Tag Archives ⇒ use

Nonprofit Website Design and Measurement

October 30, 2004
· Martin Kelley

A 2004 Denom­i­na­tion­al Web­site Report

When I wrote this in the Fall of 2004, I was work­ing as the web­mas­ter for Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence, the US/Canadian denom­i­na­tion­al body for the lib­er­al branch of unpro­grammed Quak­ers. As web­mas­ter, I felt that one of my most impor­tant respon­si­bil­i­ties was to under­stand how reli­gious seek­ers use the inter­net and how our non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tion could ben­e­fit from under­stand­ing these patterns.

My 2004 report on the three FGC web­sites touched on a lot of these issues. I offer it here because I hope it can give oth­er non­prof­it and denom­i­na­tion­al web­sites some ideas about how to mea­sure their site’s use. Too often we put up web­sites with­out any follow-up analy­sis of their use. You just can’t make an effec­tive web­site like this and if your work is min­istry you don’t want its reach con­strained by minor nav­i­ga­tion­al design issues. Please feel free to use the com­ment page to start a dis­cus­sion on any of these issues.

State of the Websites

Report for FGC Cen­tral Com­mit­tee, Octo­ber 2004
By Mar­tin Kel­ley, webmaster

It’s impor­tant to start off with a lit­tle edi­to­r­i­al about why we need reports like this. We put up a web­site and we know peo­ple use it. Why both­er spend­ing time col­lect­ing data?

The inter­net is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly vague and pre­cise. We can say defin­i­tive­ly that the FGC web­site received 114,097 “unique vis­i­tors” in the past fis­cal year. But how many peo­ple does that rep­re­sent? Is that a high num­ber or low num­ber? How did these users react when they came to the site. Did they think to them­selves “whoops, not what I want” and leave, or did they go “wow, what’s this FGC?, hey this is great.” LESSON: We need data to know if the site is being used well.

Every­one who reads this report is by def­i­n­i­tion an insid­er. None of us are able to step into the shoes of an unknowl­edge­able seek­er. In my study of usage pat­terns, I have found that the dif­fer­ences in web­site use between Quak­er insid­ers and seek­ers is so great that they might as well be look­ing at dif­fer­ent web­sites, if not dif­fer­ent media alto­geth­er (see How Insid­ers and Seek­ers Use the Quak­er Net.

Because of this gap we can­not design the site based on whims or per­son­al pref­er­ences. It is incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult to imag­ine how new­com­ers might nav­i­gate the site. We can only con­sid­er the design of the site after we’ve exam­ined in usage, both in detail (actu­al users mov­ing through the site) and in aggre­gate (pages and links vis­it­ed over peri­ods of time). See also: How to mea­sure the peace move­ment. LESSON: We can only effec­tive­ly design the site if we incor­po­rate sophis­ti­cat­ed and detailed data about how the site is being used.

Part 2, Googlization

By far the most sig­nif­i­cant change in our web­sites over the past year has been the “googliza­tion” of Quaker­books and Quak­erfind­er, both of which now have over four times the vis­i­tors they were get­ting last year.

The Google Prob­lem: Both Quaker­books and Quak­erfind­er have had great con­tent from their start. The for­mer lists the entire inven­to­ry of FGC’s book­store, along with book descrip­tions and read­er com­men­tary. The lat­ter has our list of meet­ings – address­es, wor­ship times, and con­tact infor­ma­tion. But on both sites the bulk of the con­tent was locked up in data­bas­es. Before users could ben­e­fit from the sites, they had to find them. This lim­it­ed much of the use to peo­ple who already know about FGC and our resources. Because inter­net search engines can’t search web­site data­bas­es (a prob­lem known as the hid­den or deep web), they could index only a lim­it­ed num­ber of pages on these sites and they made refer­rals on only the most gener­ic search phras­es (e.g., “quak­er book­store” “quak­er meet­ing directory”).

We made var­i­ous changes to both sites (tech­ni­cal details below) that have made them search­able by Google and the oth­er search engines, which now return our sites for very spe­cif­ic search queries, e.g., “Quak­ers in con­flict Ingle” and “Quak­ers Poughkeepsie”.

A Wider, More Inclu­sive Audi­ence: What’s great is that this has giv­en us not just a big­ger audi­ence, but our tar­get audi­ence. Most of these vis­i­tors don’t know enough about how Friends are orga­nized to even know where to look for infor­ma­tion. With Quak­erfind­er and Quaker­books, we’re now be vis­i­ble on their terms.

We’re giv­ing them the basic infor­ma­tion they’re seek­ing and we’re doing it when they are active­ly seek­ing it. This last point is impor­tant. I spend a lot of time watch­ing how peo­ple use web­sites. If you email some­one out of the blue with a link to a web­site, they might fol­low it but only half-heartedly. They might be doing five oth­er things at the same time and they rarely stay to full use the web­site’s resources. When some­one comes to a site via a search engine they’re much more like­ly to look around: this is the vis­it that they are ini­ti­at­ing because they have some­thing spe­cif­ic they’re try­ing to find.

Hav­ing a “googli­fied” Quak­erfind­er means we’re actu­al­ly reach­ing peo­ple who are ready to try out a Quak­er meet­ing and we’re giv­ing them that most basic infor­ma­tion that’s often hard to find. With a search­able Quaker­books we’re sell­ing books to peo­ple who might not even have thought about Quak­ers as a pos­si­ble spir­i­tu­al path. I sus­pect that both sites are doing more out­reach about Quak­erism than any of us expect.

Update, 11/29/04: I recent­ly met some­one who came to Friends after read­ing the Quak­er entry in Wikipedia. He had gone through the list of reli­gious denom­i­na­tions in the U.S. till he found one that spoke to his con­di­tion. In the past month FGC has got­ten 57 vis­i­tors from Wikipedia.

The Fixes

In the offi­cial com­mit­tee report I tried to steer clear of too many tech­ni­cal details since I want­ed peo­ple to read it. So I’ll expand on them here on the web­site version.

Unique Domains: I don’t think it real­ly helped to give Quak​erfind​er​.org and Quaker​books​.org their own domains, at least ini­tial­ly. In last year’s report I not­ed that most of the traf­fic to those sites came from the main FGCQuak​er​.org site and that the sep­a­rate domains weren’t par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful. Now the sites do have their own sort of iden­ti­ty, thanks to the “googliza­tion,” which was a dif­fer­ent process for the two sites.

Quaker​books​.org: Vis­i­tors to the Quaker​books​.org site are giv­en ses­sion IDs to allow us to fol­low along with them as they make their selec­tions. Since some users don’t allow cook­ies, this ID some­times appears in the URL (it appears as some­thing like “?sessionid=1514” append­ed to the end of the address). Google real­ly hates ses­sion IDs because its auto­mat­ed soft­ware does­n’t know if the dif­fer­ent URLs are dif­fer­ent pages (to be indexed sep­a­rate­ly) or mere­ly dif­fer­ent ses­sions look­ing at the same page. So Googles just ignores any­thing that looks like this. The eas­i­est fix is to have the soft­ware look to see if the vis­i­tor is Google and take of the ses­sion IDs (Google is okay with this workaround; I also used this method to allow them to index my Non​vi​o​lence​.org dis­cus­sion board.)

Quak­erfind­er: On Quak​erfind​er​.org, the prob­lem was that vis­i­tors had to type in a zip code to get to any of the con­tent. Google’s not that inter­ac­tive and only fol­lows links. Until recent­ly, it thought there was only three pages to the site. To fix this we set up an alter­na­tive way to nav­i­gate the site: from the home­page you can now fol­low a link to lists of Quak­er Meet­ings by state. The zip code lookup is so much more con­ve­nient that we don’t sus­pect many live peo­ple will look up by state, but Google will and because of this it now lists 808 pages on the site. Now Google acts as a alter­nate lookup ser­vice, one that does­n’t depend on peo­ple find­ing our site beforehand.

Part 3, Comparing the Sites

Visitors

The basic mea­sure used to mea­sure web­site traf­fic is that of the “unique vis­i­tor,” which counts user ses­sions. Here are this year’s com­par­isons to last year’s. Num­bers rep­re­sent the month­ly aver­age “unique vis­i­tors” to each of our three websites.

     Site        FY 03/04 total  FY 02/03 total  Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    114,097         82,747           38%
     Quakerfinder.org  48,084         23,964          100%
     Quakerbooks.org   69,924         19,332          262%

The last two sites have tru­ly remark­able jumps. The num­bers are a lit­tle mis­lead­ing, how­ev­er, as the increase in traf­fic has­n’t been grad­ual but sud­den and climb­ing. Com­pare the last full month (Sep­tem­ber 2004) with the same month the pre­vi­ous year and all three sites have high­er jumps.

     Site             Sept 04         Sept 03         Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    9459            8254             15%
     Quakerfinder.org 8782            1997            340%
     Quakerbooks.org  7498            1611            366%

While the inter­net grows in use every year, the increas­es on Quak­erfind­er and Quaker­books rep­re­sent a quan­tum leap over that incre­men­tal increase. They rep­re­sent “search engine opti­miza­tion” of those sites, or what we all refer to the “googliza­tion” of the sites.

Links:

One way of mea­sur­ing the vis­i­bil­i­ty of a web­site is to count how many oth­er web­pages link to it. Here are

     Site              October 2004    October 2003    Increase
     FGCQuaker.org     496             396              25%
     Quakerfinder.org  196              46             326%
     Quakerbooks.org   151              96              57%

For com­par­i­son: Quak​er​.org is up to 11,900 links, Phi­la. Year­ly Meet­ing is 248, Pendle​Hill​.org is 420, FCNL.org is 10,200, Non​vi​o​lence​.org is 20,900 and AFSC.org is 21,800. See Mis­cel­la­neous & Notes at end to see how num­bers were obtained. See How Can We Mea­sure the State of the Peace Move­ment? for more on this method of measurement.

Part 4, The FGCQuak​er​.org Site

Visitors

Use of FGCQuak​er​.org con­tin­ues to grow at a good clip. We have a 38% increase this fis­cal year com­pared with last’s. The site received over 114,000 unique vis­i­tors from Octo­ber 1, 2003 to Sep­tem­ber 30, 2004.

To the right is the chart show­ing unique vis­i­tors by month for the past three years:

Referrers: Where did visitors come from?

In Sep­tem­ber 2004, there were 9459 “unique vis­its” to the FGCQuak​er​.org site, still our most-visited site. Here’s where they came from.

1021 from Quak​erfind​er​.org. One sur­prise this year is the jump in Quakerfinder-referred vis­its. This is due of course to the phe­nom­e­nal vis­i­bil­i­ty of that site. In a recent one-month peri­od, FGCQuak­er received 983 vis­its from Quak­erfind­er links, two-thirds of which came from the “googlized” Quak­erfind­er pages. About one in ten vis­i­tors are now com­ing to FGCQuak­er through Quak­erfind­er. Up 288% from last year.

842 from Google. We get a lot of Google traf­fic because we have a lot of con­tent on our site: dozens of pam­phlets, years worth of FGConnec­tions, large parts of the old Fos­ter­ing Vital Friends Meet­ings resource binder. Vis­i­tors via search engines often don’t know FGC exists but they want to know about our pro­grams and work. Because FGC does such great work (and because we pub­li­cize it online!), many of our resources answer ques­tions peo­ple have. I think this is great outreach.

Here’s an exam­ple. This Spring I noticed that we were get­ting vis­its on fair­ly gener­ic search­es for racism. Here’s a list of search inquiries that brought peo­ple to the CMR pages on FGC:

“end­ing racism”
“racial­ly diverse communities”
“quak­er racial diversity”
“diver­si­ty in friends”
“eth­nic diversity”
“respon­si­bil­i­ties to racism”
“pas­toral care racism”
“activ­i­ties for end­ing racism”
“tes­ti­monies racial unity”

This is a fas­ci­nat­ing list pre­cise­ly because these are gener­ic search­es. Peo­ple aren’t look­ing for “Quak­ers end­ing racism,” they’re look­ing for any­one “end­ing racism” and Google is bring­ing them to us (we’re num­ber 6 on that search term). This is sur­pris­ing: I would think the much big­ger denom­i­na­tions would all have com­mit­tees end­ing racism that would come up high­er just because of their larg­er insti­tu­tion­al clout. That we are so high sug­gests that this work is not as com­mon as I we might hope and that Friends might have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to play a role in larg­er faith dialogues.

When peo­ple use search engines, they get results from all over the FGC web­site. Search­es might pull up some four-year arti­cle on FGConnec­tions, or one of the “Friends And…” pam­phlets that we’ve put online. Google up 12% from last year. There were about 83 more vis­its from region­al Google sites.

434 from Quak​er​.org. Most of these peo­ple are com­ing direct­ly from the Quak​er​.org home­page to the FGCQuak​er​.org home­page. I esti­mate that about 60% of these vis­i­tors leave the FGC site with­out click­ing on any links. They’re prob­a­bly just super­fi­cial­ly curi­ous about us, but not enough to look around the site. Up 39% from last year.

253 from oth­er search engines: 118 from Yahoo (118), MSN (74), AOL (42), Ask (19).

81 from Beliefnet. Beliefnet has a pop­u­lar “Belief-o-Matic” quiz that will mag­i­cal­ly tell you what reli­gious faith you should join. It’s rigged in such a way that a lot of peo­ple unex­pect­ed­ly come up as Quak­er. The qui zthen directs peo­ple to an infor­ma­tion page on Friends, which includes some links to FGC. Most of the Beliefnet vis­i­tors are com­ing from that infor­ma­tion page direct­ly to the FGC home­page. Up 200% from last year.

69 from UVa’s Reli­gious Move­ments site. This is a pret­ty good descrip­tion of Quakerism

60 from Quaker­books. Our own book­store web­site attracts a lot of new peo­ple who aren’t part of the estab­lished Quak­er net­works and many of them first learn of FGC this way.

53 from Reli­gious Tol­er­ance. A pop­u­lar web­site from a Cana­di­an Uni­tar­i­an that pro­files religions..

52 from Quak​er​In​fo​.org. This is the Philadel­phia Quak­er Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, a joint project of a num­ber of Quak­er orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing FGC.

Where did people go?

Top Des­ti­na­tions in Sep­tem­ber 04:
* To the home­page: 2396;
* Library’s “Wel­come to Quak­erism” pages: 463;
* A&O “Resources for Meet­ings”: 320 (promi­nent­ly linked from Quakerfinder);
* Gath­er­ing pages: 309;
* “Silent Wor­ship Quak­er Val­ues” tract on the Library section;
* Gath­er­ing’s pic­tures from last year: 149;
* Reli­gious Ed: 149;
* FGConnec­tions arti­cles: 129;
* Ideas for First Day School”: 127;
* Advance­ment & Out­reach home­page: 124;
* Young Quakes: 118;
* Pub­li­ca­tions: 100;
* Devel­op­ment 97.

These are pret­ty typ­i­cal num­bers. The only sig­nif­i­cant vari­a­tion over the year comes in Spring, when traf­fic to the Gath­er­ing pages goes up. In May 2004, 961 peo­ple vis­it­ed the Gath­er­ing home­page, and 355 vis­it­ed the work­shop listings.

Forget the Aggregates: How Do People Use the Site?

So far I’ve looked at tallied-up num­bers: how many peo­ple vis­it­ed, how many pages were looked at. The prob­lem with this sort of sta­tis­tic is that it does­n’t give us a feel for how indi­vid­u­als are actu­al­ly using the site. Look­ing at usage explodes the pre­con­cep­tions that many of us “Insid­er Quak­ers” might bring to the web.

The first les­son: most peo­ple don’t come into our site via the FGC home­page. Even more shock­ing: close to half nev­er even see the homepage!

This blew me away when I first real­ized it. We spend so much time design­ing the home­page and won­der­ing how we’re going to direct seek­ers from it but a lot of this work is in vain.

Of that 45% or so that enter the site via the FGC home­page, most of them leave the site imme­di­ate­ly with­out fol­low­ing any link whatsoever.

Let’s splice this anoth­er way: 70% of the peo­ple who hit our site (wher­ev­er they enter) don’t look at any page oth­er than that first one. They don’t click on any­thing but the back button.

What are some of the lessons on this: one is that con­tent is all impor­tant. Those major­i­ty of vis­i­tors who bypass the home­page to para­chute direct­ly inside the site are com­ing for spe­cif­ic infor­ma­tion. Many of them don’t know any­thing about FGC and most of them don’t care to learn about FGC the orga­ni­za­tion. They’re look­ing for some spe­cif­ic piece of infor­ma­tion on Quak­ers (“paint­ing of Penn­syl­va­nia Abo­li­tion­ist Soci­ety Quak­ers” and “Quak­ers prison reform”), or on reli­gious edu­ca­tion in gen­er­al (“reli­gious meet­ing”), or on how church­es are deal­ing with racism (“racial diver­si­ty” and “do blacks wor­ship with only blacks”). These are all search phras­es that have brought vis­i­tors to FGCQuak​er​.org. So it’s great that we have our pam­phlets online and FGConnec­tions and RE mate­ri­als and A&O brochures.

There are hun­dreds of pages on our site, most of which we prob­a­bly for­get are there, but Google knows them and will dis­play them up when the query is right.

Anoth­er les­son is that we should­n’t rely on our home­page to help vis­i­tors nav­i­gate. We should­n’t even wor­ry much about using how its design will work for both insid­ers and seek­ers: most of the seek­ers nev­er even go there. Most of the peo­ple com­ing to the FGC home­page are look­ing for FGC the orga­ni­za­tion.

Com­mit­tee Page Case Study: One com­mit­tee, Advance­ment & Out­reach, is con­sid­er­ing redesign­ing their com­mit­tee page. In prepa­ra­tion I’ve looked at the usage and I think it makes a good case study. The A&O com­mit­tee gets the most vis­i­ble link on the FGC Home­page (top left, it gets this posi­tion because the com­mit­tee list is alpha­bet­i­cal). Despite this promi­nence, almost no vis­i­tors actu­al­ly fol­low this link. Only 1.5% of vis­i­tors to the FGCQuak​er​.org site ever get to the A&O home­page and even at that it’s the most vis­it­ed com­mit­tee page on our site!

Most of the vis­i­tors that did get to the A&O page
left with­out click­ing on any­thing. It is safe to say that most of those
vis­i­tors did­n’t thor­ough­ly read through the page. The most-followed
link is the first one, for the “Inreach/Outreach” review. In the one-month peri­od I exam­ined only 9 peo­ple fol­lowed this link! This does­n’t mean A&O mate­r­i­al isn’t used: Quak­erfind­er is very suc­cess­ful and the pam­phlet “Resources for Local meet­ings” is pop­u­lar. And over 300 peo­ple in this month came to some part of the A&O site. Com­mit­tee pages are use­ful for the rel­a­tive trick­le of Quak­er insid­ers who vis­it the page, but we should focus more on the con­tent com­mit­tees are producing.

The les­son is clear: vis­i­tors are pri­mar­i­ly look­ing for 1) good use­ful con­tent from the “Quak­er Library” resources and 2) prac­ti­cal infor­ma­tion about the Gath­er­ing. Pages about com­mit­tees and inter­nal FGC work­ings are not well used. We need to con­tin­ue the focus on prac­ti­cal resources. We also have to accept that peo­ple will not be look­ing at what we think they should be look­ing at. Through these vis­its we will slow­ly build up FGC’s rep­u­ta­tion but many peo­ple only dim­ly know what they’re look­ing at.

What I didn’t say in the report

In my offi­cial FGC report, I only hint­ed at the dif­fer­ences between insti­tu­tion­al web­sites and focused online new media sites.

One sur­pris­ing find that did­n’t make it into the report is that the three most-viewed pages on my own Quak­er Ranter site were seen by more peo­ple than all but the two most-viewed FGC pages. The most viewed pages on FGCQuak­er are the home­page and the Wel­come to Quak­erism page. Three of the pages on “Quak­er Ranter” are seen by more peo­ple than any oth­er page on the FGC web­site. FGC’s Reli­gious Edu­ca­tion and Advance­ment and Out­reach and Pub­li­ca­tions pages all are more obscure than my home­page or my “resources on plain dress” directory.

Insti­tu­tion­al web­sites by their very nature have too many con­flict­ing audi­ences and too timid a voice to act as much more than a ref­er­ence resource. The Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence web­site is prob­a­bly more friend­ly to seek­ers than most oth­er insti­tu­tion­al web­sites out there but even it gets a lot of peo­ple hit­ting the “back” but­ton as soon as they hit the homepage.

Reli­gious seek­ers are look­ing for indi­vid­ual voic­es with some­thing to say and I sus­pect new media seek­er web­sites will only become more impor­tant as time goes on. I sus­pect this will come as a sur­prise to insti­tu­tion­al insid­ers as it hap­pens. Sort of relat­ed­ly, see my Peace and Twenty-Somethings for some of the gen­er­a­tional aspects of this shift. My Books and Media sec­tion col­lects sim­i­lar sorts of essays.

One more piece in this: the FGC web­sites did­n’t get a lot of blog traf­fic. If all I were was the web­mas­ter of Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence, I’d assume that all this blog talk in the media was hype. But as the “Quak­er Ranter” I know that a pop­u­lar blog and/or per­son­al site can get a lot of read­ers. The les­son here is that there’s lit­tle cross-over. Blogs seem to send lit­tle traf­fic to insti­tu­tion­al web­sites and vice ver­sa (actu­al­ly insti­tu­tion­al web­sites can’t real­ly send peo­ple to blog­gers for a vari­ety of rea­sons). I’ve had a num­ber of peo­ple read my blog and declare they’ll be com­ing to the next FGC Gath­er­ing so I know per­son­al blogs can help raise orga­ni­za­tion pro­files but that inter­est does­n’t man­i­fest itself as an immediately-followed link. I sus­pect the com­mu­ni­ty being formed by the blogs is far more impor­tant than the raw num­ber of refer­ral links.

Part 5, Quaker​books​.org and Quak​erfind​er​.org

Quaker​books​.org

The first of our two sites to be “googli­fied” was Quaker​books​.org. I had long hoped to have our book list­ings show up on the search engines, espe­cial­ly since we car­ry a lot of hard-to-find ones. I had opened up the dis­cus­sion board of my peace site to Google and been hap­py with the results.

Back in ear­ly 2003 we installed new soft­ware by Steve Beuret to pow­er the book­store web­site, one that would allow easy trans­fer of infor­ma­tion between the web­site and our inven­to­ry pro­gram. The web­site could now list whether a book was in stock, and orders would go direct­ly into the sys­tem (no more retyp­ing them!). Once the new sys­tem was run­ning smooth­ly, I emailed Steve about opti­miz­ing it for Google. There were two parts to this: hav­ing the books show up (Steve) and link­ing them in such a way that Google would index them prop­er­ly (me). It took awhile to get ito all work­ing but on Decem­ber 17, 2003 Google came through and indexed the site.

The most vis­it­ed pages are the intro­duc­to­ry ones:

  • Wel­come to Quakerism
  • Becom­ing a Member
  • Basics for Everyone

The search phras­es that are bring­ing in vis­i­tors used to be gener­ic (“quak­er book­store”) they now are very spe­cif­ic. Sep­tem­ber’s list is typical:

  • crash by jer­ry spinnelli
  • Andrew Goldswor­thy
  • cel­e­bra­tion of discipline
  • the mis­fits by james howe
  • rufus jones

I knew we’d show up high in the Google rank­ings for obscure books but I’ve been pleased that we’re right up there with Ama­zon and Barnes and Noble even with main­stream books.

Our online best sell­ers are pretty

  • Ground­ed in God: Care And Nur­ture In Friends Meetings
  • Friends for 350 Years
  • The Quak­er Way
  • Philadel­phia Faith and Practice
  • Lis­ten­ing Spir­i­tu­al­i­ty Vol­ume 1
  • Silence and Witness
  • The Jour­nal of George Fox

The book­store inven­to­ry soft­ware is not very good at pulling mar­ket­ing sta­tis­tics. While it’s very good at telling us what books have sold and what books need to be reordered, it won’t tal­ly up things by type of sale (phone vs. web vs. mail-order). The book­store report should include more infor­ma­tion on actu­al web sales.

Anec­do­tal­ly it appears as if about half our web orders are new cus­tomers. Many of them are from geo­graph­ic areas which are not tra­di­tion­al­ly Quak­er. A&O has pro­duced a fly­er which goes into orders for new customers.

Quak​erfind​er​.org

After we saw how suc­cess­ful the “googliza­tion” of Quaker­books was, I thought we should try it for Quak­erfind­er. It took a lit­tle sea­son­ing to get every­one on A&O to sign off on the project but I am delight­ed to say they saw their way clear. The result has been noth­ing sort of amaz­ing. Use of the site has grown by 340%. But the actu­al num­bers are even more impor­tant: by my best esti­mate, over 6000 a month are using Quak­erfind­er who would not have even found the resource if we had­n’t made it search engine friend­ly. That’s 72,000 peo­ple a year – twice FGC’s mem­ber­ship, and these are the EXTRA peo­ple com­ing. Alto­geth­er at our cur­rent rate, this site is being used by over 100,000 unique vis­i­tors. Even if only one in ten of them make it to a Meet­ing, that’s a lot of people.

In last year’s report I point­ed out that most of Quak­erfind­er’s traf­fic was com­ing from the FGC site. At that point, it did­n’t look­ing like giv­ing the loca­tion look-up util­i­ty it’s own domain name was pay­ing off in any tan­gi­ble way. Now it’s clear­ly worth it. Just the extra 600 or so vis­i­tors Quak­erfind­er is throw­ing to FGCQUaker​.org site makes it worth it! Horray!

blankTwen­ty Times the Google-Linked Vis­its: I com­pared two typ­i­cal months, one before and the oth­er after the “search engine opti­miza­tion.” In May 2004 Quak­erfind­er received 241 vis­i­tors from Google search­es (foot­note 1). In Sep­tem­ber, it received 3813 vis­i­tors – that’s over twen­ty times the vis­its. Over­all vis­its almost tripled, from 2292 to 6037, with 60% of those extra vis­i­tors direct­ly attrib­uted to the Google bounce. The chart to the left shows dai­ly Google-referred vis­its since the mid­dle of March.

More Than Just Google: Oth­er search engines were affect­ed too: all togeth­er search engine vis­its went from from 311 in May to 4134 in Sep­tem­ber. For those inter­est­ed, the top five search engines for Quak­erfind­er traf­fic are:

  • Google​.com 83%
  • AOL: 5%
  • Google Cana­da: 3%
  • Yahoo: 1%
  • Com­cast: 0.8%

As you can see, Google far over­whelms every­one else, which is why we often just call this “the googliza­tion” of Quakerfinder!

Part 6, Miscellaneous and Notes

Miscellaneous

Mail­ing Lists

Late in the fis­cal year, we pur­chased bulk email soft­ware. No, we’re not going to try to sell Via­gra or a new home mort­gage. This pro­gram will help us get infor­ma­tion out to our book­store cus­tomers and com­mit­tee lists. Our occa­sion­al book­store emails (“Book Mus­ings from Lucy”) have been very well received, with only a tiny frac­tion of recip­i­ents ask­ing to be tak­en off the list.

Web Host Changes

A big project, though not very excit­ing, is that we’re chang­ing our web host­ing com­pa­ny. FGCQuak​er​.org is with the new com­pa­ny (OLM) and Quak​erfind​er​.org and Quaker​books​.org will be mov­ing short­ly. The new com­pa­ny orga­nizes our accounts bet­ter and we hope that their ser­vice is bet­ter. (We’d rec­om­mend avoid­ing Data Realm also known as Serve​.com.)

Notes

Pro­grams I Use to Col­lect Stats:

  • For over­all num­bers, I used a extremely-common pro­gram called Webal­iz­er, which gives use­ful month­ly summaries.
  • For details I used a pro­gram called AXS Vis­i­tor Track­ing Pro­gram, which lets me watch indi­vid­ual users as they nav­i­gate the site. With AXS I can also get details on where vis­i­tors to spe­cif­ic pages come from.
  • I have a list of key words which I watch on Google; every few weeks
    I record where our sites stand on those phras­es and watch how
    nav­i­ga­tion­al changes I make affect our Google rankings.
  • I also use Google to see what oth­er web­sites are link­ing to us. I
    look at what they link to (often not our home­page) and how many sites
    there are linking.
  • I also fol­low links using more spe­cif­ic search engines such as Tech­no­rati, which index­es blogs (“web blogs” or per­son­al diary-like sites).

Mea­sur­ing Links:

I use Altavis­ta’s search engine to mea­sure how many links a site has. For good rea­sons, Google does­n’t list obscure web­sites and also counts how a site’s links back to itself. Here’s a sam­ple Altavista query:

link:www.fgcquaker.org/ ‑site:www.fgcquaker.org
See How Can We Mea­sure the State of the Peace Move­ment? for more on this method of measurement.

Unique Vis­i­tors:

The most stan­dard mea­sure of web­site usage, here is a def­i­n­i­tion: “A real vis­i­tor to a web site. Web servers record the IP address­es of each vis­i­tor, and this is used to deter­mine the num­ber of real peo­ple who have vis­it­ed a web site. If for exam­ple, some­one vis­its twen­ty pages with­in a web site, the serv­er will count only one unique vis­i­tor (because the page access­es are all asso­ci­at­ed with the same IP address) but twen­ty page accesses.”

Quaker Testimonies

October 15, 2004
· Martin Kelley

One of the more rev­o­lu­tion­ary trans­for­ma­tions of Amer­i­can Quak­erism in the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry has been our under­stand­ing of the tes­ti­monies. In online dis­cus­sions I find that many Friends think the “SPICE” tes­ti­monies date back from time immemo­r­i­al. Not only are they rel­a­tive­ly new, they’re a dif­fer­ent sort of crea­ture from their predecessors.

In the last fifty years it’s become dif­fi­cult to sep­a­rate Quak­er tes­ti­monies from ques­tions of mem­ber­ship. Both were dra­mat­i­cal­ly rein­vent­ed by a newly-minted class of lib­er­al Friends in the ear­ly part of the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry and then cod­i­fied by Howard Brin­ton’s land­mark Friends for 300 Years, pub­lished in the ear­ly 1950s.

Comfort and the Test of Membership

Brin­ton comes right out and says that the test for mem­ber­ship should­n’t involve issues of faith or of prac­tice but should be based on whether one feels com­fort­able with the oth­er mem­bers of the Meet­ing. This con­cep­tion of mem­ber­ship has grad­u­al­ly become dom­i­nant among lib­er­al Friends in the half cen­tu­ry since this book was pub­lished. The trou­ble with it is twofold. The first is that “com­fort” is not nec­es­sar­i­ly what God has in mind for us. If the frequently-jailed first gen­er­a­tion of Friends had used Brin­ton’s mod­el there would be no Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends to talk about (we’d be lost in the his­tor­i­cal foot­notes with the Mug­gle­to­ni­ans, Grindle­to­ni­ans and the like). One of the clas­sic tests for dis­cern­ment is whether an pro­posed action is con­trary to self-will. Com­fort is not our Soci­ety’s calling.

The sec­ond prob­lem is that com­fort­a­bil­i­ty comes from fit­ting in with a cer­tain kind of style, class, col­or and atti­tude. It’s fine to want com­fort in our Meet­ings but when we make it the pri­ma­ry test for mem­ber­ship, it becomes a cloak for eth­nic and cul­tur­al big­otries that keep us from reach­ing out. If you have advanced edu­ca­tion, mild man­ners and lib­er­al pol­i­tics, you’ll fit it at most East Coast Quak­er meet­ings. If you’re too loud or too eth­nic or speak with a work­ing class accent you’ll like­ly feel out of place. Samuel Cald­well gave a great talk about the dif­fer­ence between Quak­er cul­ture and Quak­er faith and I’ve pro­posed a tongue-in-cheek tes­ti­mo­ny against com­mu­ni­ty as way of open­ing up discussion.

The Feel-Good Testimonies

Friends for 300 Years also rein­vent­ed the Tes­ti­monies. They had been spe­cif­ic and often pro­scrip­tive: against gam­bling, against par­tic­i­pa­tion in war. But the new tes­ti­monies became vague feel-good char­ac­ter traits – the now-famous SPICE tes­ti­monies of sim­plic­i­ty, peace, integri­ty, com­mu­ni­ty and equal­i­ty. Who isn’t in favor of all those val­ues? A pres­i­dent tak­ing us to war will tell us it’s the right thing to do (integri­ty) to con­truct last­ing peace (peace) so we can bring free­dom to an oppressed coun­try (equal­i­ty) and cre­ate a stronger sense of nation­al pride (com­mu­ni­ty) here at home.

We mod­ern Friends (lib­er­al ones at least) were real­ly trans­formed by the redefin­tions of mem­ber­ship and the tes­ti­monies that took place mid-century. I find it sad that a lot of Friends think our cur­rent tes­ti­monies are the ancient ones. I think an aware­ness of how Friends han­dled these issues in the 300 years before Brin­ton would help us nav­i­gate a way out of the “eth­i­cal soci­ety” we have become by default.

The Source of our Testimonies

A quest for uni­ty was behind the rad­i­cal trans­for­ma­tion of the tes­ti­monies. The main accom­plish­ment of East Coast Quak­erism in the mid-twentieth cen­tu­ry was the reunit­ing of many of the year­ly meet­ings that had been torn apart by schisms start­ing in 1827. By the end of that cen­tu­ry Friends were divid­ed across a half dozen major the­o­log­i­cal strains man­i­fest­ed in a patch­work of insti­tu­tion­al divi­sions. One way out of this morass was to present the tes­ti­monies as our core uni­fy­ing prici­ples. But you can only do that if you divorce them from their source.

As Chris­tians (even as post-Christians), our core com­mand­ment is sim­ple: to love God with all our heart and to love our neigh­bor as ourselves:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great com­mand­ment. And the sec­ond is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neigh­bour as thy­self. On these two com­mand­ments hang all the law and the prophets. Matthew 22:37 – 40 and Mark 12:30 – 31, Luke 10:27.

The Quak­er tes­ti­monies also hang on these com­mand­ments: they are our col­lec­tive mem­o­ry. While they are in con­tant flux, they refer back to 350 years of expe­ri­ence. These are the truths we can tes­ti­fy to as a peo­ple, ways of liv­ing that we have learned from our direct expe­ri­ence of the Holy Spir­it. They are intri­cate­ly tied up with our faith and with how we see our­selves fol­low­ing through on our charge, our covenant with God.

I’m sure that Howard Brin­ton did­n’t intend to sep­a­rate the tes­ti­monies from faith, but he chose his new catagories in such a way that they would appeal to a mod­ern lib­er­al audi­ence. By pop­u­lar­iz­ing them he made them so acces­si­ble that we think we know them already.

A Tale of Two Testimonies

Take the twin tes­ti­monies of plain­ness and sim­plic­i­ty. First the ancient tes­ti­mo­ny of plain­ness. Here’s the descrip­tion from 1682:

Advised, that all Friends, both old and young, keep out of the world’s cor­rupt lan­guage, man­ners, vain and need­less things and fash­ions, in appar­el, build­ings, and fur­ni­ture of hous­es, some of which are immod­est, inde­cent, and unbe­com­ing. And that they avoid immod­er­a­tion in the use of law­ful things, which though inno­cent in them­selves, may there­by become hurt­ful; also such kinds of stuffs, colours and dress, as are cal­cu­lat­ed more to please a vain and wan­ton mind, than for real use­ful­ness; and let trades­men and oth­ers, mem­bers of our reli­gious soci­ety, be admon­ished, that they be not acces­sary to these evils; for we ought to take up our dai­ly cross, mind­ing the grace of God which brings sal­va­tion, and teach­es to deny all ungod­li­ness and world­ly lusts, and to live sober­ly, right­eous­ly and god­ly, in this present world, that we may adorn the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ in all things; so may we feel his bless­ing, and be instru­men­tal in his hand for the good of others.

Note that there’s noth­ing in there about the length of one’s hem. The key phrase for me is the warn­ing about doing things “cal­cu­lat­ed to please a vain and wan­ton mind.” Friends were being told that pride makes it hard­er to love God and our neigh­bors; immod­er­a­tion makes it hard to hear God’s still small voice; self-sacrifice is nec­es­sary to be an instru­ment of God’s love. This tes­ti­mo­ny is all about our rela­tion­ships with God and with each other.

Most mod­ern Friends have dis­pensed with “plain­ness” and recast the tes­ti­mo­ny as “sim­plic­i­ty.” Ask most Friends about this tes­ti­mo­ny and they’ll start telling you about their clut­tered desks and their annoy­ance with cell­phones. Ask for a reli­gious edu­ca­tion pro­gram on sim­plic­i­ty and you’ll almost cer­tain­ly be assigned a book from the mod­ern vol­un­tary sim­plic­i­ty move­ment, one of those self-help man­u­als that promise inner peace if you plant a gar­den or buy a fuel-efficient car, with “God” absent from the index. While it’s true that most Amer­i­cans (and Friends) would have more time for spir­i­tu­al refresh­ment if they unclut­tered their lives, the sec­u­lar notions of sim­plic­i­ty do not emanate out of a con­cern for “gospel order” or for a “right order­ing” of our lives with God. Vol­un­tary sim­plic­i­ty is great: I’ve pub­lished books on it and I live car-free, use cloth dia­pers, etc. But plain­ness is some­thing dif­fer­ent and it’s that dif­fer­ence that we need to explore again.

Pick just about any of the so-called “SPICE” tes­ti­monies (sim­plic­i­ty, peace, integri­ty, com­mu­ni­ty and equal­i­ty) and you’ll find the mod­ern notions are sec­u­lar­l­ized over-simplications of the Quak­er under­stand­ings. In our quest for uni­ty, we’ve over-stated their importance.

Ear­li­er I men­tioned that many of the ear­li­er tes­ti­monies were pro­scrip­tive – they said cer­tain actions were not in accord with our prin­ci­ples. Take a big one: after many years of dif­fi­cult min­is­ter­ing and soul search­ing, Friends were able to say that slav­ery was a sin and that Friends who held slaves were kept from a deep com­mu­nion with God; this is dif­fer­ent than say­ing we believe in equal­i­ty. Sim­i­lar­ly, say­ing we’re against all out­ward war is dif­fer­ent than say­ing we’re in favor of peace. While I know some Friends are proud of cast­ing every­thing in pos­ti­tive terms, some­times we need to come out and say a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice is just plain wrong, that it inter­feres with and goes against our rela­tion­ship with God and with our neighbors.

I’ll leave it up to you to start chew­ing over what spe­cif­ic actions we might take a stand against. But know this: if our min­is­ters and meet­ings found that a par­tic­u­lar prac­tice was against our tes­ti­monies, we could be sure that there would be some Friends engaged in it. We would have a long process of min­is­ter­ing with them and labor­ing with them. It would be hard. Feel­ings would be hurt. Peo­ple would go away angry.

After a half-century of lib­er­al indi­vid­u­al­ism, it would be hard to once more affirm that there is some­thing to Quak­erism, that it does have norms and bound­aries. We would need all the love, char­i­ty and patience we could muster. This work would is not easy, espe­cial­ly because it’s work with mem­bers of our com­mu­ni­ty, peo­ple we love and hon­or. We would have to fol­low John Wool­man’s exam­ple: our first audi­ence would not be Wash­ing­ton pol­i­cy­mak­ers , but instead Friends in our own Society.

Testimonies as Affirmation of the Power

In a world beset by war, greed, pover­ty and hatred, we do need to be able to talk about our val­ues in sec­u­lar terms. An abil­i­ty to talk about paci­fism with our non-Quaker neigh­bors in a smart, informed way is essen­tial (thus my Non​vi​o​lence​.org min­istry [since laid down], cur­rent­ly receiv­ing two mil­lions vis­i­tors a year). When we affirm com­mu­ni­ty and equal­i­ty we are wit­ness­ing to our faith. Friends should be proud of what we’ve con­tributed to the nation­al and inter­na­tion­al dis­cus­sions on these topics.

But for all of their con­tem­po­rary cen­tral­i­ty to Quak­erism, the tes­ti­monies are only second-hand out­ward forms. They are not to be wor­shiped in and of them­selves. Mod­ern Friends come dan­ger­ous­ly close to lift­ing up the peace tes­ti­mo­ny as a false idol – the prin­ci­ple we wor­ship over every­thing else. When we get so good at argu­ing the prac­ti­cal­i­ty of paci­fism, we for­get that our tes­ti­mo­ny is first and fore­most our procla­ma­tion that we live in the pow­er that takes away occas­sion for war. When high school math teach­ers start argu­ing over arcane points of nuclear pol­i­cy, play­ing arm­chair diplo­mat with year­ly meet­ing press releas­es to the U.S. State Depart­ment, we loose cred­i­bil­i­ty and become some­thing of a joke. But when we min­is­ter with the Pow­er that tran­scends wars and earth­ly king­doms, the Good News we speak has an author­i­ty that can thun­der over pet­ty gov­ern­ments with it’s com­mand to quake before God.

When we remem­ber the spir­i­tu­al source of our faith, our under­stand­ings of the tes­ti­monies deep­en immea­sur­ably. When we let our actions flow from uncom­pli­cat­ed faith we gain a pow­er and endurance that strength­ens our wit­ness. When we speak of our expe­ri­ence of the Holy Spir­it, our words gain the author­i­ty as oth­ers rec­og­nize the echo of that “still small voice” speak­ing to their hearts. Our love and our wit­ness are sim­ple and uni­ver­sal, as is the good news we share: that to be ful­ly human is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul and mind and to love our neigh­bors as we do ourselves.

Hal­lelu­jah: praise be to God!

Reading elsewhere:

Testimonies for twentieth-first century: a Testimony Against “Community”

February 1, 2004
· Martin Kelley

I pro­pose a lit­tle amend­ment to the mod­ern Quak­er tes­ti­monies. I think it’s time for a mora­to­ri­um of the word “com­mu­ni­ty” and the phras­es “faith com­mu­ni­ty” and “com­mu­ni­ty of faith.” Through overuse, we Friends have stretched this phrase past its elas­tic­i­ty point and it’s snapped. It’s become a mean­ing­less, abstract term used to dis­guise the fact that we’ve become afraid to artic­u­late a shared faith. A recent year­ly meet­ing newslet­ter used the word “com­mu­ni­ty” 27 times but the word “God” only sev­en: what does it mean when a reli­gious body stops talk­ing about God?

The “tes­ti­mo­ny of com­mu­ni­ty” recent­ly cel­e­brat­ed its fifti­eth anniver­sary. It was the cen­ter­piece of the new-and-improved tes­ti­monies Howard Brin­ton unveiled back in the 1950s in his Friends for 300 Years (as far as I know no one ele­vat­ed it to a tes­ti­mo­ny before him). Born into a well-known Quak­er fam­i­ly, he mar­ried into an even more well-known fam­i­ly. From the cra­dle Howard and his wife Anna were Quak­er aris­toc­ra­cy. As they trav­eled the geo­graph­ic and the­o­log­i­cal spec­trum of Friends, their pedi­gree earned them wel­come and recog­ni­tion every­where they went. Per­haps not sur­pris­ing­ly, Howard grew up to think that the only impor­tant cri­te­ria for mem­ber­ship in a Quak­er meet­ing is one’s com­fort lev­el with the oth­er mem­bers. “The test of mem­ber­ship is not a par­tic­u­lar kind of reli­gious expe­ri­ence, nor accep­tance of any par­tic­u­lar reli­gious, social or eco­nom­ic creed,” but instead one’s “com­pat­i­bil­i­ty with the meet­ing com­mu­ni­ty.” ( Friends for 300 Years page 127).

So what is “com­pat­i­bil­i­ty”? It often boils down to being the right “kind” of Quak­er, with the right sort of behav­ior and val­ues. At most Quak­er meet­ings, it means being exceed­ing­ly polite, white, upper-middle class, polit­i­cal­ly lib­er­al, well-educated, qui­et in con­ver­sa­tion, and devoid of strong opin­ions about any­thing involv­ing the meet­ing. Quak­ers are a homoge­nous bunch and it’s not coin­ci­dence: for many of us, it’s become a place to find peo­ple who think like us.

But the desire to fit in cre­ates its own inse­cu­ri­ty issues. I was in a small “break­out” group at a meet­ing retreat a few years ago where six of us shared our feel­ings about the meet­ing. Most of these Friends had been mem­bers for years, yet every sin­gle one of them con­fid­ed that they did­n’t think they real­ly belonged. They were too loud, too col­or­ful, too eth­nic, maybe sim­ply too too for Friends. They all judged them­selves against some image of the ide­al Quak­er – per­haps the ghost of Howard Brin­ton. We rein our­selves in, stop our­selves from say­ing too much.

This phe­nom­e­non has almost com­plete­ly end­ed the sort of prophet­ic min­istry once com­mon to Friends, where­by a min­is­ter would chal­lenge Friends to renew their faith and clean up their act. Today, as one per­son recent­ly wrote, mod­ern Quak­ers often act as if avoid­ance of con­tro­ver­sy is at the cen­ter of our reli­gion. That makes sense if “com­pat­i­bil­i­ty” is our test for mem­ber­ship and “com­mu­ni­ty” our only stat­ed goal. While Friends love to claim the great eigh­teenth cen­tu­ry min­is­ter John Wool­man, he would most like­ly get a cold shoul­der in most Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es today. His reli­gious moti­va­tion and lan­guage, cou­pled with his some­times eccen­tric pub­lic wit­ness and his overt call to reli­gious reform would make him very incom­pat­i­ble indeed. Some­times we need to name the ways we aren’t fol­low­ing the Light: for Friends, Christ is not just com­forter, but judger and con­dem­n­er as well. Heavy stuff, per­haps, but nec­es­sary. And near-impossible when a com­fy and non-challenging com­mu­ni­ty is our pri­ma­ry mission.

Don’t get me wrong. I like com­mu­ni­ty. I like much of the non-religious cul­ture of Friends: the potlucks, the do-it-yourself approach to music and learn­ing, our curi­ousi­ty about oth­er reli­gious tra­di­tions. And I like the open­ness and tol­er­ance that is the hall­mark of mod­ern lib­er­al­ism in gen­er­al and lib­er­al Quak­erism in par­tic­u­lar. I’m glad we’re Queer friend­ly and glad we don’t get off on tan­gents like who mar­ries who (the far big­ger issue is the sor­ry state of our meet­ings’ over­sight of mar­riages, but that’s for anoth­er time). And for all my rib­bing of Howard Brin­ton, I agree with him that we should be care­ful of the­o­log­i­cal lit­mus tests for mem­ber­ship. I under­stand where he was com­ing from. All that said, com­mu­ni­ty for its own sake can’t be the glue that holds a reli­gious body together.

So my Tes­ti­mo­ny Against “Com­mu­ni­ty” is not a rejec­tion of the idea of com­mu­ni­ty, but rather a call to put it into con­text. “Com­mu­ni­ty” is not the goal of the Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends. Obe­di­ence to God is. We build our insti­tu­tions to help us gath­er as a great peo­ple who togeth­er can dis­cern the will of God and fol­low it through what­ev­er hard­ships the world throws our way.

Plen­ty of peo­ple know this. Last week I asked the author of one of the arti­cles in the year­ly meet­ing newslet­ter why he had used “com­mu­ni­ty” twice but “God” not at all. He said he per­son­al­ly sub­sti­tutes “body of Christ” every­time he writes or reads “com­mu­ni­ty.” That’s fine, but how are we going to pass on Quak­er faith if we’re always using lowest-common-denominator language?

We’re such a lit­er­ate peo­ple but we go sur­pris­ing­ly mute when we’re asked to share our reli­gious under­stand­ings. We need to stop being afraid to talk with one anoth­er, hon­est­ly and with the lan­guage we use. I’ve seen Friends go out of their way to use lan­guage from oth­er tra­di­tions, espe­cial­ly Catholic or Bud­dhist, to state a basic Quak­er val­ue. I fear that we’ve dumb­ed down our own tra­di­tion so much that we’ve for­got­ten that it has the robust­ness to speak to our twenty-first cen­tu­ry conditions.

 

Relat­ed Essays

I talk about what a bold Quak­er com­mu­ni­ty of faith might look like and why we need one in my essay on the “Emer­gent Church Move­ment” I talk about our fear of meet­ing uni­ty in “We’re all Ranters Now.”

What makes a Quaker meeting house?

December 5, 2003
· Martin Kelley
An Atlantic County Methodist Episcopal Meetinghouse. Picture from NJChurschape
An Atlantic Coun­ty Methodist Epis­co­pal Meet­ing­house. Pic­ture from NJChurschape

One of my favorite sites is the amaz­ing NJChurch​scape​.com—that’s New Jer­sey Church­scapes, put togeth­er large­ly through the efforts of Frank L. Greenagel. It’s a true labor of love, a cat­a­loging of church and meet­ing archi­tec­ture in New Jer­sey. It has beau­ti­ful pho­tos, great sto­ries, read­able essays on archi­tec­ture. In a state where every­thing below Cher­ry Hill often gets ignored, South Jer­sey gets good cov­er­age and there’s a lot from the old Quak­er colony of West Jer­sey. This mon­th’s fea­ture is on the meet­ing­house, a build­ing of endear­ing sim­plic­i­ty and it rais­es a lot of ques­tions for me of how we relate to our church buildings.

We modern-day Friends tend to think of the term meet­ing­house as unique­ly ours, but go back in his­to­ry and you’ll find just about every­one using the term to describe the non-showy build­ings they erect­ed for reli­gious ser­vices and town life. Dri­ve around South Jer­sey and you’ll see old Methodist church­es that start­ed out life as meet­ing­hous­es and look sur­pris­ing­ly Quak­er. Greenagel looks at the style and then asks:

At what point does a struc­ture cease being a meet­ing­house and become a church?.. With the ris­ing afflu­ence and increased mobil­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion came a demand for more spe­cial­ized places to meet, as well as more of the basic com­forts and style which hereto­fore were dis­missed as too world­ly, so many church­es added small­er lec­ture rooms, class­rooms for Sun­day school, and oth­er assem­bly rooms dis­tinct from the main auditorium.

By this mea­sure, how many of our beloved East Coast Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es should real­ly just be called “church­es?” In the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry the Protes­tant “Sun­day School Move­ment” was picked up by Gur­neyite and Pro­gres­sive Hick­site Friends, with the class­es sim­ply renamed “First Day School” in def­er­ence to Quak­er sen­si­bil­i­ties (I’ve always won­dered if the name switch actu­al­ly fooled any­one, but that’s anoth­er sto­ry). By the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, the new mod­ern lib­er­al Friends had picked up the lec­ture for­mat, which like the First Day School move­ment had been adopt­ed from edu­ca­tion­al mod­els via oth­er reli­gious groups. Many of our larg­er month­ly meet­ings have fel­low­ship halls, class­rooms, kitchens, etc. These build­ings have become spe­cial­ized reli­gious wor­ship build­ings and many of them sit emp­ty for most of the week. But not all.

Nowa­days many Quak­er meet­ings with build­ings open them mid-week for use by com­mu­ni­ty groups. Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es host peace groups, bat­tered women hot­lines, yoga class­es, reli­gious con­gre­ga­tions in need of a tem­po­rary home and sim­i­lar caus­es. There’s often an ele­ment of good works in the group’s charter.

Per­haps this will­ing­ness to open our build­ings up earns us the right to con­tin­ue using the meet­ing­house name. If so, we should be care­ful to resist the pres­sure of the insur­ance indus­try to close our­selves up in the name of lia­bil­i­ty. One unique­ness to our wor­ship spaces is that they are not con­se­crat­ed and there should be no spe­cial rules for their use. They are over­sized barns and we should cher­ish that. We should remem­ber not to get fetishis­tic about their his­to­ry and we should­n’t tie up our busi­ness meet­ings in end­less dis­cus­sions over the col­or of the new seat cush­ions. When we turn our build­ings over for oth­ers’ use, we should­n’t wor­ry over­ly much if a chair or clock gets damanged or stolen. Friends know that our reli­gion is not our build­ings and that the mea­sure of our spir­it is sim­ply how far we’ll fol­low God, togeth­er as a people.

Related Reading:

  • There’s a very hand­some book about the HABS work on Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es in the greater Philadel­phia area called Silent Wit­ness: Quak­er Meet­ing Hous­es In The Delaware Val­ley, 1695 To The Present. (only $10!).
  • My friend Bob Bar­nett has been putting a lot of great work into a new West Jer­sey website.

Classifying Intelligence Blunders

July 15, 2003
· Martin Kelley

The U.S. Jus­tice Depart­ment might be throw­ing out its pros­e­cu­tion of sus­pect­ed Al Qae­da ter­ror­ist Zacarias Mous­saoui because it does­n’t want to allow him to ques­tion anoth­er Al Qae­da detainee in court. With­out the tes­ti­mo­ny of Ramzi bin al-Shibh, the judge might throw out the entire indict­ment against Mous­saoui. What’s the Jus­tice Department’s ratio­nale? It says any tes­ti­mo­ny “would nec­es­sar­i­ly result in the unau­tho­rized dis­clo­sure of clas­si­fied information.”

Almost three years lat­er, what kind of clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion could Mous­saoui pos­si­bly have? Sure­ly noth­ing that future ter­ror­ists could use. The only thing he could talk about is con­di­tions in the pris­ons. Bin al-Shibh is being held in a secret loca­tion under mil­i­tary law but has report­ed­ly con­fessed to being part of the 9/11 attacks. Sure­ly all the infor­ma­tion he knows about the attacks is also known by dozens of oth­er Al Qae­da mem­bers still at large. Why is U.S.Attorney John Ashcroft’s Jus­tice Depart­ment so ner­vous about let­ting bin al-Shibh speak in public?

A gov­ern­ment will clas­si­fy a piece of infor­ma­tion if it feels that its dis­clo­sure would threat­en nation­al secu­ri­ty: that with it, its ene­mies could use it to launch some new attack. But every­thing that Mous­saoui and bin al-Shibh know is already known by our ene­mies. Gov­ern­ments some­times will abuse their pow­er and declare some­thing clas­si­fied if it con­tatins infor­ma­tion that would be embar­rass­ing to its rep­u­ta­tion or its polit­i­cal leaders.

It’s a big deal to risk throw­ing away a case like this, and it seems like­ly that Ashcroft is try­ing to keep some piece of infor­ma­tion from the Amer­i­can peo­ple. He could be try­ing to keep skele­tons of past U.S. mis­deeds safe­ly in the clos­et, using “nation­al secu­ri­ty” as the blan­ket to cov­er up the truth. The two sus­pect­ed ter­ror­ists might know quite a bit about U.S. intel­li­gence coop­er­a­tion with Afghani ter­ror­ists dur­ing the 1980s (when they were aim­ing their attacks at the Sovi­et Union). They might know about U.S. intel­li­gence mis­takes that could have pre­vent­ed 9/11. They sure­ly know about con­di­tions in the secret pris­ons were even detainees’ names and loca­tions are con­sid­ered “clas­si­fied infor­ma­tion.” Who’s secu­ri­ty would be threat­ened if this kind of infor­ma­tion got published?

My Experiments with Plainness

August 20, 2002
· Martin Kelley

[See also: Resources on Quak­er Plain­ness]

This was a post I sent to the “Pearl” email list, which con­sists of mem­bers of the 2002 FGC Gath­er­ing work­shop led by Lloyd Lee Wil­son of North Car­oli­na Year­ly Meet­ing (Con­ser­v­a­tive). Eighth Month 20, 2002

 

I thought I’d share some of my jour­ney in plain-ness since Gath­er­ing. There’s two parts to plain dress: sim­plic­i­ty and plain-ness.

The most impor­tant part of the sim­plic­i­ty work has been sim­pli­fy­ing my wardrobe. It’s incred­i­ble how many clothes I have. I sus­pect I have a lot few­er than most Amer­i­cans but there’s still tons, and nev­er enough room in the clos­ets & dressers (I do have small clos­ets but still!). I’d like to get all my clothes into one or two dress­er draw­ers and donate the rest to char­i­ty. Two pairs of pants, a cou­ple of shirts, a few days worth of socks and under­gar­ments. This requires that I wash every­thing fre­quent­ly which means I hand-wash things but that’s okay. The point is to not wor­ry or think about what I’m going to wear every morn­ing. I’ve been to a wed­ding and a funer­al since I start­ed going plain and it was nice not hav­ing to fret about what to wear.

I also appre­ci­ate using less resources up by hav­ing few­er clothes. It’s hard to get away from prod­ucts that don’t have some neg­a­tive side effects (sup­port of oil indus­try, spilling of chem­i­cal wastes into streams, killing of ani­mals for hide, exploita­tion of peo­ple con­struct­ing the clothes at hor­ri­ble wages & con­di­tions). I try my best to bal­ance these con­cerns but the best way is to reduce the use.

These moti­va­tions are simple-ness rather than plain-ness. But I am try­ing to be plain too. For men it’s pret­ty easy. My most com­mon cloth­ing since Gath­er­ing has been black pants, shoes and sus­penders, and the com­bo seems to look pret­ty plain. There’s no his­toric authen­tic­i­ty. The pants are Levi-Dockers which I already own, the shoes non-leather ones from Pay­less, also already owned. The only pur­chase was sus­penders from Sears. I bought black over­alls too. My Dock­ers were vic­tims of a minor bike acci­dent last week (my scraped knee & elbow are heal­ing well, thank you, and my bike is fine) and I’m replac­ing them with thick­er pants that will hold up bet­ter to repeat­ed wash­ing & use. There’s irony in this, cer­tain­ly. If I were being just sim­ple, I’d wear out all the pants I have – despite their col­or – rather than buy new ones. I’d be wear­ing some bright & wacky pants, that’s for sure! But irony is part of any wit­ness, espe­cial­ly in the begin­ning when there’s some lifestyle shift­ing that needs to hap­pen. As a per­son liv­ing in the world I’m bound to have con­tra­dic­tions: they help me to not take myself too seri­ous­ly and I try to accept them with grace and good humor.

But prac­ti­cal­i­ty in dress more impor­tant to me than his­tor­i­cal authen­tic­i­ty. I don’t want to wear a hat since I bike every day and want to keep my head free for the hel­met; it also feels like my doing it would go beyond the line into quaint­ness. The only type of cloth­ing that’s new to my wardrobe is the sus­penders and real­ly they are as prac­ti­cal as a belt, just less com­mon today. A few Civ­il War re-enactment buffs have smil­ing­ly observed that clip-on sus­penders aren’t his­tor­i­cal­ly authen­tic but that’s per­fect­ly okay with me. I also wear col­lars, that’s per­fect­ly okay with me too.

The oth­er thing that I’m clear about is that the com­mand­ment to plain dress is not nec­es­sar­i­ly eter­nal. It is sit­u­a­tion­al, it is part­ly a response to the world and to Quak­er­dom and it does con­scious­ly refer to cer­tain sym­bols. God is what’s eter­nal, and lis­ten­ing to the call of Christ with­in is the real com­mand­ment. If I were in a Quak­er com­mu­ni­ty that demand­ed plain dress, I expect I would feel led to break out the tie-die and bleach and manic-panic hair col­or­ing. Dress is an out­ward form and like all out­ward forms and prac­tices, it can eas­i­ly become a false sacra­ment. If we embrace the form but for­get the source (which I sus­pect lots of Nine­teenth Cen­tu­ry Friends did), then it’s time to cause a ruckus.

Every so often Friends need to look around and take stock of the state of the Soci­ety. At the turn of the 20th Cen­tu­ry, they did that. There’s a fas­ci­nat­ing anti-plain dress book from that time that argues that it’s a musty old tra­di­tion that should be swept away in light of the social­ist ecu­meni­cal world of the future. I sus­pect I would have had much sym­pa­thy for the posi­tion at the time, espe­cial­ly if I were in a group of Friends who did­n’t have the fire of the Spir­it and wore their old clothes only because their par­ents had and it was expect­ed of Quakers.

Today the sit­u­a­tion is changed. We have many Friends who have blend­ed in so well with mod­ern sub­ur­ban Amer­i­ca that they’re indis­tin­guish­able in spir­it or deed. They don’t want to have com­mit­tee meet­ing on Sat­ur­days or after Meet­ing since that would take up so much time, etc. They’re hap­py being Quak­ers as long as not much is expect­ed and as long as there’s no chal­lenge and no sac­ri­fice required. We also have Friends who think that the peace tes­ti­mo­ny and wit­ness is all there is (con­fus­ing the out­ward form with the source again, in my opin­ion). When a spir­i­tu­al empti­ness sets into a com­mu­ni­ty there are two obvi­ous ways out: 1) bring in the fads of the out­side world (reli­gious revival­ism in the 19 Cen­tu­ry, social­ist ecu­meni­cal­sim in the 20th, Bud­dhism and sweat lodges in the 21st). or 2) re-examine the fire of pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions and fig­ure out what babies you threw away with the bath­wa­ter in the last rebel­lion against emp­ty out­ward form.

I think Quak­ers real­ly found some­thing spe­cial 350 years ago, or redis­cov­ered it and that we are con­stant­ly redis­cov­er­ing it. I have felt that power/ I know that there is still one, named Jesus Christ, who can speak to my con­di­tion and that the Spir­it comes to teach the peo­ple direct­ly. I’ll read old jour­nals and put on old clothes to try to under­stand ear­ly Friends’ beliefs. The clothes aren’t impor­tant, I don’t want to give them too much weight. But there is a tra­di­tion of Quak­ers tak­ing on plain dress upon some sort of deep spir­i­tu­al con­vince­ment (it is so much of a cliche of old Quak­er jour­nals that lit­er­ary types clas­si­fy it as part of the essen­tial struc­ture of the jour­nals). I see plain dress as a reminder we give our­selves that we are try­ing to live out­side the world­li­ness of our times and serve the eter­nal. My wit­ness to oth­ers is sim­ply that I think Quak­erism is some­thing to com­mit one­self whol­ly to (yes, I’ll meet on a Sat­ur­day) and that there are some pre­cious gifts in tra­di­tion­al Quak­er faith & prac­tice that could speak to the spir­i­tu­al cri­sis many Friends feel today.

In friend­ship,
Mar­tin Kelley
Atlantic City Area MM, NJ
martink@martinkelley.com

Related Posts

Con­tin­ue read­ing →

Stopping the Next War Now: More Victims Won’t Stop the Terror

October 7, 2001
· Martin Kelley

Orig­i­nal­ly pub­lished at Non​vi​o​lence​.org

The Unit­ed States has today begun its war against ter­ror­ism in a very famil­iar way: by use of ter­ror. Igno­rant of thou­sands of years of vio­lence in the Mid­dle East, Pres­i­dent George W. Bush thinks that the hor­ror of Sep­tem­ber 11th can be exor­cised and pre­vent­ed by bombs and mis­siles. Today we can add more names to the long list of vic­tims of the ter­ror­ist air­plane attacks. Because today Afgha­nis have died in terror.

The deaths in New York City, Wash­ing­ton and Penn­syl­va­nia have shocked Amer­i­cans and right­ly so. We are all scared of our sud­den vul­ner­a­bil­i­ty. We are all shocked at the lev­el of anger that led nine­teen sui­cide bombers to give up pre­cious life to start such a lit­er­al and sym­bol­ic con­fla­gra­tion. What they did was hor­ri­ble and with­out jus­ti­fi­ca­tion. But that is not to say that they did­n’t have reasons.

The ter­ror­ists com­mit­ted their atroc­i­ties because of a long list of griev­ances. They were shed­ding blood for blood, and we must under­stand that. Because to under­stand that is to under­stand that Pres­i­dent Bush is unleash­ing his own ter­ror cam­paign: that he is shed­ding more blood for more blood.

The Unit­ed States has been spon­sor­ing vio­lence in Afghanistan for over a gen­er­a­tion. Even before the Sovi­et inva­sion of that coun­try, the U.S. was sup­port­ing rad­i­cal Muja­hadeen forces. We thought then that spon­sor­ship of vio­lence would lead to some sort of peace. As we all know now, it did not. We’ve been exper­i­ment­ing with vio­lence in the region for many years. Our for­eign pol­i­cy has been a mish-mash of sup­port­ing one despot­ic regime after anoth­er against a shift­ing array of per­ceived enemies.

The Afghani forces the Unit­ed States now bomb were once our allies, as was Iraq’s Sad­dam Hus­sein. We have rarely if ever act­ed on behalf of lib­er­ty and democ­ra­cy in the region. We have time and again sold out our val­ues and thrown our sup­port behind the most heinous of despots. We have time and again thought that mil­i­tary adven­tur­ism in the region could keep ter­ror­ism and anti-Americanism in check. And each time we’ve only bred a new gen­er­a­tion of rad­i­cals, bent on revenge.

There are those who have angri­ly denounced paci­fists in the weeks since Sep­tem­ber 11th, angri­ly ask­ing how peace can deal with ter­ror­ists. What these crit­ics don’t under­stand is that wars don’t start when the bombs begin to explode. They begin years before, when the seeds of hatred are sewn. The times to stop this new war was ten and twen­ty years ago, when the U.S. broke it’s promis­es for democ­ra­cy, and act­ed in its own self-interest (and often on behalf of the inter­ests of our oil com­pa­nies) to keep the cycles of vio­lence going. The Unit­ed States made choic­es that helped keep the peo­ples of the Mid­dle East enslaved in despo­tism and poverty.

And so we come to 2001. And it’s time to stop a war. But it’s not nec­es­sar­i­ly this war that we can stop. It’s the next one. And the ones after that. It’s time to stop com­bat ter­ror­ism with ter­ror. In the last few weeks the Unit­ed States has been mak­ing new alliances with coun­tries whose lead­ers sub­vert democ­ra­cy. We are giv­ing them free rein to con­tin­ue to sub­ject their peo­ple. Every weapon we sell these tyrants only kills and desta­bi­lizes more, just as every bomb we drop on Kab­ul feeds ter­ror more.

And most of all: we are mak­ing new vic­tims. Anoth­er gen­er­a­tion of chil­dren are see­ing their par­ents die, are see­ing the rain of bombs fall on their cities from an uncar­ing Amer­i­ca. They cry out to us in the name of peace and democ­ra­cy and hear noth­ing but hatred and blood. And some of them will respond by turn­ing against us in hatred. And will fight us in anger. They will learn our les­son of ter­ror and use it against us. They cycle will repeat. His­to­ry will con­tin­ue to turn, with blood as it’s Mid­dle East­ern lubri­cant. Unless we act. Unless we can stop the next war.