Comments on: Talking like a Quaker: does anyone really care about schism anymore?

By: lorran

lorran — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 14:12:20 +0000

I am person of few words usually…all that comes to mind in regards to uniting is ‘hate the sin, not the sinner’…

By: Kirk Wattles

Kirk Wattles — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:52:40 +0000

I tend to lump this question with the broader question of how do we pass what's important to us to the next generation? The institutions we identify with are collections of the connections we've made and the values we try to live by. It's the "Society" in the Religious Society of Friends. When people realized they weren't the last generation on earth, they made it important to pass along what insights and advantages they had collected, so they built these organizations to carry it along. Personally, I'm interested in how that process continues from generation to generation, how freedoms and radical insights have been maintained in the "autonomous space" that Friends found for themselves. So I do care about the schisms, even 8-10 generations ago. I assume that each side had their own insights and advantages that were important to them, and the organizations they supported were unable to accommodate everyone together. A favorite bible passage comes to mind: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal. But lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust doth corrupt, and where thieves do not break through nor steal. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." (Matthew 6:19-21) In practice it's not easy. We don't want to deprive our children of what we have found important. I think there's a cultural shift, however, which makes it harder overall to maintain institutional continuity, and that's part of what you're pointing to. It's not just the "next" generation that's asleep at the wheel, but our own.

By: Thy Friend John

Thy Friend John — Mon, 01 Oct 2007 11:29:35 +0000

I care about schism. I care about schism because we were called to be a people, "which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God," 1 Peter 2:10, whom George Fox and other early Friends referred to as "the people of God in scorn called Quakers," called to be "of one mind, having compassion of one another" (1 Peter 3:8). By the way, I use these scripture quotes not because I think scripture per se bears any authority among Friends today, but because these passages speak for the witness in my own heart, and I'm hoping for the witness in my readers' hearts also. But we've failed to live up to our calling and be a people. No, we don't shoot at each other with bullets, like Catholics and Protestants have done, or Sunnis and Shiites are doing in Iraq today, but something in us has failed - love? faith? mutual interest? truthfulness? - and our backs are now turned on one another. I'm not angry with anyone in particular about this; I'm just deeply sorrowful. I guess I wanted to believe in our calling to be a people, and our collective will to be one. "It is by your love for one another that everyone will recognize you as my disciples," Jesus is recorded as saying (John 13:35, NJB). Turn that around and you'll see that by our lack of love for one another we'll be recognized as no Religious Society of Friends at all, but just a bunch of subtly competing splinter groups that each like to trade on the name "Quaker." Unless we can turn that degenerative process around. And I think we can. The saddest thing I saw in the BYM document about FUM was the statement "we're not a united yearly meeting, but a consolidated one." Well, my own yearly meeting, NYYM, is one of those consolidated ones, too, but God has lately enabled us to unite on some very precious things - notably a "Minute on Eco-Spirituality and Action" that finally, at last, calls humanity's war against the earth a war against the earth and calls on Friends to disengage from it. There's no good reason why a consolidated meeting can't also be a united meeting! I'm praying that North America's consolidated meetings will stay at the FUM table long enough for the anti-homosexual Friends from Africa and elsewhere to get to know and love some of the gay, lesbian, etc. Quaker saints I know and love, and also for them, and more liberal Friends generally, to get to know and love the more socially conservative African Friends - who also include saints. There's no telling what kinds of understandings can be reached when we care enough about the pain felt by the other side.

By: forrest curo

forrest curo — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 17:02:52 +0000

Maybe we could start a big organization to fix this? Seriously, the "influence" of any organization depends on affiliation with & agreement with its position by individuals. If we aren't going to devote excessive effort to the propaganda game--which is both corrupt and stacked against us--the value of larger bodies is mainly in collecting a critical spiritual mass for mutual education & inspiration. We connect with individual humans mainly at a local level; that's where we'll reach people if we're going to. Everything we do online, while it can reach people intellectually, even move them, will mainly be seen by people in the context of entertainment. (Not an intrinsic problem with medium, but certainly a widespread problem with the culture.) I think what you're calling "more entertainment-focused Quaker gatherings" may be closer to our most essential "business" than the Biggest Possible Meeting's passage of any number of fine "minutes." Because the movement is first of all about connecting to the Spirit we need to guide our efforts--or to even let us see the need for them. And that's right down at member-level!

By: Paul Ricketts

Paul Ricketts — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 14:21:19 +0000

do most Quakers just not care about Friends United Meeting or Baltimore Yearly Meeting, about a modern day culture clash that is but a few degrees from boiling over into full-scale institution schism?
I am writing article for Friends Journal I close with these words…
“My experience is many new seekers are searching for a faith community that is practical and prophetic and not separate form living and religion in life.
A faith of radical hospitality that welcomes all God’s people,
rooted in shared values and nourish in a common heritage”.

By: David Andrew

David Andrew — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 05:25:06 +0000

I am fairly new to quakerism and based in the UK have a different view. I read a number of quaker blogs and the debates and arguments are helpful to me to see the different perspectives of quakers but feel distant from the passion that some people express about the disputes — I guess other people might feel the same. So I will continue to read but am unlikely to comment.
Love the day idea — am off to set up a facebook group for it!

By: RichardM

RichardM — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 22:46:56 +0000

Martin,
I didn’t comment on the FUM schism because we are not members of FUM. But your point is well taken. There are lots of Friends who read Quakerquaker who are in YM associated with FUM. Perhaps they don’t care.
If they don’t care then those larger bodies really don’t have any authority. They might have a little power over budgets and such, but whatever authority they have depends on people caring about what they say.
Traditionally the structure of Quakerism is local. Individual members are members of monthly meetings. In those monthly meetings some Friends are recognized as weighty and their views are respected. Ideally the weightiness of a Friend is solely a function of what they say and do in the monthly meeting. Less than ideally it is a function of how many Quaker relatives they have, the committees they have served on, their education, how liberal their politics etc. But when the meeting is in gospel order individuals can recognize real spiritual depth. Ideally the weighty Friends faithfully attend the Yearly Meeting sessions and participate in the business. They then serve as the communication link between the monthly and yearly meeting levels.
I do feel that NCYM‑C operates this way generally and for the most part. We can do so because the YM is small–just eight monthly meetings and a couple worship groups. Perhaps some of the Yearly Meetings are just too large for gospel order to be maintained. I have never been part of another YM so I can’t say from personal experience, but some of the stories that I hear from other Friends suggests to me that most YM are just too large to be spiritually responsive and responsible. With size comes bureaucracy and that is often a bad thing.

By: Chris M.

Chris M. — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:00:51 +0000

Well, I read Johan’s post with interest. I’m not qualified to comment — my Yearly Meeting doesn’t belong to FGC let alone FUM. So, it’s kinda like eavesdropping.
And, Johan is in a far better position than I to explain and review anything to do with FUM. Lacking firsthand perspective to make informed comments, I just lurk!