Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by David Watson on 1st mo. 16, 2012 at 8:32pm

This conversation is very fascinating.

I am also new to the Quaker movement, but I have learned some interesting things as far as the group functions as a denomination.  Our worship group is under the care of the Ohio Yearly Meeting, and those in attendance come from a very diverse background of theological beliefs.  Because the meeting is later in the evening, many people are able to go to the group and to different churches as well.  My fiance and I attend a Baptist church, two members attend a Unitarian church, the man who organized the worship group is, I believe, a minister of OYM, and we also have a Methodist minister who attends every Sunday.  I can see how such diversity, when amplified to the size of a community, could make things difficult.

It is sad to hear that the conservative Quaker community previously mentioned was unable to hold together.  I would still like to think that such a thing is possible, and would do all I could to support such a group is one emerged.

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 1st mo. 17, 2012 at 12:55pm

This is the thicket that has brought down every intentional new monastic group I know of, and as Sarah noted, the conflicts usually center around money, sex and power. People in contemporary society are not accustomed to giving up rights in these, or any other, areas, and community is always what suffers. Usually the problem is an unwillingness to have any rules or "judgements" on members' behaviour. "Anarchist commune" is an oxymoron. They collapse, the strict orders (whether Catholic or Buddhist) survive.

T. Vail Palmer, Jr. said:

I was a member of the Baring Street Fellowship (mentioned by William F.Rushby).  This was a small group -- four families at its largest.  I think Rushby's 3rd paragraph pretty much sums up the thicket that brought us down.  My judgment is that we lacked any structure of process for resolving interpersonal conflicts that arose within the group.

Permalink Reply by Margaret Banford on 1st mo. 17, 2012 at 1:10pm

Consider the eighteenth century British Navy.  A community - imposed - but a community nonetheless.

I'm by no means suggesting that we bring back putting people in irons, restricting food, lashes, and other punishments they had.  The communities had very strict rules and regulations for a reason, and THEY WORKED.

I think that is the reason so many traditional High Church organisations survived.  They had and have the rules to keep the community running smoothly - if we did, theoretically, create a commune, obviously I think we would all prefer to decide on the rules as a group, rather than have them imposed on us, but rules there would have to be, to keep the community from imploding.

Karen Mercer said:

This is the thicket that has brought down every intentional new monastic group I know of, and as Sarah noted, the conflicts usually center around money, sex and power. People in contemporary society are not accustomed to giving up rights in these, or any other, areas, and community is always what suffers. Usually the problem is an unwillingness to have any rules or "judgements" on members' behaviour. "Anarchist commune" is an oxymoron. They collapse, the strict orders (whether Catholic or Buddhist) survive.

T. Vail Palmer, Jr. said:

I was a member of the Baring Street Fellowship (mentioned by William F.Rushby).  This was a small group -- four families at its largest.  I think Rushby's 3rd paragraph pretty much sums up the thicket that brought us down.  My judgment is that we lacked any structure of process for resolving interpersonal conflicts that arose within the group.

Permalink Reply by David Watson on 1st mo. 17, 2012 at 2:37pm

I was just talking with a Presbyterian friend the other day about why the Catholic and Orthodox churches have managed to stay relatively united when Protestant and other churches tend to split whenever theological issues arise.  He is a strong supporter of John Calvin, but he still expresses the desire to be a member of one of the aforementioned churches because of their commitment to a strict set of rules.

Just as someone had mentioned earlier, Anabaptists also tend to be successful in their communities because they set strict rules AND follow through with reprimanding those who violate them.  It has a lot to do with what focus one's childhood community encourages- emphasis of community or individualism.  Anabaptists typically lean towards a community emphasis as part of their core teachings, and this is why it just naturally succeeds.

I guess the success of such a group would totally depend on how committed its members are to the mission it is trying to accomplish, as well as how humble members could be in admitting faults and accepting those punishments that are decided.

Permalink Reply by Margaret Banford on 1st mo. 19, 2012 at 12:25pm

Going back to David's first reply - off the top of my head, when I think about a Quaker community such as we are discussing here, I'm thinking about a building (maybe a compound with various buildings, for privacy?  I'm not entirely sure) with a room for each person (or couple) and then various communal spaces - kitchen, dining room, lounge - for example.

A selection process - interview?  Probrationary period?

A rota of jobs - cleaning, cooking and so on.

I'm running out of ideas.  As I said, it is more of a thought experiment at the moment...

 

Permalink Reply by Irene Lape on 1st mo. 30, 2012 at 8:12am

How interesting to find this discussion on QuakerQuaker. I am usually so caught up with my own rather narrow set of involvements, I rarely look to see what else is happening. But this topic is of great interest to me. I am what I call a CatholicQuaker. I have been unable to tease apart my need for both the Tradition and the experience of a more mystical and complete religious commitment, so I basically do both. I got VERY interested in the ideas of Ann Riggs that I read in an article she wrote some years ago: http://quest.quaker.org/issue1-3.html (in case you are interested). She is presently Head of the Friends Theological College in Kenya.

I am an "attender" of Westbury Monthly Meeting and have not ever been part of an "intentional community" such as many of you have. I am where I am. I worked for many years at a Quaker school here on Long Island and am presently semi-retired. I think there is a great desire among many deeply committed Christians - Friends and perhaps outside of Friends - who seek to find some sense of living daily in all their "worldly" involvements (working, family, political work, charitable involvements and simple interactions with people) a sense of complete dedication to being Christ's presence in this life. We already are a community, and modern technology gives us at least the bare bones of being in touch if not daily in a physical sense, at least in a kind of mystical union. I am thankful to see the efforts all have made.

Margaret Banford said:

Perhaps it is inappropriate - but then again perhaps not.  Some of these traditions have endured for centuries, and there is a reason that they have done so.  I find that admirable.

I am quite new to Quakerism, so I am not familiar with the traditions you speak of.  As Sarah says, some of the traditions such as communal prayer are common to both the 'high church' and Quakerism. 

This is only a discussion, at the moment; I'm not going to go out tomorrow and start a commune!  I'm just turning ideas over in my head and seeing what other people say and think.

William F Rushby said:

I wonder about the appropriateness of borrowing models of community from the "high church" traditions.  Wouldn't it be better to draw upon Quaker or other similar traditions to provide a context for thinking about "community"?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page