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 Howard Brod on 9th mo. 16, 2012 at 7:38am: Doug, you so speak my mind. Please continue your good work until this shameful discrimination is removed from the Religious Society of Friends and society at large.

Comment by Marc Kivel on 9th mo. 17, 2012 at 6:22pm: I find myself wondering, inasmuch as an entire YM is affected, if Friends ministers from other YMs have been invited in to help with clearance of IYM leaders and meetings/churches? I offer the thought this might be an opportune time to walk the Quaker witness...

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 9th mo. 18, 2012 at 10:40am: It seems to me Friends are just embedded in the wider culture, and the polarization that is happening there is being echoed in IYM. (Interesting analysis of the history of political polarization here.) If one's goal is to avoid division, going on and on about how wrong the other side is will not accomplish that goal. The way to stay together is to emphasize issues on which there is much solidarity. Mutuality. Compassion. Reminding one another of our shared humanity. The process very well may be off track, but that is a different issue to tackle than whether or not the other side needs to change their views on morality. The way to ensure division is to continue talking about the shame those on the wrong side should (or will) feel and how they are in (or want to return to) the dark ages.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 18, 2012 at 11:11am: Very perceptive, Isabel!

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 18, 2012 at 12:57pm: This is a blog where opinions are to be expressed. Sometimes those opinions might sting, as yours often do Isabel.

Yet, we need to invite speaking truth to each other, as we each experience it - if any of us are to grow.

Comment by William F Rushby on 9th mo. 18, 2012 at 8:49pm: Marc Kivel's proposal has merit, but the situation has probably moved beyond the point where it would be appropriate.

It sounds very much like the Old German Baptist Brethren (Old Order "Dunker") practice of calling in "the adjoining elders" when a church district is not able to resolve internal disputes. The adjoining elders hold meetings to hear all sides, and then issue a report of findings and mandatory steps for resolving the local church district's problems. Most of the time, this works rather well.

Comment by Bruce R. Arnold on 9th mo. 18, 2012 at 10:16pm: "I do not begin to understand (and do not believe I ever will) how God acts in this world. It doew not square with my experience that “everything happens for a (Godly) reason “ or that “it’s all part of God’s plan.” I believe God gives us substantial human freedom to take action, sometimes glorious and sometimes badly mistaken, however good our intentions."

I don't know if this was a response to my comment that God can redeem any situation. I don't see anything in any other comments that might have elicited this remark. So, at the risk of being off base:

I didn't say that "it is all God's plan." I imagine God has a plan. Couldn't say for sure. I know that a lot happens that is not part of God's plan. As a social worker who has spent the last 36 years dealing with the results of "man's inhumanity to man," I can say that I've seen an awful lot that I am pretty certain is not God's plan. God -- the God I worship anyway -- is not a monster. He does not cause someone to rape a 4 year old girl "because what doesn't kill you makes you stronger" or any of that kind of absurdities people say to try to make sense out of horror. He does not take someone's beloved son or daughter "to heaven because he needed another angel." Oh, for Christ's sake. I can hardly stand thinking about that kind of remark, much less listening to it or, even worse, saying it.

And those are relatively -- relatively -- mild examples of that "it's all part of God's plan" sort of thinking. Whoa.

It is a far cry from the theological barbarity of those statements, to the understanding that God can redeem any situation. The idea that a situation would need to be redeemed -- that it is hopeless for it to turn out well on its own momentum or on our own responses -- is a grim reality. I don't care to trivialize this point, or to trivialize some particular situation, by throwing out the grotesque media headline of the day as an example of what I mean. To understand that God can redeem any situation, is to be the opposite of Pollyanna. It is to know just how forsakenly awful things can be, how wickedly people can choose to torture one another. I haven't done child abuse investigation in many years, being on the treatment end of things nowadays, but if you want samples, talk to any child protective caseworker. You don't need to go to Kosovo or Rwanda to find examples of the sort of atrocity I'm talking about. It's happening in your home town.

You rightly point out that people have free will, and that they can use it for monstrous evil. Not just Auschwitz or the Crusades. It also means the sort of thing people do to each other every day, in every part of the world, to people they know and, in many cases, love. Some of them aided, abetted, even approved, by the Powers that Be. Things like ... crucifixion.

As Patricia Barber pointed out in her essay "In the Land of Saturday", "It was Cornel West, I think, who referred to himself as a "Saturday Christian" - one who has embraced the life and death of Christ, but who has yet to experience the joy and certainty of the Resurrection. ... The easy platitudes and feel good emollients of our day-to-day spiritual lives and practices are revealed exactly for what they are - superficial, all-too-human ways to give our lives meaning and convince ourselves of our own importance." The Land of Saturday is an important human experience. We do ourselves a grievous wrong if we overlook it, rush through it, minimize it, sugar-coat it.

And yet, Easter Sunday. Easter Sunday follows that dark Friday and Saturday. This is the meaning of redemption. Not that what happened is OK, or good despite all appearances. It's not redemption if what happened is OK, or good despite all appearances. It's only redemption if what happened is wrong, bad, unbearable.

I don't know how God will redeem this situation. I don't know when. I don't know if I will live to see it. I only know that God's gift of free will is truly a gift, however badly we may use it, and that our choices, no matter how horrible, do not constrain His.

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 9th mo. 19, 2012 at 12:53pm: Thee is mistaken if thee thinks what troubles me are differences of opinion, and I am glad for the opportunity to clear up that impression.

I value differing opinions, but I am troubled when some argue for unity and simultaneously deride and dismiss the opposing viewpoint. Some express their desire for Indiana YM to remain unified while also arguing that Friends of the YM must change what they think, believe and feel on a variety of issues – from the proper place of authority, to the proper way of interpreting the Bible, to the correct way to feel about social issues.

It is irreconcilable to insist that division is a great evil but also that the opinions on the other side are deeply wrong and must change. Being opposed to division is fine. Being opposed to the opinions of the other side is fine. Meaningfully marrying the two is not possible. No one wants to compromise their principles, but to be in unity everyone has to find common ground and build upon whatever mutual respect is genuinely available.

If one wants to work for unity, work for unity. If one wants to correct the opinions and attitude of the other side, don't be confused that such an effort will lead to unity.

Comment by Doug Bennett on 9th mo. 19, 2012 at 1:36pm: Whooa there. Not so fast. There is disagreement within Indiana Yearly Meeting, but it has been there for decades. IYM has been a ‘big tent’ yearly meeting, capable of drawing into one gathering folks with a range of views. There have been a range of views about scripture, for example, not so much about whether the Bible is authoritative but rather about how to read it best.

What’s new in Indiana Yearly Meeting is the urge to purify it, to make it a smaller tent yearly meeting as if that squeezing would be make it stronger and more effective. I don’t “deride or dismiss” the views of others; I want us to talk seriously and worshipfully about the issues. I say what I think and what I find in prayer and worship.

The disagreement about homosexuality is more recent, but that divergence of opinion is growing everywhere: it is the issue of our time. I believe the five snippet condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is a shallow take on the Bible. I’ve tried to take care over many months to say why. Read back over this blog. I don’t think you’ll find dismissal or derision.

I believe there will always be issues clamoring for consideration whenever there are human beings searching. And therefore I believe that efforts at creedal closure will surely fail.

I want a yearly meeting strong enough to believe that conscientious search for truth will lead us to unity.

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 19, 2012 at 2:42pm: I see no contradiction in the desire for both spiritual unity and a free-flowing discussion of core principles and how they are manifested among us. That is what I have experienced in my monthly meeting and yearly meeting for decades.

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.