Comment by Pat Pope on 4th mo. 20, 2011 at 4:59pm

"our consensual cult of restful silence."

 

That's exactly how I see the silence with which some issues are dealt with within the Meeting.  At times, I find the silence to be dysfunctional.  We won't talk about it, yet there's an 800-pound gorilla in the room and we just act like it's normal when it's not.  What about speaking truth to injustice?  What happened to that?  What happened to the bravery of Friends of years past that would have them speaking to those in authority on matters about which they felt strongly?  Yet we won't even address issues within our own Meeting?  I think in some ways people call themselves perserving unity, but it's really not unity when a breach remains. 

Comment by Christine Manville Greenland on 4th mo. 21, 2011 at 12:20am

Here on the opposite coast, we're in a fair bit of financial difficulty because Friends were too agreeable about funding perfectly worthy causes -- and not listening to those Friends who said "Is this really prudent?" A decade or two of spending, staffing, professionalization and spending some more has us in a real tangle...There is still hope that we will "get it" and worship God rather than the institutions which we tend to hide behind.

 

One Friends pointedly accused modern Friends of "terminal niceness"... until their ego is bruised -- or their project discontinued.

 

My current dilemma is how to become yielded and accountable in community if questions are not raised.  I'm not just talking scientific criticism, but the ripping up and laying open that the Spirit of the Living (and Unsettling) God so often does.

Comment by parise on 4th mo. 21, 2011 at 9:19am

i have been given several reasons recently to keep hope and attention directed, if not toward my meeting, than at least toward the greater expanse of the quaker faith.  you have given me another.

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 4th mo. 23, 2011 at 4:48pm

Sadly, what you describe has become too common, at least in liberal meetings. Too often, people attend and then join because of a desire for community with like minded people and with very little understanding of the concept of spiritual communion.

Everyone comes to meeting with past hurts, myself included. While I believe we need to be tender to these hurts, they cannot be allowed to limit movement of the Spirit among us. Everyone must speak from their own experience of God and others must listen with openness. I recently heard this referred to as "listening in tongues".

What I need from my meeting is spiritual challenge. My personal experience is that growth happens when we are challenged to see from a different perspective. We don't have to agree, but we need to listen deeply and with love.

 

 

Comment by Steven Davison on 4th mo. 24, 2011 at 10:15am

Know, Friend, that thee is not alone. Though it sounds like thee may feel alone in thy meeting.

 

Is this really true? Is there no one else in your meeting who has experienced Truth? who hopes, at least, that their vocal ministry actually comes from God, who strives to be open and faithful in the Life? Wherever two or three . . .

 

The behavioral creed (to use Pink Dandelion's phrase) is another matter. We seem to have boiled our tradition down to two precepts: that there is that of God in everyone, and that we have no creeds (that is, no shared beliefs)—except the mostly tacit rules we do in fact enforce regarding behavior. One of those rules is, don't pretend to know the Truth, to have found, when the rest of us are devotedly and perpetually seeking. Another is, don't transgress the tacit boundaries of acceptable vocal ministry; preaching is out of the question. Nothing to do about this, I think, except continue to try to be faithful to one's call to ministry.

 

That's what really matters! You don't really know what God is doing with your ministry, or when or how it will bear fruit. It's all a mystery; only the faithfulness, the steadfast clinging to the Light you are given, will keep you going. But keep you must. Martyr means witness in Greek, you know. You're not being asked to die beneath the lion's jaws, only to believe in the Guide and continue to witness. It will be a long haul, no mistake. Maybe a lifetime without outward confirmation.

 

Meetings do change. People die, new people come in. The new ones come in hungry, or they wouldn't be there. If you can be there for them, feed them the bread of life, they will return the joy. They may not really know what they want, but they probably want substance, not shadow. That's the matter.

 

Then there's the manner. Prophets usually don't like trying to fit their message into a form that will make it attractive. And you, like me, I suspect, turn to religion for transformation. We like fire. Most people turn to religion for healing, consolation, peace, nurture. They like cool water and a solid foundation. Can you take them to the well, and not just to the crucible?

 

The prophet's ministry is often directed toward the community. Communities defend themselves. Getting to know individuals better might open a way. Go out for lunch with some folks. Ask questions. Maybe even ask to hold some opportunities with Friends you think might not feel too awkward about it.

 

I have felt alone and seriously considered leaving Friends, too. Or at least leaving my meeting. But I remember what an elder once told another Friend of mine who had the same feelings: tell me, Friend, where woulds't thou go? And now my meeting is a terrific joy. Did they change? Yes. Did I change? I guess.

 

Don't get me wrong: I think liberal Quakerism is in real trouble. So few Friends know their tradition well enough to pass it on, let alone actually practice it. So few seem to have had deeply transformative religious experience, especially in their adopted Quaker community. So many come wounded and even angry. So few meetings have experienced a gathered meeting recently enough or often enough to know that's what they really want. I worry.

 

But search your heart: are you called to a ministry of renewal? I only know thee through this bloggish medium, but my sense is that the answer is yes. I hope you find someone to share the burden and the joy with, and that God keeps raising up the Truth in you.

 

Steven

Comment by Paula Deming on 4th mo. 24, 2011 at 12:06pm

I missed meeting this morning. Thank you, Steven, for your ministry. I feel so blessed!

Your fFriend in the Light, Paula

Comment by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 24, 2011 at 5:18pm

Well, I made it to Meeting today-- and all of you helped!

Comment by Christine Manville Greenland on 4th mo. 25, 2011 at 10:37am

Yesterday, because of a family gathering, I invited my son's Buddhist friend to accompany me to Meeting. Her comments left me with many questions... about my own short-sightedness, and lack of perception among other things.

 

She found it jarring (and used that term) when Friends rose abruptly to speak... She shared that in her tradition, there is a sense of acknowledgment, accompanied by a long pause and a bow. This raised a question for me about whether, when we offer vocal ministry if we are truly bowed before the Source of all being.

 

The only person's behavior I can change is my own.

Comment by Mary Lindsey on 8th mo. 7, 2011 at 11:39am

Forrest wrote:  "In substance, I feel that what most upset most members was the violation of their expectation that the customary rules should always be observed: that Meeting must not disturbed by people verbally disagreeing with one another. That aspect seems cause for even greater concern!"

 

This is an area of Meeting that I find extremely limiting and sometimes this inability to resolve conflict has driven Members and Attenders from the Meeting.   We have a peace testimony, but seem unable to cultivate peace (at times) in the Meeting.  In one sense this has been spiritual exploration for me as I sat in silence with the discord and beginning to experience on a deep level how easily we humans are wounded and individuals react out of the woundedness.  From the individual to the Meeting to the Middle East, this unresolved conflict seems to be directly contradictory to the Peace Testimony.  If we are not able to resolve individual and Meeting conflict then how is it that we hope and pray for  Peace in the Middle East and the World?  War zones have unimaginable conflict and pain relative to what transpires among individuals in our Meeting, yet the latter simply cannot resolve the conflict.  I think we have so much to learn about Peace right at home in our own Meetings.  Human experience being what it is, living Peace, can mean sweeping disagreement and conflict under the rug - only to be "tripped over" as the pile gets higher and higher.  From my observation there is not much difference in the Peace Process between over conflict of War and covert conflict of unresolved differences and conflict in the Meeting -- in the end humans beings are wounded -- which creates more conflict.

 

This conflict avoidance begins with Members/Attenders rationalizing their avoidance by stating reasons why that cannot or will not sit down at talk an issue out with someone they are on conflict with.  How is this different than the Middle East?  I write this not to be critical, but in hopes that we can better understand the emotional difficulty of the Peace Process where armed conflict exists.  My question is what would happen if each Meeting developed a conflict resolution process/reconciliation process with the same devout dedication of working toward Peace within the Meeting that Friends activism works toward in the World?

Comment