Mar 15

Trust, direct revelation and church teachings

A response to  a post by Jess Easter on Quak­erQuaker, “My Quaker Rela­tion­ship with Jesus”:

It’s not anti-Christian to say you have doubts about your rela­tion­ship with Jesus. It’s per­fectly human. Most of us would get bogged down in the intel­lec­tu­al­ism if we tried to map out a pre­cise God/Christ rela­tion­ship. One thing I’ve always liked about Friends is our rad­i­cal hon­esty in this regards. A priest in a strictly ortho­dox litur­gi­cal tra­di­tion is expected to preach on top­ics on which they have no direct divine expe­ri­ence and to base their words on church teach­ings. When a Friend rises in min­istry they are expected to be speak from a moment of direct revelation.

We also have church teach­ings of course. Robert Bar­clay is our go-to guy on many the­o­log­i­cal mat­ters, and cer­tain jour­nals have become all-but-canonized on the way we under­stand our­selves and our tra­di­tion. It’s just that this second-hand knowl­edge needs to be pre­sented as such and kept out of the actual wor­ship time. As my Quaker jour­ney has pro­gressed, I’ve directly expe­ri­enced more and more open­ings that con­firm the tenets of tra­di­tional Quaker Chris­tian­ity. That’s built my trust.

I’m now will­ing to give the ben­e­fit of the doubt to beliefs that I haven’t myself expe­ri­enced. If some­one like William Penn says he’s had a direct rev­e­la­tion about a par­tic­u­lar issue, I’ll trust his account. I know that in those cases where we had sim­i­lar open­ings, our spir­i­tual expe­ri­ences have matched. I won’t min­is­ter about what he’s said. I won’t get defen­sive about a point of doc­trine. I’ll just let myself open to the pos­si­bil­ity that even the more intel­lec­tu­ally out­landish parts of ortho­dox Chris­t­ian doc­trine just might be true.

It’s tempt­ing to go to “holy” sites to expect some spe­cial rev­e­la­tion. In her post, Jess reports feel­ing a sense of feel­ing “bored and indif­fer­ent” when vis­it­ing the West­ern Wall and the Gar­den of Geth­se­mane. I think this is per­fectly nor­mal. There’s the story of the Quaker min­is­ter trav­el­ing through the Amer­i­can colonies with a local Friend as guide. They come to a cross­roads and the local Friend points to tree stump and proudly pro­claims that George Fox him­self tied his horse to that tree when it was alive. The trav­el­ing min­is­ter dis­mounts his horse and walks to the stump. He stands there silently for awhile and walks back to his trav­el­ing com­pan­ion with a sober look. The local is excited and asks him what he saw. The trav­el­ing min­is­ter replied: I looked into the face of idolatry.

The Holy Spirit is not con­fined or enshrined in any place–be it the West­ern Wall, the gilded steepled church or the tree George Fox sat under. Jesus’ death tore the Tem­ple shroud in two and His spirit is with us always, even when it’s hard to feel or see. I think the bore­dom we expe­ri­ence in “holy” sites or with “holy” peo­ple is often  a teach­ing gift–a guid­ance to look else­where for Spir­i­tual truth.

Oct 03

That of God via William Penn

Asked what we believe many mod­ern Friends will reply “That there is that of God in every­one.” It’s an early Quaker phrase but what exactly do we mean by it? Part of its cur­rent pop­u­lar­ity is its ambi­gu­ity. We live in a fiercely indi­vid­u­al­is­tic age and it can be read as a call to per­sonal inde­pen­dence: “I don’t need to care what you think because I’ve got that of God in me!”

So it’s use­ful to read William Penn’s thoughts on spir­i­tual indi­vid­u­al­ism in The Rise and Progress of the Peo­ple Called Quak­ers. He’s talk­ing about those mem­bers of the still-new Soci­ety of Friends who had become the “great­est trou­ble,” who “fought domin­ion over conscience”:

They would have had every Man inde­pen­dent, that as he had the Prin­ci­ple in him­self, he should only stand and fall to that, and no Body else: Not con­sid­er­ing that the Prin­ci­ple is one in all and though the Mea­sure of Light or Grace might dif­fer, yet the Nature of it was the same; and being so, the struck at the Spir­i­tual Unity, which a Peo­ple, guided by the same Prin­ci­ple, are nat­u­rally led into: So that what is an Evil to one, is so to all, from the Sense and Savour of the one uni­ver­sal Prin­ci­ple which is com­mon to all, and which the Dis­af­fected also pro­fess to be the Root of all true Chris­t­ian Fel­low­ship, and that Spirit into which the Peo­ple of God drink, and come to be Spiritually-minded, and of one Heart and one Soul.

For Penn, that of God is the spirit of the inward Christ–a spirit we can drink from to find spir­i­tual unity. It is an author­ity rooted not in our own human weak­ness but in  uni­ver­sal spir­i­tual truths that are acces­si­ble to all.

Sep 24

The primitive message of Friends (W Penn)

William Penn, on the “prim­i­tive Mes­sage” of Friends:

That God is Light and in Him is no Dark­ness at all; and that he has sent His Son a Light into the World, to Enlighten all Men in order to Sal­va­tion and that they that say they have Fel­low­ship with God, and are his Chil­dren and Peo­ple, and yet walk in Dark­ness, viz. in Dis­obe­di­ence to the light in their Con­sciences, and after the Van­ity of this World, they Lie, and do not the Truth. But they all such as love the Light, and bring their Deeds to it, and walk in the Light, as God is Light, the Blood of Jesus Christ His Son, should cleanse them from all Sin.

From “Rise and Progress of the Peo­ple called Quak­ers,” p. 42 of my edition). I share this in part because Brent Bill’s been ask­ing about the mes­sage of Friends. It was inter­est­ing to read Penn’s answer at break­fast this morn­ing! It’s well worth unpack­ing the gram­mar of the long clauses!

Mar 21

Visioning the Future of Young Adult Friends (1997)

An vision­ing essay I wrote in March of 1997, for Friends Insti­tute, the Philadel­phia — area young adult Friends group I was very involved with at the time. I repost it now because many of these same issues con­tin­u­ally come up in Quaker groups. See the bot­tom for the story on this essay, includ­ing the con­tro­versy it kicked up.

For more con­text about my ongo­ing con­cerns with gen­er­a­tion issues in Quak­erism, see my “Young Adult Friends page” [long ago closed down]


I think the YAF/FI chal­lenges can be roughly divided into three cat­e­gories. They are intro­duced in the next para­graph, then elab­o­rated on in turn. They are:

1) Account­abil­ity. Com­mu­ni­ca­tion and group process within YAF/FI has never been very good. We can change that, revi­tal­iz­ing the role of Busi­ness Meet­ing as set­ter of the vision and forum for sub­com­mit­tee feed­back and pol­icy setting.

2) Out­reach: Who Do We Serve. YAF/FI has done no out­reach to newly-convinced Friends and the plan­ning of events has shown an insen­si­tiv­ity to the needs of this group.

3) Activ­i­ties. We’ve had a lot of con­fer­ences with mediocre pro­grams that have lit­tle spir­i­tual or Quaker focus. We can set yearly themes as a group in advance, giv­ing Steer­ing Com­mit­tee guid­ance for par­tic­u­lar programs.

ACCOUNTABILITY:

PYM/FI has not been an orga­ni­za­tion with good com­mu­ni­ca­tion skills, group process or account­abil­ity. Busi­ness meet­ings have been thought of as a nec­es­sary and begrudged task where half the par­tic­i­pants fall asleep.

Busi­ness Meet­ings should have clear, advance agenda. The YAF clerk should call for agenda items by email two weeks before the meet­ing (phon­ing promi­nent mem­bers who don’t have access to email), and send out a draft agenda the week before. Basic agenda items should include vari­a­tion on the fol­low­ing (my facil­i­ta­tion expe­ri­ence comes from Quaker-inspired but not Quaker process, so some of these tasks might need to be turned into Quakerese):

  • silent wor­ship;
  • agenda review;
  • reports from all sub­com­mit­tees (treasurer’s report, steer­ing com­mit­tee report, dis­tri­b­u­tion com­mit­tee report, email/web report);
  • two sub­stan­tive issues;
  • set­ting next date;
  • eval­u­a­tion of meeting;

All reports should be writ­ten (ide­ally dis­trib­uted by email before­hand and with a dozen copies at the meet­ing) and should include activ­ity, fis­cal activ­ity, pol­icy ques­tions need­ing busi­ness meet­ing input, approval of future tasks. Every deci­sion should have spe­cific peo­ple as liaisons for follow-up, and part of the next Busi­ness Meet­ing should be review­ing progress on these tasks.

OUTREACH: WHO DO WE SERVE?

I have a very large con­cern that the offi­cial YAF/FI orga­ni­za­tion does not do exten­sive out­reach and that it hasn’t always been sen­si­tive to the needs of all YAFs.

As a con­vinced Friend who first ven­tured forth to a Quaker Meet­ing at age 20, I spent years look­ing for YAFs and not find­ing them. The only out­reach that YAF/FI does is to grad­u­at­ing Young Friends (the high school pro­gram). Our out­reach to newly con­vince Friends has been nonexistent.

Other under­rep­re­sented YAFs: the Cen­tral Phila. MM group, thirty-something YAFs, YAFs of color, les/bi/gay YAFs (our Pres­i­dent Day’s gath­er­ing con­flicts with the pop­u­lar mid-winter FLGC gath­er­ing, an unfor­tu­nate mes­sage we’re send­ing), YAFs with children.

Some of the out­reach chal­lenges for YAF/FI include:

  • Cliquish­ness. Many plugged-in YAFs know each other from high school days and it can be intim­i­dat­ing to jump into such a group. There’s also a reluc­tance to review assump­tions brought down from the Young Friends (high school) program;
  • The poor com­mu­ni­ca­tion in YAF/FI keeps many dis­en­fran­chised YAFs from hav­ing a forum in which to express their con­cerns and needs. We can reach out to under-represented YAFs and ask them what a age-fellowship could pro­vide them;
  • Single-type events: the week­end gath­er­ings keep away many YAFs with respon­si­bil­ity. The tenor of YAF/FI events often keeps away the more mature YAFs. I doubt one type of event could sat­isfy all types of YAFs. We should be open to sup­port the lead­er­ship of dis­en­fran­chised YAFs by pro­vid­ing them the money, resources and insti­tu­tional sup­port to address their com­mu­ni­ties’ need (keep­ing in mind YAF events should be open to all).

ACTIVITIES

YAF events have had their prob­lems. The­mat­i­cally, they usu­ally have not had Quaker themes, they have not been geared toward spir­i­tual growth (usu­ally First Day’s Meet­ing for Wor­ship is the only spir­i­tual com­po­nent). They have fol­lowed the pat­terns of Young Friends events (3 day gath­er­ings), even though this for­mat excludes many (most?) YAFs.

We could eas­ily have more of a mix of events. Some could be the tra­di­tional week­end events, some could be day events, like the suc­cess­ful apple-picking expe­di­tion and Swarth­more gath­er­ing a few years ago orga­nized by Friends Center-employed YAFs.

As far as I’ve known, there has never been any Busi­ness Meet­ing brain­storm­ing for themes, and each event has been orga­nized in an ad hoc man­ner by a small group of peo­ple with­out feed­back from the gen­eral YAF pop­u­la­tion. This is partly a result of the need for con­fer­ence orga­niz­ers to have a con­fer­ence planned long in advance.

I pro­pose that we set Year-Long Themes, a process that some groups employ to inter­est­ing effect. In the fall, there could be a Busi­ness Meet­ing to decide the next cal­en­dar year’s theme; Steer­ing Com­mit­tee could then orga­nize all of the pro­gram­matic events around this topic. This would give large YAF input into the selec­tion process and also pro­vide an inter­est­ing unity to top­ics. Each topic should be broad enough to allow for an inter­est­ing mix of pro­grams and each topic should have a spe­cific Quaker focus. One ped­a­gog­i­cal moti­va­tion behind these events should be to intro­duce and rein­force Friends’ his­tory and culture.

Themes that I’d love to see:

  • Spir­i­tual and his­tor­i­cal roots of Quak­erism. (Becca Grunko, Mar­garet Hope Bacon, Peggy Mor­sheck might be good resource peo­ple). Events could include a look at the fiery birth of Quak­erism and an his­tor­i­cal explo­ration of Friends Insti­tute itself (founded in the 1880s, FI played a role in uni­fy­ing the Hicksite/Orthodox schism in PYM and pro­vided key assis­tance to the early AFSC; Gen­nyfer Dav­en­port is hot on the trail of this history!).
  • Quak­ers in the world. a look at vol­un­teerism, and wit­ness and min­istry. An obvi­ous event would be to par­tic­i­pate in a week– or weekend-long PYM workcamp.
  • Neat Quaker fig­ures (maybe even neat PYM fig­ures!). Con­fer­ences that look at the his­tory of folks like John Wool­man, William Penn, Lucre­tia Mott, per­haps cur­rent fig­ures like the Willoughby’s.
  • Quaker Lifestyle and the Tes­ti­monies. Egads, we could read Faith and Prac­tice! For those of you who haven’t, it’s really an inter­est­ing book. Not all events should be the­matic, of course. The early Decem­ber Christ­mas gath­er­ing doesn’t need to be; nei­ther does some of the day long events (i.e., the apple-picking expe­di­tion was a fun theme in itelf!).

This essay writ­ten Third Month 21, 1997 by Mar­tin Kelley



h3. The Story of this essay, writ­ten Fall of 2003
I wrote for Friends Insti­tute, the Philadelphia-area young adult Friends group, back in March of 1997. I was very involved with the group at the time, serv­ing for­mally as trea­surer and web­mas­ter and infor­mally as the de-facto out­reach coor­di­na­tor. We had a vision­ing retreat com­ing up in a few months and I wrote this as a strengths/weaknesses/opportunities piece to get the ideas rolling. I thought we had some work to do around the issues of cliquish­ness, and I also thought we could become more thought­ful and spiritually-focused but I tried to find a sen­si­tive way to talk about this issues.
I got a lot of reac­tions to this essay. Some peo­ple really really loved it, espe­cially those out­side the Philadel­phia insid­ers group: “Thanks for the insight­ful analy­sis! You really did a won­der­ful job of objec­tively explain­ing the frus­tra­tions that some PYM YAF’s (myself included) have with FI” and “I was so inspired by your essay ‘YAF vision for future’ that we are hop­ing bring it for­ward and cir­cu­late it here in among Aus­tralian YAF.“
But the insid­ers felt chal­lenged. One didn’t even like me talk­ing about cliques: “I think that as a group we have all been aware for some time of the prob­lems plagu­ing Friends Insti­tute… I don’t like the word clique because it makes me think of an exclu­sion­ary snob­bish group of peo­ple that looks down on oth­ers.” (of course this _was_ my point).
As if to prove my analy­sis cor­rect, the insid­ers imme­di­ately started talk­ing amongst them­selves. Within two weeks of email­ing this essay, both of my for­mal posi­tions in the orga­ni­za­tion were being chal­lenged. One insider wrote a request to the yearly meet­ing to set up a com­pet­ing Friends Insti­tute web­site; oth­ers started won­der­ing aloud whether it proper for an atten­der to be Friends Insi­tute trea­surer. No one ever ques­tioned my ded­i­ca­tion, hon­esty and good work. I was more actively involved in Quak­erism and my meet­ing than most of the birthright mem­bers who par­tic­i­pated in FI, and I was the most con­sci­en­tious trea­surer and web­mas­ter the group ever had. My essay had obvi­ously hit a nerve and the wag­ons were cir­cling in against the out­sider threat. Real­iz­ing just how ingrained these issues were and to what extent the insid­ers would go to pro­tect their power, I even­tu­ally left Friends Insti­tute to focus again on my monthly meeting’s thriv­ing twenty– and thirty-something scene.
The essay con­tin­ued to have a life of its own. The May 1997 vision­ing retreat focused on noth­ing at all and sube­quent busi­ness meet­ings dropped to a hand­ful of peo­ple. But the issues of the high-school focus, cliquish­ness, and unfriend­li­ness to new­com­ers came to the fore­front again a few months later, after some sex­ual assaults took place in the young adult com­mu­nity. A con­fer­ence on “sex­ual bound­aries” pro­duced an epis­tle that hit some of the same top­ics as my vision­ing essay:
bq. We iden­ti­fied a num­ber of habits and issues in our young adult com­mu­nity that tend to bring up dan­ger­ous sit­u­a­tions. For exam­ple, some of our sex­ual bound­aries carry over from our expe­ri­ence as high-school aged Young Friends… New­com­ers become “fresh meat” for peo­ple who come to gath­er­ings look­ing to find quick con­nec­tions… Peo­ple get lost espe­cially when we have larger gath­er­ings, and we don’t watch out for each other.
Friends Insi­tute drifted for a few years. By the sum­mer of 2000, a con­vince Friend became clerk and tried to revive the group. She found my essay and emailed me: “I’ve been look­ing over the FI archives and am impressed by your con­tri­bu­tion. Do you have any advice, sug­ges­tions, or time to become active again in FI?” Sad to say this attempt to revive Friends Insti­tute also had a lot of prob­lems.
I repost this essay here in 2003 partly to have a ongo­ing record of my Quaker writ­ings here on my web­site. But I sus­pect these same issues con­tinue in var­i­ous young adult friends groups. Per­haps some­one else can see this essay and be inspired, but a warn­ing that I’ve seen these dynam­ics in many dif­fer­ent young adult friends groups and seri­ously won­der whether reform or revival is impossible.