Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Clem Gerdelmann on 2nd mo. 8, 2013 at 6:43am

Anne, unfortunately, many Friends' faith is privately, at least, "over my dead body" as opposed to the customary/primitive Quaker belief of "over His dead body". Therein lies both the challenge to die to (one)self and the super-natural power to hear and live the Spirit of Christ/the everlasting gospel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lawrence Cullen Jones on 2nd mo. 11, 2013 at 5:20pm

This discussion is another indicator that some friends, and meetings, are not aware of what is customary in meeting for worship with concern for business.   It is true that proceedings need not be ponderous, nevertheless they should be conducive to discernment. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne E Wright on 2nd mo. 11, 2013 at 11:48pm

Clem, In my Christian growing up I learned that we don't live over or in the dead body of Jesus, we live in the body of the risen Christ. Thanks for responding to my question. 

Clem Gerdelmann said:

Anne, unfortunately, many Friends' faith is privately, at least, "over my dead body" as opposed to the customary/primitive Quaker belief of "over His dead body". Therein lies both the challenge to die to (one)self and the super-natural power to hear and live the Spirit of Christ/the everlasting gospel.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 2nd mo. 12, 2013 at 8:58am

I think a Quaker custom stated in Faith and Practice should carry a lot of weight, simply because Friends have put in lots of time and experience to arrive at that place. So there must have been a good reason for writing it down. This makes it worth considering deeply - especially before we determine it no longer has relevance.

On the other hand, if experience with a Quaker custom leads a meeting to abandon it or replace it, that abandonment/replacement is proper if it is led by the Spirit and undergoes scrutiny by the meeting community. At one time the custom of "plain speech" was deemed essential to the Quaker religious experience. Eventually, it was experienced, though, as an unnecessary weight for most Friends (not all), and was laid down as an advisable custom. This laying down took several generations of transitions. First, Friends started using regular speech when transacting business, while still using the plain speech within the Quaker community. Then, Friends started only using the plain speech with family members and in official documents of the meeting. Finally, regular speech patterns were used everywhere. And the transition from plain speech is still continuing, as meetings are now substituting the word "Sunday" for "First Day" in their official writings and announcements.

A more recent trending away from Faith and Practice recommendations, has to do with membership. My meeting had a three year discernment process regarding membership. The outcome was a formal recognition that we did not want to make a distinction between members and non-members by requiring membership for any meeting positions (even clerk of meeting). Nor did we want to use membership as an indicator of one's commitment to our meeting or Quakerism. This was a deliberate and intentional movement away from the recommendations of BYM's Faith and Practice, due to our experience with the Spirit. More and more meetings are going down this same road regarding formal membership. I believe our meeting is in transition regarding this because we maintain formal membership for those Friends that want it or find it helpful to their spiritual journey, but we do not place a corporate importance on it. I believe that the next generation of Friends at my meeting may simply abandon the practice. We'll see.

Quakers trust in progressive revelation of Truth. The Spirit - the source of love, joy, peace, gentleness, etc., is constant however. Yet application of it in a world that is constantly changing, is an evolving process. That evolution within the Society of Friends begins with one meeting at a time until a critical mass occurs. Then it is a watershed.

This built-in change process is a wonderful dynamic for us that makes our religious practice a living, relevant spiritual experience.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom Smith on 2nd mo. 12, 2013 at 1:31pm

My experience in Meeting for Business would support the statement in F & P (of which YM?) "It is Quaker custom, too, for persons who have once expressed their views clearly and adequately not to address the meeting again."

However, my experience also gives rise to the concern with what happens if it becomes very clear that the hearers did not listen well. Two situations, at least, come to mind in which speaking again "on topic" might be appropriate.

1) Apparent misunderstanding, either through inattentiveness or "my mind is made up, don't confuse me with the facts" mentality. This should clearly be answered by the Clerk and/or other members present, but often this does not happen and it may thus be up to the first speaker to offer clarification.

2) Subsequent speakers raise aspects of the issue which had not been addressed earlier. The Spirit may lead "further revelation" even within a given "hour."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Carl on 2nd mo. 20, 2013 at 7:38am

So how might a clerk respond to a Friend honoring this practice in the breach?

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion