I am a South Jersey Friend and dad with a love out of outreach and a passion for looking afresh at Friends' testimonies, language and practices. I am the publisher of Quaker Quaker, a community site for Friends, and write about online publicity, organizing and design on my business site at MartinKelley.com.
symbol Posts
-
I got to think a great deal about the interaction between "essential Quakerism" and the culture in which that Quakerism is expressed. I wondered very much, "is Quakerism a cultural phenomenon without any ultimate, universal value for all of humanity?"
-
I was feeling very discouraged at how few of us there are who care or who haven't been bewitched by the messages of fear or vengeance. As I closed my eyes and centered down during meeting for worship, I heard the words of Jesus
-
I understand how the lack of physical symbols is a symbol in itself. While it was seemingly so meaningful to first gen Qs, I wonder if the power dissipates with each generation: as we follow them, we see more of their shoes than where they were headed.
A few weeks ago I took an eye-opening picture at a wedding. It was a quick photo of the bride and father walking down the "aisle" (it was more a space between tables in a small banquet room). I must have had squirming Francis in one arm, the camera in the other, because it's all blurry. The light's bad, there's red eye, it's totally not something to send up to Flickr. But what's haunting about the picture is the background: behind the bride you can see four people. From left to right, they are: taking a picture, holding camera at neck level ready to take a picture, leaning back from the camera screen setting up a shot, and looking down at a display reviewing the just-taken picture. This is a wedding and it's the dramatic part: the bride's just entered the room and is about to be given away by her father (it's a second wedding so I can't take the symbolism too far, but still this should be a holy moment).
Many Friends Meetings ban cameras in wedding ceremonies and I shouldn't have relaxed my standards to take my own photograph of the wedding-in-progress. There are times where our presence is much more important than any documentation. I dare say that none of the two-dozen or so walking-down-the-aisle photos taken that day are worth developing or printing. I use my picture-taking for memory's sake and love looking at old shots of the family, and a few of the pictures I took that day are definite keepers. But us compulsive shutter bugs need to know when to put the camera down.
What are the Iraqis and the American administrators thinking? Another botched execution in Baghdad, this time of Saddam Hussein's half brother. Why are the executioners dressed like terrorists, their faces covered with hoods? The videos of Saddam's execution looks like it took place deep in some hidden-away warehouse.
I'm not a big believer in capital punishment. It's primitive and barbaric and it reeks heavily of vigilante justice and the terrorist code. But if you're going to do it, you have to imbue the moment with all the solemnity of the state. The symbolism has to make clear that this is culmination of a long, considered process, that this is a necessary part of a nation's duty to provide law and order to its people.
But the new round of videos coming out of Baghdad look too much like the execution videos made by insurgents kidnapping Western workers and activists. Is the new Iraqi government simply insurgents in suits? Why doesn't Washington even care about the symbolic appearance of these high-profile executions?
I'm returning from a working summer sabbatical from Nonviolence.org to find the world situation both completely the same and completely different. It is the best of times and the worst of times, no? My April editorial, Making Friends, Making Enemies and Looking Toward the Future is a call to peace that's as relevant to developments in Israel, Lebanon, Iran and iraq but just as likely to be ignored.
Sometimes it feels that war is inevitable. The terrain of southern Lebanon is once more being chewed up by tanks and rockets. Israel's army and the Hezbollah militia keep one-upping the level of violence. Wars of evident defense can be a great recruitment tool for angry young men and neither military force is in any danger of being overwhelmed or destroyed. That thankless job goes to the civilians caught in the middle. Warfare in the age of terror consists of slaughtering innocents in the name of righteous self-defense. Hostilities never really end, they take a break after enough blood has been spilt to satisfy the powers behind the killing.
The Hezbollah rockets heading south and Israeli tanks going north are symbols of the proxy war that is being run from thousands of miles away. Hezbollah's arms come from Iran, Israel's from the United States. While there might be simmering resentments and isolated acts of violence, there would not be a war without these sponsors. The fighting in Lebanon could be switched off like a light bulb with the slightest nod from either Washington or Tehran.
iraq is the other front of this proxy war. Yesterday General John P. Abizaid, commander of American forces in the Middle East, told the Senate that Iran could slide into civil war. The BBC is reporting that senior British diplomat William Patey informed Tony Blair last week that "the prospect of a low intensity civil war and a de facto division of iraq is probably more likely at this state than a successful and substantial transition to a stable democracy."
Baghdad has more-or-less seen fighting since American troops entered it but the decentralized insurgency is giving way to a kind of sectarian violence that is far more dangerous. If Patey's prophecy comes to pass iraq will be our next Lebanon: a bloody, seemingly-intractable civil war lasting decades, turned on and off by diplomatic whim from abroad, a killing field where innocents die for the false rhetoric of idealism far far away.
Images from Wikipedia articles on the Israel-Lebanon conflict and iraq War
![]() Theo and I on the old bike this summer. More photos |
A guest piece from Rob of Consider the Lillies
Rob describes himself: "I’m a twenty-something gay Mid-western expatriate living in Boston. I was inspired to begin a blog based on the writings of other urban Quaker bloggers as they reflect and discuss their inward faith and outward experiences. When I’m not reading or writing, I’m usually with my friends, traveling about, and/or generally making an arse of myself."



It's that season again, the time when unprogrammed Friends talk about Christmas. Click Ric has posted about the seeming incongruity of his meeting's Christmas tree and LizOpp has reprinted a still-timely letter from about five years ago about the meeting's children Christmas pageant.
One confusion that arises in liberal meetings this time of year is that it's assumed it's the Christian Friends who want the Christmas tree. Arguments sometime break out with "hyphenated" Friends who feel uncomfortable with the tree: folks who consider themselves Friends but also Pagan, Nontheistic, or Jewish and wonder why they're having Christianity forced on them. But those of us who follow what we might call the "Christian tradition as understood by Friends" should be just as put out by a Christmas tree and party. We know that symbolic rituals like these spark disunity and distract us from the real purpose of our community: befriending Christ and listening for His guidance.
Unprogrammed liberal Friends could use the tensions between traditional Quakerly stoicism and mainstream Christian nostalgia as a teaching moment, and we could use discomfort around the ritual of Christmas as a point of unity and dialog with Pagan, Jewish and Non-theistic Friends. Christian Friends are always having to explain how we're not the kind of Christians others assume we are (others both within and outside the Society). Being principled about Christmas is one way of showing that difference. People will surely say "oh come on," but so what? A lot of spiritual seekers are critical of the kind of crazy commercial spending sprees that marked Christmas's past and I don't see why a group saying Christmas isn't about Christ would be at a particular disadvantage during this first Christmas season of the next Great Depression.
I've been talking about liberal unprogrammed Friends. For the record, I understand Christmas celebrations among "pastoral" and/or "programmed" Friends. They've made a conscious decision to adopt a more mainstream Christian approach to religious education and ministry. That's fine. It's not the kind of Quaker I practice, but they're open about their approach and Christmas makes sense in that context.
Whenever I post this kind of stuff on my blog I get comments how I'm being too Scroogey. Well I guess I am. Bah Humbug. Honestly though, I've always like Quaker Christmas parties. They're a way of mixing things up, a way of coming together as a community in a warmer way that we usually do. People stop confabbing about committee questions and actually enjoy one another's company. One time I asked my meeting to call it the Day the World Calls Christmas Party, which I thought was kind of clever (everyone else surely thought "there goes Martin again"). The joy of real community that is filled once a year at our Christmas parties might be symptom of a hunger to be a different kind of community every week, even every day.