Over on Beppeblog, “Liberal Quakerism is no longer Quakerism”, the first of a multi-post series. In part one, Beppe looks at our difficulty articulating a collective voice that might proclaim “Truth.” Individualism has really taken a hit on Quakers, that’s for sure. In this day and age, how can a group set itself apart as a “religious society” – a coherent community of believers? I don’t find fulfillment in my own self and I’m an awfully slow learner when I try to figure out things myself. I need other’s wisdom but books and blogs only take me so far.
As Dave Carl reminds us in the comments, the inward Christ is available to all, everywhere. But just because you can have a visitation while standing in the supermarket checkout line doesn’t make the supermarket a religious society or the cashier a minister. Many of our meetings are good for the casual seeker who wants a stress-free meditation center. The RSOF seems to serve many seekers as an in-between point: a place of entry back into the Christian tradition (for those who have been alienated by false prophets) but not a final destination in itself. If you want to get serious you often have to leave. That’s a shame, not only for the lost seeker, but for our own religious society which sees a constant “brain drain” leaking-out of gifted ministers.
I turn on the TV and radio and hear all sorts of perversions of the gospel being spouted out (yesterday’s Memorial Day pap was particularly annoying – hasn’t any of these Christians read the Sermon on the Mount?!?). The world still needs the kind of radical, back-to-the-roots Christianity that Quakers have long held up as an alternative. But how can we unite to speak with that prophetic voice if we have no collective voice.
I’m not as pessimistic as all this sounds. I think most Friends want something more. We’re constantly lifing up the example of dead Friends with prophetic voices and there’s a strong pride in our history of social justice. Our modern culture of individuality blinds us to how these voices got nutured and how those old-timey Friends were able to come together to speak out these truths. But Friends have often been lured away from our calling and every age has had faithful Friends who have been willing to hit their heads against the brick walls of frustration time and time again in order to remind us of who we are. The back-and-forth of reaching out into the world and pulling back into our tradition is actually itself part of our tradition and Quaker bodies have often seen healthiest when we’ve been able to hold both together.
PS: Check here for Beppe’s second post, which argues that “Liberal Quakerism continues to be Quakerism.”
Hi Martin,
What about working together with other peace churches on the prophetic voice against violence and warfare thing?
–Barbara
Great post, Martin. Friend, you speak my mind…“there is one, even Christ Jesus that can speak to thy condition.”
God’s peace,
Craig
Hi Barbara! Well, sure, I’m all for working with anyone on that kind of prophetic witness. But what does that witness look like? And how do we talk about it?
When the Christian Peacemakers were held hostage we saw a lot of Quaker organizations stumble trying to respond. With Tom Fox we were confronted by a full-on liberal Quaker Christian witness against war, united with other peace churches and who was there to explain this as prophetic witness? AFSC? FCNL? FGC? Nope nope and nope. There were too many organizations that couldn’t manage anything beyond the boilerplate social justice press release. I held my tongue while the hostages were still in captivity but I was mad at the exposed fracture lines between religious witness and social activism. I “did my part”:http://www.nonviolence.org/christian_peacemakers/ and there was John Stephens and Chuck Fager with “Freethecaptivesnow.org”:http://freethecaptivesnow.org/ but we were over-worked bloggers doing this in our non-existant spare time. Fox’s “Langely Hill Meeting”:http://quaker.org/langleyhill/tomfox.html was the only official Quaker body who had an ongoing electronic witness. I’ve been meaning to do a kind of follow-up post to the hostage situation, maybe I should do that soon…
Hi Martin,
The QUIT conference seems to be a hopeful sign.
http://www.quit-torture-now.org/Pages/QuitWebConf.html
What do you think?
The founder/director of our local peace group, Karen Porter –and she’s not even a Quaker– is going to attend. When she comes back, she’s organizing an anti-torture “branch” of our group. I’m anxious to take part.
BTW, she’s already organized a local panel discussion on anti-torture for June 13 at 7pm. I believe that a couple of members of some Quaker meetings out this way will be participating. The title of the panel discussion is “U.S. Torture of Prisoners—
A Moral, Not a Political, Issue!”
(There’s a story behind that title — but some other time!)
It will be held at the Second Presbyterian Church, in West Chester.
But I do understand what you mean.
Do you know if FUM or other Quaker traditions have been conducting more visible Christian witness against the war?
The pictures of baby Francis are just TOO CUTE!!! My oldest baby is graduating from high school this weekend — which is why I can’t go to the QUIT conference with Karen.
–Barbara
Martino,
Your comments about Tom Fox are somewhat reflected in my post for tomorrow. I think we’re doppleganging (is that such a word) each other again. 🙂 I’ll quote myself here:
3. Nonetheless, the concerns I raised over the past few years are not, in and of themselves, wrong, misguided, or inherently flawed (although others have and will continue to disagree with me). For example, is there a reason why a silly “Quaker” sweat lodge generates more energy and drama (Is it cultural appropriation?!? Was Quaker “process” trampled upon?!?) within liberal Quaker organizations than the recent example of Tom Fox’s life and death? I would think his example would inspire us as a community to wonder, “Why aren’t more Friends moved to do the same and is there anything that we as a community do that either helps or hinders that reality?”
This is not the main point of the post, but I do touch on the issue. I would enjoy more observations from you in this regards.
BTW, did you notice in this month’s Friends Journal that there were three times as many letters regarding the “Sweat lodge controversy!” than the blog entries it previously published by Tom Fox? It might be a matter of print schedules: more letters about TF will be printed much later. Hmm.
Martin, you write:
Many of our meetings are good for the casual seeker who wants a stress-free meditation center. The RSOF seems to serve many seekers as an in-between point: a place of entry back into the Christian tradition (for those who have been alienated by false prophets) but not a final destination in itself. If you want to get serious you often have to leave. That’s a shame, not only for the lost seeker, but for our own religious society which sees a constant “brain drain” leaking-out of gifted ministers.
You speak my mind… And if I were at my home computer, I’d put a link to the post I wrote that describes my own experience of understanding that some monthly meetings are “spiritual rest stops” for its attenders and members.
I also recently got into a conversation with some “displaced” Conservative Friends, and I mentioned to them that some meetings value a spiritual hospitality, while other meetings value transformation and/or obedience to a Divine authority, especially as discerned by the faith community.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
“The back-and-forth of reaching out into the world and pulling back into our tradition is actually itself part of our tradition and Quaker bodies have often seen healthiest when we’ve been able to hold both together”.
Thank you Friend Martin.
This was also the tradition of Christ.
He reach out to the world but also pull back into his tradtion.
Like many unprogrammed Friends, when I first came among Quakers I identify“that of God in everyone” primary as the universal Spirit .
Thirty years later, I am much more comfortable identifying that presence within myself as Christ.
I think Society of Friends like the larger Society is primary made up
wounded and broken people, including myself.
Our mission is simply, to be the presence of Christ to each other and our sisters and brothers in and outside the Society of Friends.
Christ has no body now on earth but yours, no hands but yours, no feet but yours; yours are the eyes through which to look at Christ’s compassion to the world, yours are the feet with which he is to go about doing good, and yours are the hands with which he is to bless us now.” — St. Teresa of Avila
Paul
I’m sorry, Liz, Martin, and others. I don’t agree.
Providing a “sprititual rest stop” freely, with no strings attached, no hidden agenda, no asking for pledges– financial or other– I think that’s an admirable thing in this world where everyone is looking to get something out of any good they do or any contribution they make.
I think that providing a place of quiet reflection without thought of return, without caring whether or not those who come will transform (“we love you…you’re welcome here… now CHANGE!”), without thought about whether they’ll finally join up and increase our numbers — I think that’s all a part of doing God’s work.
Barbara, I agree,
Providing a “spiritual rest stop” needn’t be a “just” — a failing. Quakers may be unique (well, probably not) in offering a safe harbor in the storm of “false prophets” (as Martin says) while still emphasizing the validity of spirit itself.
But I myself take issue with the idea that it’s a “spiritual rest stop” at all. Clearly a few people have found it to be so, and speak disparagingly of what didn’t work long-term for them. I am happy if they find something that feels “deeper” or “more meaningful” to them, but I have to say, if keeping those “gifted ministers” in our liberal meetings has anything to do with accepting the sort of “my way of the highway” flirtation with dogmatism that I often hear behind such declarations, I am willing to wish them well and wave goodbye.….
I am feeling qutie snippy. Much in this post is quite insulting to the likes of me, and there is much that I could say that, in my opinion would be a reflection of it. (Perhaps those that leave aren’t so much “deeper” or “brainier”, but those who, when fully open to the light find there’s nothing there inside their souls, and need to run back to the Bible for “filler” — now, that hasn’t been what I’ve thought before, but really, if this discussion is going to be consistently framed in terms of how shallow and spiritless I am, I am not sure how to continue it without getting snippy.
sigh
Pam
Hi Barbara: well, sure we’re friendly. I’m glad we provide a rest stop. That’s just not all we are. We have to invite people to the source of that peace and quiet we’ve found.
Hey Pam: I don’t know why you always take my posts so personally. For what it’s worth, I don’t see tradition is just the story of where we’ve come from and thus where we are. Most Quakers are Christian (even most FGC Quakers) and the _Faith and Practice_ your yearly meeting uses is explicitly subtitled “A Book of Christian Discipline.” FGC’s three paragraph “minute of purpose” uses the word God four times. You have knowingly joined a religious society where you’re out of sync with the mainstream. That’s fine, as long as you’re fine with it. I welcome you and as I’ve written time and again, I think the nontheist impulse can have a truth-testing gift for the modern RSOF. But if you’re not fine with the religion you’ve joined and rail whenever someone refers to it, that’s kind of strange and I have a hard time sympathizing with this kind of victimhood claim.
Martin -
I have actually missed where you repeatedly said that you welcome me. But thanks. I welcome you as well.
I have trouble with the charge that what I wrote was a “victimhood claim” — What you wrote hurt my feelings. This is a fact. Does that make it untrue? no. Does it mean you shouldn’t have written it? NO, certainly not if it’s your best understanding of your truth at the moment. But in order to stay engaged, which is something that at this point I’d still like to do, I need to share my part of the experience as well.
I have to admit that I think I pretty well read the “christian exclusivity” thing into this particular post. I’ve felt it from you before, but I don’t (necessarily) in this post. Sorry.
I have written a (still somewhat muddled) entry on my own blog about this.
What I am most frustrated that few folks seem to understand about what I“m saying is that I’m NOT anti-christian. I am fine with christianity as I have experienced it in quakerism (at least until recently) — universalist, not elitist, more about following christ through loving our nabor, and learning from his example rather than worshipping an icon.
I am terribly frustrated because I am one of those Friends who you say “want something more” and yet most of those whom I have heard talking about this don’t mean what I mean. Or I haven’t found the point of connection yet, at least.
I want to be a society that nourishes spirits like that of Tom Fox, of John Woolman, and of countless other quakers (well, and nonquakers, lest we forget) through history to the modern day who stand for what is right with a strong faith and strong love.
But all I see people coming up with is that somehow we need to be christian. I am frustrated with this response because to me it seems quite shallow.
I have a half-formed monty-python-esque skit in my head about a group of people on the verge of real discovery, real spiritual awakening, who then tumble into something really obvious and, relatively uninteresting, and well, misguided, as their “salvation”.
So, that’s MY experience. I’m not actually saying that Christianity is wrong, or questioning the experiences of any who have seen or heard Christ, or both, calling to them, but I havne’t.
And yet I think that I still bring something very important to my meeting, and any group of seekers whom I find myself among.
If you are asking that we no longer “pack our own bags” at checkout — what are you asking????? It seems that you seek a unified vision for the Society of Friends, and one that is explicitly and exclusively Chrsitian, Is that NOT the case????
Meetings where bible quotes or readings are warmly accepted, and buddhist quotes and readings would not be??? If your not asking us to do that, what ARE you asking?
If you are asking for that, how is that different from someone telling me that I have equal marriage rights (as a lesbian) because I can marry a man just like any other woman? “welcoming” someone but asking them to check part of their soul at the door is not true.
peace
Pam
Oh Pam: of _course_ I want us all to be Christian. I want us all to be guided by what I (and most Friends living and dead) identify as Christ’s spirit. I don’t care what you call that force, I don’t even care if you think it’s your own brilliant rational mind at work. I know that Spirit is available to all humanity, ready to comfort and guide and I don’t suspect its so parochial that it needs words like “Christ” appended to it for it to work (that’s what perhaps defines me as a liberal Friend).
I would appreciate if you started taking more care not to misrepresent me. Read what I write and try to understand where it’s coming from. Where did I say Buddhist readings weren’t okay? Where did I say you had to check your lesbianism at the door? Where did I say all Friends have to use exclusively Christian language? This kind of rhetoric is not serving the purposes of mutual understanding.
Martin -
Ok, now, yet again, I am feeling a bit stuck.
Wat is our problem here, then?
‑I did apologize for reading something into your post that isn’t there. I will do it again, I’m sorry.
‑I never said that I had to check my lesbianism at the door. I was referring to a similar feeling that I get when you say things like “of course I want us all to be Christian” — and various other versions of that, that I hear (from you and others) That says that the Society of Friends should be CHRISTIAN — that’s very different (for me) from saying that it should be honest about its christian roots, or that it should be open to the voice of christ (!) — For me, as a nontheist identified person, it is similar to churches that say it’s fine for me to bring my lesbian self to service, but I can’t acknowledge my girlfriend, and I may well hear preaching that says I’m going to hell.
(In other words, I was trying to make a point about welcoming people without welcoming all of who they are — now, we do that often — people are not welcome to throw fits or preach hatred for example. But not welcome, perhaps, to question the existence of God in their ministry? That’s a choice, and one I hope we don’t make.
‑the buddhist thing was actually someone (or several someones) in my home meeting. I didnt’ mean to actually accuse you of saying it, but meant it as an example. I know I wasnt’ clear. — But, part of it was a question — are you saying that you do welcome ministry that draws on buddhist, pagan, or other wisdom, and ministry??? That is a crucial question for me, and one I haven’t seen answered.
Reading what you wrote last, I have no clue what the problem is. I, too, want us all to be guided by what I (and most Friends living and dead) identify as Christ’s spirit. I don’t care what you call that force The only difference is that I don’t identify it as Christ’s spirit (actually, I’m even half willing to, but I dont’ identify it with Christianity or necessarily solely with the one man Jesus of Nazareth)
Perhaps the biggest difference is that I don’t think that calling Friends back to christianity is the best way to help us all be guided by that spirit. In my experience chrisitanity is muddled with all sorts of stuff that denies that spirit, and the spirit is THERE, is may be eaiser to find if we simply look rather than using 2,000 year old maps or mirrors. (through a glass darkly)
so, what’s the problem???
I think perhaps part of it is that I want you to have some answer — one that I don’t have. We can both sit and kvetch til the cows come home about the lack of depth and having lost our way as a society. I don’t feel any great revelation that shows the way out of that confusion and muddledness, and I am looking to others (right now to you) to know better than I do. a fruitless tactic, I believe.
peace
Pam
Pam originally wrote:
I am happy if they find something that feels “deeper” or “more meaningful” to them, but I have to say, if keeping those “gifted ministers” in our liberal meetings has anything to do with accepting the sort of “my way of the highway” flirtation with dogmatism that I often hear behind such declarations, I am willing to wish them well and wave goodbye…
Perhaps those that leave aren’t so much “deeper” or “brainier”, but those who, when fully open to the light find there’s nothing there inside their souls, and need to run back to the Bible for “filler”…
Given that Martin originally referenced my post about liberal Quakerism and me, and given that I have very publicly written about leaving the fold, I assume that I am indirectly referred to in Pam’s comments.
I have to admit, I have not been referred to as “flirting with dogmatism” in a long time. I mean, do I know how to flirt and then really dig deep into dogmatism when I was a fundamentalist.
Let’s be clear — I never referred to specific individuals in all the posts I made that criticized or pointed out what I saw as problems. I always was referring to the ORGANIZATIONAL level of liberal Quakerism and not to specific individuals. For God’s sake, I’ve done much of the very same thing that I was critical of others for doing! My own clearness committee about my remaining in the RSoF confronted me on the very “individualism” that I pointed my waving finger at others with, and they were completely accurate!
Please understand that I am referring to things that I have seen or been a part of for 20 years and that it has little to do with you or anyone else that is similar to you. I never meant for anyone to take it personally (and a few folks, such as Nancy A. have seemed to appreciate my critique of one of her posts).
As to being “deeper” or “brainer” or “gifted ministers”- I never used those adjectives to describe myself, nor have I ever known anyone to use them of me. If they do, then they are incorrect.
What was difficult to read was the “finding nothing” in my soul, even after being open to the Light, and then running to the Bible for “filler”. Ouch! Pam is not the only one to chide me: I’ve gotten other emails about running to clergy to answer all of my questions, depending on creeds/dogmas to do the “hard” word for me, or that I will undoubtably find any rituals pale in comparison to unprogrammed worship (since, the implication is, that all rituals are unltimately “empty” or inferior to sitting in a room of silence once a week).
I understand that these are long, hardy ideas that have been a part of Friends since its inception — and is still very much alive today. In fact, George would have chided me even more so: he would have called me a hypocrite, going back to being a
“professor” and not one truly guided by the Inward Light. And, at one time, I believed, very strongly I will note, the same thing.
But, I no longer hold to those ideas and in fact find them to be simplistic, stereotypical, and condescending. Here is not the place to wrangle over these issues (nor am I actually interested in doing so anyway).
I will admit that after the initial sting of reading “…those who, when fully open to the light find there’s nothing there inside their souls and need to run back to the Bible for ‘filler’…” I concluded, ‘that is a is a good one’. I suspect that when something stings like this, there is probably some truth in it. Mia culpa!
Wishing everyone well. Honestly! And, likewise, I’m glad to finally have the clarity to move on.