Johan has a great post about “Quaker evangelizing in Russia”:http://maurers.home.mindspring.com/2004/11/more-about-boldness.htm that really applies to Quakers reaching out anywhere. My favorite paragraph:
bq. I personally have a hard time with hobbyist Quakerism, especially when defined in terms of ultrafinicky prescriptions of how “we” do things, “our” special procedures and folkways, or anything else that detracts from Jesus being in the center of our community life. How can we present something so stilted and crabby and culturally specific as an answer to spiritual bondage? It is just another form of bondage!
I think a lot of Philadelphia Friends obsess on procedure and process since it provides us the safe zone supposedly separated from theology. I certainly know my share of Friends who answer every question with “that’s how we do it” (this is even funnier when it’s a particularly modern Quaker practice). At Quaker gatherings you’re doomed if you hold some program three years in a row, since that’s all it takes for it to be seen as essential.
I can be as guilty of all this as anyone. I find myself sometimes justifying actions by an appeal to their ancientness among Friends. Tradition is important to Friends and it’s long been a test for discernment but we should also be willing to explain how any practice leads us closer to God. I try to catch myself now when I start explaining something solely from tradition. If nothing else it’s just a bad argument: it can be refuted simply by someone declaring they’re not part of the tradition. As Johan points out, this just doesn’t work when evangelizing to another culture (whether that culture be Russia or our own fellow Quakers).
I think it’s interesting that when we’re not throwing the mantle of tradition on our arguments, unprogrammed Friends are often releasing our actions from all tradition by claiming a “continual revelation” that denies discernment subordinate to immediate impulse. It’s sort of a sign of our imbalance that many of us are nervous in that gray area between tradition and continual revelation. Every Friend that really “gets” Quakerism in my experience knows that these cannot be separated.
h3. See also:
“Let’s Talk About Evangelism”:http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/0410/Evangelism.htm, Johan’s recent article in _Quaker Life_ where he talks about his Woodbrooke fellowship on _Evangelism and the Friends Testimonies_. On his discussion board he’s trying out a “definition of Quaker evangelism”:http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=261660&messageid=1097599791&lp=1097599791, where he carefully differentiates it from both proselytism and outreach. Good stuff here.
I like your point that some Friends tend to use the argument of “tradition” to invoke the need to do something (or not). I have done this throughout my career with Quakers. I recall Johan speaking at an FGC Conference about ten years ago making the very valid point that not ALL people desire or want to experience God in a strictly silent means. Could Friends, even us unprogrammed ones, be open to leadings that allowed for certain Meetings for Worship with music and/or a brief message? My Meeting at the time tried this, and we found that people in the neighborhood, who couldn’t abide or understand the purpose of silence, started to come to Meeting! Hmm.
If I understand your point correctly, I’m (gradually) realizing that it takes a lot more than just “tradition”, “continuing revelation”, “confirmation by Scripture”, “leadings”, or “communcal discernment”. It actually takes ALL of them (or at least a seasoned and well understood reason why one of these should be subordinated to the other “tests” of leadings by God). Or at least that is what it seems to be the case to me.