One of the things that is intriguing me lately is the nature of Quaker debate. There are half a dozen seemingly-perennial political issues around which Friends in my circles have very strong opinions (these include abortion, nuclear power, and the role of Friends in the troubles of Israel/Palestine) . We often justify our positions with appeals to our Quaker faith, but I wonder how often our opinions could be more accurately predicted by our demographic profile?
How many of your political positions and social attitudes could be accurately guessed by a savvy demographer who knew your date of birth, postal code, education and family income? I’d guess each of us are far more predictable than we’d like to think.If true, then what role does our religious life actually play?
Religious beliefs are also a demographic category, granted, but if they only confirm positions that could be just as actually predicted by non-spiritual data, then doesn’t that imply that we’ve simply found (or remained in) a religious community that confirms our pre-existing biases? Have we created a faith in our own image? And if true, is it really fair to justify ourselves based on appeals to Quaker values?
The “political” Quaker writings I’m finding most interesting (because they’re least predictable) are the ones that stop to ask how Quaker discernment fits into the debate. Discernment: one could easily argue that Quaker openings and tools around it are one of our greatest gifts to human spirituality. When we build a worship community based on strict adherence to the immediate prompting of the Holy Spirit, the first question becomes figuring out what is of-God and what is not. Is James Nayler, riding Jesus-like into Bristol, a prophet or a nut?
When we go deep into the questions, we may find that the answers are less important than the care we take to reach them. Waiting for one another, holding one another’s hand in love despite differences of opinion, can be more important than being the right-answer early adopter. How do you step back from easy answers to the thorny questions? How do you poll yourself and that-of-God in yourself to open your eyes and ears for the potential of surprise?
I’m getting extremely interested — and a little concerned — at the nature of Quaker debate right now. At York in 2009 the establishment (yes there is one) was wrong-footed by BYM and the result is same-sex marriage proceeding apace faster than anyone dared contemplate. This year the establishment was back in control. And where exactly was the debate about spending £4.25 million on the large meeting house at Friends House?
I was speaking more to debate on Friends’ philosophy. But I agree that the policy debates are problematic. Here in Philadelphia we spent tons of money on an over-ambitious and pride-filled renovation of the main office complex to be “green,” then promptly followed the economy into a free fall requiring the firing of half the staff of the building. Large portions are now rented out to nearby university (as I understand happens in London). Even now there’s been no self-reflection on this chain of events. One of the fired staffers was the “young adult” (20/30-something) coordinator; pretty much every Friend under 50 was vocal and united that this position couldn’t be cut but it happened anyway. That’s just plain bad process, no matter how proper the deliberations might have seemed at sessions.