Over on beppeblog, occassional QR commenter Joe Guada talks about starting a Bible study group in his Friends meeting. It’s a great post, which really pulls together some of the issues of those of us trying to be both conservative and liberal in our Quakerism.
None of their concerns were a surprise to me; I’ve had many of the same myself. What did surprise me was how long it took members to finally approach me with their “concerns” (a Friendly euphemism for being in complete disagreement with another). They seemed to be taking the Bible too literally…
I doubt that I changed any minds during our lengthy, but respectful conversation. But, unlike what seems like the opinion of the majority of liberal Friends, where personal and corporate revelation is the sole arbiter of faith, I believe that individuals and groups need far more than that to keep us from deteriorating into a “least-common-denominator”, sentimental faith that tries to be all things to (most) everybody (as long as they agree with our politics). I believe that Friends have a rich history to draw from, which includes our present Faith & Practice (along with past F&P’s), the writings and testimony of previous generations, and (hold your breath) the Bible.
This past week I’ve been wondering whether the best description of my spiritual state is a “conservative liberal Friend,” i.e., someone in the “liberal” branch of Friends who holds “conservative” values (I mean these terms in their theological sense, as descriptive terms that refer to well-defined historical movements). I feel a kinship with Joe and with some of the people I met this year at the FGC Gathering. There is a small-scale “conservative liberal” movement going on and it seems like we should figure out a name for ourselves.
Back in the 1970s and 80s there was a group dubbed “neoconservative Quakers,” liberal Friends who moved to conservative yearly meetings (especially Ohio) and outdid the homegrown conservatives, adopting plain dress and gaining a reputation for being sticklers on conservative theology and practice.
But although I’ve picked up plain dress, I’m not a 1970s “neoconservative” Friend. First off, I’m not moving to Ohio (it’s a lovely state I’m sure, but roots trump ideology for me any day of the week). I’m not even seriously considering leaving Liberal Quakerism. For all the sometimes muddied-thinking, I’m proud of our branch. I’m proud that we’ve said yes to gay and lesbian Friends and I see it as our positive comeuppance that so much of our religious leadership now comes from the FLGBTQC community (so many of whose members are solid Christians driven out of other denominations). I see us as one of the most dynamic, forward-thinking branch of Friends. Besides, liberal Quakerism is my home. I’ve been given enough hints that I think my ministry is here too. Not that I’m not grateful for all the branches of Quakerism. I am graced with new Friends met through this blog from all the branches of American Quakerism and I’ve found that there are those seeking out to reclaim Quakerism in each of them. I have brothers and sisters throughout Quakerdom, blessed be! But my role, my home, and my ministry is to be a Conservative-leaning voice among Liberal Friends. And it’s becoming increasingly clear that I’m not alone. Something is afoot in liberal Quakerism.
So what might we call ourselves? Is “conservative liberal Friends” a useful term?
Will I be the first to suggest “Beanite”? (See Chuck Fager’s description here. I think it has some historical accuracy, but on the other hand it lacks a bit of lyricism.…
Now my head is starting to throb … what label, what label? “Quietist”? “Quiet ranter”? The Canadian conservative political party some years ago renamed itself the Progressive Conservatives — would that do?
A cute little demon is sitting on my left shoulder, whispering “post-liberal” into my ear, and giggling.
Traditional Liberal Friends may work, too — it is a less loaded term than conservative, although I will say I am dismayed at how conservative has become a dirty word. (Liberal as well, I suppose.)
To think, I thought when I was searching, that I finally had a NAME, a LABEL for what I was. And even now, it’s not quite right. (Actually, when asked what I am, I just say Quaker. If I start going into Liberal Friends or anything like that, it confuses people I know.)
Hey, thanks for the quote and link back to my fledgling blog. I was happy to read that you found something of interest in the (lengthy) post regarding the Bible study situation. Also — I’m one of those gay, liberal Friends, Christians (that you mentioned in your post), too. 🙂
Hey, I’ve been describing myself as a “conservative-leaning liberal Friend” for a few years now. Sense-of-kinship back at ya!
Johan wrote:
Will I be the first to suggest “Beanite”? (See Chuck Fager’s description here…)
Hmm, I attend a “Beanite” Meeting in CA and find them to be even more liberal (in the problematic sense of the term) than Meetings back east (and that’s even given the definition provided by Friend Fager)!
Johan also wrote:
A cute little demon is sitting on my left shoulder, whispering “post-liberal” into my ear, and giggling.
Ha! I think the very same cute little demon was giggling and whispering in my ear, too! Then again, I’ve used the label “post-post-Christian” (said with tongue firmly planted in cheek) to describe myself to others. 🙂
Loved what you posted from Joe G’s blog. It speaks to my condition. I have another twist on the label question. For me it’s about practice, not labels. Besides, labels are so not apophatic. 😉
I don’t think “Beanite” works. I think of college town meetings, Friends with Masters and PhDs, Howard and Anna Brinton, Pendle Hill, membership defined in terms of comfortability. Beanite is what I’m try to get past.
“Post-liberal” sort of works, but only with people who have read up enough theology to know what it means (see my “Post-Liberals and Post-Evangelicals?”:http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/archives/000099.php entry from last fall.
Apophatic? Whew, Jeanne, now that’s a good word (now who’s been hanging around Lloyd Lee Wilson’s “Wresting with Our Faith Tradition”:http://ncymc.org/journal/ncymcjournal3.pdf (pdf)). Fair though. I’m trying to search for words to name the kinships I’ve been feeling with other FGC Friends, but as Friends we know to beware words and easy labels. But sometimes I feel so loney and just plain weird in the face of the amnesiac liberal orthodoxy and at this times it helps to say “no, I’m part of a real tradition, with a past and present. This is who I am.” I just have to remember not to take this identity (or myself) too seriously, as Christ is bigger than all of our human concepts.
I think it’s sort of how I see plain dress: what matters is not the eventual look or uniform but the discernment process that gets you into plainness. If you have the look but not the convincement then it can be superficial. I don’t care so much about what eventual term I might settle on to describe this conservative-leaning liberal phenomenon I’m observing: more important is the conversation as we try to name our experiences.
I’ve been giving this question *way* too much thought while sitting through long, long meetings (work meetings, not Meetings for Worship), and I think we should go with:
Refreshing Quakers
Wait, now! Don’t brush it off too quickly! There are many advantages you haven’t thought of yet: it’s as resonant for up-to-date techno-pomo Friends as it could be for neo-traditionalists. It avoids the scary or overbearing implications of “renewal” and “restoration,” while connoting comfort, sustenance, newness, coolness (in both commonly used senses), cleanliness, and nurturance. It implies a return to a past freshness (pardon me while my fingers go on to type “the dearest freshness deep down things,” because a Gerard Manley Hopkins quotation is *always* a good thing), and that handy-dandy gerundive allows us to go on doing it world without end.
Refreshing Quakers. What sayest *thou*?
Melynda
Hmmm, Beanites (and Hicksites) ain’t always what they used to be.
Reading this stream of comments has been both sobering and fun — but in comparison to the way I’ve seen labels used too often, way more fun! Having been called “liberal” by some in Friends United Meeting at the same time others accused me of conducting a “fundamentalist purge,” I’ve mostly seen labels used in a mean-spirited way. But when they’re discussed in the spirit that has prevailed here (“… more important is the conversation as we try to name our experiences”), in the interests of communicating more clearly, of enlarging our shared pool of references, of intelligently appropriating a heritage … it seems possible to be more hopeful.
So far my suggestion of “quietist” has escaped critical scrutiny. (What about “neo-quietist”!? “Post-quietist”?)
I’ve sometimes used the terms “left-wing evangelical” for myself.
There are terms that I use and hear among Friends, and Christians generally, in the Spanish-speaking and Russian-speaking cultures more than I use them, or hear them used, among Friends in the North Atlantic culture — and they’re simple words: “brother,” “sister” and “believer.” These words have a quiet power of their own.
I’ve often been tempted to call myself a “non-relativist Friend,” but it seems a bit too smug. Which it is. It’s also true. 😉
Martin-
I’m glad to see thee making such a nuicance of thyself on line here. What could be more Quaker than deeply seeking Truth, after all? How about calling the new movement of neo-conservatives the “New Lights?” As in: http://www.quaker.org/liberal-history/barnard.html
I am living and working at Sierra Friends Center in Northern California where we are struggling to live out our testimonies as a community. (Though the local Grass Valley Friends Meeting is the most secular that I have encountered yet – mostly because of the elders!!) The so-called “New Years Group” of California Friends is still seeking, but has been making some decidedly separatist noises lately. Being unaffiliated is an old Beanite tradition, after all…
I still find my plain witness very helpful to my spirituality. That Tilley hat is just awful, however. I have two suggestions: http://www.lancasterharvest.com/store/amish_hats.html
the other, for bicyclists, is http://www.hatpeople.com/sportshop/catalogue/cat.html
This hat sort of looks like a Hutterite cap for boys.
Loved the pic of thee and my little brother Zachary waving celery at folk at FGC.
Now, seriously, I must elder thee in Love. Thy website here talks about a good many things that are worthwhile for us to consider. However, the space given to Plain Dress is out of all proportion to the space given to simple living. What is the lifestyle that reflects “living in that life and power that takes away the occasion of all war?” It is surely fossil fuel free, for one thing. Ghandhi’s experiments with Truth involved the spinning wheel, and I suspect that ours will involve the spinning bicycle wheel. Perhaps thee could write up a little something about thy journey toward simple living for the site – it would be helpful. (If I just haven’t encountered it yet, forgive me.) With the theological and spiritual underpinnings of thy conviction, it might just speak of a Quakerism that Young Friends might find worth exploring…
Thanks for thy good work!
Thy Friend,
Carl Magruder
EarthQuaker Institute
Hi Carl,
Oh nice to see you visiting here. The Tilley hat… yes, well I don’t wear it because of my keen fashion sense… Ahem, certainly not… I wear it because I’ve noticed that the plainer males in my yearly meeting often wear it (unconscious of any plain reference it makes). I’m trying to live in my community and I’m trying to adopt what pieces I can find here. I can’t imagine either a broad brimmed felt hat or a Mao cap (sorry, a “Hutterite boys cap”!) working here in the big city. I still find I don’t want to be toooo plain.
“New Lights,” that’s interesting, though it’s another (perhaps unjustly) obscure reference. Last week I was wondering about “independent conservative.” I think the name is less important than the relationship to others – the degree of independence and correspondence – which is why I want to read Betsy Cazden’s newly reprinted pamphlet on “Fellowships, Conferences and Associations” ($4) to see the promises and pitfalls of various models.
The plain dress focus has been something of a surprise. At first it was simply a “reposted email”:http://www.nonviolence.org/martink/archives/000080.php I had sent out to the listserve set up after Lloyd Lee Wilson’s 2001 FGC Gathering workshop. (For readers out there: Carl was a lively participant in this workshop and co-led an impromptu interest group on plain dress). When I got home from that Gathering and was thinking about this leading I felt toward plain dress, I hit Google and was surprised that there was almost nothing online about it. In almost no time, the plain dress became the most visited part of the site. There are months where the plain dress section gets more hits than the Quaker Ranter homepage. This is a hunger for this discussion out there.
I find that plain dress is a topic that opens up interesting discussions about the relationship between traditional and modern Quakerism. “Simplicity” doesn’t have the _frisson_ for comtemporary Friends that “plain dress” does, and for good reason. The ancient testimony was called “plainness” and it’s reformulation as “simplicity” was part of the twentieth-century theological shift I’m trying to highlight.
So much of the Quaker simplicity talk is as “disjointed from Quaker ministry as Quaker peace activism is”:http://www.nonviolence.org/quaker/peace_testimony.php. I’m not looking to reclaim Native American values of stewardship. I’m not looking to build an environmental plank for FCNL lobbying. I don’t want to lecture Quakers on population control. Those might be fine causes for Native Americans, political junkies and people who can’t stand their older siblings, but I’m a Quaker. I want to frame my faith and my practice in Quakerism. The answer isn’t simply broadfalls and braces but sometimes these props invite the questions that develop into the conversations that solidify into the friendships. It’s an opportunity for ministry, one that works right now.
You know the other part though? I feel uncomfortable with the attempts to dress up good causes in Quaker language simply to appeal to a Quaker audience. My main web site Nonviolence.org gets over a millions visitors a year and there you will find my essay about “Economics and Simplicity”:http://www.nonviolence.org/issues/economics.php. Most of the simplicity stuff I write has a boilerplate eco-lefty feel (honestly: so does most of the Quaker Earthcare material I see). It’s all fine, it’s all good, these are generally good causes, worth promoting, which is why I do, even among Friends. But is it ministry? For me it isn’t, or it isn’t the kind of ministry I feel called to do explicitly as a Friend. There’s something in all this, some distinction I’m feeling. I have to think what it is.
For the record: yes, I’m a bicycle rider. I’m a vegan. I don’t wear leather. I go out of my way to buy locally from independent merchants. I believe in local community organizations. When I do get in a car I drive back roads. I like local history. I try to buy less packaging and recycle the stuff I do purchase. I garden, I’ve started canning. I avoid sweatshop labor. But why do all these things sound like bumperstickers and cliches when I list them?
Again, good to see you, I’d be interested to hear how you combine all this. I’m having occasional guest pieces here on Quaker Ranter, yours could be the next!?
Thy Friend,
Martin
Wow! You have spoken to my condition. My partner and I are new attenders at our local Friends Meeting (www.ngfm.org).
We are a gay couple who were unwelcome at the churches of our childhood. Did a stint in the Unitarian Univesalist Church. Needed more spirituality in our lives and found the Friends. Luckily, there are many Meetings in our area and there is Guilford College.
Maybe we’ll meet at General Conference in Blacksburg! Peace!
Hi Craig,
Not only luckily for you but luckily for us, I suspect. I’m glad you and your partner have come to Friends. New Garden has always impressed me as a meeting. I laughed when your minister called to place a book order a few years ago and identified himself as that “hireling at New Garden.” He said it with just the right mix of ironic mirth and historical self-awareness and it made me want to hop the next bus to North Carolina. I hope I meet you at next year’s “Quaker Gathering Conference in Blacksburg”:www.fgcquaker.org/gathering; it should be pretty easy to find me in the Gathering store.
It’s so funny how I was wallowing around in Quaker-rich NC for nearly six years and never made it to a meeting — although I was accepted at UNC‑G and was about to go when I suddenly lost my mind and decided to move to Michigan. I actually looked at Guilford college for its arts programs before I ever thought about joining the Friends.
I’m still short a BA — one of my sisters and a brother go to the Catholic Belmont Abbey in Charlotte and have been clamouring at me to come join them. The rest of my family lives in Raleigh. Hmmm.
Amanda
This is a really interesting page and I’m glad I found it! I have been attending a liberal friends meeting and it is a wonderful group of people. Sometimes I wonder, though, if we are TOO open and tolerant to the point that we simply exist to be a nice group of politically and socially active (in the social justice sense) people that gets together periodically. I think it important to remember the Christian roots of the Friends and am glad that there are Friends out there of the same persuasion.
It just does not surprise me as I type in “Conservative Quakers” that your blog comes up. I’ve been laboring with a renewed call to ministry and have requested that Homewood Friends provide the necessary eldering. We’ll see where that goes. In the meantime, I’m trying to remain faithful to the call. I’ve been shut up in meetings for worship lately. I thought it was just grief from losing Russell. Could be. Whatever it is, while my mouth isn’t moving in worship, my spirit is. I wonder how many other YAFs (as well as older Friends and Young Friends) feel at all a call to ministry within the Society, and have no CLUE what to do about it or even to entertain the idea that they could be callled to ministry.
Hi Kevin-Douglas! It’s so good to hear from you, I’ve thought about you quite a bit since I first heard that Russell was ill, you both have been in my prayers. I’m grateful to hear that the ministry stirs. I think quietness in worship is not an indication of a spiritual desert; indeed, some of the most powerful ministers I’ve known rarely speak in meeting. But when they stand, my heart leaps for joy (yep) and I just sit back with a contented assurance that I know these Friends have a confidence in the Source of what they’re about to say! I think re-establishing a sense of the ministry is our most important task now, especially for YAFs like you (ha, I’m two years over the FGC definition!). You have seen the “workshop”:/quaker/strangers/ Zachary and I are doing, right?!
So what might we call ourselves? Is “conservative liberal Friends” a useful term?
It’s months after you posted this piece on your blog, but I just read a comment elsewhere from frequent reader Robin, who used the phrase “Quaker renewalist.”
That has a nice ring to it for me, without triggering my spiritual baggage when I hear the similar word “revivalist.”
Blessings,
Liz
Thanks to Liz’s recent post, I just found this thread for the first time. And wonderful to read Carl Magruder’s thoughtful and thought-provoking eldering.
Coming in mid-stream, I was reminded of a recent post here on Quaker Ranter by Rich Accetta-Evans on the “What’s God Got to Do with It?” thread:
“I hope in time to tell the story of an “opening” I received… Christ told me inwardly that “I am not the leader of a faction”. I took that to mean that in order to follow him I should not act like a member of a faction.”
One of the things I appreciate about (what little I know of) Buddhism is its constant reminder that these things are only concepts, not the “thing itself.” What matters are the experiences.
The true gift, to me, of Martin’s ministry through Quaker Ranter is the opening of a space for people to have these conversations about their experiences. What’s wonderful is how the conversation frequently focuses on how people approach naming their self-understanding, and then their subsequent experience of how well — or not — that self-understanding relates back to the local and wider Quaker communities. And, again to me, that wider community definitely includes this one and the similar blogs.
11 years ago.
Twelve actually, isn’t it?
Hey Sung, I wonder how this post sounds from your perspective. Many of us who used to comment on this blog and its close kin have gone from peanut gallery to facing bench. “Conservative Liberal” lost to “Convergent” as the canonical nickname for this particular movement but what’s happened to the concern? Have things seasoned and deepened or are we too busy with day to day responsibilities to talk about the big picture anymore?