This past weekend I gave a talk at the Arch Street Meetinghouse after the Interim Meeting sessions of Philadlephia Yearly Meeting. Interim Meeting is the group that meets sort-of monthly between yearly meeting business sesssions. In an earlier blog post I called it “the establishment” and I looked forward to sharing the new life of the blogging world and Convergent Friends with this group. I had been asked by the most excellent Stephen Dotson to talk about “Finding Fellowship Between Friends Thru The Internet.”
I was curious to return to Interim Meeting, a group I served on about half a decade ago. As I sat in the meeting, I kept seeing glimpses of issues that I planned to address afterwards in my talk: how to talk afresh about faith; how to publicize our activity and communicate both among ourselves and with the outside world; how to engage new and younger members in our work.
Turns out I didn’t get the chance. Only half a dozen or so members of Interim Meeting stuck around for my presentation. No announcement was made at the end of sessions. None of the senior staff were there and no one from the long table full of clerks, alternate clerks and alternate alternate clerks came. Eleven people were at the talk (including some who hadn’t been at Interim Meeting). The intimacy was nice but it was hardly the “take it to the estabishment” kind of event I had imagined.
The talk itself went well, despite or maybe because of its intimacy. I had asked Seth H (aka Chronicler) along for spiritual support and he wrote a nice review on QuakerQuaker. Steve T, an old friend of mine from Central Philly days, took some pictures which I’ve included here. I videoed the event, though it will need some work to tighten it down to something anyone would want to watch online. The people who attended wanted to attend and asked great questions. It was good working with Stephen Dotson again in the planning. I would wish that more Philadelphia Friends had more interest in these issues but as individuals, all we can do is lead a horse to water. In the end, the yearly meeting is in God’s hands.
Below are observations from Interim Meeting and how the Convergent Friends movement might address some of the issues raised. Let me stress that I offer these in love and in the hope that some honest talk might help. I’ve served on Interim Meeting and have given a lot of time toward PYM over the last twenty years. This list was forwarded by email to senior staff and I present them here for others who might be concerned about these dynamics.
GENERATIONAL FAIL:
There were about seventy-five people in the room for Interim Meeting sessions. I was probably the third or fourth youngest. By U.S. census definitions I’m in my eighth year of middle age, so that’s really sad. That’s two whole generations that are largely missing from PYM leadership. I know I shouldn’t be surprised; it’s not a new phenomenon. But if you had told me twenty years ago that I’d be able to walk into Interim Meeting in 2010 and still be among the youngest, well… Well, frankly I would have uttered a choice epithet and kicked the Quaker dust from my shoes (most of my friends did). I know many Friends bodies struggle with age diversity but this is particularly extreme.
WHAT I WANTED TO TELL INTERIM MEETING: About 33% of QuakerQuaker’s audience is GenX and 22% are Millenials. If Interim Meeting were as diverse as QuakerQuaker there would have been 16 YAFs (18 – 35 year olds) and 25 Friends 35 and 49 years of age. I would have been about the 29th youngest in the room – middle aged, just where I should be! QuakerQuaker has an age diversity that most East Coast Friends Meetings would die for. If you want to know the interests and passions of younger Friends, Quaker blogs are an excellent place to learn. There are some very different organizational and style differences at play (my post seven years ago, a post from Micah Bales this past week).
DECISION-MAKING
The first part of the sessions was run with what’s called a “Consent Agenda,” a legislative measure where multiple agenda items are approved en masse. It rests on the idealistic notion that all seventy-five attendees has come to sessions having read everything in the quarter-inch packet mailed to them (I’ll wait till you stop laughing). Interim Meeting lumped thirteen items together in this manner. I suspect most Friends left the meeting having forgotten what they had approved. Most educators would say you have to reinforce reading with live interaction but we bypassed all of that in the name of efficiency.
WHAT I WANTED TO TELL INTERIM MEETING: Quaker blogs are wonderfully rich sources of discussion. Comments are often more interesting than the original posts. Many of us have written first drafts of published articles on our blogs and then polished them with feedback received in the comments. This kind of communication feedback is powerful and doesn’t take away from live meeting-time. There’s a ton of possibilities for sharing information in a meaningful way outside of meetings.
MINUTES OF WITNESS
Two “minutes” (a kind of Quaker statement/press release) were brought to sessions. Both were vetted through a lengthy process where they were approved first by monthly and then quarterly meetings before coming before Interim Meeting. A minute on Afghanistan was nine months old, a response to a troop level announcement made last December; one against Marcellus Shale drilling in Pennsylvania was undated but it’s a topic that peaked in mainstream media five months ago. I would have more appreciation of this cumbersome process if the minutes were more “seasoned” (well-written, with care taken in the discernment behind them) but there was little in either that explained how the issue connected with Quaker faith and why we were lifting it up now as concern. A senior staffer in a small group I was part of lamented how the minutes didn’t give him much guidance as to how he might explain our concern with the news media. So here we were, approving two out-of-date, hard-to-communicate statements that many IM reps probably never read.
WHAT I WANTED TO TELL INTERIM MEETING: Blogging gives us practice in talking about spirituality. Commenters challenge us when we take rhetorical shortcuts or make assumptions or trade on stereotypes. Most Quaker bloggers would tell you they’re better writers now than when they started their blog. Spiritual writing is like a muscle which needs to be exercised. To be bluntly honest, two or three bloggers could have gotten onto Skype, opened a shared Google Doc and hammered out better statements in less than an hour. If we’re going to be approving these kinds of thing we need to practice and increase our spiritual literacy.
THE ROLE OF COMMITTEES
The second part was Interim Meeting looking at itself. We broke into small groups and asking three questions: “What is the work of Interim Meeting,” “Are we satisfied with how we do this now?” and “If we were to make changes, what would they be?.” I thought to myself that the reason I ever go to events like this is to see dear Friends and to see what sparks of life are happening in the yearly meeting. As our small group went around, and as small groups shared afterwards, I realized that many of the people in the room seemed to agree: we were hungry for the all-to-brief moments where the Spirit broke into the regimented Quaker process.
One startling testimonial came from a member of the outreach committee. She explained that her committee, like many in PYM, is an administrative one that’s not supposed to do any outreach itself – it’s all supposed to stay very “meta.” They recently decided to have a picnic with no business scheduled and there found themselves “going rogue” and talking about outreach. Her spirit rose and voice quickened as she told us how they spent hours dreaming up outreach projects. Of course the outreach committee wants to do outreach! And with state PYM is in, can we really have a dozen people sequestered away talking about talking about outreach. Shouldn’t we declare “All hands on deck!” and start doing work? It would have been time well spent to let her share their ideas for the next thirty minutes but of course we had to keep moving. She finished quickly and the excitement leaked back out of the room.
FOLLOW-UP THOUGHTS AND THE FUTURE OF THE YEARLY MEETING
Now I need to stress some things. I had some great one-on-one conversations in the breaks. A lot of people were very nice to me and gave me hugs and asked about family. These are a committed, hopeful group of people. There was a lot of faith in that room! People work hard and serve faithfully. But it feels like we’re trapped by the system we ourselves created. I wanted to share the excitement and directness of the Quaker blogging world. I wanted to share the robustness of communication techniques we’re using and the power of distributed publishing. I wanted to share the new spirit of ecumenticalism and cross-branch work that’s happening.
I’ve been visiting local Friends Meetings that have half the attendance they did ten years ago. Some have trouble breaking into the double-digits for Sunday morning worship and I’m often the youngest in the room, bringing the only small kids. I know there are a handful of thriving meetings, but I’m worried that most are going to have close their doors in the next ten to twenty years.
I had hoped to show how new communication structures, the rise of Convergent Friends and the seekers of the Emerging Church movement could signal new possibilities for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Toward the end of Interim Meeting, some Friends bemoaned our lack of resources and clerk Thomas Swain reminded them that with God there is no limitation and nothing is impossible. Some of the things I’m seeing online are the impossible come to life. Look at QuakerQuaker: an unstaffed online magazine running off of a $50/month budget and getting 10,000 visits a month. It’s not anything I’ve done, but this community that God has brought together and the technological infrastructure that has allowed us to coordinate so easily. It’s far from the only neat project out there and there are a lot more on the drawing boad. Some yearly meetings are engaging with these new possibilites. But mine apparently can’t even stay around for a talk.
Well, you know you’ve got my sympathy!!!
Sometimes it’s painful that God works slowly; but that’s the way to do it right.
May it be like something Sufi Sam Lewis wrote:
“I feel like a gardener who planted a bunch of seeds and nothing came up; and again the next year he planted a bunch more seeds and nothing came up, and again the next year more seeds with the same result; and so on and so on. And then this year, he planted a bunch of seeds; not only did they all come up, but all the seeds from the previous year came up and all the seeds from the year before, and so on. So I’ve just been frantically trying to harvest all the plants until Allah came to me and said, ‘Don’t worry. Harvest what you can and leave the rest to Me.’ ”
I haven’t gotten involved yet with Baltimore Yearly Meeting, but I expect it looks pretty similar. In my monthly meeting I notice that there are a number of women between 30 and 50 (most of them moms) gradually taking on more and more leadership roles. Most of their husbands don’t attend and only 2 or 3 take any roles in meeting. Very few other adults in this age group.
I believe that situation is reflected in many meetings also.In a meeting for worship with attention to business I attended (or maybe its the other way around) that was the case, but I’d say the meeting didn’t have anyone under fifty.I guess I wonder why those who are the “establishment” don’t show much interest? Honestly I have had more sense of community with the online QuakerQuaker then I have anywhere.There have been things I questioned that other Quakers were forthcoming in explaining their leading.My beliefs have been taken seriously, even if not shared or agreed with.I have not been condescended to.Anne Stansell
Friend speaks my mind! Thanks so much for that presentation and for this follow-up! I’m going to share it with others in the office here, so that they’re more aware of the discussion that is happening outside the yearly meeting structures.
Hi Stephen: I had meant to send you an email as I posted this but it ended up being one of those 5‑minute good intentions that never quite happened!… The original version of this was about twice as long and fleshed out the “glimpses of issues that I planned to address afterwards in my talk.” Maybe I’ll send it along.
A friend once asked me if Quakers were still relevant. I said we have always been small in number for the amazing work that gets generated by Friends. However, I am beginning to wonder if our connection to the Divine is fading or if our institutions are like other organizations and struggling to adapt to a very rapidly changing environment.
There are those, particularly on nominating committees, who are aware of this issue. Our YM’s and Friends organizations need younger Friends on our committees and boards. We are looking into as I write within BYM. It would be nice if this were an FGC workshop next year and taken on the road to YM’s, QM, and MM.
Funny, but every now and then, I come across some writing by an early Friend… or writing by a contemporary Friend about early Friends… and a number of them point to very similar questions:
Is our faith’s connection to the Divine as strong as it once was?
Why are there so many Friends who think that “good ideas” [aka “notions”] are the same as Divinely inspired leadings?
Why does it seem as if only a few individual Friends are doing so much of the work?
In fact, when I feel down-and-out about the current state of the Religious Society of Friends, I often start reading some of the earlier Friends, and I take heart: while it may be true that the more things change, the more they stay the same, but this time, it’s MY turn to either be part of God’s message or not.
Quaker blogs and the friendships that have emerged from them have helped me stay faithful and loving, despite the flaws that exist within our modern-day faith community.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
@Liz — Thanks for the reminder… Stephen Crisp’s Journal and Letters of admonition always pull me back to the realization that early Friends also had challenges of discipline.
I had a similar experience coming to Philadelphia YM at the age of 40 something, after serving as clerk of a Half-Yearly Meeting in Canada. I was over 50 when I was asked to serve on Interim (then representative) meeting. (Is 50 the new “age of majority?”)
The younger (40 – 50 something — now 60 – 70 something) Friends with whom I began to serve aren’t around any more. Some are active in spiritual endeavors outside PYM — or felt dismissed when they suggested greater spiritual grounding to the point where they left Friends.
A couple of years ago, I felt I had a calling to the nominating committee… I know quite a few younger Friends, and began to suggest names. The only Friend who eventually was invited to serve on a standing committee was a well known Friend’s grandson… For others, “do they have enough experience the the complexities of PYM?” Perhaps we might have a simpler structure…? Other Yearly Meetings seem to do well enough without the numbers of committees and working groups and staff. (I yearn for the days of Intermountain Friends Gathering, which I encountered when I first came to Friends in my 20s.)
I have stepped down from committee service for a time. I can encourage folks in other ways to better effect, I hope… That, too is in God’s hands. I may come back on to nominating committee after a year or so, but at the moment, it does not seem rightly ordered.
And I really like the Sufi image of the seeds all coming up at once.
@Christine: I didn’t realize that this phenomenon was such a longstanding Philadelphia tradition. It is outright ageism. And it’s short-sighted.
Nepotism is the rule rather than the exception when it comes to asking younger Friends t server. Almost everyone under 40 who I saw involved in FGC committees was the child of a well-known Friend. That’s an incredibly narrow pool and doesn’t provide much diversity of experience (especially important when we consider outreach). Whenever some youngster came on the scene, Julie would sarcastically ask “who’s kid is it?” While this sounds like cynicism, the fact that I could give her an answer her nine times out of ten made it just reality.
In my twenty-four years of involvement with Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, I have been contacted by Nominations once – about five years ago. No one could adequately explain what the committee actually did. It’s kind of sad that so many involved Friends are just put the work into these layers of bureaucracy. PYM is tiny by the standards of religious institutions. Surely we can be engaged in more direct work.
@Martin — Well, thee has only four years’ more experience here than I do. Perhaps the reasons are not so apparent to those of us from “away”… either geographically or spiritually.
I came to Intermountain Friends Gathering at a very good time… The meeting I attended was populated by folks from the east (or Britain), and the meeting that had met in my undergrad advisor’s living room outgrew that, then outgrew (within about 2 – 5 years) the modest building north of town — now expanded.
Older (40 – 50 year old) Friends not only took people to lunch, they invited them home for lunch — after which we spent afternoons alternately asking questions, going for hikes, or taking care of the kids — sometimes all three at once. That pattern was continued in Canadian Yearly Meeting.