I was searching a Quaker website today, when I came across a Google Ad at the side of the page.
"Hey - Quaker biting? Stop biting, screaming and plucking. Quaker training and taming report"
After a wry smile at this advert, aimed at owners of Quaker parrots, appearing on a Religious Society of Friends site, it set me off on a whole different train of thought.
The early Quakers were undoubtedly people with bite. They certainly weren't tame! This, I think, was part of their attraction and explains their success in drawing a wide following so quickly, despite the persecution that followed. It was when the Society withdrew within itself, and either abandoned or masked it's radicalism, that it lost membership. Our principled stands against slavery and war, and for prison reform, are what are best known about Friends, yet few people have a clear idea what we stand for today. We, perhaps, assume that our values are obvious.
Today, Quakers continue to worry about our lack of success in attracting new members, and in retaining our young people. We do a great deal of good work in the peace, social justice, trade, human rights and environmental fields. We feel strongly about such issues, and these are the concerns of many of our fellow citizens. We should be seen as radicals, taking a lead on these issues, which would surely attract people to at least find out more about us. Yet, we are often seen as woolly, wishy-washy people lacking in passion and conviction. Why?
In today's confrontational and anti-intellectual culture, our insistence on unity through "consensual" decision making, and our embracing of diversity of belief within our own community, is too often presented as a lack of conviction, although the opposite is true. It is the strength of our convictions which allows us to function as we do. We need to find ways to change that perception and be seen as strong and principled, without compromising ourselves. Indeed, people with bite!
We need to be more vocal about the work we do and more ready to identify ourselves as Quakers when we do it. We need to be actually seen to be living our lives according to our Quaker values. We are called not just to embrace the testimonies, but to bear witness to them throughout our lives - vocally, if necessary. Speak truth to power, and speak it plainly!
I know some Quakers will be uncomfortable with that; it may be seen to be unQuakerly. Yet the alternative, it seems to me, is that we either stumble along as we are or we fade away entirely.
Will we be "biting, screaming and plucking" about injustice and inequality, seeking to build the society we believe in, or will we be "tamed and trained" and just nibbling at the edges?
2 days ago
You said "We need to be actually seen to be living our lives according to our Quaker values. We are called not just to embrace the testimonies, but to bear witness to them throughout our lives - vocally, if necessary."
ReplyDeleteI happen to think you have it backwards.
Our testimonies are not values to be embraced, but instead witness of changed hearts (not just changed minds) by God.
I sound like I'm arguing semantics, but I'm not.
When God changes my heart about something, it's not subtle, and I want to shout it from the rooftop. It's all I talk about. It works in my life to give me guidance to witness to the world that my heart's been changed.
I think if we sought out to have our own hearts changed in a fundamental way, we will naturally come to speak truth to power, and do so plainly.
Instead, we take on the values of peace and justice and simplicty as if we thought they were good ideas. We argue with people without the essential component of God's change: LOVE. They're wrong, and we're right. And because of that, we're no different than anyone else on the left touting the same change.
Our change is much more radical than that--it's one that puts first God's will for the world.
Does that assume that our hearts need to be changed? What happens when our hearts believed the testimonies from the get-go or when we grow up passionately connected to these concerns?
ReplyDeleteJeanne,
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that I get the point you're making. Surely in embracing the testimonies, with the undoubted burden and complexity that brings to us, we are making a demonstration of the change in our "hearts". I don't believe you can fully commit to a Quaker life without that change of "heart" or, as Hystery says, a recommittment in our "hearts" to already held convictions.
I also do not see the point that arguing from a perspective of God's will, actually changes the dynamic of the argument, as you're still in the position of believing that one side is right and one is wrong. Surely the Quaker way is to look for "that of God" in the other person, and utilise that to try to show the truth of your understanding to the other person.