Comments on: We Quakers should be cooler than the Sweat Lodge

By: Keith_wb

Keith_wb — Sun, 28 Aug 2011 05:24:00 +0000

hey folks, i’m from manitoba and have been invited by a cree friend to experience sun dance with him. not as worried about the mingling blood or exhaustion in the sun thing as much as how to respect his experience without compromising quaker concerns about forms being distracting of substance.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Wed, 13 Jul 2005 17:18:03 +0000

Hey Petey: I have no interest in getting into a flame war with you. Anyone who wants can scroll up and see that I didn't call you names or insult you. "Quaker Ranter" is a personal blog. Like any personal blog I write about the things I'm interested in. In my case its Quakerism. I like talking about it, its identity, its boundaries. I don't particularly care about the sweat lodge. I think its silly and has little to do with Quakerism but I'm not wasting my time campaigning. This was a single post a year ago--that it's one of the few things that came up when you typed "quaker sweat lodge" in Yahoo isn't my fault. If you think I'm full of it then just hit the back button and fare thee well. Your Friend, Martin

By: Petey

Petey — Tue, 12 Jul 2005 02:18:27 +0000

That you insult people who hold dear the Quaker Sweat and call me to use my blog for the same purpose that you use yours for (theological campaigning) is both sad and wrong. Please, friend — namecalling is unquakerly. You can choose to let this through to your blog or not, I don’t really care — this is more for you than for your audience. Please, don’t insult people, don’t complain when people respond to your campaigns with counter-campaigns of their own, after all — at the end of the day, it’s just ideas, and if ideas are so scary that they warrant namecalling then what of God in conversations can be found here?

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 11:51:12 +0000

Hi Petey: first off, don’t post multiple posts under different names or I won’t let your comments through. You can campaign for the sweat lodge on your personal blog.
That said, the pro-sweat lodge organizing I saw happening this week (the 2005 Gathering) was orchestrated by a couple of white-haired old men with long-standing axes to grind against FGC. It feels very opportunistic to me to hear old men speaking out on behalf of young people, “especially when they routinely ignore young Friends with real gifts”:http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/selling_quakerism_to_the_kids.php. There’s a lot of demagaugery going on, with the whole paranoia about secret committees–Petey, if you bothered to be more involved with FGC (like, actually volunteer and participate in committees) you would have spent dozens of hours talking about this over the past few years. The young people responding to the gray-hair’s organizing about this all tend to be cultural Quakers at best.
That said (again), I agree with a lot of what you write. I don’t think the cancelation of the workshop has much to do with racism (liberal Friends are hiding behind racism for a lot of our theological debate right now, e.g., renaming of “oversight committees”). If I’m right and the motiviations are not honest, then this is all going to come back at us and bite us on the ass.
The real problem I see is twenty years of FGC Friends not supporting youth leadership. Twenty years of tokenism. Twenty years where the only qualifications considered for committee memberships have been one’s parents (leading to some very unqualified committee members indeed). Twenty years where bold visionary young Friends with gifts for prophetic ministry “have been cut off and marginalized”:/martink/passing_the_faith_planet_of_the_quakers_style.php. Twenty years of liberal Quaker leadership that is scared shitless to talk about theology or Quaker identity.
Even now, the whole sweat lodge debate is largely between sixty-something old codgers playing out long-standing rivalries. If it weren’t the sweat lodge, they’d all be fighting over something else. If you need Chuck Fager and George Price to fight your future for you, then there is no future.
I’m glad you’ve found your voice (this post hits all the Fager/Price talking points yet doesn’t resemble any posts you’ve written on your own blog). I look forward to reading more on that site.

By: Petey

Petey — Sun, 10 Jul 2005 03:57:49 +0000

My concern with the sweatlodge issue comes from one of process. I have lost all faith in FGC central committee as well as all faith in the ad-hoc racism committee. It seems as one got duped, and the second exists as a McCarthyistic committee to pressure people whom the leadership finds troubling.
If we as Quakers want to discuss racism, let us discuss it in an actual committee — approved by a meeting — not an ad-hoc shadow committee that meets only when and with whom it chooses, and listens to only whom it chooses.
Furthermore, if we are to consider the claims of those outside the community against the sweatlodge, is it not reasonable that those making allegations have actual knowlege of that which they are offended by. Merely reading a description does not begin to describe the Quaker sweat in terms of tradition, history and practice. That the accuser has not taken the time to visit gathering and make her claims before those she brands racist — really all who have participated in the quaker sweat — shows contempt for our traditions of open process. That we have yet to have an open and transparent dealing with this matter is a massive failure of FGC leadership and needs to be dealt with. The conversation of Gathering this year amongst the AYF community was about the sweat. Had the committes come to the same conclusions following a more just, transparent and open process I have a feeling we would be more easy with it’s leadership. As it stands right now, I am about as easy with the leadership on this issue as a passenger on a busted rollercoaster. Process hasn’t been followed, and we need to find leadership who can speak to the truth of this issue within actual quaker process — not merely quaker politics.
If we get rid of the sweat for good, what other groups will be next? Some people don’t like healers at gathering — will they be gone? Some don’t like GLBT folk, will they be next? Where will it end? Where then will we find the unique spiritual space that is the meetinghouse where traditions meet eachother under the banner of God. The political marginalization of one groups ultimatly marginalizes the spiritual power of the gathering as a whole because it says to people that their gifts are not wanted. This in contrast to our long held belief that there is “that of God in everyone”.

By: Julie

Julie — Thu, 31 Mar 2005 09:10:21 +0000

Ummm, not to create too much of a distraction here, but actually reading "Torah" (if by Torah you are referring to the Hebrew Bible or the Old Testament) *IS* part of Quaker tradition. As Christians, Quakers historically have read the Bible and all parts of it, including the OT. They wouldn't have referred to it as "Torah," of course. So on this level a comparison between reading traditionally Jewish (and Christian) Scripture and participating in a non-Christian indigenous religious practice and calling it "Quaker" is hardly a useful one. But I realize this is an aside... Julie

By: Liz Opp

Liz Opp — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 14:51:19 +0000

Hmm. Something in my intention got lost in my post. I agree that it is necessary to point out if a practice doesn't come from Quaker tradition. I cannot be a more faithful Quaker if I seek the Spirit through reading Torah, for example: it is counter to a basic tenet of Quakerism, about how we come to know God. Of course I'm wanting to be certain I'm clear with you, given what you raise as identity problems and what I am preparing for the Gathering. I don't wish to rehash what has already been shared: instead, I'll affirm that I do see you and me on much the same page: drawing on and naming Quaker traditions helps strengthen one's Quaker identity, as does stripping away and not relying on the practices of another tradition.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 26 Mar 2005 11:33:24 +0000

Hi Liz: well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I think it actually is okay to say a practice doesn't come out of the Quaker tradition. Part of the reason the Religious Society of Friends has such an identity problems is we're too afraid to talk about what isn't Quaker. To say something isn't Quaker isn't to say it isn't legit or isn't useful, it's just to say it isn't our way.