Comments on: A Quaker model for emergence?

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Wed, 04 Jul 2007 08:18:30 +0000

@Wess: Well, honestly, no I'm not all that into experimentation. There's a reason for the plainness of worship and it fits into the theology. It's not that I think it's the only way to God but it's a Quaker way that's come to make a deep sense to me. I can be flexible with minor bits and pieces but I think the early Friends hit on something True, something that works very well, a method that always worked and will always work. I don't want to maintain it as a relic and I don't hang onto it simply because of age or for a love of orthodoxy (as if!) but because I think it explains the universe and how we relate to the risen Jesus both as individuals and as a covenented community. In a way it's like the early Friends not caring so much about whether we elevated the Bible or the Inward Light, as both should guide us to the same truth. I'm not against spirit-led innovation, I just think it will keep pointing us to traditional Quaker theology and practice. So here's the thing that I've not really talked about: I don't think there's really such a thing as a "Convergent Friend." Okay, has lightening struck? No?, good, I'll go on: I would describe us better as "Converging Friends." We're heading in parallel directions but where we actually are depends on where we're coming from and our paths probably won't ever meet. Your desire for flexibility in worship and openness to experimentation is a defining characteristic of evangelical Quakerism; my desire to hold onto the traditional ways is stereotypically Conservative Quaker. They're the personality traits of our traditions which our mutual convergency doesn't change. It's late for me so I can't expand all this. But I do want to say I'm a big believer in one level of ad hoc theology and that's the traditional Quaker idea of only ministering or making statements when directly prompted, aka free gospel ministry. I think of it as a "let's cross the bridge when we get to it" process. Well, I'll have to expand more, sometime when I've caught up on sleep (as if!). Your Friend, Maritn

By: Chris M.

Chris M. — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 23:35:08 +0000

@Wess wrote: “Can Quakerism adapt to these things, the way McLaren and others are adapting and using creativity in worship and theology in their ad hoc manner?”
We’re counting on you to help us experiment our way through these questions. Personally, I think the church is always going to have a need and a place for unprogramed silent worship in the manner of Friends. Yet the several forms of worship that Friends follow today certainly show the variety that exists. Some would argue that is for better and others for worse… The question would remain how much could be experimented with and still be able to carry the name of “Friends” with integrity. None? Some? All?
The point is to remain rooted and grounded in love and faithfulness and attentiveness to the Holy Spirit.

By: c. wess Daniels

c. wess Daniels — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:36:55 +0000

Martin,
that comment really wasn’t supposed to sound negative at all — I can’t tell how I it will sound on the other end.
I think it just got me thinking about how important a trial and error type theology is. We don’t have to get it all right and we ought to be experimenting. Let’s take this stuff into our own hands, take our opportunities as they come, answer questions when they arise, adapt to the circumstances and be creative with all of this!
Thanks again. I’m done.

By: c. wess Daniels

c. wess Daniels — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 04:24:24 +0000

Hey Martin, I really appreciated reading you thoughts here. It got me thinking about a lot of things. I am not familiar with Wilson's "gestalt" metaphor but I wanted to add something positive about a different way of thinking about ad hoc theology, etc. I've written about it and here, and wanted to say that I think we should stress an ad hoc way of putting this all together. I agree that we don't want to get stuck some place in limbo, but I don't think piecing our theology and practice together in new/old ways necessitates that (not that that's what you're saying). I've been reading a lot of Yoder lately as well from an author named Chris Huebner (I can't recommend this book enough), and his main point is that as the peace church we need to have a nonviolent epistemology which operates on an ad hoc basis. We come to the questions as needed, we figure it out as we go, and that any other way of systematizing faith and practice Constantinian in nature. That is, trying to make sure history comes out all right. Yoder's point is that it's not up to the church to make sure history comes out okay, that's up to God, what we're responsible for is our faithfulness as an alternative community sharing the Gospel with the world. I think this kind of thing leaves us in a place where we realize that we have to change and adjust the arguments and the answers over time (to some extent). While I am completely with you on the emerging church-Quaker connection the one thing I worry about, is that there seems to be very little willingness to change and adjust the arguments over time. Here I mainly mean looking at our forms of worship, our ways of connecting with one another and with God, our ways of thinking theologically, our ways of living out our faith, and our ways of reading and understanding our history are all areas have become in many ways to sacred to look at in a critical manner and in another way to rigid to really except the creativity and genius behind what McClaren and others are doing. Is there a place for catholic rituals, and emerging theology within the Quaker church? How about celtic forms of prayer and worship, liturgical ways of thinking of and practicing silence, ways of creating discussion and dialogue during worship, ways of bringing the various (rich) traditions of thought and practice from the church into our own theology? Can we bring art, song, and other organic ways of daily lives into our worship with God? Can Quakerism adapt to these things, the way McLaren and others are adapting and using creativity in worship and theology in their ad hoc manner? I agree we have something to give, but do we have any room to take? I think if anyone is going to experiment with these things it will have to be the convergent friends, probably in small groups in our homes and meeting houses - taking our faith and practice into our own hands and being creative with it as Quakers. But also, we have to do this in a way that is real and authentic, not "just because" or since it sounds like fun. If we are going to truly be convergent it seems like we need to be willing to put everything on the table and ask what can we do better? Where is the Spirit of God at work here and in our neighborhoods and cities? And how do we bring the whole of our lives into worship of God?

By: Cathy Habschmidt

Cathy Habschmidt — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:50:27 +0000

I’ve wondered if Friends have something to give the emergent church … There’s a Quaker vision we have (or almost have) that could point a way forward for emergent Christians of all stripes.
My first introduction to the emergent church movement was reading Brian McLaren’s A Generous Orthodoxy. To say I was blown away would be an understatement. I kept thinking, “This is Quakerism at its best!” I felt a strong leading to try to connect the two somehow. I wanted to write Brian personally and tell him about Quakers, and I wanted to write an article for FJ and tell Quakers about the emergent church. I ended up doing neither…
It was some time later that I first heard about Convergent Friends. I was thrilled that other Quakers had made the same connection. Now we just need to see how we can offer some of our Quaker strengths to other Christian denominations through this new opportunity.
Cathy Habschmidt
Richmond, Indiana