Carolina Quakers & “The Way Forward” — Or Is It The Way Backward?
Okay, Carolina Friends (and others who’ve been following our NCYM-FUM soap opera), let’s talk about The “Grand Plan,” from the Task Force, and its “Recommended Way Forward.” (The full text is here. ) What’s that? Thee don’t want to? Well, me neither. But we kinda have to. (Sorry.) ‘Cause there it is. Dumped in our laps at annual sessions. And all our meetings are under orders to submit detailed comments on, and/or pledges of compliance with it (honestly, I’m not sure which; more on that in a moment) by Twelfth Month 1 (December first, for the rest of thees). And the clock is ticking; it’s autumn already, for petes sake.
Another North Carolina Meeting Bails Out. Who’s Next?
A year ago, on August 30, 2014, Friends from Pine Hill Meeting of Ararat, NC, were at North Carolina Yearly Meeting-FUM’s annual session, demanding a purifying division in NCYM, to banish the iniquity of “dual affiliation.”
The “dual affiliation” which was so repugnant was membership by a handful of NCYM meetings in Piedmont Friends Fellowship (PFF). A loose regional network of meetings from various YMs (and none), PFF was founded in the 1960s, and is connected to the liberal association, Friends General Conference (FGC).
Three quick points about it; then we’ll get to BFS:
Anderson is the main apparatchik still beating the dead horse of opposition to same sex marriage for the rightwing Heritage Foundation. He’s also a handsome, well-spoken, Ivy-league Millennial — and a proud grad of the 231-year old Baltimore Friends School.
His piece urged state or federal officials to create an exemption for Kim Davis, who is just out of jail. Davis, you will recall, is Clerk of Rowan County in Kentucky, who has refused to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples. Her defiance of federal court orders upholding her duty to do so, since the Supreme Court same sex marriage decision in June, landed her behind bars last week. (But you probably knew that.)
Anderson wrote, in part:
Because each marriage license issued by the clerk’s office bore her name and title, Ms. Davis concluded that her religious beliefs meant she could not have her office issue licenses to same-sex couples. So she had the office stop issuing them entirely.
Ms. Davis felt she had to follow her conscience. And whether or not we share her Christian faith, and its particular positions about issuing civil marriage licenses, is beside the point.
. . . Federal anti-discrimination law requires a reasonable accommodation of religious belief where it does not place undue hardships on the employer. . . . So it was incumbent upon the government to try to work out a solution. Ms. Davis wasn’t trying to prevent same-sex couples from getting marriage licenses at all; she just didn’t want her name or title on the paperwork. . . .
Perhaps a similar solution could be found in Kentucky, by removing an individual clerk’s name and title from a marriage license.
3. I’m half-persuaded by his argument. Why not change the form to remove Davis’s name, and identify only the Rowan County Clerk’s office as the official issuer?
Why keep the office on the form? It’s a matter of “ownership.” Davis’s conscience is her own; no human authority gets to dictate what it says. Her name is also her own. She and Ryan Anderson are right about that.
But not the County Clerk’s office: she doesn’t “own” that; no way. It belongs to the people of Kentucky; and even though Kim Davis’s mother held the same post for a long time, neither of them inherited it as a family heirloom. They were elected to it, for a specified term.
The County clerk’s office in Kentucky issues marriage licenses; so to be legal, that office’s name and certification need to be on them. But the specific Clerk’s name? Maybe not; the state could let one of her assistants sign it. As Ryan points out:
“The state already amended licenses from “Bride” and “Groom” to “Party 1” and “Party 2.” Why not make another change?”
Another change is worth considering. Would she accept an office-yes, skip-your-name option? Would Anderson? Interesting questions.
But minor ones. Ryan Anderson’s piece is not a big deal. Kim Davis can get out of jail whenever she wants, by complying with the law as it applies to to her job, or working out some sort of accommodation deal that is still compliant. Either way, her conscience is still her own, and the office is not. And same sex marriage is legal, in Rowan County Kentucky, and the USA.
BREAKING: Tuesday afternoon a federal judge ordered Davis to be released, but also ordered her not to interfere with clerks in her office who are issuing licenses for same sex marriages. So something like this “accommodation” may be about to happen; or at least there will be a media frenzy. Son we’ll find out of Davis will abide by the latest “non-interference” order.
Now, about Baltimore Friends School.
In April, Ryan Anderson was featured in a profile piece in the Washington Post [“The right finds a fresh voice on same-sex marriage”, said the headline]. In it he touted his argument that the Supreme Court should leave same sex marriage to the states.
The piece was articulate — but in vain of course, as far as the court went. Nevertheless it was a great brand-builder for Anderson as a conservative comer: if/when right-wingers occupy the White House again, watch for him to pop up in some highly visible post.
It also mentioned the Baltimore Friends School, which Anderson praised. Good publicity for the school, right? In the Washington Post? Of course. So Matt Micciche, the school head, posted a link to it on the BFS Facebook page.
For a few hours. Then Micciche deleted it and put in its place an abject, cringing apology, extensively excerpted in our earlier post.
The apology itself was embarrassing enough; but what made this reversal worse was that the BFS website also trumpets an educational philosophy that poses as being fearless in facing tough, controversial issues:
“Quaker education is a pilgrimage–a continual seeking after Truth. The search for truth requires a willingness to listen openly to the ideas of others, even in fields of controversy.”
Except they were not about “to listen openly to” THIS controversy:
“At Friends, we work together to build and sustain a community that is inclusive, respectful, and supportive of all people; we value diversity and cherish differences.” With this ideal in mind, the celebration of divergent viewpoints is not, and cannot be, without boundaries.”
And linking to an article in which Anderson argued for leaving same sex marriage decisions to the states was, he determined, beyond the boundary; it was evidently in the same league with organizing a lynch mob or shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater.
Oy vey. There’s no blinking it:
The BFS head’s actions and statements were incoherent, anti-intellectual, cowardly, and un-Quakerly. If this sounds harsh, so be it. Right-wing blogs and pundits had a field day, and who could blame them? “Friends, This Is Not Tolerance” crowed the National Review. Micciche deleted his apology; a right-wing blogger reposted it.
The NY Times Op-Ed piece yesterday proves how lame the BFS panicked response was. Anderson’s anti-same sex marriage crusade has gone down in ignominious defeat. He’s reduced to haggling over photocopied signatures on a marriage license in one Kentucky County (out of 3100+ in the U.S.). The Times piece again burnished his conservative-comer brand, but beyond that was no big deal.
I’ve sent Matt Micciche an email asking if BFS plans to make any use of this new BFS alum’s article, in the most prestigious national newspaper. If there’s any reply, watch for updates.
Meantime, I hope he’s taking some time today to ponder the BFS philosophy which was so humiliatingly dumped the last time around. Because the philosophy is a good one. And another occasion to put up or shut up about it is sure to come.
Besides, he & BFS have brands to burnish too; and Friends, they still need it.
In fact, when it came before the NCYM annual session, facing close to 200 Friends in a well-filled meeting room, the Executive Committee and its expulsions never had a chance. As Friends gathered, word was spreading that the Greensboro News & Record had featured NCYM on its front page that morning, with an article featuring the headline, “Dissension Among Local Quakers Is Civil War Stuff.”
Scarcely an hour after loudly overturning its Executive Committee’s over-reach, the North Carolina YM session agreed to have distributed among its meetings a new “Plan” to “deal with” the divisive issues that have dogged the body, a plan that is highly like to stir more dissent.
it was presented by a Task Force called for in June, after a previous “New Committee,” charged with almost exactly the same mission, was unable to agree on any actual proposals. After nearly a year of contentious meetings, the New Committee presented three “options,” without recommendations, and was then “laid down,” in Quaker jargon (tho “collapsed” might be more accurately expressive). Its irresolute end reflected the continuing lack of anything approaching consensus or “unity” on such matters as doctrinal stance, views on LGBT rights & same sex marriage, dual affiliation, and more.
Just how the new Task Force will resolve them is far from clear. And much in the plan presented today sounds like déjà vu all over again. “We slew a dragon at 11:30,” one Friend commented, “and then resurrected it as a zombie by lunchtime.”
More Carolina Quaker Turbulence: One Meeting Stays; Two Quit
All three of the Friends Meetings expelled from North Carolina Yearly Meeting (FUM) have now issued formal responses to this action, which was taken by the NCYM Executive Committee on August 20 (they called it a “release.”) Among them, the statements go in exactly opposite directions.
In our last post, we reported that North Carolina Yearly Meeting-FUM (NCYM) officials had taken steps to ensure calm at the impending annual sessions. They will open on Friday, September 4, at a YMCA camp in the western Carolina mountains.
But late yesterday, that plan went up in smoke.
To recap briefly: on August 20, NCYM’s Executive Committee (EX Comm) abruptly expelled three local meetings. (Details here and here.) The notice of expulsion said the meetings could appeal the action at the YM annual sessions.
“Unfortunately, They Have Led You Astray.” Blowback & A Blink After the Carolina Expulsions
It hasn’t been a quiet week in Quake wobegon (North Carolina Yearly Meeting-FUM).
When it began, many Friends were still in shock at the news that three of its meetings had been abruptly expelled (“released” is the unconvincing official term) by the YM Executive Committee, after an unannounced meeting on August 20.
But the shock soon wore off. And after that, came the reaction. It was strong and loud, and hasn’t let up.
Max Carter Speaks Out for Expelled New Garden Meeting
We just interviewed Max Carter, a newly retired former faculty member and Director of the Friends Center at Guilford College. Max is also a member of New Garden Friends Meeting (NGFM), recently pronounced “released” [i.e., expelled] by the North Carolina Yearly Meeting (NCYM) Executive Committee.
(We have also offered to let an informed member of the other two “released” NCYM Meetings, Holly Spring & Poplar Ridge, make their case against the Executive Committee action here. No takers yet.)