Comment by Howard Brod on 8th mo. 4, 2012 at 8:46pm

Although I became a member of my local monthly meeting some 30 years ago for the same reasons you did Friend Kevin, I have come to realize that membership for most liberal Quakers is a personal choice made only if that Friend believes it will enhance his or her spiritual journey. To most it is just another vehicle to spiritual realization in a physical world - almost a sacrament, albeit perhaps the only one available in a liberal Quaker meeting other than silent worship itself. I have come to notice that the majority of Friends in my meeting have not chosen membership - even though they are very committed to the meeting community. Since my meeting (like increasingly many liberal Quaker meetings) does not make any distinction between members and attenders, I have also notice that many of the attenders are eagerly taking on leadership positions. In the past 30 years some of our most expert clerks of meeting have not been members. I have to ask myself, if membership is so meaningful, where are all the members? Many no longer involve themselves in the life of the meeting. And so keeping track of members has become somewhat of a hollow exercise that our Care and Community committee painstakingly continues doing.

Perhaps this development of a lessened emphasis on membership is truly a good thing, making our liberal Quaker meetings a place where spirituality and inner commitment are what counts, rather than "official" recognition by the meeting.

Shouldn't we embrace this as a gift from God, because it frees us all to experience the secret person of the heart without labels and titles. Seems to be very Quakerly to me and in the spirit of the very earliest Friends who did not see the need to keep membership rolls.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 8th mo. 5, 2012 at 12:08am

Interesting stuff! Kevin, do you find a difference between birthright Friends and convinced Friends in your work with YAFs? Differences among convinced Friends depending on their denomination of origin? I was raised Baptist and became a Friend because Friends traditional doctrines seemed to reflect what many professing Christians paid lip service to, but which were taken seriously by [early] Friends. 

Howard, it occurs to me that one reason early Friends may not have kept track of members is because being a Friend was such a big hassle that basically only people who really were convinced of the truths Friends were sharing and were in *unity* with them would claim to be Friends.  Does anyone know whether this is accurate? If it is, it seems to argue for continuing to record membership, as unity of belief is lacking in many meetings.

Comment by Kevin Camp on 8th mo. 5, 2012 at 9:36am

Hello Adria.

I do find that Young Adult convinced Friends tend to stay with the faith longer. They tend to take it more seriously. Birthright Friends sometimes reject the faith in which they were brought up. I find that sad, but at least one birthright Friend I know says she's always seen at her Monthly Meeting as a perpetual child. That might point to the old passage of Scripture that a prophet is never accepted in his/her hometown. 

Convinced Friends like me comprise the majority of active YAFs. Many birthright Friends in their late teens and early twenties scatter, becoming involved in the quite harmless, existential process of finding themselves.

Sometimes they return to us, and sometimes they don't. What seems to be essential to their continued involvement is having a supportive Meeting while they simultaneously tap in to a supportive, nurturing, larger community of YAFs.  

Comment by Aaron J Levitt on 8th mo. 5, 2012 at 2:16pm

If Liberal, unprogrammed Friends are akin to Thomas the Apostle, then perhaps they're not doing so badly. In fact, considering the Apostles' struggles even under Jesus's own ministry, perhaps they're doing rather well.

Comment by Howard Brod on 8th mo. 5, 2012 at 5:29pm

Adria, from time to time in my meeting someone will ask why do we keep a list of members any more. The meeting always concludes that for our meeting, membership is something we offer for those Friends who find it meaningful and helpful to their spiritual journey. To demonstrate this, at our meeting the Clearness committee meeting for membership is just like any other Clearness committee meeting. It's not the Clearness committee that's becoming clear. Rather, it is the person who is seeking membership - they are reaching clarity that membership is right for them. The clearness committee is not there to judge their membership qualifications. Instead they are there to help the Friend become clear within themselves. And when the membership decision is brought to our meeting for business, the meeting is approving that a well-conducted Clearness committee was utilized. They are not approving the Friend's own inner decision to become a member.

I think our ideal would be a purely spiritual religious society that does not employ any outward symbols - such as membership. However, such a purest stance would not always be practical in our world, where formal membership in the Religious Society of Friends is sometimes needed to qualify for a ministerial job, a grant, an armed forces exemption in times of a draft, etc.

So my meeting is completely understanding of a Friend seeking membership for one of the above reasons. This is because we do not see nor experience membership as proof of commitment to the meeting or the Religious Society of Friends.

Comment