Thank you to everyone who refrained from commenting after 9pm last night. I finally slogged through the work of putting the FGC Gathering program online in my role as FGC webmaster. Whoo-whee! For those who don’t know, the Gathering is a week-long conference held at different locations each summer: this year’s takes place Seventh Month 2 – 9 in Blacksburg, Virginia.
Now I guess it’s time to think about workshops. Zach Moon and I are offering up one called “Strangers to the Covenant” but then you know that already. Liz Oppenheimer aka the The Good Raised Up is leading one called “Quaker Identity: Yearning, Forming, Deepening” that I suspect will be informed by her “own experience of stepping into a Quaker identity”. There’s also an exciting history workshop being led by Betsy Cazden, “Dilemmas from Our Quaker Past” (I have to admit when I saw the listing I wondered if I should call Zach up and assure him he’d be fine doing the Strangers workshop on his own so I could take Betsy’s). Other mentions: my wife Julie really liked the Lynn Fitz-Hugh workshop she took a few years ago.
As always there are workshops whose leaders I know to be more solid and grounded than the workshop they’re proposing; conversely, there are workshops that sound more interesting than I know their leader to be. Like always there are plenty whose appeal and/or relevance to Quakerism I just don’t comprehend at all, but that’s the Gathering.
Any recommendations from the peanut gallery? I should say that I’d like to refrain from ridiculing all of the workshops that beg to be made fun of. It feels as if this would edge too close to detraction. We will only get to Kingdom by modeling Christian charity and wearing our love on our sleeves.
I should say that I’d like to refrain from ridiculing all of the workshops that beg to be made fun of. It feels as if this would edge too close to detraction. We will only get to Kingdom by modeling Christian charity and wearing our love on our sleeves.
I admit, as your doppleganger, that I was tempted at doing the very same thing. I even hinted to doing such in one of my recent posts. Your comment suitably reinforced my hesitation for doing so based on similar reasons.
Having noted that, here are the workshops that strike my initial fancy (if I were to attend, that is, but I am still in doubt regarding):
13. The Blessed Worship Community
16. Dilemmas from Our Quaker Past
18. Elias Hicks, Quaker Conservative
22. Feminine God in the Hebrew Prophets
25. The Gospel of John
26. Le Chambon’s Nonviolent Resistence & its challenge to Friends Today
35. The Power of Early Quakerism
36. Quaker Identity: Yearning, Forming, Deepening
38. Quakers and the Historical Jesus
40. Rufus Jones & Modern Quakerism
43. Walking with Gandhi
61. Spirit-led Eldering as Essential
Hmm, that’s all for now.
By the way, the site looks great!
At first I wanted to put in a plug for the workshop leaders that are coming from San Francisco and Pacific Yearly Meeting. But it turns out there are a lot more than I could comment on.
I won’t be at the Gathering this year. Can’t afford the time off of work and the four plane tickets for FGC and PYM this summer, but I have put it on our family calendar to be in Washington next summer.
But if I were going, I would want to take the workshop on Clerking. I’ve heard it was good in past years. How do people actually listen for the leadings of the Spirit in others? On the spot and in real time? How do I get past my own opinion to what is Truth?
Is it detraction to say that I think some of the advance reading lists are overkill?
The workshops that I would be considering, if I myself weren’t slated to offer one (#36 in Joe G’s list), would be
13. The Blessed Worship Community
22. Feminine God in the Hebrew Prophets
35. The Power of Early Quakerism
61. Spirit-led Eldering as Essential.
Some that appear on Joe’s list do not appeal to me because of the presenter. Others do not appeal to me because of the material.
People spoke pretty highly of Tony Prete (#22) when he gave a plenary address at a recent Gathering; I’ve been somewhat taken by Deborah Haines’ perspective on Friends (#35), though her workshop might be more history than I can bear in a week, and I don’t know Deborah H. as a presenter. And someone I know was in Margery Larrabee’s workshop on Eldering (#61) and liked it, so I’d be curious to be a fly on the wall. I’m also glad for Julie’s earlier praise for The Blessed Worship Community (#13).
But I know that a successful, engaging workshop often depends on the participants as well as the workshop leader…
As for the Clerking workshop, I attended Art’s workshop last year. I have mixed feelings about it: He does have a wealth of information at his fingertips, as evidenced by the inch-thick packet that we each purchased from him (required). Art raises important questions that helped ground me in why Friends do things the way we do, and his passion and joy for Quakerism are contagious – reasons enough to sign up for the workshop.
But I personally hoped for opportunities to practice clerking within the workshop, and there was no room for that. At times I felt Art put his packet of papers ahead of the experiential practice of the participants – but then again, I’m more of an experiential learner and presenter.
(I hope I don’t eat these words in the course of guiding Friends through #36 this summer!)
Blessings,
Liz
Is there a Gathering committee that screens workshop ideas or is it pretty much anyone who wants to lead a workshop can do it? Are there criteria for who can lead one? My sense is that the guidelines for content are pretty open, are there any rules?
Peace,
Robin
Workshop 35 Recommended
I should say that I’d like to refrain from ridiculing all of the workshops that beg to be made fun of. It feels as if this would edge too close to detraction. We will only get to Kingdom by modeling Christian charity and wearing our love on our sleeves.
Thank you, Martin. I appreciate your discipline. I too am concerned that a culture among unprogrammed Friends has limitations which endanger our survival. I must say, however, that your posts have pushed more than a few of my buttons and before this I have not found a way to respond.
I see myself as a convinced Friend attracted to the Religious Society of Friends through its spiritual, mystical roots. I am a member of Madison Monthly Meeting, a large, urban, often grounded :), seldom welcoming 🙁 meeting in Madison, Wisconsin. I, too, long for more “authentic” experiences in my community but for now put my energies into attempting to support the middle- and high school-aged youth of my meeting.
On the other hand, it was through the meetings (mostly “Liberal”) that I have attended that I have grown from my Christophobic past to a present eager to better understand the Christ that early Friends knew. From this perspective, I highly recommend
Deborah Haines’ workshop 35, The Power of Early Quakerism. Deborah is one who I see is at once passionate about Quakerism, and humble about her place in it. As much as our Quaker culture can be exclusive, she works tirelessly to live from a place of inclusion. Her ministry speaks this, and on more than one occasion in last year’s workshop unsettled some of the all-too-comfortable in the group.
Having said that, I don’t know how welcome I feel here. I’m an old fart (turned 50 two weeks ago and tooting away). As an assisting clerk of a FGC program committee and former co-clerk of two Junior Gathering committees, I guess I’m part of the FGC “establishment”, although I’ve been attending about 15 years and a member a little over 10. I don’t believe I have it all figured out, and that’s one of the beauties of my journey that I see. I’ve done Quaker committee work for most of those 15. It was because of Deborah that I joined Central Committee a few years ago. I now work harder on any committee (Advancement & Outreach) than I ever have.
In response to your question, Robin, anyone can propose to lead a workshop. There is a rather elaborate process through which workshops are accepted for Gathering, however. I wish I could put my fingers on the present guidelines, but don’t have them right now. To lead a workshop for 2006 in Tacoma, for example, one would do well to start preparing now, with the idea of making an application early this summer.
The workshop subcommittee of each Gathering Planning Committee works long hours, many of them in the summer and fall before gathering discerning which of the many workshops proposed will be selected. The workshop subcommittee meetings that I’ve sat in on have seemed to be quite grounded.
Anyway, I hope that this has been helpful.
AardlyQuaking,
Dave
There is a workshop subcommittee of the Gathering Committee. The guidelines for that subcommittee state:
Things to Consider When Reviewing Proposals
General Questions (used to decide on the proposal itself)
• Do I personally know this person or this person’s work or abilities?
• Does this “feel” like a good workshop?
• Does this workshop challenge us as Friends?
• Is this a safe place to examine who we are and what we are about?
• Does this workshop fit in with the overall tenor of spirituality and good process?
Balance Issues (used by the workshop committee to evaluate the workshops for the Gathering as a whole)
• Topics
• Leader style; Leader outlook
• Where the leader is from geographically?
• Gender
• Age
There is a lot of subjectivity in selecting workshos for the Gathering. The committee is restricted to a specific maximum number of workshops (based on the expected attendance.) Also, all leaders are expected to submit a support letter from someone who knows them and has experienced their workshop.
It’s more an art than a science, and sometimes a (Quakerly) gamble.
Hiya Robin,
I heard that you’re in NJ right now but I’ll post this anyway just in case you want to read it later when you get a chance. I’m no expert on FGC Gathering procedure, but I can say that I was on the workshop subcommittee a few years ago. Boy was it a complete nightmare. It was an AWFUL experience, but certainly one of the many that precipitated my leaving Quakerism. Liz Perch, the gathering coordinator (FGC staff) had recommended me and seemed to really hope that I’d do it, but I did NOT want to. I ended up doing it as a sort of a favor to her, because she’d asked me and I felt guilty! (Sometimes resistance is useless!) I had a feeling I’d be a sort of sacrificial lamb and I wondered if she suspected as much. And I guess I was.
Speaking from my experience, I will just say that my understanding is that the workshop subcommittee is merely a rubber stamping body. It has *NO REAL POWER* and those on it who raise legitimate objections or questions as to a workshop’s content are not welcome. The only “legitimate” objections pertained to:
(1) The capacity of the leader. (Usually only extreme cases.) In other words, if the leader was not known to the subcommittee or others or they’ve heard rumors as to the capability of such persons in the past or in other contexts. One notable question the year I was on the subcommittee was when one or two elderly people submitteed proposals and individuals on the committee had heard that this individual was having memory problems or something. Usually any questions as to the capability of a potential leader had nothing whatsoever to do with questionable references, mental stability, or anything like that. These concerns were usually based only on rumor or lack of familiarity with the person involved. It felt sort of icky.
(2) The other objection that could be “legitimately” raised was when there was an overabundance of a type of workshop. At the beginning of the subcommittee meetings a list is compiled of all the types of workshops that are needed and how many of each (like dance, bicycling, “Quakerism,” couple enrichment, etc.). If only three dance/movement workshops are seen as needed given the projected attendance that year and the need in past years and six are submitted, several will be declined.
So the point here is that *THEOLOGICAL OBJECTIONS WERE NOT SEEN AS LEGITIMATE ONES.* I assume that this is true from year to year simply because of the nature of the subcommittee and the amount of power delegated to it (or lack thereof). I raised objections to several workshops based on content before I gave up (realizing the above), understanding this was useless. Also, the clerk of the subcommittee that year really, really detested me. Not a warm and friendly individual.
Also – an aside – I was supposed to have been clerk or co-clerk of the committee that year, and when I showed up in Pittsburgh and they saw how old I was, I was immediately DE-clerked. The less-than-integrity-filled gathering clerks that year had the pleasure of telling me in a very backwards and dishonest way. I confronted them about the age factor but they denied it vigorously (but not very believably – boy did they squirm)! But that’s a story in its own right.
I think it should be mentioned that, from my perspective on the subcommittee, leaders’ references were not checked (maybe it’s seen as too daunting a task) and there were no background checks done. It is my understanding that things have tightened up a little at FGC on this front since that time, but I nonetheless found this laxity disturbing. Some of the proposals submitted were truly odd and I questioned the mental state of the proposers. One such workshop, I recall, dealt with goldfish training. Apparently I was the only one who thought this was just a teeny bit weird. I also objected to the nontheism workshops for what I considered to be obvious reasons. One other man on the committee older than I voiced similar objections and was heard (actually, tolerated)more than I, but we were both basically ignored. Since he could not make one of the following meetings (and instead sent a letter along with his concerns) he was easier to ignore and I was just belittled by the clerk (literally) for having the nerve to object. We also both objected to the past life workshop. All these workshops, you will note, are in the gathering program this year being offered again. So nothing’s changed.
The only workshop that was questionable was the sweat lodge workshop. The red herring for this one was the potentially racist component. But since it had been allowed for so many years in this and other contexts the precedent was seen as hard to fight. Of course there was also lots of stuff going on behind the scenes at Central Committee, and ultimately this was the rationale for initially declining the workshop (ie: “they told us we should decline it so we have to”). In addition there’s lots of age stuff going on around this workshop/sweatlodge stuff. Since primarily young adult birthrights are involved they are listened to with greater interest. Theological objections to the sweatlodge are unheard of. In a public sense, to the best of my knowledge, Martin and I are the only ones who’ve actually stood up and voiced objections from a Quaker theological point of view. It’s my perspective that the concern about the sweatlodge’s racist content, although on some level certainly legitimate, is an excuse to avoid real issues of age and theology and RE problems. Basically it’s an opportunity to avoid a good hard look at liberal Quakerism today and how it’s failing just about anybody under 45.
Before I close I should also state that, at the time I served on the subcommittee, there were NO stated goals, outlines or parameters as to the role of the subcommittee set forward by the subcommittee itself or Central Committee. So for those of us who had not served on the committee in the past (most of us) it was a feel-as-you-go sort of thing. I did not know going into it that theological objections were considered inappropriate and we were to merely screen out excess workshops. None of this was articulated.
I guess that’s it, and that’s certainly more than I intended to say. If you have any questions about my experiences on the subcommittee I’d be happy to try to answer.
God bless,
Julie
Oh boy, a simple post saying I got a project done and now: look at these comments. Ay-ya-ya! So in order:
Dave: It’s great to see you here, you’re certainly very welcome to visit, comment, etc. Congratulations on the big 5 – 0. Much as I might like to rag on your age, I’m close enough (38 this past Firt Day) that I can dimly imagine hitting 50 myself someday.
I do say outrageous things sometimes but I hope it’s out of love and I try to find ways to talk about the joy of what I’ve found as I’ve delved deeper into Quakerism. I most often call myself a “Conservative Liberal Quaker” since if you push me too hard on any theological fine point you’ll find me a liberal. That’s a great plug for Deborah’s workshop; I suspect it will attract a great bunch of participants.
***
Liz P: thanks for the official guidelines. It’s great to see them. I don’t suspect Robin expected the Gathering coordinator to answer her query!
***
Julie: I’m a little uneasy with the comment, just because I specifically don’t want to get into a bashing session (even if it’s been at least partially earned). But your experience is important and seeing that we have two central committee members and one staffperson commenting already, there’s obviously some interest in this conversation.
My understanding is that for better or worse Friends General Conference is theologically neutral. It’s embedded deep within the basic DNA of the organization. It’s the rock from which everything else starts (metaphor chosen specifically to make Julie go “ahh!”). It’s a strength, it’s a weakness, it’s just something that’s there. If one isn’t comfortable working within that framework (and there are good reasons why someone wouldn’t be) then it’s hard to serve in it.
Personally, although I have my concerns, I think FGC does a good job trying to sort through the issues. While many of the Gathering workshops are pretty flakey that’s simply representative of the larger Quaker world. Any sort of top-down decision by FGC staff or committees won’t change that. There simply is no sort of theological unity point from which we might try to define what is or isn’t a Quaker workshop.
The needed change is a cultural one and that takes time, patience and lots of prayer to get through the inevitable frustrations. The only way we’ll have a more substantive Gathering is by having a more substantive and self-knowledgable liberal Quakerism. That means:
* Publishing. See Chuck Fager’s “Beyond the Age of Amnesia”:http://quaker.org/quest/issue3‑4.html on twentieth century FGC history. See Betsy Cazden’s awesome “Fellowships, Conferences And Associations: The Limits Of The Liberal Quaker Reinvention Of Meeting Polity”:http://www.quakerbooks.org/get/11 – 99-01524 – 5
* Substantive workshops. Liz Oppenheimer’s “Quaker identity”:http://www.fgcquaker.org/gathering/workshops/work36.php workshop, Deborah Haine’s power of “early Quakerism workshop”:http://www.fgcquaker.org/gathering/workshops/work35.php, my workshop with Zach Moon focusing on how “younger Friends can reclaim and rediscover Quakerism”:http://www.fgcquaker.org/gathering/workshops/work49.php.
* Websites, blogs, long commentaries on posts.
* Vocal ministry in meeting (I gave some this past First Day at Kalamazoo; ughh!, how I hated and resisted giving that message).
* Volleyball games (see “A Simple Testimony”:http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/archives/000560.php): real love given with no calculation of rank or politics.
I think many people would love to see the substantive workshops become more popular. There is a movement of the Spirit, there is a deepening happening, but it will only be made manifest if we can share the joy and – yes – fill up those workshops. So again, let’s focus on the ones we like and kind of ignore those goldfish workshops.
So many comments, so little time. smile
First, for the record, Liz P and I are two different people. Liz P (FGC staff person) made the comment about the guidelines that are used by the workshop subcommittee. I can see I’m going to have to return to signing my comments as “Liz Opp” again.
Second, I’m not sure where I stand with the implied question, “How Quaker should FGC’s Gathering workshops really be?”
At my first Gathering (Kalamazoo 1995), I was not ready for a Quaker workshop. I wasn’t even ready to be in worship on a daily basis, such as with Friends for LGBTQ Concerns. It was a huge stretch just for me to be at the Gathering. …Much of my free time in the afternoon was spent playing volleyball and feeling joy in the spirit of fellowship in doing so. But I came home from that Gathering exhilirated and swept off my feet by the power of Love and Joy that I experienced nonetheless, and I took a huge step in my Quaker development:
I hadn’t realized that Quakers from around the country, let alone the continent and the world, knew and experienced the power of the Spirit through unprogrammed worship and Spirit-based fellowship as I had. I had found a larger context than just my monthly meeting which supported and affirmed the faith tradition I was exploring.
So my early experience at the Gathering confirms for me that, just as “FGC is more than the Gathering,” the Gathering is more than just its workshops.
And there also was my stint as a workshop leader for a number of years, providing the very popular workshop, “Bringing Our Shadow into the Light.” I was too young in my Quakerism to be able to lift up concepts like “answering that of God in one another” or “allowing God to speak directly to us about our condition.” But there were longer periods of worship and worship sharing for Friends during the time together, and I believe participants brought their own Quakerism to the table, consequently helping the workshop stay connected to some form of our faith and practice. And in the years since then, Friends from that workshop still approach me and tell me how their participation in the Quaker community has been affected as a result of that experience. In retrospect, I have asked myself, Where was the Quakerism in that workshop? Yet clearly, there were fruits…
And now of course, here I am today, in a different place in my Quaker journey, yet nowhere near the end of it. I have doubted if I have the right to share ideas about Quaker identity, but I am trusting the leading I experienced and the discernment of others as I’ve explored and prepared.
I think there are many doors through which we pass as we grow as Quakers. A closed door for one Friend may lead to a secret passage for another.
We need to be careful in selecting our gatekeepers, and we need to be careful of how many locks to put on the doors. And our “gatekeepers,” such clerks of Gathering workshop subcommittees and other (sub)committees, need to have training, eldership, and support if they are to be effective, principled, and Spirit-led.
The last point I’ll make for now is that it’s a difficult and slippery slope to navigate, once FGC considers, and the Gathering offers, workshops that draw heavily on a faith tradition outside of Quakerism, or if the balance of workshops at Gathering leans too far to non-Quaker related topics, perhaps.
Overall, though, from where I sit, the Gathering seems to fill a niche in the larger Quaker gestalt of contemporary liberal Friends, and I’m glad it is what it is for now.
Blessings,
Liz Opp
Well, I didn’t know that the actual coordinator would answer my question, but I’m glad to have clear information. I wonder about the high level of subjectivity of choosing workshop leaders and topics, but I know I don’t have a better suggestion of how to do it.
For the last few years, I have found it useful just to read the descriptions of the workshops that are offered: a question is posed each time, a small bit of spiritual nudging comes through, as I take a minute or much longer to consider would I want to take this one? And sometimes, even though the answer for me is no, I am able to clarify my thinking a little bit more about what is Quakerism, what calls to me in my spiritual journey, what have I not considered previously.
Without the workshop descriptions, I wouldn’t have thought about theistic vs. non-theistic Quakers, even though I know one of the leaders of a non-theist workshop — I wouldn’t have known that about her. Wondering about Meeting for Bicycling helps me to remember to (try to) pray without ceasing. Elias Hicks: Quaker Conservative helps me to think about the vagaries of Quaker history and the muddle we are in today.
A couple of leaders I know have had to pull their thoughts together much more thoroughly and explicitly because they had signed up to lead a workshop on one of their favorite topics. It’s been good for them, at the very least.
I agree with Martin’s line, “While many of the Gathering workshops are pretty flakey that’s simply representative of the larger Quaker world,” and his list of things that will be required to move Quakerism into a new century of renewed faith and practice. I’d like to reframe and re-emphasize one: TEACHING. Whether it is leading FGC workshops on the substantive topics that inspire us or telling Bible stories to preschoolers or studying the life of Samuel Bownas, etc. with high schoolers or leaning into the teachable moments in committee meetings. We all have to do a better job of passing on the power of our faith in the flesh and blood, imperfect Meetings that we have.
(The problem with writing this online or even speaking about it in groups is that the people who have done the most already often feel most acutely that they haven’t done enough. Please consider, if you feel offended, that if the shoe doesn’t fit, you don’t have to wear it.:)
Re: posting/blogging online: My growing sense is that in many Meetings, there are a few people, and more and more, who share this sense of wanting deeper, more authentic Quaker experience of God in community. These internet connections are one way of nurturing these infant ministers and elders — of helping one know that one is not alone, even when it looks that way to the naked eye — when one feels that way among the people one can actually see. To dare to ask questions and share our own practice, to be “at once passionate about Quakerism, and humble about [our] place in it” — I love that line too. But how much more powerful then to take the time to visit one another. To go to Meeting in other towns and seek out the lonely hearts, yearning for God in community, especially when we know some of their names. [Martin, you may want to delete this part if it is a risk to say this online, but my family was recently in New Jersey for non-Quaker reasons, and had the lovely experience of meeting him and his family. It is important to me to go beyond online communication when God leads us close enough to make it possible.] The next step for me will be to take our young people to meet other young Friends in their too-small local groups.
Vocal ministry in a new place is difficult for me, but sometimes feels unavoidable. I never know how what I have heard and passed on will be heard by those I don’t know and who don’t know me. Maybe this is one reason why Friends used to require clearness from their Meeting and traveling minutes before traveling in the ministry. But my most recent experience (last month in southern California) was very positive — I had this very experience of being able to connect with some of the other Friends who were experimenting with deeper Quakerism in an otherwise very socially active/theogically diverse Meeting.