QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Convergence Movement/ The purpose of Quaker Quaker

A few weeks ago, someone posted a question that I had not time to address. When I had time to return to it, I found that the link to it no longer worked...it had been removed. Since there was nothing offensive in the query, I could not understand why it had been removed. Perhaps only because no one had answered it.

The man stated his confusion about the site; that he had understood it to be for those interested in finding out more about the traditions of Friends, for Convergent Friends, that is. However when he got here he found that most people posting had little or no interest in the traditional ways of Friends. (I'm sorry, I cannot recall his precise words, forgive me if I have misremembered and correct me).

I would have liked to address that because I have also found it to be the case. I understood the site to be predominantly by and for Convergent Friends, promoting a serious look at older traditions that have fallen by the wayside and to rediscover the direct experience of the early Friends and that of Primitive Christianity. Perhaps I have been mistaken in my understanding of Quaker Quakers intented purpose? I primarily understood Convergent Friends to be mostly Liberal Friends who were amenable to more tradition, or newcomers brought by an interest in traditional Friends but not totally willing to leave all of modernity behind (at the other end I included Traditional Friends who were amenable to GLBT rights, but not to a sexual free-for-all, that is, they approve Gay Marraige or are leaning toward it). When I first arrived, I did find some of that here, to my great joy. Over time, however, I have also noticed it's increasing disappearance.

Some of my favourite posters have stopped posting and the some of the posters appears to be going in the other direction completely. There are not a few posters who are coming from more traditional, or perhaps even fundamentalistic backgrounds who are here looking for a more liberal expression. They have some excellent things to say, of course, and provide a good warning for what types of traditions we might wish to avoid but, given their unpleasant experiences, they tend to be fearful of any return to "tradition" This is understandable, of course, but it begs the question; with so many other websites and blogs devoted to people leaving Christianity, or fundamentalist/traditional churches, why have you chosen to post on a site mainly for people who want to explore some of those traditions and perhaps renew some of them? Why come here?

Those are a minority, of course, the majority of posters appear to be Liberal Quakers fully intent on staying Liberal on all matters. Most of those are harmless and appear to think of Quaker Quaker as simply a "thinktank" for all varieties of Quakerism. Some, however, seem intent on launching a full-scale attack on all attempts to reconsider tradition's merits. Their language is contemptuous and sarcastic, they openly mock persons who by opinion or life choices do not agree with them. They harangue more traditional posters with constant argument. Bluntly, they are quite hostile.

This proves to make posting difficult for those of more retiring and meek personalities and also for those seeking to acquire those personalities. Yes, after a lifetime in the World, encouraged by example and forced by the needs of survival, many of us have acquired personality traits we wish we did not have. We too, have learned to be cutting and sarcastic, competitive and pushy. As the World has become less civil it becomes more and more difficult to survive without the hard shell these traits give us for protection and to become the open, vulnerable, compassionate and unstriving people we would much rather be. The meek may be destined to inherit the Earth but not, it appears, the blogosphere, where a sort of social darwinism rules the day. That is actually an insult to Mr Darwin, who used the word love some thirty times more than the phrase survival of the fittest, but it is a case of survival of those persons and memes that are most aggressive, certainly. The one who can verbally bludgeon the others into submission, wins.

Yes, it is true that we who wish to un-learn those traits must un-learn them in spite of a harsh world. We cannot forever avoid it short of monasticism but we come here seeking an island of peace and simplicity amid the world, a place to practice, for even a moment, letting down our guards. It is supremely ironic that instead we often find more hostility to ourselves here than we find in the outer world! People often do stare at my old-fashioned (but not traditionally "Plain") dress but in the outer world they often smile, or point to me and say with excitement, "See! There are still Mennonites!". To them, I am a mere curiousity, but among Quakers, it seems, I am often a subtle threat to all they believe in. As a result, I often feel a sense of vague anxiety when reading posts, or worse still, considering posting anything amenable to tradition. From where will the next attack come?

I find, at times, I am reluctant to post or answer. Worse yet, as I sub-consciously steel myself, I find it hardening my heart. The barbed tips of coldness, aloofness and sarcasm rise up on my hackles as instinctively as a porcupine's quills rise on it's. I suspect from the diminishing amount of traditional posts and their increasingly being found only in the ghettos of the subgroups "conservative", "christian" and "plain" that I am not alone. "Quietism" and "withdrawl/separation from the world" are two of the traditional traits that are often a source of contempt for more Liberal and activist Quakers, so the great irony is that the behaviour of those who seek to stamp them out only makes the people interested in those ideas more convinced of the need to withdraw from the World than ever. People who were contemplating stop merely contemplating, and those who only wanted a short withdrawl to catch their breath decide never to return.

I do find it very strange that people who promote freedom and diversity should be so antagonistic to those few who use their freedom to chose not to partake of that freedom and diversity. We find ourselves accused of all manner of things....turning back the clock of progress, being fascist conformists, setting back womens rights and promoting their second class status, and worst of all, of plotting to force or at least coerce all of you into being just like us. I do not have any such wish, nor do I seek out persons to convert who have not expressed interest on their own, I can only wonder whether this is some sort of projection, since it is abundantly clear that there are some who would quite like to rid the world of us. Indeed, it has been openly stated on more than one reply that people should not be permitted to use the Plain Speech or wear Plain Dress....in the name of freedom, they would put a stop to a non-conforming minority. Freedom of speech may not end where tradition begins, but there are those busy making the road to it as pitted and bumpy as possible within legal limits. Those who defend the free speech of other groups from even the slightest censure or disapproval are mysteriously absent, or among those who can tolerate us only if we have the decency to be silent and invisible.

Again, this begs the question...you knew when you joined up that there would be people here interested in tradition, including Plain Dress and Speech, as the moderator is one of the New Plain Folk himself. Of the literally hundreds of sites and blogs devoted to Liberal Quakers, Pagan Quakers, Queer Quakers, Punk Quakers, Marxist Quakers and every other sort of Quaker in existance, what brought you here? (Those in the aforementioned categories who do have an interest in some area of tradition are not included in that question.) If you have zero interest in Primitive Christianity, or any sort of Christianity, or any sort of tradition....if indeed, you are horrified by the mere idea of even a few people rolling back the hands of time and bringing about The-End-Of-Civilization-As-We-Know-It.... then why on earth are you here?

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Isabel Penraeth on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 8:28am

I can't speak for Forrest or Betsy, but I feel quite uncomfortable being called out here as someone who should be managed as just "Isabel being Isabel," so I will say that such a turn of mind, while potentially irenic for the thinker, feels belittling on the receiving end. I'd really rather someone who disagrees with me go ahead and express it than to (mentally) pat me on the head and move on. I prefer to try to understand where that person is coming from, and without discussion, that is difficult to discover, though coming to an understanding can mean difficult discussion. I try to keep in mind that people engage in these conversations because they care, and that caring is important.

I do think taking more time and contemplation before responding to posts might help some cases. But isn't it hard (and I say this with a friendly smile on my face) to let Friends be Friends when they believe things antithetical to our own ideas of what a Friend should believe? We are composed of branches where something that is normative and obvious and uplifting in one branch can be offensive and awful in another. That is a huge hurdle to communicating in a loving way, when one can believe that one is being loving and the recipient does not. Huge challenges. I feel strengthened by the Lord to be here, and feel it is worth it, to engage with Friends here and understand there will be harsh judgments made of me that I may or may not deserve.

Permalink Reply by Paula Deming on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 9:51am

Thank thee, Isabel. <3

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 10:52am

Friend Betsy:

I know you said you were leaving this thread, but on the off chance that you might still be reading, I'd like to reply. I think the energy of Karen's response is understandable. On the one hand you have mentioned the various negative things that have been done in the name of Christianity, but when it comes to secular socialism you have only good things to say. Surely this is unablanced and unfair. There is a long and troubling list of of the worst kinds of crimes against humanity done by socialist regimes from the Soviet Union to Cambodia, from Cuba to North Korea. That doesn't let Christianity off the hook, but it does place this kind of behavior in a broader context and leads, in my opinion, to a better understanding.

I used to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is not free from this kind of behavior. Zen in Japan was gung-ho in support of the Japanese Imperial Project and explicitly supported the slaughters Japan engaged in. Tibetan Buddhism is rife with conflict and sectarian animosity.

I bring this up because it seems to me that non-Christians, and definitely non-theists, in the Society of Friends tend to paint Christianity as particularly harmful. The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with Christianity, as your post said. This kind of analysis ignores the many benefits that Christianity has brought to the world, including the end of slavery. (For a book focused on this topic I recommend 'The Book that Made Your World' by Mangalwadi.) Because of these kinds of views it is often felt by Christian Friends, I think, that non-Christians and non-theists really have the project of ejecting Christianity from their Meetings, that that is their underlying hope and long-term strategy. It's a kind of intellectual hostile takeover.

Thy Friend Jim

Betsy Packard said:

Goodness, Karen, what an unenlightened, narrow, incorrect and generalized response.

But a wise guest knows when they are no longer welcome.

And THIS is why the numbers of Quakers are shrinking with each generation.

Bye!

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 12:23pm

We do need to give each other a certain amount of slack. Not dismissal, but recognition that what anybody writes is likely to be an inadequate rendition of what he means, while what we read, unless we take great care, is likely to be an inadequate rendition of even that!

I would hope that "Forrest being Forrest" could be considered a good thing-- But what a person is ripe to learn from is whatever it is, not what some ideal reader might gain.

What Betsy wrote (although I certainly welcome her here!) was simply accurate; Karen is inclined to accept and pass along generalizations that would not stand up to honest investigation. I usually don't respond to these because I don't feel called to endless 'I-said/he-said.'

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 1:28pm

Thank you Jim,

I am sorry to have offended Betsy, whom I like, and who I believe is attracted to Socialism in all it's aspects for the good that it offers. I have yet to meet anyone who liked it for it's down side. Those are the same good things that attracted me to it. But I have watched it change people, and become the centrepiece of their lives and further study of Marxist and Communist texts themselves left me convinced that Marxism itself considers itself incompatible with religion and desires to replace it. I remain economically socialist, so would agree with her on socialized medicine etc. I chose a form of politics that is economically socialist but isn't a "religion" of it's own. If it comes to a crossroads between God and my politics, there won't be a question where my loyalties are. Nor do they form any essential part of my identity so that I can't hear criticism of them...that is my criticism of Marxism, it becomes people's identities so that they defend it like their own bodies.

Jim Wilson said:

Friend Betsy:

I know you said you were leaving this thread, but on the off chance that you might still be reading, I'd like to reply. I think the energy of Karen's response is understandable. On the one hand you have mentioned the various negative things that have been done in the name of Christianity, but when it comes to secular socialism you have only good things to say. Surely this is unablanced and unfair. There is a long and troubling list of of the worst kinds of crimes against humanity done by socialist regimes from the Soviet Union to Cambodia, from Cuba to North Korea. That doesn't let Christianity off the hook, but it does place this kind of behavior in a broader context and leads, in my opinion, to a better understanding.

I used to be a Buddhist. Buddhism is not free from this kind of behavior. Zen in Japan was gung-ho in support of the Japanese Imperial Project and explicitly supported the slaughters Japan engaged in. Tibetan Buddhism is rife with conflict and sectarian animosity.

I bring this up because it seems to me that non-Christians, and definitely non-theists, in the Society of Friends tend to paint Christianity as particularly harmful. The conclusion is that they don't want to be associated with Christianity, as your post said. This kind of analysis ignores the many benefits that Christianity has brought to the world, including the end of slavery. (For a book focused on this topic I recommend 'The Book that Made Your World' by Mangalwadi.) Because of these kinds of views it is often felt by Christian Friends, I think, that non-Christians and non-theists really have the project of ejecting Christianity from their Meetings, that that is their underlying hope and long-term strategy. It's a kind of intellectual hostile takeover.

Thy Friend Jim

Betsy Packard said:

Goodness, Karen, what an unenlightened, narrow, incorrect and generalized response.

But a wise guest knows when they are no longer welcome.

And THIS is why the numbers of Quakers are shrinking with each generation.

Bye!

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 1:37pm

Firstly, I thought you weren't speaking to me and had stalked off elsewhere to make posts about me yet you have continued to post on almost everything I've written since.

Secondly, from someone who remarked that the Devil wrote most of the Bible recently, it is rather rich of you to remark on my generalization that would not stand up to honest investigations. I don't recall the Devil being footnoted in Kugel's How to Read the Bible.

Why don't you start up a new thread on evil anti Marxists. At least go and troll someone else for a change.

What Betsy wrote (although I certainly welcome her here!) was simply accurate; Karen is inclined to accept and pass along generalizations that would not stand up to honest investigation. I usually don't respond to these because I don't feel called to endless 'I-said/he-said.'

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 1:46pm

I think I have managed to miss a message here somewhere, I can't find anyone saying anything about Isabel being Isabel.

Isabel Penraeth said:

I can't speak for Forrest or Betsy, but I feel quite uncomfortable being called out here as someone who should be managed as just "Isabel being Isabel," so I will say that such a turn of mind, while potentially irenic for the thinker, feels belittling on the receiving end. I'd really rather someone who disagrees with me go ahead and express it than to (mentally) pat me on the head and move on. I prefer to try to understand where that person is coming from, and without discussion, that is difficult to discover, though coming to an understanding can mean difficult discussion. I try to keep in mind that people engage in these conversations because they care, and that caring is important.

I do think taking more time and contemplation before responding to posts might help some cases. But isn't it hard (and I say this with a friendly smile on my face) to let Friends be Friends when they believe things antithetical to our own ideas of what a Friend should believe? We are composed of branches where something that is normative and obvious and uplifting in one branch can be offensive and awful in another. That is a huge hurdle to communicating in a loving way, when one can believe that one is being loving and the recipient does not. Huge challenges. I feel strengthened by the Lord to be here, and feel it is worth it, to engage with Friends here and understand there will be harsh judgments made of me that I may or may not deserve.

Permalink Reply by Paula Deming on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 1:51pm

Page 9. Olivia wrote:

2) Speaking of giving space, why are so many of the post-ers here not taking a step back and simply seeing the other post-ers in the spirit of "Oh that's Forrest being Forrest" or "Oh that's Betsy" or Isabel...being "how they are" ? This not as a disparaging thought, but as a way of being relaxed with one another...

Permalink Reply by Aaron J Levitt on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 2:40pm

Hi everyone,

As someone who was once the only 'out' Jew serving on a big ship in the U.S. Navy, it seems to me that people of faith (for lack of a better word) are always disciples and are always teaching others about our paths, both in our best and our worst moments, whether we want to or not.

Thanks for including this newbie, non-Christian, irregular attender in your conversations. :)

Aaron

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 3rd mo. 29, 2012 at 2:44pm

QQ is now limiting response size it seems, which can make it frustrating to answer well and fully. I did begin a thread on Coming Apart even though I have not been able to get hold of it yet. There are 80 people on the library waitning list for it. Some of the other posters on that thread were reading it as the thread progressed and some of the others had not bothered to read it but nevertheless had strong opinions on it, and on me for expressing an interest in it. It is not on the approved reading list, I'm afraid.

Sorry if I sound blunt to you as well. Doing it a lot lately without meaning to. Finding it a bit frustrating here. It is easier for me to be a non (and even anti) Zionist at a generally Zionist synagogue than to express anything against the grain here. I feel the same about Zionism as Marxism, that they are related (though not identical) phenomenon and both wish to displace religion, yet we can have a civil conversation about that over kiddush lunch at shul despite the strong feelings involved. Yet I have recently had 2 left wing people make anti-semitic remarks at me, and lost my best friend last year when he returned to Marxism and became anti-semitic along with anti-Israel/Zionist. It's making me testy, I'm afraid. And tired of having to "understand" other people's sensitivities when they show no inclination to understand mine. They want understanding for their bad experiences with and visceral reactions to Christianity and don't see why Christians might be offended, but they have zero tolerance for my similar experiences and reactions to their politics. It's entirely a one way street here.

Adria Gulizia said:

Also, I really really appreciate what you wrote about family structure and the disparate impact that jettisoning tradition has had on poor and minority communities. What you said is so true, and I'm surprised I'd never thought about it that way. I guess Patrick Moynihan probably would feel vindicated by the current state of affairs, though also terribly saddened of course. Have you heard of that book , Coming Apart? I haven't read it yet, but it deals with these very issues. It may surprise some, but the author, Charles Murray, is an attender at a Virginia Friends Meeting.

‹ Previous
1
…
8
9
10
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Quakers

View All

About QuakerQuaker

QuakerQuaker is a community of Friends exploring Primitive Christianity Revived: plain witness, ministry, beliefs. Quaker blogs, photos, videos & gatherings. Learn More.

Subscribe in a reader
Get daily emails
Facebook
iTunes / Podcast
Twitter / Twitter Quaker List