tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post8701995143313585468..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: Commandments Я Us, part twoJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-52388254511481960732007-06-12T06:55:00.000-07:002007-06-12T06:55:00.000-07:00Marshall--I agree with what you say "readers shoul...Marshall--I agree with what you say "readers should bear in mind."<BR/><BR/>Good questions, Zach. Regarding convergence: Organizational convergence is a matter for the Holy Spirit to accomplish; it would take a miracle, which isn't the same as saying it's impossible. However, the growth of a community of Friends willing to cross organizational lines, or even lines of personal spiritual preference, to talk affectionately and persistently about what unites and divides them, and even be ready to change in the process of that conversation--that's a form of convergence that is extremely valuable, full of potential blessings for their home communities as well as their personal growth. I don't think all Friends are called to that, but I'm grateful for those who are. <BR/><BR/>And I believe that this is a relatively new phenomenon, at least at the grassroots. During the ten years I served on the Friends World Committee staff, I was responsible for staffing or assisting with about 18 regional conferences, if I remember correctly. If the average attendance was about 40, then we're talking about 700 or so person-events where convergent conversations could happen--but of course, in any given region, many of the same people came to our conferences over and over (bless them!), so the number of different participants was much smaller. I think, given both old-fashioned and virtual venues, and the way they feed each other, we're doing much better now.<BR/><BR/>When I say that "the grounds for Christians claiming special privileges are gone," I'm only talking about special privileges (social respectability, having the default language and assumptions culturally, general familiarity with Biblical references) in mixed or secular settings. Within voluntary, explicit Christian communities such as my ideal Friends meetings are, there's no dependence on special privileges. I simply mean that, in the world at large and even in cross-Quaker conversations, the Gospel has to earn a hearing on its own merits, rather than muscling its way in through a position of privilege.<BR/><BR/>The ways that non-Christian Quakers are in error is a huge question, as is the question about the many ways that Friends, perhaps most Friends, appropriate those portions of historic Quaker discipleship most congenial to them, and marginalize the rest. But, these are separate questions from the point I was trying to make with the "privilege" comment.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-34591194467986528542007-06-05T04:20:00.000-07:002007-06-05T04:20:00.000-07:00That's a fine list of commandments! I'll be recom...That's a fine list of commandments! I'll be recommending it to others.<BR/><BR/>But I do have one small concern about it.<BR/><BR/>While "commandment" X -- "refrain from politicking after meeting for business is concluded" -- is spot on, readers should bear in mind that there is a difference between "politicking" and "continuing to speak to a concern".<BR/><BR/>If the meeting has not yet managed to fully address a concern before it, and a Friend is given <I>constructive</I> ways to continue ministering to the community with regard to the concern, in a loving and supportive and unifying spirit, that Friend should not be shy about continuing to do so. Such ministry can be not only helpful but healing!<BR/><BR/>What's wrong is <I>politicking</I>, and the reason is that politicking is divisive.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-954514348658598092007-06-04T13:49:00.000-07:002007-06-04T13:49:00.000-07:00The diversity issue for me is about whether a pers...The diversity issue for me is about whether a person is building his life on "the Rock." We are all of us connected to God (else the exceptions would be empty, walking corpses) but this is a consciously-known reality for some of us, and for others a matter of ignorance, even prejudice. <BR/><BR/>If God finds a person ripe for divine companionship, but that person has not received the invitation via Christian channels... for a Christian to find fault with that situation, wouldn't that be to put a human doctrine before God's own selection of members for the True Church? <BR/><BR/>The life and power seen in early Friends doesn't necessarily blaze out with the same overwhelming force in all times and places, but a person called to a less public life, living that life as he is led, carries a gift of equal value. (I would have loved to see the whole Dissociation of Friends come marching out to feed the hungry, cure the sick and turn everyone instantly toward God, but God did find the same urgency in that hope... God might even know better!)<BR/><BR/>Humankind asks God, "Daddy, why is... How should I...?" and God gives us many answers. It isn't that any one answer is better or not better than other answers, it's that people are given what they're able to receive, and become the people they're ready to become.<BR/><BR/>I'd like Friends to become an organization of God's open Friends, not just a Sunday refuge for lonesome goodfolks. That was the postponed promise of the early Friends' movement--and too bad we're still evidently not ready!<BR/><BR/>Aside from all that. You are of course among those specifically (but not exclusively) invited to join up at <BR/><A HREF="http://acitycanbemoved.blogspot.com/" REL="nofollow">A Quaker Watering Hole</A><BR/><BR/>and of course http://kwakerskripturestudy.blogspot.com has needed more good studiers for a very long time!forresthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03214745625847174676noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-84921975876962163092007-06-03T22:12:00.000-07:002007-06-03T22:12:00.000-07:00Thank you, Bill. I really thought about the wordin...Thank you, Bill. I really thought about the wording of #IX. I've heard traditionalists I respect say that "standing aside" or "being recorded in the minutes as standing aside" or similar devices are unhelpful novelties. On balance, I like having a formal, high-threshold safety valve available for situations that would otherwise completely marginalize conscientious dissenters or else require a paralysis that may not be God's will. I think these devices are a concession to our own imperfections and limitations, and ought to be used humbly and rarely, but they're now in such frequent use that I'm an advocate of framing them and taming them instead of trying (in vain, I'm sure) to ban them.<BR/><BR/>Can you picture a meeting for business in which a proposal was being considered to prohibit "standing aside"? Even I might be tempted to ... stand aside.Johan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-35845447983010050012007-06-01T19:11:00.000-07:002007-06-01T19:11:00.000-07:00It may be points VIII & IX that are most controver...It may be points VIII & IX that are most controversial.<BR/><BR/>Point VIII I think is essential. If you don't admit of the possibility, you are allowing a veto by a person clearly not seeking the Spirit on an issue. There are cases of people objecting to things purely on the basis of personal animosity (I'm thinking of an objection to an appointment in my former ym by someone who would not relent or stand aside but the clerk ruled the appointment approved and most of the body clearly felt the clerk was correct) or simply being closed to the Spirit. If there are less weighty people who are objecting while sincerely seeking the guidance of Christ on the matter, that's harder to justify.<BR/><BR/>If you sincerely believe that an action is contrary to the will of God for a body, as distinct from simply personally opposing it, I'm doubtful that standing aside is in good order. Being recorded in the minutes as standing aside seems very questionable; it makes it like a vote. I can see it as something of an act of desperation if you believe the Clerk is acting improperly and seeking to get a decision over seeking clarity on the will of God for the body. It puts one out of the stated unity of the body, which seems anomalous from the Friends understanding.<BR/><BR/>I might note some particular difficulties when there is a body of appointed representatives. There are instances where this really needs to be done, but it causes a conflict for the representative between whether to represent the opinion of the appointing body or to be a part of the process of finding unity in the body to which represented.<BR/><BR/>This latter problem was highlighted at the February FUM Board meetings. I have seen reports from more than one representative to that meeting in which they report pain in trying to resolve that. Some report requesting to be recorded as standing aside on a matter when they also reported that they actually believed the action was God's will for the body. The "standing aside" was based on the views of the body back home not on their sense of the Spirit moving at the Board meeting.Bill Samuelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00752443575410023776noreply@blogger.com