There’s an interesting discussion in the comments from my last post about “Convergent Friends and Ohio Conservatives” and one of the more interesting comes from a commenter named Diane. My reply to her got longer and longer and filled with more and more links till it makes more sense to make it its own post. First, Diane’s question:
I don’t know if I’m “convergent,” (probably not) but I have been involved with the emerging church for several years and with Quakerism for a decade. I also am aware of the house church movement, but my experience of it is that is is very tangentially related to Quakerism. I really, really hope and pray that Christian revival is coming to liberal Friends, but personally I have not seen that phenomenom. Where do you see it most? Do you see it more as commitment to Christ or as more people being Christ curious, to use Robin’s phrase?
As I wrote recently I think convergence is more of a trend than an identity and I’m not sure whether it makes sense to fuss about who’s convergent or not. As with any question involving liberal Friends, whether there’s “Christian revival” going on depends on what what you mean by the term. I think more liberal Friends have become comfortable labeling themselves as Christ curious; it has become more acceptable to identify as Christian than it was a decade or two ago; a significant number of younger Friends are very receptive to Christian messages, the Bible and traditional Quaker testimonies than they were.
These are individual responses, however. Turning to collective Quaker bodies there are few if any beliefs or practices left that liberal Friends wouldn’t allow under the Quaker banner if they came wrapped in Quakerese from a well-connected Friend; the social testimonies stand in as the unifying agent; it’s still considered an argument stopper to say that any proffered definition would exclude someone.
I’d argue that liberal Quakerism is becoming ever more liberal (and less distinctively Quaker) at the same time that many of those in influence are becoming more Christian. It’s a very proscribed Christianity: coded, tentative and most of all individualistic. It’s okay for a liberal Friend to believe whatever they want to believe as long as they don’t believe too much. Whether the quiet influence of the rising generation of conservative-friendly leadership is enough to hold a Quaker center in the centrifuge that is liberal Quakerism is the $60,000 question. I think the leadership has an inflated sense of its own influence but I’m watching the experiment. I wish it well but I’m skeptical and worry that it’s built on sand.
Some of the Christ-curious liberal Friends are forming small worship groups and some of these are seeking out recognition from Conservative bodies. It’s an achingly small movement but it shows a desire to be corporately Quaker and not just individualistically Quaker. With the internet traditional Quaker viewpoints are only a Google search away; sites like Bill Samuel’s “Quakerinfo.com”:www.quakerinfo.com and blogs like Marshall Massey’s are breaking down stereotypes and doing a lot of invaluable educating (and I could name a lot more). It’s possible to imagine all this cooking down to a third wave of traditionalist renewal. Ohio Yearly Meeting-led initiatives like the Christian Friends Conference and All Conservative Gatherings are steps in the right direction but any real change is going to have to pull together multiple trends, one of which might or might not be Convergence.
Our role in this future is not to be strategists playing Quaker politics but servants ready to lay down our identities and preconceptions to follow the promptings of the Inward Christ into whatever territory we’re called to:
From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee. But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men. Then said Jesus unto his disciples, If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me. Matthew 16:21 – 28.
Nice work, Martin.
I think that liberal Friends may not actually becoming more liberal but that they are becoming more open and honest and articulate about their beliefs. And this feels like broader diversity but is rather the first step to deeper faithfulness.
Our role in this future is not to be strategists playing Quaker politics but servants ready to lay down our identities and preconceptions to follow the promptings of the Inward Christ into whatever territory we’re called to
I especially like this point. This is the question my anchor committee returns to every month.
Dear Martin,
Thanks for the response and energy. I have read (or in some cases scanned) your links.
I am going to sound negative for a moment before I sound positive.
The negative: I don’t know that there is a “new wave” of Christian revival coming to Quakerism. Bill Samuel, who is a dear friend of mine, has been at it for decades. I have been a Christ-centered friend (recently much submerged) for a decade. Scott Savage has been it at it since at least the 1990s. I know of other Christian friends, but as you so eloquently point out, many use coded language and hide their Christianity to “pass.” Last year, a couple came to my Quaker meeting. They picked our meeting rather than Adelphi meeting because the Adelphi Web site seemed “too Christ-centered” to them. They said this in front of me. Another Quaker pointed out I was Christ-centered. It never crossed their mind that their statement could hurt or offend anyone at a Quaker meeting. They did not intend to hurt me. I mention this because it seemed business as usual . (Would they have said (openly) “the Adelphi meeting seemed too gay/too black?”) These kinds of incidents are not indicative to me that there’s a new wave of Christ-centeredness or even consciousness crashing through. Maybe a tiny ripple.
Now to the positives: 1. Bill Samuel and Scott Savage are still here. Even though Bill has joined an Emergent church, he is still part of the Quaker conversation. It makes no difference to me that neither Bill nor Scott are not “new” and I imagine it doesn’t matter to you either. 2. You have come on the scene and apparently have (how many?) cohorts. That’s good news. 3. I was extremely encouraged by a blog thread in which someone from the SF meeting agreed that it was a mistake to add a statement allowing people to read from texts other than the Bible at their meeting for Bible reading in the manner of Conservative Friends. 4. I hear of Ohio Conservative Friends growing. I would love to know more about that. 5. Marshall Massey: good stuff. 6. A ripple is better than no ripple. We know God can speak as a small, still voice.
I resonated with your statement: “Our role in this future is not to be strategists playing Quaker politics but servants ready to lay down our identities and preconceptions to follow the promptings of the Inward Christ into whatever territory we’re called to.”
I believe Christian Quakers need to be bold at naming ourselves and proclaiming ourselves. I have been beaten up over the years for naming my Christ-centeredness but have no regrets for having done it, only regrets for the times I haven’t and have instead tried to make nice. I would love to see liberal Quakerism make a bigger space for Christian Friends.
What does it mean…to carry the cross? I posit that none of us can fully carry Christ’s cross,as his cross was his unique cross (altho. we can carry it for awhile, like the one that came forward at Christ’s lonely stagger down the Via Dolorosa – stations of the cross anyone?). So maybe the cross that we are to carry is our own death, a stake to drive into our vampire desires, our own continuing joyful ash Wed. that partakers in Christ get to have.
In my experience of liberal (wish they were more silent) quakerism, there is definitely no cross, and no crown (what would you do with a crown anyway?). This makes it hard for those of us that do witness to the death and resurrection. And to a Saviour man-God. Dont ask, I cant explain it myself, but I have experienced that Fire and know of its reality. I am a pariah whether I go to church or to meeting. I cannot stand the millenia old re-enacting of rituals (church), (Civil war re-enactors,anyone?) rigid recitations, formula worship. And I cant stand to hear what passes for ‘continuing revelation’ if that’s what you call it, when someone gives a ‘message’ at Meeting. At least Quakers are interesting in their own inward/intellectual/neurotic way. However, Quakers do not worship…they dont know how or what, to bow down to. For some, it seems, ‘worship’ is just a distilling of themselves…an interesting (sometimes) but all consuming dead end. All the fine language of our Quaker forbearers washes over, as if WE now have the benefit of science, knowledge of other religions, and sophistication (sorry, no bowing down here). What humbug! What a detestable and digestible, thoroughly reasonable religion. Instead of silent worship, I propose calling it, “being silent together’, as Worship is not what we seem to be doing on our quaint, antiquated benches.
In my first few years as a attender and then a member of a Meeting, I constantly wondered, “Am I a Quaker?” So I read a bunch, did Spiritual Formation, pilgrimage, became a committee member, etc. Now I know I am a Quaker, because now I constantly ask, “Should I leave the Quakers?” This seems to be the often asked inner question that we all carry. I have become a Quaker because I question whether I should leave? Anyway, I am leaving. But I am indeed a Quaker, inspite of and not because of most of the Q’s I’ve encountered. I am going to an interactive Methodist Church in No’ Philly, with black and white unabashedly, openly Worshipping!! I will aslo seek out another Mtg.(to supplement and balance my dietary needs), where (close your eyes now liberals, I’m about to write a series of dirty words) GOD and Christ and the Holy Spirit are, if not Worshipped, then not openly grumbled at.
I’ve been told that there once was a Worship (?) and Ministry (?)committee with an on-going discussion on whether they should lay down the Worship part of the Mtg, just keeping the Business/community part going (tax exempt status should be revoked at this point). It turns out, this is my current Mtg. A pariah where ever I go. Something about that cross.….smells like…something dead..?
@Robin: I’m still seeing fringe movements with no connection to historic Quakerism coming into liberal Friends meetings and quickly becoming interest groups that demand respect. And a few months ago I saw a new level of obfuscation of divine language in a liberal Quaker fundraising appeal. I see the boundaries continuing to move outward.
Which brings us to Diane’s observation: just because there’s a deepening of Christian understanding by many of those in leadership positions in liberal Quakerism doesn’t mean it will filter down. These Friends code their public language so carefully that their witness is lost on most of their listeners. Their hope is that the careful practice of Quakerism will work as a witness. While it is true that we will be known by our fruits, if we don’t name our Lord and talk about the neccessity of divine obedience we’re hiding the treasure we’ve been given. Relgion-by-osmosis doesn’t work any better than religion-by-creed.
I’m writing from the Barnesville library now. There’s a good feel here, a lot of ministry and messages that fit together. I’m not sure just where Ohio Friends are headed but there seems to a sense that they’re headed somewhere and that planted seeds are sprouting.
Hi “B”: you can say whatever you want, my blog is about putting down the Quaker mask to sharing our stories and witness to the doubts and joys of our lives following and running from Christ, both alone and together. I think the denial of the existence of sin and the desire for self-fulfillment are at the roots of the mistaken ideas of many contemporary Friends.
I should go, seek out more opportunities for sharing before I have to leave Barnesville this evening.
Martin,
Thank you for keeping this conversation going. I belong to a very liberal meeting, but I am fortunate to be able to occasionally spend some soul-refreshing time among conservative Friends.
There are some things related to Christianity and liberal Friends that have been weighing on my mind lately. First of all, my meeting has been known to be at least unwelcoming if not hostile towards Christian language, although I have not experienced that personally. In fact, people are continually surprising me with revelations that they identify themselves as Christian, and also lament the state of Quakerism. Sometimes I wonder if we are a silent majority in the meeting.
The other thing is that I have been reflecting on my own spiritual path, which is one I hear echoed in many Friends who now consider themselves Christian. There were Christian phrases that would make my insides twist, an experience I often had when wading through some of the latter parts of the New Testament. But over time, as I remained open to the Holy Spirit, I have felt myself opening up, and re-connecting with the faith I grew up with. Hasn’t it been that way for a number of people? Lately I have felt that George Fox’s constant admonitions to “wait in the Light” seem like they are an important key for the society to open itself back up to Christ. In my current spiritual state, I feel that if I truly love those I am worshipping with, I should not worry so much about how I think everything should be, and do my best to help people hear the gospel. That sometimes means trying to phrase things in a way that won’t cause as many ears to stop listening. Perhaps this is something along the lines of what you were referring to about following the Inward Christ into whatever territory we’re called to?
With love,
Mark
Hi Mark,
Your story sounds like my story sound like the story of most of those unprogrammed Friends who would call themselves Christian these days: entre into a liberal Quakerism that was tender to their condition and gave them the space to explore their spirituality though a Quaker perspective. Even some of the hardest-core Friends in Ohio Yearly Meeting mentioned first meeting each other at FGC Gatherings! I’ve seen internal surveys of liberal Quaker bodies where a surprising amount of respondents labeled themselves as Christian.
I don’t know what Jesus’s plan for all of us is but I have to agree that liberal Quakerism is serving as a wonderful gateway to greater faithfulness for those who have been hurt by false Christianity. My ongoing concern is that those of us in liberal Quakerism who identify as Christian are being a bit too secretive about it. We’re translating our own internal language before speaking it, which ultimately is disrespectful to listeners. We assume non-Christian Friends are incapable of hearing a traditional Quaker Christian language. We should give them more credit and be more honest about our own spiritual openings.
For my part I don’t always speak with the same language. We are called to minister to the condition of the flock. I don’t consciously dumb down my message; rather I listen to the Inward Guide (Christ) for instructions on just what to say. Sometimes the words I’m given will be baby steps: traditional Quakerism with only a sprinkling of “hot button” phrases. But just as often I’m called to give a Christian message that I know will alienate listeners. We never know that something we say might not lodge in someone’s heart for years and be something that Christ uses.
As in all things Quaker, the process is to listen to that direct, immediate Inward Christ and be as faithful to His voice as we can be, without worry about effect. The warmth, joy, and outward friendliness we show one another the 98% of the time we’re not ministering will be that outward fruit that shows that love and charity are virtues as important to us as truth.
Hi Martin,
This is all so interesting and reassuring, except I have a problem with the labels of liberal and conservative. I consider myself majorly liberal but also am identifying myself as Christian in Meeting and in my life. At first it was hard when I returned to Meeting after many years and discovered the lack of Christ, but that is part of what drove me away in the first place. I kept my mouth shut for a long time and then God pushed me to my feet one day to share that I had been more worried about what people in Meeting thought of me than I was about what my Savior thinks of me and that I was really saddened to think that we were not inviting Christ into our Meeting for Worship. The response has been very interesting. Our Meeting is changing and much of that change is positive for Christ’s sake. I think we need to keep praying for the Holy Spirit to revive our Meetings and not to label one another, as it is very off-putting. I see my job of leading people to Christ as one of attraction, not osmosis. I am trying to live in a way that makes others want what I have. I did feel I had to make Meeting a safe and comfortable place to speak Jesus’ name or I would not be able to stay. Fortunately it has been a positive response. I do feel I am there to plant seeds. I believe most Quakers are fertile soil.
Emily
Emily,
Why do you feel the need to lead others to Christ?
I absolutely agree with you that our Meetings must be a safe and comfortable place to speak Jesus’ name. Speak it with how that name moves you, what it means to you, how it helps you grow, love, heal and transform.
But I believe there should not be any to “need” lead others to what exists in the privacy of our soul. I believe it is that “need to bring others to where we are” that strains our Quaker Community.
But then you must answer “Why do you feel the need to lead others to Christ?” for your own self.
In love,
Jim
Indulge a bit of daydreaming please…without building a new denomination or school or sect, I think there’s a need to move to planting small neighborhood meetings with a Christ-centric focus. But I also think there are some ways to raise the “Christ Quotient” in an affirming way that embraces others.
For example, take the Bible (please!) Maybe we need to rethink how Bibles are used (and abused) in Christianity. There’s a new format Bible that might be useful — International Bible Society’s TNIV The Books of the Bible. It does several things that could disarm those fearful of evangelism.
It does not have Chapter and Verse numbers, it does not have reams of commentary, or narrow columns with small print. It also reorders the Bible’s books so that books with common literary types are grouped together. It makes reading and learning the Bible’s narrative more interesting. And in reading the Bible, rather than rote memorization of proof texts, folks are more likely to understand George Fox and the early Quaker’s understanding of Christ Within Us.
Local preparative meetings with intentional size limits that require meetings to split and spread locally are a good approach, as is focusing on local needs and concerns first. Look at the Stephen Ministries programs — isn’t this very much a Quaker witness where Friends could bring the Christ Light to the world?
Thoughts?