"real" quakers

Maggie Harrison put up a very interesting blog post a few weeks ago and I'm just now getting around to writing my own two cents about it. It's generated quite a conversation among Quaker bloggers! Here's a compilation of a range of excellent responses, posted by Jon Watts.

I have to say that I basically agree with Maggie. None of us really look much like the original Friends culturally, theologically or dogmatically. Part of this has to do with living in different cultures--even British Friends live in a different culture than 17th century England; even those in Pennsylvania live in a culture that's a far cry from life in the colony at its inception. Part of it has to do with a consistent definition of what it means to be "Quaker," and the fact that early Friends didn't want to be able to really define who was "in" and who was "out" of their movement--they were intentionally non-credal, making it difficult to define who is most consistently following their lead.

But I like Maggie's definition of a real Quaker. She says:

Here it is: all real Friends everywhere, throughout our entire history and in every branch, no matter what their theology or worship practices, are committed to one shared thing; GETTING NAKED.

She means this in the metaphorical sense...not in the James Nayler sense! She explains:

The only thing that truly defines Friends as a distinct group and not just a bunch of Unitarians or Christians or a secular social club is that all True Quakers are committed to the process of gettin’ naked as a step in the longer path of being clothed in righteousness, which means a return to right order, or the Gospel Order, or the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Garden or Eden, or total Liberation, or WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT. 

To be fair, “True Quakers” also include those of us who don’t know anything about how to do this but WANT this transformation.

Yes! This is exactly right. This is what Quakers were trying to do before they were ever called "Quakers," before they were ever called "The Religious Society of Friends," before they came together. The people who found their way to this religious movement in its infancy were ones who felt an insatiable desire to be "naked" before God, in a metaphorical sense--to strip away everything that we use to defend ourselves from Truth, because learning the truth is often scary, and living it is even scarier.

In my last post, I talked about Jim Wallis, John Woolman and my own sense of conviction toward "poorer, slower, smaller." I talked about my feeling of failure at really living into my heritage, because living it requires action--scary action. It requires "getting naked," which is complete vulnerability and trust of the Other.

Micah Bales responds to Maggie's post with wise words and queries:

What if we stopped trying to be Quakers? What if, instead, we put our energy into being communities that truly reflect the love, joy and peace of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob [and, I would add, Sarah, Rebekah, Rachel, Leah...]? What if, instead of trying to preserve an heirloom faith, we cast aside everything except our determination to be God's holy, chosen and beloved people, here and now?

This is exactly true. I think Friends are trying to do this, from all branches of our denomination, in the "Convergent Friends" movement. I love having a story of which to be a part, a story reaching back to the Israelites. It helps me understand who God is, who people are in relation to God and each other, and helps me see the way to go...but it also sometimes distracts me. It makes me focus too much on the past. I'm good at reading and researching and learning, but am I willing to "cast aside everything except [my] determination to be God's holy, chosen and beloved [child], here and now?"

I ask for a community to do this with me at the end of my last post, and I think many of the responses to Maggie's post show that there is a community out there, yearning to do these same things. I hope and pray for the power of the Spirit to come on us, as the Spirit came on the biblical prophets, and on the disciples of Jesus at Pentecost, and on the early Friends, and on so many other groups who truly sought after God together. I hope and pray that same Spirit will give us the courage to follow.

"poorer, poorer. slower, slower. smaller, smaller."

I'm feeling convicted by an article by Jim Wallis in a Sojourners email. He uses a quote from Thomas Merton (Catholic contemplative monk), who said:

Be anything you want. Be madmen, drunks, and bastards of every shape and form. But at all costs, avoid one thing: success.

Wallis goes on to talk about starting Sojourners in the 1970s, living in community with 18 people in one row house when his son was born, paying himself and the others starting Sojourners in such a way that they only received $5/month each for personal spending...I don't agree with everything Sojourners/Wallis says, but I'm so grateful for the hard work they've done over the past 40 years to bring social justice into the (positive) vocabulary of many evangelicals and others. Wallis talks about trying to make his aim "poorer, slower, smaller," and to do this by emphasizing prophetic, pastoral and monkish (contemplative) areas of life equally. He admits most of us do one of these better than the other two, and there is usually one that gets forgotten, and for him it's the contemplative one that gets left off. I think this is fairly common for many of us--at least for myself. Wallis says:

Some might say Sojourners is now a "success"....It all boils down to this: Poorer, slower, smaller may be necessary for the inner journey, but it is not a very good business plan.

This makes me think of John Woolman (1720-1772). Woolman had a successful store and it kept on getting more successful because of his hard work and his integrity. He came to a crossroads: he could continue "biggering" his store (to borrow a term from the Onceler in Dr. Seuss's The Lorax), working harder, adding employees, building, expanding--or he could quit and start being a traveling minister, speaking out against the slave trade. I'm sure the former sounded very tempting. After all, God had "blessed" him with a successful business, right? God had made him prosperous, and with his wealth he could do good things, right? He could buy only things that were not made with slave labor for his store and in that way he'd be supporting antislavery, right?

I don't know--maybe God calls some of us to do that kind of thing. Maybe some of us are called to be "successful." There were many Friends, especially in Woolman's time, who felt like they could be the best lights for God's kingdom by being successful merchants, store owners, etc., and giving philanthropically in a monetary way as well as volunteering their time for various causes. And maybe they were right. Maybe that's exactly where God wanted them to be.

But John Woolman felt called to give it up. He, too, lived by the motto, "Poorer, poorer. Slower, slower. Smaller, smaller." It takes a great deal of humility to live this way. In fact, he felt like a failure when he died. He felt like no one had listened to his message. He had no idea that 240 years later his spiritual descendants would be reading his journal and aspiring to be like him. He was faithful, and didn't let success distract him from his calling.

I personally have a very difficult time knowing how to do this well in my own life. I want to be "responsible," to make it on my own financially, to not be a burden on those around me, especially if I don't save enough for when I'm too old to make my own living. I also want to enjoy life right now, while I'm young! I don't think these are bad desires to have.

At the same time, I want to trust God to lead me, and that God will work out the financial details. But that feels irresponsible and scary because of our culture's emphasis on self-reliance, independence, security, success as the measure of self-worth.

I guess the way to overcome this is probably, as Jim Wallis reminds me, to spend more time on that third aspect: I'm pretty good at the prophetic, OK at the pastoral...but I often don't make the time for contemplation, on my own and in community. I know in my head that this would release me from fear and give me a clearer sense of direction, but somehow it's still so hard to force myself to do!

Also, I feel like as Friends of all stripes we talk a lot about this area being our strong point, but we don't actually do it very well very often. We spend time in silence together, but often it's just a "nice" space, a place where everyone has a voice, a place where we can go and relax in God's presence or connect with our Inner Light. These are all good things, but that's not the original point of meeting in silence! The point is to hear what God is calling us to do, and to struggle together with how we are going to be faithful to that as a community.

How do we create that kind of contemplative space in our worship settings again?

It often feels to me like our worship times are impotent. We come together and have a nice time. We learn and grow, perhaps; we build community. But WHY? Why not just build community with some other group in our lives? If worship doesn't lead to action, what's it for? Is it really worship? I've heard people say they don't want to always have a prophetic challenge when they come to worship each week; they want affirmation and encouragement to go back into the trenches with. But to me, affirmation and encouragement isn't enough, because we're not really IN the trenches. Most Friends in the United States are middle class or upper middle class. Being affirmed and encouraged to continue the status quo isn't enough. We feel the need for affirmation and encouragement because we have this gnawing sense that the way we're living isn't right. We're seeking after success as a community and as individuals within the community (myself included). We're forgetting that God calls us to be "poorer, slower, smaller," and that it is through God's timing and God's miraculous power that our small, poor loaves and fishes allow space for a sudden in-breaking of God into the world, a sudden explosion of whatever it is that people need in order to be truly nourished. This doesn't generally happen through our own attempts at success. We may look successful--we may be able to build a mega-church--but it won't bring about the power of God in the world.

So maybe I can form my life around "poorer, slower, smaller," but I also need all of you. Perhaps I could be something like John Woolman and just do this on my own, but I don't know if I have enough courage and patience for that! I need a community. How can we truly listen together to hear how God would have us work in the world in our generation?

"testimonies" or "distinctives"?

Here in Northwest Yearly Meeting you'll sometimes hear people describe the Friends' peculiar stances on things as "distinctives." I thought this was normal until I was speaking to Friends in Boston and someone told me they knew to which branch of Friends I belonged because I referred to the Friends testimonies as "distinctives."

In meeting for worship the other day, Paul Anderson spoke about the testimony of equality, and said something really helpful regarding the meaning of "testimonies" and "distinctives." (You can find that message on our meeting's podcast here.) He said that the testimonies are all Christian testimonies--meaning they are found in the Bible (although one can practice them without being "Christian").  Testimonies are for all time. They are things that are a good idea for all people, everywhere. These are things like equality of all people, living peaceably and doing intentional reconciliation work as needed, fostering community, etc.

"Distinctives," on the other hand, are the particular way we each (or each generation) feel led to live these things out. So where the testimony of good stewardship, for example, might be a good idea for all times and all people, the "distinctive" of Friends today might be aimed toward stewardship of the environment, because that is the area with which our particular time and place struggles. Likewise, the testimony of equality is important for everyone, but during the nineteenth century in the United States, Friends lived this out distinctly by advocating for abolition of slavery and the right of women to vote, among other things. I really liked this way of defining these two terms and I thought it was helpful, so I thought I'd pass it along.

kids & screens

The other day, my two sons (one is 5 years old and the other is 14 months) and my niece (also 5 years old) were arguing over who got to play with the two dead phones we have lying around the house to be used as toys. (We also have two actual toy phones, but those aren't as exciting as the "real" ones!) Everyone wanted the old flip phone, but I handed an old cordless wall phone to my niece while she was waiting for her turn with the flip phone. She said, "No, I don't want that one--it doesn't have a screen." (The picture at right is of a teething ring you can put your iPhone into so your baby can be entertained and soothed with an iPhone app. Yikes!)

This tells me something about myself, for sure, and my parenting/aunt-ing, but it also makes me wonder about how we help kids to engage with life in ways other than through screens. It's probably important for kids to be computer-literate--that will certainly be important (barring some sort of apocalyptic-style event that wipes out all technology) in future school and jobs. But I think beyond that it's important kids can function without a screen--that they can play creatively, learn to self-soothe and be able to be still.

A friend of mine who is also a Friend and a psychiatrist, Doreen Dodgen Magee, has done a lot of research on the topic of kids and technology. She emphasizes the importance of allowing kids to be bored sometimes. This develops creativity, self-control and awareness of self and self-in-relationship. I think this is so important! (Doreen is an excellent speaker, by the way--she gives talks to parents and professionals on kids and technology, as well as parenting in general.)

At this point we limit our 5-year-old's screen time to half an hour on most days (unless it's a special occasion of some sort or we let him watch a full-length movie or something). This includes video/computer games, games on phones, his V-Reader, anything on the computer, and of course TV and movies. This is a definite challenge already! I'm not sure we should even let him have half an hour per day, but it's hard when he sees us using screens all the time. The problem is, his brain is still developing, and we want it to develop well.

Doreen talked about a study that's been done on 3- to 5-year-olds since the 1960s where they are given a marshmallow, and the adult says, "I'm going to leave for a couple minutes. When I come back, if you haven't eaten the marshmallow, I'll give you another one." In the '60s, about 90% of the kids would wait and get two marshmallows. Today it's less than 5%. Another study found that kids in the '60s could stand still when told for about 3 minutes; today kids average zero seconds. ZERO SECONDS! They do not know how to stand still. These show how little self-control kids are being taught, and how few of them even begin to understand the concept of delayed gratification. (Here's an article from NPR on this study, although it's a few years old.)

I'll brag on my own kid for a minute: at Christmas we gave him some various kinds of candy and gum in his stocking, and said he could keep it and decide when he wanted to eat it. (Previously we've always had control of the candy, putting it on top of the fridge and doling it out when there's a particular reason to celebrate.) He still has some of the candy and gum left! And it wasn't like we gave him copious amounts of it. So I guess he knows a little bit about self-control and delayed gratification.

Something convicting to me is that I have to be willing to be bored sometimes myself--or, if not exactly bored, to be fine with "doing nothing," which really isn't boring once you get into it. I have to have self-control and exercise delayed gratification. I have to be willing to not always be entertained; I have to be willing to be creative and find things to do that don't require screens. (Currently I'm being creative on a screen, so I'm not sure exactly where that falls.) Part of this, as a Friend, comes through being still: learning to take space to just be, and to intentionally commune with God without the distraction of a screen. Sure, God can and does speak to us through screens, but I'm suspicious that we'll be more aware of how God is working if we spend some of our lives without focusing on a screen.

Doreen told me about a study done at Stanford on meditation, as well as some really helpful work done at UCLA. (Here's a website about the Stanford study, and here's a download of the findings. UCLA's Mindfulness Awareness Research Center website has some excellent information, research and even classes you can take online about "mindfulness." There are tools you can use in doing "mindfulness" or meditation practices. There is research on using "mindfulness awareness" with kids with ADHD, and other research on kids and mindfulness.) The Stanford study found that doing meditation 10 minutes/day (or 3x/day for 3 minutes) significantly increases one's ability to be compassionate. So maybe if we can all tear ourselves away from our screens for just 10 minutes a day, and teach our kids to do the same, the world will be a better place.

"rhythms of the inner life" now an e-book!

Rhythms of the Inner Life is a great book by f/Friend Howard Macy. It's been available on paper for a while, but it just came out as an e-book! Check it out, it's only $3.99, and well worth it.


Howard explores the Psalms as a way of helping us understand the rhythms of our own inner lives, focusing on seven ways we connect with God, as witnessed in the Psalms: longing, waiting, trembling, despairing, resting, conversing and celebrating.


Although this book wasn't written just for Quakers, it speaks with Quaker sensibility, inviting us to meditate on the ways we interact with God, and encouraging us to not just think about it but to actually do it. There are also some group (or individual) study questions, so you could use it with a small group or a worship group. The study guide has suggested readings from the Psalms and the New Testament, suggested hymns based on the Psalms and questions for discussion or personal pondering.

how do we vote with integrity?

We just finished a special election here in Oregon to replace a congressperson with less-than-stellar integrity (although he wasn't a bad politician, really). I heard a sort of debate between the two main-party candidates on NPR before the election, and I came to the conclusion that neither of them was really a candidate that represented me, although one was worse than the other. When I looked in the voting pamphlet to see if there were any good third-party candidates, there weren't. (There were other candidates but they weren't good options.)

Since it's an election year, this problem is bound to come up again, and it's something I think about a lot. What do we do, as Friends, when either a) there aren't any good candidates, or b) the good candidates have no chance of winning, and if we vote for them, the worse candidates are likely to get elected instead of the not-quite-as-bad?

In this case, I voted for the not-quite-as-bad. I'm not excited about that candidate's qualities, but I would much rather have that person win than the other one. Is this giving in to evil in some way, or is this just being human? There's never going to be a perfect candidate, right? (Unless I run for office, of course--in which case I would agree with all of my own policies and therefore I would be perfect...I've thought about running for president in 2016 because it's the first election year I'll be old enough to be president, so if you need a write-in option, remember, Cherice 2016!)

So, I'm kind of resigned to the fact that there's never really going to be a perfect option, because anyone who actually makes it anywhere in politics is too rich and has probably compromised their integrity too many times to be trustworthy. This is rather cynical, I'll admit--but I don't think that makes it untrue, unfortunately. But if there's a candidate that's half-way decent, like Dennis Kucinich, although I'm sure he's not perfect, should we vote for him, as Friends, since he's anti-war, even though we know he'll never win? Do we vote symbolically, hoping our votes will make a difference someday? Or does that just make the current situation worse, because then the absolutely worst candidates end up winning because a vote for the "good" guys is split up?

How do others of you vote with integrity?

published!

So...Peace Month 2012 is over! Now I have to start writing my own blog entries again. =)

I thought I'd start by referring you to a new article that came out in January in the journal Quaker Religious Thought. My article is called "Romans 12:17-13:10 & Quakers' Relationship to the State." It's a brief version of my master's thesis work on this subject. Unfortunately there is no online version of this journal, but hopefully your meeting subscribes to it and it's available in your meetinghouse library! You could also probably find it by going to the library of a Christian university or seminary in your area.

The QRT is a great journal with interesting and well-written pieces every time. You can subscribe to it by writing to the Religious Studies Department at George Fox University ($16/year).