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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I have a slightly different take on what is antithetical to the core of Quakerism--tiny groups of silent and self-admiring spiritual elitists. (I know, such groups don't actually exist!!--I'm using hyperbole.)
ReplyDeleteI love a story that I think John Punshon told, about a Quaker friend of his at a football match in the U.K.: alluding to a famous George Fox quotation, his friend waved at the huge crowd and said, "Look! A great people to be gathered!"
If Friends actually manage to gather a "great people," however you define "great," it will not be by manipulation or any device that is truly antithetical to our values. It will be because we finally surrender to God and uncork the spiritual power that God might be ready to pour out through us. (Yes, if we finally get uncorked, there'll be some fizz, but I'll take that risk.) Otherwise, God will keep doing quakerly things through other churches large and small while we continue to shrink in size and capacity.
When we were at Wilmington Meeting in Ohio, one member of that meeting commented on our group's reluctance to take the risk of outreach. "We keep worrying about whether newcomers will truly be 'Quaker'," she said (I'm relying on memory). "Why do we assume that newcomers will be more foolish than we are?"
Thank you for this thoughtful post.
Johan
PS: How do we know that it's hard to hear God's voice above the blaring music? For many Friends, it's perhaps harder to hear God's voice above the relentless demands of ethnic quakerishness or one's own ego. And Friends' "assertive diffidence" (not my phrase!) is a marketing message as well. Much of what we call outreach in the more liberal Quaker world may be anti-flashy, such as peace posters and dignified notes at the co-op, but they nevertheless resemble mating calls, ensuring those who respond are more or less like those already there. How is that qualitatively different from the "consumerist" seeker-sensitive megachurches?
And that is what it is -- an unwillingness of Quakers to accept others. No reaching out, because it is too much work. And people are too different. In thought, in social status, in education, in color, in class, in ability. "Seekers only", a good excuse to keep the undesireables out.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm not sure I see it as competing, but we have some gifts entrusted to us. I think we have a responsibility to live worthy of the gifts of our predecessors in primitive christianity, called Quakers.
ReplyDeleteI think the test of whether we do so is the lives we live. Are we living with our hearts open to the needs of the poorest and weakest and neediest? Are we raised up by the grace and goodness of God to learn from our experiences and conflict creatively under God's leading so we can become better followers of Jesus as friends, neighbours, spouses, parents? Can it be said of us that we love each other very well?
I guess I believe if we live faithful lives in the transforming power of God, our families and communities will welcome those who are seeing something they need and who will swim upstream to Christ that power amongst us who teaches us. We have to help each other to live under the guidance of Christ and be willing to account for the hope it gives us.
Johan: I agree that Quakers -- like all humankind -- would benefit from some humility. I don't agree, necessarily, that "God will keep doing quakerly things through other churches large and small while we continue to shrink in size and capacity." Are those churches accomplishing Quakerly things? What things?
ReplyDeleteAre our smaller numbers necessarily a result of our own failures? It seems to me that Jesus himself -- miracle worker that he was -- couldn't gather a megachurch-full of worshippers.
Finally, it would seem that none of today's most "successful" (defined by numbers) churches got that way with simple humility and adherence to core beliefs. It's through marketing, cults of personality, a heavy dose of manipulation, violent conversion (Catholics), and/or conversions garnored (tacitly) in exchange for food and money to poor people in developing nations -- the so-called "rice Christian" phenomenon (many Protestant groups).
Thank you for your comment.
Ann:
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that Quakers are "unwilling" to reach out. I think it's just a hard faith to market. Also, it's almost -- to use the word again -- antithetical to the liberal Quaker tradition to try to go out and "convert" souls. We don't have a solid message because (and this is probably the most important part) we don't usually believe that others are "going to hell." The most successful outreach faiths are those who are convinced that theirs is the only way to salvation. With that belief, it's hard not to go out and "convert"; without it, there's no mission and no motivation.
Also, I'd note that very few churches are that diverse. Catholics have people of all ethnicities and socio-economic statuses because of the forced conversions throughout the world (conquistadores come to mind); Mormons outreach to the entire world, but there has never been (and might never be) any non-white male in a position of authority in the Church ("Prophet" or "Apostle"); the Baha'is advocate "equality," but it's largely a Persian religion with a lot of Quaker-like white middle class adherents -- oh, and women can't serve on the highest counsel; and Protestant groups tend to splinter off -- one church will house many ethnicities, but they are not integrated, the Koreans have their service and the Latinos have theirs and so on. You can see an example of this at the "Friends Church" that I discuss in the follow-up post.
Also, there are many all-Asian Churches even where the language of the service is English and Black churches are infamously homogeneous.
I guess I'm just saying: Don't be so sure that we are the only non-diverse bunch. We just might be one of the few bunches that actually care.
Thanks, Alice, for your comment!
ReplyDeleteMy family and I began attending Friends' meetings in recent years. The most local unprogrammed meeting is very hard to find. Their sign out front is so small that it is difficult to see it from the road. We kept driving past it. In the past couple of years, I've watched them all but ignore newcomers, especially young people. Even after being there a couple years, I still feel so uncomfortable that we now drive an hour away to attend another meeting (where I am also all but ignored but at least among a larger group of people so it embarrasses me less). How many people like me feel a strong desire (or even a still-growing curiosity) to worship among Friends but feel turned away because they feel like they are intruders on a private event? On the other hand, the local programmed meeting is much more welcoming. Every time we have attended, several people come shake our hands, welcome our children, and tell us how glad they are that we can be with them. Every time we have visited, we receive a lovely handwritten note reminding us how pleased the writer was to see us and inviting us to return. Although I know I am not a very good fit for the more conservative programmed meeting, I always feel loved there. Although I know I am a very good fit for the programmed meeting, I never feel loved there. We don't have to have big, glitzy churches or flashing signs. A warm hand-shake and a note in the mail expressing love and friendship might make a world of difference in growing the numbers of people who "were always Friends but didn't know it."
ReplyDeleteAs someone new to the Quaker tradition perhaps my perspective is a little different. It was precisely the silence and stillness, the simplicity, of the unprogrammed meeting which I found attractive. That means that there are at least some people who will find this a draw.
ReplyDeleteRegarding outreach, I suggest casting a wider net for examples. Instead of a comparison to megachurches, perhaps asking how more ordinary groups attract members can be helpful. How does a garden club attract members, or the local Aikido Dojo, or one of the new to American Eastern religions, or any number of ordinary associations? Outreach can take many forms.
Jim
I love Johan's description of liberal Quaker's discreet posters in the back of the food coop as a kind of mating call.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing I'd add is to note that the web has changed the dynamic. Most newcomers I've met over the last few years studied the Wikipedia page before they walked into a Friends meetinghouse or church and Beliefnet's "What Religious Are You?" quiz has brought more people to our doors than any Quaker-initiated project. The nice thing about the net is that you don't have to scream. It's kind of perfect for a shy, relatively quiet bunch like us.
Too many Friends Meetings still act as if they're secret societies, keeping out of phone books and putting up tiny signs half-hidden by shrubs. But a few clicks on Google will pull up meeting times and handy driving directions. That's a big change.
Martin, I was first attracted to Friends through history, then through a Beliefnet quiz and then through Quaker blogs, especially those found on Quaker Quaker. And it is the internet that keeps me going and keeps me enthusiastic even when I feel a chilly response in the meetings. You are right. The internet is a game changer.
ReplyDeleteI had never heard of this Quiz, but I just took it, and my results were interesting (and I guess accurate?), though I could tell that some of the questions trying to approximate Catholicism were somewhat misstated (as a former youth minister):
ReplyDelete1. 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%)
Peter, you said: "The most successful outreach faiths are those who are convinced that theirs is the only way to salvation. With that belief, it's hard not to go out and "convert"; without it, there's no mission and no motivation."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. If being a Quaker has changed our lives for the better, if the way we worship has brought us closer to God, if our faith community has inspired us to take social action, then I think we have a responsibility to share our own personal version of the Good News with any who would be receptive to it.
To say that because many of us don't believe others will be going to hell, we don't have motivation or a mission to outreach dismisses what we DO have.
In other words, if your faith is important to you, talk about it! And not just with others of the same faith, but others you are close to. *Share* your faith.
Peter, I think you're right on the money. I also think all the gnashing of teeth over our failure to grow tends to be a distraction from the essential work of building a loving community that helps us become better people, rather than supporting that work. If we were evangelizing in the manner of any church that is serious about evangelizing, that would be the end of liberal Quakerism. For those who use "liberal Quakerism" as an epithet that might be fine, but most of us came to liberal Quakerism because of the way it is, not despite the way it is.
ReplyDeleteHystery, I do sympathize with your difficulty becoming a part of your local unprogrammed meeting. That has to be hard. Part of it might be serious problems with that meeting--I don't know--but part of it might also be that the kind of people who tend to be drawn to Quakerism are not the kind of people who burst with extroverted energy. Some of us are good at that sort of thing, but many of us find it difficult, even excruciating. Me, for instance. I'm not unfriendly, I'm shy. I try to be warm when I meet somebody new, but I'm more likely to answer questions than ask them.
To be honest, if I had been overwhelmed with friendly attention my first few times I attended, I wouldn't have come back. I had to ease my way into the community slowly, at my own pace. I fell in love with my meeting slowly, over time. Now you couldn't separate us.
I read that churches that focus on meeting in people's homes are where the real growth is in churches in the USA. (see e.g. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/2009/06/04/20090604churchless-churches0604-ON.html ). Quakers seem particularly suited to participation in this kind of movement, especially Quakers who are willing to give up some of our old habits and look to successful contemporary churches, and historical churches (early Quakers, first century Christians?) for ideas about connecting with God and humankind.
ReplyDeleteOh, and I agree that we gain nothing by losing who we are or by going for lots of ritual and ceremony. But I think that Quakers' suspicion of the involvement of emotion in religion has gone too far. I'd encourage all of you to consider using emotion as a vehicle to bring us closer to that God that told us there's really nothing more important than loving each other, a whole whole lot. Love, like religion, brings the possibility of turning your world upside down, throwing all your old priorities out the window, and creating a very deep inner joy. And yes, love and religion are both dangerous and have a lot of potential to go wrong when you open yourself up to their power!
ReplyDelete