QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Releasing Raccoons to the Wild: An Update on the Schism in Indiana

“Set off” is the phrase used in the recently released proposal to carry through a schism in Indiana Yearly Meeting. “IYM (the organization) will remain intact and those meetings choosing option B will continue to be part of this body.” … Meetings choosing option A “will be set off from IYM into a newly created ‘yearly meeting’ or equivalent association.” So reads the proposal. (You can read the proposal here, as well as the cover letter, the FAQ, and the proposed timeline.)

Please read all that follows with recognition that the proposal is still just a proposal, to be considered for approval at IYM’s Representative Council on September 29.

“Intact” seems like a curious phrase for what will be left when a number of meetings are “set off” (would I still be intact after my leg is amputated?), but “set off” is a euphemism for something less pleasant. In substance what is proposed is more like the deportation of aliens, or something one does to pesky raccoons: trap them, take them to the edge of town and release them to the wild. The image seems all the more apt when one reads further that those meetings who refuse to choose either option and who are unwilling to affirm the orthodoxy of the new IYM (option B) “will be released from the yearly meeting.” At least Quakers don’t excommunicate.

The premise of IYM’s reconfiguration process was that the yearly meeting had already pulled apart into two camps; the reconfiguration would simply ratify this. The promise was that it would be a “deliberative/collaborative” process. A Task Force charged at a fall 2011 Representative Council meeting was asked to develop a proposal around which the yearly meeting could reach unity. It was to be a proposal that, in the words of the minute establishing the Task Force, would “honor each other's consciences and understandings of scriptural guidance,” and would be “life-giving for all our monthly meetings.”

The Task Force proceeded by first sketching two alternative yearly meetings (“A” and “B”, descriptions here and here) between which meetings might choose, and then inviting each meeting to opt for one or the other. By September 4, 2012 letters had been received from 52 of the 62 meetings in IYM.

The proposal from the Task Force, read in conjunction with the letters (available here), displays considerable disunity around the idea of any reconfiguration. It fails to honor the consciences of IYM members, and certainly will not be life-giving for all meetings. A detailed examination of the letters is available in a preview copy of an article in Quaker Theology # 21 by ESR’s Prof. Stephen Angell.

Though the question was never asked by the Task Force, 19 of the 52 letters received (Angell’s count) voice some opposition to the idea of reconfiguration – about a third of both the meetings and the members in IYM. And yet the Task Force went ahead and submitted its proposal for schism. Why? The Task Force tells us “we continue to believe that some division of the yearly meeting is inevitable.” They acknowledge, “We understand the deep desires of some Friends for reconciliation and preservation of the current yearly meeting structure, but we have not found or seen any proposal to do that that honors the consciences of all Friends in Indiana Yearly Meeting.”

Apparently worldly “inevitability” is trumps here. We should frustrate the consciences of those who seek unity in favor of the consciences of those who insist on separating from others.

What is revealed is the falseness of the original premise. We have not already pulled apart, mutually, into two camps. Rather, a group has coalesced that insists on purification or cleansing of the yearly meeting. Some of the letters from meetings choosing “B” strongly state that they view “B” as the real, true Indiana Yearly Meeting. Says one, “It is also our desire to remain under the current yearly meeting structure. It does not seem necessary to discontinue Indiana Yearly Meeting.” The sad irony is that hardly anyone wants to “break away” from IYM (only four meetings of the 52 chose “A”); there is only the push from some that others should be “set off” or “released.”

What is the orthodoxy around which this purification is to be carried through? Three things, principally define it: (a) conviction that the Bible is the one, true revelation, and relatively straightforward to understand; (b) comfort with creedal statements that set forth what one should believe; and (c) insistence on organizational hierarchy to enforce discipline on those with leadings to move outside established, Biblical/creedal strictures.

Lost in this assertion of orthodoxy is a confidence that God speaks to us today. Lost is a humility that God’s mystery and majesty go beyond our pale understandings. Lost is a willingness to learn from others, confidant that they, too, can hear God. Lost is a living faith. All these things, too, are being “released” and “set off.”

0 members like this

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 2:23pm: quoting Friend David above,

"I frankly do not see how they and the Quakers I know can possibly both call themselves Quakers."

Evangelically-minded Friends are not the only Friends who seek purity . . . Liberally-minded Friends also seek the purity of all Friends being universalist theologically and politically liberal-minded, their idea that Evangelical Friends would be throwing off narrow-mindedness and bigotry and ignorant things like taking the Bible literally. But when I go among Evangelical Friends I find very little narrow-mindedness and bigotry, and I find many of them engaging in a complex relationship with the Bible and the challenges interpreting brings. Not what the stereotypes suggest.

Part of our human nature is to have our group be one we can entirely identify with and not feel any distress about what certain parts are doing. We don't want our team to be cheaters or quitters. We want them to be good sports, the good guys. Liberally-minded Friends easily see Evangelically-minded Friends as not the good guys, and vice versa.

So who gets to define Quakerism and say who is a Friend and who is not? That is what the split in IYM is all about: what will it mean to be a member of IYM? Comfort for Evangelical Friends or comfort for more liberally-minded Friends? Or, by splitting, allowing each their own place to pursue the form and structure of Quakerism they find comforting and right.

I can see that it would be embarrassing for Evangelical Friends to have their understanding of appropriate sexual relations contravened, but it is equally embarrassing for Liberal Friends to not be able to claim Quakerism as a purely liberal spiritual enterprise, to have to admit there are (actually large numbers of) Friends who do not agree with them on matters such as what defines a proper and loving intimate relationship. Part of the Liberal Friend definition of Quakerism is the very liberal core it has for them. That others can pursue a different form of Quakerism is distressing. If Liberal Friends could find a way to get Evangelical Friends to leave Quakerism, to not be allowed to call themselves Quakers, I think they would. And vice versa. One of the ways each branch protects its identity is by defining "real" Quakerism as being how they live their Quakerism in faith and practice. All of this is entirely symmetrical.

This sense of distress is entirely equivalent on both sides. Whatever thee may be feeling about the awfulness of those other Friends' beliefs is reflected back. Human beings. Human nature. God loves us all. We are all broken, just in different ways, and only He really knows the details of what is truly broken and what is not. This is one of those cases where I think Friends can be too much in the habit of complaining about the mote in other Friends' eyes while ignoring the beam in their own.

Comment by Mackenzie on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 2:25pm: IIRC, it took my meeting 3 years to reach unity on same sex unions, minus the word marriage. That word didn't come in for several more years.

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 4:41pm: While I generally find myself on the unity side of almost any tolerance-vs-purity issue (including this one), I also feel considerable empathy for those seeking purity in these cases. Maintaining and changing the status quo are both actions, albeit of different sorts, and, in the absence of spiritual unity, Quaker process strongly favors maintenance over change. For people who find the status quo intolerable, this can be a very heavy burden to carry. I don't mean to imply any criticism of the process, only to recognize how hard it can be for those caught on the "wrong end" of disunity.

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 5:09pm: Hi Isabel,

I'm only an irregular attender, but I am emphatically liberal religiously (and moderately so politically). Yet I, for one, would deeply regret any loss of the Conservative Quakers, and I in no way desire, nor would I ever promote, the departure of the Evangelicals. I do believe that you're right, however, and that this is at least somewhat symmetrical; it would be terribly sad if there were no Quakers in the other branches who valued their liberal counterparts.

Comment by James C Schultz on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 5:57pm: As a relatively new Quaker but not so young Christian I think Indiana Yearly Meeting is missing the golden opportunity to put aside their opinions and beliefs and wait on God. That's what I love about the Quaker Process. For Indiana it's time to fish or cut bait. Whatever your orthodoxy questions you have to decide if your God is a living God or a Plastic Jesus.:) I pray you give the living God a chance. When I have been confronted with similar situations on a personal basis God has told me continuously that Love is all. Read 1 Cor. 13 and ask if you have been long suffering, etc.

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 14, 2012 at 7:56pm: Just to add to my previous comment: But with just a few exceptions, most yearly meetings in the U.S. - whether conservative, FUM, or liberal - operate using the Quaker process I mentioned. It is a relic of the past where the yearly meeting exerts domination over monthly meetings to the point of ousting them for not agreeing with the yearly meeting Faith and Practice. Most yearly meetings now understand that you can't force a church/meeting to go against its conscience and still keep spiritual unity within the yearly meeting. Indiana Yearly Meeitng and perhaps Ohio Yearly Meeting Conservative (not sure, though) seem to be exceptions to this modern trend.

Following a practice of insisting that local congregations be subordinate to the yearly meeting is a sure way to have schism after schism. It just never ends once you go down that road.

I believe FUM itself recently reconstituted itself with this realization in mind. To insist on doctrinal unity to the point of banishment seems to be from the dark ages. And to especially zero in on homosexulity (more than other perceived 'sins') seems rather homo-phobic and unchristian.

I would say that the 'A' monthly meetings who are banished from IYM, will find lots of vibrant, tolerant, and loving yearly meetings near and far that will welcome them with open arms.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 15, 2012 at 5:58pm: I find the plan to reconfigure Indiana Yearly Meeting into more homogeneous and workable groups quite sensible. Why waste time and energy trying to foster a unity which obviously has not existed for many years?

It would make more sense to reorganize in a way that would free resources to pursue worthwhile goals.

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 9th mo. 16, 2012 at 12:42am: Friend Brent wrote:

"I confess that it is difficult to respond to thee, as thee seems so angry I am more than a little concerned that thee will respond to me with personal anger." Wow. Talk about a perfect example of what I call "Pacifist-Aggressive" writing. How can one even begin to respond to what Friend Isabel has written without being charged wit "responding with personal anger"?

I deny the charge of Pacifist-Aggressive. I felt anger in the posts and the need to identify it. Friend Doug acknowledges the emotion, so I feel vindicated in my sense of his condition. It has been that sense that has been preventing me from replying to his previous posts, and I felt the need to name that so that I could move through it. I see no evil in what I said in that paragraph, and I certainly meant no ill will. My intent was to name my fear, not to accuse or condemn. I actually didn't mean that I thought his main attitude was one of anger, but it was my sense of the anger that made it hard to press "Add Comment." Entirely my cowardice, really. I am not used to feeling a coward. And, hey, I see lots of people responding and no one responding with personal anger. Whew!

I very much resonate with Friend Aaron's "For people who find the status quo intolerable, this can be a very heavy burden to carry." And certainly I believe I sense in Friend Doug's writings this strain and burden.

Friend Howard wrote:

It is a relic of the past where the yearly meeting exerts domination over monthly meetings to the point of ousting them for not agreeing with the yearly meeting Faith and Practice.

I'm not sure this is as much of a relic as thee might hope. I think thee is condemning as from the dark ages something that would trouble and vex thee and thy faith and practice, but that others find empowering and helpful. Each way has its strengths and weaknesses, its gifts and burdens.

This is from Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice (they affiliate with EFCI-Evangelical Friends Church International):

The Yearly Meeting consists of the members of the churches subordinate to it. The Yearly Meeting possesses complete legislative, judicial, and administrative authority. It has the power to counsel, to admonish, or to discipline its subordinate meetings; to institute measures and provide means for the promotion of truth and righteousness; to inaugurate and to carry on departments of religious and philanthropic work. It may review the proceedings of any meeting and give advice and instruction to the churches when these are requested or when they are thought necessary.

A quick perusal of the Faith and Practice of other Evangelical Friends' yearly meetings found similar language, and a general top-down approach.

This is from Indiana Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice:

Subordination as used in this FAITH AND PRACTICE does not describe a hierarchy but rather a means, under divine leadership, of common protection between Indiana Yearly Meeting and its Quarterly Meetings and Monthly Meetings. It is a relationship among Friends “submitting themselves to one another in the fear of God.” (Ephesians 5:21) In the spirit of Christ who “humbled himself and became obedient unto death” each member, each Monthly Meeting, each Quarterly Meeting and the Yearly Meeting submits to each other in the love of Christ. Subordination is the assurance that no Monthly Meeting is alone, autonomous or independent.

Comment by Doug Bennett on 9th mo. 16, 2012 at 7:22am: Yes, not hierarchy, but IYM is seeking to act as if there should be a hierarchy. It's leadership is seeking to act just as the Rocky Mountain Yearly Meeting F&P prescribes. The very next paragraph of IYM's F&P is very important and worth quoting, too:

"Thus Monthly Meetings recognize the legitimate role of the Yearly Meeting in speaking and acting for the combined membership. Likewise the Yearly Meeting recognizes the freedom of Monthly Meetings and the validity of their prophetic voices. Each needs the other in order to be strong and vital, and both need the mediation of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

What's being pushed down in IYM are prophetic leadings of monthly meetings. The freedom and the validity of West Richmond Friends in declaring itself (and itself alone) a "welcoming and affirming" meeting is being denied.

We will blush for shame in a decade or two for failing to recognize that homosexuality is no sin, as we blush for shame (or should) that there were ever Friends that defended slavery on Biblical grounds.

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 16, 2012 at 7:27am: I have never sensed anger in Doug's post. Perhaps at times, righteous indignation at the subverting of the Spirit he perceives happening within IYM - I see this no different from what Jesus expressed when he witnessed the corruption of the temple grounds.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.