Comment by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 10:46am

This reminds me of the story about Elijah, when he proposes a contest with the priests of Baal.  (1 Kings 27): "And at noon Elijah mocked them, saying 'Cry aloud, for he is a god; either he is musing, or is off peeing in the bushes, or traveling; perhaps he's fallen asleep.' "

 

The god of Quaker Process, of Committeespeak, of distrust of human passion, of cowardice in the name of inoffensiveness... may not deserve to be publicized, may well deserve to hide its face.

 

When will we return to listening/seeking for God, speaking for God, rather than gagging ourselves to speak for the most frightened members with the least to say?

Comment by Jim Wilson on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 11:23am

I am not familiar with the particulars so I can't really speak to the situation.  But I do have experience with reporters and I don't trust them.  This goes all the way back to the Vietnam War.  But there is ample evidence from recent events that the standards among reporters have only declined since that time.

 

I'm not siding with those who are suspicious regarding reporters and mainstream media (lack of) ethics.  Rather, I'm putting forth what is my immediate impulse in response to such a request.  This impulse would be to declien such participation.  On the other hand, if others wanted to enter into this process, I wouldn't block it.

 

I guess what I'm suggesting is that people have legitimate reasons to be suspcious of the mainstream media and I don't think such suspicion is necessarily based on fear.

 

Thanks,

 

Jim

 

Comment by Dale Graves on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 11:24am

Seems that just having the conversation in the meeting about the answers to any question would, in itself, be a good thing.  But that is a perspective I've held for a long time and will admit that some in my own meeting would not agree.

I visited with a Friend in another meeting recently who said, "We know that there are things that we could not possibly agree on, so we don't talk about those things."  Wouldn't it be better if we did talk about those things and then give ourselves the leeway to disagree?

Could not an answer to a reporter's question reflect the variety of understandings of those in the meeting?  I agree that the meeting is missing an outreach opportunity. 

I like Forrest's last statement...  (sorry about rambling)

 

Comment by Mackenzie on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 5:38pm

Washington Post On Faith has panelists from many religious traditions, similar to what you are describing. They have one Friend, Max Carter of Earlham School of Religion on the panel. He tends to include references to historical Quakers (Barclay, for example) in his answers to show a broader opinion than just his own.

Comment by Dorene Cornwell on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 6:13pm

Talking to reporters is like Meeting for Worship. It's an act of faith that one's word will be heard and that one's meaning will survive the trip through the reporter's brain and the editor's pencil.  That is not a reason, in my book, not to do it. How else will one's message get out sometimes?

 

As for the process of what to say, surely the reporter might be able to come up with questions not thought up in your Faith and Practice. Surely, anyone who talks to the reporter can reiterate that he or she is speaking for him- or herself. Perhaps some questions will call for response from a specific Friend for one reason or another; other questions might benefit from worhip-sharing and the report might benefit from understanding what is worship sharing.

 

Perhaps there are even more perhapses but you might never know if you spend all your time deciding who will respond and how.

Comment by Pat Pope on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 6:46pm

"Since no Friends' precise opinion would be featured, it would be difficult for anyone to take issue with an answer pulled from Faith and Practice."

 

Believe me, even relying on Faith and Practice is no guarantee that there would not be conflict.  I've seen people disagree when it came to interpreting it.  Some take it quite literally, others view it as a guiding document.  Some choose to follow it and others discard it when it doesn't match their particular view of what the individual meeting should do.  

 

This project does seem like a good way to introduce one's meeting to the committee and to help enlighten people on Quakerism.  The sad part is that it could all be jeopardized by foot-dragging and quibbling.  The Church, Quaker and otherwise, has got to become more nimble when it comes to responding to conflicts that present.  Otherwise we will always be a step behind.  Granted, there's time for thoughtful consideration, something Quakers are known for, but sometimes our procrastination and objections simply mask fear, resistance to change, etc.   

Comment by Lillian Henegar on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 8:43pm

I am in the "what a missed opportunity to share our measure of the Light!" camp. Here's a wonderful chance to share a Quaker perspective on various topics and this Meeting, like so many others, allows itself to suffocate.  Boy, talk about sucking the Life out of something.

 

On a more mannerly plane - have you consulted with FGC and the Yearly Meeting?  It seems to me that they might have helpful suggestions for finding comfortable ways to take advantage of an opportunity for outreach - to take the bushel basket off the Light.

 

 

Comment by Kevin Camp on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 8:45pm

I want to thank everyone for their wonderful, helpful comments.

 

I have contacted the Yearly Meeting.  They seem to have a plan in hand, but I'll be cautiously optimistic until then. I will go to FGC and/or FUM should that not work.  Baltimore Yearly Meeting has dual FGC/FUM membership.

Comment by Dale Graves on 7th mo. 6, 2011 at 9:46pm

Kevin, are you going to be at FUM triennials? I would love to meet you.

Comment by Kevin Camp on 7th mo. 7, 2011 at 6:59am

Alas, I cannot.  But perhaps next year?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page