Quaker distinctives

Once upon a time, Quakers were a people who were easily identified by those who were not Quakers. This fact predates the era of Church prescribed clothing and the hat brim police (Mine is three and three quarters inches). Early Friends were identifiable by their insistence the leveling of unequal relationships, such as the eliminating of status markers like bowing and scraping, or the use of "you" in place of "thee" or "thou" when speaking with individuals of greater (or lesser) social status. Quakers were kicked out of the New Model Army for refusing to abide by military hierarchy and protocol, and did not insist upon receiving reverential treatment from servants or other common folk. They refused to address political or religious authorities by using commonly accepted titles. Early Friends never called anyone sir.

Other distinctives, such as the eschewing of elaborate clothing, jewelry, and furniture in favor of plainness was an early marker of Friends' faith. there is one episode of mass convincement remembered where hundreds of new Quakers burned their ribbons and other finery on the spot. There are a few other distinctives that were particular to Quakerism.

One that I have identified is that early Friends were very public in their faith. Not only did Friends insist on worshipping publicly despite persecutions and laws directed specifically against such meetings, but they insisted on publishing Truth, and using metaphor for spreading the gospel. Going naked as a sign, interrupting church services, and walking through towns and calling them to repentance were all meant as signs that the kingdom of God was being realized, and the Friends were ushering it in. Friends were constantly gathering petitions and speaking before authorities in their attempts to change public policy on everything from prison conditions and tithing laws to freedom of conscience and religious tolerance issues.

Another particular of early Quakerism is voluntary sacrifice, which is most often coupled with an insistence upon public witness. Quakers insisted on public displays of faith, and as such, suffered imprisonment, loss of property, and public beatings for refusing to be silenced (no pun intended) concerning the Word of God. Many Friends were people of economic means, and they sacrificed when they gave up certain luxuries or finery in pursuit of faithful simplicity. Quaker business people often suffered for using set prices and refusing to sell worldly goods (such as ribbons and jewelry!).

Of course, Social justice was an inherent aspect of the Quaker refusal to pay tithes, or to recognize an established Church, or to engage in socially abhorrent markers of class distinction. Friends commitment to equality in the ministry and between marriage partners was significant for women in the 17th century, and did not happen without inner struggle on the part of many. Still, Social justice, and especially care for the poor, was a particularity of early Quakerism that significantly impacted the rest of society.

Finally, as William Penn (among others) commented, the Friends were a distinctive people due to their commitment to love their neighbors and their enemies, and to pray for those who persecuted them. After 1660, nearly all Friends were commit ed to a pacifist expression of their faith, and the commitment to non-violence became the most identifiable aspect of Quakerism. I certainly believe that Quakers are still primarily a people of peace, despite some among us who question such a commitment.

What are our Quaker distinctives today. How do folks know that we are, a people of peace, and a people of justice. Are we a sect who continues to voluntarily sacrifice in order to see justice done, or have we settled into the mainstream methods of comfortably critiquing injustice while avoiding the suffering that often comes along with moral striving. Are we public, as the Religious Society of Friends, in our witness to peace and justice in a manner that stakes a claim in the truth of a God that desires peace and justice for creation.

I think that individual Quakers are meeting all of these suggested criteria in a variety of ways. The question that remains is, are we doing so as a people dedicated to such in a manner that identifies us as primarily committed to such distinctives as a corporate expression of faith. Are we Quakers committed to peace making in the manner of Friends,, or are we individual participants in a liberal democracy that is primarily committed to wholly other ends, and most certainly, wholly other means. I would hope that our faith is not rested in the individual's expression of justice, and I exhort all not to place their faith in the nation state. I pray that we will once again be a distinctive people committed to God and living lives of faithfulness, despite the rejection that may bring from mainstream religion, enlightenment idealists, or social scientists who have rejected corporate faith as a means of offering the world an alternative to the brokenness of the world.

A few thoughts on the 17th century

I'm certainly no historian, and I am well aware of the dangers of trying to draw conclusions from a few weeks of research on any topic, but something has struck me about early Quakerism and continuity. Many of you probably understand this, but it is simply amazing to me that the Society of Friends still exists. Not because of any recent problems in our denomination (though I've had plenty to say about that), but because of the odds of any religious sect of the mid 17th century struggling through the treacherous political and religious environment of the English Civil War and restoration.

The more I learn about the peculiarities of early Friends, the more it seems that those earliest pioneers were not so unique. Many of the peculiarities that we cite today as uniquely Quakerly, such as women ministers, refusal to tithe, simplicity or plainness in speech and dress, and the prioritizing of social justice issues, were common to various sects throughout 17th century England. In fact, the critique of ceremony, rites, and outwardly lavish worship services, and a professional clerical class were founded in the work of Wycliffe in the 14th Century. Some of the seemingly peculiar Quaker tenets were simply common to a variety of radical, and not so radical English religious and political movements.

Yet, with the exception of more mainstream expressions of Protestantism like Presbyterianism, which was well established in Scotland and on the Continent, and Puritanism, which had a great military leader and had its roots in the Tyndale/Lollard movement inspired by Wycliffes's work, only the Religious Society of Friends and Baptists made it through the toughest times of this radical era.

Persecution, infighting, (and in the case of the Levellers and outright extermination) and apocalyptic burnout were the demise of movements like the Seekers, the Family of Love, and the Fifth Monarchists. But Quakers and Baptists made it through, and I think there might be two reasons, though academically trained Friends' Historians might disagree.

For one, the Baptists and Quakers organized and developed structure. As much as I have railed against the work of modern Yearly Meetings in the past, I remain convinced that the support and discipline of the organized ecclesiastical structure of early Friends pushed them through to the point of taking advantage of their extraordinary growth during more apocalyptic inclined times. Friends had staying power because, at some point, they invested in a future and stability instead of maintaining apocalyptic theology as their source of fuel.

Secondly, Friends insisted on worshipping publicly, even when it was illegal, and dangerous, and there was the threat of violence. We have all heard the stories of the meeting that was kept alive by the children of imprisoned Friends during the worst times of persecution. Friends worshipped publicly, because they sought to prove that they were not among those who sought to overthrow the existing order, per say, but to be numbered among the righteous, who could do nothing else than to practice their conscience driven theology publicly as a witness to the desire of God. Friends insistence on worshipping in public despite persecution was a source of much support, not only from sympathisers, but from opponents as well.

What does this mean for contemporary Friends? I suppose that we might take a look at our public witness, what we say to the world as Friends, and declare ourselves committed not only to the idea of peace, but to publicly providing examples of what our vision of peace in a broken world looks like. I think we might also look to our Yearly Meetings to be more active in the maintaining the spiritual health Monthly Meeting, and commit to forging new commitments to statements of unity or commonality that we might use to make our witness more visible.

In the end, it all has to be Spirit driven, and I pray that we all receive a healthy dose of the Spirit.

Why I Love my Friends

I should provide everyone with some background concerning my journey along the Friendly path. It's really quite amazing that I bring such a heaping helping of Christocentricity to the FGC potluck. When I first came to the Grand Rapids Friends Meeting, I made it very clear to everyone that I was a non-believer. This was quite acceptable to all of those great folks that I latched onto early on in my experience. As most of you who read this blog can tell, I am not your typical reserved, or "seasoned," Friendly presence. My seminary peers will tell you in no uncertain terms that I am conversationally challenged when engaged in certain subject matter. (But I do try to listen.)

Anyway, It was only due to the great patience shown by GR Friends (especially during Meeting for Business or during committee meetings), that I ever enjoyed the opportunity to mature - not so much as a Quaker - as a person. My spiritual journey, and my relationship with YHWH, would have never left the starting point if not for the nurture of some very open-minded and tolerant folks. I am joyfully indebted to those seasoned "elders" of the GR Friends Meeting who walked with me as I recovered from alcohol abuse and mental illness and received a faith that has brought with it new possibilities.

It is not my suggestion that Friends look to abort such faith experiences such as mine by declaring ourselves so Christ-centered so as to limit faith commitments to Quakerism. Yet, I am suggesting that Friends retain our historical identity as a Christian community, and that we publicly state as much in our faith and practice. I do not see how such a commitment would drive others away, or make experiences like mine an impossibility. I would think that it is easier for people to build stronger spiritual ties with a faith that retains an consistent message, than one who is losing its common language.

In the end, It might be simpler to say that I have some ideas about the future of Quakerism as a whole, because ESR is an international group of students that have an interest, not only in the future of Friends, but in theology and faith in general. These are probably not the discussions that my meeting at home are particularly interested in engaging in. I think they are more vested in peacemaking, community building, and faith exploration between friends. And in the end, that is where I want to be.

lions, tigers, and nontheist quakers -Oh My!

As you can tell, it is a very slow day at work. While taking a break from reading work-related literature, I found myself staring at various items concerning the idea of "Convergent Friends." Indeed, the blog of my fellow GR Friends member Kim states that she is a convergent Friend. Since I am sojourning at Earlham School of Religion, I have not been dutiful in keeping up with Kim's theology, and I can't quite get a grasp yet what convergent friends represent. Through some research, however, I came across a "mythbusters" page and two of the things that caught my eye were 1) the idea that liberal, conservative and evangelical Friends could reach unity, and 2) the accusation that non-theist Friends were somehow unwelcome in convergent Friends circles.

Now, I want to make it perfectly clear, again, that I know nothing about the Convergent Friends "movement," and that the opinions expressed in this blog are not in anyway a comment on any such movement. I was simply intrigued by the two thoughts mentioned above.

As for non-theist Friends, and we were just talking about this a few weeks ago at ESR, I simply don't know why they would call themselves Quakers. Of course, it seems that anyone these days can apply the Friends label to themselves, and indeed, claim faithfulness to the ongoing Quaker narrative that began in the 1640's. Yet, I somehow don't see how non-theism and Quakerism can be appropriately aligned withing the context of a "Religious Society."

Does this mean that non-theists should be rooted out and burned at the stake? No, though the idea of persecution might provide a focus for Quakers to unify around. I do think, however, that it is important that Friends resist the continuing trend toward accommodating non-theist and pluralist or sychronist views by altering the language of our faith to reflect such attitudes among worshippers. I firmly believe that if we lose sight of our Christ-centeredness, our firm rootedness in the early Friends belief in the saving work of God through Jesus Christ, then we will lose our identity as Quakers as well. Without the language of Jesus Christ, as expressed by early Friends, we will become a people without a history.

This denial of history, the denial of responsibility for, or the our benefit from, our past as a people, is troubling. We do as much, especially by erasing from the Christ language of early Friends while retaining other peculiarities that we find more comfortable, such as waiting worship. A denial of Christ-centerdness is a denial of our family, and while we can certainly change our supposed destiny, we should never distance ourselves from roots.

An example of such distancing is found in the modern way in which many European-Americans deny any complicity with the institution of slavery. "I never owned any slaves" is the popular modern refrain. The fact is, however, that many white folks continue to benefit from years of the suppression of economic and social opportunities for a people who built much of this nation without proper compensation. To deny our complicity in fact is a denial of responsibility to redeem and reconcile relationships that were expressions of racial dominance and injustice.

Many Friends come to Quakerism as "refugees" from Christianity, and I can understand that many have been hurt by the tradition. I also understand that Christianity is responsible for underwriting unjust and oppressive relationships throughout history. Both early and contemporary Friends try to address such issues. But if we lose our history in the process of reconciliation, we forget all of the harm of the past. The past cannot be rejected in favor of something more palatable for the future. If we forget our role as the oppressor, we are doomed to allow it to happen again.

George Fox and his cronies saw real problems in the Christian Church, and sought to correct them. They did not, however, throw out the narrative that gave them their identity. they worked within the narrative to offer an alternative to the apostasy that had overrun established religion. They new who they were, and they operated within the framework of an ongoing identity that gave them an accountability to the tradition.

Oh my goodness, I'm rambling, What in the world does all of this have to do with non-theist Friends. Paul Buckley stated in class that it is one thing to accept a fish out of water. but if that fish is smart, he or she will flood the environment for its own benefit, at a great cost to those who cannot otherwise thrive.

Another day in the life

The situation my 15 year-old son has gotten himself into should inspire plenty of confused journaling, if not a superb plot for popular teen literature. Imagine this. Mom is cleaning the room of her guitar playing son, and finds much evidence that guitar playing son is journeying down a wayward path. A path that goes beyond simply taking the guitar away for the weekend. So, this concerned mother calls the father of the young man cited above and suggests that maybe a summer spent on the farm might be a good idea. So - we have an inner-city Detroit youth who enjoys rule-breaking, being sent to an Ohio farm to straighten himself up and redeem himself. But wait, there is plenty more...

No only is this youngster being sent to an Ohio farm, but his father and step-family are plain Quakers. No TV, no video games, no stereo, and no Internet in the home. Better yet, the house that he will be moving to is only 1000 square feet. The inner-city youth will have to keep his belongings, including his guitar and amp, out in the shed adjacent to the house. I have already envisioned this self-described anarchist sitting outdoors with his electric guitar playing before and audience of our 40 chickens. I think all involved will be amused, except perhaps the lad from Detroit. Did I mention no game-boys?

Anyway, this is all in the planning stage, but I am hoping that all the plans that are falling into place will be set into motion. I am looking forward to one terrific summer.

Plainness, its not just for librarians anymore

Right from the start, I'll have to apologize to Kim, and Mary, and Betty, and oh so many others. Quakerism is full of Librarians, and they are damn good ones as well! But for the life of me, I can't think of anything more stereotypically plain that the stereotype of the common librarian, or libronus plainiatis? Anyway, there is a point to all of this.

Most Quakers don't wear plain clothes anymore. Plain clothes are decidedly an anomaly amongst the Society. There are many Friends who "dress down" and wear only clothing from resale shops, or go the jeans and sweatshirt route, and feel they are fulfilling the "spirit" of the early Friends insistence on wearing prescribed clothing. That may or may not be true, but it's not the issue of plainness that I want to discuss.

Plainness was an expression, not of Quaker insistence of looking alike so that they could keep people in line (though it might have turned into such an endeavor later). It was an expression of self-denial that reflected the knowledge that Jesus' call to bear one's cross necessarily included the tearing away of those luxuries that could get in the way of discipleship. Quakers practiced self-denial because, like waiting worship, it stripped away the will to be who we aim to be, and not who the living God wants us to be. Waiting worship is self-denial in the sense that we deny ourselves all those comforting rituals and aesthetically pleasing religious practices in favor of a more formidable experience of the Creator. An experience where all the trappings that keep us entertained are stripped away, and whatever it is that we experience is undoubtedly the invitation of the Spirit to know and understand the message that God intends for us to hear.

God's presence is not invoked through the singing of praises or the reciting of creeds. God's presence is constant, and once we deny ourselves of the comfort of religious clutter, we can wait on that ever-present spirit to shape us in the image of the Creator, and not vice-verse. But, you might ask, what does this have to do with clothing?

There are plenty of great reasons why Quakers should dress plain, but I will only focus on the aspect of self-denial. When we practice such self-denial as the wearing of plain clothes entails, we can begin what to learn what it means to be an outcast because we don't wear power ties or bell-bottoms. In fact, once we rid ourselves of adornments, we might know what it is really like to be pre-judged or discriminated against based on first glances. Or, we might finally know what it means to be committed to a public statement, not only against sweatshops and frivolity, but against the machinations of an industry that engage in the manipulation of people's self-image and self-worth, their sexuality (especially), and desire for an expression of an individuality that has left them unable to communicate outside of the fact that they dress in a manner that publishes their lack of self-worth, their acceptance of the degradation of their sexuality, and their willingness to be consumers first and foremost.

And as for the "plain" librarians. Well, the librarians I know are not plain at all. While they certainly don't wear flashy clothing, that is not my point. My point is that they are all obvious expressions of God's lovingkindness for the world, and they are some of the most incredible people to talk with, and to worship with, and to walk through life with. All it took was to develop a relationship that was not based upon uncertain projections of who they would like me to think they are, but who they really turned out to be. Plain clothes are not necessarily a projection of who we are, but who we refuse to be. The affirmative aspect of plain clothing, however, is more edifying. We empty ourselves of insecurities brought on by social standards, and fill ourselves with the identity that will reflect who God wants us to be.

The Plain Quaker is Back!

Hello all, I am back on the blog scene and hoping to keep up with it through the summer, as I have started a new job and might be able to find 15 minutes a day to let the world know what the difference between right and wrong is! Yes, I am quite aware that this statement is not very reflective of Quaker admonishments against claiming any real truth outside of the idea that peace is nice, and Buddha is an appropriately Quakeresque path to a god. I am deeply sorry to offend any Friendly sensibilities by saying such things, but indeed, It makes me feel better to rant and rave about the many things I can do nothing about.

Incredibly, I succeeded at passing my Basic Greek II course with Susan Jeffers. Susan is a great person, and a more that competent ESR/Bethany/Quaker instructor. The next time I have the opportunity to be a student under her tutelage, however, it will be in a traditional classroom setting. I will never take another e-course again. I have neither the discipline nor the temper for such an endeavor. Susan will be happy to know, however, that I am continuing to work on my Greek skills by translating the Sermon on the Mount during my evening free-time. I must say, however, that my skills are still lacking at this point.

Anyhow, I hope to keep up to date on things, and I hope everyone who once read the content of this trash will return as faithful supporters. Blessings, Scot

Super Bowl iconoclasm

So, it's that time of year when all eyes are focused upon the NFL prize, and all true blooded Americans, as well as a multitude of cosmopolitan Midwesterners, will anxiously await to have their regional loyalties and marginal gambling allegiances vindicated by the ultimate victory. Indeed, somewhere in the middle of an Indiana or Illinois cornfield, it will smell like napalm on Monday morning.
As a marginal sports enthusiast (and a dedicated U of Mich. football fan) I can understand the excitement of this culmination of athletics and consumerism as an experience that every pop culture adherent must participate in. Yet as someone whose loyalties are bound up by an ancient regionalism that commands allegiance to the Lions, I am uniquely qualified to pooh-pooh this weekends event as nothing more than an idolatrous festival to capitalism and consumerism run amok.
I have vowed not to participate in the Super Bowl festivities for the past four years, only to be co-opted by the fact that I have worked along side of marginalized Americans who feed into the holiday-like atmosphere of Super Bowl Sunday. I have found that homeless folks and institutionalized teens somehow feel as if they had some stake in all of the pageantry, as the tributes to multi-millionaire players and multi-national corporations flicker across the wide screen televisions that are fully glorified by the spectacle.
The odd thing is, that the Super Bowl parties I participated in over the first three years of this stretch were all sponsored by churches or para-church organizations. Of course, these parties included prayer time and spiritual sharing amidst the partially exposed breasts and geriatric entertainers of the half-time extravaganzas. While it seems fairly obvious to me that followers of Jesus might do well to steer clear of the mammon worshipped during Super Sunday, it appears that I am in the minority (imagine that). Even my fellow Quaker seminarians are invested in the epic struggle between modern day gladiators (or plantation tenants) that, according to some feminist organizations, is also the occasion of the highest incidence of spousal abuse during the year. So come on everyone, put on your blue jerseys, drink lots of Budweiser or Coors light or Absolut and cheer your gambling interest on to victory. And enjoy the commercials. I hear their often better than the half-time shows.