Liberal Quaker problem - hostility to christians

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Aaron Crosman on July 1, 2009 at 10:16am

I know the problem you're talking about, but I haven't found a good way to handle these issues either. I have sometimes described Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's reaction to Friends using strongly Christian language as "allergic".

I have noted that some groups of liberal Friends have a tendency to become self-centered. For example Friends will talk about how unique and superior the practices of Friends are over other Christian denominations, instead of talking about how Friends traditions speak to their own personal condition.

On the other hand I am well aware of Friends who came to our communities because they had been deeply hurt by people in other forms of Christianity and don't want to be part of communities like those anymore.

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on July 1, 2009 at 10:53am

A "Christian" problem--hostility to Liberal folks?

I think we've got a language problem here. A lot of people don't understand Christian language (I know I don't!) and many of them feel like the slaves John Woolman dreamt about, who cursed 'Christ', via reasoning that whoever had inspired their masters must be "a cruel tyrant."

The frustration... of knowing that this Christian language is about something real and needed, which many modern people simply can't find in it--is enough to leave a christian feeling rumpled and dissed. Talking louder doesn't bridge the gap.

One big source of discommunication: the belief that one knows and understands what another person is saying from having heard someone else say something similar before!

Hostility to the word 'Christ' is not, as you know, 'hostility to Christ'! It does make for heavy turbulence in the communications effort. If you literally can't talk about what's needed, yes, it's enough to make a meeting die of scurvy!

What, by the way, is this... stuff about "boomer wooliness"? Let's see, if I'm born in 1944 does that relegate me to "pre-boomer wooliness"? To avoid an excess of levity here, shouldn't we just stipulate that a lot of people don't like to think too hard; it might injure the brain? Leading one to make injudicious statements from time to time?

I was really looking forward to a post from thee about certain Christian terminology that doesn't make enough sense to me, but sounds like it might be shorthand for something I would understand.

The experience of my meeting, with gay people... We kept getting these gay attenders; they'd stick around for awhile, help out, make themselves very much appreciated--and then, realizing that we were never going to approve a minute in support of gay marriage, they were gone. Eventually, we slipped that minute through when the major diehard opposition's wife persuaded him to stay home that day. A year or so later, we helped marry a nice Lesbian couple, whom we're still fond of, but for now they're too busy to attend.

How does this translate to "christian young folks"? You might well lose them the same way. Is being "christian" a 'special interest' in the sense that being "gay" seems to be? It shouldn't be, but if the roots of that christianity don't go deep enough, it can work that way: a matter of style and language and 'my tribe & my tribe's god.'

For a liberal quaker christian... who isn't entirely sure what any of these things do or should mean (Wooliness is no doubt setting in!) I'm left with this certainty that there is something vitally important we all need to get, and that we're barred from that by the assumption that the other side is talking pernicious nonsense! That may not be "hating Christ," but it certainly implies being estranged from Christ.

Permalink Reply by Jami Hart on July 1, 2009 at 3:35pm

This speaks to me. I don't know if this is answer to the dilemma, but the fact is that many traditions honor Jesus in this way and admire his teachings. One example that really enhanced my understanding is The Sermon on the Mount According to Vedanta by Swami Prabhavananda. It is an embarrassment that so many in this country and especially among Friends are not as aware of the actual teachings of Jesus as are many Jews and Muslims and others.

Permalink Reply by Betsy Blake on July 1, 2009 at 4:20pm

Alice, it is soothing to me, to hear you address this. I have done intensive Quaker intervisitation work for 14+ years. I am a Jesus-loving FUM Quaker. I identify with traditonal Christian language. I didn't learn until college (at a liberal Quaker school), that even if you have the best of intentions and are as grounded in love as one can be, it still hurts people just to say the very words that are associated with this past hurt. This in turn can trigger swift attack.

I really, really, struggle with this.

I can't tell you how many times I have been attacked by liberal Friends just for showing up and stating my affiliation or openly identifying as a "Christian." (Though, even for me, that word has been hard. I JUST started reclaiming that word as well.)

I don't wish to press my beliefs on others. Generally, I will share, if it feels appropriate, anything I have learned/found that has been useful in my spiritual walk. With little provocation though, I have been yelled at, cursed at, mimicked, fired, insulted, disrespected and in one case physically and forcefully shaken for my background and current path.

My question is--do people WANT to be healed?

If you have been hurt by certain Christians, that sucks. It's pretty horrible. But don't throw out the baby with the bath water!

I share disillusionment with much of the mainstream Christian church past and present--believe me--but I am doing the best I can to make things better and be as faithful as I can be. I am over being kicked in the shins by intolerant, narrow-minded, holier-than-thou FGC/liberal Friends.

You're right though, Alice...what's the answer then?

I actually think about this often...


P.S. I actually just got off the phone with an openly gay Christian Quaker who just told me about being berated at an FGC Gathering. Being gay was ok. Being Christian evidently was not.

Permalink Reply by Bill Samuel on July 1, 2009 at 4:55pm

There's a lot useful to said in prior comments. Some meetings seem full of sick people not wanting to get well. Healthy people are viewed as sick. What happens when good Christians stay in such meetings? Well, a variety of things, but one thing I've noticed is that they tend to take on some of the illness. I'm not sure it's healthy to stay.

Does it have to be like this? The faith community I'm in now (I resigned from a liberal Friends meeting in 2005) also attracts lots of people who didn't fit in typical evangelical, Catholic, or whatever churches. But our community focuses on discovering what it really means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ, not on rejecting Christ because others have distorted him badly. Such a refreshing contrast to many Quaker meetings.

One sign of illness: Ask a liberal Quaker about their faith, and you're more likely than not to get an answer about what they're not rather than what they are. It's become a reactionary faith. Where I am now, we dialogued together for a year and came up with a vision. And we're about following that vision, not about reacting to false visions. We're concerned about many of the things that liberal Quakers are, but there is a very different atmosphere. I went back once to my old meeting, and it stunned me. I didn't realize quite how reactionary and negative the atmosphere was until I had been immersed in a very positive atmosphere for awhile. And I think my meeting was healthier than most other meetings around.

Permalink Reply by David Harrington Watt on July 1, 2009 at 7:31pm

Dear Alice,
What a great posting! What great questions!

I have the impression that some Quakers who are not Christians sometime feel (rightly or wrongly) that Christian Friends believe that the Society of Friends is, at base, a Christian movement and that Quakers who are not Christians therefore need to defer to those who are.

That Quakers who are not Christians sometimes feel that way might make it hard for them to be as open as they ought to be to their Christian sisters and brothers.
DHW

Permalink Reply by Will T on July 1, 2009 at 8:17pm

I find that one of the great ironies of condition of spiritually wounded people coming to Friends and bringing with them their "allergy" to Christianity is that Quakerism itself is a critique of forms of Christianity that people were wounded by, but they cannot see that because the critique is couched in Christian language. I sometimes ask, "Who will save Christianity from the Christians?" One of the answers is that the early Quakers tried to. You just have to read read Barclay calling the doctrine of predestination a blasphemy against the love of God, or to read him saying that denying the possibility of perfection in this life is to deny the power of God, to understand the depth, power and passion behind that critique. Many liberal Friends don't see that. I also have to say that my experience is that liberal Quakerism is becoming more accepting of Christian Friends over the last 10 or 20 years. Or at least Friends are more comfortable using and hearing Christian language. At least it is a start.

Blessings,

Will T

Permalink Reply by Algirdas Davidavicius on July 2, 2009 at 4:39am

Will T, Thou speakest my mind, Friend, thanks :)

Permalink Reply by Daniel Wilcox on July 2, 2009 at 10:29am

This whole conversation is rather strange. I haven't experienced opposition to Christ in any meetings I've attended. However, I haven't been to Quaker meeting on the east coast since 1967 so maybe things changed after that.

I do think it is very tragic that a movment designed to listen to Christ Jesus in the present would have meetings which deny his presence.

In the Light,

Daniel

Permalink Reply by Mark Wutka on July 1, 2009 at 8:28pm

Maybe a question we should be asking is why people aren't really healing from those wounds, or they are healing very slowly. If there was a vibrant life in the Spirit in which people really felt refreshed, if people were so happy to dwell in the unity together that they didn't care how long meeting lasted, or were hungry for more worship opportunities, might those wounds be healed faster?

There is a place in George Fox's Journal where he says "I was cruelly beaten and bruised by them with their hands, bibles, and sticks", and that certainly didn't turn him against the bible. It's not that we should say to people "hey, you think you had it bad, Fox was physically beaten with the bible, so suck it up" - but that we have a sure hope that as we dwell in the Divine Seed, those hurts do fade.

It is sad that Bill Samuel had to go somewhere else to find that, but I rejoice in his finding of it.
With love,
Mark

Permalink Reply by Nathan Swift on July 1, 2009 at 11:11pm

I think that we have to be prepared to point out in love that all too often, the response to hurt is to become what we hate. This is only human, we have been hurt, we strike back. The point here is that reaction does not help communication, understanding does. Reaction, even that based on limited experience, is still prejudice.

Permalink Reply by Algirdas Davidavicius on July 2, 2009 at 4:37am

I gues on the level of interpersonal relationships with such "hostile" people one good Christian Friend can always keep in mind, that the hostility in question is not because Christ nor His message, but because some painfull, rejecting experience these people or their important ones once have from institutionalized, formalized or self-proclaimed "christians", hence they are making this projective, negative blanket-statement, discounting everything "christian". This is not problem, solution is always to listen and inquire directly persons experiences, feelings behind those "anti-" statements, which are only kindda cries for positive affirmation and, actually, truly christian acceptance of anyone as possessing indelible "that of God in us".

Hold Thee in Light -- Algis, Lithuania (Eastern Europe)

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• …
• 5
• Next ›
• Page