YAF Wichita Update: The Case of the Missing Tweets

Well, one of the messages mentioned in the previous post about age-related putdowns  has already disappeared from the web. Gone, perhaps, but not forgotten. Here’s the text, mercifully brief but to the point, about: >> 1. An almost 70yo man decrying moral choices of youth–ironic. >> “Almost 70yo” BTW, is Tweet-speak for nearly 70 years old. And on that point, I am so busted. Old Man - donuts I’m still looking for the irony, tho; maybe it got mislaid in transmission. Some more choice tidbits have turned up, which we may get to presently.

2 thoughts on “YAF Wichita Update: The Case of the Missing Tweets”

  1. You know what I always say, “The Body of Christ has many parts…”

    As for the guy in the picture, he actually looks a bit like you! 😉

  2. I’m laughing now. I respect your opinions — really. I read your essays because you are not afraid to say things clearly and strongly. I know too many people who will not speak plainly because they are not willing to offend — you make me question things. I appreciate that.

    In this case, your tone felt mocking, and not helpful. The “Graybeards” in my tradition also have either little interest or open hostility about inter branch discussion. I as a young adult Friend (in the “Orthodox”-Evangelical tradition) feel that I have to cross a line of hostility to talk politely with members of the “Hicksite” tradition…. or even the Conservative tradition.

    Is your complaint that YAF will not write a minute condemning the books of discipline held by EFC-MA and Southwest Yearly Meeting? Is it a concern that private discussion about various viewpoints might be censored? [if so, I hope that concern is not justified.], or is your concern that…. none of us are really sure what will happen? — well — we are Quakers — of course we are not sure what will happen. We hope, and we wait on God.

    Michael– the latest post has some response to your comment here. But one addition: I certainly do NOT urge the conference to adopt minutes condemning anybody; in fact, I hope they’ll skip the passing of minute entirely. It’s usually a waste of time, and only exacerbates disagreements when Friends try to find “unity” on disputed matters.

    By contrast, there are some things I would encourage the attenders to explore, to see if there might be a basis for some collaborative efforts across branch lines. But this would be best done unofficially, without forcing “unity” in the body.

    “Private discussion” is another matter, and yes, as the latest post recounts, there were such constraints operating in 2008, and presently on tap for this time. I don’t like that. Let Friends speak their truth, and work on keeping the lid on as they do so. The ethos of the current framework and rules, in my view, don’t encourage that, or not nearly enough. And I’ve been through plenty of situations where such rules were definitely applied to shut out and shut down things that needed to be faced up to. (And not always by the same branch either; “all have sinned and come short of the glory of God,” like the book says.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *