Comments on: Is it Convergent to talk about Convergence?

By: John K.

John K. — Sun, 03 Aug 2008 14:20:46 +0000

To me the attraction and the truth of the idea of "convergent Friends" is this: that the "conservative" branch of Friends has got it more right than either the evangelical branch or the FGC branch, particularly in its "conserving" of unprogrammed worship on the one hand and the primacy of scripture and Jesus Christ on the other, and that therefore both the evangelical branch and the FGC branch should learn from and "converge" towards the conservative branch, and on this basis seek greater unity. On the other hand, there are things about the conservative branch that seem non-essential and peculiar, such as their peculiar style of "plain dress" and "plain speech. Not that I don't see the value in such pecularities/hedges/distinctions, but there are good reasons on the other side for not adopting them, and therefore such things should not be a focus point in our convergence, and individual Friends and Friends meetings can follow their own leadings in such matters. This whole idea of "conserving" has a much longer and more venerable history of wider and more fundamental applications than this peculiar idea of "convergence," and so perhaps our emphasis should be -- more simply -- on re-affirming the essential role of "conservatism" in religious faith and practice. While Christianity and Quakerism is a living faith, it is a faith that is necessarily passed on from generation to generation, and so it depends for its continued vitality upon the basic "conservative" principle that (in the formulation of the conservative anarchist Albert Jay Nock) when it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change. Of course, discernment will still be needed to see when in fact it really is necessary to change, and disagreements on such points will still inevitably occur, but it seems to me that Quakerism as a living faith would be much more vital and its identity clearer if we shared this basic "conservative" presumption against unnecessary change (and if changes that have already been made unnecessarily were rolled back to seek our center.) Unfortunately, the word "conservative" understandably carries negative connotations for many Friends. This is something we'll have to work to get over in order to regain among Friends a truer understanding of what it means to "conserve," and to forge more unity with the branch of Friends who already describe themselves as "conservative." On the other hand, I am also attracted to the other idea conveyed by the label "convergent" -- namely, the idea that the so-called "Emergent Church"'s embracing of postmodernism and evangelism has a lot to offer Quakers. I especially find congenial the postmodern idea that truth is found in experience rather than propositions. But I wonder -- isn't this an insight that has already been emphasized by Quakers from the very beginning? It appears to me that the Emergent Church movement, while offering valuable insights for our times, has much more of the flavor of a "fad" than does the perennial idea of "conservatism," and so I am much more skeptical of the wisdom of emphasizing it. As a fad, it has a lot of potential to turn people off and create artificial divisions. As for the Emergent Church's emphasis on evangelism -- this likewise has been something that Quakers did from the beginning, and is something that is clearly enjoined in the gospels. A renewed emphasis on conservatism therefore should be enough to help Friends rediscover its importance. Indeed, the "official" conservative branches of Quakerism in Ohio and North Carolina already appear to be rediscovering its importance with their efforts at outreach. The perennial Quaker insight (rediscovered by postmodernism and the Emergent Church) that truth is found in experience rather than propositions creates a tension that has existed from the beginning. I myself have to admit that, while I can say that I know from experience that God exists and that He loves us, I am merely persuaded (by a preponderance of the evidence), and therefore "believe" in only a contingent fashion, that Jesus rose from the dead and is the incarnation of God himself. I can't say that I know these propositions about Jesus to be true, and can't say that I believe our salvation hinges on those propositions being true or on our believing those propositions to be true. Thinking of those self-described "non-Christian" Quakers who worry that they would be excluded from a more conservative Quakerism, I wonder why the "official" declarations of belief of a more conservative Quakerism couldn't be along the lines I've just described, acknowledging the contingent nature of belief in propositional statements while affirming that as a corporate body we nevertheless are "persuaded" and "believe" that Jesus rose from the dead and is God incarnate, and that we strive to live according to his message. Even the more dogmatic churches do not shut their doors to doubters. On the other hand, for the sake of the integrity and vitality of our Society, I would like to see a Quakerism in which a "Friend" who was actually convinced that the Christian gospel is hogwash would be a walking contradiction. John K.

By: wessdaniels.wordpress.com

wessdaniels.wordpress.com — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 22:51:57 +0000

David - Thanks for you comments. I want to respond to your point about the stability of the "movement," and I think (hope) you will see I am in agreement with you. First, we have tried very hard to not call convergent Friends a movement, we really don't see it as that. We have stressed that it's a sensibility, a conversation, and/or a characterizing friendship. So, secondly, yes it is unstable and we really, I think I can speak for others, don't want it to be stable. At least, if by stable we mean institutionalized, drawing an income for all people involved, appointing this or that official and seeking to replace other structures already in place. This is a vision I personally reject. But we are trying to get grassroots change to take place. If in 1, 2, 3, or 10 years from now no one knows of CF I will not be sad, it's just one name, among many, to signify what we believe God is attempting to do among our tradition. Ryan Bolger and Eddie Gibbs, in an article I recently read called, "Postmodern Forms of Church," argued that all these emerging churches are unstable, a bad thing from a modern perspective, but a strength from a postmodern one (or at least not all bad). Finally, I think that the underlying theological and practical assumptions of the CF preclude even the possiblity of a megachurch model. I am very skeptical such an idea is even tenable, so I wouldn't worry about eating words too soon! Thanks again for your comments.

By: Ashley W

Ashley W — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 20:11:31 +0000

Hi Martin, I was thinking about the question at the end of your post and the conversation about convergence at Freedom Friends Church (or, really, lack of a conversation) and it turned into a post instead of a comment: http://questforadequacy.blogspot.com/2008/07/in-gods-hands.html Thank you for challenging us to do more with convergence than just talk about it! --Ashley

By: david

david — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:21:07 +0000

I have to agree with Bill about whether it is a lasting “movement”.
I think convergent is basically a term for revitalization of FGC-based meetings using added helpings of some things that those meetings put on the side of the road many years ago.
I also agree with Wess on two points, first that emergent may also not be a lasting “movement,” just also a philosophy that helps reguide communities. And second that there are a lot of people within existing communities that identify as conservative-leaning. Rather than being ostracized for those leanings (or should I say leadings?), which might have been the norm 15–20 years ago, I think we are seeing, in the last five years, some signs of catalysis around exactly these Friends and their leanings/leadings. This I personally know from NYYM and SAYMA.
It’s way too soon to start gauging the importance of newly seeded communities. If any convergent megachurches spring up, though, I will be happy to eat my words. The real value, so far, of “convergent” is in some reconnecting to God and Jesus within FGC-land which is going on.

By: wessdaniels.wordpress.com

wessdaniels.wordpress.com — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 23:28:14 +0000

Martin, great thoughts and I completely agree with you on your main point/amendment. To be entirely evangelical there's a sense in which the great commission needs to be behind this. That sense of "go" (or mission as sharing the good news) is to be the fundamental starting point for all the church not just this little group. While you call it an Amendment, I do want to suggest that this has been an important part of this entire thing for at least some of us. The very reason why I personally got interested in this is because of the point you make, and I know you, robin and others have been on the same page the whole time. Regardless, it's a good corrective and reminder. Bill - I'm a bit surprised by your comment. It's weird to me that you want to draw some kind of line between "emerging Quaker congregations" and the convergent Friends. For one, there's no more than 10 congregations we could rightly call emerging (so far as I know) and it's a pretty early phenomena. I know of people who consider themselves convergent friends within at least some of these groups. Plus, there's hundreds of convergent friends, enough to say it's a strong gathering of Quakers representing all the branches of Friends. I just did a workshop at woodbrooke for FAHE on the subject and there were professors and faculty there from Fox, Earlham, Haverford, Swarthmore and Guilford, all saying they have students who are interested in convergent friends and want to know more. That's why they came to the workshop. Lots of pastoral Friends present, so I guess I'm making a bit of an apologetic and saying there's more really exciting things happening than you may realize. In my mind, from the very beginning of this entire conversation and the shape it now has, has always been about the emerging church and Quakerism. That is what convergent friends started as - a group of Friends (pastoral and unprogrammed) saying, "hey there's something to this!" Yes, we also stress the importance of conservative friends (that part where they seek to be faithful too and conserve the lively parts of our tradition) but this stressing gets played out in the context of postmodernism. In my recent blog post I discussed the importance of holding "mission" and "tradition" together -- here I would switch out the word "mission" for "emerging" or that sense of being contextual and organic and say this needs to be played out in the context of a faithful and living tradition. This tension is something that is essential in my view. If you have one without the other then we're not doing something right. A lot (most in the US) of emerging churches are non-denominational, multi-traditional churches and this is a leftover of the individualism of modernity. I am truly interested in what it means to be an authentically Christian Quaker within our current cultural context. It's also the case that just because a group or meeting calls itself "emerging" doesn't mean it is. Because the "is" is much more difficult to get at, and there's no model or paradigm from which to import in, and if there were it'd hardly be emerging. My sense is that there's a lot of meetings that don't call themselves emerging who may be even more than those who do us the term. Just about every emerging church of the hundred surveyed in the Bolger and Gibbs text (2005) does not use that term within their name, or even as self-descriptors. So, I think the work needs to be done first on what it even means and looks like to have an "emerging quaker meeting" before we appeal to those who have a recognition of the term as our authority on the matter. If anything I see the convergent friends and emerging meetings being two-sides of the same coin, and for some of us (who are convergent and in one of these meetings it may not even be separate sides!). Convergent Friends applaud these kinds of innovative meetings, we're excited about them and hope to be a resource for them (It's not the only thing we're concerning ourselves with, but I think it's fair to say we're all excited it's happening). The Lord knows we've covered a lot of literature on the subject! But further, what we're doing is trying to open up the cracks in the institutional walls, the cobb-webby meetings, and the dispassionate Friends in our tradition to help people dream and have imagination about what our faith and practices can look like in the 21st century. So for me, it's hard to imagine how there really could be one without the other. I feel like we have seen, or at least I have (I don't want to speak for others), a noticeable impact already. If convergent friends dropped off the face of the planet tomorrow I will feel like it would have been all worth it, and I feel like it will have left enough of an impression to hopefully keep the sparks flying. No reason to write it off from where I'm sitting. On the other hand, and following Martin's cue, let's not take either of these terms "convergent" or "emergent" to seriously. They'll both be out, and who really cares? The kingdom of God is what matters, that's what remains, not terms or little groups, or what-have-you. These are helpful now, because we believe their a response to the stirrings of the kingdom, but if we think it will be the same in 10-15 years then we're already reverting back to a Christendom model of church.

By: Bill Samuel

Bill Samuel — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 21:53:20 +0000

I know of at least 4 worshipping groups which call themselves Emergent Quaker, 3 pastoral and 1 non-pastoral. Most of them don't seem much tied into the Convergent Friends conversation. Are there any which call themselves Convergent Friends? Convergent Friends gets a lot of attention because it is very public being based in blogs. But on the ground the Emergent Quaker movement seems much stronger. I guess one difference is that the Emergent Quaker movement doesn't tend to feel much of a connection to Conservative Friends, while the CF conversation sometimes does. And Emergent Quakers are definitely interested in sharing the Good News. There is actually considerable interest among pastoral Friends in learning from the Emerging Church movement. But most of them do not seem interested in Convergent Friends, and some of them are downright suspicious of it, mainly because elements of it seem to shy away from a focus on Jesus Christ. Will "Convergent Friends" fade from the scene without leaving much of a noticeable impact? I think that's a real possibility.

By: Cathy Habschmidt

Cathy Habschmidt — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:39:37 +0000

Hi, Martin, I don't think we've ever conversed, but I really appreciate your work with quakerquaker.org as well as your own blog. Thanks. Thanks also for this post. I, too, have been struggling with discussions about Convergent Friends. I like this point you made: If all we're doing is sitting around talking to roomfulls of Quakers in our hopeless-inaccessible lingo then we're fooling ourselves that any real renewal is happening. When I first heard about Convergent Friends (in Robin's article in Friends Journal) I was beside myself with joy. I had been feeling for some time the movement of the Spirit towards a renewal among Friends, and here was confirmation that I was not alone. Others were being blown in a similar direction, and from many different places. Praise God! was my immediate reaction. But our paths have not been made to cross just so we can sit back and marvel that our paths are crossing! We are called to live more authentic lives of faith and thereby help to bring about the Kingdom of God right here and now. We have been brought together to kick each of us out of our comfort zones and open us up to the presence of the Living Christ among us. We need each other for spiritual growth and encouragement. We don't need each other for debating what we should be called or who should be considered "in" or "not in." Thanks for opening up this conversation in a way that encourages me. I am 100% aligned with the (Liberal Christian/Conservative Quaker/Progressive Evangelical) renewal that is upon us. I'm just finding no life in continuing to discuss "Convergent Friends" as if that should be our common goal. It is a convenient label so we can find each other, but then the label needs to be set aside so we can do the important task set before us: working for the Kingdom of God. Cathy Habschmidt Ohio Valley YM Richmond, Indiana

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 19:21:47 +0000

I'm not at all interested in an argument with you. If you want to write about your beliefs on your blog, that's fine, but don't start filling my comments up. You disagree. Great: noted. Now please move on, thanks.