Category Archives: Hard-Core Quaker

Liberal Quaker History and The Present Crisis

One additional major loss from this cultural amnesia is that there are many great examples in previous Quaker generations, and even in our own, of creative witness and resistance in situations not so different from the one we face today. We have a very rich — and potentially useful– heritage to draw on. But overall we do very little with it, I’m afraid, and the liberal Quaker ethos, which is tilted toward “Progress” and puts its faith in the future, abets that.

Moreover, the loss of independent memory is one of the most insidious of the effects of our current cultural pathology. It is one of the key tools of oppression, to make alternative traditions and stories and ways of life disappear. For us in the U.S. today, this doesn’t usually require overt repression (although in situations like Occupy Wall Street, the authorities will make exceptions); usually though, alternatives just get drowned out amid the general noise and distraction.

And overall, I see much of liberal Quakerism playing right along. But what do we do when the “Progress” that’s been our group’s polestar turns against us, putting drones above and plunging our graduates into a a peonage of debt? When the future is more ominous than promising? Quakers have been in this situation before; but if we can’t or won’t remember what earlier Quakers did, we’re crippling ourselves in figuring out how to cope.

Some Quaker FAQS-Part 5: Creeds & “Consensus”

Most Progressive/Liberal Quakers today agree that they want their worship to be based on silence, conducted by the Spirit rather than leaders like pastors. The “sense of the meeting” is that they can listen for God better in quiet waiting.

They also agree that in business meetings they will make decisions without taking votes; here they write down the “sense of the meeting” on concrete decisions, and reach this usually (but not always) by unanimous consent.

(The “not always” part opens a big can of worms, which we can’t go into in detail here; it deserves its own book, and more than one has already been written about it.)

These Friends know this decision making method can take longer; but they believe it gets them closer to what God (or whatever they call it) wants the group to do. And the patience (or endurance) involved can also be a valuable spiritual discipline.

The “sense of the meeting” also takes the form of what Quakers call “Testimonies.” You’ve likely heard about some of these (most likely peace and equality). They represent pieces of the “sense/consensus” that are ongoing actions or priorities, which are supposed to be of concern to all the members of the group that formulated them.

A “Blockbuster” Report: “Streaming Quakerism” Is Coming to Carolina

Stepping back from all the hassle in NCYM-FUM over who believes what about the Bible, Jesus and marriage, can it be that what’s going on beneath the surface is the miniaturization of yearly meetings, a shift that makes ever more of what local meetings need available piecemeal from outside, through their various networks, electronic and otherwise, drastically diminishing the need for offices, paid staff, and supervisory functions?

And in this changed setting, maybe the YM of the future does look more like the new Piedmont Yearly Meeting: a loose, free association, helping set up events for fellowship, learning and worship, when and how the members want to do that.

I’m not saying that “streaming Quakerism” will herald some golden age; the devil will find lots of ways to do his dirty work within it. But change happens; a mere decade ago, Blockbuster was king; now it’s gone.

High Points From A Low Period in Carolina Quakerdom

High Point, which is not part of PFF, was more restrained but more trenchant:

“We are confused by strong objections Friends have about members of North Carolina Yearly Meeting participating with others. The ‘new committee’ is asked to consider the general question, ‘Why do meetings feel compelled to participate with organizations outside of NCYM?’ Quakers are not isolationists. Our ministries are enriched when we participate with other Quaker, ecumenical, service, and mission organizations for numerous reasons.”

Spring, which is in PFF but not the new yearly meeting added:

“Our meeting does not consider PFF to be a competitor or rival to NCYM. Our reason for having affiliations with both organizations is to bridge the chasm that unnecessarily exists between these two branches of the Society of Friends, each of which lacks a beneficial aspect of the other. While some members of each organization, particularly within NCYM, seek to widen this chasm and hold no association with the other, we seek a meaningful unity among all Friends that such an affiliation can foster.”

Getting Kicked Off The Titanic: More NC Quaker Shakeups?

This change could, in a best-case scenario, bring some of the recent purge efforts to a screeching halt.

Why? Because, to be frank, there are very few if any of the purge promoters who have the guts to face their targets over a table in the target’s meetinghouse, and to lay out and explain a prepared, meeting-approved bill of particulars.

Instead, the modus operandi over the past two years has been classic bullying: innuendo, false charges, harassing gossip, catcalls and bullying in large sessions, or haranguing audiences captive on their own home turf.

They are even less prepared for a setting where they would be obliged to present evidence, and then listen as well as preach.

They are much more accustomed to drive-by potshots. For instance, in a Quarterly Meeting session, I listened to jackleg preachers toss out accusations that the meeting I attend was allied with the Anti-Christ, and going down the same road to mass murder followed by the Branch Davidians.

These absurd charges were based on — well, misapprehensions would be a kind description; prejudiced delusions somewhat more pointed. But the preachers were not held accountable for those calumnies there.

Further, in one of the recent Representative sessions, a preacher accused my meeting and several others of spreading “blasphemy” with almost every statement we made. Really? Blasphemy about what? There was no accountability for that assertion either.