Tag Archives ⇒ lot

On job hunting and the blogging future in Metro Philadelphia

November 29, 2006
· Martin Kelley

I’ve been qui­et on the blogs late­ly, focus­ing on job search­es rather than rant­i­ng. I thought I’d take a lit­tle time off to talk about my lit­tle cor­ner of the career mar­ket. I’ve been apply­ing for a lot of web design and edit­ing jobs but the most inter­est­ing ones have com­bined these togeth­er in cre­ative ways. My qual­i­fi­ca­tions for these jobs are more the inde­pen­dent sites I’ve put togeth­er — notably Quak​erQuak​er​.org—than my paid work for Friends.

For exam­ple: one inter­est­ing job gets repost­ed every few weeks on Craigslist. It’s geared toward adding next-generation inter­ac­tive con­tent to the web­site of a con­sor­tium of sub­ur­ban news­pa­pers (appli­cants are asked to be “com­fort­able with terms like blog, vlog, CSS, YourHub, MySpace, YouTube…,” etc.). The qual­i­fi­ca­tions and vision are right up my alley but I’m still wait­ing to hear any­thing about the appli­ca­tion I sent by email and snail mail a week ago. Despite this, they’re con­tin­u­ing to post revised descrip­tions to Craigslist. Yes­ter­day’s ver­sion dropped the “con­ver­gence” lin­go and also dropped the pro­ject­ed salary by about ten grand.

About two months ago I actu­al­ly got through to an inter­view for a fab­u­lous job that con­sist­ed of putting togeth­er a blog­ging com­mu­ni­ty site to fea­ture the lesser-known and quirky busi­ness­es of Philadel­phia. I had a great inter­view, thought I had a good chance at the job and then heard noth­ing. Days turned to weeks as my follow-up com­mu­ni­ca­tions went unan­swered. 11/30 Update: a friend just guessed the group I was talk­ing about and emailed that the site did launch, just qui­et­ly. It looks good.

Cor­po­rate blog­ging is said to be the wave of the future and in only a few years polit­i­cal cam­paigns have come to con­sid­er blog­gers as an essen­tial tool in get­ting their mes­sage out. User-generated con­tent has become essen­tial feed­back and pub­lic­i­ty mech­a­nisms. My expe­ri­ence from the Quak­er world is that blog­gers are con­sti­tut­ing a new kind of lead­er­ship, one that’s both more out­go­ing but also thought­ful and vision­ary (I should post about this some­time soon). Blogs encour­age open­ness and trans­paren­cy and will sure­ly affect orga­ni­za­tion­al pol­i­tics more and more in the near future. Smart com­pa­nies and non­prof­its that want to grow in size and influ­ence will have to learn to play well with blogs.

But the future is lit­tle suc­cor to the present. In the Philadel­phia met­ro­pol­i­tan area it seems that the rare employ­er that’s think­ing in these terms have have a lot of back and forths try­ing to work out the job descrip­tion. Well, I only need one enlight­ened employ­er! It’s time now to put the boys to bed, then check the job boards again. Keep us in your prayers.

Quak​er​song​.org

March 10, 2006
· Martin Kelley

Quakersong.orgWeb­site for Peter Blood & Annie Pat­ter­son, musi­cians most well known for their insanely-popular song­book Rise Up Singing. They sell books and tapes on the site (e‑commerce han­dled ably and sim­ply by Pay­pal) and they also have lots of high-quality con­tent includ­ing a lot of hard-to-find Pete Seeger CDs. Mov­able Type is used as a con­tent man­age­ment sys­tem (CMS).

Tech­nolo­gies: Mov­able Type, Pay­pal. Vis­it Site.

Two Years of the Quaker Ranter and Quaker Blogs

October 10, 2005
· Martin Kelley

An amaz­ing thing has hap­pened in the last two years: we’ve got Friends from the cor­ners of Quak­erism shar­ing our sim­i­lar­i­ties and dif­fer­ences, our frus­tra­tions and dreams through Quak­er blogs. Dis­en­chant­ed Friends who have longed for deep­er con­ver­sa­tion and con­so­la­tion when things are hard at their local meet­ing have built a net­work of Friends who under­stand. When our gen­er­a­tion is set­tling down to write our mem­oirs — our Quak­er jour­nals — a lot of us will have to have at least one chap­ter about becom­ing involved in the Quak­er blog­ging community.

Image4
My per­son­al site before and after it became “Quak­er Ranter.”

When I signed off on my last post, I promised I would con­tin­ue with some­thing on “blogs, min­istry and lib­er­al Quak­er out­reach.” Here’s the first of the follow-ups.

As I set­tle in to my sec­ond week at my new (and newly-defined) jobs at FGC, I won­der if I be here with­out help of the Quak­er Ranter? I start­ed this blog two sum­mers ago. It was a time when I felt like I might be head­ed toward mem­ber­ship in the lost Quak­er gen­er­a­tion that was the focus of one of my ear­li­est posts. There were a lot of dead-ends in my life. A cou­ple of appli­ca­tions for more seri­ous, respon­si­ble employ­ment with Friends had recent­ly gone nowhere. Life at my month­ly meet­ing was odd (we’ll keep it at that). I felt I was com­ing into a deep­er expe­ri­en­tial knowl­edge of my Quak­erism and per­haps inch­ing toward more overt min­istry but there was no out­let, no sense of how this inward trans­for­ma­tion might fit into any sort of out­ward social form or forum.

Every­where I looked I saw Friends short­com­ing them­selves and our reli­gious soci­ety with a don’t-rock-the-boat timid­i­ty that was­n’t serv­ing God’s pur­pose for us. I saw pre­cious lit­tle prophet­ic min­istry. I knew of few Friends who were ask­ing chal­leng­ing ques­tions about our wor­ship life. Our lan­guage about God was becom­ing ever more cod­ed and ster­il­ized. Most of the twenty-somethings I knew gen­er­al­ly approached Quak­erism pri­mar­i­ly as a series of cul­tur­al norms with only dif­fer­ent stan­dards from one year­ly meet­ing to anoth­er (and one Quak­er branch to anoth­er, I suspect) .
With all this as back­drop, I start­ed the Quak­er Ranter with a nothing-left-to-lose men­tal­i­ty. I was ner­vous about push­ing bound­aries and about broach­ing things pub­licly that most Friends only say in hushed tones of two or three on meet­ing­house steps. I was also dou­bly ner­vous about being a Quak­er employ­ee talk­ing about this stuff (liveli­hood and all that!). The few Quak­er blogs that were out there were gen­er­al­ly blogs by Quak­ers but about any­thing but Quak­erism, pol­i­tics being the most com­mon topic.

Now sure, a lot of this has­n’t changed over these few years. But one thing has: we now have a vibrant com­mu­ni­ty of Quak­er blog­gers. We’ve got folks from the cor­ners of Quak­erism get­ting to know one anoth­er and hash out not just our sim­i­lar­i­ties and dif­fer­ences, but our frus­tra­tions and dreams. It’s so cool. There’s some­thing hap­pen­ing in all this! Dis­en­chant­ed Friends who have longed for deep­er con­ver­sa­tion and con­so­la­tion when things are hard at their local meet­ing are find­ing Friends who understand.

Through the blog and the com­mu­ni­ty that formed around it I’ve found a voice. I’m evolv­ing, cer­tain­ly, through read­ing, life, blog con­ver­sa­tions and most impor­tant­ly (I hope!) the act­ing of the Holy Spir­it on my ever-resistant ego. But because of my blog I’m some­one who now feels com­fort­able talk­ing about what it means to be a Quak­er in a pub­lic set­ting. It almost seems quaint to think back to the ear­ly blog con­ver­sa­tions about whether we can call this a kind of min­istry. When we’re all set­tling down to write our mem­oirs — our Quak­er jour­nals — a lot of us will have to have at least one chap­ter about becom­ing involved in the Quak­er blog­ging com­mu­ni­ty. In Howard Brin­ton’s Quak­er Jour­nals he enu­mer­at­ed the steps toward growth in the min­istry that most of the writ­ers seemed to go through; I sus­pect the jour­nals of our gen­er­a­tion will add self-published elec­tron­ic media to it’s list of clas­sic steps.

When I start­ed Quak­er Ranter I did have to won­der if this might be a quick­est way to get fired. Not to cast asper­sions on the powers-that-be at FGC but the web is full of cau­tion­ary tales of peo­ple being canned because of too-public blogs. My only con­so­la­tion was the sense that no one that mat­tered real­ly read the thing. But as it became more promi­nent a curi­ous phe­nom­e­non hap­pened: even Quak­er staff and uber-insiders seemed to be relat­ing to this con­ver­sa­tion and want­ed a place to com­plain and dream about Quak­erism. My per­son­al rep­u­ta­tion has cer­tain­ly gone up because of this site, direct­ly and indi­rect­ly because of the blog. This brings with it the snares of pop­u­lar praise (itself a well-worn theme in Quak­er jour­nals) but it also made it more like­ly I would be con­sid­ered for my new out­reach job. It’s fun­ny how life works.
Okay, that’s enough for a post. I’ll have to keep out­reach till next time. But bear with me: it’s about form too and how form con­tributes to ministry.

PS: Talk­ing of two years of Quak­er blog­ging… My “Non​vi​o​lence​.org turns ten years old this Thurs­day!! I thought about mak­ing a big deal about it but alas there’s so lit­tle time.

Witness of Our Lost Twenty-Somethings

May 16, 2005
· Martin Kelley

For those that might not have noticed, I have an arti­cle in the lat­est issue of the awkwardly-named FGCon­nec­tions: “Wit­ness of Our Lost Twenty-Somethings.” Astute Quak­er Ranter read­ers will rec­og­nize it as a re-hashing of “The Lost Quak­er Gen­er­a­tion” and its relat­ed pieces. Reac­tion has been quite inter­est­ing, with a lot of old­er Friends say­ing they relate to what I’ve said. It’s fun­ny how so many of us feel a sense of iso­la­tion from our own reli­gious institutions!

The Witness of Our Lost Twenty-Somethings

By Martin Kelley

What is it like to be a thirty-something Friend these days? Lone­ly and frus­trat­ing. At least half of the com­mit­ted, inter­est­ing and bold twenty-something Friends I knew ten years ago have left Quak­erism. This isn’t nor­mal youth­ful church-hopping and it’s not some char­ac­ter flaw of “Gen­er­a­tion X.” They’ve left because they were sim­ply tired of slam­ming their heads against the wall of an insti­tu­tion­al Quak­erism that neglect­ed them and its own future.

I can cer­tain­ly relate. For the last decade, I’ve done ground-breaking work pub­li­ciz­ing non­vi­o­lence online. I’ve been pro­filed in the New York Times and invit­ed on nation­al talk radio shows, but the clerk of the peace com­mit­tee in my achingly-small month­ly meet­ing always for­gets that I have “some web­site” and I’ve nev­er been asked to speak to Friends about my work. I wouldn’t mind being over­looked if I saw oth­ers my age being rec­og­nized, but most of the amaz­ing min­istries I’ve known have been just as invisible.

It’s like this even at the small-scale lev­el. I’ve gone to count­less com­mit­tee meet­ings with ideas, enthu­si­asm and faith­ful­ness, only to real­ize (too late, usu­al­ly) that these are just the qual­i­ties these com­mit­tees don’t want. Through repeat­ed heart­break I’ve final­ly learned that if I feel like I’m crash­ing a par­ty when I try to get involved with some Quak­er cause, then it’s a sign that it’s time to get out of there! I’ve been in so many meet­ing­hous­es where I’ve been the only per­son with­in ten years of my age in either direc­tion that I’m gen­uine­ly star­tled when I’m in a room­ful of twenty- and thirty-somethings.

I recent­ly had lunch with one of the thir­tysome­thing Friends who have left. He had been drawn to Friends because of their mys­ti­cism and their pas­sion for non­vi­o­lent social change; he was still very com­mit­ted to both. But after orga­niz­ing actions for years, he con­clud­ed that the Friends in his meet­ing didn’t think the peace tes­ti­mo­ny could actu­al­ly inspire us to a wit­ness that was so bold.

I wrote about this lunch con­ver­sa­tion on my web­site and before long anoth­er old Friend sur­faced. Eight years ago a wit­ness and action con­fer­ence inspired him to help launch a nation­al Quak­er youth vol­un­teer net­work. He put years of his life into this; his state­ments on the prob­lems and promis­es fac­ing Quak­er youth are still right on the mark. But after ear­ly excite­ment his sup­port evap­o­rat­ed and the project even­tu­al­ly fell apart in what he’s described as “a bit­ter and unsuc­cess­ful experience.”

The loss of Quak­er peers has hit close to home for me. When one close Friend learned my wife had left Quak­erism for anoth­er church after eleven years, all he could say was how pleased he was that she had final­ly found her spir­i­tu­al home; oth­ers gave sim­i­lar empty- sound­ing plat­i­tudes. I felt like say­ing to them “No, you dimwits, we’ve dri­ven away yet anoth­er Friend!” Each of these three lost Friends remain deeply com­mit­ted to the Spir­it and are now involved in oth­er reli­gious societies.

Young adults haven’t always been as invis­i­ble or unin­volved as they are now. A whole group of the Quak­er lead­ers cur­rent­ly in their fifties and six­ties were giv­en impor­tant jobs at Quak­er orga­ni­za­tions at very ten­der ages (often right out of col­lege). Also, there’s his­tor­i­cal prece­dent for this: George Fox was 24 when he began his pub­lic min­istry; Samuel Bow­nas was 20 when he was roused out of his meet­ing­house slum­ber to begin his remark­able min­istry; even Mar­garet Fell was still in her thir­ties when she was con­vinced. When the first gen­er­a­tion of Friends drew togeth­er a group of their most impor­tant elders and min­is­ters to address one of their many crises, the aver­age age of the gath­er­ing was 35. Younger Friends haven’t always been ghet­toized into Young

Audlt Friends only dorms, pro­grams, work­shops or committees.

There is hope. Some have start­ed notic­ing that young Friends who go into lead­er­ship train­ing pro­grams often dis­ap­pear soon after­wards. The pow­ers that be at Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence have final­ly start­ed talk­ing about “youth min­istry.” (Wel­come!). A great peo­ple might pos­si­bly be gath­ered from the emer­gent church move­ment and the inter­net is full of amaz­ing con­ver­sa­tions from new Friends and seek­ers. There are pock­ets in our branch of Quak­erism where old­er Friends have con­tin­ued to men­tor and encour­age mean­ing­ful and inte­grat­ed youth lead­er­ship, and some of my peers have hung on with me. Most hope­ful­ly, there’s a whole new gen­er­a­tion of twenty- some­thing Friends on the scene with strong gifts that could be nur­tured and harnessed.

In the truest real­i­ty, our chrono­log­i­cal ages melt away in the ever-refreshing cur­rents of the Liv­ing Spir­it; we are all as chil­dren to a lov­ing God. Will Friends come togeth­er to remem­ber this before our reli­gious soci­ety los­es anoth­er generation?

Mar­tin Kel­ley is a mem­ber of Atlantic City Month­ly Meet­ing, Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing. He works for FGC as the web­mas­ter and book­store sec­re­tary. This arti­cle is writ­ten from his experience.

 

 

Youth Ministry, Yearly Meeting Style

March 18, 2005
· Martin Kelley

One has to applaud the sheer hon­esty of the group of lead­ing Quak­ers who have recent­ly pro­posed turn­ing the grounds of Philadel­phi­a’s his­toric Arch Street Meet­ing­house into a retire­ment home. It makes per­fect sense. Arch Street is the host for our annu­al ses­sions, where the aver­age age is sure­ly over 70. Why not insti­tu­tion­al­ize the year­ly meet­ing reality?

The Arch Street Meet­ing­house grounds are also a ceme­tery. In about ten years time we can raze the meet­ing­house for more head­stones and in about twen­ty years time we can have a big par­ty where we cash out the year­ly meet­ing funds and just burn them in a big bon­fire (there’s a fire sta­tion across the street), for­mal­ly lay­ing down Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing. The fif­teen of us who are left can go attach our­selves to some oth­er year­ly meeting.

This year’s annu­al ses­sions con­tin­ue their tra­di­tion of self-parody: the fea­tured speak­ers are the umpteenth gray-hair pro­fes­sion­al Quak­er talk­ing about the peace tes­ti­mo­ny and a psy­chol­o­gist who appears on NPR. It’s safe to assume nei­ther will stray beyond the mildest com­mu­ni­ties of faith talk to men­tion God, gospel order or nam­ing of gifts, and that nei­ther will ask why there’s almost no one under forty involved in the year­ly meet­ing. The last time I went to a nom­i­nat­ing com­mit­tee work­shop at annu­al ses­sions, mem­bers open­ly explained to me why Friends under forty could­n’t serve on com­mit­tees. Lat­er dur­ing that ses­sion we learned the aver­age new atten­der was in their thir­ties yet the year­ly meet­ing clerk did­n’t think it was appro­pri­ate than any Friend under fifty com­ment on that (about 40 old­er Friends were rec­og­nized to share their thoughts, natch).

The gen­er­a­tional freefall is com­ing to the year­ly meet­ing. Arch Street Meet­ing is smack in the mid­dle of one of the pre­mier hip young neigh­bor­hoods of Philadel­phia yet they’ve been resis­tant to doing any seri­ous out­reach or adult reli­gious ed (I could tell sto­ries: don’t get me start­ed). This week­end I learned that the oth­er down­town meet­ing, Cen­tral Philadel­phia, con­tin­ues its prac­tice – almost pol­i­cy – of not sup­port­ing emerg­ing min­istry in long-time young atten­ders (I could real­ly tell sto­ries). I would­n’t be sur­prised if Philadel­phia has the low­est per-capita year­ly meet­ing attendance.

So why not just admit that the year­ly meet­ing is irrel­e­vant to younger Friends? Why not turn our meet­ing­hous­es into retire­ment homes?

PS: How I wish I weren’t so cyn­i­cal about the year­ly meet­ing. I don’t want to feel like it’s a state of all-out gen­er­a­tional war­fare. I’ve tried, real­ly I have. I’m even will­ing to try again. But no where have I found a space to have these dis­cus­sions, at year­ly meet­ing or any­where else. Oth­er Phi­la. YM Friends con­cerned with these issues are wel­come to email me – maybe we can fig­ure out some forum for this either inside or out­side of the offi­cial structures. 
PPS: There are a lot of won­der­ful Friends involved with the year­ly meet­ing. They have good ideas and sin­cere­ly try to make it a more wel­com­ing place. The best part of the year­ly meet­ing ses­sions I’ve attend­ed have been the unex­pect­ed con­ver­sa­tions. It’s the insti­tu­tion I am frus­trat­ed with: the sense that it’s big­ger and dumb­er than all of us.
PPPS: What if I took my own words to heart and con­sid­ered a PhYM renew­al as part of the fifty-year plan? If I just stopped com­plain­ing and just attend­ed patient­ly and faith­ful­ly year after year for those “teach­able moments” that might inch it forward?

Nonprofit Website Design and Measurement

October 30, 2004
· Martin Kelley

A 2004 Denom­i­na­tion­al Web­site Report

When I wrote this in the Fall of 2004, I was work­ing as the web­mas­ter for Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence, the US/Canadian denom­i­na­tion­al body for the lib­er­al branch of unpro­grammed Quak­ers. As web­mas­ter, I felt that one of my most impor­tant respon­si­bil­i­ties was to under­stand how reli­gious seek­ers use the inter­net and how our non­prof­it orga­ni­za­tion could ben­e­fit from under­stand­ing these patterns.

My 2004 report on the three FGC web­sites touched on a lot of these issues. I offer it here because I hope it can give oth­er non­prof­it and denom­i­na­tion­al web­sites some ideas about how to mea­sure their site’s use. Too often we put up web­sites with­out any follow-up analy­sis of their use. You just can’t make an effec­tive web­site like this and if your work is min­istry you don’t want its reach con­strained by minor nav­i­ga­tion­al design issues. Please feel free to use the com­ment page to start a dis­cus­sion on any of these issues.

State of the Websites

Report for FGC Cen­tral Com­mit­tee, Octo­ber 2004
By Mar­tin Kel­ley, webmaster

It’s impor­tant to start off with a lit­tle edi­to­r­i­al about why we need reports like this. We put up a web­site and we know peo­ple use it. Why both­er spend­ing time col­lect­ing data?

The inter­net is simul­ta­ne­ous­ly vague and pre­cise. We can say defin­i­tive­ly that the FGC web­site received 114,097 “unique vis­i­tors” in the past fis­cal year. But how many peo­ple does that rep­re­sent? Is that a high num­ber or low num­ber? How did these users react when they came to the site. Did they think to them­selves “whoops, not what I want” and leave, or did they go “wow, what’s this FGC?, hey this is great.” LESSON: We need data to know if the site is being used well.

Every­one who reads this report is by def­i­n­i­tion an insid­er. None of us are able to step into the shoes of an unknowl­edge­able seek­er. In my study of usage pat­terns, I have found that the dif­fer­ences in web­site use between Quak­er insid­ers and seek­ers is so great that they might as well be look­ing at dif­fer­ent web­sites, if not dif­fer­ent media alto­geth­er (see How Insid­ers and Seek­ers Use the Quak­er Net.

Because of this gap we can­not design the site based on whims or per­son­al pref­er­ences. It is incred­i­bly dif­fi­cult to imag­ine how new­com­ers might nav­i­gate the site. We can only con­sid­er the design of the site after we’ve exam­ined in usage, both in detail (actu­al users mov­ing through the site) and in aggre­gate (pages and links vis­it­ed over peri­ods of time). See also: How to mea­sure the peace move­ment. LESSON: We can only effec­tive­ly design the site if we incor­po­rate sophis­ti­cat­ed and detailed data about how the site is being used.

Part 2, Googlization

By far the most sig­nif­i­cant change in our web­sites over the past year has been the “googliza­tion” of Quaker­books and Quak­erfind­er, both of which now have over four times the vis­i­tors they were get­ting last year.

The Google Prob­lem: Both Quaker­books and Quak­erfind­er have had great con­tent from their start. The for­mer lists the entire inven­to­ry of FGC’s book­store, along with book descrip­tions and read­er com­men­tary. The lat­ter has our list of meet­ings – address­es, wor­ship times, and con­tact infor­ma­tion. But on both sites the bulk of the con­tent was locked up in data­bas­es. Before users could ben­e­fit from the sites, they had to find them. This lim­it­ed much of the use to peo­ple who already know about FGC and our resources. Because inter­net search engines can’t search web­site data­bas­es (a prob­lem known as the hid­den or deep web), they could index only a lim­it­ed num­ber of pages on these sites and they made refer­rals on only the most gener­ic search phras­es (e.g., “quak­er book­store” “quak­er meet­ing directory”).

We made var­i­ous changes to both sites (tech­ni­cal details below) that have made them search­able by Google and the oth­er search engines, which now return our sites for very spe­cif­ic search queries, e.g., “Quak­ers in con­flict Ingle” and “Quak­ers Poughkeepsie”.

A Wider, More Inclu­sive Audi­ence: What’s great is that this has giv­en us not just a big­ger audi­ence, but our tar­get audi­ence. Most of these vis­i­tors don’t know enough about how Friends are orga­nized to even know where to look for infor­ma­tion. With Quak­erfind­er and Quaker­books, we’re now be vis­i­ble on their terms.

We’re giv­ing them the basic infor­ma­tion they’re seek­ing and we’re doing it when they are active­ly seek­ing it. This last point is impor­tant. I spend a lot of time watch­ing how peo­ple use web­sites. If you email some­one out of the blue with a link to a web­site, they might fol­low it but only half-heartedly. They might be doing five oth­er things at the same time and they rarely stay to full use the web­site’s resources. When some­one comes to a site via a search engine they’re much more like­ly to look around: this is the vis­it that they are ini­ti­at­ing because they have some­thing spe­cif­ic they’re try­ing to find.

Hav­ing a “googli­fied” Quak­erfind­er means we’re actu­al­ly reach­ing peo­ple who are ready to try out a Quak­er meet­ing and we’re giv­ing them that most basic infor­ma­tion that’s often hard to find. With a search­able Quaker­books we’re sell­ing books to peo­ple who might not even have thought about Quak­ers as a pos­si­ble spir­i­tu­al path. I sus­pect that both sites are doing more out­reach about Quak­erism than any of us expect.

Update, 11/29/04: I recent­ly met some­one who came to Friends after read­ing the Quak­er entry in Wikipedia. He had gone through the list of reli­gious denom­i­na­tions in the U.S. till he found one that spoke to his con­di­tion. In the past month FGC has got­ten 57 vis­i­tors from Wikipedia.

The Fixes

In the offi­cial com­mit­tee report I tried to steer clear of too many tech­ni­cal details since I want­ed peo­ple to read it. So I’ll expand on them here on the web­site version.

Unique Domains: I don’t think it real­ly helped to give Quak​erfind​er​.org and Quaker​books​.org their own domains, at least ini­tial­ly. In last year’s report I not­ed that most of the traf­fic to those sites came from the main FGCQuak​er​.org site and that the sep­a­rate domains weren’t par­tic­u­lar­ly use­ful. Now the sites do have their own sort of iden­ti­ty, thanks to the “googliza­tion,” which was a dif­fer­ent process for the two sites.

Quaker​books​.org: Vis­i­tors to the Quaker​books​.org site are giv­en ses­sion IDs to allow us to fol­low along with them as they make their selec­tions. Since some users don’t allow cook­ies, this ID some­times appears in the URL (it appears as some­thing like “?sessionid=1514” append­ed to the end of the address). Google real­ly hates ses­sion IDs because its auto­mat­ed soft­ware does­n’t know if the dif­fer­ent URLs are dif­fer­ent pages (to be indexed sep­a­rate­ly) or mere­ly dif­fer­ent ses­sions look­ing at the same page. So Googles just ignores any­thing that looks like this. The eas­i­est fix is to have the soft­ware look to see if the vis­i­tor is Google and take of the ses­sion IDs (Google is okay with this workaround; I also used this method to allow them to index my Non​vi​o​lence​.org dis­cus­sion board.)

Quak­erfind­er: On Quak​erfind​er​.org, the prob­lem was that vis­i­tors had to type in a zip code to get to any of the con­tent. Google’s not that inter­ac­tive and only fol­lows links. Until recent­ly, it thought there was only three pages to the site. To fix this we set up an alter­na­tive way to nav­i­gate the site: from the home­page you can now fol­low a link to lists of Quak­er Meet­ings by state. The zip code lookup is so much more con­ve­nient that we don’t sus­pect many live peo­ple will look up by state, but Google will and because of this it now lists 808 pages on the site. Now Google acts as a alter­nate lookup ser­vice, one that does­n’t depend on peo­ple find­ing our site beforehand.

Part 3, Comparing the Sites

Visitors

The basic mea­sure used to mea­sure web­site traf­fic is that of the “unique vis­i­tor,” which counts user ses­sions. Here are this year’s com­par­isons to last year’s. Num­bers rep­re­sent the month­ly aver­age “unique vis­i­tors” to each of our three websites.

     Site        FY 03/04 total  FY 02/03 total  Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    114,097         82,747           38%
     Quakerfinder.org  48,084         23,964          100%
     Quakerbooks.org   69,924         19,332          262%

The last two sites have tru­ly remark­able jumps. The num­bers are a lit­tle mis­lead­ing, how­ev­er, as the increase in traf­fic has­n’t been grad­ual but sud­den and climb­ing. Com­pare the last full month (Sep­tem­ber 2004) with the same month the pre­vi­ous year and all three sites have high­er jumps.

     Site             Sept 04         Sept 03         Increase
     FGCQuaker.org    9459            8254             15%
     Quakerfinder.org 8782            1997            340%
     Quakerbooks.org  7498            1611            366%

While the inter­net grows in use every year, the increas­es on Quak­erfind­er and Quaker­books rep­re­sent a quan­tum leap over that incre­men­tal increase. They rep­re­sent “search engine opti­miza­tion” of those sites, or what we all refer to the “googliza­tion” of the sites.

Links:

One way of mea­sur­ing the vis­i­bil­i­ty of a web­site is to count how many oth­er web­pages link to it. Here are

     Site              October 2004    October 2003    Increase
     FGCQuaker.org     496             396              25%
     Quakerfinder.org  196              46             326%
     Quakerbooks.org   151              96              57%

For com­par­i­son: Quak​er​.org is up to 11,900 links, Phi­la. Year­ly Meet­ing is 248, Pendle​Hill​.org is 420, FCNL.org is 10,200, Non​vi​o​lence​.org is 20,900 and AFSC.org is 21,800. See Mis­cel­la­neous & Notes at end to see how num­bers were obtained. See How Can We Mea­sure the State of the Peace Move­ment? for more on this method of measurement.

Part 4, The FGCQuak​er​.org Site

Visitors

Use of FGCQuak​er​.org con­tin­ues to grow at a good clip. We have a 38% increase this fis­cal year com­pared with last’s. The site received over 114,000 unique vis­i­tors from Octo­ber 1, 2003 to Sep­tem­ber 30, 2004.

To the right is the chart show­ing unique vis­i­tors by month for the past three years:

Referrers: Where did visitors come from?

In Sep­tem­ber 2004, there were 9459 “unique vis­its” to the FGCQuak​er​.org site, still our most-visited site. Here’s where they came from.

1021 from Quak​erfind​er​.org. One sur­prise this year is the jump in Quakerfinder-referred vis­its. This is due of course to the phe­nom­e­nal vis­i­bil­i­ty of that site. In a recent one-month peri­od, FGCQuak­er received 983 vis­its from Quak­erfind­er links, two-thirds of which came from the “googlized” Quak­erfind­er pages. About one in ten vis­i­tors are now com­ing to FGCQuak­er through Quak­erfind­er. Up 288% from last year.

842 from Google. We get a lot of Google traf­fic because we have a lot of con­tent on our site: dozens of pam­phlets, years worth of FGConnec­tions, large parts of the old Fos­ter­ing Vital Friends Meet­ings resource binder. Vis­i­tors via search engines often don’t know FGC exists but they want to know about our pro­grams and work. Because FGC does such great work (and because we pub­li­cize it online!), many of our resources answer ques­tions peo­ple have. I think this is great outreach.

Here’s an exam­ple. This Spring I noticed that we were get­ting vis­its on fair­ly gener­ic search­es for racism. Here’s a list of search inquiries that brought peo­ple to the CMR pages on FGC:

“end­ing racism”
“racial­ly diverse communities”
“quak­er racial diversity”
“diver­si­ty in friends”
“eth­nic diversity”
“respon­si­bil­i­ties to racism”
“pas­toral care racism”
“activ­i­ties for end­ing racism”
“tes­ti­monies racial unity”

This is a fas­ci­nat­ing list pre­cise­ly because these are gener­ic search­es. Peo­ple aren’t look­ing for “Quak­ers end­ing racism,” they’re look­ing for any­one “end­ing racism” and Google is bring­ing them to us (we’re num­ber 6 on that search term). This is sur­pris­ing: I would think the much big­ger denom­i­na­tions would all have com­mit­tees end­ing racism that would come up high­er just because of their larg­er insti­tu­tion­al clout. That we are so high sug­gests that this work is not as com­mon as I we might hope and that Friends might have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to play a role in larg­er faith dialogues.

When peo­ple use search engines, they get results from all over the FGC web­site. Search­es might pull up some four-year arti­cle on FGConnec­tions, or one of the “Friends And…” pam­phlets that we’ve put online. Google up 12% from last year. There were about 83 more vis­its from region­al Google sites.

434 from Quak​er​.org. Most of these peo­ple are com­ing direct­ly from the Quak​er​.org home­page to the FGCQuak​er​.org home­page. I esti­mate that about 60% of these vis­i­tors leave the FGC site with­out click­ing on any links. They’re prob­a­bly just super­fi­cial­ly curi­ous about us, but not enough to look around the site. Up 39% from last year.

253 from oth­er search engines: 118 from Yahoo (118), MSN (74), AOL (42), Ask (19).

81 from Beliefnet. Beliefnet has a pop­u­lar “Belief-o-Matic” quiz that will mag­i­cal­ly tell you what reli­gious faith you should join. It’s rigged in such a way that a lot of peo­ple unex­pect­ed­ly come up as Quak­er. The qui zthen directs peo­ple to an infor­ma­tion page on Friends, which includes some links to FGC. Most of the Beliefnet vis­i­tors are com­ing from that infor­ma­tion page direct­ly to the FGC home­page. Up 200% from last year.

69 from UVa’s Reli­gious Move­ments site. This is a pret­ty good descrip­tion of Quakerism

60 from Quaker­books. Our own book­store web­site attracts a lot of new peo­ple who aren’t part of the estab­lished Quak­er net­works and many of them first learn of FGC this way.

53 from Reli­gious Tol­er­ance. A pop­u­lar web­site from a Cana­di­an Uni­tar­i­an that pro­files religions..

52 from Quak​er​In​fo​.org. This is the Philadel­phia Quak­er Infor­ma­tion Cen­ter, a joint project of a num­ber of Quak­er orga­ni­za­tions, includ­ing FGC.

Where did people go?

Top Des­ti­na­tions in Sep­tem­ber 04:
* To the home­page: 2396;
* Library’s “Wel­come to Quak­erism” pages: 463;
* A&O “Resources for Meet­ings”: 320 (promi­nent­ly linked from Quakerfinder);
* Gath­er­ing pages: 309;
* “Silent Wor­ship Quak­er Val­ues” tract on the Library section;
* Gath­er­ing’s pic­tures from last year: 149;
* Reli­gious Ed: 149;
* FGConnec­tions arti­cles: 129;
* Ideas for First Day School”: 127;
* Advance­ment & Out­reach home­page: 124;
* Young Quakes: 118;
* Pub­li­ca­tions: 100;
* Devel­op­ment 97.

These are pret­ty typ­i­cal num­bers. The only sig­nif­i­cant vari­a­tion over the year comes in Spring, when traf­fic to the Gath­er­ing pages goes up. In May 2004, 961 peo­ple vis­it­ed the Gath­er­ing home­page, and 355 vis­it­ed the work­shop listings.

Forget the Aggregates: How Do People Use the Site?

So far I’ve looked at tallied-up num­bers: how many peo­ple vis­it­ed, how many pages were looked at. The prob­lem with this sort of sta­tis­tic is that it does­n’t give us a feel for how indi­vid­u­als are actu­al­ly using the site. Look­ing at usage explodes the pre­con­cep­tions that many of us “Insid­er Quak­ers” might bring to the web.

The first les­son: most peo­ple don’t come into our site via the FGC home­page. Even more shock­ing: close to half nev­er even see the homepage!

This blew me away when I first real­ized it. We spend so much time design­ing the home­page and won­der­ing how we’re going to direct seek­ers from it but a lot of this work is in vain.

Of that 45% or so that enter the site via the FGC home­page, most of them leave the site imme­di­ate­ly with­out fol­low­ing any link whatsoever.

Let’s splice this anoth­er way: 70% of the peo­ple who hit our site (wher­ev­er they enter) don’t look at any page oth­er than that first one. They don’t click on any­thing but the back button.

What are some of the lessons on this: one is that con­tent is all impor­tant. Those major­i­ty of vis­i­tors who bypass the home­page to para­chute direct­ly inside the site are com­ing for spe­cif­ic infor­ma­tion. Many of them don’t know any­thing about FGC and most of them don’t care to learn about FGC the orga­ni­za­tion. They’re look­ing for some spe­cif­ic piece of infor­ma­tion on Quak­ers (“paint­ing of Penn­syl­va­nia Abo­li­tion­ist Soci­ety Quak­ers” and “Quak­ers prison reform”), or on reli­gious edu­ca­tion in gen­er­al (“reli­gious meet­ing”), or on how church­es are deal­ing with racism (“racial diver­si­ty” and “do blacks wor­ship with only blacks”). These are all search phras­es that have brought vis­i­tors to FGCQuak​er​.org. So it’s great that we have our pam­phlets online and FGConnec­tions and RE mate­ri­als and A&O brochures.

There are hun­dreds of pages on our site, most of which we prob­a­bly for­get are there, but Google knows them and will dis­play them up when the query is right.

Anoth­er les­son is that we should­n’t rely on our home­page to help vis­i­tors nav­i­gate. We should­n’t even wor­ry much about using how its design will work for both insid­ers and seek­ers: most of the seek­ers nev­er even go there. Most of the peo­ple com­ing to the FGC home­page are look­ing for FGC the orga­ni­za­tion.

Com­mit­tee Page Case Study: One com­mit­tee, Advance­ment & Out­reach, is con­sid­er­ing redesign­ing their com­mit­tee page. In prepa­ra­tion I’ve looked at the usage and I think it makes a good case study. The A&O com­mit­tee gets the most vis­i­ble link on the FGC Home­page (top left, it gets this posi­tion because the com­mit­tee list is alpha­bet­i­cal). Despite this promi­nence, almost no vis­i­tors actu­al­ly fol­low this link. Only 1.5% of vis­i­tors to the FGCQuak​er​.org site ever get to the A&O home­page and even at that it’s the most vis­it­ed com­mit­tee page on our site!

Most of the vis­i­tors that did get to the A&O page
left with­out click­ing on any­thing. It is safe to say that most of those
vis­i­tors did­n’t thor­ough­ly read through the page. The most-followed
link is the first one, for the “Inreach/Outreach” review. In the one-month peri­od I exam­ined only 9 peo­ple fol­lowed this link! This does­n’t mean A&O mate­r­i­al isn’t used: Quak­erfind­er is very suc­cess­ful and the pam­phlet “Resources for Local meet­ings” is pop­u­lar. And over 300 peo­ple in this month came to some part of the A&O site. Com­mit­tee pages are use­ful for the rel­a­tive trick­le of Quak­er insid­ers who vis­it the page, but we should focus more on the con­tent com­mit­tees are producing.

The les­son is clear: vis­i­tors are pri­mar­i­ly look­ing for 1) good use­ful con­tent from the “Quak­er Library” resources and 2) prac­ti­cal infor­ma­tion about the Gath­er­ing. Pages about com­mit­tees and inter­nal FGC work­ings are not well used. We need to con­tin­ue the focus on prac­ti­cal resources. We also have to accept that peo­ple will not be look­ing at what we think they should be look­ing at. Through these vis­its we will slow­ly build up FGC’s rep­u­ta­tion but many peo­ple only dim­ly know what they’re look­ing at.

What I didn’t say in the report

In my offi­cial FGC report, I only hint­ed at the dif­fer­ences between insti­tu­tion­al web­sites and focused online new media sites.

One sur­pris­ing find that did­n’t make it into the report is that the three most-viewed pages on my own Quak­er Ranter site were seen by more peo­ple than all but the two most-viewed FGC pages. The most viewed pages on FGCQuak­er are the home­page and the Wel­come to Quak­erism page. Three of the pages on “Quak­er Ranter” are seen by more peo­ple than any oth­er page on the FGC web­site. FGC’s Reli­gious Edu­ca­tion and Advance­ment and Out­reach and Pub­li­ca­tions pages all are more obscure than my home­page or my “resources on plain dress” directory.

Insti­tu­tion­al web­sites by their very nature have too many con­flict­ing audi­ences and too timid a voice to act as much more than a ref­er­ence resource. The Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence web­site is prob­a­bly more friend­ly to seek­ers than most oth­er insti­tu­tion­al web­sites out there but even it gets a lot of peo­ple hit­ting the “back” but­ton as soon as they hit the homepage.

Reli­gious seek­ers are look­ing for indi­vid­ual voic­es with some­thing to say and I sus­pect new media seek­er web­sites will only become more impor­tant as time goes on. I sus­pect this will come as a sur­prise to insti­tu­tion­al insid­ers as it hap­pens. Sort of relat­ed­ly, see my Peace and Twenty-Somethings for some of the gen­er­a­tional aspects of this shift. My Books and Media sec­tion col­lects sim­i­lar sorts of essays.

One more piece in this: the FGC web­sites did­n’t get a lot of blog traf­fic. If all I were was the web­mas­ter of Friends Gen­er­al Con­fer­ence, I’d assume that all this blog talk in the media was hype. But as the “Quak­er Ranter” I know that a pop­u­lar blog and/or per­son­al site can get a lot of read­ers. The les­son here is that there’s lit­tle cross-over. Blogs seem to send lit­tle traf­fic to insti­tu­tion­al web­sites and vice ver­sa (actu­al­ly insti­tu­tion­al web­sites can’t real­ly send peo­ple to blog­gers for a vari­ety of rea­sons). I’ve had a num­ber of peo­ple read my blog and declare they’ll be com­ing to the next FGC Gath­er­ing so I know per­son­al blogs can help raise orga­ni­za­tion pro­files but that inter­est does­n’t man­i­fest itself as an immediately-followed link. I sus­pect the com­mu­ni­ty being formed by the blogs is far more impor­tant than the raw num­ber of refer­ral links.

Part 5, Quaker​books​.org and Quak​erfind​er​.org

Quaker​books​.org

blankThe first of our two sites to be “googli­fied” was Quaker​books​.org. I had long hoped to have our book list­ings show up on the search engines, espe­cial­ly since we car­ry a lot of hard-to-find ones. I had opened up the dis­cus­sion board of my peace site to Google and been hap­py with the results.

Back in ear­ly 2003 we installed new soft­ware by Steve Beuret to pow­er the book­store web­site, one that would allow easy trans­fer of infor­ma­tion between the web­site and our inven­to­ry pro­gram. The web­site could now list whether a book was in stock, and orders would go direct­ly into the sys­tem (no more retyp­ing them!). Once the new sys­tem was run­ning smooth­ly, I emailed Steve about opti­miz­ing it for Google. There were two parts to this: hav­ing the books show up (Steve) and link­ing them in such a way that Google would index them prop­er­ly (me). It took awhile to get ito all work­ing but on Decem­ber 17, 2003 Google came through and indexed the site.

The most vis­it­ed pages are the intro­duc­to­ry ones:

  • Wel­come to Quakerism
  • Becom­ing a Member
  • Basics for Everyone

The search phras­es that are bring­ing in vis­i­tors used to be gener­ic (“quak­er book­store”) they now are very spe­cif­ic. Sep­tem­ber’s list is typical:

  • crash by jer­ry spinnelli
  • Andrew Goldswor­thy
  • cel­e­bra­tion of discipline
  • the mis­fits by james howe
  • rufus jones

I knew we’d show up high in the Google rank­ings for obscure books but I’ve been pleased that we’re right up there with Ama­zon and Barnes and Noble even with main­stream books.

Our online best sell­ers are pretty

  • Ground­ed in God: Care And Nur­ture In Friends Meetings
  • Friends for 350 Years
  • The Quak­er Way
  • Philadel­phia Faith and Practice
  • Lis­ten­ing Spir­i­tu­al­i­ty Vol­ume 1
  • Silence and Witness
  • The Jour­nal of George Fox

The book­store inven­to­ry soft­ware is not very good at pulling mar­ket­ing sta­tis­tics. While it’s very good at telling us what books have sold and what books need to be reordered, it won’t tal­ly up things by type of sale (phone vs. web vs. mail-order). The book­store report should include more infor­ma­tion on actu­al web sales.

Anec­do­tal­ly it appears as if about half our web orders are new cus­tomers. Many of them are from geo­graph­ic areas which are not tra­di­tion­al­ly Quak­er. A&O has pro­duced a fly­er which goes into orders for new customers.

Quak​erfind​er​.org

blankAfter we saw how suc­cess­ful the “googliza­tion” of Quaker­books was, I thought we should try it for Quak­erfind­er. It took a lit­tle sea­son­ing to get every­one on A&O to sign off on the project but I am delight­ed to say they saw their way clear. The result has been noth­ing sort of amaz­ing. Use of the site has grown by 340%. But the actu­al num­bers are even more impor­tant: by my best esti­mate, over 6000 a month are using Quak­erfind­er who would not have even found the resource if we had­n’t made it search engine friend­ly. That’s 72,000 peo­ple a year – twice FGC’s mem­ber­ship, and these are the EXTRA peo­ple com­ing. Alto­geth­er at our cur­rent rate, this site is being used by over 100,000 unique vis­i­tors. Even if only one in ten of them make it to a Meet­ing, that’s a lot of people.

In last year’s report I point­ed out that most of Quak­erfind­er’s traf­fic was com­ing from the FGC site. At that point, it did­n’t look­ing like giv­ing the loca­tion look-up util­i­ty it’s own domain name was pay­ing off in any tan­gi­ble way. Now it’s clear­ly worth it. Just the extra 600 or so vis­i­tors Quak­erfind­er is throw­ing to FGCQUaker​.org site makes it worth it! Horray!

blankTwen­ty Times the Google-Linked Vis­its: I com­pared two typ­i­cal months, one before and the oth­er after the “search engine opti­miza­tion.” In May 2004 Quak­erfind­er received 241 vis­i­tors from Google search­es (foot­note 1). In Sep­tem­ber, it received 3813 vis­i­tors – that’s over twen­ty times the vis­its. Over­all vis­its almost tripled, from 2292 to 6037, with 60% of those extra vis­i­tors direct­ly attrib­uted to the Google bounce. The chart to the left shows dai­ly Google-referred vis­its since the mid­dle of March.

More Than Just Google: Oth­er search engines were affect­ed too: all togeth­er search engine vis­its went from from 311 in May to 4134 in Sep­tem­ber. For those inter­est­ed, the top five search engines for Quak­erfind­er traf­fic are:

  • Google​.com 83%
  • AOL: 5%
  • Google Cana­da: 3%
  • Yahoo: 1%
  • Com­cast: 0.8%

As you can see, Google far over­whelms every­one else, which is why we often just call this “the googliza­tion” of Quakerfinder!

Part 6, Miscellaneous and Notes

Miscellaneous

Mail­ing Lists

Late in the fis­cal year, we pur­chased bulk email soft­ware. No, we’re not going to try to sell Via­gra or a new home mort­gage. This pro­gram will help us get infor­ma­tion out to our book­store cus­tomers and com­mit­tee lists. Our occa­sion­al book­store emails (“Book Mus­ings from Lucy”) have been very well received, with only a tiny frac­tion of recip­i­ents ask­ing to be tak­en off the list.

Web Host Changes

A big project, though not very excit­ing, is that we’re chang­ing our web host­ing com­pa­ny. FGCQuak​er​.org is with the new com­pa­ny (OLM) and Quak​erfind​er​.org and Quaker​books​.org will be mov­ing short­ly. The new com­pa­ny orga­nizes our accounts bet­ter and we hope that their ser­vice is bet­ter. (We’d rec­om­mend avoid­ing Data Realm also known as Serve​.com.)

Notes

Pro­grams I Use to Col­lect Stats:

  • For over­all num­bers, I used a extremely-common pro­gram called Webal­iz­er, which gives use­ful month­ly summaries.
  • For details I used a pro­gram called AXS Vis­i­tor Track­ing Pro­gram, which lets me watch indi­vid­ual users as they nav­i­gate the site. With AXS I can also get details on where vis­i­tors to spe­cif­ic pages come from.
  • I have a list of key words which I watch on Google; every few weeks
    I record where our sites stand on those phras­es and watch how
    nav­i­ga­tion­al changes I make affect our Google rankings.
  • I also use Google to see what oth­er web­sites are link­ing to us. I
    look at what they link to (often not our home­page) and how many sites
    there are linking.
  • I also fol­low links using more spe­cif­ic search engines such as Tech­no­rati, which index­es blogs (“web blogs” or per­son­al diary-like sites).

Mea­sur­ing Links:

I use Altavis­ta’s search engine to mea­sure how many links a site has. For good rea­sons, Google does­n’t list obscure web­sites and also counts how a site’s links back to itself. Here’s a sam­ple Altavista query:

link:www.fgcquaker.org/ ‑site:www.fgcquaker.org
See How Can We Mea­sure the State of the Peace Move­ment? for more on this method of measurement.

Unique Vis­i­tors:

The most stan­dard mea­sure of web­site usage, here is a def­i­n­i­tion: “A real vis­i­tor to a web site. Web servers record the IP address­es of each vis­i­tor, and this is used to deter­mine the num­ber of real peo­ple who have vis­it­ed a web site. If for exam­ple, some­one vis­its twen­ty pages with­in a web site, the serv­er will count only one unique vis­i­tor (because the page access­es are all asso­ci­at­ed with the same IP address) but twen­ty page accesses.”

What makes a Quaker meeting house?

December 5, 2003
· Martin Kelley

An Atlantic County Methodist Episcopal Meetinghouse. Picture from NJChurschape
An Atlantic Coun­ty Methodist Epis­co­pal Meet­ing­house. Pic­ture from NJChurschape

One of my favorite sites is the amaz­ing NJChurch​scape​.com—that’s New Jer­sey Church­scapes, put togeth­er large­ly through the efforts of Frank L. Greenagel. It’s a true labor of love, a cat­a­loging of church and meet­ing archi­tec­ture in New Jer­sey. It has beau­ti­ful pho­tos, great sto­ries, read­able essays on archi­tec­ture. In a state where every­thing below Cher­ry Hill often gets ignored, South Jer­sey gets good cov­er­age and there’s a lot from the old Quak­er colony of West Jer­sey. This mon­th’s fea­ture is on the meet­ing­house, a build­ing of endear­ing sim­plic­i­ty and it rais­es a lot of ques­tions for me of how we relate to our church buildings.

We modern-day Friends tend to think of the term meet­ing­house as unique­ly ours, but go back in his­to­ry and you’ll find just about every­one using the term to describe the non-showy build­ings they erect­ed for reli­gious ser­vices and town life. Dri­ve around South Jer­sey and you’ll see old Methodist church­es that start­ed out life as meet­ing­hous­es and look sur­pris­ing­ly Quak­er. Greenagel looks at the style and then asks:

At what point does a struc­ture cease being a meet­ing­house and become a church?.. With the ris­ing afflu­ence and increased mobil­i­ty of the pop­u­la­tion came a demand for more spe­cial­ized places to meet, as well as more of the basic com­forts and style which hereto­fore were dis­missed as too world­ly, so many church­es added small­er lec­ture rooms, class­rooms for Sun­day school, and oth­er assem­bly rooms dis­tinct from the main auditorium.

By this mea­sure, how many of our beloved East Coast Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es should real­ly just be called “church­es?” In the nine­teenth cen­tu­ry the Protes­tant “Sun­day School Move­ment” was picked up by Gur­neyite and Pro­gres­sive Hick­site Friends, with the class­es sim­ply renamed “First Day School” in def­er­ence to Quak­er sen­si­bil­i­ties (I’ve always won­dered if the name switch actu­al­ly fooled any­one, but that’s anoth­er sto­ry). By the twen­ti­eth cen­tu­ry, the new mod­ern lib­er­al Friends had picked up the lec­ture for­mat, which like the First Day School move­ment had been adopt­ed from edu­ca­tion­al mod­els via oth­er reli­gious groups. Many of our larg­er month­ly meet­ings have fel­low­ship halls, class­rooms, kitchens, etc. These build­ings have become spe­cial­ized reli­gious wor­ship build­ings and many of them sit emp­ty for most of the week. But not all.

Nowa­days many Quak­er meet­ings with build­ings open them mid-week for use by com­mu­ni­ty groups. Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es host peace groups, bat­tered women hot­lines, yoga class­es, reli­gious con­gre­ga­tions in need of a tem­po­rary home and sim­i­lar caus­es. There’s often an ele­ment of good works in the group’s charter.

Per­haps this will­ing­ness to open our build­ings up earns us the right to con­tin­ue using the meet­ing­house name. If so, we should be care­ful to resist the pres­sure of the insur­ance indus­try to close our­selves up in the name of lia­bil­i­ty. One unique­ness to our wor­ship spaces is that they are not con­se­crat­ed and there should be no spe­cial rules for their use. They are over­sized barns and we should cher­ish that. We should remem­ber not to get fetishis­tic about their his­to­ry and we should­n’t tie up our busi­ness meet­ings in end­less dis­cus­sions over the col­or of the new seat cush­ions. When we turn our build­ings over for oth­ers’ use, we should­n’t wor­ry over­ly much if a chair or clock gets damanged or stolen. Friends know that our reli­gion is not our build­ings and that the mea­sure of our spir­it is sim­ply how far we’ll fol­low God, togeth­er as a people.

Related Reading:

  • There’s a very hand­some book about the HABS work on Quak­er meet­ing­hous­es in the greater Philadel­phia area called Silent Wit­ness: Quak­er Meet­ing Hous­es In The Delaware Val­ley, 1695 To The Present. (only $10!).
  • My friend Bob Bar­nett has been putting a lot of great work into a new West Jer­sey website.

Are Catholics More Quaker?

November 16, 2003
· Martin Kelley

I guess folks might won­der why the son of the Quak­er Ranter is get­ting bap­tized in a Roman Catholic church…

[box]An updat­ed note before I start: I don’t want this to be seen as a cri­tique or put-down of any par­tic­u­lar indi­vid­u­als but to point out what seems to me to be a pret­ty obvi­ous larg­er dynam­ic with­in Quak­erism: our reli­gious edu­ca­tion pro­grams have not been doing a very good job at trans­mit­ting our faith to our young peo­ple. One mea­sure of such pro­grams is how many chil­dren we retain as actively-participating adults; by such mea­sures I think we can say Quak­ers are failing.

And, a few per­haps obvi­ous dis­claimers: 1) there are deeply faith­ful peo­ple who grew up in Young Friends pro­grams; 2) there are reli­gious ed instruc­tors who are wor­ried about the mes­sage we’re giv­ing our young peo­ple and fret as I do; 3) there are a lot of mem­bers of the RSoF who just don’t think teach­ing dis­tinct­ly Quak­er faith­ful­ness is impor­tant and would­n’t agree that there’s a problem.

I don’t think it’s use­ful to read this with­out also look­ing to my ear­ly arti­cle, The Lost Quak­er Gen­er­a­tion, which mourns the friends I’ve seen drop out of Quak­erism (many of them “birthright,” i.e., born into Quak­er fam­i­lies), and We’re all Ranters Now, which argues that our soci­ety of seek­ers needs to become a soci­ety of find­ers if we are to be able to artic­u­late a faith to transmit.
[/box]

On June 30, 2000, Julie and I met at a nation­al gath­er­ing of Quak­ers. Four­teen months lat­er we were mar­ried at the Wood­stown Friends Meet­ing­house under the care of the Atlantic City Area Friends Meet­ing. Rough­ly four­teen months lat­er, when the sparkles in our eyes were meet­ing with an approv­ing nod from God and our baby was con­ceived, I was co-clerk of Atlantic City Area Meet­ing and Julie was clerk of its Out­reach Com­mit­tee. Ten months lat­er, our infant son Theo was bap­tized at Mater Eccle­si­ae Roman Catholic Church in Berlin, N.J. It’s Julie’s new church; I myself remain Quak­er, but with­out a Meet­ing I can quite call home. What happened?

I don’t want to try to speak for Julie and why she left Friends to return to the faith she was brought up in. But I do have to tes­ti­fy that the rev­er­ence, spir­it and authen­tic­i­ty of the wor­ship at Mater Eccle­si­ae is deep­er than that in most Friends Meet­ing­hous­es. It’s a church with a lot of mem­bers who seem to believe in the real pres­ence of Christ. A dis­claimer that Mater Eccle­si­ae is unusu­al, one of the few church­es in the coun­try that uses the tra­di­tion­al Tri­den­tine Mass or Roman Rite, and that it attracts ardent fol­low­ers who have self-selected them­selves, in that they’re not going to their local parish church. I don’t think it’s the Catholi­cism alone that draws Julie – I think the pur­pose­ful­ness of the wor­shipers is a large piece. Despite all the dis­trac­tions (chants, Latin, rote con­fes­sions of faith: I’m speak­ing as a Friend), the wor­ship there is unusu­al­ly gath­ered. But more: there’s a ground­ed­ness to the faith. In a one-on-one con­ver­sa­tion the priest explained to me the ways he thought Quak­erism was wrong. I was­n’t offend­ed – quite the con­trary, I loved it! It was so refresh­ing to meet some­one who believed what he believed, (Hey, if I did­n’t believe in the degen­er­a­tion of the Roman Catholic Church or the emp­ty pro­fes­sions of hireling priests, I might join him. I also feel com­fort­able pre­dict­ing that he would wel­come my joust­ing here.)

What I can talk about is my mis­giv­ings about the prospect of rais­ing up Theo as a Quak­er in Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing. The weak­est ele­ment of the Reli­gious Soci­ety of Friends is its chil­dren’s reli­gious edu­ca­tion. This is some­thing I’ve seen man­i­fest­ed in two dif­fer­ent kinds of ways: con­tent and results.

Quak­ers have remark­ably few expec­ta­tions of their chil­dren. It’s con­sid­ered remark­able if old­er chil­dren spend a whole ten min­utes in Meet­ing for Wor­ship (I’ve heard adult birthright Friends boast that they’ve nev­er sat through a whole hour of Quak­er wor­ship). Quak­ers are obsessed about lis­ten­ing to what chil­dren have to say, and so nev­er share with them what they believe. I’ve known adults birthright Friends who have nev­er had con­ver­sa­tions with their par­ents about the basis of their faith.

Quak­er reli­gious edu­ca­tion pro­grams often for­go teach­ing tra­di­tion­al Quak­er faith and prac­tice for more fad­dish beliefs. The base­ment walls of the Philadel­phia Year­ly Meet­ing youth cen­ter is paint­ed over with danc­ing gods, while of the big events of the Young Friends’ annu­al cal­en­dar is a “Quak­er sweat lodge”. A cul­ture of touch and phys­i­cal­i­ty (“cud­dle pud­dles”, back­rubs) is thought charm­ing and immod­est dress is con­sid­ered a sign of rebel­lious indi­vid­u­al­i­ty. Quak­er schools pub­lish brochures say­ing Meet­ing for Wor­ship is all about “think­ing, with God giv­en lit­tle notice.” When Quak­ers want to have “inter­gen­er­a­tional” wor­ship, they feel they have to pro­gram it with some sort of attention-keeping play­time activ­i­ty (Mater Eccle­si­ae echoes Quak­er tra­di­tion here: “inter­gen­er­a­tional” means chil­dren sit­ting through and par­tic­i­pat­ing in Mass with the adults).

Too many of the peo­ple my age and Julie’s who were brought up at Friends are igno­rant of basic Quak­er beliefs and are unaware of Quak­er tra­di­tions (FUM, EFI, Con­ser­v­a­tives) out­side the easy-going East Coast lib­er­al­ism they were raised in. For them being a Friend is act­ing a cer­tain way, believ­ing a cer­tain brand of polit­i­cal phi­los­o­phy and being part of a cer­tain social group. Too many Young Adult Friends I’ve known over the years are cliquish, irre­li­gious, and have more than their share of issues around inti­ma­cy and sexuality.

Don’t get me wrong: these kids are often real­ly good peo­ple, chil­dren to be proud of, doing great things in the world. Many of them are open-hearted, spiritually-sensitive, and in deeply ground­ed rela­tion­ships. But only a very few are prac­tic­ing Quak­ers. And when I look at the reli­gious edu­ca­tion they get, I can’t say I’m sur­prised. If I were to raise Theo as a Quak­er, I would have to “home school” him away from most of the reli­gious edu­ca­tion pro­grams offered local­ly. When all the kids scram­ble out of wor­ship after ten min­utes I’d have to say “no” and tell him to keep sit­ting – how weird would that be?

Theo has a bet­ter chance of shar­ing the tra­di­tion­al Quak­er val­ues of the pres­ence of Christ, of Holy Obe­di­ence, and of bear­ing the cross by being raised as a Catholic in a tra­di­tion­al­ist church. It’s more like­ly he’ll turn out Quak­er if he’s bap­tised at Mater Eccle­si­ae. Julie and I will be teach­ing him rev­er­ence by exam­ple. I’ll share my Quak­er faith with him. I’m sure he’ll par­tic­i­pate in Quak­er events, but con­scious­ly, selec­tive­ly, guard­ed­ly (in the old Quak­er sense).

If Friends believe they have a faith worth holdling, they should also believe they have a faith worth pass­ing on. Do we?

Related Reading

  • Beck­ey Phipps con­duct­ed a series of inter­views that touched on many of these issues and pub­lished it in FGCon­nec­tions. FGC Reli­gious Edu­ca­tion: Lessons for the 21st Cen­tu­ry asks many of the right ques­tions. My favorite line: “It is the most amaz­ing thing, all the kids that I know that have gone into [Quak­er] lead­er­ship pro­grams – they’ve disappeared.”
  • I touch on these issues from the oth­er side in The Lost Quak­er Gen­er­a­tion, which is about the twenty- and thirty-something Friends that have drift­ed away