I have also run into label issues within the Quaker world. Because I am a member of a semi-programmed, Christ-centered church but regularly attend an unprogrammed, liberal meeting, I suppose I embody "convergent," but I don't really like that label either. It seems trendy and glib, and I have a hard time feeling like it applies to me. And because I come from a Christian background, the language I use is very biblical, which frankly makes some Quakers uncomfortable.
Most of my friends are not Quakers and the last paragraph probably would not mean a lot to them. When I talk to friends about being a Quaker, I spend a lot of time trying to define terms and explaining what the differences are between Quaker groups and why they matter. People seem to think that because we are Quakers, we must be pretty peaceful. This has not been my experience.
Over the past few months, I have been inviting a lot of friends to Quaker meetings. When I do this, I routinely tell my friends, "I'm not trying to convert you." To me, conversion and evangelism have pretty negative connotations and I don't want anyone to think that I am trying to coerce them into doing or believing anything. I don't think I have The Way to God or truth; I just feel like I have found a path that is working for me, and I want to share that with the people who are important to me.
I was talking about faith with a friend recently and he recommended the book The Irresistible Revolution: Living as an Ordinary Radical, by Shane Claiborne. I got a copy from the library and started reading it on the train last weekend. In the book, Claiborne describes his experiences of going from a pretty typical Christian youth to a faith-driven life that takes him from working with Mother Theresa to communal living and visiting families in Iraq. Although I do not agree with everything Claiborne says, this passage struck me as very true:
It's a shame that a few conservative evangelicals have had a monopoly on the word conversion. Some of us shiver at the word. But conversion means to change, to alter, after which something looks different than it did before―like conversion vans or converted currency. We need converts in the best sense of the word, people who are marked by the renewing of their minds and imaginations, who no longer conform to the pattern that is destroying our world. Otherwise, we have only believers, and believers are a dime-a-dozen nowadays. What the world needs is people who believe so much in another world that they cannot help but begin enacting it now.One of the things that initially drew me to the Quaker faith is how involved in social justice Friends are. I felt like this was a religion that did not conflict with my politics, but instead added a faith component to my political convictions. I feel strongly about Quaker values of equality, peace, simplicity, and service, and I believe that being part of a community that shares those values helps me to live with integrity.
So I want to reclaim the words "convert" and "evangelist." My new definition for "convert" is a person who is willing to change his or her life and follow the direction of the Spirit, and I define "evangelist" as a person who is willing to talk about his or her beliefs openly and honestly. With this in mind, I hope that all of my friends can be converts and evangelists because we can sure do a lot of good in the world if we are.
It occurred to me after writing this post that it is much more closely related to the theme of the Quaker Women's Theology Conference than what I actually wrote. Oh well, better late than never!
ReplyDeleteAshley, I could relate to what you said here:
ReplyDelete"I have also run into label issues within the Quaker world. Because I am a member of a semi-programmed, Christ-centered church but regularly attend an unprogrammed, liberal meeting, I suppose I embody "convergent," but I don't really like that label either. It seems trendy and glib, and I have a hard time feeling like it applies to me. And because I come from a Christian background, the language I use is very biblical, which frankly makes some Quakers uncomfortable."
------
....except that I am from the unprogrammed tradition and regularly attend a semi-programmed Meeting and find that some Conservative Quakers seem uncomfortable with my take on things.
I'm also becoming less ethusiastic with the whole "convergent" thing for exactly the reasons you stated--it seems very trendy with a potential for creating a celebrity culture.
Interesting that I also just finished reading Shane Caliborne's book. At last, I thought, no more involuted discussions--this guy is calling us away from our navel gazing and into action.
Bravo for you that you've claimed definitions for words that can just roll off people's tongues without much thought but will have real meaning for you and your faith journey. Eventually, words that once had true meaning become the jargon that allows us to avoid discussing deeper issues.
I don't mind having to take a bit of time to discuss with another person my definition of "God" or "Christ" or "Inner Light" so we can step toward each other and find some mutual agreements before we launch into further dialogue.
Let's face it, we have very little doctrine and creed to use as a buffer--we really do have to go about the hard work of out-in-out dialogue and forming community.
I think it's worth the time and effort.
Thanks for this post.
cath
Cath,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your response. The issue of labels, including the label of convergent, came up frequently during the Quaker Women's Theology Conference. I think because I am a member of a Friends church that is not affiliated with a yearly meeting, people felt free to ask me about my beliefs and how Freedom Friends is different from other meetings. But I think they did not expect the differences they found within their own meetings. And there were a lot of women like you and me who identify with one tradition, but for whatever reason (usually location), attend a meeting that represents another.
Considering that the conference began with an "us versus them" mentality, it is interesting to see how everyone reacts when the lines are more blurred. I think it forces us to consider what we truly believe, and that is a much more interesting and challenging topic than what our differences are.
--Ashley
Us versus them?
ReplyDeleteI regret that I don't "get" the allusion to the theme of the Quaker Women's Theology Conference.
The label "Male" disqualifies me from attending.
Timothy,
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry I didn't explain the conference better, I'm just getting used to the idea of people I don't know reading my blog! Here is a paragraph describing the attenders of the first conference, written by Marge Abbott:
"In July, 1995, over sixty women from the Pacific Northwest gathered at the Theological Conference which some of us dreamed of three years earlier. This conference was modeled on the International Quaker Women's Theological Conference held at the Woodbrooke study center in England in 1990, which gathered women of all traditions from around the world. We gathered women from three yearly meetings which span the same range of theology, but without the diversity of culture and language. The annual retreats formed a significant core of Evangelical women who knew from experience the value of encounter with those of us from the Liberal tradition and willing to commit their energy to this dream. By doing this, we met our goal of balanced participation."
The Pacific Northwest Quaker Women's Theology Conference meets every other year and encourages women with different perspectives to learn from each other. For more information about the history of the conference, see:
http://pnwquakerwomen.org/
Although the conference is limited to women (for now at least!), I think it is a wonderful idea for Quakers from different traditions to meet and share, and I would fully support a Quaker Men's Theology Conference.
I hope this helps and thanks for posting!
--Ashley
"One of the things that initially drew me to the Quaker faith is how involved in social justice Friends are. I felt like this was a religion that did not conflict with my politics, but instead added a faith component to my political convictions. I feel strongly about Quaker values of equality, peace, simplicity, and service, and I believe that being part of a community that shares those values helps me to live with integrity.
ReplyDeleteSo I want to reclaim the words "convert" and "evangelist." My new definition for "convert" is a person who is willing to change his or her life and follow the direction of the Spirit, and I define "evangelist" as a person who is willing to talk about his or her beliefs openly and honestly. With this in mind, I hope that all of my friends can be converts and evangelists because we can sure do a lot of good in the world if we are."
Ashley, this bit I have quoted above is beautiful, truthful and right on. You go girl.