|
Friends United
Meeting |
 |
November/December 2009
Controversy Runs Deep
By David L. Johns
Quakers thrive on controversy and internal conflict; without them the movement ceases to exist. From its beginning to the present day, it has been so invested in over-againstness that it cannot permit resolution to occur. In some cases Friends argue theological issues are no longer problematic because to stop would require redefining themselves. Without such conflict Quakerism does not know who it is. Without such conflict the Religious Society of Friends is lost.
Controversy does not necessarily lead to division and fragmentation, although within Quakerism many controversies have gouged deeply and permanently scarred the terrain. Some controversies are minor, even trivial. Occasionally these have provided moments for expressing love, deep listening and careful discernment. However, often they reveal that Quakers have more patience with conflict, dissent and disagreement among non-Quakers than within their own numbers. They so deeply divide Quakers that unity is impossible.
It is not popular to say this. There are pockets of hope and great examples of the Spirit’s movement within the Religious Society of Friends. This is certainly true. But it will continue to be a challenge for Friends to build an identity that avoids spiritual arrogance and contrariness, and that encourages “what canst thou say,” rather than “what canst thou NOT say.”
That controversy exists is a fact of social life. There is no shame in this. On the other hand, how and if a group works with this controversy is what determines its health and vitality.
Identity
Is Quakerism Christian? Does the claim to be a Friend entail by definition that one confesses Jesus Christ? Some Friends suggest that Quakerism is historically Christian, but not essentially so. In other words, early Friends used the concepts at hand in their own culture to express a spiritual reality beyond any religious group. Others say that Penn’s vision of primitive Christianity revived is precisely what Quakerism is in its essence. The Light is Christ and the presence in the midst is none other than the resurrected Jesus of Nazareth.
Thus, for one group there is no contradiction with hyphenating its identity: Buddhist-Quaker, Hindu-Quaker, Atheist-Quaker. For the others, this practice makes no sense and is a rejection of the heart of Quaker faith. To ignore this controversy or diminish its importance will assure that Quakerism remains a deeply divided movement.
Related to this is the question of whether Quakerism is a religious movement or a social philosophy. Many are attracted to Quaker social testimonies such as peacemaking and equality, but don’t regard these as necessarily religious convictions.
To avoid being associated with these controversies is one reason some do not wish to use the term “Quaker.” They are deeply concerned about the negative impact such association will make on their work in other countries. It seems the practice of western elitists in secularizing societies to parse words in such a fashion, they claim. How can hyphenated Quakerism be presented as anything other than a religious game to persons in other cultures?
Also within the category of identity is the perennial controversy between convinced and birthright Quakerism. This does not have a parallel in most religious groups. Roman Catholics occasionally use the term “cradle Catholic” to refer to one Catholic since birth, but it is generally used to denote familiar complacency, not something positive.
Yet “birthright” indicates something significant in the minds of those who claim it. It is either a proud family inheritance or a status that establishes Quaker credibility. Convinced Friends will say that all Quakers — including birthright — need to be convinced, that is, to be persuaded by it and then claim it as their own. To claim a birthright status is little more than squatter’s rights, staking a claim based upon longevity.
Authority
Quakerism was born with an authority problem. The deeply liberating insight of immediate revelation opened Quakerism to the surprising movement of the Holy Spirit. This can occur within the recognized channels of authority: Scripture, church leadership, physical sacraments and so forth; however, this insight has led Quakers to affirm that the Spirit is neither limited to nor is obligated to occur through those channels.
How much weight is to be given to the Bible? Does the Spirit speak with more urgency and clarity to leaders than to others? And what about experience? Does personal experience carry more weight than the gathered community or of the Scriptures? How is experience to be interpreted and appropriated and can it ever be mistaken or misleading? Do yearly meetings have any legitimate oversight of member monthly meetings (and who owns the property) and is Faith and Practice a prescriptive document for Friends or simply a representative document? How does one explain why two yearly meetings can reach different conclusions on an issue when both followed Quaker process and listened to the Spirit? Are the results of Quaker process less important than following the process itself? If so, are Quakers less interested in truthfulness than in bureaucracy?
Does anyone speak for anyone else in Quakerism, or is the community a loose affiliation of individuals? Are there any organizations that can offer an official Friends’ position on social issues or theological concerns? To what degree are leaders entrusted to speak for larger groups of Quakers — ministers, elders, superintendents?
This leads to a particularly troubling prospect: Can anything be said collectively about Friends? Nearly everything that can be claimed about Friends can be qualified immediately with: “But there are other Friends who … ” For example, “Friends do not use the physical sacraments in worship.” However, “some Friends occasionally baptize and celebrate communion and there are others who would like to do so as well.” Or, “Friends believe that ‘there is One, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to our condition.’” Of course, “many Friends have known other spiritual guides who have spoken as meaningfully as Jesus.”
Authority and identity converge in controversy when yearly meetings and their affiliated colleges try to work together. Several Friends colleges have severed their official ties to their parent yearly meetings (as have other denominational schools), and others might like to do the same. How similar to the values and theology of a yearly meeting ought one to expect their affiliated college to be? On one hand, some suggest that the work of a college is distinct from that of a denominational agency and, therefore, its operation ought to be in the hands of professional educators. On the other hand, goes the argument, these schools were founded to extend the values and vision of Friends. When they no longer do so or no longer bear a family resemblance, then there should be a parting of the ways or a shift in administrative leadership.
A good number of Friends boarding schools, while animated by some Quaker principles (generally a more secularized version of testimonies), are expensive preparatory academies that feed the nation’s elite universities. Likewise, some Friends colleges are more attentive to the privileges of class and peer institutions than they are to any living Quaker faith and practice. The lines of the controversy are drawn: these institutions have opted for prestige over spiritual integrity and vitality.
Worship
The differences between programmed and unprogrammed worship is obvious enough. However, within unprogrammed meetings there is disagreement about the conduct of worship itself: what may be said, how frequently messages may be offered, how much silence should surround messages and whether messages can be personal observations as well as prophetic utterances.
Within programmed meetings there is controversy over “traditional” protestant-style worship with hymns, prayers and a level of decorum and whether “contemporary” worship is permissible with its utilization of visual technologies, praise choruses and informality.
Should worship focus upon Quaker distinctive practices and ideas — drawing from material familiar to Quakers but not familiar to non-Quakers, or should this worship use language, practices and ideas accessible to those without a Quaker background? If Friends worship is actually freedom from prescribed and repetitive forms, suggests one side of the discussion, is not unprogrammed worship more ritualistic than programmed since it does not experiment with a variety of styles? If, on the other hand, Friends worship is based upon listening and expectant waiting, then how can programmed worship demonstrate it is faithful to this ideal?
Finally, regardless of its form or style, who provides leadership in worship? Is there room for children in these assemblies and even in their leadership or must they be separated in their own meetings until they reach a more “appropriate” age?
Lifestyle
Quakerism was birthed with a deep concern for integrity and personal purity. There is controversy over the form this takes in members’ lives. Both extremes of the Quaker continuum, particularly in the United States, have accommodated to a segment of the dominant culture. If evangelical Friends can generally be expected to hold socially conservative political views and embrace certain class-related practices, liberal Friends are equally predictable with regard to social practices and political ideas.
No lifestyle issue has been as controversial in the last 20 years as that of homosexuality. The issue has split congregations, personal friendships and created enormous difficulty with non-U.S. Friends yearly meetings.
On one hand, Friends who draw upon the biblical teachings which do not look favorably upon same-sex relationships conclude that faithfulness requires sexual purity, either heterosexual monogamy or celibate singleness. On the other hand, other Friends liken this issue to that of slavery and civil rights and suggest that faithfulness requires not purity but justice. Love and commitment, they argue, is possible in heterosexual and same-sex relationships and, inversely, abuse and disorder are possible in both as well. Those Friends who affirm the legitimacy of same-sex relationships are not in unity on the question of marriage or covenant unions and whether these should be conducted under the care of their monthly meeting.
Still More
There are other controversies, of course, which consume the energies of Friends.
Do Friends actually have creeds and are not being honest about it? Some criticize the use of the Richmond Declaration of Faith as functioning in a creed-like fashion. Yet many of the same critics hold a behavioral creed that may include: right order of business, accepted expressions of simplicity, specific political party affiliation (or disapproval of specific political party affiliation) or religious relativism over religious assuredness.
Global Quakerism is controversial and among some Friends in the U.S. and Europe it is an embarrassment. It is well known that without the churches in Kenya and parts of Latin America, especially Guatemala and Bolivia, the Religious Society of Friends would be much smaller than it presently is. However, these Friends exist as the fruit of missionary activity, an unthinkably imperialistic practice in the opinion of some. Yet, even more disturbing and difficult to explain, is that these centers of growth are arguably more theologically and socially conservative than their declining U.S. counterparts.
Conclusion
Controversy runs deep in the veins of the Religious Society of Friends. While Friends have been tireless in their work for reconciliation and understanding with others, they are more cantankerous and less patient with controversy in their own household. A vicious strategy used across the Quaker spectrum, from liberal to conservative, is denying the authentic “quakerliness” of the other. Thus, in denying the other, controversy is evaded or dismissed. This accomplishes nothing but further alienation.
My opinion is that there will be a series of realignments in the near future for Friends. This is inevitable and perhaps even necessary. Wherever the line is that separates diverse from fragmented, Friends crossed it long ago. But this will be made more tragic if it comes from ignoring or denying the real controversies that exist. Deeply listening to others will not cause the disagreements to subside or the controversies to evaporate. It will not save Friends from the realigning that will occur. However, it will allow Friends to look each other in the eye and require that they do among themselves what they often strive to do with others.
David L. Johns is associate professor of theology at the Earlham School of Religion and a member of First Friends Meeting, Richmond, Indiana.