Comment by James C Schultz on 11th mo. 8, 2012 at 8:09pm

Maybe it's not the eye that is the problem.  Maybe it's the ears?  Maybe we shut authentic vocal ministry down because it makes us uncomfortalbe.  Before criticizing vocal ministry we should pay a little more attention to what the Apostle Paul's teacher once said:

Act 5:38

  And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought:

Act 5:39

  But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God.

Who knows how many times God has tried to speak to us through vocal ministry only to have someone proclaim that the topic was out of order or improper or divisive.  Jesus once said he came to bring division.  Love does that - it also heals.  Maybe we have to trust our meetings to deal with hurt feelings and for love to heal the wounded.

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 9, 2012 at 10:02am

Quakers should be open to language and practices that don't invalidate our two distinctives that keep us solidly Quaker: Unprogrammed worship and decision-making through discerning the sense of the meeting. I believe that these two practices keep Quaker spirituality alive and strong. They are more powerful than beliefs or terminology.

For example, my meeting is starting to disuse our peculiar Quaker terminology, so we don't seem so strange to potential newcomers. Many of us have asked ourselves if it is really in keeping with Quaker simplicity to have one form of peculiar language when dealing with things and events at meeting, and then once we leave the meetinghouse we speak like everyone else. What may seem quaint and comfortable to us, seems really crazy and pretentious to everyone else.

As a result "First Day", a leftover phrasing from the plain language, is now more often referred to as "Sunday" when conducting meeting business. "First Day school" is giving way to simply "RE" or even "Sunday School". "Quaker Testimonies" are beginning to be referred to as "Quaker values". After all Friends, these are just old-timely phraseologies for things that have modern words that the whole world uses and understands. Do new ones really need to learn a new lingo to become Quaker? If we can't even give up these surface peculiarities, I fear there is little hope to attract the many Quakers that I know are out there waiting to discover us.

I suggest we concentrate on our core values and essential distinctives that truly make us Quaker, rather than surface dressing. It is these deep things that will attract seekers - not our quaintness.

Comment by Mackenzie on 11th mo. 9, 2012 at 12:16pm

I think there's a difference between a testimony and a value. A value is what you think "oh that sounds lovely," but a testimony is what you do about it. It's got the same root as testify. So sure, we value simplicity, we think "oh that sounds lovely," but then we should also testify by living simply.

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 9, 2012 at 2:10pm

That's a valuable perspective I hadn't thought about, Mackenzie.

Comment by Erin Lynch on 11th mo. 13, 2012 at 12:33pm

There is a difference between "value" and "testimony".  For me, the question is, "Which word is more appropriate"?  It seems that what used be be testimonies have stopped being testimonies and are now values instead.  The language used in my meeting emphasizes how "nice" peace and simplicity etc are and we should try to live up to them.  Very different from the original understanding of what the testimonies were about. 

I like the idea of shedding archaic language because aside from being 'peculiar', I think it also obscures the meaning a great deal.  "Convincement" is another example that springs to mind.  I prefer the word "internalization". 

Comment