Friends!
I speak to my fellow seekers of the Truth, to whom I have been enjoined through the mystery of electronic communication: blogs, emails and websites. I am so blessed by your ministry, be you F.U.M. missionaries, F.G.C. agitators, silent seekers, ambivalent Christians, righteous agnostics, gorgeous young shoots, ancient craggy oaks, peaceniks, simplniks, Bibleniks - all of you, all of you are in my spiritual family and I honor you. Here are some things that unite us:
1. Something about George Fox and/or the Valiant Sixty.
2. Something about Jesus.
3. Loving peace and abhorring violence.
4. Caring for the earth.
5. Speaking the truth gently and plainly.
6. Walking the walk.
7. Worshipping together.
8. Helping everyone.
9. Feeling the Spirit of God.
10. Love.
Friends!
Let us focus on these things that unite us, and the other things, the ones you are thinking of now that I have overlooked in the rush of my excitement. Think of our meetings for business - we seek the ways the Spirit brings us to unity (which is not the same as unanimity). It is a poor meeting indeed that focuses on what divides us. Let us spend more time announcing and celebrating our unity, rather than irritating our differences. Our differences are like our skin: they announce our distinction. But Friends let us not be convinced by surfaces. Let us worship what is eternal between us, what lies beneath, what flows from the Source that makes everything.
There is a hidden wholeness. There is a binding oneness.
Now here's the controversial part:
Friends!
Let us refrain from using the words "liberal" or "conservative" to describe ourselves as Quakers. These are empty words which can only reduce the awesome complex glory of one's faith to a misunderstood stereotype. These are secular words used in hurtful ways by people outside our Society. These words makes us small and petty. These words sow division and mistrust. Besides, no one knows what they mean anymore anyway.
I am Philadelphia Quaker who worships in an unprogrammed meeting. You can make some assumptions about me if you know a little about my Yearly Meeting. If you tell me you are an Indiana Quaker who worships in programmed meeting, I may make some assumptions about you. But glory to God, when we meet each other face to face (or word to word in cyberspace?) and we sense the Love Which Binds Us, when we truly call each other "friend", assumptions fall away and we are left only with a beginning.
Way will open to our loving hearts when we answer that of God in each other.
Friends!
I found my way here via your comment at a recent Quaker Ranter post.
I appreciate very much the list of what binds us Friends together, and I agree that we must give more weight than we have been as to that commonality--a commonality that is more meaningful than a "least common denominator" of our faith.
On the other hand, I find myself wrestling with your call to "refrain from using the words 'liberal' or 'conservative'... no one knows what they mean anymore."
I would say that the Quaker blogosphere has actually helped some Friends understand what these words mean, along with what FUM and FGC is or isn't.
I would also say that these words have helped me strengthen my identity as a Friend because I have been learning what "liberal" means and what "conservative" means and how these words and branches of Quakerism translate into action.
While my religious identity is as a Friend, my spiritual family seems to be among Conservative Friends. My relationships are deeper, and my understanding of Quakerism is helped by those relationships.
That said, I can also imagine a time when those distinctions will not be so important to me, and I will be satisfied to say "I am Quaker."
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
I am led to post something more substantial about my position on the terms "liberal" and "conservative" as applied to "Quaker". When I have more time, I will do so. But let me make two small points here:
1. If by "conservative" you mean a position that is resistant to change and adheres to traditions, a position that is connected more to the past than to the future, then all the unprogrammed meetings we lable "liberal" are actually "conservative" by Quaker theological standards.
If by "liberal", you mean a position open to innovation and not so attached to traditions, more interested in change than stasis, than the programmed meetings which have pastors and hymn singing are actually "liberal" by Quaker theological standards.
2. But these are not how Friends are using these terms. Friends are using these terms generally to identify a meeting or a group of meetings as being in sympathy with vague socio-political positions. These terms are being used recklessly and generally, and are leading people to believe that one needs to adhere to these vague positions in order to sit in worship at "liberal" or "conservative" meetings. This, to me, is a travesty. If I can make room on my bench for pagans and non - theists, I better also make room for Republicans, hunters and even Friends who belive there is a place for measured military responses to acts of terror. I do not worship at a "liberal" meeting, nor to do I worship with "liberals", even though in another context I might define myself as such. In a Quaker context, I worship with Quakers and other seekers of the truth, period.
"Liberal" and "conservative" divide us in to catagories highly prone to both misunderstanding and hyperbole. Quakerism - in my experieince -leads us to personal encounters with one in another, sheltered in the Love of the One who binds us all, labels be damned. It is through these personal encounters that we answer that of God in eachother, reach understanding and see the lies the labels perpetuate.
I found my way here thanks to Liz, who announced the existence of your blog on on the QuakerQuaker.Org web site.
Perhaps something needs to be explained. Here in the United States, there are six branches of Quakerism. Three are predominantly pastoral: Evangelical Friends International (EFI), Friends United Meeting (FUM), and Holiness Friends. And the other three are predominantly unprogrammed: Friends General Conference (FGC), which your own meeting is a part of; the independent unprogrammed meetings in the western U.S.; and Conservative Friends with a capital C.
"Conservative Friends", with the capital "C", is the self-chosen, official name for our branch, in the same way that Friends General Conference and Friends United Meeting are self-chosen, official names for those branches. The members of our branch have been calling themselves "Conservative Friends", to distinguish themselves from the other branches of Quakerism, for about a century now.
The label "Conservative Friends", with the capital "C", does not refer to a "vague socio-political position". What it refers to is a very explicit commitment made by the founders of the Conservative yearly meetings, to conserve both the original theology and the original practice of Friends. This is our historic difference both from the so-called "liberal Friends", who have striven to conserve the original practice but have willingly discarded the theology, often becoming Buddhist or pagan or nontheist or some version of unitarian, and also from the pastoral Friends, who have striven to conserve the original theology but have willingly discarded the practice, adopting pastors and hymns and revivals and so forth.
I do understand and respect your desire that we all just be Friends together. But what does that mean? Those who are drawn, not just to unprogrammed Quakerism, but specifically to the capital-C Conservative variety of unprogrammed Quakerism, want something more than just "personal encounters with one in another, sheltered in the Love of the One who binds us all, labels be damned"; we also want a conscious, openly acknowledged and shared discipleship to Jesus Christ. We would not be happy with a way of just being Friends together that did not also involve such a shared discipleship.
But there are many, many Friends in FGC -- the branch of Quakerism you are a part of -- who would not be happy with a way of just being Friends together that did involve such a shared discipleship.
So there's the rub, friend. That's what we're discussing here: the fact that we have different and seemingly incompatible desires regarding what our group practice should be.
I am very glad you want to play peacemaker! I just also want you to understand the situation you're getting into.
I guess I'm reacting more to the way these words - liberal and conservative - get bandied about in the Quaker blogesphere. And it's in relation to this kind of informal usage that I maintain my position that we avoid them, and go the extra mile to explain what we mean by them.
I also have a vision, one that some in the blogesphere share, in which all of us who use the term Quaker to describe ourselves find our way to a grand unity (UFA? United Friends of America?). In order to get to this vision, which I have the feeling you'll label naive and unattainable, we have to focus on what unites us, not what divides us. There is a way to do this without diminishing the aspects of our faith which are unique and important to us. And so I offered my humble posting which you've kindly responded to.
I want an end to all controversies. I am not interested in passing judgements on fellow Friends. I am interested in meeting them, worshipping with them, and finding out - person to person - why, for instance, the word Conservative is important to them. Not so I can change anyone's mind. But so that I might understand them better.
Les quakers francophones du Web
Piotr
It's true that we agree with the 10 things that unite us.Our main difficulty is that ours members don't speak and understand english but we are brothers in Christ
European community of french speaking on the Web
Piotr
Like you, I find that many theological fences seem to disappear when Friends from across the spectrum meet and worship face to face. And like Marshall points out, I find that I have a desire to "know something more," to ground myself in something more than just meaningful, loving, interpersonal relationships.
I shall have to consider more carefully why it is I often identify as a Conservative-leaning Friend and not just "a Friend." Thanks for lifting up this topic.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up