With all the news about certain yearly meetings (*ahem* Northwest Yearly Meeting/North Carolina Yearly Meeting) "releasing" meetings, I think some Friends have lost the thread.
And the fact that in both cases it was a small committee acting outside of its authority, in my opinion, indicates a lack of Gospel Order.
If it is the will of God to expel the meetings who don't "follow Faith & Practice," bring it to the floor of business meeting.
(Which is kind of ridiculous because Faith & Practice is descriptive, not prescriptive. If Friends are hearing otherwise, revise F&P.)
I am encouraged by the faithful response of individuals and meetings saying that these decisions will not stand.
But there are a lot of wounded people right now. If we say we are Friends, we'd better listen for the voice of the Spirit together.
If not, we shouldn't call ourselves Friends. Just some other group that doesn't believe in listening for unity in the Spirit.
Thank you, Ashley. I feel that your perspective is vitally needed among Friends. Have you published this on the AYF page yet? I encourage you to do so. maurine
ReplyDeleteThanks, Maurine. I am not on the AYF page, but you are welcome to share this post there.
DeleteDid any meeting get yearly meeting approval before conducting same-sex solemnization rites?
ReplyDeleteBill, do you mean any of the meetings in NWYM and NCYM? Or any meetings in general?
DeleteAlso, just to clarify, only one meeting in NWYM was removed because of its position on same sex marriage and ministry of LGBT people. The meetings in NCYM were removed because of affiliations with other Quaker bodies.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I could find to edit my post was to delete it and start over!
DeleteHello, Ashley! Most of the blogs I have read about meetings being "released" from larger bodies seem to evince a pattern, which I am only gradually piecing together. Most are written by proponents of the dissident meetings, and convey a sense of having been victimized. Almost always, the "release" is a response to symbolic acts in defiance of the yearly meeting's discipline. Seldom is there any acknowledgment of impropriety on the part of the released meeting. "Unity" is invariably invoked as the overriding value, even though provocative actions "out of unity" with the larger body or tradition have occurred.
ReplyDeleteI have one foot in the Mennonite camp, where even more blatant conflict is occurring. Someone on a Mennonite list argued that a deliberate campaign is underway to forestall disciplinary actions, to allow time for the offending actions to become accepted as faits accomplis.
Somewhat paradoxically, in the (mainstream) Mennonite situation, the powers that be appear to have come down on the side of the revisionists. In the Quaker groups under examination here, the predominant sentiment seems to opt for traditional moral understandings. And we thought that the Mennonites were more conservative than Friends! The story is not over yet, as the largest Mennonite conference is preparing to withdraw from the denomination!
ReplyDelete
Symbolic acts? What do you mean? Certainly the cases of same-sex marriages were not viewed as symbolic but very real and concrete - by both the meetings which performed them and those that responded by releasing the meetings.
DeleteBill: The same-sex unions involved are, of course, very real and concrete. But our interest here is primarily in the larger symbolic significance.
DeleteMost Friends within liberal Quaker Meetings observing all of this are stumped because our yearly meetings don't assume unity of doctrine or even practice; rather, unity of Spirit. 'Faith and Practice' manuals (just like the Bible) are viewed among liberal Friends as historical guides; more a statement of the norm among constituent meetings at a given period of time. It is expected that the way liberal yearly meetings' Faith and Practice manuals evolve is through a ground-up process; where a critical mass of meetings through local discernment begin to differ from the yearly meeting Faith and Practice. The end result is a change to Faith and Practice to reflect the reality among Friends after a long process of discernment (usually decades). Perhaps this different approach among liberal (formerly called Hicksite) yearly meetings, is why they rarely (if ever) have schisms.
ReplyDeleteSince you are sojourning at Atlanta Friends Meeting, you are probably well aware of this Ashley. But perhaps other readers are not.
Historically YMs were seen as having authority, and exercising discipline with subordinate meetings. I remember when the 2 Baltimore YMs consolidated, the F&P's of both the Hicksite and Orthodox YMs were clear on that, and the removal of that authority was something demanded (by the Hicksites afraid of the smaller Orthodox group dominating) to be rmoved as a condition of consolidation. Today, the question of YM authority is a big issue in non-Hicksite YMs. It was officially viewed as a key issue in the Indiana YM schism.
DeleteWe do have a historical manuscript (Christian Quaker ... by William Rogers, 1680) that documents the struggle between the founding Quakers over whether to establish centralized outward institutional order over the Children of Light in place of inward Gospel Order.
ReplyDeleteSome members of the gathering wished to impose unity through outward institutions and principles. Other founding members did not support the imposition of outward principles through centralized organizational fiat. These members were guided by an inward impulse holding to patience with those each other even in the midst of seeming conflicting conscience.
It is note worthy that even those whose conscience were against that of establishment forces, they were not necessarily in disagreement on specific issues. They were in disagreement with the impulse to the imposition of one person's or group's conscience over that of another; opting for patience in seeming disunity. I say seeming because they did not really experience disagreement within the gathering as true disunity but more as a nod to allowing the inward Light of the Spirit of Christ to work freely in each person's conscience without abstract outward imposition through outward institutional forces.
Under this inward impulse a Meeting that comes to embrace those who engage in sexual intimacy with people of the same gender may not reflect the conscience other other Meetings whose conscience goes against formal embracement of those who engage in sexual intimacy with people of the same gender. It is possible for these meetings to exist side-by-side even if they do not worship or gather together at a specific moment in history. If is possible if the Light shines right down to the very core of our conscious and conscience. Under this impulse an outward institutional form (Yearly Meeting) has no authority to imposition because the Light is the authority in itself.
Ashley, I am curious (in the case of NWYM) if you have spoken to any of those who are proponents of Faith and Practice as it is written. Like Bill R., I mostly see only a one sided "Victim vs Villain" story that seems to miss the larger narrative. - Bill Moormann
ReplyDeleteBill R. and Bill M., I hear your question.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know me or my ministry, so I will give you some context. Although I have not been a member of Northwest Yearly Meeting (NWYM) or North Carolina Yearly Meeting (NCYM), a significant portion of my ministry has been within those yearly meetings. I spent years working and worshiping with Friends in NWYM as co-clerk of the Pacific Northwest Quaker Women's Theology Conference and as the NPYM visitor to NWYM annual sessions in 2009 and 2010. I also spent this past summer as the pastoral intern of a church in NCYM, attending representative body and quarterly meetings, along with my work in the local church.
Given my gifts of ministry and my connections, these are the two yearly meetings that would be most likely to hire me. It is very unlikely that they will, though, because I am queer.
I have preached in churches in NWYM and NCYM. I have prayed and shared meals and cried with people in both yearly meetings. I have friends on all "sides" of these issues, and I have a pretty good sense of how these decisions were made (if you would like the perspective of a NWYM elder, I recommend Nancy Thomas's post, NWYM and human sexuality: to remember or to forget?).
People have a lot of ideas about who the victims are in these conflicts. I certainly have my own opinions, based largely on the work I have done with LGBT Christians and my own experiences in the church. If you will look back at my post, however, my primary frustration with NWYM and NCYM in all of this is what I perceive as their lack of good process and waiting on the Spirit in worship for unity.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThanks, Ashley, for your comments! I have met Hal and Nancy Thomas, and have confidence in their Christian commitment and their goodwill. By the way, you come across in a sincere and positive way too!
ReplyDeleteMy wife and I were "released" from membership in a local meeting of Ohio Conservative Friends for alleged "lack of interest in the Society of Friends." My wife was born to Iowa Conservative Quaker parents, and had been active all of her life. I joined Friends as a teenager, and Conservative Friends as a young adult. We were out of unity with the local meeting, which we had been instrumental in starting. Ironically, the same month they disfellowshipped us, I read a paper at the Conference of Quaker Historians and Archivists, which met at Haverfored College. That's a sample of our lack of interest in the Society of Friends!!!
Salem Quarterly Meeting of Ohio Yearly Meeting "released" the Cleveland meeting when it solemnized a same-sex union in violation of the yearly meeting discipline. We supported the yearly meeting then, and I still support it; my wife is no longer living. Members of the Cleveland meeting warned the group that the yearly meeting would not accept their action, and they went ahead anyway--claiming that the yearly meeting would not put the meeting out. They were mistaken!
After we were "released", we began attending a new conservative Mennonite mission church in our county, which upholds traditional Christian moral standards.
I follow the current crisis among FUM and NWYM only from a distance. The victim/villain narrative disturbs me, and that is why I commented. One other blogger declined to publish my defense of Nancy Thomas in the form of a comment on her blog by leaving my post indefinitely in the"not yet moderated" category. You have certainly been fairer than that!
I disagree with you, but wish you well!!!
I grew up in Cleveland Friends Meeting. While I was young at the time, I remember when we were kicked out of Ohio Yearly Meeting. After 8 years of discussion, Cleveland Meeting came to consensus that we should recognize the marriage of two lesbians within the meeting (can you imagine as a straight person having to wait 8 years for your relationship to be recognized? That is commitment to the community...) Ohio Yearly Meeting, without having the full consensus of all members of the Yearly Meeting, kicked us out. It was an act of bigotry that did not follow proper Quaker practice nor did it follow the proper spirit of love and acceptance that Quakerism should ideally embody.
DeleteThank you. Context is helpful.
ReplyDeleteI was hurried when I typed my quick question this morning. It should have included the invitation that I, as a member of NWYM, who has been reading our Faith and Practice quite heavily as of late, would be willing to offer a different perspective.
For example, it seems to me, the Elder's had little option but to decide what they did based on the ministry agreements we have made together as a Yearly Meeting. They were told to deal with Faith and Practice as written, not as they might like it to be.
I just think the story is much more complicated than Twitter, for example, indicates (which is where I found you).
I suspect (but don't know) that NWYM and NCYM Faith and Practice manuals have many "do's and don'ts". Is the yearly meeting or particular meetings choosing which "do's and don'ts" to target meetings for "releasing" if they don't stick to the letter of the law, instead of consistently applying the "do's and don'ts" uniformly? I am wondering if, for example, the manual might have a "don't" for same-sex marriage that is being enforced, but other "don'ts" that aren't being enforced with "releasing". Such as a "don't" for 'bread and wine communion', 'water baptism', 'divorce'; and "do's" for 'women as leaders in the church', 'having periods of silence in worship', or 'abstaining from military service'. Do these yearly meetings release meetings for those potential transgressions as well?
ReplyDeletePlease pardon me if this is an ignorant question. But this whole thing about Quakers (in our day and time) having such authoritative yearly meetings is new to me. And I'm wondering if it is hypocritically applied.
I am always amazed how some Christians zero in on homosexuality to persecute their brethren over; but then wink at other so-called "sins". Not sure if this is the case with NWYM and NCYM? Does anyone know the answer to that?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIt's a fair question. The short answer is "No," it is not universally applied, precisely because NWYM F&P states that the Elders can only intervene in potentially "shattering" situations. NWYM also has discerned together to have greater authority reside it the Yearly Meeting level. For example, the Elder's of the YM can override the discipline of a member by the local church. Here is the link to NWYM F&P:
Deletehttp://nwfriends.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/faith-and-practice-2011-2012-08-20.pdf
(For some reason, I keep typing "Elder's" when I should type "Elders")
Thanks for the answer.
DeleteThis seems odd to me that only if several meetings hold the yearly meeting as a "hostage" over a select F&P infraction by another meeting, then the yearly meeting may require compliance to the F&P unevenly just against the meeting that is being accused (or bullied). I would think the yearly meeting should simply state to the accusing meetings that these bullying tactics are causing the shattering, and then release the meetings doing the bullying.
Talk about an ass-backwards, unjust system! Reward those who make threats and come down on the "least of these"? I wonder what Christ thinks of that?
Howard Brod wrote: "I am always amazed how some Christians zero in on homosexuality to persecute their brethren over; but then wink at other so-called 'sins'."
ReplyDeleteThe victim/villain narrative again!
Well, those of us who have been on the receiving end of prejudice shouldn't have to feel like we need to lie about it.
DeleteBill,
DeleteI personally am not a victim of prejudice or hypocrisy of any kind since I am a white male who is straight.
I asked a sincere question, so I may objectively assess this situation. If there is an uneven application of "releasing" for Faith and Practice infractions, I must state what is the obvious truth to anyone who observes the unfolding of this injustice: Nothing could cause such an uneven application of "judgment" except prejudice. There is no other explanation why homosexuals would be singled out when others who ignore their yearly meeting's Faith and Practice manual are not receiving similar treatment.
If someone is hoisting disdain and control upon another and is not willing to 'live and let live' (agree to disagree) in only select cases, they are clearly villains. And villains always attempt to whitewash their deeds. The receivers of such treatment are indeed victims. Period.
In 50 years, any organization that singled out homosexuality for uneven treatment will be absolutely considered villains by nearly everyone. If I was an elder in NWYM or NCYM, I would think long and hard about that.
Christians should always err on the side of love, forgiveness, and compassion.
When casting out others' "sins"...isn't it necessary to remove the log from our own eye first? Bill, the trouble is that anyone of any faith approach who chooses to take on the "releasing"/removing of others from fellowship with themselves has immediately created a requirement that they themselves must be beyond reproach. From what I'm hearing this whole situation has no such "beyond reproach" status to offer. Therefore, they have condemned themselves -- they have effectively chosen to be the arbiters of others' sins and are hoping to not be held accountable for their own.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteOlivia wrote: "anyone of any faith approach who chooses to take on the "releasing"/removing of others from fellowship with themselves has immediately created a requirement that they themselves must be beyond reproach."
DeletePlease3 explain!
Howard. Just for the sake of clarity, are you suggesting those Meetings and individuals who do not embrace sexual intimacy with people of the same gender and choose not to enter into association with them, are villians? The light of Christ within my conscious and conscience teaching me love, patience, and long-suffering in the midst of extreme disagreement.
ReplyDeleteWe all play villains and victims in a situational way at various times. Sometimes, I am a villain in a certain situation and sometimes I am a victim.
ReplyDeleteTo dismiss this situational villain/victim drama is white-washing reality in the human experience.
What I am saying about this particular situation is that if a yearly meeting "punishes" member meetings for accepting same-sex marriage, but then does NOT "punish" other meetings for other F&P infractions - they indeed are playing the part of a villain due to their selective "persecution". Nothing could cause such selective "punishing" except prejudice. Even if they are unaware of it, due to their selective "punishing" they are assuming the role of a villain and creating a victim among them.
An objective observation can see it no other way.
"An objective observation can see it no other way."
DeleteThe problem with claiming objectivity in the situation, is that one subjectively picks the relevant "facts." As a counter example, I offer the following narrative:
A Yearly Meeting is made up of member congregations that discern together many things, including how to do ministry together. A single congregation unilaterally and publicly disregards our agreements, agreements that even state how we should handle things if we disagree. Some of our meetings beseech the Elders on behalf of us all to handle the disagreement, as we have together discerned how. The Elders then spend years trying to determine the truth of the disunity, if it is potentially shattering, and try to find a way to bring the meeting back into unity with our ministry partnership. The meeting in question cannot/will not work in good process with us and so the Elders simply released them. In practical terms, the release was simply a recognition of what was already spiritually true: they were out of unity and fellowship with us.
In short, they betrayed us, our process, and our fellowship. They are not the victims.
(Again, this is a counter narrative. If I choose the relevant facts, it paints a different “Victim/Villian” story that if you are “objective”, you “can see it no other way.”)
Thanks Bill (Moorman) for explaining further. However, to me this yearly meeting arrangement sounds like human thinking as opposed to the mind of Christ.
DeletePerhaps I am coming at this from a liberal Quaker vantage point where Yearly Meeting authority is non-existent. I do think spiritual authority given to any group of humans is dangerous business. Humans are not capable to interpret the Bible or anything else. Seems like the standard Christ exemplified is just Love and compassion, with forgiveness thrown in. That's hard enough for all of us to practice without adding a human group to make judgments on our worthiness to be among them. I've seen it both ways, and spiritually speaking it is much better and productive to allow diversity and sharing of ideas without the Sanhedrin regulating us. Let Christ be the inner teacher - period.
Hello, Heather Brutz! It was actually the Salem Quarterly Meeting that "released" the Cleveland meeting from membership. The Clerk of Salem Quarterly Meeting (she presided at that meeting, and announced the decision) was a highly respected member of the Cleveland meeting.
ReplyDeleteThe decision was subsequently challenged at the yearly meeting level, and has been challenged repeatedly, and it was allowed to stand.
Hello, Howard! You still embrace quite wholeheartedly the victim/villain framework of interpretation. Until you are willing to think outside of that box, there is no point in further dialogue.
ReplyDeleteHoward. Again for clarity. Is it equally villainous for a Meeting that embraces people who are sexually intimate with people of the same gender to have the expectation that other Meetings embrace people who are sexually intimate with people of the same gender and to use outward centralized structures to impose their expectation on others who are not of the same mind? Do such expectations create victims on the other side and manifest prejudice?
ReplyDeleteYes, Keith, you are absolutely correct. Should a yearly meeting threaten to expel a meeting that does NOT embrace same-sex unions when other meetings among them have other infractions for which the yearly meeting takes no action, then the yearly meeting is the villain in this situation, and the meeting that does NOT embrace same-sex unions is the victim.
Delete"If we say we are Friends, we'd better listen for the voice of the Spirit together.
ReplyDeleteIf not, we shouldn't call ourselves Friends. Just some other group that doesn't believe in listening for unity in the Spirit."
Ashley. Are you open to the voice of the Spirit speaking to a gathered Meeting in such a way that they do not accept sexual intimacy with people of the same gender and uniting under that voice of the Spirit?
That's a fair question, Keith. My understanding is that the yearly meetings that have the language excluding same sex couples and LGBT in ministry did come to unity, and I respect that. Now that some have a different sense of the leading of the Spirit, the way to proceed with integrity is to have the yearly meeting discern as a whole how God is leading the body. Coming to unity by expelling meetings that are hearing differently is no unity. It is possible that these times of discernment may lead to separations, as one group feels led in one direction and others other ways, but that should come out of the group discernment, not a small committee.
DeleteThis link provides some good information explaining why so many meetings in NCYM are upset by recent expulsion actions:
ReplyDeletehttp://afriendlyletter.com/in-carolina-strange-bedfellows-battle-lines/
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI apologize, my post needed editing.
DeleteThank you for your response Ashley. I agree that a group of Elders under the fained auspices of an outward institution direction do not have the spiritual authority to make such a decision. I sense, however, that we are not of a like mind relative to yearly meetings in general. A yearly meeting taking on the role of a "group discernment" body is as questionable to me as is a small group of elders imposing on a meeting. I recognize no role for Yearly Meeting in discerning the "leading" of gathered Meetings and individuals. The inward Light itself has that role.
I have another question if you don't mind. I read in the appendix of the NWYM's Faith and Practice these words (added in 1982):
"Friends believe that the practice of sexual perversion in any form is sinful and contrary to the God-ordained purposes in sexual relationships. These perversions include sexual violence, homosexual acts, transvestism, incest, and sex acts with animals. The sin nature is capable of vile affections when humankind rejects the moral laws of God."
Was this a group discerned "Testimony"
I would appreciate any information you may have.
NPYM has an ongoing conversation about whether to offer the released West Hills Friends Church membership in our not evangelical Yearly Meeting should they wish fellowship with a different branch of Quakerism. Some of that chatter has been at the Quarterly Meeting level, as Willamette Quarter would be an appropriate body to extend the invitation: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mensgroup_wqm/conversations/messages
ReplyDeleteHi Kirby,
ReplyDeleteThis is an encouraging trend among FGC yearly meetings. Here on the east coast Piedmont Yearly Meeting (an FGC yearly meeting) is doing the same thing for several NCYM meetings that are receiving some rough treatment from some NCYM Friends.
I think it is commendable that liberal unprogrammed Yearly Meetings that are close to these ostracized evangelical meetings, are reaching out to these disenfranchised meetings to offer them a yearly meeting home. Since liberal Quakers tend to not expect uniformity in doctrine (or even local Quaker practice), this is a great opportunity for us to demonstrate the unconditional love exemplified by Christ. Even though these disenfranchised meetings may have pastors, it should not upset our apple-cart one bit. We liberal Quakers tend to let each local meeting live and let live. We all learn from each other at the Quarterly and Yearly Meeting level, respecting the local Quaker group's faith journey. This allows us much growth in the Light as a spiritual body. It is wonderful that liberal Quakers are continuing and expanding our response to the Spirit to guide our path, rather than expecting a human, governing group in the yearly meeting to do that.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNo matter how simple some people see the question of approving same sex marriage, it's not. It's not historically in the US and it's not now in many countries around the world and it's not like Christianity is not keeping up with other world religions on the issue. I don't even know where I stand on the issue as I see that it doesn't seem to matter to the Holy Ghost as he works in the lives of homosexual brothers and sisters in the Lord. I could argue that even though God loves us and works in us in spite of our faults we shouldn't ok a relationship that on its face is not natural. However, I'm not sure we actually do that as we don't necessarily officiate a marriage but the couple themselves does that. I am a Quaker because I believe a faith journey is a one step at a time journey with everyone moving at their own pace as God gives them grace. Making a decision on someone else's journey when I can see the Spirit working in their life is way beyond my pay scale and that of anyone I know personally.
ReplyDelete