu­nity) here at home.

We mod­ern Friends (lib­eral ones at least) were really trans­formed by the redefin­tions of mem­ber­ship and the tes­ti­monies that took place mid-century. I find it sad that a lot of Friends think our cur­rent tes­ti­monies are the ancient ones. I think an aware­ness of how Friends han­dled these issues in the 300 years before Brin­ton would help us nav­i­gate a way out of the “eth­i­cal soci­ety” we have become by default.

The Source of our Testimonies

A quest for unity was behind the rad­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of the tes­ti­monies. The main accom­plish­ment of East Coast Quak­erism in the mid-twentieth cen­tury was the reunit­ing of many of the yearly meet­ings that had been torn apart by schisms start­ing in 1827. By end of that cen­tury Friends were divided across a half dozen major the­o­log­i­cal strains man­i­fested in a patch­work of insti­tu­tional divi­sions. One way out of this morass was to present the tes­ti­monies as our core uni­fy­ing prici­ples. But you can only do that if you divorce them from their source.

As Chris­tians (even as post-Christians), our core com­mand­ment is sim­ple: to love God with all our heart and to love our neigh­bor as ourselves:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great com­mand­ment. And the sec­ond is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neigh­bour as thy­self. On these two com­mand­ments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37–40 and Mark 12:30–31, Luke 10:27.

The Quaker tes­ti­monies also hang on these com­mand­ments: they are our col­lec­tive mem­ory. While they are in con­tant flux, they refer back to 350 years of expe­ri­ence. These are the truths we can tes­tify to as a peo­ple, ways of liv­ing that we have learned from our direct expe­ri­ence of the Holy Spirit. They are intri­cately tied up with our faith and with how we see our­selves fol­low­ing through on our charge, our covenant with God.

I’m sure that Howard Brin­ton didn’t intend to sep­a­rate the tes­ti­monies from faith, but he chose his new catagories in such a way that they would appeal to a mod­ern lib­eral audi­ence. By pop­u­lar­iz­ing them he made them so acces­si­ble that we think we know them already.

A Tale of Two Testimonies

Take the twin tes­ti­monies of plain­ness and sim­plic­ity. First the ancient tes­ti­mony of plain­ness. Here’s the descrip­tion from 1682:

Advised, that all Friends, both old and young, keep out of the world’s cor­rupt lan­guage, man­ners, vain and need­less things and fash­ions, in apparel, build­ings, and fur­ni­ture of houses, some of which are immod­est, inde­cent, and unbe­com­ing. And that they avoid immod­er­a­tion in the use of law­ful things, which though inno­cent in them­selves, may thereby become hurt­ful; also such kinds of stuffs, colours and dress, as are cal­cu­lated more to please a vain and wan­ton mind, than for real use­ful­ness; and let trades­men and oth­ers, mem­bers of our reli­gious soci­ety, be admon­ished, that they be not acces­sary to these evils; for we ought to take up our daily cross, mind­ing the grace of God which brings sal­va­tion, and teaches to deny all ungod­li­ness and worldly lusts, and to live soberly, right­eously and godly, in this present world, that we may adorn the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in all things; so may we feel his bless­ing, and be instru­men­tal in his hand for the good of others.

Note that there’s noth­ing in there about the length of one’s hem. The key phrase for me is the warn­ing about doing things “cal­cu­lated to please a vain and wan­ton mind.” Friends were being told that pride makes it harder to love God and our neigh­bors; immod­er­a­tion makes it hard to hear God’s still small voice; self-sacrifice is nec­es­sary to be an instru­ment of God’s love. This tes­ti­mony is all about our rela­tion­ships with God and with each other.

Most mod­ern Friends have dis­pensed with “plain­ness” and recast the tes­ti­mony as “sim­plic­ity.” Ask most Friends about this tes­ti­mony and they’ll start telling you about their clut­tered desks and their annoy­ance with cell­phones. Ask for a reli­gious edu­ca­tion pro­gram on sim­plic­ity and you’ll almost cer­tainly be assigned a book from the mod­ern vol­un­tary sim­plic­ity move­ment, one of those self-help man­u­als that promise inner peace if you plant a gar­den or buy a fuel-efficient car, with “God” absent from the index. While it’s true that most Amer­i­cans (and Friends) would have more time for spir­i­tual refresh­ment if they unclut­tered their lives, the sec­u­lar notions of sim­plic­ity do not emanate out of a con­cern for “gospel order” or for a “right order­ing” of our lives with God. Vol­un­tary sim­plic­ity is great: I’ve pub­lished books on it and I live car-free, use cloth dia­pers, etc. But plain­ness is some­thing dif­fer­ent and it’s that dif­fer­ence that we need to explore again.

Pick just about any of the so-called “SPICE” tes­ti­monies (sim­plic­ity, peace, integrity, com­mu­nity and equal­ity) and you’ll find the mod­ern notions are sec­u­lar­l­ized over-simplications of the Quaker under­stand­ings. In our quest for unity, we’ve over-stated their importance.

Ear­lier I men­tioned that many of the ear­lier tes­ti­monies were proscriptive–they said cer­tain actions were not in accord with our prin­ci­ples. Take a big one: after many years of dif­fi­cult min­is­ter­ing and soul search­ing Friends were able to say that slav­ery was a sin and that Friends who held slaves were kept from a deep com­mu­nion with God; this is dif­fer­ent than say­ing we believe in equal­ity. Sim­i­larly, say­ing we’re against all out­ward war is dif­fer­ent than say­ing we’re in favor of peace. While I know some Friends are proud of cast­ing every­thing in pos­ti­tive terms, some­times we need to come out and say a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice is just plain wrong, that it inter­feres with and goes against our rela­tion­ship with God and with our neighbors.

I’ll leave it up to you to start chew­ing over what spe­cific actions we might take a stand against. But know this: if our min­is­ters and meet­ings found that a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice was against our tes­ti­monies, we could be sure that there would be some Friends engaged in it. We would have a long process of min­is­ter­ing with them and labor­ing with them. It would be hard. Feel­ings would be hurt. Peo­ple would go away angry.

After a half-century of lib­eral indi­vid­u­al­ism, it would be hard to once more affirm that there is some­thing to Quak­erism, that it does have norms and bound­aries. We would need all the love, char­ity and patience we could muster. This work would is not easy, espe­cially because it’s work with mem­bers of our com­mu­nity, peo­ple we love and honor. We would have to fol­low John Woolman’s exam­ple: our first audi­ence would not be Wash­ing­ton pol­icy mak­ers instead Friends in our own Society.

Tes­ti­monies as Affir­ma­tion of the Power

In a world beset by war, greed, poverty and hatred, we do need to be able to talk about our val­ues in sec­u­lar terms. An abil­ity to talk about paci­fism with our non-Quaker neigh­bors in a smart, informed way is essen­tial (thus my Non​vi​o​lence​.org min­istry, cur­rently receiv­ing two mil­lions vis­i­tors a year). When we affirm com­mu­nity and equal­ity we are wit­ness­ing to our faith. Friends should be proud of what we’ve con­tributed to the national and inter­na­tional dis­cus­sions on these topics.

But for all of their con­tem­po­rary cen­tral­ity to Quak­erism, the tes­ti­monies are only second-hand out­ward forms. They are not to be wor­shipped in and of them­selves. Mod­ern Friends come dan­ger­ously close to lift­ing up the peace tes­ti­mony as a false idol–the prin­ci­ple we wor­ship over every­thing else. When we get so good at argu­ing the prac­ti­cal­ity of paci­fism, we for­get that our tes­ti­mony is first and fore­most our procla­ma­tion that we live in the power that takes away occas­sion for war. When high school math teach­ers start argu­ing over arcane points of nuclear pol­icy, play­ing arm­chair diplo­mat with yearly meet­ing press releases to the State Depart­ment, we loose cred­i­bil­ity and become some­thing of a joke. But when we min­is­ter to the Power is the Good News we speak with an author­ity that can thun­der over petty gov­ern­ments with it’s com­mand to Quake before God.

When we remem­ber the spir­i­tual source of our faith, our under­stand­ings of the tes­ti­monies deepen immea­sur­ably. When we let our actions flow from uncom­pli­cated faith we gain a power and endurance that strength­ens our wit­ness. When we speak of our expe­ri­ence of the Holy Spirit, our words gain the author­ity as oth­ers rec­og­nize the echo of that “still small voice” speak­ing to their hearts. Our love and our wit­ness are sim­ple and uni­ver­sal, as is the good news we share: that to be fully human is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neigh­bors as we do ourselves.

Hal­leluiah: praise be to God!

Read­ing elsewhere: