Craig Barnett on diversity in our meetings:
But Friends who are not satisfied with these excuses, and want to encourage real dialogue about the possibility of more inclusive Quaker communities, are often unclear about the specifically Quaker motivation for this. Are there any reasons, beyond so-called ‘political correctness’, why Quakers should have a particular concern for the diversity of our Meetings and our movement?
It’s good to ask these questions but Craig’s answer feels half-hearted to me. It boils down to Quaker process: we can make better decisions if we have more diverse perspectives. That’s certainly true, but the problem could just as easily be solved by dissolving the Friends movement and joining in with more diverse communities (something individual Friends have done). Asking people to join us because it will solve our problems isn’t a very strong marketing pitch. What is it we possess that we should be sharing more widely?
transitionquaker.blogspot.com
To quote Robert Barclay:
Which has a bit of an intersectional ring to it in my mind. (Recall the term “intersectional” comes from Kimberle Crenshaw’s analysis of a court case where a company was found not guilty of either sexist discrimination or racist discrimination because they had white women and Black men, even though they wouldn’t hire Black women.)
But your last line…yes. My outreach efforts with meetings have included a lot of trying to get them to consider what they have that others would want. Yes, yes, I know you want more people so that the meeting will survive long enough for someone to take care of the meetinghouse burial ground once you’re in it. That’s not a compelling reason for them to join. And “you can believe anything you want” is just as true of simply not joining a faith community at all!