tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post114499065742342909..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: Risk and resurrectionJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145308159020565192006-04-17T14:09:00.000-07:002006-04-17T14:09:00.000-07:00"We don't have a pastor because Christ himself lea..."We don't have a pastor because Christ himself leads us. To hear them describe quakerism, it sounds like going to the movies with a bunch of folks and staring at a blank screen silently."<BR/><BR/>But surely Christ doesn't need a projector to appear on that blank screen? In fact, if it were only a projection, it wouldn't be real, would it? Is it possible God knows what s/he is doing by finding a way to get such unbelievers into some form of silent, waiting worship? That perhaps Christ can teach from within those who have no intellectual image of him? Maybe even more easily than those who are pretty sure about what they know? Cause for rejoicing then, isnt it? And a good way to save $7.50 to boot.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>DaveDavid Carlhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14232832969784724335noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145211106689324972006-04-16T11:11:00.000-07:002006-04-16T11:11:00.000-07:00*waving* Hello, Marshall! To add to your doctrinal...*waving* Hello, Marshall! To add to your doctrinal reference to Barclay, I want to mention Ben Richmond's book <A HREF="http://home.earthlink.net/~benrichmond/writing/signs-toc.htm" REL="nofollow"><EM>Signs of Salvation</EM></A>—which, although it doesn't claim to record a normative Quaker theology (being "a biblical meditation"), in fact lays down a very coherent framework for just that.<BR/><BR/>By the way, hasn't it been just about exactly twenty years since we met?<BR/><BR/>JohanJohan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145210754794558692006-04-16T11:05:00.000-07:002006-04-16T11:05:00.000-07:00Some of the threads of this exchange remind me of ...Some of the threads of this exchange remind me of my earlier post, <A HREF="http://maurers.home.mindspring.com/2005/11/saturday-ps-nancys-questions.htm" REL="nofollow">Nancy's questions</A> (namely, what keeps us from living adventurously and roaring?), a post that was provoked by excellent questions raised in <A HREF="http://nancysapology.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">Nancy's Apology</A> and Robin M's <A HREF="http://robinmsf.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">What Canst Thou Say?</A> and fueled by the movie <EM>A History of Violence</EM> and by Rob Tucker's classic essay, "A Revolutionary Faithfulness."Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145194249529933042006-04-16T06:30:00.000-07:002006-04-16T06:30:00.000-07:00Hello, Johan!I found much that was of value in thi...Hello, Johan!<BR/><BR/>I found much that was of value in this conversation, as I read it.<BR/><BR/>To begin with, there was your wise comment that "risk, voluntarily accepted, has always been a part of discipleship". I could not agree more.<BR/><BR/>Actually, I think I would go a step further, and argue that there is no discipleship without acceptance of the path of the cross; if you are not at risk, then you are still, as George Fox might have put it, just a "professor" of Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Johan, I shared your positive reaction to Rich Accetta-Evans ("Brooklyn Quaker")'s ministry to Pam ("Earthfreak"), the inquirer who wrote, "I guess I just feel like there are so very many religions where you can cleave to christian doctrine, why are you a quaker??" But it's perhaps worth noting that Pam identifies herself as a "nontheist" who "doesn't worship anyone or anything" -- and yet is active in her yearly meeting, which I assume from her address is Northern Yearly Meeting.<BR/><BR/>Rich's response to Pam was as generous as you say, but given what Pam says on her own blog site, rftlight.blogspot.com, I rather doubt that his answer made any profound sense to her. Something more would be needed to convey the profound sense that he, and you, and I, might like to see conveyed to her, and I suspect that that something more can only be conveyed face-to-face, by example and personal modeling of what living discipleship to Christ is like. I don't know whether Pam <I>can</I> find such an example and such a modeling in Northern Yearly Meeting; I don't know Northern that well, but I do know that it is about as liberal and New Age as an unprogrammed yearly meeting can be.<BR/><BR/>Thus, possibly we ought to be giving some thought to the question of whether we are called to do more than just supply gracious responses. I myself have been giving some thought to that question these past few years --<BR/><BR/>Next, Johan, you ask <I>"the question that haunts me: Why would those who can't unite with Christianity insist on staying among Friends?"</I> I would presume this is a rhetorical question, not a real one; you've been around liberal unprogrammed Friends long enough to know the answer. But for those among your readership who don't know the answer, I think something needs to be said here.<BR/><BR/>Let me suggest one part of the answer is that liberal unprogrammed Friends have tried very hard during the past sixty years or so to make anyone who is attracted to their community feel at home there -- with the result that Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists, secular left-wing politicos, etc., have come to feel that they have a home in the liberal unprogrammed community of a sort they cannot hope to find anywhere else. This is all very fine, except that this sort of home-making has not been accompanied by much preaching of the basic Quaker gospel. And thus it's gotten to the point where a lot of these Buddhists, Wiccans, atheists, secular left-wing politicos, etc., have now come to believe that the basic Quaker gospel isn't actually basic, let alone necessary.<BR/><BR/>You then ask what I consider to be your key question: <I>"Is it possible that liberal Friends and "orthodox" Friends are simply two completely different religions with common historical roots, as the advocates of "realignment" asserted fifteen years ago to the near ruination of Friends United Meeting?"</I> You are right, I think, to resist answering that question with an overly-simplistic "yes", but I would suggest that the truth is not at all far from a "yes".<BR/><BR/>To me, the true answer is that liberal Quakerism and the various strands of "orthodox" Quakerism (Conservative, FUM and EFI) are different ways in which a single original religion has degenerated. Because the religion they are degenerated from is the same, they still have much to say to each other and much to rejoice at having in common, as truly <I>different religions</I> would not have. But because they are all degenerate, they all need to be lifted up. None of them has any right to play holier-than-thou. Christ's teaching about the mote in the eye is very applicable here.<BR/><BR/>To Matthew, I would like to suggest that Friends actually have a great deal more doctrine than merely "Christ has come to teach his people himself." Permit me to point out that the subtitle of Robert Barclay's <I>Apology</I> tells us that it is "an Explanation and Vindication of the Principles and *Doctrines* of the People Called Quakers". And the <I>Apology</I> is quite a thick book.<BR/><BR/>Well, it is approaching time for meeting for worship, and my heart is hungry. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to add my two bits to such a fine conversation!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145153145658523852006-04-15T19:05:00.000-07:002006-04-15T19:05:00.000-07:00In the end, the alignment that really matters is w...In the end, the alignment that really matters is with Christ. Whether we're aligned with one or another stripe of Quakers, or with a congregation outside Friends (as I am now), is very much secondary.<BR/><BR/>The realignment controversy back about 15 years ago was badly handled by both sides. The way Steve Main raised it was strange, Southwest's handling of it was rushing something that needed time, what happened in Iowa was really strange, and the manning of the battle stations against it without giving it serious consideration by the center of FUM was disappointing.<BR/><BR/>I was in the thick of it, then serving on the FUM Board and Executive Committee. I started out fiercely opposed. But I felt I needed to understand it, and sought to, attending Southwest Yearly Meeting as part of that. The more I came to understand it, the more sympathetic I became.<BR/><BR/>Realignment has been occurring in various ways. Several dually affiliated monthly meetings found it no longer possible to be so. Large numbers (including me) have realigned themselves outside of the organization of Friends, although still Friends at heart. It hasn't taken a neat organizational form, and isn't likely to any time soon.<BR/><BR/>How Friends are organized, or even if they survive organizationally, isn't really very important. What is important is discipleship.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145082304083669242006-04-14T23:25:00.000-07:002006-04-14T23:25:00.000-07:00Thank you very much Johan. The article by Bill Sam...Thank you very much Johan. The article by Bill Samuel was interesting. Chris and I attended his Meeting for about a year, basically 1994, and I still remember him a little bit. <BR/><BR/>This has been a busy week (month) offline, but this question of how to posit a strong articulation of Quakerism without unnecessarily hurting individuals yet not avoiding the truth so as not to hurt someone's feelings is swirling around my head. I hope it will find a way out as soon as my kids go back to school after Easter. Thank you for your clear and steady voice.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145061529642130742006-04-14T17:38:00.000-07:002006-04-14T17:38:00.000-07:00joe, robin, matthew: thank you for the blessings o...joe, robin, matthew: thank you for the blessings of your thoughtful replies.<BR/><BR/>He is risen indeed!<BR/><BR/>Robin: concerning realignment, <A HREF="http://www.quakerinfo.com/quakalig.shtml" REL="nofollow">this article</A> by Bill Samuel is a good brief summary of the issues.<BR/><BR/>My own view is that the realignment controversy dealt with very important issues and allowed festering tensions to be aired that had long been suppressed by FUM elites. <BR/><BR/>Steve Main was the person who put the issues openly before the board and constituency, but the basic incongruencies of FUM had been discussed in public earlier, as part of the Friends Faith and Life Movement, in Wil Cooper's book <EM>A Living Faith</EM>, and at other times and places. However, Steve placed the issue on the agenda of Friends United Meeting's own governance structures.<BR/><BR/>Those festering tensions included more than theological issues. Those issues to some extent masked cultural conflicts, such as the rural/urban conflict, and the tendency of most of FUM's loyalists to squelch all conflicts of any kind. Given that opaque history, Steve Main's realignment proposal could have led to a very lively and creative discussion, and to some extent it actually did. But too quickly, the process was hijacked. Friends in California Yearly Meeting (soon to be renamed Evangelical Friends Church Southwest) and Iowa Yearly Meeting apparently decided that the time was ripe to pull off a sort of slow motion coup, and push for an actual realignment, yearly meeting by yearly meeting, long before the constituency had had a chance to come up to speed on the issues. The loyalists, as usual, swung into action and enforced the unity-at-all-costs doctrine that had robbed FUM of spiritual integrity for generations.<BR/><BR/>So, essentially, realignment was coopted by the evangelical leaders' cynical tactics (this is my private interpretation!) and the reactionary response of the loyalists. In the meantime, and in the aftermath, FUM as a whole had to cope with the weakening of the constituency's interest in a structure that was more interested in infighting than in evangelism and social justice and providing access to our beloved community to newcomers.<BR/><BR/>I watched most of these developments from the side, being a member in an FUM yearly meeting but serving as a Midwest field staffer for Friends World Committee for Consultation, which organizationally did not have a position on realignment. However, when Steve Main resigned, I felt a strong leading to apply for the FUM position, believing that the highest priority for FUM was to restore trust within its community. For that reason, I did not seek to keep the realignment debate going, but to begin to enlarge the pool of shared understandings and vocabularies so that the actual arguments behind realigment could be aired more broadly and humanely, based on a prior commitment to everyone's well-being.<BR/><BR/>Two positive outcomes of the realignment controversy included a basic restatement of FUM's identity as the "orthodox" branch of Friends—biblically based, Christ-centered, and governed by classic Quaker process—and a purpose statement that made equipping for evangelism FUM's highest programmatic priority, which was exactly right.<BR/><BR/>Among the ways we tried to incarnate these intentions during my time at FUM were: (1) We reoriented the magazine <EM>Quaker Life</EM> to be the voice of FUM organizationally, rather than a journal of spirituality that happened to be sponsored by FUM—and at the same time, using the news pages of the magazine to report honestly on developments in all the branches of Friends, including the bad news, and including FUM's own stumbles. (2) We used FUM's reawakened orthodox identity honestly. If someone was truly committed to Christian Quakerism and FUM's policies, we didn't have another hidden screen to keep them out, such as being unprogrammed, or from a "liberal" yearly meeting. It was a great joy to me that at one point, our Ramallah Friends Schools team had Friends from Iowa, Philadelphia, and Northwest YMs serving together.<BR/><BR/>JohanJohan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145051699660972372006-04-14T14:54:00.000-07:002006-04-14T14:54:00.000-07:00Once during meeting for worship someone spoke abou...Once during meeting for worship someone spoke about their encounter with a Lutheran minister. The minister told this Friend that Quakers weren't actually a religion because we lacked any doctrine. Soon after a weighty Friend stood and said yes indeed we do have doctrine. Simply it is this, "Christ has come to teach his people himself." <BR/><BR/> From my experience on the web I often wonder where "Non-Christian Quakers" are coming from. I mean what do they think we do at meeting? Don't they understand that there is an actual head to our church? We don't have a pastor because Christ himself leads us. To hear them describe quakerism, it sounds like going to the movies with a bunch of folks and staring at a blank screen silently. <BR/><BR/> Our problem in the unprogrammed tradition of course is that we are unprogrammed. Men and women with the gift of spoken ministry can feed their families by sharing Christ through their gift. But not in an unprogrammed setting. The most you'll get from us is to record this person as a minister. So the people best able to explain our faith are by default sent to other christian denominations. <BR/><BR/>Happy Easter<BR/>He is risen indeed!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-1145035007374372532006-04-14T10:16:00.000-07:002006-04-14T10:16:00.000-07:00Oh dear, add this to the list of powerful posts to...Oh dear, add this to the list of powerful posts to which I will submit a hurried and inadequate comment. <BR/><BR/>I think there is in fact need for both of these questions- there are so many other ways of being Christian and non-christian - why ARE we Quakers? <BR/><BR/>I also like the line: <I>Better to disrupt categories than get in the way of the Spirit</I>. And that whole paragraph.<BR/><BR/>Johan, is there an available description of the "realignment" process that you could recommend? Online or in print? I have heard this phrase before, but I really don't know what happened.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.com