Windy Cooler has a new article on the Friends General Conference website, What is a Quaker Public Minister? Windy’s been researching the concept of public Friends this year, interviewing people about their understanding and experiences.
The startling lack of support for many public ministers as agents of creativity and growth is partly because many Friends are unfamiliar with the term “public minister” and uncertain how to support their work. Additionally, a misinterpretation of the testimony of equality, which often leads comfort-seeking elders to criticize or “cut down” those who stand out among us (referred to as the “tall poppies” by Marty Grundy in her 1999 Pendle Hill pamphlet of the same name), causes many Friends attempting public ministry to encounter hostility or apathy in their local meetings. Even in cases where a faith and practice document outlines the practice, it remains largely taboo in liberal Quakerism to seek a minute acknowledging the gifts of ministry, much less more substantial support.
Windy interviewed me as part of her research. If “public Friend” means someone who is visibly taking on a teaching role for Friends, then I’ve been one since my mid-20s when I started putting together mailing lists and websites organizing young adult Friends (YAFs in Quaker speak); this eventually branched out into blogging, hosting a social network, leading workshops, and giving talks now and then. The longetivity gives it a certain authority, I suppose, as have my professional roles with Quaker organizations (though of course on my blog I’m only speaking for myself).
But this belies just how independent, dare I say ranterish, this process has been. I know how public ministry should work, but it hasn’t ever worked out that way for me. Even now, I don’t have a special designation or support for my volunteer Quaker work.
I should note that I once had a brush with institutional legitimacy. When I applied for a grant from the Clarence and Lilly Pickett Endowment for Quaker Leadership, they required a support letter from my meeting and Atlantic City Area Meeting provided me with one. It wasn’t a recording minute, per se, and didn’t come with any followup support but it was something. The Pickett fund specifically supported younger Friends. It’s a small world so I know a lot of other recipients and many had interesting stories about going their meetings for support letters. In retrospect, forcing a generation of twenty-something active Quakers to get these letters might have been the Pickett fund’s most important legacy (it closed down in 2019).
Full disclosure and mea culpa to say that I’ve never asked for formal meeting support. I have a tendency to land at small, minimally organized meetings that don’t have any experiences of supporting ministries. It always felt like it’d be too much of a push to ask an overburdened small group to take on one more responsibility.
I know some larger Quaker meetings have more formal support structures in place, with clearness and support (sometimes now called anchor) committees supporting their public Friends. I’m a bit jealous but also have been told by Friends in these positions that they sometimes still feel somewhat rogueish and alone. Of course maybe this is just how it is. Did people like John Woolman and Joshua Evans really feel fully supported by their meetings as they traveled about? And did they have now-forgotten contemporaries who felt the “tall poppies” effect and elected to stay home? Benjamin Lay comes to mind as someone who had to minister without support. Windy writes:
While it’s true that many of our famous historic public ministers were disliked in their time and praised in ours as if they represent our own actions, it is inconceivable that these leaders could have traveled, spoken, and effected change in their quest for right relationship without robust support. It is something of a miracle then that so many dynamic Friends today are attempting to do just that out of love for who we are and can be and we are treading water with all the faith in the world that the undertow of the status quo will not overcome us.
FGC promises this to be the “first of four short essays in a series on public ministry in the liberal tradition.” Glad to see FGC exploring this work. In the early 2000s they did important work with the Traveling Ministries Committee1, which did a lot to re-legitimate the idea of ministry among Liberal Friends. Windy also gives a shout-out to the he Quaker Leadership Center, which I know is doing good work around these questions too.