The future of the traditional evangelical church as I see it is: a.) mega churches continuing to grow, consolidating what is left of the Christendom populations…; b.) smaller churches of under 200 slowly dying and eventually closing, and c.) the birthing of new missional communities through  either seeding new missionary communities or transitioning (the aforementioned) dying small churches into vibrant places of mission.

On the face of it, it’s bizarre to compare liberal Friends to mainstream Christian evangelicals, but there are similarities if you scale back the numbers. I think some larger Friends meetings have mega-church-like dynamics. They have strong family programs and connections to nearby Friends schools and/or retirement communities. They serve as the local progressive liberal hub of their communities. They’re not deeply rooted in Quaker spirituality and are proud of the spiritual heterodoxy. They’re very organized–name tags, “Friendly 8” dinners, experienced clerks. They stand in contrast to the bulk of smaller meetings that are dying fast and won’t be around another generation.

Fitch clearly thinks the interesting work falls under the last category, “missional communities” and argues that a “significant part” of church resources should be devoted to “efforts in training missionary pastors.” His big question is whether the small “b” churches can evolve into the “c” missional communities.

I’m not sure that we really need training programs but for argument’s sake let’s say Fitch is right. Liberal Friends don’t have anyone to devote church resources to training (the closest analogue be the Earlham School of Religion). We do have small missional communities springing up but so far there’s been little support or recognition from local meetings or larger Friends bodies. What would it look like to equip these efforts in an unprogrammed Quaker setting? Is it all but inevitable that they’ll have to rely on self-organized associations? Will they remain as worship groups? Is that fine?

people who are engaged in the renewal movement within the Religious Society of Friends, across all the branches of Friends.

It sounds good but what does it mean? Specifically: who isn’t for renewal, at least on a theoretical level? There are lots of faithful, smart and loving Friends out there advocating renewal who don’t fit my definition of Convergent (which is fine, I don’t think the whole RSoF should be Convergent, it’s a movement in the river, not a dam).

When Robin coined the term at the start of 2006 it seemed to refer to general trends in the Religious Society of Friends and the larger Christian world, but it was also referring to a specific (online) community that had had a year or two of conversation to shape itself and model trust and accountability. Most importantly we each were going out of our way to engage with Friends from other Quaker traditions and were each called on our own cultural assumptions.
The coined term implied an experience of sort. “Convergent” explicitly references Conservative Friends (“Con-”) and the Emergent Church movement (“-vergent”). It seems to me like one needs to look at those two phenomenon and their relation to one’s own understanding and experience of Quaker life and community before really understanding what all the fuss has been about. That’s happening lots of places and it is not simply a blog phenomenon.

Nowadays I’m noticing a lot of Friends declaring themselves Convergent after reading a blog post or two or attending a workshop. It’s becoming the term du jour for Friends who want to differentiate themselves from business-as-usual, Quakerism-as-usual. This fits Robin’s simplified definition. But if that’s all it is and it becomes all-inclusive for inclusivity’s sake, then “Convergent” will drift away away from the roots of the conversation that spawned it and turn into another buzzword for “liberal Quaker.” This is starting to happen.

The term “Convergent Friends” is being picked up by Friends outside the dozen or two blogs that spawned it and moving into the wild–that’s great, but also means it’s definition is becoming a moving target. People are grabbing onto it to sum up their dreams, visions and frustrations but we’re almost certainly not meaning the same thing by it. “Convergent Friends” implies that we’ve all arrived somewhere together. I’ve often wondered whether we shouldn’t be talking about “Converging Friends,” a term that implies a parallel set of movements and puts the rather important elephant square on the table: converging toward what? What we mean by convergence depends on our starting point. My attempt at a label was the rather clunky conservative-leaning liberal Friend, which is probably what most of us in the liberal Quaker tradition are meaning by “Convergent.”

I started mapping out a liberal plan for Convergent Friends a couple of years before the term was coined and it still summarizes many of my hopes and concerns. The only thing I might add now is a paragraph about how we’ll have to work both inside and outside of normal Quaker channels to effect this change (Johan Maurer recently wrote an interesting post that included the wonderful description of “the lovely subversives who ignore structures and communicate on a purely personal basis between the camps via blogs, visitation, and other means” and compared us to SCUBA divers (“ScubaQuake.org” anyone?).

Robin’s inclusive definition of “renewal” definitely speaks to something. Informal renewal networks are springing up all over North America. Many branches of Friends are involved. There are themes I’m seeing in lots of these places: a strong youth or next-generation focus; a reliance on the internet; a curiosity about “other” Friends traditions; a desire to get back to roots in the simple ministry of Jesus. Whatever label or labels this new revival might take on is less important than the Spirit behind it.

But is every hope for renewal “Convergent”? I don’t think so. At the end of the day the path for us is narrow and is given, not chosen. At the end of day—and beginning and middle—the work is to follow the Holy Spirit’s guidance in “real time.” Definitions and carefully selected words slough away as mere notions. The newest message is just the oldest message repackaged. Let’s not get too caught up in our own hip verbage, lecture invitations and glorious attention that we forget that there there is one, even Christ Jesus who can speak to our condition, that He Himself has come to teach, and that our message is to share the good news he’s given us. The Tempter is ready to distract us, to puff us up so we think we are the message, that we own the message, or that the message depends on our flowery words delivered from podiums. We must stay on guard, humbled, low and praying to be kept from the temptations that surround even the most well-meaning renewal attempts. It is our faithfulness to the free gospel ministry that will ultimately determine the fate of our work.

Students of late-20th Century Quaker history can see the progression of Friends General Conference from a very Philadelphia-centric, provincial body that had its annual gathering at a South Jersey beach town to one that really does try to serve Friends across the country. There’s losses in the changes (alumni of the Cape May Gatherings all speak of them with misty eyes) but overall it’s been a needed shift in focus. In recent years, a disproportionate number of Gathering workshop leaders have come from the “independent” unaffiliated yearly meetings of the West. It’s nice.

Joe G has been sending me emails about his selection process (it’s almost real-time as he weighs each one!). It’s helpful as it saves me the trouble of sorting through them. It’s usually tough to find a workshop I want to take. A lot of Friends I really respect have told me they’ve stopped going to the Gathering after awhile because it just doesn’t feed them.

It’s a shame when these Friends stop coming. The Gathering is one of the most exciting annual coming-together of Quakers in North America. It’s very important for new and/or isolated Friends and it helps pull all its attenders into a wider Fellowship. Intervisitation has always been one of the most important tools for knitting together Friends and the Gathering has been filling much of that need for liberal Friends for the last hundred years.

I’ve been having this sense that Gathering needs something more. I don’t know what that something is, only that I long to connect more with other Friends. My best conversations have invariably taken place when I stopped to talk with someone while running across campus late to some event. These Opportunities have been precious but they’re always so frantic. The Traveling Ministries Program often has a wonderful evening interest group but by the time we’ve gone around sharing our names, stories and conditions, it’s time to break. I’m not looking for a new program (don’t worry Liz P!, wait it’s not you who has to worry!), just a way to have more conversations with the QuakerQuaker Convergent Friends–which in this context I think boils down to those with something of a call to ministry and an interest in Quaker vision & renewal. Let’s all find a way of connecting more this year, yes?

For those interested I’ve signed up for these workshops: Blessed Community in James’ Epistle (led by Max Hansen of Berkeley Friends Church, Deepening the Silence, Inviting Vital Ministry (20), and Finding Ourselves in the Bible).

Related Entries Elsewhere:

• Robin
• LizOpp

Usually I excerpt a particularly interesting sentence or two from books I recommend. But for this, I’d have to excerpt the whole pamphlet: it’s that good. Cazden really lays out how the “fellowship” model of Quakerism became dominant in the last seventy years and talks about both its limitations and strengths. Here’s the description I wrote for Quakerbooks:
bq. A look at the “confusion and disagreement” about how meetings govern themselves. Cazden reviews classical Quaker models and then looks at the “alternate model that has come to characterize liberal unprogrammed (‘Friends General Conference-type’) meetings in North America.” An important read for anyone trying to understand contemporary Quaker debates over same-sex marriage, the meaning of membership, the role of committees and issues of leadership in the Religious Society of Friends.
Cazden talks about many of the issues we’ve been discussing on this site. She’s one of the few Quaker historians that will discuss the Twentieth Century and she’s one of the few who remain seriously engaged with Friends, having served as clerk of New England Yearly Meeting. You can “order it from Beacon Hills Friends House”:http://www.bhfh.org/Bhfh-PubDesc.html#FCA. I wonder if we could get some sort of online book group going to talk about this?