Joe Guada - Quaker Ranter

Uh-Oh: Beppe’s Doubts

Martin Kelley — Wed, 09 Mar 2005 08:58:19 +0000

I’ve occasionally thought of Beppeblog’s Joe Guada as my blogging Quaker doppleganger. More than once he’s written the post I was about to write. And more than one important article of mine started as commentary to one of his insightful articles.

So I’m worried that he’s written the first of a multipart article asking Is it time to leave Quakerism. I’m worried not just that Quakerism would lose a bright Light, etc., etc, but because I know that now I’m going to have to publicly mull over the question that’s a constant background hum that I try not to think about.

Update: just to prove my point, my comment to Joe’s post was more interesting that my post pointing to his post. Here’s the comment I just left there:

There was one day in worship a few years ago right around the time when my wife Julie decided to leave Quakerism when I had this odd vision. I imagined us as boulders the front edge of a waterfall. Thousands of gallons of water swept over us every day, eroding and scarring our surface and undermining the fragile base we were on. When Boulder Julie finally dislodged and fell off the precipice of Quakerism, I realized that one of the rocks that had held me in place was now gone and now there was going to be even more water and pressure trying to push me off.
I say this because you’ve become one of my blogging rocks, someone who confirms that I’m not a total nutcase. If you went over the edge I’d have to reassess my situation and at least take a peek down myself. At the very least I’m going to have to blog about why I’ve stayed so long. I’m sure this is only part one to my commentary on these issues…

Missional Churches and Half-Hearted Welcomes

Martin Kelley — Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:28:40 +0000

Over on my main “Nonviolence.org blog”:http://www.nonviolence.org/articles/000436.php I link to Punkmonkey’s great post, “refusing to get political”:http://ginkworld.blogspot.com/2004/09/refusing-to-get-political.html, where he talks about why Christian pacifism is more than simply anti-war activism. Oh how I wish more Quakers knew this! I like Punkmonkey’s blog a lot. He’s also recently written about what it would mean to be a “missional community of faith”:http://ginkworld.blogspot.com/2004/07/missional-community-of-faith.html:
bq. a missional community of faith is a living breathing transparent community of faith willing to get messy while reach out to, and bringing in, those outside the current community
Amen brother. The whole post is great. I love his critique of check-writing churches (perfectly applicable to most peace and social concerns committees I’ve seen). He also hits something I see a lot: Meetings that are “welcoming and excluding” in their cliquishness: “small groups of people who seem friendly, and welcoming but in actuality are not welcoming.” Punkmonkey’s not Quaker but Bebbeblog’s Joe Guada is and I started reading his posts next. There I found a really interesting counterpoint: “Can I be a (fill in the blank here) & be a Quaker, too?”:http://beppeblog.blogspot.com/2004/09/file-under-Quakerism-religion-can-i-be.html. Joe’s post also talks about identity, praxis and superficial half-welcoming. He quotes a friend who’s not joined Quakers:
bq. Yes, I know that everyone has the Inner Light. Yes, I remember how uncomfortable it is to be looking for a group and to feel left out (though it’s not as uncomfortable as feeling like you’re part of the group, getting deeply involved and then finding out that you’re a bad fit because people weren’t telling you up front that you didn’t fit).
Lots of great reading in all this!

“Conservative Liberal Quakers” and not becoming a least-common-denominator, sentimental faith

Martin Kelley — Tue, 13 Jul 2004 14:04:25 +0000

Over on beppeblog, occassional QR commenter Joe Guada talks about starting a Bible study group in his Friends meeting. It’s a great post, which really pulls together some of the issues of those of us trying to be both conservative and liberal in our Quakerism.

None of their concerns were a surprise to me; I’ve had many of the same myself. What did surprise me was how long it took members to finally approach me with their “concerns” (a Friendly euphemism for being in complete disagreement with another). They seemed to be taking the Bible too literally…

I doubt that I changed any minds during our lengthy, but respectful conversation. But, unlike what seems like the opinion of the majority of liberal Friends, where personal and corporate revelation is the sole arbiter of faith, I believe that individuals and groups need far more than that to keep us from deteriorating into a “least-common-denominator”, sentimental faith that tries to be all things to (most) everybody (as long as they agree with our politics). I believe that Friends have a rich history to draw from, which includes our present Faith & Practice (along with past F&P’s), the writings and testimony of previous generations, and (hold your breath) the Bible.

This past week I’ve been wondering whether the best description of my spiritual state is a “conservative liberal Friend,” i.e., someone in the “liberal” branch of Friends who holds “conservative” values (I mean these terms in their theological sense, as descriptive terms that refer to well-defined historical movements). I feel a kinship with Joe and with some of the people I met this year at the FGC Gathering. There is a small-scale “conservative liberal” movement going on and it seems like we should figure out a name for ourselves.

Back in the 1970s and 80s there was a group dubbed “neoconservative Quakers,” liberal Friends who moved to conservative yearly meetings (especially Ohio) and outdid the homegrown conservatives, adopting plain dress and gaining a reputation for being sticklers on conservative theology and practice.

But although I’ve picked up plain dress, I’m not a 1970s “neoconservative” Friend. First off, I’m not moving to Ohio (it’s a lovely state I’m sure, but roots trump ideology for me any day of the week). I’m not even seriously considering leaving Liberal Quakerism. For all the sometimes muddied-thinking, I’m proud of our branch. I’m proud that we’ve said yes to gay and lesbian Friends and I see it as our positive comeuppance that so much of our religious leadership now comes from the FLGBTQC community (so many of whose members are solid Christians driven out of other denominations). I see us as one of the most dynamic, forward-thinking branch of Friends. Besides, liberal Quakerism is my home. I’ve been given enough hints that I think my ministry is here too. Not that I’m not grateful for all the branches of Quakerism. I am graced with new Friends met through this blog from all the branches of American Quakerism and I’ve found that there are those seeking out to reclaim Quakerism in each of them. I have brothers and sisters throughout Quakerdom, blessed be! But my role, my home, and my ministry is to be a Conservative-leaning voice among Liberal Friends. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that I’m not alone. Something is afoot in liberal Quakerism.

So what might we call ourselves? Is “conservative liberal Friends” a useful term?