Quakers and Civil Government

This is sort of a follow-up to my post on Quakerism and membership in political parties.

The 1806 version of the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's "Book of Discipline" is quite interesting. An online version can be found here.

Among other things, it has the following to say about Civil Governments:

Liberty of conscience being the common right of all men, and particularly essential to the well-being of religious societies, we hold it to be indispensably incumbent upon us to maintain it inviolable among ourselves: and therefore advise and exhort all in profession with us, to decline the acceptance of any office or station in civil government, the duties of which are inconsistent with our religious principles; or in the exercise of which they may be, or think themselves to be, under the necessity of exacting of their brethren any compliances against which we are conscientiously scrupulous. And if any persons in membership with us, notwithstanding this advice, shall persist in a conduct so reverse to our principles and religious liberty, it is the sense of this meeting that they be treated with, as in other cases of offence; and if they cannot be brought to see and acknowledge their error, that the monthly meetings to which they belong should proceed to testify our disunity with them.

And it is also the sense and judgment of this meeting, that Friends ought not, in any wise, to be active or accessary in electing, or promoting to be elected, their brethren to such offices or stations in civil government, the execution whereof tends to lay waste our Christian testimony, or subject their brethren or others to sufferings on account of their conscientious scruples.

Believing that we are called to show forth to the world in life and practice, that the blessed reign of the Messiah, the Prince of Peace, is begun, and we doubt not, will proceed till it attains its completion in the earth, when according to the prophecies of Isaiah and Micah, "Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more." Influenced by these principles, we cannot consistently join with such as form combinations of a hostile nature against any; much less in opposition to those placed in sovereign or subordinate authority; nor can we unite with or encourage such as revile and asperse them, for it is written, "Thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people." Acts 23:5.

Outreach?

There's a social network known as QuakerQuaker, aka QQ. It appears to be a sort of Facebook for Quakers with an eye on outreaching to new Friends. It's mission statement of sorts is here.

Until about an hour ago, I was a member. What prompted my withdrawal? Well, I was all but asked to leave.

It all started on Ms. Yaxley's blog post which asked "Why call yourself a Quaker?" At some point in the comments discussion, Martin Kelley, who seems to be the primary administrator of QuakerQuaker, and who does his own independent blogging at QuanterRanter, made the following comment: "At some point I should put out that none of you are the primary target audience of QuakerQuaker."

Somewhat taken aback, another commenter and I asked what he meant by that. It turns out that Martin is "concerned that QQ's demographic profile isn't right for outreach (it's skewing way old) and that most of the active users of the interactive features are long-time Friends hashing out inter-Quaker issues that in some cases might turn off the very people I'd like to appeal to."

Fair enough.

I then asked (and pardon the lack of exact language, deleting my account deleted my comments, too) whether he didn't want us there at all, to which he ultimately replied:

Hi all: I'm not commenting here anymore. This whole conversation has gotten incredibly annoying, academic and confrontational. The breath of fresh air with the blogging subculture is that we weren't having these kind of internet battles, fighting over words and definitions and getting all mock-offended about everything. I have no interest in facilitating this kind of polarizing debate.

QuakerQuaker is an outreach effort, which by definition means I'm most interested in people who are not already Quaker. I think I've been clear about the focus: primitive Christianity revived: looking positively at the Friends tradition (yes, which is Christian) and looking positively at the fresh winds in mainstream Christianity. If this isn't your bag, that's fine, I love you, you can come visit any time but please hold back on commenting five times per post. I'm asking for self-control here. I'm asking that everyone sit back and spend a moment in discernment whether their comment is really helpful or whether it's merely trying to score zingers against someone you disagree with.

What did I take away from this, other than sincere doubts that Martin truly "love[s]" me? Here are a few things:

(1) I'm confused about who was being confrontational with whom? Why was it necessary to tell us that "none" of us were the target audience.

First, that type of language strikes me as purposefully exclusionary. What goal was he trying to achieve? I don't know.

Second, what audience does he think he is going to attract on such a network? Does he sincerely think that "people who are not already Quaker" are going to find this site appealing or welcoming? How many such members does he have, I wonder?

I'm not the only one confused about this. Ask the many Quakers who are members now. One of Martin's friends on QuakerQuaker named Chad, described QuakerQuaker on his blog this way:

QuakerQuaker: So here comes QuakerQuaker, revised into a new shape and form, to bring Quakers together online using the social media network of today (aka the
Internet).

(2) Martin seems oddly touchy about the suggestion that Quakers can be anything but Christian. Putting aside that many people consider themselves Quakers who don't necessarily consider themselves Christian, one gets the feeling that it's not the old-versus-new Quakers that are really bothering Martin, it's the non-Christian Quakers that are bothering him.

It seems that more than Quaker, Martin considers himself an "Emergent Christian" (here's a link to a Wikipedic explanation he suggested to us; hopefully you'll have more luck understanding it than I did). So there it is. I read in Martin's comments, here and elsewhere, a general frustration over Quakers who don't align themselves with Christianity. While acknowledging that Quakerism is not monolithic, he seems to wish that all Quakers could at least agree on Christianity (or else shut up).

(3) Most surprising is this: As a 29-year-0ld Christian who only has been attending Quaker meetings for less than two years now, you would think that I was exactly the type of person Martin would want on QuakerQuaker. Alas, I guess not.

Is this outreach?

BeliefNet Quiz

After just learning about this (courtesy of two commenters), I took the quiz, available here.

Here are my "results":

1. Liberal Quakers (100%)
2. Theravada Buddhism (93%)
3. Unitarian Universalism (91%)
4. Mainline to Liberal Christian Protestants (89%)
5. Mahayana Buddhism (87%)
6. Orthodox Quaker (85%)
7. Reform Judaism (82%)
8. Taoism (78%)
9. Jainism (77%)
10. Baha'i Faith (74%)
11. Sikhism (73%)
12. Neo-Pagan (70%)
13. New Age (68%)
14. Secular Humanism (63%)
15. Orthodox Judaism (60%)
16. Hinduism (60%)
17. Islam (56%)
18. Seventh Day Adventist (53%)
19. New Thought (51%)
20. Scientology (50%)
21. Mainline to Conservative Christian/Protestant (48%)
22. Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) (44%)
23. Nontheist (41%)
24. Christian Science (Church of Christ, Scientist) (40%)
25. Eastern Orthodox (37%)
26. Roman Catholic (37%)
27. Jehovah's Witness (31%)

Good fun! I'm surprised though. I'd consider myself Catholic before Scientologist, or Mormon for that matter. :-)

Quaker Megachurches? (Part II)

I spoke too soon. Indeed, there are already Quaker megachurches. Richard Nixon's parents were founding members of "Friends Church" in Orange County. Friends Church has many of the same attributes of the Rock discussed in my previous post, entitled "Quaker Megachurches?"

Oddly, even though Friends Church in Orange County is a part of the Evangelical Friends Church Southwest, they don't have the Faith & Practice on their individual church website. Or for that matter, anything that seems to resemble Quaker vocabulary, beliefs, or practice. Instead, they have a set of "Foundational Beliefs" that look like, well, the Nicene Creed or something. One instantly wonders, how is this Friends group different than any other Protestant group? Are they even Quakers?

As soon as you wonder this, fear not: they were wondering the same thing about you. When you look at the Evangelical Friends Church Southwest site (the only place where you can find something resembling familiar Quaker vocabulary) you come across their mysteriously hidden "Faith & Practice." A Faith & Practice, which somewhat uncharacteristically, harshly criticizes other Friends' groups:

"In 1827, a split took place over theological issues. One branch, the Hicksites followed the teachings of Elias Hicks, a New York farmer/preacher who espoused false doctrines, discounting important Christian beliefs such as the authority of Scripture, the virgin birth and the atoning blood of Christ."

I'm so confused. I didn't realize that being Quaker meant being in every possible way indistinguishable from any other Protestant group. But this is what EFCS tells me.

As a side note: The Evangelical Friends Church Southwest is the largest of all Quaker groups, which only tends to prove that Quaker "outreach" success relies on adopting the megachurch, mega-marketing model.

But this is certainly not for me...

Quaker Megachurches?

As a Friend who attends an unprogrammed Quaker meeting, I find the idea of megachurches antithetical to the core of Quakerism. But in the United States, it seems that megachurches are the wave of the future. What then of the future of unprogrammed Quakerism in the face of this trend? In other words, how do we Quakers outreach and "compete" for the attention of today's youth? We probably can't.

Today's average American is an active participant in what has become an increasingly consumeristic society fixated on the material. In addition, technology -- with all its blessings -- has made our attention span shorter and shorter. We need flash and lights and music to draw our attention anywhere. We live in a place where we shop for fun and we buy new technology to replace things that, quite frankly, ain't broke.

Megachurches get this. This is why megachurches try not to change society, but to accept society as it is, appealing to these qualities of today's average American. Take, for example, the Rock Church in San Diego, CA -- the producer of Carrie Prejean of Miss California fame. A quick look at their website and you will instantly see what I mean. This "Church" markets itself like a product. It's selling a message to the public and it's trying to get, not followers, but consumers.

The Rock -- with its catchy name and logo -- borrows from popular television series for logos and catchy gimmicks; like any product, sells logo-marked products to perpetuate its brand; and offers its "product" via podcasting, one recent trend appealing to youth.

Most of this is contravenes Quaker values: Quite frankly, it's hard to hear God's voice above the blaring music and pomp and circumstance. But while we are sitting silently -- without the strobe lights, emotional music, and charismatic preachers -- we are also shrinking in numbers. We simply cannot compete with these types of megachurch megacorporations.

And, to be honest, I don't really care. Raised Catholic, I don't really have a knack for recruiting. I would love for others to experience the beauty and power of a Quaker Meeting, but I'm not willing to change my core values to make that happen. That doesn't mean we can't reach out -- "outreach", as it were -- it simply means that we mustn't change who we are to do so.

Can Quakers Be Members of Political Parties?

I have been thinking lately about Quakerism and political parties. Some religions explicitly forbid members to affiliate themselves with political parties. Does the Quaker faith? Not explicitly.

In contrast, Baha'is are expressly prohibited from engaging in partisan politics and are not allowed to join political parties or campaign for candidates. Importantly, Baha'is are still allowed to be involved in the hot-button issues of the day such as "eliminating racism and promoting the equality of men and women, economic justice, moral education and peace among nations" and are encouraged to exercise their civic duty to vote. They just aren't allowed to self-identify as "Democrats" or "Republicans."

Sometimes a person's faith can implicitly require her to reject politcal parties. For example, as a Catholic growing up, I always believed that I could not truly belong to either the Democratic or the Republican party. The Democrats are "pro-choice" (or as some Catholics would say, "pro-abortion") and the Republicans are "pro-death penalty." Both stances go against the Catholic Church's explicit teachings.

Are Quakers implicitly called to reject partisan politics?

I think the concern for Quakers is slightly different than the concern for Catholics. Political parties have set views on various issues -- from abortion, to government spending, to healthcare, to war. As Quakers, we are called to listen to -- and follow -- the Light of God within. Does adopting a pre-set list of "views" on various issues mean that we are surrendering our duty to listen to God, or does it at least make it a bit more difficult? Further, does it, as the Baha'is believe, lead us to divisiveness instead of unity?

UPDATE: I just learned that on Wikipedia it says: "At first Quakers were barred by law and their own convictions from being involved in the arena of law and politics." I hadn't heard it, though I don't doubt it's true.

Murder Accusations Against the Guatemalan President

President Álvaro Colom of Guatemala has been accused of murder. And the accusation has come -- not from a ranting man in the street -- but from an esteemed Guatemalan lawyer, who has now been killed, too.

Not only that, but the lawyer, Rodrigo Rosenberg Marzano, makes the accusation in a posthumously released video, in which Mr. Marzano gives the chilling proclamation normally seen only on fictional television dramas: "If you are watching this message, it is because I was assassinated by President Álvaro Colom, with the help of Gustavo Alejos."

The video has now been widely viewed in Guatemala and has led to protests against government corruption. Indeed, if the accusations against President Colom are true, it would be corruption of the highest and most unforgivable kind. The story has also hit American news, but it's not getting the kind of coverage one might expect from this type of scandal. Perhaps that will come when (and if) the accusations are either confirmed or rejected.

Here is the first part of the video:



Of course, these are all just accusations now. Hopefully, time will bring the truth to light. If these accusations are true, however, they will surely lend more instability to an already-struggling, post-civil-war Guatemala. The Guatemalan people clearly need -- and deserve -- a government they can rely on, not a government they must fear.

Prop 8

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court announced its decision, upholding Proposition 8, which amended the Constitution to limit the term "marriage" to describe only a union between a man and a woman. However, in doing so, the Court kept intact the estimated 18,000 marriages that occurred before Proposition 8 passed. The overall result was disappointing, though expected.

Many people might not know this, but the Pacific Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) -- like many other religious groups -- filed a brief as amicus curiae on behalf of the petitioners who were challenging Proposition 8's validity. In the brief, the Pacific Yearly Meeting expressed that it was "gravely concerned about Proposition 8 because it would impede them and their member meetings from conducting ceremonies of marriage without discrimination."

What is the Pacific Yearly Meeting's history on marriage equality? It was at the 1996 Pacific Yearly Meeting in Chico, California that the Pacific Yearly Meeting reached unity on the issue of marriage equality. The official minute, adopted as part of our Faith and Practice, explains that "a commitment to equality requires that same-gender couples have the same rights and privileges [as opposite-gender couples]." Further, "we believe that the State should permit gay and lesbian couples to marry and share fully and equally in the rights and responsibilities of marriage."

By no means do all Quakers agree on this issue. While it seems to me that most so-called "liberal", "unprogrammed" Friends support marriage equality, there are certainly Quakers -- indeed, probably a majority worldwide -- who vehemently oppose same-sex marriage.

"I was always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

Over at Quaker Quaker, Hystery commented that the Quaker testimonies were a major reason for Hystery's becoming a Quaker. Hystery also noted that reading the testimonies and seeing how important they were to Quakers (aka "Friends"), Hystery got the sense that Hystery "was always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

This got me thinking about my own pre-Quaker life. It is amazing when you read about Quakerism and realize that so many of the beliefs are things you've always believed and didn't know there was a group like you out there. It sounds crazy, but it's true. It feels, to borrow Hystery's words, "like a homecoming," and indeed, like you were "always a Friend and just didn't know it yet."

Some of my pre-Quaker Quaker beliefs include:

• Belief against gambling.
• Belief against alcohol/smoking/drugs as part of one's regular life (may be okay in moderation, but was never for me).
• Belief against taking oaths. Years before I was a Quaker I would refuse to take oaths for the very same reasons. Let your "Yes" mean "Yes" and your "No" mean "No," I would always say, even though this wasn't emphasized in my church growing up.
• Belief in pure equality. For example, belief that no legitimate reason existed to justify forbidding women to hold certain religious offices (i.e., priesthood).
• Belief in fair treatment of animals (i.e., I'm a vegetarian).

Interestingly, none of these are related to the number one reason most people "come to Quakerism," which is the Quaker stance on Peace, or least it seems to be.

Quaker Testimonies

I thought about the Quaker testimonies this weekend and never really arrived at a good answer. I did share some thoughts -- and to my great pleasure so did some others -- on the role of the testimonies in a discussion I started over at Quaker Quaker. It's pretty interesting and (hopefully) will grow to be more and more interesting as people add their thoughts and comments.

Which Is the Hardest Testimony to Live?

Quaker testimonies form a huge part of Quaker faith and practice. I won't go into too much detail about them here except to explain generally what they are, in essence, embodiments of Quaker core beliefs. These core beliefs -- I personally believe (as there is no consensus on this) -- flow directly from our collective understanding of the basic principles we need to live in order to follow God.

The main testimonies are often summarized by the acronym "SPICE," which stands for Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, and Equality. Of course, these words all have secular meanings and are great secular principles. It was, indeed, the Peace Testimony that helped earn the Quakers a Nobel Peace Prize in 1947.

But what do these mean to me? As a Quaker and person of faith? I'll give brief, gut reactions on each here, but I plan to contemplate them more over the weekend:

Simplicity: Living plainly and simply, so as to focus our attention on God and those around us. Avoiding material things as a source of joy.

Peace: Opposition to war and violence as destructive of humanity and damaging to our relationship with God.

Integrity: Truthfulness and straightforwardness in all you do.

Community: Care, stewardship, and concern for others, regardless of artificial national boundaries or differences of beliefs.

Equality: We are all equal. Period.

This weekend, I plan to reflect on which of these testimonies is the most difficult for me to actually live and why. I'll report back soon. I'd also appreciate any comments with others' thoughts.

Taking God From the Gays

No person, group, or religion has a monopoly on God. What I see happening -- and it's been happening for years -- is that certain religious groups (mainly identifying themselves as "Christian") have determined that they are the be all and end all of God's message. By monopolizing "God" in this way, they convince lesbian and gay people -- among others -- that they are "wrong" or "unrepentant sinners" unworthy of God.

The result is saddening. Lesbians and gays who have been injured by messages of nonacceptance quite predictably feel pained by their experience with religion. So, instead of rejecting this position or the groups offering it, some lesbian and gay people reject God entirely. But it's important to understand that it's not God who is rejecting lesbians and gays. Knowing that to be true, why then shoud lesbians and gays feel compelled to reject God? Better yet, why should you be deprived of spiritual richness simply because others want to deprive you of that richness? You shouldn't.

As Maya Angelou says in her heart-wrenching poem "Our Grandmothers," documenting the plight of Black women in America:

"She stood in midocean, seeking dry land.
She searched God's face.
Assured,
She placed her fire of service
on the altar, and though
clothed in the finery of faith,
when she appeared at the temple door,
no sign welcomed
Black Grandmother. Enter here.

Into the crashing sound,
into wickedness, she cried,
No one, no, nor no one million Ones dare deny me God. I go forth
alone, and stand as ten thousand.
The Divine upon my right
impels me to pull forever
at the latch on Freedom's gate.

The Holy Spirit upon my left leads my
feet without ceasing into the camp of the
righteous and into the tents of the free."

Let's not let others define our relationship with God.