I was really looking forward to The Testament of Ann Lee, the biopic of Shaker founder Ann Lee, directed and cowritten by Mona Fastvold and starring Amanda Seyfried as the titular character. My wife and I have read a bunch of books on Shakers over the last few years, including at least one cited by the filmmakers in the end credits. We knew from the trailer that this would be a Hollywood treatment, with Ann Lee played by a lithesome young blonde actress but we figured it might be interesting enough anyway.

Nope. It didn’t feel as if the director really understood either the theology behind Shaker aesthetics or the profound oddness of Mother Ann. Much of the movie leaned heavily on music-video styling, with wall-of sound electronica and well-trained singing voices reworking Shaker hymns, all set to carefully choreographed dance scenes. That would be fine for a Pat Benetar biopic but the real Shakers were fiercely against musical instruments (they considered them used “to excite lasciviousness, and to invite and stimulate men to destroy each others’ lives”). I’ve always imagined that dancing would have been more of the random repetitive trance of hippy or all-night raver—chaotic, unpredictable, profoundly un-synchronized.

I certainly understand that creators of period dramas sometimes feel the need to go off in ahistorical directions, especially in their use of music, as a way of setting a mood. But the plainness of Shaker music and dance is precisely its point. To make it too perfect is to misunderstand the theology itself.

The Ann Lee in my head canon isn’t a comely figure with a lust for mystical visions, burning truth and kindness for all. She’s short, kind of shapeless, illiterate, but most of all she’s unpredictable, by turns kind and mean, but also batshit and manipulative. The movie only has one scene about her confessions (a tame depiction at that), which is a shame as confessions were a core part of Mother Ann-era Shaker bonding. When people came to join or even visit the Shakers, she would confront them to confess all their sins in great detail. It was a humiliating process and not by accident: personal humiliation is a key tactic for all cults. There’s an implied blackmail, as embarrassing details could be shared publicly of anyone who might change their mind and want to leave. Another common cult tactic is separating individuals from their families, also an essential part of the Shaker experience.

In the movie, we see a dramatic example of townspeople terrorizing the Shakers but we’re never shown why the locals might be so angry. When people joined the Shakers they split up marriages, pulled children from parents, demanded converts give their material goods to the collective, and turned the new believers against their non-Shaker families. There were accusations that they stole wives and children, all detailed in lawsuits. The Shaker model was a profound threat to the familial structures that held together late-eighteenth century New England life. The violence shown the Shakers was inexcusable but also somewhat understandable—well, unless you watched this movie, where it was portrayed as a fear of the unknown.

The details also seriously strayed from history toward the end, depicting later Shaker life as co-existing with Mother Ann. That’s a terrible choice. Shakerism as an organized religion arguably only began shortly after her death, when a new leadership came together, new settlements started, and a social structure constructed that rewarded technical innovation. Pretty much everything we associate with Shaker design—the flat brooms (1798), the efficiently of the round barns (1826), the apple peelers (1830s), even the hymns that this movie sets to modern music (“Song of Summer” is c. 1875)—came later and really could only have come from institutional Shakers. This is the course of most new religious movements: a charismatic leader holding a small band of committed zealots together, followed by a later institutionalization of roles. By smushing these eras together, Mother Lee’s life is sanitized and Shakers presented as an American origin story.^{1 2}

What’s ironic that the movie itself is beautifully done. The rocked-up ahistorical Shaker songs are stirring. The singing and dancing are beautiful and well choreographed. The cinematography is exceptional. Amanda Seyfried does a great job playing the character she’s been given. If only she had been given Mother Ann!

I recently got around to seeing Quentin Tarantino’s Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, another period movie that profiles a cult in a tumultuous time in American history. It transported me so much more than this one. As I sat in the theater this week, sighing as yet another music video montage powered up, I found myself longing for an auteur with a tiny budget to take on Ann Lee’s story (David Lynch would have understood the essential weirdness of Ann Lee). Less is sometimes more. And it definitely would have been for this production.

Also, an early plug that the December Friends Journal will focus on Quakers and Christianity.

Quakerism without Jesus
byu/Enilorac89 inQuakers

How many of your political positions and social attitudes could be accurately guessed by a savvy demographer who knew your date of birth,  postal code,  education and family income? I’d guess each of us are far more predictable than we’d like to think.If true,  then what role does our religious life actually play?

Religious beliefs are also a demographic category,  granted, but if they only confirm positions that could be just as actually predicted by non-spiritual data, then doesn’t that imply that we’ve simply found (or remained in) a religious community that confirms our pre-existing biases? Have we created a faith in our own image? And if true, is it really fair to justify ourselves based on appeals to Quaker values?

The “political” Quaker writings I’m finding most interesting (because they’re least predictable) are the ones that stop to ask how Quaker discernment fits into the debate. Discernment: one could easily argue that Quaker openings and tools around it are one of our greatest gifts to human spirituality.  When we build a worship community based on strict adherence to the immediate prompting of the Holy Spirit, the first question becomes figuring out what is of-God and what is not.  Is James Nayler, riding Jesus-like into Bristol, a prophet or a nut?

When we go deep into the questions,  we may find that the answers are less important than the care we take to reach them.  Waiting for one another,  holding one another’s hand in love despite differences of opinion, can be more important than being the right-answer early adopter. How do you step back from easy answers to the thorny questions? How do you poll yourself and that-of-God in yourself to open your eyes and ears for the potential of surprise?

A lot of the search phrases are predictable for anyone who reads my blog enough: “modern liberal Quakers”:google, “Quaker peace testimony”:google, “Quaker decline”:google, “Quaker theology”:google, “emergent church movement”:google and “catholic Quakers”:google. By far the most popular searches are for the plain dress page. Every day I get searches for “modest dresses”:google, “plain dress”:google, “Quaker dress”:google, etc. Most Quakers might have long ago dismissed peculiarities like plain dress as relic of the nineteenth century, but a lot of twenty-first century net surfers are curious about this tradition of ours.
Sometimes I get search traffic that is downright bizarre. Who searches for “Its light that makes me uncomfortable?”:google (I like it; the Light spoken of by Friends is one that exposes and convicts before it comforts). “I’m going to hire a wino to decorate our home”:google is not a tactic I’ve ever considered (thanks Melynda). I’m apparently a world expert in “insecurities of young people from fashion modeling.”:google And if you want to know if “armageddon [is] gods way of getting rid of human race”:google I’m the guy to talk to. My Lutheran grandmother will rest easier in her grave knowing that I’m an important figure for “christian young adults”:google and a leading voice on “morality in twenty somethings”:google, but if all this righteousness gets to you I can also show you how to “beat a dead horse”:google.
More in the bizarro “why me?!” file: “baby arm picture”:google, “hand wash experiments”:google, “liberal protestantism and safe sex”:google, “unused cell phone numbers”:google. I’m not sure who thinks I know anything about the “statue of liberty holding a guitar”:google. “Do amish women wear bras”:google?: I don’t know.
Some of the phrases are so generic that I marvel that they point here. Are there really so few sites talking about “twenty-somethings”:google, even generically? Shouldn’t there be lots of mainline Protestants worried about their declining numbers and asking “why are churches dying”:google. There ain’t much movement to the “emergent church movement”:google if I’m the number one hit. I’d be happy to guide visiors to “gay christian websites”:google but I’m hardly an expert (or does Google know something about me that I don’t?). I’ve never been asked to give any major “Quaker speeches for peace”:google even though Google seems to think it’s about time; if you want lighter fare for your conference, I can also give a presentation on “fun things to to do with your Quaker”:google.
For the record: I have never met “mel gibson’s wife”:google, though I do know “Theo‘s mom”:google quite intimately, having been “married in south jersey”:google (want proof? How about some “baby Quaker pictures”:google ?). I don’t run “the social network for gorillas”:google but if I did it stands to reason I’d be something of an authority on the “theology of the planet of the apes”:google. If I knew “where thriving young adults can be successful”:google, do you think I’d be working for nonprofits?? I’m also afraid I don’t have much advice on “how to flatten new sod”:google. I do agree that “there were no good old days, these are the good old days”:google.
Finally, my favorite search phrase: “baby theo”:google. I have at least one Friend that uses this search phrase instead of bookmarking my site (he complained when my Baby Theo page temporarily fell out of first place).

h4. Methodology
bq. The linked words in this post are a sample of actual phrases that have brought actual visitors to my site from search engines. All of the links are to Google, the most commonly-used search engine, but some of these visitors used other search engines to find my site (which is why I won’t necessarily come up when you click the Google link).
h4. Updates
* “How crazy am I survey”“http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=active&q=HOW%20CRAZY%20AM%20I%20SURVEY (9/2006)