Comments on: Witness of Our Lost Twenty-Somethings

By: Ryan Baum

Ryan Baum — Sat, 28 May 2005 00:33:48 +0000

Hi Julie, I completely understand that it would have felt strange and crappy to have no one react when you left the Society after eleven years. I can't imagine how a community of faith could behave that way. I'm sorry. The other part thtough, the implication that "one religion or denomination is as good as the next," or that "Quakerism is no different or more special or truthful than anything else," I would respond, "Well, yes and no." The way I understand it, Jesus taught us that there is only one True Religion, and that is the religion of Love. He did not teach us to be Quakers or Catholics or Baptists or Presbyterians or Unitarians. He taught us to love God and love one another. For me, Quakerism's reminder that the Holy Spirit (the Light of Christ, the Love of God) is directly accessible to me at all times and is always capable of transforming my life, combined with the practical proof of God's love that I find in silent worship, helps me to better love God and love my neighbor. If you find that you gain more power to love God and your nieighbor through the Catholic liturgy, then by all means I would say that for you, Catholocism is the better denomination. That doesn't mean that I think Catholocism is more true than Quakerism, just that I believe you when you say that Catholocism speaks better to your condition. Love, Ryan

By: Matthew

Matthew — Fri, 27 May 2005 17:01:01 +0000

Dear Julie, Unless I'm reading something wrong you are Martin's wife and therefore a resident of South Jersey. I'd like to invite you and Martin to come visit my MM: http://www.nyym.org/manasquan/ We are the southernmost meeting within NYYM and might be described as conservative hicksite. I had not experienced the "Godlessness" in modern Quakerism until I ventured beyond my MM. The absence of twenty/thirty something Quakers does still exist though. Why this is I don't really know. My guess is a lack of outreach and vision. Matthew

By: Robin M.

Robin M. — Fri, 27 May 2005 13:58:16 +0000

I had a hard time picking out a reasonably brief quotable part of Ryan’s original comment. I was deeply moved by the whole thing. But here, this part:
“Quaker faith is based less on what we believe than on what we have experienced: namely, the all-powerful and all-consuming Love of God. And when one’s life has been transformed by this love, there are certain things one cannot do: one cannot lie, one cannot kill, one cannot own a gross excess of material goods, etc.” The testimonies then, are not a bunch of things that Friends have decided over time are good to do or to believe, the testimonies are what happens when one’s life is transformed by Christ’s love.”
This articulates my own revelation about why Quakerism is powerful. At its root, it is Christianity distilled to its pure essence. It is still simply listening to Christ who is come to teach people himself. I’m open to hearing this as “God who speaks in our hearts when we are willing to listen.” I’m not convinced that it is Jesus personally who speaks to me, but God speaks to me of the ways of Jesus. This is my current understanding, and it is still unfolding. A local church has a Gracie Allen quote hanging from their balcony: “Never place a period where God has placed a comma. God is still speaking, ”
The radical thing I envision for the RSoF is that we will see how these testimonies are so linked — that it is the excess of material goods and the lust for ever more material goods and social privileges that drives us — yes, us too — to war, to paying for war, to destroying our Earth and our fellow creatures. What are the sacrifices of our quality of living that we, North American Quakers, will be willing to make in order to live in the power that takes away the occasion of all wars?
If we are unwilling to pay for war, are we unwilling to pay for fossil fuels? Are we willing to live without the benefit of privately owned automobiles? Are we willing to live our lives in the smaller circles (geographically and socially) that a car-free sytem would require? Are we willing to focus more locally, to start with the people and places where we live, to visit the widows and orphans that we see and know, to comfort the afflicted among us that we don’t actually know now? Are we willing to live a purer life, to be more blameless, to keep ourselves unspotted from the world?
Will they know us by our love, and by our adherence to our own testimonies?

By: Julie DeMarchi Heiland

Julie DeMarchi Heiland — Thu, 26 May 2005 16:32:44 +0000

Dear Ryan,
Just for the record, I was not necessarily driven from “Friends Testimonies” (whatever they happen to be is another question entirely), and perhaps not even from Quakerism as I understand it. In the end I was driven away from Quakerism–and in this sense I’m talking largely about liberal, unprogrammed Quakerism such as we see in the FGC world–AS IT IS NOW PRACTICED and understood by most Friends. In the sense that much of contemporary Quakerism, for better or for worse, is Godless (“nontheist Friends,” etc.) and certainly there exists a hostilitiy (at worst) or ambivalence (at best) to Christianity (and therefore traditional Quakerism), I could no longer remain within Quakerism. My priority was when I left and now continues to be to worship God in Jesus Christ, in a community that espoused and supported this general view, and in my estimation this was unnecessarily difficult if not nearly impossible among liberal Friends.
So when Martin says that I was driven away by Friends, I actually think this is an apt description of what happened in a million ways. I was driven away by what modern liberal Quakerism has come to, and the wishy-washiness, the luke-warmness, of too many of its members. PERHAPS if I had been able to find a meeting where “really” being a Quaker and being a Christian was ok life would have worked out differently, but I have not found a meeting like this yet in any part of the US I have visited, nor have I found it abroad. Therefore I have concluded that such a meeting is a very, very, very rare and unusual thing. (Truthfully I suspect that it does not exist.) I have been fortunate that I have found a non-wishy-washy traditionalist Catholic church that I am now a member of. Having seen what I have in the Quaker world (and not entirely dissimilar sorts of luke-warmness in the Catholic world) I am very grateful and do not take Mater Ecclesiae for granted. I am grateful for the teachings of the Catholic Church and the fact that it is unashamed to proclaim them. I very much missed this in Quakerism as there was very, very little anyone could even agree on–not even the existence of the Almighty who we were supposed to be worshipping. Yikes!
I do not want to speak for Martin here, but I suspect that what he was saying when he relayed the bit about the F/friend (who happened to be on our marriage oversight committee, btw) who was glad I found my own way was this. We have heard very little regret or remorse for the fact that I have left Quakerism, but alot of sentiment which has implied that one religion or denomination is as good as the next. The important part for such people is that the “fit” between the individual and the Faith is good. For them, Quakerism is no different or more special or truthful than anything else.
Aside from that, it just felt pretty crappy that after eleven years or so as a committed Friend no one so much as batted an eyelash when I left. It felt really odd.
God bless,
Julie

By: Ryan Baum

Ryan Baum — Tue, 24 May 2005 11:53:31 +0000

Hello Friends,
I like this fifty year plan question. It makes a lot of sense I think in terms of looking at what we CAN do, what God is leading us to do, rather than on our present troubles. Good call.
This question also speaks to me, I think, because I have had what seem to be some very strong leadings lately about how I am called to live the testimonies, and how I see our Religious Society living our testimonies as a corporate body over the long term.
The most radical of these leadings concerns the Peace Testimony. As we have been living for some time now in a period of great war and unrest, a period when our country is agressively promoting its policy of premptive warfare and military enforcement of its version of “freedom” around the world, I have been feeling more and more that I am not faithfully living our testimony of peace.
As we hear more horror stories on the news of the atrocities of war in the Middle East, in Central Asia, and elsewhere, many of us find ourselves asking the question, “Why?” Why is it that such terrible things, such unloving and violent things are being done by our government and military in our name and the name of our counttry?
Then one day in Meeting for Worship, the answer struck me like a (non-violent and appropriately Quaker) kick in the head. The reason our government and military are doing these things is that by submitting to our government’s war taxes every year, you and I are paying them to do these things.
Now of course, this isn’t a new idea. The historic peace churches have been attempting to open up legal pathways to war tax resistance for decades (centuries?) now. It just hasn’t worked.
Well here’s where I think the fifty-year-plan comes in. I believe that the refusal to participate with our tax dollars in war and military aggression should be just as essential a part of our witness to Christ’s love as our refusal to participate with our bodies. Before conscientious objection to military service was a legal option to pacifists, many of our Amish, Mennonite, Brethren, and Quaker brothers willingly went to jail rather than betray their witness. I believe the time has come to do the same thing concerning war taxes.
There are about 130,000 Amish, 160,000 Brethren, 400,000 Menonites and 300,000 Quakers living in the United States. That makes approximately 1.5 to 1.6 million American members of historic peace churches. What if next April, the IRS got tax forms from even half of these Americans saying simply, “I conscientiously object to fiscal participation in war of any kind.” What if these Americans willing took on the consequences of their civil disobedience, going to jail en masse when arrested, using public transportation when their vehicles were repossessed, living in their churches and meetinghouses when their homes were seized? What would happen? What sort of renewed witness and passion could be sparked among us?
None of this, of course, could be rushed into. All of it would require a massive clearness process, radical dialogue and co-operation within our Religious Society and between our peace church traditions. Financial structures would need to be set up in order for witnessing Christians to live while their accounts were frozen by the government. Community child care structures would have to be set up to ensure that children were well and lovingly cared for if parents should be arrested. Perhaps some sort of system could be set up to redirect the money being withheld for war taxes to charities and social service organizations.
A movement of this scale would require quite a bit of time, planning, hard work, tons of prayer and lots of love. But what could happen if we did it?
Do Friends think it could be in store for us somewhere in the next 50 years?

By: Alice

Alice — Mon, 23 May 2005 05:29:29 +0000

Some great comments here, I appreciate the time and thought everyone has taken. My thinking's now heading towards a previous question of Friend Martin - what's the fifty year plan for Quakers? I think that is meshed into the question of what do we think G-d is trying to tell Quakers as a body, and it's a way for me of concentrating on the Light leading us rather than what troubles us about where we are. I always feel struck when I reread your comments, Friend Martin, about how poor liberal Friends are at outreach. I think the Quaker understanding has precious gems to offer in this time when the whole Earth is under such great threat of climate change devastation and war. I am learning to trust the power of transforming love to lead me. I hope to feel ever more strongly a sense of accompaniment in Christ's work of calling the world's people home to live in the life-sustaining society His power enables. So my vision of fifty-years-time Quakers is a radiant, joyful and resolute people living in G-d's power and able to communicate it to those in need.

By: Ryan Baum

Ryan Baum — Sun, 22 May 2005 02:24:56 +0000

Hello Martin and Friends,
Thank you all for this wonderful conversation. It fills me with hope and excitement for the future of our Religious Society.
First off, I want to say that Robin’s ideas about Young Friend apprenticeship are very exciting to me. I think they should be developed and experimented with.
Next, I would like to respond to Martin’s question about “getting a message out” by saying that for me, this message would be inextricably linked to our relationship to the testimonies.
Two articles that have inspired me and shaped my thinking about these issues in the past couple of days have been Marty Grundy’s CHALLENGE TO FRIENDS (http://www.fgcquaker.org/connect/spring05/challenge_to_friends_grundy.htm), and Bruce Birchard’s SPEAKING TRUTH WITH POWER (http://www.fgcquaker.org/library/peace/bbtalk-06–12-03.html). If you have not read these articles, you should. They are worth the read.
In his article, Friend Marty reminds us that in the early days, Friends had no official membership; one became a Friend and was recognized as a Friend by his or her adherance to the three earliest testimonies: the refusal to pay tithes to the Church of England, the refusal to do “hat honor,” and the refusal to take oaths. If a person practiced these testimonies in his or her life–along with regular attendance at Meeting for Worship of course–then he or she was a Friend.
In his article, Friend Bruce suggests that the understanding that early Friends had of the testimonies was considerably different than the understanding that we modern Friends have of them. Often, when asked by non-Friends, “What do Quakers believe,” we modern Friends will respond something like, “Well, Quakers don’t believe in creeds, so different Quakers have different theologies, but we have these things called testimonies, which are things that most of us have agreed over time are things that are good (holy, loving, Christian etc.) to do–things like non-violence, simplicity, speaking plain and honest truth, etc.”
Based on Friend Bruce’s explanation of the early Quaker understanding of the testimonies, however, it seems that the response to “What do Quakers believe?” would have been very different. It would have sounded something more like this: “Quaker faith is based less on what we believe than on what we have experienced: namely, the all-powerful and all-consuming Love of God. And when one’s life has been transformed by this love, there are certain things one cannot do: one cannot lie, one cannot kill, one cannot own a gross excess of material goods, etc.” The testimonies then, are not a bunch of things that Friends have decided over time are good to do or to believe, the testimonies are what happens when one’s life is transformed by Christ’s love.
It is in this context that I think we should remember to not get so hung up or afraid of our Religious Society “driving away,” young Friends. It is not the Religious Society of Friends that has come to teach the world’s people, but rather Christ himself. When we as individuals faithfully practice our testimonies as did early Friends, people will see their fruit in our lives and will naturally want to emulate.
I have to say Martin, that I feel you may be missing the point when you write: “When one close Friend learned my wife had left Quakerism for another church after eleven years, all he could say was how pleased he was that she had finally found her spiritual home…I felt like saying to them ‘No, you dimwits, we’ve driven away yet another Friend!’ ” By suggesting that we are “driving people away” from the Society of Friends, you imply that it is our responsiblity in the first place to draw people into the Society of Friends. It is not. Our responsiblity is to draw ourselves and our brothers and sisters into the love of Christ. Inasmuch as our testimonies as Friends help us to do that, they are valuable. Apart from that, they are nothing. If and when Julie finds Friends testimonies helpful in drawing her nearer to Christ, she will take them up. If she doesn’t find them helpful to her right now in her walk with Christ, then it is no great tragedy that she isn’t a practicing Quaker.
In short, we don’t need to strive harder to do Quakerism better, we need to open up and let Christ do us better. Alice is right–what we need is to get in touch with God. When we get in touch with God, our lives will be transformed. When our lives are transformed, our testimonies will naturally flow from them. When our testimonies flow from our transformed lives they will speak to the condition of our troubled world.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Fri, 20 May 2005 09:07:44 +0000

Hi Johan: Well certainly we need to avoid too much in the recrimination department. Isn't this the eternal balancing act of more prophetic ministry: doom and hope, doom and hope! I suspect that any particular article has to focus on one side of the equation, with intimations of the other as intro and exit. In many ways I feel I've played out the "lost generation" theme. I've said what I have to say and shared the experiences I've had. It's time for other people to blow that trumpet. I don't think I would have written another essay like that for Quaker Ranter and I don't think I would have written just that type of essay for a youth audience.