If a Meeting takes a stand on any significant issue whatsoever it excludes (and temporarily alienates) people who see the matter otherwise.

If a Meeting can not take a stand on matters causing great suffering (and there is always disagreement about these, or someone would have simply corrected them) we seem to fall short of a basic Christian duty.

A possible resolution to this might look like what we did (as I heard it) with the Quaker House in Ulster. Of two warring groups, both considered the Quakers to be neutral and disinterested. As the leaders of these groups grew old, and tired beyond tired of losing people they loved, they started slipping in the back door of the Quaker House. Remarkably, there'd be someone there from the other side who'd just snuck in. It was the one place they could talk.

They were not, of course, just sitting there being silent at each other...

I think we've become far too much afraid of offending each other. (If you can't offend your Friends, you'll have to offend someone else? That doesn't sound right either.)

"We agree to disagree (so just shut up, allright!!!)"? We may be better off with ongoing bickering, yes? At least then we wouldn't have to feel that something we hold dear is socially unacceptable. (Maybe it is? Yeah, we're weird creatures, aren't we?)

Bearing with each other is an essential piece of this. A sufficient piece?

I fear it leaves out one difficult, outright painful duty -- We have to seriously wonder, each time, whether there's something about the issue our silly opponent has somehow gotten right, while we've utterly missed it....

Ridiculous, wasn't it? Okay, we're all done now, aren't we? Uh, aren't we? oh oh...
 

Views: 191

Comment by Kirby Urner on 4th mo. 6, 2017 at 2:29pm

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Keith Saylor replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Christ's living appearance within me has drawn me out of the reflective nature and the process…"
2nd month 26
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"God is also more than anyone's experience of God. It's not that we can contain God in a…"
2nd month 26
Keith Saylor replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Hello Thomas, Through the immanent appearance of eternal life itself inshining upon me, I am drawn…"
2nd month 26
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"I'd rather encourage people to examine the Bible sympathetically than discourage them from…"
2nd month 23
William F Rushby replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Instead of floundering and thrashing around to find a way to conceptualize God, Turn to the Bible…"
2nd month 23
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"Masculine _nouns_? A word like "Godd-ess" would imply that 'God's were normally…"
2nd month 22
Patty Quinn replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"To hear God referred to in masculine nouns and pronouns feels to me like a slap in the face to the…"
2nd month 22
Forrest Curo replied to Thomas Maxwell's discussion 'Concept of Diety'
"It's probably best to talk about many Biblical concepts of God. What they have in common is…"
2nd month 20

© 2021   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service