Comments on: Packing our own bags at the checkout line

By: Joe G.

Joe G. — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 23:01:59 +0000

Pam originally wrote: I am happy if they find something that feels “deeper” or “more meaningful” to them, but I have to say, if keeping those “gifted ministers” in our liberal meetings has anything to do with accepting the sort of “my way of the highway” flirtation with dogmatism that I often hear behind such declarations, I am willing to wish them well and wave goodbye… Perhaps those that leave aren’t so much “deeper” or “brainier”, but those who, when fully open to the light find there’s nothing there inside their souls, and need to run back to the Bible for “filler”... Given that Martin originally referenced my post about liberal Quakerism and me, and given that I have very publicly written about leaving the fold, I assume that I am indirectly referred to in Pam's comments. I have to admit, I have not been referred to as "flirting with dogmatism" in a long time. I mean, do I know how to flirt and then really dig deep into dogmatism when I was a fundamentalist. Let's be clear - I never referred to specific individuals in all the posts I made that criticized or pointed out what I saw as problems. I always was referring to the ORGANIZATIONAL level of liberal Quakerism and not to specific individuals. For God's sake, I've done much of the very same thing that I was critical of others for doing! My own clearness committee about my remaining in the RSoF confronted me on the very "individualism" that I pointed my waving finger at others with, and they were completely accurate! Please understand that I am referring to things that I have seen or been a part of for 20 years and that it has little to do with you or anyone else that is similar to you. I never meant for anyone to take it personally (and a few folks, such as Nancy A. have seemed to appreciate my critique of one of her posts). As to being "deeper" or "brainer" or "gifted ministers"- I never used those adjectives to describe myself, nor have I ever known anyone to use them of me. If they do, then they are incorrect. What was difficult to read was the "finding nothing" in my soul, even after being open to the Light, and then running to the Bible for "filler". Ouch! Pam is not the only one to chide me: I've gotten other emails about running to clergy to answer all of my questions, depending on creeds/dogmas to do the "hard" word for me, or that I will undoubtably find any rituals pale in comparison to unprogrammed worship (since, the implication is, that all rituals are unltimately "empty" or inferior to sitting in a room of silence once a week). I understand that these are long, hardy ideas that have been a part of Friends since its inception - and is still very much alive today. In fact, George would have chided me even more so: he would have called me a hypocrite, going back to being a "professor" and not one truly guided by the Inward Light. And, at one time, I believed, very strongly I will note, the same thing. But, I no longer hold to those ideas and in fact find them to be simplistic, stereotypical, and condescending. Here is not the place to wrangle over these issues (nor am I actually interested in doing so anyway). I will admit that after the initial sting of reading "...those who, when fully open to the light find there's nothing there inside their souls and need to run back to the Bible for 'filler'..." I concluded, 'that is a is a good one'. I suspect that when something stings like this, there is probably some truth in it. Mia culpa! Wishing everyone well. Honestly! And, likewise, I'm glad to finally have the clarity to move on.

By: Pam

Pam — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 18:57:46 +0000

Martin -
Ok, now, yet again, I am feeling a bit stuck.
Wat is our problem here, then?
‑I did apologize for reading something into your post that isn’t there. I will do it again, I’m sorry.
‑I never said that I had to check my lesbianism at the door. I was referring to a similar feeling that I get when you say things like “of course I want us all to be Christian” — and various other versions of that, that I hear (from you and others) That says that the Society of Friends should be CHRISTIAN — that’s very different (for me) from saying that it should be honest about its christian roots, or that it should be open to the voice of christ (!) — For me, as a nontheist identified person, it is similar to churches that say it’s fine for me to bring my lesbian self to service, but I can’t acknowledge my girlfriend, and I may well hear preaching that says I’m going to hell.
(In other words, I was trying to make a point about welcoming people without welcoming all of who they are — now, we do that often — people are not welcome to throw fits or preach hatred for example. But not welcome, perhaps, to question the existence of God in their ministry? That’s a choice, and one I hope we don’t make.
‑the buddhist thing was actually someone (or several someones) in my home meeting. I didnt’ mean to actually accuse you of saying it, but meant it as an example. I know I wasnt’ clear. — But, part of it was a question — are you saying that you do welcome ministry that draws on buddhist, pagan, or other wisdom, and ministry??? That is a crucial question for me, and one I haven’t seen answered.
Reading what you wrote last, I have no clue what the problem is. I, too, want us all to be guided by what I (and most Friends living and dead) identify as Christ’s spirit. I don’t care what you call that force The only difference is that I don’t identify it as Christ’s spirit (actually, I’m even half willing to, but I dont’ identify it with Christianity or necessarily solely with the one man Jesus of Nazareth)
Perhaps the biggest difference is that I don’t think that calling Friends back to christianity is the best way to help us all be guided by that spirit. In my experience chrisitanity is muddled with all sorts of stuff that denies that spirit, and the spirit is THERE, is may be eaiser to find if we simply look rather than using 2,000 year old maps or mirrors. (through a glass darkly)
so, what’s the problem???
I think perhaps part of it is that I want you to have some answer — one that I don’t have. We can both sit and kvetch til the cows come home about the lack of depth and having lost our way as a society. I don’t feel any great revelation that shows the way out of that confusion and muddledness, and I am looking to others (right now to you) to know better than I do. a fruitless tactic, I believe.
peace
Pam

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 17:13:57 +0000

Oh Pam: of _course_ I want us all to be Christian. I want us all to be guided by what I (and most Friends living and dead) identify as Christ's spirit. I don't care what you call that force, I don't even care if you think it's your own brilliant rational mind at work. I know that Spirit is available to all humanity, ready to comfort and guide and I don't suspect its so parochial that it needs words like "Christ" appended to it for it to work (that's what perhaps defines me as a liberal Friend). I would appreciate if you started taking more care not to misrepresent me. Read what I write and try to understand where it's coming from. Where did I say Buddhist readings weren't okay? Where did I say you had to check your lesbianism at the door? Where did I say all Friends have to use exclusively Christian language? This kind of rhetoric is not serving the purposes of mutual understanding.

By: Pam

Pam — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 12:44:10 +0000

Martin -
I have actually missed where you repeatedly said that you welcome me. But thanks. I welcome you as well.
I have trouble with the charge that what I wrote was a “victimhood claim” — What you wrote hurt my feelings. This is a fact. Does that make it untrue? no. Does it mean you shouldn’t have written it? NO, certainly not if it’s your best understanding of your truth at the moment. But in order to stay engaged, which is something that at this point I’d still like to do, I need to share my part of the experience as well.
I have to admit that I think I pretty well read the “christian exclusivity” thing into this particular post. I’ve felt it from you before, but I don’t (necessarily) in this post. Sorry.
I have written a (still somewhat muddled) entry on my own blog about this.
What I am most frustrated that few folks seem to understand about what I“m saying is that I’m NOT anti-christian. I am fine with christianity as I have experienced it in quakerism (at least until recently) — universalist, not elitist, more about following christ through loving our nabor, and learning from his example rather than worshipping an icon.
I am terribly frustrated because I am one of those Friends who you say “want something more” and yet most of those whom I have heard talking about this don’t mean what I mean. Or I haven’t found the point of connection yet, at least.
I want to be a society that nourishes spirits like that of Tom Fox, of John Woolman, and of countless other quakers (well, and nonquakers, lest we forget) through history to the modern day who stand for what is right with a strong faith and strong love.
But all I see people coming up with is that somehow we need to be christian. I am frustrated with this response because to me it seems quite shallow.
I have a half-formed monty-python-esque skit in my head about a group of people on the verge of real discovery, real spiritual awakening, who then tumble into something really obvious and, relatively uninteresting, and well, misguided, as their “salvation”.
So, that’s MY experience. I’m not actually saying that Christianity is wrong, or questioning the experiences of any who have seen or heard Christ, or both, calling to them, but I havne’t.
And yet I think that I still bring something very important to my meeting, and any group of seekers whom I find myself among.
If you are asking that we no longer “pack our own bags” at checkout — what are you asking????? It seems that you seek a unified vision for the Society of Friends, and one that is explicitly and exclusively Chrsitian, Is that NOT the case????
Meetings where bible quotes or readings are warmly accepted, and buddhist quotes and readings would not be??? If your not asking us to do that, what ARE you asking?
If you are asking for that, how is that different from someone telling me that I have equal marriage rights (as a lesbian) because I can marry a man just like any other woman? “welcoming” someone but asking them to check part of their soul at the door is not true.
peace
Pam

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 10 Jun 2006 11:55:43 +0000

Hi Barbara: well, sure we're friendly. I'm glad we provide a rest stop. That's just not all we are. We have to invite people to the source of that peace and quiet we've found. Hey Pam: I don't know why you always take my posts so personally. For what it's worth, I don't see tradition is just the story of where we've come from and thus where we are. Most Quakers are Christian (even most FGC Quakers) and the _Faith and Practice_ your yearly meeting uses is explicitly subtitled "A Book of Christian Discipline." FGC's three paragraph "minute of purpose" uses the word God four times. You have knowingly joined a religious society where you're out of sync with the mainstream. That's fine, as long as you're fine with it. I welcome you and as I've written time and again, I think the nontheist impulse can have a truth-testing gift for the modern RSOF. But if you're not fine with the religion you've joined and rail whenever someone refers to it, that's kind of strange and I have a hard time sympathizing with this kind of victimhood claim.

By: Pam

Pam — Tue, 06 Jun 2006 15:07:02 +0000

Barbara, I agree, Providing a "spiritual rest stop" needn't be a "just" - a failing. Quakers may be unique (well, probably not) in offering a safe harbor in the storm of "false prophets" (as Martin says) while still emphasizing the validity of spirit itself. But I myself take issue with the idea that it's a "spiritual rest stop" at all. Clearly a few people have found it to be so, and speak disparagingly of what didn't work long-term for them. I am happy if they find something that feels "deeper" or "more meaningful" to them, but I have to say, if keeping those "gifted ministers" in our liberal meetings has anything to do with accepting the sort of "my way of the highway" flirtation with dogmatism that I often hear behind such declarations, I am willing to wish them well and wave goodbye..... I am feeling qutie snippy. Much in this post is quite insulting to the likes of me, and there is much that I could say that, in my opinion would be a reflection of it. (Perhaps those that leave aren't so much "deeper" or "brainier", but those who, when fully open to the light find there's nothing there inside their souls, and need to run back to the Bible for "filler" - now, that hasn't been what I've thought before, but really, if this discussion is going to be consistently framed in terms of how shallow and spiritless I am, I am not sure how to continue it without getting snippy. sigh Pam

By: Barbara

Barbara — Sun, 04 Jun 2006 11:37:50 +0000

I'm sorry, Liz, Martin, and others. I don't agree. Providing a "sprititual rest stop" freely, with no strings attached, no hidden agenda, no asking for pledges-- financial or other-- I think that's an admirable thing in this world where everyone is looking to get something out of any good they do or any contribution they make. I think that providing a place of quiet reflection without thought of return, without caring whether or not those who come will transform ("we love you...you're welcome here... now CHANGE!"), without thought about whether they'll finally join up and increase our numbers -- I think that's all a part of doing God's work.

By: Paul Ricketts

Paul Ricketts — Sat, 03 Jun 2006 22:32:19 +0000

“The back-and-forth of reaching out into the world and pulling back into our tradition is actually itself part of our tradition and Quaker bodies have often seen healthiest when we’ve been able to hold both together”.
Thank you Friend Martin.
This was also the tradition of Christ.
He reach out to the world but also pull back into his tradtion.
Like many unprogrammed Friends, when I first came among Quakers I identify“that of God in everyone” primary as the universal Spirit .
Thirty years later, I am much more comfortable identifying that presence within myself as Christ.
I think Society of Friends like the larger Society is primary made up
wounded and broken people, including myself.
Our mission is simply, to be the presence of Christ to each other and our sisters and brothers in and outside the Society of Friends.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours; yours are the eyes through which to look at Christ’s compassion to the world, yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good, and yours are the hands with which he is to bless us now.” — St. Teresa of Avila
Paul