I read your response to my discussion point about "community".  I am sorry, but I find your writing difficult to understand. I am not sure what I can do going forward.

As some of the older people in my Meeting would have said, "Perhaps the message was not addressed to [me]."

For a beginning, he's misread what Jesus was talking about and misinterpreted the purpose of the young man's question. Later on, he gets caught in a misleading dichotomy between someone's idea of liberal individualism vs someone's idea of community authority; the truth is seldom anywhere near a dichotomy, neither on an end nor in the middle, but simply somewhere else. He seems to end up hoping that "capitalism" (wherever _that_ might be found!) may be a loose enough system to leave more room for following Christ -- another great confusion of irrelevancies and what transcends all that... stuff. It isn't that some people think too much; but quantity is never a substitute for quality. Theology should never be abandoned to theologians, 'armchair' or any other sort -- but no doubt God forgives us our efforts.

Thanks for the question. It looks to me to be another example of someone intelligently missing the point -- but right now I don't have time to finish it; my wife likes me to rest her eyes by reading to her before we meditate. More later, I hope, after I'm done reading & digesting...

Thanks for your comments Keith.  It's not either / or right? 

Some brands of Quaker want to invent institutions as an expression of their faith, whereas others wish God's native intelligence to shine through, leaving it more to the Spirit to do the Self organizing. 

The latter approach appears more anarchic from the outside, but the actual participants may appreciate a certain Good Order of Friends nevertheless. 

There should be room enough for these various brands of practice.  Quakers are already all over the map in terms of how they present themselves.

I urge you to describe this news item briefly, and provide the URL for other QQ members to read the article.

Keith:  Thanks for calling this to my attention.  I don't believe it's right to have an "edifice complex" but, on the other hand, demolishing that piece of Quaker history and area history strikes me as being unnecessary and very sad. Sue Hewes, from the Poplar Ridge Meeting, was in our college Young Friends Fellowship.

Thanks for the report.  I can certainly see how being involved in the discussions on QuakerQuaker would be a distraction.  I look forward to having the fruit of your labor in the Light available.

Keith, I miss hearing from you.  I suspect my computer has lost contact with yours, again.  The last thing I have on your page is, "Thanks Forrest and Diane. I really needed that. :-)"  Hope the connection comes back, again,  soon.  It just came back apparently spontaneously last time.