Showing posts with label rswr. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rswr. Show all posts

06 March 2025

Theological mathematics (partly a repost)

Source.  

Back during Richard Nixon's Watergate crisis, I was in the office of Edward Lee, one of my Russian professors, and our conversation turned to those events in the country to our south. (I was a Carleton University student, in Ottawa.)

Lee pointed out that there was a silver lining to the daily parade of distressing revelations: as it turned out, we had been right about Richard Nixon. Our misgivings were based on reality.

Today, as the evidence of unbridled authoritarianism under Trump and Musk keeps streaming in, I thought about that conversation. I confess that part of the reason I stay on top of each day's political news is not just to refresh my sense of horror. There's a perverse satisfaction in getting confirmations that our misgivings are not exaggerated.

For Christians who cherish the cycle of the church year, Lent has just begun. (This year, Lenten observances in the Eastern and Western churches roughly coincide.) One of my friends in England takes a complete break from the Internet during this season. I am not following her worthy example; I'm online daily to watch events unfold around me, and to consider my modest role in resistance.

Still, I need to take into account the purpose of this season that culminates in my favorite holiday, Easter. In Lent we go into the desert in search of Living Water so that we can meet the risen Lord with our hearts refreshed and ready, undistracted, in essential unity, ready to share the seeds of hope.

... Undistracted? In unity?

I sometimes forget how much support there is around me if I just stop and look! My English friend's discipline blesses her—and me, too. So does every community in the family of faith that keeps holding up the reality of that Living Water, and reminds me in many ways, liturgical as well as Quaker, in order not to get dried out with my steady diet of difficult news. Anger and cynicism are roaming that desert, ready to complain about the lack of water, tempting me to ask, "Is the Lord among us or not?" (See Exodus 17:1-7.)

PDF version available from here.
Since the late 1970's, during every Lent, I work my way through Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's Stations of the Cross of Nonviolent Love, which reminds me that, through the millennia of history, the family of faith has endured far more time under one or another form of tyranny (with parts of the family even becoming collaborators!) than under relative freedom. In the USA, some Christians claim to be under persecution, but in many other places, the persecution is real, just as the trial, torture, and execution of the Head of our family was real. Nor are we at liberty to ignore the suffering of the rest of the world.

A decade ago I originally posted "Theological mathematics." The essay that inspired me was by Thomas R. Kelly. It was part of the collection of writings published as The Eternal Promise. The context of his brief essay entitled "Reflections" was another period of high tension: World War II was just ahead. What's more, in those very months Kelly was writing, Germany and her opponents were in a strange competition to enlist Russia as an ally.

In another essay from the same book, "Where Are the Springs of Hope?" (also summer 1939), Kelly said, "In such a world as ours today, no light glib word of hope dare be spoken." Such words are not suitable unless "...we know what it means to have absolutely no other hope but in Him. But as we know something of such a profound and amazing experience, clear at the depths of our beings, then we dare to proclaim it boldly in the midst of a world aflame. But the words are no good if the life experience is not behind them."

I think Kelly's writings in The Eternal Promise (and, of course, in the earlier collection, A Testament of Devotion) are helpful Lenten sustenance, and not just for me as an individual. They might speak to all Friends, and to all who may find themselves and their communities in a dry, fractious place just when the world needs their seeds of hope. As it turns out, the more variety we have in our Lenten disciplines, the more we need to support each other, drawing upon the experiences of all people everywhere who know what it means to challenge the principalities and powers.


Theological mathematics (2015), edited

In the summer of 1939, just weeks or perhaps days from the opening guns of World War II, Thomas Kelly was staying at an Episcopal monastery in Cambridge, Massachusetts. While there, he wrote some reflections that were published posthumously among the essays collected by his son Richard Kelly in The Eternal Promise.

Among other reflections, Thomas Kelly wrote:

Outside the shadows of the evening are falling upon the quiet, friendly garden where a few moments ago three of us, two Fathers of the Catholic tradition and a Friend, were speaking of the sacraments. There was much talk of the "covenanted channels," of the seven to which Catholics hold, of the two which Protestants practice. So long as questions of theological mathematics were upper, of seven or of two, there was a danger which we tacitly avoided. It became evident that I, an "unbaptized" Quaker, was not a Christian, except for the saving provision which allowed one to be a "Christian by desire."

Yet as the conversation moved to the love of God, to the need of Christ being formed in us, to the outgoing love of the Nazarene, to the blind and lame and wounded in body and soul in these days, the conversation became a sacrament where the Presence was as truly in our midst as He is in the Mass within the chapel walls. For the time being, Sacramentalist and Quaker were one, in the fellowship of the Church Universal.

The phrase that struck me forcefully: theological mathematics. Kelly is gently putting the question of sacramental observances in perspective, but I sat there wrestling with a different arithmetic: subtraction. We serve such an amazing God, we are led by such a luminous Saviour, the world is so demonstrably in need of authentic Christian hope, that I'm having a hard time with all the public Christians who seem intent on telling us (whether crassly or with endless theological subtlety) why this person or that should have the church's door slammed in their face.

It's not that we shouldn't have boundaries. Apparently many people are, at any given moment, not attracted by the Light we ourselves have found irresistible; they are entitled to their choices. But our invitation must remain honest and real and the door must remain open, fully lit. What we can't tolerate is a false welcome, an ostensible invitation with hidden screens to be sure nobody we're uncomfortable with stumbles in. Yes, we will have healing work to do; wounded people are not entitled to remodel the household of faith to suit their allergies and addictions. We will have to struggle, together with newcomers, over different understandings of the ethical consequences of conversion, whether the sharp edge of the struggle is sex or money or the obligations of citizenship. God knows, we're dealing with all this ourselves. But, the point is, when people come to us and say that they're ready to embrace Jesus, we then face these problems, even these conflicts, together.

The conflicts between theological conservatives and theological liberals in our evangelical corner of the Quaker world are not to be dismissed or taken lightly. At our best, we challenge each other's pretensions and false heroism, and keep each other honest. But I fear that when we let those conflicts take up too much space, we lose our perspective and our priorities. It's not that we need to conceal these conflicts in order to avoid scandalizing potential converts. People aren't stupid, they won't be surprised that we "mature" Christians are just as human and fractious as they are. But woe unto us if we diminish Christ's ability to create unity where the world would predict, even encourage, division.


(Back to 2025.) I love how Kelly's reflections on his visit to the monastic community in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on the eve of wartime, model the kind of wideband mutually supportive relationships that we'll need in these times. I am also remembering Beacon Hill Friend Howard Segars, who in our own time was also a participant in this same Cambridge community.

Related posts: "The gathered meeting," parts one and two.

See original post for some helpful comments from readers.

You may have noticed the words "our evangelical corner of the Quaker world...." When the post was first written, we were still in Northwest Yearly Meeting. Many Friends in our current "corner" of the Quaker world would probably not use the adjective "evangelical" for themselves. The word has suffered a lot of abuse as a result of its politicization.


I mentioned my practice of monitoring online sources of political news. Kristin Kobes Du Mez lists some of the sources she finds helpful for this calling. Her Convocation Unscripted colleague, Robert P. Jones, has an Ash Wednesday commentary on the U.S. president's speech to Congress. (I may have given the Convocation Unscripted link before, but just in case....)

Despite limited legal victories in the Supreme Court and a U.S. district court, the USA's international aid programs and partnerships are still in grave danger. Here's FCNL's online campaign facility for this concern. My one caution: e-mails to my Oregon senators are getting through on these facilities, but our congressperson's e-mail has a filter to catch "automated" e-mails even if the actual e-mail has been substantially rewritten by the sender. I now write to her using the form on her own congressional Web site.

Right Sharing of World Resources just held another online gathering of former board members, giving us a chance to meet the new executive director, Traci Hjelt Sullivan, and the country coordinator for Guatemala, Ruth Bueso. I wrote about the first two gatherings here and here. Among other things, the RSWR staff asked for our help in publicizing these job openings.

And ... Right Sharing takes a turn guest-editing the Daily Quaker Message.

Michael Albertus (Foreign Affairs) on climate change and the coming age of territorial expansion.

Juan Cole's Tomgram on how science fiction anticipated DOGE.

Nancy Thomas's unruly saints and questionable angels


Hubert Sumlin (1931-2011) and David Johansen (d. February 28, 2025) had a marvelous collaboration, with Johansen supplying voice after Sumlin's lung surgery.

16 May 2024

Barriers revisited (partly a repost)

Source.  

THE Truth of God, being received into the inward parts, is found to be of a living, powerful nature, working mightily there for the cleansing and redeeming of the hearts. Yea, this is certainly witnessed, that as the mind joined to deceit is thereby defiled, so the mind joined to the truth of God is, by its power and virtue, purified.

Now, having felt this, and being filled with the love and good-will of God to the souls of others, how can we but testify it to others, who stand in need of God's truth (and its cleansing property and virtue) as well as we; especially being thereunto moved and drawn by the Spirit of the Lord?

— Isaac Penington, published posthumously in 1680; source. (My italics.)

In our meeting, we're frightfully private.

— Member of an unprogrammed meeting in Britain Yearly Meeting.

Yesterday I had my second cataract surgery this year, and I'm still getting used to the results. To reduce screen time on blog night, the solution is obvious: repackage an old post. So the second half of this post is an item I published back in 2016, near the beginning of our last academic year in Russia.

What reminded me of that post, "Barriers," was a conversation just a week ago with a British Friend. We were talking about whether Friends in her meeting felt freedom to reveal their faith. From her comments I gathered that, whatever the reasons, this kind of sharing rarely took place.

It may have been small comfort, but I replied that this sort of diffidence was not unique to unprogrammed Friends. (For a brief definition of "unprogrammed," see the sidebar here.) I particularly remember our beloved First Friends Meeting in Richmond, Indiana, forty years ago, discussing how to grow their rapidly-shrinking congregation. "What we need are young couples," someone said. (I'm sure I've told this story before!) My internal reaction was, "No!" What they needed was more confidence in their identity as God's people. It was a congregation with many mature disciples who had done amazing things with their lives. We found out accidentally that one of the harmless-looking older members had been a worker for racial justice in the South in the late 1940's! We were in great sympathy with the Sunday school teacher who asked those older Friends, "Some of you have been Quakers for 60 years—why can't you tell us more about why you became Friends and what you've learned about God in those years?" One of the answers she got was, "Our generational culture is very private."

In the first generation of the Quaker movement, there was little or no social incentive to be among us; you'd be risking legal danger and possibly mob violence, and you'd certainly earn the disapproval of the religious establishment. Either direct experience of God's power, or the desire to be among people who persuasively testified to such a direct experience, might overcome those dangers and lead you to throw in your lot with those despised Quakers.

What attracts people to us now? I've known Friends who reflect this same power, joy, and convincing conduct, but in my experience, our most attractive feature for many is a social atmosphere of gracious idealism and doctrinal vagueness that draws in seekers who are much like the people already among us. There are variations, of course; some of our churches echo the cliches of the (American) evangelical culture, but however pointed the preaching may be, the ethical consequences of that preaching (discipleship, or if you prefer, the Quaker testimonies) are often weak or absent altogether. If this seems unfair, let me know! (And what drew you?)

One explanation for our reluctance to testify to a powerful faith might be that we simply aren't experiencing the spiritual outpouring that shaped the first generations of Friends. The torch has been passed to others in the Christian movement who are living out a reality that we'd rather read about at a safe distance, for example in quaint ancient Quakerese.

But there's another explanation that may be less pessimistic. We have developed a barrier, an inhibition, that keeps our mouths shut. Maybe, if we dared, we might be free to share words and deeds (according to our gifts and temperaments, and always subject to the discipline of knowing when to speak and when to listen!) that would convey the love of God and the demands of justice.

I'll leave it at that. Here, with some minor edits, is that original "Barriers" post.


"How can I explain something to you if you don't even watch TV?"
A meme found on vk.com (original scene from late-era Soviet film Heart of a Dog, which I recommend).

When I was around eight years old, the subject of God came up one day in my grade school classroom. (There weren't the same restrictions on God-talk in public school then that there are now; that's another discussion.) Our teacher said, "Why should we be afraid to talk about God?" I was startled and panicky—in fact I was afraid to talk about God, and couldn't even imagine making my mouth emit the word.

I made a mental note of this reaction, but didn't analyze it at the time. Later, I connected it with the fact that, in my family, any mention of religion was absolutely forbidden, along with any mention of disease or death. Whatever the roots of this barrier, it blocked me from communicating with anyone about a huge part of what it means to be human.

Obviously, something happened between grade school and my decades of working for the church! But I'm glad that I remember that block. These memories came back to me the other day when I was talking with some colleagues about expanding our students' access to informal English-speaking opportunities. "Some of my students do a great job with grammar and vocabulary," said one colleague. "But when it comes to speaking in a group, they just can't open their mouths. There's that old psychological barrier."

These young people aren't exactly facing the same barrier in speaking English as I encountered in talking about God. (Or, rather, not talking about God.) There's no actual danger in overcoming the language barrier, but there are several hazards in crossing into God-talk territory. For me as a child, there was a safety issue within the family. But, on another level entirely, do we want it to become too easy to talk about God? Is there a place for some reluctance to become glib about the Ultimate?

We Quakers have a number of indirect ways of referring to divine realities—terms such as the Inward Light and the Seed, used generations ago to avoid an unseemly familiarity with holy realities, much as biblical Hebrew and its readers made substitutions for the Name. In my early years as a Friend, I remember hearing vocal ministry that referred to "the Author and Finisher of our faith" rather than naming Jesus explicitly. Nowadays Quaker terms such as Inward Light can mistakenly be used in the service of weakening our ties with Christianity, but that old impulse to curb our verbosity when referring to God still seems valid to me.

Even so, "faith comes from hearing the message," so there is something to be said for not letting psychological barriers get in the way of that communication. Part of our evangelistic task might be to confront the false barrier of cultural piety. Are we marked by a gooey sentimentality, a cloud of goofy cliches, or any other signals that you must, to gain entrance, turn off your critical faculties?

In John Updike's novel Rabbit Is Rich, there is a fascinating scene where the Episcopal priest, Archie Campbell, attends a family meeting to discuss Nelson's and Pru's intended marriage. The minister mildly defends "our brand of magic" while everyone else is trying to negotiate how much or little churchiness is necessary to accomplish the desired outcome—a respectable wedding. Rabbit's own defense of faith is not exactly zero ("Hell, what I think about religion is ... is without a little of it, you'll sink") but the church-wedding discussion is mostly about appearances, not reality.

As long as it seems that the religion industry is just selling one or another form of respectability, people will find their "magic" elsewhere. And rightly so. Maybe it's not a psychological barrier that blocks the audience from yielding—maybe it's a healthy boundary!

What exactly is the alternative that evangelists with integrity are offering? I think that there is no formula, no doctrine, no scare tactic, no magic that equals meeting someone who looks at you with God's love in their eyes, who offers access to a community that is shaped by trust in God. Some people in that community will know how to communicate this invitation quietly, with an assurance that doesn't depend on using loaded words. Others will know how to communicate with contagious enthusiasm, with generous love that covers a multitude of incautious cliches. There are infinite variations on this spectrum, and somewhere in God's economy, they probably all meet some blocked person's condition.

Along my own route, several people and incidents helped me overcome the barrier. Studying Asian civilizations in high school introduced me to whole cultures not shaped by the assumptions of Western materialism. The anti-war movement brought me physically into churches for the first time in my life. (It wasn't as weird in a church as I thought it would be. Specifically, it was the Ebenezer A.M.E. Church in Evanston, Illinois.) My high-school fascination with writers such as Dostoevsky and Alan Paton played their part. But I remember a much earlier crack in the barrier: a tract I happened to pick up off the floor of our apartment building's lobby, not so long after the incident with the teacher. This tract described someone's conversion. In the process of getting to know God, this writer would walk way outside of their normal routes to pass a church that had Christ's name on it. That Name had such an attractive power for the writer. Hmmm, that's interesting, I thought. Even though I didn't understand or respond to that tract's invitation at the time, I somehow understood even then what the writer was feeling.

If I have any ability at all to represent the Gospel effectively, I believe that in part it's because I still vividly remember being a non-believer who couldn't even say the word "God." But I am not permitted to define my path or emphasis as the only one. I'm glad to share the responsibility of communicating God's welcome with many others, some of whom have very different approaches to removing barriers.

(Originally published on September 7, 2016. To date there's one comment, from the late Vail Palmer, referring to Adria Gulizia's then-new blog: "That blog about suffering and God's suffering with us is so profound. What else would a God who truly loves us be up to?")


Source.  

Right Sharing of World Resources has a new mailing address:

PO Box 2102
Richmond, Indiana
USA 47375-2102

Catch up with Right Sharing's latest news here. And learn more about the search for a new general secretary here.


Diana Chandler (The Roys Report) on the dwindling Christian presence in Gaza. 

How the Kremlin wants its audiences to think about Putin's cabinet reshuffle. (Meduza.)

Sam Adams (Slate) asks why A24 is burying its January 6 documentary.

The Fines have called their film nonpartisan, and in a less toxic political climate, its premise, that an election should not be disrupted by mobs in tactical gear assaulting law enforcement officers, ought to be one both sides could endorse without pause or equivocation. But....

Micah Bales asks whether we have been pruned.

From the perspective of our American individualism, this seems like a hard pill to swallow, but it is in fact good news.

Frederick Kaufman (UnHerd) on the mythical masculinity of Donald Trump.

“My power is great, greater than you believe, and I have gold and silver in abundance.” That was [Robert Bly's] Iron John’s promise to his acolyte. It is also Trump’s promise to MAGA and the manosphere. Thus do hordes of Redditers, Snapchatters, Xers, Instagrammers and sundry other amo-packing denizens of incel message boards feel the pain of the billionaire who now stands trial for hiding hush money payments to a porn star. And here, too, Trump will rely on truths Bly articulated decades ago — that much like infants, his followers will “refuse to remember ugly facts”, that they will “look away from disorganisation, abuse, abandonment."

The Open Culture Web site passes along playlists of the "3,300 best films and documentaries on YouTube." View the list at your own risk.

Nancy Thomas writes about choosing books to keep, Henri Nouwen, Rembrandt's Return of the Prodigal Son, and a visit to ... us!


Jason Ricci, "Scratch My Back"—2024 (below) and nine years ago.

31 August 2023

A Right Sharing reunion, part two

Phanice Kenyorwa, Keyo Friends Women Group, Kenya (Right Sharing partners). Photo courtesy RSWR.

Of Phanice Kenyorwa's eight children, four are still living at home. She has 6 grandchildren also under her care. Phanice has a husband who is older and cannot work. He once worked as a butcher, but he became diabetic and can't work anymore. Reasons why she chose goat rearing for her business: Phanice ventured into goat rearing and selling because of advice from her husband as well as high demand of goat meat at the butchery where her husband once worked. Together with that, she does some farming of indigenous vegetables. She is so confident of her business because her own children help her to graze the goats and therefore it saves on labor.The business has helped Phanice to renovate their house which was leaking and also to put food on the table.


Grace Akaranga, chair lady of Keyo Friends
Women Group, in her village shop. Photo
courtesy RSWR.
Anne Jahenda at Kapkereri local market.
Photo courtesy RSWR.
Jackie Stillwell, general secretary, RSWR
(right), with Judy and me at Britain Yearly
Meeting 2023. Photo courtesy Jackie Stillwell.

It's very hard for me to believe it, but it has been thirty years since I ended my service with Right Sharing of World Resources. To all appearances, the program is flourishing. I can't help wanting to know, how has it changed over the decades?

This may not be the most important answer, but for one thing, it's an independent Quaker program. My service with Right Sharing (1986-1993) was part of my responsibilities as a field staffer with Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas. 

When Right Sharing was a new vision for global economic justice via "right sharing" of our resources (at least "one percent more" from individuals and nations alike), that affiliation with FWCC provided a trustworthy anchor in the Quaker constellation of organizations, open to participation by all Friends of whatever location or theology. It was also an economical way of managing a program of its small size. However, as it grew to become one of the largest units of FWCC in terms of finances, it threatened to pull resources from the wider FWCC mission.

It was also a bit of a category mismatch. As Indianapolis First Friends pastor Lorton Heusel pointed out to me at the start of my service, Right Sharing was an action-oriented program devoted to development and economic justice, while FWCC as a whole was devoted to communication and consultation across the Quaker world. Wouldn't that confuse some audiences?

As the program became larger, some Right Sharing donors resented paying a small percentage toward FWCC's administrative costs, although without that administration, there would have been no program. All in all, when Right Sharing became independent a few years after my departure, the new arrangement made a lot of sense, and I very much enjoyed my term on the new trustees, with the late, much-missed Roland Kreager as the Right Sharing coordinator.


A couple of years ago, I reported on a reunion of Right Sharing trustees. That meeting answered a lot of my questions about what had changed and what had remained of the "old" Right Sharing. 

A few months ago Right Sharing held another such meeting of current and former trustees. Among the highlights this time was the addition of a fourth country—Guatemala—to the three countries where Right Sharing's partners were then located: India, Sierra Leone, Kenya. In each of these four countries there are Right Sharing coordinators and trainers. One of them, I'm delighted to say, was a familiar face from my time on the staff: Dr. R. Kannan. His work with local nongovernmental organizations and grassroots groups may have been Right Sharing's very first experiences with what is now standard practice: providing local assistance, training, and evaluation services for new and potential partner groups.

One of our romantic notions in the early years of Right Sharing was that somehow we could form meaningful partnerships simply based on informal visitations by Quaker travelers and Quaker volunteers in the Peace Corps, and similar improvisations. Also, somehow the groups we worked with would already know how to write an attractive proposal (without paying to copy someone else's successful proposal, and without feeling forced to parrot the jargon already proven to be attractive to Western donors), and would also, without further help, be able to receive and account for a chunk of new money. Kannan began to show how these relationships could be made more meaningful and secure, to the benefit of everyone involved.


What does all this look like in practice? I'm very thankful to Sarah Northrop, RSWR's program director, for telling me about one specific community partner, the Keyo Friends Women Group in Vihiga county, Kenya, as a case study of today's Right Sharing. Sarah writes:

Development of Keyo Friends Women Group and its partnership with Right Sharing of World Resources

In Kenya, it is common for women to come together as a group. There are church groups, groups of women who work together, community groups, groups formed around an interest, etc. In many of these groups, women practice “merry-go-round”. At each meeting, each woman puts a specified amount of money into a pot and it is given to one woman - usually the woman who is hosting the meeting that day. The person who receives the pot rotates through all of the members and then it starts over again. This practice of merry-go-round binds the women together and the money itself is useful to pay for big expenses such as school fees or holiday celebrations.

Keyo Friends Women Group was started as a United Society of Friends Women group of Keyo Friends Church in 2015. It was established as a prayer and support group, but they practiced merry-go-round banking also. As in much of rural Kenya, all of the women of Keyo Friends were struggling economically. Their main source of livelihood came from their small farming plots, but over the years, the plots had gotten smaller and smaller as they were divided among all the male heirs in a family, and much of land was sold to large tea and sugarcane farming enterprises. By 2015, the farm plots were no longer able to feed the families and women all over rural Kenya were looking for another way to support their families.

The Keyo group decided to invite a government Social Services officer to teach them how to do table banking so that they could establish a group revolving loan fund to support personal small businesses. Table Banking is similar to merry-go-round, but the money the women put in is not returned to them. It is kept in the group treasury and women who want to start a business can take a loan from the treasury to have capital for the businesses. When the loans are repaid with interest, the group table banking fund is further augmented. The government of Kenya, through their Social Service department, has a program that encourages women groups to start table banking and small-scale enterprises.

Sometime in 2016 or 2017, some of the women from the Keyo group went to a USFW conference where Samson Ababu made a presentation about Right Sharing of World Resources. The Right Sharing program offers women groups a much larger capital fund than they can save on their own and also provides training and support to the groups. The Keyo women asked Samson to come and speak more about RSWR to their group. Afterwards, they decided to become part of the Right Sharing program. They received training in group dynamics and were assisted to register their group and put into place procedures to ensure that the group was run fairly and democratically.

When they sent their application for a grant in the fall of 2018, the RSWR Country Coordinators ranked them highly and commented that the group was a mixture of many different tribes who were working well together and that they were actively trying to overcome the poverty that they found themselves in. Their grant was approved by the RSWR board and they received the funds in January of 2019. Since that time, the group has gone through many hardships and struggles, including Covid-19 and extremely high inflation in Kenya. However, they have stuck together and are still working hard to improve their lives. Their RSWR revolving loan fund is still intact and it continues to help them keep their businesses going and even grow the businesses which are now their main source of livelihood. All 30 of the original women are still active members and 5 new women have joined the group.

Source.  
Sarah Northrop is the Program Director for Right Sharing of World Resources. A graduate of Earlham College and a member of West Richmond Friends in Richmond, Indiana, Sarah has worked at RSWR since 2007, first as Assistant to the Program Director and as Program Director since 2013. Sarah’s job includes liaising with RSWR Country Coordinators in our four countries, preparing information on projects and overseas partners for board, staff and donors, receiving and processing reports and other communications from our partner NGOs and women groups, and maintaining the database of RSWR past and present projects. Sarah works from her home in Chelem, in the state of Yucatán, Mexico.


When I was the Right Sharing coordinator, working from home in Richmond, Indiana, and then Wilmington, Ohio, with at most one part-time staffer working alongside me, and no permanent staff anywhere else, it was a point of pride (and of our fundraising!) that we operated a lean organization and could plow most income directly into grants to partners.

Actually, it was misplaced pride. A significant part of Right Sharing's budget now pays for training and preparation to make the partnerships more sustainable in the long run, and to make the relationships far more real. In my own time, I might have worried that donors wouldn't understand how important it was that this intermediary role be funded, but it seems as if donors do understand. Not only do those coordinators and trainers add integrity to the relationships, they also serve the goal of shifting the emphasis of Right Sharing from funders' decisionmaking in favor of partners' experience and initiative.


A selection of links to Right Sharing history (some of these were also in part one).

And for more recent history, Right Sharing newsletter archives back to 2016.


Jacob Meador on why Americans really stopped going to church.

The theologian Stanley Hauerwas captured the problem well when he said that “pastoral care has become obsessed with the personal wounds of people in advanced industrial societies who have discovered that their lives lack meaning.” The difficulty is that many of the wounds and aches provoked by our current order aren’t of a sort that can be managed or life-hacked away. They are resolved only by changing one’s life, by becoming a radically different sort of person belonging to a radically different sort of community.

Are churchgoers more likely to see life as exciting?

Pastor Sean Muldowny on pastoring in the Trump era. (Via Kristin Du Mez.)

Jeremy Morris considers what we're learning from the death of Yevgeny Prigozhin. "...[A]mbiguity over the sources and reasons for violence are useful to the Putin regime."

Beth Felker Jones offers a prayer for back to school.

Frida Berrigan on facing a world that has become an oven. In large ways and small, we need to reinvent ourselves.

Micah Bales on what happens when the Holy Spirit tweaks a sermon.


For blues dessert, here's a rerun especially sent out to our former students. Hans Theessink, "Walking the Dog."

15 April 2021

A Right Sharing reunion

Right Sharing of World Resources newsletters 2021 and 1987. Sources: 1987 and 2021.

A month ago, the Quaker organization Right Sharing of World Resources gathered a group of former Right Sharing trustees for an online reunion, inviting input on visions for the future of the organization. The following observations are mine alone, not approved by staff or trustees, and subject to comment and improvement by any of them!

As both a former staffer and a former trustee, I loved the idea of hearing first-hand what was going on in the world of Right Sharing, a program for which I cannot pretend to be objective. Although I've been a contributor for years, I was only vaguely aware of some of the developments since my time of direct involvement, and this March 2021 reunion-by-videoconference seemed like a great way for me to get caught up. Despite its obvious growth in scale and sophistication, was Right Sharing still the human-scale development aid and development education program, relying heavily on relationships, that I'd known and loved?

Link to excerpt on Right Sharing.
(Some background: Right Sharing emerged as a concern at the World Conference of Friends in Greensboro, North Carolina, in 1967, where the words "right sharing of world resources" were first used as part of that gathering's concern to confront poverty and economic injustice. [See these pages from The Friend's coverage of that conference.] In the European yearly meetings, the implementation of this vision mostly devolved to the individual yearly meetings. In London Yearly Meeting, for example, a One Percent Fund was established, to be managed by a Sharing World Resources committee that carried the program on for the next twenty years.

(For the Friends World Committee for Consultation's American Section -- now Section of the Americas -- a One Percent More fund was set up in 1969, and a Right Sharing Committee was set up in 1974 to work alongside Right Sharing Committees in five USA yearly meetings and with interested Friends in other yearly meetings. Interestingly, the money generated by the Right Sharing vision started coming into FWCC before any Right Sharing program was established; the Section had to scramble to organize good stewardship for this burst of support. For this background, I've drawn on Herbert Hadley's history of FWCC, Quakers World Wide, as well as my own memories.

(I began as staff for Right Sharing in January 1986 -- following Sharli Powers Land, who also edited FWCC Section of the Americas publications -- and I left the staff in March 1993. The late Roland Kreager followed me as staff; during his tenure, Right Sharing of World Resources left the Friends World Committee umbrella and became a separate organization with its own trustees. I was very glad to serve on this group in those early years. In this interview, current general secretary Jackie Stillwell gives a very helpful summary of today's Right Sharing. In recent newsletters, you can see vivid examples of both similarities and differences between the "old" Right Sharing and today's program.)

In the last year of my service, Betsy Mathiot (known to many of us as Betsy Moen during her years of active involvement with Right Sharing) was guest editor for an issue of Hunger Notes, and asked me to write an article about my experiences with the program. In the resulting article, I tried to summarize what I'd learned over the seven years I served -- including a growing appreciation of the limits of development doctrine, the importance of relationship, the temptations to corruption that we ourselves can allow through ignorance, and the pitfalls of project-oriented management. 

One of the biggest differences between then and now, I feel, is that the lessons that I was barely able to put words to, have now become embodied in a thoughtful and well-balanced way. Relationships are still encouraged, but field representatives in each country now provide reliable links between the support community and the local groups whom we're privileged to encourage and learn from -- links that seem more conducive to stability, trust, and practical mentorship than our older reliance on almost random volunteers. Instead of spreading ourselves across ten or more countries, today's Right Sharing focuses on three -- India, Sierra Leone, and Kenya. 

Another important program focus is support for women's groups, which represents (to me) the conscious adoption of an insight that was just part of the gradual learning process in my time: aid to women supports the whole family, whereas, too often, resources acquired by men are spent by those men on themselves. The World Bank and others documented this reality already in the early 1970's (if not before), but an organization with limited resources and a human-scale vision does well to turn insight into program. Men are not shunned -- a couple of the the field representatives are men -- but the community-level participants and leaders are women.

There's also definite continuity with the Right Sharing of the 1980's and 1990's. Most of the groups in partnership with Right Sharing consist of women learning how to create and manage their own small businesses and getting loans for their businesses, which when repaid will in turn enable others in their communities to get similar loans. The majority of the groups we worked with did exactly the same -- and I'm sure met some of the same challenges, whether they were operating street food stands in Cairo, weaving in Dhaka, or tending water buffalo in Madurai District.

These are some of the things I learned during our Right Sharing videoconference last month. In small groups, we were also invited to contribute our own ideas of what Right Sharing might look like, what directions it might take, in the next twenty years. Surveying the results, among the important points raised in our small groups were these: (this list is edited by me alone, and I bear sole responsibility for the emphases and omissions!) 

  • Continue to acknowledge and encourage the shift in power that occurs when funding decisions are made in the field, by people in touch with local realities, rather than by a central North America-based structure composed of people who are often racially and culturally disconnected from the "beneficiaries." 
  • By emphasizing partnerships with women, we reflect the often-documented reality mentioned above, that when resources go to women, the whole family benefits….  However, as Betsy Moen said years ago in her Right Sharing talk at the University of the West Indies (mentioned somewhere in the middle of this blog post), where does that leave men? Betsy's question may lead to fruitful conversations and partnerships in the next generation, but, in our small group, we all agreed that we want such conversations to multiply, not divide, our strengths. They should not divert attention from our primary focus.
  • A huge benefit of transferring power to our locations of service: great sensitivity to local culture, and cultural appropriateness of our activities and ideas. One participant in our small group gave an example: she had thought it would be great for women in a program in Sierra Leone to have motorcycles but was cautioned by local partners that this would be incompatible with local expectations and patterns. However, this leads to another query: what do we do when local patterns support oppressive systems, as early Friends encountered in advocating the equality of women, and, later, in rejecting slavery? (Here's an example from 1985.) How do we have the courage, humility, and spiritual authenticity to raise these concerns without making things worse?
  • Two related concerns that were raised in small groups: let's work to increase the diversity of our own trustees and staff; and let's include domestic violence as one of the realities faced in our work.
  • As Right Sharing grows, do we go wider (partnerships in more countries) or do we go deeper where we already work? Everyone seemed to agree that, unless God gives us a specific leading to expand, confirmed by prayerful discernment, we ought to stay focused on our current locations and the networks we've built there; and in any case, we ought not to let those existing commitments be weakened for the sake of geographic diversity.
  • How should the climate crisis figure into strategic planning -- in both our organizational operations and our partnerships?

In sum, I found the whole videoconference encouraging and inspiring. May Right Sharing of World Resources continue to thrive, blessing participants at every point in this extraordinary international network of relationships.

(Link to part two.)


My article on Right Sharing of World Resources for the October 1989 issue of Quaker Life.

Right Sharing continues to be represented in the most recent Faith and Practice of Britain Yearly Meeting.

Vorkuta. I find this photo almost unbearable.
From RFE/RL's Matthew Luxmoore: The costly history and sad decline of one of Russia's most remote Arctic cities, Vorkuta.

From a city I love (the city where my own sister died of a gunshot wound at age 14), another police-shooting horror story.

... as another horror story unfolds in Indianapolis.

Another story from Luxmoore: controversy around a priest's relatively mild defense of Aleksei Navalny.

Beth Woolsey tells us where all her words have gone.


"Come Go With Me" -- Mavis Staples. (No hatred will be tolerated.)


26 November 2020

Giving Tuesday (and a repost of "Criticizing aid...")

Judy's cornucopia for Thanksgiving Day 2010 at the New Humanities Institute, Elektrostal, Russia.

Thanksgiving blessings to you! 



Source.  

The "Giving Tuesday" movement has been going on for most of a decade, but I only began learning about it last year. I guess that's how far I've drifted from the world of nonprofits and fundraising that used to dominate my life.

The "Tuesday" of Giving Tuesday is linked to the U.S. Thanksgiving holiday -- it's in the week after Thanksgiving Thursday and the consumer binge labeled "Black Friday." In contrast to the consumer emphasis that is associated with the opening of the Christmas shopping season, Giving Tuesday seeks to inspire people to "give, collaborate, and celebrate generosity."

My introduction to Giving Tuesday began in Hebron, Palestine, where I spent last fall with Christian Peacemaker Teams' Palestinian program. The CPT office in Chicago asked us to contribute video to CPT's own Giving Tuesday campaign. We made several videos; I operated one of the cameras for this one.

The organization and board members behind Giving Tuesday appear to exemplify safe corporate philanthropy, which at first made me wonder why I'd want to link up with it. However, there doesn't seem to be any attempt to claim exclusive ownership of Giving Tuesday, or censor or limit the scope of activists and organizations who are encouraging participation in their programs by using that tag. To the extent that it's a genuine campaign to encourage generosity, I see no need to get all cynical about it.

But I'm not above giving it a test. Facebook is one of the corporate participants, so I'm carrying on my own Facebook-based Giving Tuesday campaign. I chose Christian Peacemaker Teams as the beneficiary of my little effort. For gifts that come in on December 1, Facebook has a formula to determine how it will match gifts that day from its US$ 7 million Giving Tuesday fund. For my CPT campaign, I set a goal of $1764, a dollar for every person on my friends' list on Facebook. Seems a bit ambitious to me, but why not?

In case you're in Russia, there's a #ЩедрыйВторник site.


Another organization I considered for my first attempt at Giving Tuesday fundraising was the program I served as staff for seven years, Right Sharing of World Resources. If this first Facebook/Giving Tuesday experience turns out not to be too embarrassing, I'll work with RSWR next. In the meantime, I'm glad to report that the Friends meeting I attend, Camas Friends Church, has taken on 100% sponsorship of one of the community groups supported by RSWR, and our prayer commitment and correspondence have begun, in what we expect will be an experience of mutual blessing.

My time with Right Sharing helped shape the following article I originally posted here back in 2013. The context at the time was the post-Arab Spring troubles in Egypt, but I hope that some of my observations and questions are still helpful.


Criticizing aid for fun and (non)profit 

As Egyptians seek ways to resolve their current violent clash of values, the USA's foreign policy establishment is caught in a familiar dilemma: how to influence events to our "advantage" by finessing our foreign aid commitments to the country. So often, aid policy seems to put the needs of distressed people in last place. Does it do any good at all?

To show that you, too, are intelligent
Smugly ask, “Is it really development?”
Ross Coggins, source.
There are probably few fields of human activity as rife with possibilities for righteous one-upping than foreign aid--oops, I mean international development assistance. Just think! -- intensely cerebral idealists and shameless opportunists alike (not to mention semi-disillusioned former practitioners like me) can question:
... while actual people living in bondage don't get a word in edgewise. And, just as with theology and doctrinal disputes whose urgency is linked to our concepts of salvation, the whole debate is electrified by the high stakes involved. According to UNICEF, 29,000 children are dying each day from preventable causes.

Having seen development philosophies cycle in and out over the last forty years, I now assume that any development doctrine, no matter how progressive or fashionable, will eventually be denounced as wasteful or imperialistic or self-serving or somehow fatally inadequate with the passage of time. And these devastating critiques will be undergirded by horror stories of failures (like the Norwegian fish-freezing plant on the receding shoreline of Lake Turkana). And our own local church-based attempts to confront poverty will be equally vulnerable to unintended consequences. See these posts by Jamie, the very worst missionary, for examples relating to short-term missions.

Is abandoning international aid the answer? I'd argue that it isn't, because any such decision is just as corrupt and self-serving as the various doctrines and channels of foreign aid have turned out to be. It turns out that we give money to panhandlers in part to stay human, not necessarily to feel virtuous or provide durable help to the panhandler. Nations are no different; if the USA were to indulge itself in an attitude of economic and spiritual isolationism in a world plagued by chronic economic distress, one of its core values--unaffected generosity--would die completely. Indifference is fatal. To struggle to find our way among admittedly imperfect solutions is far better than doing nothing.

Some critics of USA's aid might argue that "unaffected generosity" is already a myth. That may be what the American public thinks it values, but that's because most people are unaware of (1) how microscopic the USA budget for non-military overseas direct assistance is, proportionally; (2) how much of it goes (and in terms of official assistance, MUST go) to USA-based suppliers, carriers, and agencies. This argues, not for less aid, but for more honesty.

I remember a conversation with a USAID representative in Jamaica after one of the hurricanes devastated a part of the island. He said, in effect, that one of the priorities of the aid effort was, by way of the various emergency projects, simply to flood the affected area with money. They knew full well that the money would not necessarily be spent efficiently or 100% honestly, but at least it would begin circulating in areas that had been bled dry by the disaster. Somehow I appreciated both the honesty and the pragmatism of his explanation.

Development aid will always be a messy business, because we're humans, and we can't help getting our narrow worldviews and multiple agendas mixed into the process. Arguing about which channels and methods are best reminds me of endless Quaker debates on evangelism: do we emphasize the Quaker stuff or stress the need for (unbranded) salvation and conversion? I know I'm right about my own viewpoint, but the reality is that different approaches can work together in partnership, and when they irritate each other, it's not the end of the world. So here are some ideas on development aid that seem sensible to me, at least today:
  • systemic and palliative approaches are forever one-upping each other, but both are needed, ... just swallow your damn pride and keep each other informed!
  • waste is inevitable; keep things transparent, but don't get stingy just because not every penny of your own precious dollar is spent exactly the way you'd like (and don't take advantage of "convenient alienation," which is when individuals or churches are happy to find flaws in a denomination or charity so that they can cut their contributions and save money!)
  • fund the aid bureaucracy--competency in transmitting and monitoring resources is worth paying for!--but demand transparency, accountability, and participatory approaches at every point of the chain
  • relationship is supreme; beware of the "project" mentality that relies on forms and procedures instead of waiting for relationships to mature; remember John Perkins' three imperatives and the order they're in: relocation, reconciliation, and (gulp) redistribution
  • instead of blasting your fellow practitioners who are somehow less sophisticated than you or I, focus your withering rhetoric on government policies that can, in one stroke, neutralize all the good you're doing by increasing tariffs or holding aid hostage to favorable U.N. votes
  • always keep God at the center, and if you need a bit of a theological scare to stay focused, remember Emmanuel Charles McCarthy's words: "Apathy in the face of relievable human misery is radical evil."
This is a list that I hope you'll add to or correct! In the meantime, here are some related posts:

"If you know what's good for you"
Intentions and results
Give a man a cliché...
On giving and receiving



Back to 2020....

Two of my friends in the Friends of Jesus network, Micah Bales and Adria Gulizia, are part of the "God Squad" whose discussions form the new podcast, "For God and Country." Enjoy!

Margaret Benefiel: How do we discover the New Song?

Natasha Zhuravenkova and Sergei Grushko on translating Quaker texts into Russian. (I've been involved with several of these texts, including Katharine Evans and Sarah Chevers.)

Mike Farley on normalcy and change, digitalnun and Alexander Parker.

A film about two actual love bugs!


Igor Prado's first visit to Russia. The Roadhouse Blues Club in Moscow.

09 July 2020

The most important question

"What would it mean for me to put God at the center of my life?"

It was 1977. In a meeting room at Pendle Hill, the Quaker retreat and conference center in Wallingford, Pennsylvania, Jennifer Haines stood before us and suggested we ask ourselves this question. She stood before a board, marker in hand, ready to record our responses.

Jennifer's superb book on prison and prayer.
I knew Jennifer Haines. A year earlier, I had attended the Friends World Committee for Consultation triennial sessions in Hamilton, Ontario, and Jennifer had been there to speak about her own FWCC work, the Right Sharing of World Resources program. Hearing her at that occasion, and then again in 1977 at Pendle Hill, I didn't for one moment suspect that, less than a decade later, I would be doing the same work for Right Sharing that she was doing then.

By the end of that session at Pendle Hill, Jennifer had filled the board with ideas and commitments from the participants. I don't now remember whether I contributed anything specific, but ever since then, her question has repeatedly come back to search me.

In the long term, answering that question has led me to invest my life in the Quaker movement. (This is no guarantee that my day-to-day participation has been flawless!) Our little corner of the Christian world has sometimes seemed to me to be too shy, at other times too full of itself, but for me personally Friends faith and practice have been a way of life based, directly and simply, on trust in God. We trust God to lead us in our personal lives and in our lives as communities, and we are skeptical about falling back on leaders and ceremonies that could mask our lack of trust.

I had to call on that trust many times in 1977. I left Canada with my bachelor's degree in Russian, returning to the USA with absolutely no idea what I was going to do with my future, but with the hope that it would involve Quaker service. The visit to Pendle Hill took place during those months of uncertainty, and it could not have been better timed. I decided that putting God at the center meant meeting uncertainty with trust.



This aspect of putting God at the center of my life -- meeting uncertainty with trust -- has taken on new importance for me at this moment of history. I can't remember another time when national and international stresses have converged so intensely on us. I won't list the interrelated political, economic, spiritual, ecological, racial, and public health crises that have reached a crescendo; you can count them off just as well as I can.

My friends react in a variety of ways, including several who have decided to stop following the news; others have sworn off social media; a number of them are affected by anxiety and depression. The list of those who have lost jobs, even after decades of service to their employers, is growing. In the background, waves of malevolence, fake outrage, cynicism, false witness -- some of it from sources purported to be Christian -- sweep over our public life.

I do not dare prescribe Jennifer's question, or any particular answer to her question, as unsolicited advice for anyone else. But I need that question for myself, as I try to be a faithful friend and Friend in this time of confusion. I need to confirm my commitment to trust in God. When anxieties for myself and others threaten to sweep me off my center, that's exactly when I need to ask myself Jennifer's question again.



Synopsis, trailer, screening information, and donation channels at sweethomemonteverde.com.
Yesterday about fifteen of us at Camas Friends Church met by videoconference to discuss the film Sweet Home Monteverde, which I reviewed recently on this blog. We had two special guests, Robin Truesdale, the film's director and editor, and Bill Adler, the film's producer and reporter. The film originated during Bill's period of living in Monteverde, Costa Rica, as he became concerned to record some of the memories of the few remaining original settlers.

Our discussion yesterday confirmed the power of the film to illustrate the causes and consequences of living by Friends values. It was those original settlers' way of answering Jennifer Haines' most important question.



Speaking of Camas Friends, I highly recommend this parable about becoming free, "one that I'm pretty sure you've never heard...."

When I worked for Right Sharing of World Resources, it was a program of Friends World Committee for Consultation, where I also served as Midwest field staff from 1983 to 1993. Now it is an independent Quaker organization. This year, Camas Friends Church decided to sponsor a project.

The Internet Monk recommends this conversation between Francis Collins and Anthony Fauci concerning the novel coronavirus and the state of efforts to detect, treat, and prevent COVID-19, including special attention to populations who are suffering disproportionately.

Anastasia Edel: Putin's constitutional tsarism and the role of Russian constitutions.



Big Daddy Wilson. I've presented this video before, but it seemed especially pertinent again this week.

06 September 2012

More on 'the special nature of women'

Vitalii Vorobyov, "Portrait of Tanya with her
friend." (More from the current exhibition of
Elektrostal's artists here.)
Last week I posted almost all of a talk given by Patriarch Kirill on the "special nature of women."

As I was re-reading the talk a couple of days ago, my mind went back to the hours I spent talking with my late friend Betsy Moen (Elizabeth Moen Mathiot of Boulder Friends Meeting and the University of Colorado) on the subject of women's divine nature.

Betsy served on the Right Sharing of World Resources committee for most of the years I was its staff member. We talked many times about many subjects. We even co-led a Right Sharing study tour in Jamaica, along with Jamaican Friend Oswald Murray. But the specific conversations I'm remembering now took place back in 1990 at the guesthouse of the Gandhi Memorial Museum in Madurai, India.

(It was there, in her room at that guesthouse, that she unexpectedly died on March 11, 1993, about two weeks after I left the Right Sharing staff.)

I was in India to visit the human-scale development projects that Right Sharing was funding, or considering funding, in Tamil Nadu and Kerala states. My visit was far too short, but Betsy had been studying local patterns of development for years by then, and she did her best to educate me on the cultural and spiritual context of those patterns as she saw them. (A sample of her work—and her voice—is online here.) In the process, she also introduced me to many local activists and scholars, and she gave me a tour of the Meenakshi Amman Temple in Madurai, where we witnessed the nightly procession of goddess Meenakshi's consort Sundareswarar to Meenakshi's bedroom. He spends the night there but processes back to his own place at dawn.

As in many other cultures and religions, Hinduism ascribes huge importance to feminine aspects of divinity and to the crucial divine feminine principle, without which the masculine aspects of divinity are ineffective. In the daily life of ordinary people, this principle is transmuted into expectations that women are responsible for fertility and for maintaining the respectability of the household. The powerful, dynamic image of divine sexual equilibrium isn't reflected in political patterns among us mortals. This was Betsy's concern and fascination, and the subject of our conversations: why is femininity cherished in the abstract but without concrete consequences for the division of labor and resources?

Grassroots development organizations in southern India had long since realized that Western funders liked funding "women's projects." Many studies showed that when women had more resources, they devoted them to the family, whereas men tended to use them to make their own lives more enjoyable. As a result of this funding trend, we found several organizations with very capable women in charge—and others, where a wife or junior staffer was the figurehead leader for the sake of attracting funds, while all decisions were made by men.

Christians also ascribe great importance to female expressions of divinity and discipleship, starting with Mary the Mother of God. Pope John Paul II's personal motto was "totally yours," expressing total devotion to Mary. Kirill credits women with (in general) preserving sacred values and transmitting them from generation to generation, and (concretely) preserving the Russian church during the years of Communist repression. But both men are utterly opposed to the ordination of women or their participation in the hierarchy. Christianity, cumulatively and often inarticulately, has been a huge force for women's social advancement, but I'm convinced that this happened because human liberation is at the very heart of the Gospel—not because most of its practitioners actually knew through the centuries that this would happen.

I have heard most of the excuses for the subordination of women in the church, including those based on Scripture and those based on elaborate theories of complementarity—that we're all equal, but our roles are different (and of course we men alone are qualified to police those roles). What I would love to hear is the defenders of these theories and interpretations confronting their own self-interest in the positions they defend:
  • Have you examined honestly whether you yourself would tolerate the restrictions that you are prepared to impose wholesale on others?
  • How much does your own convenience, your power, or the mystique of your identity depend on denying freedom to others? How does this state of affairs affect the way you interpret Scripture?
  • When do you interpret Scripture to say "no" to others, and when do you interpret it to say "yes" (or "it doesn't speak decisively here") to yourself and your buddies?
  • Even if we granted that, in a traditional society, a particular gender-role pattern seems to prevail 90% of the time, does that justify requiring it 100% of the time?
  • Leaving aside for a moment all the evidence from Scripture and tradition that you might bring to bear, how afraid are you of the consequences of not toeing the party line among your peers, supervisors, mentors, and followers? Would you lose friendships, credibility, salary?
We Quakers, with our functional theology, got this matter right because we trust the Holy Spirit to distribute spiritual gifts by God's wisdom rather than human formulas or human convenience. Here's what bothers me, however.... I cannot claim that we are better people, that I am a better person, than Kirill, John Paul II, or others whose traditions and practices have a scandalous blind spot when it comes to women in leadership. What is our blind spot? What is mine?

Related: Straw feminists.



A Web page devoted to the memory of Betsy Moen.

And in honor of Jeremy Mott, who died four days ago, I'm posting this link to his important lecture on the peace testimony and the war in Viet Nam, a talk I had the pleasure of hearing in person. Jeremy commented frequently on this blog, most recently here. [Update: Jeremy's lecture is no longer available either on the original site or on archive.org. The book Friends and the Vietnam War, which contains this lecture, is still available from Pendle Hill.]

Jeremy's comments on my blog often reminded me of his frequent letters to me and to Quaker Life when I was at Friends United Meeting. His letters were always on postal cards; if he needed more space, he'd simply continue on another card, and another. We grew accustomed to his missives arriving piecemeal over a period of several days.

Far more important than the method of delivery was his wonderful ability to stay in touch with the worldwide Quaker community and trace commonalities among people who themselves were not aware of them. He was almost a one-man Quaker intelligence service in more than one sense of the term—but his careful listening, tracking, and correspondence had a more than informational point to them. It was his unique form of pastoral care for his far-flung Quaker family.

"Confessions of an accidental feminist."

Kirk Wattles preserves Web access to Edward Grubb's George Fox and Christian Theology.

... and in case you've not seen this landmark essay by Margaret Fell, "Women's Speaking Justified..."

"The Conversion of Joel Kovel  (Part 1)"

"The Blessing of a Quilt."

From Friends Committee on National Legislation: "Three Things You Need to Know about the IAEA Report on Iran."

"Hugh Laurie Sings the Blues"—an interview by Sophie Harris.



Big Daddy Wilson, "I heard the angels singing."