Response Re: SAYMA’s Travail; A Guest Post


There’s been a good bit of feedback to yesterday’s post about SAYMA, some quite vitriolic.

In reply, I can think of nothing better to than to offer this guest post, by the late Alan Robinson of Asheville NC Meeting.  He was a longtime member there, and suffered through several years of Sharon Smith’s intrusions there before his death in early 2018. Much of it was also included in the post of March 11. But this week, it deserves to stand on its own.

During his last months, Alan was moved to write the letter below, to a Quaker group struggling with similar issues. I believe there is still  comfort, depth and timely good counsel in his words:

Alan Scott Robinson:

Alan Scott Robinson

Friends, this whole topic is fraught with difficulties. I happen to be tangentially involved with the goings-on in this particular case and it is affecting more than one monthly and yearly meeting, including mine. . . .

I am sure that each of us Friends has been aware, at various points in our lives, of when we have encountered a “difficult” individual. I am not speaking about a personal dislike. Rather, I am speaking about someone who, for a variety of reasons including criminal behavior or a mental aberration or health condition, or damage to a personality due to some event in that person’s past, makes interactions with that person impossible to sustain over the long haul, and makes the person refractory to change. Many of us have been a part of a Quaker meeting at one time or another that has had to face the question of what to do in such a situation.

The cases I am talking about do not involve matters of philosophical difference, political diversity or even different belief structures. Not really, although in the cases I am talking about, one of those important issues is being used as a smoke-screen to mask and to try to justify the real behavior problem. Behavior that simply doesn’t comport with that required to be in fellowship together.

I’m sure you can think of examples. Behaviors like name calling, wild accusations with little or no basis in fact, paranoid thinking patterns, blaming others for one’s own inappropriate actions (look what you made me do!), taking advantage of another’s good will, failing to contribute to the group in any way that furthers the purpose for which the group is established, expecting the group to “take care of them”, the list goes on and on.

Friends ought to be open to new light, new ideas, new ways of thinking about a problem, and, in most cases, we are. That is the great strength of Friends. But where to draw the line about what behaviors are acceptable and what behaviors are not? Clearly, behaviors that would be out of line in a college classroom setting, a city council chamber or a kindergarten classroom probably cross the line. Screaming, tantrums and physical violence shouldn’t be tolerated in any group setting, and certainly not in a Quaker meeting for worship or business.

One of the strengths of Friends practice is that we are always open to new in-breaking of Spirit. But herein lies a trap. How do we know when a new message is of the Spirit, and when it is an offshoot of a damaged or disordered behavior pattern?

One way to know with unfailing certainty is to watch what the actions produce. “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit,…Wherefore, by their fruits ye shall know them.” I do not think that Jesus was saying that people are analogous to the trees in this parable. Instead, I think he was talking about ideas or behavior patterns as being the trees that bear fruit.

If, over the course of a significant period of time, one’s behaviors prove repeatedly destructive to, and out of line with, the group, and if that behavior occurs in repeated patterns that seem to get worse with the passage of time, then it is easy to discern the “fruit” that is borne from those actions or behaviors. Something is wrong and action should be taken, both to help the one suffering from the aberrant behavior as well as the others in the group.

Some problems are beyond any solution that can be implemented within the group. If there is some kind of dysfunction or illness mechanism at work, whether physical or mental, most meetings are clearly not equipped to do more than refer the sufferer to professional help.

But what if the sufferer whose behavior continually disrupts the functioning of the group refuses to get help or denies that there is anything wrong or consistently blames others for that person’s own bad behavior, what to do then. What do you do after the same worsening patterns of behavior are displayed over the course of many years?

Asheville Friends Meeting: a sketch from its “Digest” newsletter.

Our meeting is suffering under this type of affliction right now.  . . .

Last First Day, during Meeting for Worship, a visiting Friend arose to speak after several of our meeting’s Friends had already shared vocal ministry. One message had been offered beautifully and there was a wonderful spirit present. Two or three other friends who have become personally involved with, and supportive of, the disruptive person also rose to speak, and the atmosphere was quite different.

Though couched in “Friend-speak”, the messages were filled with accusations, unfounded assertions, name-calling and general enmity. Such a contrast to the previous message!

Then our visitor rose. She began by saying that, prior to visiting our meeting, other Friends had warned her not to come. She was very gentle, but she was also wonderfully and refreshingly truthful as she explained that she had witnessed firsthand that very day why the warning had been given, and why the warning had been justified.

It was hard to hear so directly from another Friend that my own spiritual community now had gained a reputation of divisiveness and as a home where the truth is not honored and abhorrent behavior is tolerated. The sad thing is that our visitor had this reaction even though the person who has been the origin of all the disruption wasn’t even there that day. Only her “disciples” were there, and it was enough that their bad behavior and distorted messages and, quite frankly, their frequent lies, came through so loud and clear.

This visitor didn’t even have to know the details to understand that something was terribly wrong in our meeting. It was easy for her to discern where the problem originated even without knowing the details. She could feel it in the Spirit just as strongly as if someone had struck her with a stone.

We lost a few more members that day. It was Meeting for Business, and two more Friends joined the ranks of those who have left our meeting for some other spiritual places rather than any longer endure the spiritual (and in a few cases physical) assaults. Our Meetings for Business long ago shed virtually all vestiges of spirit-led activities. Those who come now inure themselves to the inevitable assault and accusations month after month until, finally, they can take no more. The assaults continue in Meeting for Worship. There is no respite except in withdrawal. . . .

Is it any wonder that we have lost so many faithful, seasoned and weighty Friends, including three of the last four meeting clerks, several members of Ministry and Counsel committee, and Friends and attenders new and old?

We have even had first-time visitors end up in the parking lot in tears after witnessing turmoil and destruction during their first Quaker experience, and watching it as it turned into a screaming tantrum display or a bunch of baseless accusations. When the person around whom all the trouble has been centered was informed that our visitor was in tears and would not be back, the disrupter responded, “Good.”

What is a Friends meeting to do in this case?

It would be one thing if this kind of behavior happened once, and the person who was the source of the difficulty was open to listening to “eldering” given in a loving spirit that was designed to point out why the behavior caused troubles, and how to effect changes so that the situation wouldn’t arise again. If a person who has been disruptive once were open to such guidance in Friends’ practices, all would be well.

But what does a meeting do when such a person is refractory to all attempts at counseling and guidance, or even admonishment when unacceptable behavior happens repeatedly? What does a meeting do when there is a display of overt physical violence, violence of such a nature that there would be potential for real physical injury if it were to be repeated?

When is enough, enough?

In these situations, there must be a mechanism of separation, lest the whole meeting be destroyed. George Fox would not have tolerated this kind of behavior, and indeed didn’t. Read the story of the life of James Naylor to see what happened to a dear and weighty Friend who “went off the rails.” History has much to teach, and we ignore its lessons at our own peril.

One last comment. Casting someone out because of who they are (gay, transgender, bisexual, intersex, black, brown, yellow, white, tall, short, blond hair or black, language spoken, prior spiritual paths taken, ethnicity, wealth or poverty) should never be accepted or perpetrated.

Behavior is a different matter. Quakers are accepting and open to diversity, but there have to be limits of comportment that cross the line. . . .

Likewise, we may not be able to give a bright-line definition of what is and isn’t acceptable behavior, but the test of the fruit trees always provides an answer that can be trusted by anyone willing to look and listen.

If, over a prolonged period, the fruit is predominantly or wholly evil, then there is no doubt as to the nature of the tree. Every good tree sometimes produces a piece of rotten fruit, but not all the time, or even most of the time. It is rare. Friends, use the test of the fruit of the tree in your pondering.

in loving Friendship

Alan Robinson

If you find this post of value, please share it with others.
The third post in this series is here.

4 thoughts on “Response Re: SAYMA’s Travail; A Guest Post”

  1. Interesting. When the Methodists here in my tiny town was going through Reconciling in Christ. I asked one of their congregants “How is it going” he replied “We lost a couple, but they needed to go”.

    1. It’s true permission should be asked from a community, not one individual. In lieu of asking permission, perhaps the First Nations peoples in that community could be invited to participate, if they so wish. A spokesperson would need to be identified and contacted for a group invite. Ms. Smith does not communicate as a Quaker and appears to be concerned with seizing power and control, rather than finding clarity.
      Might I suggest you contact Llynne Phillips from Fern Street Meeting in Victoria, BC. She has had much experience working with Native Peoples in a Quaker context and has acted in a remedial capacity when misunderstandings arose at FGC concerning a sweat lodge practice. My impression reading these communications are that Ms. Smith is led by ego, rather than by spirit. Always a danger when an organization leaves itself so openly inclusive.

  2. Nice to read Alan’s letter again, Chuck. He was a kind man and a clear headed member of Asheville Friends Mtg. Asheville was our family’s MM for decades. It was the meeting that first accepted me into membership. We raised our daughter in this meeting that was blessed with weighty, loving friends in those years, many of whom were elderly and very, very wise. This is not to say there weren’t difficulties that arose in the meeting community over the past 20-odd years, as Alan alluded to. But none seems to have been as divisive and painful as the subject of your last essay.

    We moved away from NC before these latest worries, and transferred membership. But I have tender memories of the folks I knew there who we loved and loved us. Many of them have shared their concerns and sorrows with me about recent events. Some have left the meeting out of frustration and hurt. Meeting communities benefit from a shake up now and then. It signals the need for growth and gives everyone an opportunity to seek discernment more earnestly. But when persistently abusive behavior by a member or attender is so disruptive that it tears apart a loving community, it’s time to say enough. As I’ve written before, Sharon has insulted my husband’s family and has verbally abused me. If any Meeting had not supported me after such rudeness, I’d have probably left as well.

    Many Asheville Friends are at this moment, saddened by the passing from our midst of George Oldham, one of those elderly weighty Friends I mentioned above. George was a refreshingly pragmatic and verbally direct Quaker. It was always a productive day when he clerked business meeting. When I was a relatively new attender, I sat through a business meeting in which several of those present became engaged in a circular argument about a minor material concern. George allowed it to go on for a little while. Then he stopped the bickering and, with a wearied face, said firmly: “Friends, we are not acting like friends.”

    It startled the group and brought some blessed silence. Everyone immediately realized how futile the arguing had become. After a few minutes, the group became much more respectful and progress was made. It seems to me the circular argument about Sharon’s behavior has gone on for long enough. Friends are obviously not acting like friends.

    Being respectful does not mean being submissive. Those who bring sincere concerns to a Friends community, and those who hear them, have a responsibility to listen with an open mind and loving intention. Yet, if we are not respectful to the community, we selfishly obstruct progress. Bullying doesn’t go away just because we feel sorry for the bully. That is enabling behavior. It goes away when we say enough.

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.