Comment by Jane Stokes on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 10:57am

Interesting to see Canadian Yearly Meeting listed although there are no Friends Churches here! I think it is fair to say that Friends outside of the US (and in fact many Friends inside the US in my experience) simply do not fit the labels and boxes that some Friends in the US seemed determined to create. Earlier this morning I was reading statements in another discussion about "Liberal Friends" this and "Liberal Friends"  - and yet again the labels and the statements did not fit my experience of Friends. I actually logged back on to QuakerQuaker in order to ask those Friends how they defined Friends in Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Europe. While Friends in other countries manage to work as united YMs (albeit with the occasional discomfort) why is it that Friends in the US  appear to label, splinter and box into more isolated groups?

Comment by Bill Samuel on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 11:35am

Like Doug, I was also moved by what Colin wrote. But how to live it out is not an easy thing to discern.

Is a principled stand for unity among Christians the same as a principled stand for unity among Quakers? For many, these seem in contradiction rather than the same or in parallel. There are clearly major problems with trying to put people into convenient boxes, and we have seen these problems manifest often among Friends (and Doug Bennett has written eloquently about them from time to time).  But there is also a place for discernment and fellowship among fellow believers.

Early Friends may have been responsible for some of the roots of this as some of them were very quick to condemn all other manifestations of Christianity as "apostate" and thus beyond the pale. How can we come to a place of siblinghood with the various manifestations of Christianity without whitewashing the problems in all strains? How can we recognize a special call for fellowship as Christian believers, without ignoring that the Holy Spirit can also work among others and we may sometimes fruitfully work alongside people of other faiths or even those who don't outwardly profess a faith?

And maybe we should focus as much on the positive features of some things as the ones that seem negative. For example, that a Barclay Press Web site, despite its association with the Evangelical Friends brand, links to many institutions outside of the brand?

At my church this past Sunday, we had a time of prayer for the papal conclave. While we are not RC and thus in some sense outsiders in this, we felt it important to rather view ourselves connected as fellow parts of the larger body of Christ. This is an actual example of how to try to practice the unity of the body for which Christ prayed so earnestly.

Comment by Doug Bennett on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 11:37am

There is a simple answer to the ‘why Canadian Yearly Meeting?’ question. (And one could just as easily ask, why New England Yearly Meeting or why Baltimore Yearly Meeting?) It’s because they all are member Yearly Meetings of FUM. We are witnessing a struggle for the soul of FUM. Founded as a ‘big tent’ gathering of Friends, there are those who would like it to be more like EFCI, and indeed to unite with EFCI. That would leave out some North American Yearly Meetings that are currently members of FUM: Canadian, New England, Baltimore, others.  These are all Yearly Meetings that want FUM to continue as a big tent association.

Why is there more divisiveness among U.S. Friends? That’s harder question, and one worth our discussing more openly. I believe one reason is that there are beliefs and practices that some Friends are borrowing from non-Quaker evangelical churches that are the yeast in our midst. Those borrowings (some deliberate, some less so) are brewing change.

What are these borrowed beliefs and practices? Are they a good thing for us? That’s what’s worth our discussing.

And who can or should call her/himself an evangelical? There’s another question worth discussing, in part because the term is shifting in meaning – and indeed its meaning is being contested. Should it just mean ‘follower of Jesus?’ or ‘one eager to spread the good news?’ Or does one have to subscribe to certain specific beliefs – and if so, which ones?

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 6:09pm

Friend Jane:

That question, about the tendency of U.S. Quakers to splinter and schism, is, I think, useful to ponder.  Tentatively, I think at least part of the answer is sociological.  Americans are hyper-individualistic as a culture.  The ideal is that of the rugged individual and the slogan 'don't tread on me' has reverberated in American culture since the revolution.  I don't think this is the whole explanation, but it is, I believe a significant part.  It isn't just Quakers who like to experience the joy of schism; Baptists, for example, have divided into numerous groups and sub-groups here in the U.S.  It just seems that the culture nourishes going off and doing one's own thing over negotiating some kind of compromise, even if the compromise is a 'live and let live' one.  As a culture, I think American like confrontation. 

I'm sure there is much more to the story.  Those more knowledgeable of Quaker history can, perhaps, offer their understanding.

Jim

Comment by Dan McCracken on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 8:23pm

"EFI's choice to promote Earlham College and ESR is a new development." That's a non sequitur that creates more heat than light. knowingFriends.info is from Barclay Press and the content is in no way a positioning of EFI.

Comment by Michael Jay on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 8:44pm

My mistake -- I thought that Barclay Press was an arm of EFI.  I found what was included much more interesting than what was omitted.  (Doug B.'s lists are not nearly as inclusive as he implies -- the camp list for example leaves out Indiana and Western YM's camp, and all of the EFI camps but one.)  

Comment by Michael Jay on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 9:12pm

:D missing from both lists is also "Union Bible College" -- knowingfriends.info also includes Houston Graduate School of Theology -- which, is missing from Doug's list.  

I recognize that FWCC attempts to make a full list -- but, clearly neither the camp list, nor the college list makes the same attempt.  Duplicating either list makes very little sense to me.  

Comment by Barbara Smith on 3rd mo. 14, 2013 at 12:46pm

Jane - I thought you might like to read this piece on the history of Friends in the United States and how those groups came about. It is a small bit taken from a talk by Fran and Bill Taber at a FWCC conference. While this doesn't explain why American Friends split and not those in other countries, it does explain the long history of the groups that now exist here, and that we are not just determined to use labels to separate people. The schisms of the 19th Century caused a divergence of paths the effects of which are apparent today among Friends. Here is the bit by Bill Taber on the history of Conservative Friends. I hope this helps.

Barb

Bill on the historical context of Conservative Quakerism:

"It seemed to me that in order to understand who we [Conservatives] are today it would be useful to go back and look a little bit at our history. The great divide within American Quaker history was in 1827 and 1828 when most American yearly meetings divided into Hicksite and Orthodox branches, all except North Carolina and most of New England. These two yearly meetings recognized themselves as part of the Orthodox stream, but they had not separated. Once American Quakers had begun to separate in 1827, it was as if they had lost their balance wheel. For example, there was a gradual and sometimes rapid development of evangelical theology in many places in the Orthodox yearly meetings. Then when the New England Quaker, John Wilbur, was disowned for criticizing the evangelical writings and preaching of a brilliant British Quaker, Joseph John Gurney, it caused another separation. So the Wilburite New England yearly meeting was formed in 1845. In the meantime the Hicksite yearly meetings were moving toward a more and more liberal theology.

The next big Wilburite-Gurneyite separation (we now use the word Gurneyite for those who were on the other side of the Wilburites in the Orthodox yearly meetings) was in Ohio in 1854. After this the Wilburites remained isolated from the rest of Quakerism and often from each other for a generation. A substantial part of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting also remained strongly Wilburite throughout the 19th century.

Meanwhile most Gurneyite or Orthodox Friends in America became more evangelical and in many places were influenced by the revival movement. Increasingly many Gurneyite Friends became less patient with what they thought was old-fashioned Quakerism and were experimenting with the beginnings of programmed meetings.

Thomas Hamm notes in a recent article in “Quaker History” that many Gurneyite leaders at this time were no longer convinced of the value of early Quaker writings — of Fox, Barclay, Penn and others. He points out that the Wilburites and the Conservatives continued to read and value these early Quaker writings almost alone among the various Quaker groups at that time. As an example, Wilmer Cooper (who grew up in Ohio Yearly Meeting Conservative) writes in his autobiography Growing Up Plain that his mother treasured and read the writings of Barclay and Fox. Friends in Philadelphia even made the writings of early Friends available in the fourteen-volume Friends Library.

By 1877 the form and spirit of most orthodox Quakerism had changed so much that a second series of separations, now called “conservative” had begun. From 1877 to 1879 Conservative yearly meetings separated in Iowa, Indiana, Canada and Kansas. When all of these conservative groups and the earlier Wilburite groups began to communicate and send annual epistles back and forth, they believed that they were the true remnant of the original Society of Friends still preserving the ancient practices and spirit of early Quakerism. Among them were gifted ministers of the old Quaker style who often had leadings to travel and preach in various parts of the Conservative Quaker world. Like generations of ministers before them, they also held “opportunities” (short meetings for worship) in homes wherever they were. Thus a child growing up in that culture might hear sermons preached in accents from different parts of the county, and might even experience the impressive presence of such a preacher in his own home. Because most meetings had at least a one-room school, Conservative teachers could find work from Canada to Fairhope, Alabama or from a small meeting in California to New England. And there were boarding schools in Kansas, Iowa, Ohio and Westtown PA where high schoolers could make acquaintances for a lifetime and sometimes find their future mates.

The final one in the series of Conservative separations was in North Carolina Yearly Meeting in 1904. But even as North Carolina was joining this Conservative fellowship, the forces of the 20th century were already beginning to change us. Shortly after mid-20th century only three Conservative yearly meetings remained: North Carolina, Iowa and Ohio. The others had been either laid down or reunited with the other branches of Friends in their areas. Rural meetings declined or disappeared. Most Friends elementary schools were also gone by mid century. Iowa’s Scattergood and Ohio’s Olney boarding schools now welcomed students from a variety of backgrounds, though they still had a distinct Conservative flavor.

Throughout the 20th century Conservative Friends who had been well educated in Friends schools took jobs in cities and universities but often kept their membership in the meetings back home and retained a sense of that identity. Meanwhile, in the meetings back home the use of plain dress became less and less common, surviving only in more subtle ways as “simplicity.”

The wars of the 20th century found most Conservative Friends faithful to the peace testimony. Through WWII, of all Quaker groups, Conservative Friends had the highest percentage of young men to take a conscientious objector position. During this century we gave up our isolation from other Friends, joining in the work of American Friends Service Committee, Friends Committee on National Legislation, Friends World Committee for Consultation and other Quaker groups.

By mid-century occasional people from other Friends groups were drawn to visit our meetings and yearly meetings because they experienced a depth of authentic Quakerism here which they missed elsewhere. One of these Friends urged us to have a gathering of all Conservative Friends at Barnesville, Ohio. This was held in 1965, attended by representatives from North Carolina, Iowa, Ohio, and (the recently laid down) Western Yearly Meeting in Indiana. Then came a concern from Friends in North Carolina that the Conservative yearly meetings needed to get together in order to strengthen each other and our understanding of who we are. Such a meeting was held at Middleton, Ohio in 1969. Ohio Yearly Meeting set up a committee to foster intervisitation. As a result, gatherings of “Conservative Friends and Those of Like Mind” have been held about every two years since. These gatherings and the Conservative yearly meetings have continued to attract a number of Quakers from other places who feel drawn to Conservative Friends. A few of these Friends have adopted forms of plain clothing and a small number have joined our meetings.

Today our three yearly meetings are very different from what they were 100 years ago. Then, the majority of us were farmers or small town merchants or craftspersons. Today there are few farmers among us, though some of us still prefer to live in the country. Our rural meetings are small or almost extinct. In Iowa and North Carolina there are new urban meetings with members who did not grow up as Conservative Friends. Some lively new members have also joined Ohio Yearly Meeting, reviving or adding strength to existing meetings and adding a new meeting.

On the surface, most of us Conservatives today dress, talk and behave very much like the world around us. Yet, in some degree at least, we continue to witness by an alertness and attentiveness to the Inward Guide. We can often recognize one another by the subtle simplicity of our clothing and the way we organize our time, our homes and our interactions with the world."

Comment by Jane Stokes on 3rd mo. 15, 2013 at 1:17am

Barbara - Thank you. Bill Taber's piece was indeed helpful. The schisms that effected Friends in the US did effect Canada too. This link (hopefully) ties to a piece in Canadian Yearly Meeting archives. http://www.archives-library.quaker.ca/en/historyofCYM.html . It is interesting to me that we have the Yearly Meetings that decades after the schisms worked to unite again - while others continue to splinter. This is partly why I question when terms such as "Liberal", "Universal", "Christ-centred etc' are used both for individuals and for meetings for some of us see the multi-faceted nature of our meetings as a strength - that simply as "Quakers" we have room for growth and exploration , individually and corporately. 

Comment