Comments on: Hey who am I to decide anything

By: Cat Chapin-Bishop

Cat Chapin-Bishop — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 12:02:18 +0000

Martin, Thank you very much for clarifying where your comments were (and were not) coming from. Let me apologize up front for being overly sensitive to your remarks in your original post. Thank you, too, for providing back links to earlier posts, both in your responses and your original post. I had read many of them previously, but not read them deeply enough, I think. I know that you are making more points than this, but a red thread that runs through your blog seems to me to be, not so much that liberal Friends are too diverse, as that the diversity is not neccesarily a result of any very Spirit-filled process. (How am I doing? Am I closer to understanding you this time through?) And that Friends are at times wading into some very _shallow_ spiritual waters, simply because they are less threatening to a diversity that is not always the result of depth or careful discernment on any level--individual _or_ corporate. I was particularly taken with the wording you used in your back-linked post, What's God Got To Do Got To Do With It, where you wrote, "God is the center of our faith and our work: worship is about listening to God’s call; business meeting is about discerning God’s instructions. This has to be understood…" Even though I am very hesitant to use the word "God," I find myself in agreement with you. There is a Spring that feeds meeting for worship, and it's not the presence of nice liberals all around me, or the tradition of activism, or even--though my meeting is very inclusive--the inclusivity. I'm quite clear that that mysterious Spring _is_ what you, and many others, call God...or even, more frighteningly, "Jesus." Ack! The dreaded J word! (this last said in a self-mocking tone, if that's not clear... ) But it absolutely does need to be understood... here is the point of origin, here is the history. Yep. God... and that Jesus character. And who ever said that living religion should _not_ be frightening? Despite my own sense that Paganism, at least as I practice it, is not at variance with Quaker practice, I would never want to miscommunicate to other Pagans that Quakers are the "new UUs"--a comfy place where Pagans will not be distressed by language that will offend us. Whether or not you are correct when you wrote that deepening Quaker spiritual life "means delving ever deeper into our past and engaging with it. We can’t do that without frequently turning to the Bible," it is completely clear to me that depth for at least some of us does depend on both study of the Bible and reflection about and the embrace of the Quakers' particular take on Christianity. Christianity _is_ the native tongue of Quakers, and Quaker history _is_ important to understanding Quaker depth and practice... And, given the nature of Quaker practice as _corporate_ spiritual life, cutting any member of my meeting off from that history, from those roots, or denying them the words that most easily convey the ministry that springs from those roots, damages the life of the whole meeting--Christian or non-Christian, theist or nontheist... everyone who _is_ fed, however they name it, by that Spring. That will inevitably involve some discomfort to folks who, like me, are uncomfortable with the language. However, it is my responsibility to "listen where the words come from," and try to really _hear_ even messages that are couched in language that I find scary, to find whatever is Spirit-filled around me. Again, whoever said religious life should not be scary? I think that, like most people, I'm most sensitive to my own troubles, so I'm more aware of times that I am afraid to speak, lest I be judged for my own language. So the fact that Christians in Quaker meetings are actually, and not just in theory, having to labor with those who want to eject Jesus (or at least references to him) from the Society of Friends is one that I have a hard time taking in... but, clearly it is the case. Elizabeth, of Quaking Harlot, wrote that those in her meeting who routinely "stand up and rebuke any ministry that is given about Christ" caused her pain. And it's upsetting to me as well. It's upsetting to me not merely because I'd like Quakers to be "nice" to each other, and "tolerant," but because I cannot convince myself that such ministry could possibly be Spirit-led. What, after 350 years of being able to communicate with Quakers in Christian language, the Spirit suddenly became allergic to it? Strains credulity, that does. More to the point, ministry that does not spring from Spirit damages the whole reason to worship together. I mean, what's the point of being Quaker if we're not drinking together from that astonishing Spring? Might as well go be UUs then--I think they've got better music and comfier pews, anyway. I think we agree, that liberal Quakers ought not become "safe" for a secular diversity that has left the world of the direct experience of God behind, simply because we couldn't agree on any terminology that wouldn't offend someone, somehow. Maybe this is why I do not feel particularly drawn to the FGC workshop you alluded to, "A Neighborhood of Pagan Friends." Do I fear that it will be polite and inclusive, but not very spiritually deep or challenging? I know that is the reason why I recently made the decision to remove all the essays I had written in my first year as a Quaker on what I then thought about the interaction of Quaker and Pagan ways. They were just not seasoned enough to have any lasting value, so I took them all down. I think what I be trying to trace out is an idea that the primary division is not between Christian Quakers and "new theologies" Quakers, but between spirit-filled and secularly oriented Quakers. However, given the importance of seasoning and corporate discernment in learning how to stay centered in experiential spiritual life, it probably _is_ the case that newer additions to the Quaker family tree, like any new grafts onto an older rootstock, will take time to become well-established--and may not "take" if there is real incompatiblity. Some of us newcomers (and maybe some of the knee-jerk reaction against our presence amid liberal Friends?) probably are making it easier to see Friends as a more secular, "nice" organization. Was this your point? Have I understood you more clearly? In any case, you did provoke me to think more deeply, for which I thank you.

By: Marshall Massey

Marshall Massey — Sat, 14 Apr 2007 08:23:15 +0000

In partial response to friend Benjamin Lloyd –
Historically, the “center of Quaker theology” has not been the monthly meeting but the yearly meeting. The yearly meeting defines its theological position through something called its book of discipline, or book of faith and practice (different yearly meetings use different names for it) and also through any confessions of faith that it may choose to subscribe to. Monthly meetings that depart too far from the yearly meeting’s position can be expelled from the yearly meeting. And this has happened on occasion, even in the last twenty years.
In my personal view, elders are not a reliable solution. Suppose you are a Christophobic member of a meeting with emphatically Christian elders. Or a Christian member of a meeting whose designated elders care enormously about liberal political correctness but not much at all about basic Christian charity. In either case, your alienation may be worsened if you turn to the elders for help.
As Psalm 146 puts it, “Put not your faith in princes.…”

By: Benjamin Lloyd

Benjamin Lloyd — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 17:06:16 +0000

Hi Martin, Very thoughtful and provocative. 1. I think the center of Quaker theology is the monthly meeting, not the yearly meeting or organizations like FGC. Thus, I think the answer to the question "What is a Quaker?" (I refuse to use the words "liberal" or "conservative" attached to "Quaker" - my eccentricity) can only be meaningfully answered within the context of monthly meetings and their clearness committees. Therefore, I feel it is rightly ordered that different monthly meetings will have different characteristics, depending on the congregations that worship in them and the decisions they are led to. So one meeting can be peopled mostly by pagans and non-theists and another with Jonesian Christian mystics and neither is out of line. God is simply speaking through each community uniquely. 2. A great deal of the anxiety around these issues could be eased if we could become more comfortable with authority and its personal manifestation through Elders in our meetings. That's right - Elders in our meetings, remember those? These are people the meeting has been led to identify as having authority to guide and nurture. These are the people who make up "the center" around which the rest of us eccentrics and non-conformists can revolve. And yes, these are the people who can teach us - within the culture of each monthly meeting - what the corporate expectations are answering the question "What is a Quaker?" Who wants to be raised without a Mom or Dad? Not me. But we have been orphaned from our Quaker "Moms" and "Dads"; orphaned from their love and from their discipline. So I share Martin's concern. But I believe the answer lies in the smaller, more intimate communities which are meant to sustain us. And it lies in an official recognition of the ministry of loving authority through a designated committee or council of elders.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 21:00:57 +0000

@Paul: thanks for checking in. I wonder if it might be equally dangerous for either the center or margins to get the upper-hand in the balance of a worship community's life. It's legalism vs. ranterism, tradition vs. continuing revelation. I'm thinking we need to strike a better balance than we're now doing. @LizOpp: I think you misconstrued the direction when I wrote "it’s telling that the blogosphere frequently cites the workshop committee and rarely the A&O committee." I'm not saying committee members should all start blogging (egads!), rather that when bloggers talk about Friends General Conference's normative values they're usually referencing workshop diversity and not FGC's quasi-official statements about itself.

By: Zach A

Zach A — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:47:00 +0000

Hi Martin,
I think I agree with your basic point that people should recognize that their actions as an individual Friend affect the bigger picture. But I’m not sure how much it would change things if more people did this; perhaps you can give an example of how it might?
And I also am not sure that “none” of the people on the theological margins who are changing things (like nontheists) are thinking “hey, I think I’ll expand the definition of liberal Quaker theology today.” Speaking for myself, I don’t think in precisely those words, but I am well aware that my being a vocal nontheist Quaker will to some degree affect the course of Quakerism.
Lastly, I’ll just point out, in case you missed it or in case others want to follow this trail of the conversation, that I tried to answer your hypothetical question (should liberal Friends who want Quakerism to be Christian start new meetings?) on my last blog post.
Warm regards,
Zach

By: Liz Opp

Liz Opp — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 15:03:23 +0000

I have gone back and forth about submitting a comment, and now I see Martin has brought my name up. First of all - and I'm stating the obvious here - the blogosphere isn't a forum for committees to share their leadings and ideas. I don't think we'd want "just anybody" from FGC's Advancement & Outreach Committee (or any other committee) to jump into the world of blogs unless they had a clear leading, nudge, prompt, etc. Secondly - and again obvious, perhaps - my presence in the Quakersphere isn't because I wanted to talk about Gathering workshops. Where I differ from you, Martin, is that I don't think that it's "telling" that there are certain voices on the 'net that are missing from the conversation, and we need to be careful to help one another call out our assumptions. Among Friends, we each have gifts, hurdles, and leadings - but not all leadings lead to the internet. It's just that one of mine did, and I happen to be serving on the Gathering Committee and its Workshop Subcommittee, which is why those topics sometimes surface on The Good Raised Up and in my comments sprinkled here and there. I know I have more to say, but I don't feel clear to say it--about Gathering, about theological diversity, etc. So I am doing what I can to stay patient and come under the exercise of the Spirit... Blessings, Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

By: Paul L

Paul L — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 10:58:44 +0000

Martin — I think you hit the nail on the head with this sentence: “There’s great freedom and joy in FGC’s approach but it is essentially centrifugal.”
The strength of the liberal form of Quakerism has to be a strong center that holds the parts together in a balanced whole; the stronger it is, the more diversity it can tolerate — and benefit from — at the edges.
My concern, and I yours too if I’m reading you right, is that radical toleration and “inclusiveness” is too weak an organizing principle and central force to hold the whole together over time and space and through hard times. Open-minded toleration of individual leadings is certainly not the principle that held Friends together during the times of its most overt persecution in the 17th Century, which was also the time of its greatest growth and power.
FGC both strengthens and counteracts the centrifugal force in two ways that are either contradictory or complementary. First, it operates on the edges to keep the diverse parties talking with each other and coming to the family reunion each year. By bringing us together, FGC reminds us (as you put it) that we love our nontheist friends while holding grave concerns about nontheism and keeps us in at least superficial fellowship with each other.
In tension with this function, however, FGC also tries to revive, rediscover, or rearticulate, the binding, unifying center through its religious education, bookstore, A&O, and other ministries. On balance, I think it has been more successful with the former than the latter, but I appreciate the extent to which it recognizes the need to do both.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Wed, 11 Apr 2007 06:38:09 +0000

@Barb: not an Anglican, noooo! Maybe we should have you over for dinner if we can find a time when our crazy work schedules line up–I’m lucky to see Julie for an hour a day. I say that in part because Julie can go on for _hours_ about Anglicans… PS: thanks!, a more effusive thanks on the way.
@Craig: I was thinking about this the other day. There is actually an FGC committee that’s charged with defining what it means to be an FGC Friend: the “Advancement & Outreach committee”:www.fgcquaker.org/ao, for whom I was paid staff person for my last year there (the _advancement_ part of the name is shorthand for “advancing the principles of Quakerism”). Whether A&O is broadly recognized in its role as speaking for FGC is an open question–both within and without the organization–but it’s telling that the blogosphere frequently cites the workshop committee and rarely the A&O committee. Is FGC who it says it is (A&O) or what it does (workshop selection)?
FGC doesn’t try to play referee (it’s strength and weakness as I’ve written before). It’s not a denominational body but a free association. By its founding logic, it’s entirely appropriate that it might sponsor something that a majority of its members think is inappropriate. It’s natural but wrong to then think this is a stamp of approval. FGC has the “big tent” approach of an association and it’s to be expected that some members will disagree with other members. Respect for each other and the sincerity of one another’s seeking is essential but respect for our approaches is not (which is why “I like non-theists but have strong concerns about non-theism”:https://www.quakerranter.org/whats_god_got_to_do_got_to_do_with_it.php). There’s great freedom and joy in FGC’s approach but it is essentially centrifugal. The social norms and institutions that might hold together a center have been largely dismantled, which is the concern I’m trying to raise here.
ps: as many know “LizOpp”:http://thegoodraisedup.blogspot.com/ was on this year’s workshop selection committee and I’m sure she brought her typical thoughtfulness and care to the process. This isn’t at all about her, it’s about our tendency to give the workshop committee’s choices more meaning than they’re meant to hold.