It's All about meme (rhymes with scheme; not Mimi)

I just found out that over on the blog A Quaker's Flourishing Faith, friend Jamie has posted a meme and has tagged me. This was done on Feb 19th, but I was unaware of it until I happened to drop in on the blog today.

I've never quite "gotten" memes in the sense that word is used by bloggers, and I used to be a tad grouchy about it, but my new policy is "when in doubt, go along with the meme".

The rules of the meme, as Jamie expresses them are:

1. Pick up the nearest book of 123 pages or more. No cheating!
2. Find page 123
3. Find the first 5 sentences
4. Post the next 3 sentences
5. Tag 5 people

So....

I had to cheat a little. The nearest book of more than 123 pages was "Checkmate" by Bruce Pandolfini. Page 123 had just two diagrams and two identical sentences or sentence fragments ("Black mates in 4 moves." and "Black mates in 4 moves.") So I turned to the next closest book, which was "Walden and Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau edited by Owen Thomas. I can't say I'm proud of the time I've been devoting to chess books lately, so I'm glad to use Thoreau instead. Page 123 was part of "Walden" and the first three sentences to follow the first 5 sentences were these:

Moreover, in summer, Walden never becomes so warm as most water which is exposed to the sun, on account of its depth. In the warmest weather I usually placed a pailful in my cellar where it became cool at night, and remained so during the day; though I also resorted to a spring in the neighborhood. It was as good when a week old as the day it was dipped, and had no taste of the pump.

I'm sure this quote can be mined for wonderful theological metaphors, but I would hate to disturb Henry in his grave, so I'll leave it there. Now all I have to do is "tag" five people. I feel pretty vague about what "tagging" is, but from the example in Jamie's post it looks like it's just putting in a link to the tag-ee's blog.

So I will tag the following:
Lorcan's Plain in the City blog
Robin's What Canst Thou Say
Amanda's Of the Best Sort but...
Liz Opp's The Good Raised Up
and Paul L's Shower of Blessings
Is this how it's done?

Read full article here...

Conference Envy

There were lots of exciting Quaker blogposts emanating from the recent gathering of Friends General Conference and especially the Convergent Friends' Interest Group. It seems that an awful lot of Quaker bloggers were there and got to meet each other in the flesh, some for the first time.

Alas, I wasn't there. My life-direction of recent years hasn't lent itself to much travelling or conference-attendance. It's been quite awhile since I even made it to my own Yearly Meeting. So when I read about it on, for example, Robin's blog I get a strong "wish-I-was-there" feeling, and a yearning to meet and speak with all those Friends.

Connected to this is a yearning I also feel to communicate the spiritual/intellectual ferment of the Quaker blogosphere to Friends I know from my own Meeting, but who are not active bloggers.

It reminds me in some ways of the Young Friends of North America Conferences I attended in the late 60's/early 70's and the need some YF's felt then to meet with each other in other places and also to spread themselves out through the S of F in North America. One result was a number of "caravans" of YF's who travelled together in groups visiting local meetings and yearly meetings and holding threshing sesions on issues like draft resistance, war tax resistance, women's and men's liberation, and simplicity. In this way, those who participated got to know each other better, know Quakerism better, and communicate some of their ideas and passionate commitment to the wider (older) body of Friends.

Now, for the same reasons that I don't get to conferences I would not personally join any such "caravan" if one were formed by a group of bloggers today (and maybe most of the bloggers are too settled and geographically stable to do such a thing). But if it were formed and it wanted to visit NYC I would be very excited for them to come to my meeting, and I would work to help coordinate local hospitality.

I wonder if that could happen?

Read full article here...

April Fool Satire Not Intended as Sarcasm

I am surprised and chagrined to see that my recent April Fool's post has caused some people pain and that it was seen by Friends I respect (including Mark Wutka of The Ear Of the Soul, Pam of Reaching for the Light, Canine Diamond of The Crate and Liz Opp of The Good Raised Up) as an example of sarcasm. According to an online dictionary I consulted, sarcasm is "a cutting, often ironic, remark intended to wound..." or "intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule." While I knew I was writing satirically, I did not at all intend to wound anyone or to make anyone the butt of contempt or ridicule. Nevertheless, that was obviously the result. I apologize to all.

Now I'll try to comment on some of the issues raised.
Pam remarked that
...it certainly FEELS like you're saying that embracing nontheist members is... ludicrous. If you're not saying that, I really would like to know what you are saying.

First, I don't think it's ever "ludicrous" to embrace a person. I'm sure that if Pam attended my meeting I would try to make her feel welcome. I have heartily approved on many occasions when my Meeting accepted into membership people whose theological views are non-Christian despite the fact that I think Jesus is more or less the whole point of Quakerism. I don't think we've actually faced the non-theist issue in my meeting, but the principle seems the same.

The intended target of my satire wasn't any particular group such as universalists or non-theists, but the general proposition that saying "we don't want to exclude anyone" pre-empts any further discussion of what is and what isn't central to Quakerism. This general proposition is often sincerely defended, but I think there are very few people who have thought through its real implications. I assume tht for most of my readers there is, somewhere in my satire's list of people who should be included (whether it's militarists, Wiccans, pastoral Friends, Roman Catholics or simply "non-Quakers") someone who you as an individual don't think of as a viable candidate for membership in your particular Friends Meeting. You wouldn't necessarily tell them they can't join, but you would find it odd if they wanted to. Why would a militarist want to join a pacifist organization? Would he or she expect it to give up its corporate pacifist testimony? If the Meeting held to its pacifist testimony but accepted a non-pacifist member, would the member feel patronized or treated as a second-class Quaker?

If there is some point of view you would not try to actively "include" on equal terms in your Meeting, let's not say any more that we want to include everyone, and let's proceed to the discussion of what is and isn't central to your vision of Quakerism, to my vision of Quakerism, and - if possible - to some shared vision of our Friends community as a whole. If there is at present no such shared vision that doesn't necessarily mean we'll have to start excluding each other or go our separate ways, but it probably does mean that we'll always have a somewhat rocky relationship.

I'd like to ask Pam to say more about her concept of worship. She says that she thinks I or other theistic Friends might be saying "I don't want to worship with you if you don't believe in God." so I take it that she values the act of worship. But my understanding of the word "worship" breaks down here. To me, the word "worship" is a transitive verb. I can only conceive or worship as worship of someone or worship of something. Who or what does a nontheist worship? This is a relatively new question for me. I've been dialogueing for years with non-Christians theists who have argued that Christ isn't essential to the Quaker faith as long as all Friends still believe in the same God. That has been challenging in itself, but I have come to understand the terms of the discussion. Non-theism seems like a whole different issue.

Pam also thought theistic Friends might be saying 'and I'm not interested in hearing your story and seeing if it resonates with me, I just want to hear the word "god"'. I can't speak for other theistic Friends, but the circle of people whose stories I am eager to hear and resonate with is much larger than the circle of people I count as fellow Quakers. I love opportunities for inter-faith dialogue and also for dialogue with those whose ideals are grounded somewhere else than on religious faith. I also respect the right of every faith community, including my own, to find its own center and define its own boundaries.

Canine Diamond responded to my post on her blog, saying "As per my earlier posts, it has been my experience that membership and professed Christianity are not measures of one's committment to the social ideals of Quakerism, or of basic humanity." I certainly agree and hope I didn't give the impression that non-Christians lack social ideals or basic humanity. Among my life-long heroes I have counted Bertrand Russell (now deceased), Nat Hentoff, and many other non-theists with fine social ideals and deep humanity. Even if we speak only of distinctively Quaker wocial ideals, I'm confident that one could embrace them without embracing the Quaker faith. When I go to Meeting, however, I am not primarily in search of a chance to express my social ideals, Quaker or otherwise. I am seeking, rather, a chance to join with others in waiting on, listening to, worshipping, praising, and adoring God.

James Riemermann objects to Martin Kelley's post because he thinks that in it "...individualism is presumed to be the flag of those who step outside of the Christian or theistic tradition." That's not the way I understood what Martin was saying. A Meeting of people who are non-theist would not necessarily be any more individualistic than a Meeting of theists or a Meeting of Chritians or a Meeting of Buddhists. Any one of these perspectives could be the shared perspective of a group tht united around it. But in the extreme case a Meeting in which non-theism, theism, Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, etc. were all equally open options would be a Meeting where faith-commitments were individual rather than shared. I.E. it would be an "individualistic" Meeting.

I'm sure that none of the above has been the last word on these issues. I hope, at least, that the sting of my perceived sarcasm in the earlier post has been at least a little moderated.

- - Rich Accetta-Evans

Read full article here...

The New Plain?

Two of the links that I included in my first post are to blogs by New York City Friends who have an interest in "plain" clothes. Depending on your prior knowledge of Quakerism (or lack thereof) this may surprise you either because:

1. You thought all Quakers dressed "plain" already, like the man on the Quaker Oats box, or the Amish believers who many people confuse with Quakers.
   
2. You thought it was a myth with no historical foundation at all that Quakers dress any differently than anyone else.
   
3. You don't expect seriously spiritual people to get hung up with issues like how you dress.
   

The truth, as usual, is more complex than either (1) or (2) above would suggest. Most Friends today do not dress "plain" in the sense that our ancestors did. When my Friend Larry appears at Meeting in his broad-brimmed black hat and his vest and collarless coat, he stands out as unique. The other Quaker men who are present favor blue jeans or slacks and sports shirts or workshirts. Many (before they met Larry) were probably unaware tht Quakers once really did look so much like the Amish that we don't like to be confused with.

One hundred and fifty years years ago, however, almost all the male Friends in meeting would dress a lot more like the Larry of today than like their own non-Quaker contemporaries. Plainness has has a complicated history among Friends.

In the very first years of Quakerism (say 1648 - 1700) there was no unique Quaker costume, but Friends did try to stay clear of any adornment they considered gaudy, immodest, vain, or frivolous, and they consciously abstained from modifying their clothing in order to keep up with fashion. In this they were quite different from certain other social groups of the time and quite similar to others. Think of the "Cavaliers" (generally high-church aristocrats with a fondness for foppery) vs the "Roundheads" (straight-laced Puritans) of the late 17th century. The Quakers were more like the Roundheads in this way, though in other ways, such as the crucial one of theology, they were anything but Puritan. My point here is that Quakers at first dressed pretty much like other "sober people" of the time. (One exception was George Fox, whose hommemade "leather breeches" were unique. Fox is generally credited as being the founder or originator of Quakerism, and his example was followed by other Friends in many things, but for some reason the leather breeches never caught on.)

By the early 1700's the situation had evolved. As other people changed their modes of dress and Quakers didn't (at least so much) Quaker clothing came to look more and more conspicuous. Quakers were pretty unpopular in some circles and their distinctive clothing made them easily identifiable targets for mockery and scorn. You might think this would be an incentive to Friends to try to blend in more with the ways of the world, but it actually had the opposite effect. Dressing plain and putting up with the world's disapproval became a marker of Quaker committment and of loyalty to the Quaker movement. It was seen, in fact, as a way of taking up the cross. Any Friends who might be tempted to compromise on this point earned the disapproval of their Meetings and could even be disowned if they persisted. Gradually, the definitions of what was and was not plain became much more defined. This continued to be the case until well into the 19th century. But in the last half of the nineteenth century and especially in the twentieth century most meetings stopped enforcing the older dress codes and most individual Friends stopped wearing their broad-brimmed hats, their bonnets, and their black or gray attire. Plainness persisted as an attractive ideal, but it was not spelled out in detail. Friends could dress pretty much in any way they wanted, but what they wanted (in most Meetings) was generally less flashy and ornate, less expensive, less formal, and more comfortable than what "fashion" would dictate.

So where does Larry come in? Or our new Friend Amanda? Outwardly they are starting to look a lot like our Quaker ancestors. But in my opinion they represent something new. A kind of "plainness" that differs from the plainness of 19th century Quakers in several ways.

1. The New Plain is voluntary rather than mandatory. There is no committee of elders measuring hat brims. If anything, the New Plain may be a tad defiant of the prevailing Quaker ethos.
   
2. The New Plain is more individualistic than communal. To dress this way inevitably sets one apart, not only from the wider society, but also from most Quakers themselves. Friends in the 1700's expected to look different from "the world", but they emphatically did not want to appear "singular" among their Friends.
   
3. The New Plain is improvised in its details. Since the Quaker community provides no guidelines, and there is no contemporary tradition to support their choice, these Friends have to make up their plainness as they go along: choosing fabrics, finding just the right hats, etc.
   
4. The New Plain justifies itself with new arguments, drawing in part on the Quaker past, but also reflecting contemporary realities.
   
5. The New Plain, while it is deeply serious, also incorporates irony and humour.
   
   

In my next post, I hope to illustrate these points a little more - using examples not only from Larry and Amanda's blogs, but from some other contemporary "plain Friends" and from some in the recent past, such as William Bacon Evans of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and Anna Curtis of New York Yearly Meeting, both of whom died in the mid twentieth century.

Read full article here...

Introductory Post

Many thanks to my friend (and Friend) Larry Otway for introducing me to his blog "Plain in the City" and those he has linked to. I had hesitated to start my own blog because of a feeling that it was an incredibly vain and narcissitic thing to do. But I see that Larry has a blog, and that our friend Amanda has one and they are both humble Quakers, (right?) so it must be OK.

Since there will be a lot about Quakers on this blog, maybe I should begin by listing a few other Quaker websites and blogs.

Fifteenth Street Friends Meeting Websites (official and unofficial):

(This is the Friends' Meeting I attend even though I live in Brooklyn and it's in Manhattan.)

1. Fifteenth Street Meeting itself http://www.nyym.org/15thstreet/
2. Fifteenth Street Meeting's Shelter http://www.friendsshelter.org
3. Larry's "Plain in the City" http://plaininthecity.blogspot.com
4. Amanda's "Of the Best Stuff But Plain: http://ofthebest.blogspot.com

Brooklyn Meeting Website:

(This is another Meeting I love and it may be the one you want if you came here wondering about Quakerism in Brooklyn)

1. Brooklyn Monthly Meeting http://www.nyym.org/brooklyn/
   

Read full article here...