Unintentional Consequences, Intentional Repair

January 8, 2026

I wrote the open­ing col­umn for the Jan­u­ary Friends Jour­nal, which looks at Indige­nous Peo­ples and Friends. As reg­u­lar read­ers of this blog already no doubt know, I’m a fan of local his­to­ry, espe­cial­ly contact-era and colo­nial his­to­ries and espe­cial­ly about rela­tions with the Indige­nous Lenape and the enslaved Africans.

The whole issue is real­ly pow­er­ful and I hope you find it as enlight­en­ing as I did.

Where I live, in one of the colonial-era Quak­er colonies of the Mid-Atlantic Unit­ed States, there has long been a benev­o­lent por­tray­al of Quak­ers’ rela­tions with the local Indige­nous Peo­ples. We are told that ear­ly Friend William Penn nego­ti­at­ed the Treaty of Shacka­max­on with Lenape leader Tama­nend, a moment memo­ri­al­ized by parks, stat­ues, and a famous paint­ing by Ben­jamin West. The great French philoso­pher Voltaire declared it “the only treaty nev­er sworn to and nev­er bro­ken.” The new set­tlers bought each plot of land from the local Lenape bands. Vio­lence in the first half-century of Quak­er gov­er­nance was rare; coop­er­a­tion and good will were the norm.

And yet: there is no fed­er­al­ly rec­og­nized Indige­nous Nation left in this for­mer Lenape ter­ri­to­ry. Every boat­load of Quak­ers that sailed up from Delaware Bay brought the threat of anoth­er round of dead­ly small­pox. Every creek dammed to pow­er a mill cut off the spawn­ing fish runs that stocked upland creeks. Every pig let loose from an Eng­lish farm­stead ate through near­by Lenape maize and squash plantings.

Origin of the Quaker SPICES testimonies

December 20, 2025

If you ask about Quak­er beliefs these days, one of the com­mon answers you’ll get is SPICE, a handy acronym that holds togeth­er a hodge­podge of val­ues, name­ly: sim­plic­i­ty, peace, integri­ty, com­mu­ni­ty and equal­i­ty (and lat­er sus­tain­abil­i­ty to become SPICES). One Quak­er school defin­i­tive­ly puts it, “Quak­ers agree to a core set of val­ues, known as tes­ti­monies.” I’ve not found SPICES list­ed before 2000 and even many of the indi­vid­ual com­po­nents are absent from old­er books of Faith and Practice.

The ques­tion of where this ubiq­ui­tous acronym came from, and when, reg­u­lar­ly comes up in Quak­er dis­course (most­ly recent­ly on Red­dit here). I some­times answer with the bits I’ve dug up but rather than rein­vent­ing the wheel each time, I thought I’d write it all down. I invite peo­ple to add what they know in com­ments and I’ll edit this.

1940s

Howard Brin­ton was the inven­tor of our mod­ern idea of a “tes­ti­mo­ny” in the 1940s, and his orig­i­nal list was com­mu­ni­ty, har­mo­ny, equal­i­ty, and sim­plic­i­ty. He was the Philadelphia-area born Friend who helped orga­nize unpro­grammed Friends on the U.S. West Coast in the ear­ly part of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry. Brin­ton had a knack for sim­ple expla­na­tions that expressed the emerg­ing con­sen­sus of a new gen­er­a­tion of Friends who were heal­ing from the nineteenth-century schisms. Find­ing new ways of talk­ing about our com­mon­al­i­ties was a cen­tral part of the work of rec­on­cil­i­a­tion. From his tour de force 1952 mas­ter­piece, Friends for 300 Years:

The mean­ing of the group in Quak­er prac­tice can be sug­gest­ed by a dia­gram. Light from God streams down into the wait­ing group. This Light, if the way is open for it, pro­duces three results: uni­ty, knowl­edge, and pow­er. As a result we have the kind of behav­ior which exists as an ide­al in a meet­ing for wor­ship and a meet­ing for busi­ness. Because of the char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Light of Christ, the result­ing behav­ior can be described in a gen­er­al way by the four words Com­mu­ni­ty, Har­mo­ny, Equal­i­ty, and Sim­plic­i­ty.…

He includ­ed a chart, which hon­est­ly does­n’t help much with my under­stand­ing of the meta­physics of it all.

1975

Read­er Tomas Mario Kalmar sent me a paper called Learn­ing Com­mu­ni­ty pre­pared by the Edu­ca­tion Com­mis­sion of Aus­tralian Year­ly Meet­ing that lists six “char­ac­ter­is­tics that dis­tin­guished Quak­er edu­ca­tion”: a reli­gious­ly guard­ed edu­ca­tion, com­mu­ni­ty, non-violence, equal­i­ty, sim­plic­i­ty, and an expe­ri­en­tial cur­ricu­lum. The list is large­ly based on Howard Brin­ton’s work but I include it here because it shows how Friends were remix­ing and repur­pos­ing his list. Learn­ing Com­mu­ni­ty actu­al­ly looks pret­ty good and fair­ly time­less and Tomas gave me per­mis­sion to repost the PDF here.

1980 – 90s

In a Red­dit thread a few years ago, macoafi wrote: “My in-laws were chil­dren in first day school in the 1980s and 1990s, and they learned 4 tes­ti­monies, no acronym. (Peace, truth, sim­plic­i­ty, equal­i­ty).” At some point Brin­ton’s har­mo­ny start­ed being called peace so this is most­ly his list except for truth being swapped for com­mu­ni­ty.

1981

Com­menter Sharon writes:

I first heard SPICE at the 1981 FGC gath­er­ing in Berea KY! At the time it didn’t sit well with me as I found it too glib. I was still work­ing out what God want­ed my life to tes­ti­fy too.

This would put it near­ly two decades before from any doc­u­ment­ed instance I’ve seen. It is also well before any instance I’ve seen that includ­ed an I for integri­ty. I admit I’ll remain skep­ti­cal until I see fur­ther evi­dence, though it is pos­si­ble that some­one remem­bered it from the Berea gath­er­ing and start­ed reusing it in the last 1990s.1

1990

Wilmer Coop­er was an Ohio Wilbu­rite Friend who went on to become first dean of Earl­ham School of Reli­gion upon its found­ing in 1960. Thir­ty years lat­er he pub­lished A Liv­ing Faith, which was built on an ESR course called Basic Quak­er Beliefs. In the pref­ace he writes: “It is my hope that this work will help Friends gain a fuller under­stand­ing of their Quak­er her­itage and the­o­log­i­cal roots, while pro­vid­ing for non-Quakers a com­pre­hen­sive answer to the ques­tions: ‘Who are the Quak­ers?’ and “What is Quak­erism?’ ” In its final chap­ter Coop­er has two lists, which each have four tes­ti­monies. His reli­gious tes­ti­monies are:

  • belief that we can have direct and imme­di­ate access to the liv­ing God;
  • we can no only know the will of God but can, by God’s grace, be enabled to do the will of God.
  • the Quak­er expe­ri­ence of of com­mu­ni­ty as expressed in the “gath­ered meeting.”
  • the sacra­men­tal view of life.

His social tes­ti­monies are:

  • Peace Tes­ti­mo­ny
  • sim­plic­i­ty
  • equal­i­ty
  • integri­ty

He expands to give a para­graph to each of his eight tes­ti­monies but obvi­ous­ly the sec­ond list is much pithi­er.2. He does say that this isn’t a canon­i­cal list, that dif­fer­ent Friends will have dif­fer­ent lists, and con­cludes the sec­tion on tes­ti­monies by, well, tes­ti­fy­ing: “Friends believe deeply that if they sub­mit them­selves to God and live by the Light of Christ they will be enabled to live by the truth of the Gospel.” It’s worth not­ing that the lat­er SPICE/S for­mu­la­tion did­n’t include any of the reli­gious ones (you could per­haps try to claim com­mu­ni­ty der­vices from his reli­gious tes­ti­monies list but I don’t gen­er­al­ly hear the SPICES C described in the kind of spir­i­tu­al lan­guage Coop­er used).

The next year Coop­er wrote a Pen­dle Hill pam­phlet that focused on integri­ty. As far as I’ve seen Coop­er is the first to include an I for integri­ty, set­ting the stage for our famil­iar acronym.

Mid-1990s

My wife Julie insists that she remem­bers talk of SPICE/S back when she was in high school start­ing to get involved with Friends (cir­ca 1994). She did­n’t attend a Quak­er school so this would have been in Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing cir­cles, prob­a­bly specif­i­cal­ly South Jersey.

Late 1990s

In a com­ment to this very post, Pen­dle Hill edi­tor Jana­ki Spickard Keel­er says that when she was work­ing a 2023 pam­phlet with Paul Buck­ley, they tracked SPICE/S to a Friends Coun­cil for Edu­ca­tion list­serv for edu­ca­tors (per­haps E‑Quakes, which was start­ed in 1996 accord­ing to a FCE his­to­ry). Jana­ki writes: “No one came for­ward as being the first to come up with the idea, but they shared it along them­selves and it spread. They esti­mate this hap­pened around 1998.” The pam­phlet quotes Tom Hoopes, who start­ed as direc­tor of edu­ca­tion for Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing in 1998: “I encoun­tered it in use by one of the month­ly meet­ings of Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing, and I thought to myself, ‘what a great mnemon­ic device for help­ing peo­ple to remem­ber what we Quak­ers claim to pri­or­i­tize, and to try to prac­tice!’” Tom told Jana­ki and Paul that he did­n’t remem­ber the iden­ti­ty of the Friends meeting.

1999

The Sum­mer 1999 edi­tion of Salem Quar­ter (N.J.) News reports that Wood­stown Meet­ing cre­at­ed a SPICE rap in for a First-day School pro­gram which also includ­ed songs from Spice Girls. Yes it’s as unique as it sounds:

What’s the word? SPICE!!!! What’s the word? SPICE IS THE WAY TO GO!!!!
Sim­plic­i­ty is sim­ple, and you know it’s right. Squan­derin’ mon­ey gets ya into a fight.
Peace, it rules, and you know that it’s true. It’s the thing I need to get along with you. Don’t yell and sing those fight­in’ songs, when you can help oth­ers and right their wrongs.
Integri­ty is always bein’ true to your word. It’s the most hon­est tes­ti­mo­ny I’ve ever heard.
Livin’ and a‑sharin’ all together’s real­ly fun. Com­mu­ni­ty is helpin’, workin’, playin’ all in one.
Equal­i­ty means every­one is equal, and that’s cool.
Respect­ing oth­er is what’s right and is the gold­en rule!!

Note that the arti­cle gives a clue on source: “After read­ing a short arti­cle in Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing News with the acronym SPICE high­light­ing the tes­ti­monies… [we] were inspired to incor­po­rate this into our First Day School Pro­gram at Wood­stown MM.” The old­est copy of PYM News avail­able via Archive​.org is tan­ta­liz­ing­ly close — Nov/December 1999. That seems to be when PYM start­ed post­ing its newslet­ter.3

2003

Google finds a PDF of a 2003 talk giv­en to a Uni­tar­i­an Uni­ver­sal­ist church by Salt Lake City Friend Diana Lee Hirschi in 2003 talk­ing about SPICE. 

2004

I myself first com­plained about SPICE in 2004 (note it had­n’t got­ten a sec­ond S yet). I com­plained that this kind of list of sec­u­lar tes­ti­monies were too restric­tive. I real­ly was a Quak­er Ranter back then; also I was real­ly kind of hard on Brin­ton, who I appre­ci­ate more now.

2006

I like to search the Friends Jour­nal archives to see when new terms show up. New terms are often bandied about by par­tic­u­lar Friends or with­in sub-groups, where they might cir­cu­late for a few years with­out get­ting into wider usage. As far as I’ve been able to deter­mine, the first ref­er­ence to SPICES in Friends Jour­nal is a 2006 arti­cle by Har­ri­ett Heath titled “The Quak­er Par­ent­ing Project: A Report.” She’s lays it out as an attempt to teach Quak­er chil­dren with­out resort­ing to dogma:

There are sev­er­al dif­fer­ent lists of tes­ti­monies. We start­ed with one com­mon­ly referred to by the acronym SPICES: Sim­plic­i­ty, Peace, Integri­ty, Com­mu­ni­ty, Equal­i­ty, and Stew­ard­ship — but we found that there were oth­er issues not addressed by this list. Ser­vice is an inte­gral part of Quak­erism in our efforts to live our faith; should it be a tes­ti­mo­ny? Edu­ca­tion has been his­tor­i­cal­ly an inte­gral part of Quak­er­sim; should it, too, be includ­ed? Where does wor­ship — time set apart — fit in?

Her project even­tu­al­ly picked a dif­fer­ent list because they did­n’t want to be bound by the dic­tates of fit­ting into an acronym. They includ­ed con­flict and growth and ser­vice (which some­times is list­ed as the final S).

2007/2008 videos

In 2007, British Friends could pro­duce a video called “The Quak­er Tes­ti­monies” that did­n’t men­tion SPICE/S and ranged over oth­er non-acronymed tes­ti­monies such as one for respect and anoth­er against oath-taking. If you lis­ten care­ful­ly, I think at least one of the speak­ers must have heard of SPICE because he seemed to be orga­niz­ing thoughts around it. 

In 2008 I talked about SPICE and spir­i­tu­al­ly get­ting deep­er with tes­ti­monies in a YouTube video and accom­pa­ny­ing blog post.

2009

Brin­ton schol­ar Antho­ny Manousos did a deep dive on SPICES. Although Antho­ny claims Briton invent­ed SPICES per se, I think he just invent­ed the idea of tes­ti­monies and the ini­tial list that includ­ed three of them (four if you count the harmony/peace change).

2011

Less than two years after Heath’s arti­cle, Mark Dansereau and Kim Tso­canos, the co-heads of Con­necti­cut Friends School in Wilton, Conn., pub­lished an anno­tat­ed list of SPICES in Friends Jour­nal, explain­ing that their school was built on these “Six Quak­er Val­ues” (yes, ital­i­cized and cap­i­tal­ized) and that they applied and wove them into each activ­i­ty in their cur­ric­u­la. This might be one of the old­est fully-intact list­ings still eas­i­ly avail­able on the web. This has become one of the most vis­it­ed pages on Friends Jour­nal website.

2012

By this time SPICE/S was becom­ing ubiq­ui­tous. See this blog post from North­west Year­ly Meet­ing and a video Brent Bill put togeth­er to pro­mote an upcom­ing intro­duc­to­ry work­shop at his meet­ing in Indiana.

Paul Buck­ley gave a talk in 2012 that high­light­ed the role of Wilmer Coop­er, an Ohio Friend per­haps most well remem­bered for found­ing Earl­ham School of Reli­gion in 1960. In 2023, Paul Buck­ley wrote a pam­phlet from Pen­dle Hill, Quak­er Tes­ti­mo­ny: What We Wit­ness to the World, edit­ed by Jana­ki Spickard Keel­er, dur­ing which they deter­mined the late 1990s date.

2013

Some­one around 2006 I was stand­ing in a meal line at a Quak­er event with Cal­i­for­nia Friend Eric Moon and we start­ed to talk about tes­ti­monies. It was the start of a great con­ver­sa­tion, cut short by some inter­rup­tion or anoth­er before we even hit the dessert sta­tion. When I start­ed as Friends Jour­nal edi­tor I asked him to write some­thing. 2013’s Cat­e­gor­i­cal­ly Not the Tes­ti­monies was the result. We also talked in an ear­ly Quak­er Author Pod­cast.


So where did the SPICES for­mu­la­tion come from? It ulti­mate­ly derived from Brin­ton’s list, with har­mo­ny mor­ph­ing to peace and WIl Coop­er’s integri­ty adding an I. Giv­en its ped­a­gog­i­cal nature, it was prob­a­bly coined by edu­ca­tors. It’s a good teach­ing tool, easy to remem­ber and some­thing you can eas­i­ly weave into a multi-week class. 

Since there’s noth­ing par­tic­u­lar­ly reli­gious about the SPICE/S list, it can work in an essen­tial­ly sec­u­lar envi­ron­ment that might be aller­gic to religious-sounding Quak­er the­ol­o­gy. This would include Friends schools appeal­ing to a non-Quaker audi­ence or a Lib­er­al Friends Meet­ing that wants some­thing non-controversial to teach the kids. I nev­er hear any­one talk about it being derived from “char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Light of Christ,” as Brin­ton did when he intro­duced it.

In the last few years it’s become pret­ty ubiq­ui­tous on Tik­Tok and oth­er short-form video (Dis­cov­er­ing Quak­ers, _gloyoyo_, itsmekat­evee).4 If you have five min­utes to tell a gen­er­al audi­ence about Quak­ers, bite-sized descrip­tions are impor­tant. Also: some of these con­tent cre­ators are prob­a­bly younger than the term itself. Also: I’ve final­ly grown into the Old Man Yelling at the Clouds meme. SPICES is here to stay.

Is SPICES all that ter­ri­ble? No, not real­ly. It can be handy. But it is pret­ty annoy­ing that we’ve con­fused a list of gener­ic val­ues for belief. And it’s super annoy­ing that even that list of val­ues is hemmed in by the require­ment that every com­po­nent fit into a sil­ly acronym.5

What’s fun­ny about the mys­tery of this is that there’s a very good chance that the per­son who first list­ed out SPICE is still around. There’s a box in some­one’s garage packed with late-1990s newslet­ters, one of which lists it out for the first time in print. Any­one with any infor­ma­tion can com­ment below or email me at martink@martinkelley.com.

The Not-Quite-So Young Quakers

September 14, 2008

It was five years ago this week that I sat down and wrote about a cool new move­ment I had been read­ing about. It would have been Jor­dan Coop­er’s blog that turned me onto Robert E Web­ber’s The Younger Evan­gel­i­cals, a look at gen­er­a­tional shifts among Amer­i­can Evan­gel­i­cals. I found it simul­ta­ne­ous­ly dis­ori­ent­ing and shock­ing that I actu­al­ly iden­ti­fied with most of the trends Web­ber out­lined. Here I was, still a young’ish Friend attend­ing one of the most lib­er­al Friends meet­ings in the coun­try (Cen­tral Philadel­phia) and work­ing for the very orga­ni­za­tion whose ini­tials (FGC) are inter­na­tion­al short­hand for hippy-dippy lib­er­al Quak­erism, yet I was nod­ding my head and laugh­ing out loud at just about every­thing Web­ber said. Although he most like­ly nev­er walked into a meet­ing­house, he clear­ly explained the gen­er­a­tional dynam­ics run­ning through Quak­er cul­ture and I fin­ished the book with a bet­ter under­stand­ing of why so much of our youth orga­niz­ing and out­reach was floun­der­ing on issues of tokenism and feel-good-ism.

My post, orig­i­nal­ly titled  “The Younger Evan­gel­i­cals and the Younger Quak­ers,”  (here it is in its orig­i­nal con­text) start­ed off as a book review but quick­ly became a Quak­er vision man­i­festo. The sec­tion heads alone ticked off the work to be done:

  • A re-examination of our roots, as Chris­tians and as Friends
  • A desire to grow
  • A more personally-involved, time-consuming commitment
  • A renew­al of dis­ci­pline and oversight
  • A con­fronta­tion of our eth­nic and cul­tur­al bigotries

When I wrote this, there was­n’t much you could call Quak­er blog­ging (Lynn Gazis-Sachs was an excep­tion), and when I googled vari­a­tions on “quak­ers” and “emerg­ing church” noth­ing much came up. It’s not sur­pris­ing that there was­n’t much of an ini­tial response.

It took about two years for the post to find its audi­ence and respons­es start­ed com­ing from both lib­er­al and evan­gel­i­cal Quak­er cir­cles. In ret­ro­spect, it’s fair to say that the Quak­erQuak­er com­mu­ni­ty gath­ered around this essay (here’s Robin M’s account of first read­ing it) and it’s follow-up We’re All Ranters Now (Wess talk­ing about it). Five years after I postd it, we have a cadre of blog­gers and read­ers who reg­u­lar­ly gath­er around the Quak­erQuak­er water cool­er to talk about Quak­er vision. We’re get­ting pieces pub­lished in all the major Quak­er pub­li­ca­tions, we’re asked to lead wor­ships and we’ve got a catchy name in “Con­ver­gent Friends.”

And yet?

All of this is still a small demo­graph­ic scat­tered all around. If I want­ed to have a good two-hour caffeine-fueled bull ses­sion about the future of Friends at some local cof­feeshop this after­noon, I can’t think of any­one even vague­ly local who I could call up. A few years ago I start­ed com­mut­ing pret­ty reg­u­lar­ly to a meet­ing that did a good job at the Christian/Friends-awareness/roots stuff but not the discipline/oversight or desire-to-grow end of things. I’ve drift­ed away the last few months because I real­ized I did­n’t have any per­son­al friends there and it was most­ly an hour-drive, hour-worship, hour-drive back home kind of experience.

My main cadre five years ago were fel­low staffers at FGC. A few years ago FGC com­mis­sioned sur­veys indi­cat­ed that poten­tial donors would respond favor­ably to talk about youth, out­reach and race stereo­typ­ing and even though these were some of the con­cerns I had been awk­ward­ly rais­ing for years, it was very clear I was­n’t wel­come in quickly-changing staff struc­ture and I found myself out of a job. The most excit­ing out­reach pro­grams I had worked on was a data­base that would col­lect the names and address­es of iso­lat­ed Friends, but It was qui­et­ly dropped a few months after I left. The new muchly-hyped $100,000 pro­gram for out­reach has this for its seek­ers page and fol­lows the typ­i­cal FGC pat­tern, which is to sprin­kle a few rotat­ing tokens in with a retreat cen­ter full of poten­tial donors to talk about Impor­tant Top­ics. (For those who care, I would have con­tin­ued build­ing the iso­lat­ed Friends data­base, mapped it for hot spots and coor­di­nat­ed with the youth min­istry com­mit­tee to send teams for extend­ed stays to help plant wor­ship groups. How cool would that be? Anoth­er oppor­tu­ni­ty lost.)

So where do we go?

I’m real­ly sad to say we’re still large­ly on our own. Accord­ing to actu­ar­i­al tables, I’ve recent­ly crossed my life’s halfway point and here I am still ref­er­enc­ing gen­er­a­tional change.

How I wish I could hon­est­ly say that I could get involved with any com­mit­tee in my year­ly meet­ing and get to work on the issues raised in “Younger Evan­gel­i­cals and Younger Quak­ers.” Some­one recent­ly sent me an email thread between mem­bers of an out­reach com­mit­tee for anoth­er large East Coast year­ly meet­ing and they were debat­ing whether the inter­net was an appro­pri­ate place to do out­reach work – in 2008?!? Britain Year­ly Meet­ing has a beau­ti­ful­ly pro­duced new out­reach web­site but I don’t see one con­vinced young Friend pro­filed and it’s post-faith empha­sis is down­right depress­ing (an involved youngish Amer­i­can Friend looked at it and remind­ed me that despite occa­sion­al atten­tion, smart young seek­ers seri­ous about Quak­erism aren’t any­one’s tar­get audi­ence, here in the US or appar­ent­ly in Britain).

A num­ber of inter­est­ing “Cov­er­gent” mind­ed Friends have an insider/outsider rela­tion­ship with insti­tu­tion­al Quak­erism. Inde­pen­dent wor­ship groups pop­ping up and more are being talked about (I won’t blow your cov­er guys!). I’ve seen Friends try to be more offi­cial­ly involved and it’s not always good: a bunch of younger Quak­er blog­gers have dis­ap­peared after get­ting named onto Impor­tant Com­mit­tees, their online pres­ence reduced to inside jokes on Face­book with their oth­er newly-insider pals.

What do we need to do:

  • We need to be pub­lic figures;
  • We need to reach real peo­ple and con­nect ourselves;
  • We need to stress the whole pack­age: Quak­er roots, out­reach, per­son­al involve­ment and not let our­selves get too dis­tract­ed by hyped projects that only promise one piece of the puzzle.

Here’s my to-do list:

  • CONVERGENT OCTOBER: Wess Daniels has talked about every­one doing some out­reach and net­work­ing around the “con­ver­gent” theme next month. I’ll try to arrange some Philly area meet-up and talk about some prac­ti­cal orga­niz­ing issues on my blog.
  • LOCAL MEETUPS: I still think that FGC’s iso­lat­ed Friends reg­istry was one of its bet­ter ideas. Screw them, we’ll start one our­selves. I com­mit to mak­ing one. Email me if you’re interested;
  • LOCAL FRIENDS: I com­mit to find­ing half a dozen seri­ous Quak­er bud­dies in the dri­vable area to ground myself enough to be able to tip my toe back into the insti­tu­tion­al mias­ma when led (thanks to Mic­ah B who stressed some of this in a recent visit).
  • PUBLIC FIGURES: I’ve let my blog dete­ri­o­rate into too much of a “life stream,” all the pic­tures and twit­ter mes­sages all clog­ging up the more Quak­er mate­r­i­al. You’ll notice it’s been redesigned. The right bar has the “life stream” stuff, which can be bet­tered viewed and com­ment­ed on on my Tum­bler page, Tum­bld Rants. I’ll try to keep the main blog (and its RSS feed) more seri­ous­ly minded.

I want to stress that I don’t want any­one to quit their meet­ing or any­thing. I’m just find­ing myself that I need a lot more than business-as-usual. I need peo­ple I can call lower-case friends, I need per­son­al account­abil­i­ty, I need peo­ple will­ing to real­ly look at what we need to do to be respon­sive to God’s call. Some day maybe there will be an estab­lished local meet­ing some­where where I can find all of that. Until then we need to build up our networks.

Like a lot of my big idea vision essays, I see this one does­n’t talk much about God. Let me stress that com­ing under His direc­tion is what this is all about. Meet­ings don’t exist for us. They facil­i­ate our work in becom­ing a peo­ple of God. Most of the inward-focused work that make up most of Quak­er work is self-defeating. Jesus did­n’t do much work in the tem­ple and did­n’t spend much time at the rab­bi con­ven­tions. He was out on the street, hang­ing out with the “bad” ele­ments, shar­ing the good news one per­son at a time. We have to find ways to sup­port one anoth­er in a new wave of ground­ed evan­ge­lism. Let’s see where we can all get in the next five years!

Evangelical Friend’s Take on the Postmodern Church

March 1, 2004

I’ve long been curi­ous about whether any­one in the Evan­gel­i­cal branch of Friends has been fol­low­ing the “emer­gent church” move­ment. Now I find that Bruce Bish­op , for­mer Youth Super­in­ten­dent of North­west Year­ly Meet­ings, has writ­ten a primer called Post­mod­ernism: Taste and See that the Lord Is Good
bq. “Post­mod­ernism” – we see that label bandied about quite a bit these days. And like the once-frequent phrase “Gen­er­a­tion X,” post­mod­ernism is often seen as anti-Christian and some­thing that the church needs to fight. I would beg to differ.
I don’t par­tic­u­lar­ly like the term “post­mod­ern,” as the philo­soph­i­cal and pop-culture def­i­n­i­tions almost com­plete­ly con­tra­dict one anoth­er, but he’s talk­ing phi­los­o­phy, so MTV watch­ers should lis­ten past the words. (Bish­op is in good com­pa­ny in his con­tin­ued use in the term: “Here’s Jor­dan Cooper”:http://www.jordoncooper.com/2004_03_01_archives.html#107896665936703076 and “Bri­an McLaren”:http://www.emergentvillage.com/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=797 talk­ing about the prob­lems with the term and their expla­na­tions of why they’re still using it).
I real­ly _really_ hope Bruce Bish­op writes a follow-up address­ing how Friends might relate to this move­ment (“see my thoughts here”:http://www.nonviolence.org/Quaker/emerging_church.php).