Showing posts with label spirituality. Show all posts
Showing posts with label spirituality. Show all posts

19 June 2025

Belonging to Friends

Speaking with my mentor, Deborah Haight, at
Canadian Yearly Meeting 1976. Also in the frame,
Duncan Wood (at right), Katharine Wood (behind
Deborah). St. Thomas, Ontario.

My very first experience of a Quaker meeting took place in Ottawa, Ontario, on August 11, 1974. In my diary entry for that day, the headline was "My first visit!!!" There were 24 of us altogether in that four-sided meeting space, including two relatives I brought along for safety, since I was very nervous about this unfamiliar thing called "church." (If you've been following this blog for a while, you know that I grew up in an anti-church family.)

I needn't have worried. By the time the hour of silence (during which there were four spontaneous messages arising from various participants) came to an end, I knew I belonged.

As I got more and more acquainted with Quaker ways, I learned that the process of realizing that one "belonged" had various names, especially "convincement" and "conversion." In my own life, conversion came first, earlier that same year, when my reading of the Sermon the Mount, Matthew's version, led me to trust Jesus. I concluded for myself that conversion was a matter of opening my eyes and heart to an inward light that could illuminate a path through life. Becoming convinced, on the other hand, meant that, at least in my specific case, the companionship of Quakers provided the best, most direct guides along that path.

All this was no random accident, I realized. My family's chaos (combined, ironically, with its cult of obedience) and the public agonies of the Viet Nam War era, had already led me to nonviolence and a rejection of authoritarianism. I couldn't say where worldly contingencies and the Holy Spirit's guidance merged in my case. But once I realized that I didn't want to practice my newfound faith all alone, a peace church with almost zero hierarchy was bound to appeal. I wanted to go public. I wanted to belong officially!—whatever that meant.


Despite my inherited suspicion of the religion industry, I came to realize how important a concrete sense of belonging was to me. As I found out, that led to another term in Quaker culture: "membership." With indecent speed, I applied for membership in Ottawa Meeting. I was interviewed and accepted into membership in less than ten months after that first visit. My fiftieth anniversary as a member of Friends was June 5 of this year.

The following summer, July 26-31, 1976, I attended my first ever Quaker yearly meeting sessions, at Alma College, St. Thomas, Ontario. There I found out that perhaps my yearning for membership was not universal for Canadian Friends. The subject of membership was one of the hot topics of the yearly meeting sessions—specifically, should committee service be limited to members?

Although it was clear that Friends were split on the issue, I was impressed by the civility with which Friends on both sides put their cases, and by presiding clerk Philip Martin's care in guiding the process without putting his own thumb on the scale. Friends eventually approved a decision not to limit committee service to members in most cases. After the decision had been adopted, Philip spoke personally of his deep concern that weakening the concept of membership was a dangerous precedent.

Much more recently, during my academic year in Birmingham, England, I attended a monthly meeting in which an application for membership was approved for a long-time attender who was 85 years old. He stood up and, with a twinkle in his eye, conceded that his application was a bit late in the day.... To which I can only add that temperaments vary! For me, at age 21, ten months to seal the deal seemed like forever. But those dear Ottawa Friends, almost before the ink was dry on my membership certificate, put me on a Yearly Meeting committee and sent me as a representative to what was for me a life-changing experience, a triennial conference of the Friends World Committee for Consultation.


A link to the Kindle version.

I found a somewhat different but very fertile understanding of convincement, conversion, and membership in a recent Pendle Hill Pamphlet, Matt Rosen's Awakening the Witness: Convincement and Belonging in Quaker Community. In particular, he suggests putting convincement first, something like an inward baptism, or as he suggests with a phrase sometimes used by early Friends, they "received the Truth in the love of it."

(Unfamiliar with Pendle Hill Pamphlets? Here's an introduction.) 

Rosen's description of convincement has, indeed, the fragrance of conversion already in it, as if it would be unnecessary or unhelpful to make too fine a distinction between the two. Convincement can also have an element of conviction, a realization that God's grace has been denied or resisted up to that point.

In Rosen's exploration of convincement stories from Quaker history, we see that it might also involve decisions that will involve commitment and sacrifice. To embark on the Quaker path in the early years of persecution certainly did involve personal risk. Even now, risks are there, ranging from mystics facing ridicule among the militantly secular, to financial sacrifices for war tax refusers, and jail time for prophets engaged in civil disobedience or evangelists in closed societies.

What distinguishes conversion in Matt Rosen's pamphlet is its progression beyond the point of convincement. 

As convincement leads into lifelong conversion of the heart, and as the heart is turned around, one slowly becomes “established in the Truth.” One learns to recognize and follow the voice of the inward Teacher and learns to hear this Teacher speaking in the experience of others. Convincement is an initial step. Some early seekers were convinced of the Truth by itinerant preachers but did not “grow up in the Truth” once those preachers left town. They were not settled on the foundation they had been pointed to. So, part of the work of publishing Truth was helping to establish the newly convinced. This meant encouraging and supporting community, grounded on the promise of Christ’s presence in the midst as gatherer, leader, priest, prophet, and friend.

As powerful as my initial conversion seemed to be (and its precedence in my own life, having happened before I began attending Friends meeting), I cannot say that I'm still just riding the momentum of that experience. Learning to pray without ceasing is still the aim of my life, and, fifty years later, success still varies. So, for me, Matt Rosen's reflections ring true.

His observations on membership are equally interesting.

Historically, Quakers have understood membership to be a covenant relationship between an individual and a meeting community. Membership is a little like a marriage. The member commits to supporting the community, to growing in fellowship, and to being accountable for their gifts, and the meeting commits to supporting the Friend in ways both pastoral and practical. The process of applying for and being welcomed into membership recognizes that someone already belongs to a community, just as a Quaker marriage recognizes what God has already done in the life of a relationship.

My suggestion, then, is that membership and convincement can come apart. It could be possible to be a member who is not a convinced Friend ... and it is possible to be a convinced Friend not in membership....

Rosen notes that the earliest generations of Friends did not have formal membership at all. (And in the context of persecution, there would hardly be an incentive to claim to be a Friend except on the basis of actual convincement.)

The structure and significance of meetings and membership may change, as they have before, but convinced Friends will recognize their Guide in the experience of others and seek each other out. Truth doesn’t stand or fall with our current structures. I experience this as a liberating realization. As Sydney Carter reminds us in the “George Fox” song, “the Light will be shining at the end of it all.” And if that is true—if, like Fox, we are not building one more religion—then we have time to stop and listen, to experiment and re-imagine, trusting that the Light does and always will shine in the darkness, and that come what may, even if we are pressed on every side as the early Friends were, the Light will not be overcome. The foundation will stand. And all people will be drawn to God in God’s good time— rescued, guided, and knit together by the Divine hand.

I recommend Matt Rosen's pamphlet as a good resource for looking at the interplay between conversion, convincement, and membership in your own faith community and in the full variety of experiences and temperaments among you.


Screenshot from source.  

Next in the USA's bombsites? Rick Steves wants to help Americans get to know Iran.

Matt Fitzpatrick seems to think that you can't assassinate your way to peace.

Dana A. Williams on what it was like to be a writer whose editor was Toni Morrison. (And here's an article I linked to in an earlier post, Toni Morrison's rejection letters.)

Steve Curwood interviews Rev. Mariama White-Hammond: Juneteenth Plays a Role in Environmental Justice for All.

A Yougov survey tells us what we already suspected: men are more likely than women to rate themselves as above average in their sense of humor, intelligence, confidence, and self-awareness. (!) (However, most people I know personally seem to be above average in not claiming to be above average.)


Blues from Denmark. Michelle Birkballe, "Cry to Me."

12 June 2025

The benefit of the doubt, part three (prequel)

As Israel strikes Iran with the stated purpose of eliminating that country as a nuclear threat, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy points out

Iran would not be this close to possessing a nuclear weapon if Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu had not forced America out of the nuclear agreement with Iran that had brought Europe, Russia, and China together behind the United States to successfully contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions. This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making, and now the region risks spiraling toward a new, deadly conflict. A war between Israel and Iran may be good for Netanyahu’s domestic politics, but it will likely  be disastrous for both the security of Israel, the United States, and the rest of the region.

Quote: "This is a disaster of Trump and Netanyahu's own making."

The U.S. Secretary of State says that there was no U.S. participation in Israel's attack, but is Trump guilty of a share of the responsibility for Israel's perceived need to attack today?

Truthfully, I'm not in the mood to give the president, who has zealously reversed so many policies of the Obama and Biden years respectively, the benefit of the doubt in this case. Is that fair?

"The benefit of the doubt" has become an important concept to me, a way of identifying and warding off false witness, needless self-pity, and cynicism. I first wrote about this principle in my regular column in Friends United Meeting's Quaker Life magazine, back in June 1998:


About a year and a half ago, Ellen Cooney, the co-founder of Start-Up Education (see her article), spent six weeks with us at FUM as a volunteer. She had told us she was willing to do anything; she simply wanted to spend time being part of a working group which met daily for Friends worship, and (as a General Conference Friend from Atlanta Meeting) to get to know FUM better.

Knowing of her professional consulting background, we wanted the benefit of her observations of FUM as an organization. She interviewed each staff member privately, talked with several leaders at the yearly meeting level, and studied our organizational charts and documents. She then made a presentation to all of us staff with suggestions for working more productively with each other and more responsively to the constituency. Of her many good ideas, one stood out for its simplicity and central importance: "Learn to give each other the benefit of the doubt."

Ellen said that this principle was one of the ground rules at a large consulting firm where she had worked. When she and her co-workers did not know why someone had done something, and especially when it looked like a mistake or a personal slight, this principle was so ingrained in the corporate culture that many negative assumptions and grudges were nipped in the bud.

We are beginning to learn that when we want to know, "Why would he do that without checking with me? Why did she send that letter without copying to me? Why were they invited and not me?" we need to think, "Until I get a chance to ask, I better give them the benefit of the doubt. They must have had a good reason."

Recently I served on a committee, but missed a meeting because I was not notified. I could have dreamed up all sorts of reasons why I wasn't invited: My input was not valued. I had asked too many questions at the previous meeting. Maybe I was only on the committee as a token to appease some faction. The reality was much simpler: this time, notifications had been done within the committee instead of by a yearly meeting office, so the procedure had been unclear. It was the sort of simple oversight that I might easily have done myself.

The principle of "the benefit of the doubt" is incomplete without personal follow-up whenever necessary. We gave National Friends Insurance Trust (see cover story, March 1998) the benefit of the doubt long after we should have demanded clearer information on the security of our health insurance. The "benefit of the doubt" principle simply says that, if we don't understand why someone did something, we assume that "they must have had a good reason" until we have more complete and direct information; it doesn't excuse us from obtaining that information (first-hand if possible) whenever we should do so.

This principle is just as important in relations between groups as it is between individuals. When FUM decided to stop sending doctors to Lugulu Hospital in Kenya (intending to send money to pay Kenyan doctors instead), some Kenyans saw this as a sign that FUM wanted to weaken ties with Kenyan Friends. Thank goodness they didn't just keep this negative and incorrect interpretation to themselves. The leaders at Lugulu, and our own appointees, told us that the personal relationships were more important than money; the human exchange needed to be continued. As a result, the decision was reversed.

Right now, we're trying to make FUM more productive and responsive to God's leadings and to you. We are trying new ideas, taking more risks and will inevitably make more mistakes. Never stop holding us accountable, but our work together will be much more lively and joyful if, until we all have our facts straight, we agree to give each other the benefit of the doubt.

Original article (archived) is here. The March 1998 cover story on the National Friends Insurance Trust is here. (See table of contents for that issue to see the full coverage.)

At the time this was written, I was serving as general secretary of Friends United Meeting, sometimes nicknamed the "orthodox" branch of Friends. Ellen Cooney's Atlanta Friends Meeting was part of Friends General Conference, a broadly more liberal association of Friends congregations. Ellen is currently serving as the director of development for Monteverde Friends School in Costa Rica.


In an earlier post on this blog, Benefit of the doubt, part one, I described this principle's value in helping me distinguish between realism and cynicism.

In Benefit of the doubt, part two, I applied the principle to my observations of our then-new president, Donald Trump. See if you think my analysis there still applies (if it ever did!).


Marilynne Robinson's Notes from an Occupation.

Simultaneous with corruption there is also a clash of worldviews that is rarely acknowledged. The country is said now to be polarized, an image that implies that we lie along the same continuum of belief, at opposite extremes but with an expansive middle ground between the two sides that awaits only certain moderating concessions to bring us closer. This metaphor does not really suggest the nature of our problem or the depth of it. It has not been helpful. It is past time to try considering a new image for our situation.

It's Martin Kelley's "pet theory that Quakerism is always dying and simultaneously always being reborn." (Introductory article for the June-July issue of Friends Journal, "Quaker Revivals.") Martin also has some interesting observations on how "Insiders" and "Seekers" use the Quaker Net.

Mark Russ on God's wrath and vengeance—and what we lose if we entirely deny those aspects of the Divinity. It might just be me, but I was reminded of R.W. Tucker's "Revolutionary Faithfulness."

Robert Garon on Genesis: God's rest vs Egypt's pyramid scheme.

Aristotle reminds us that politics is not just power.

Brian Zahnd's tribute to Walter Brueggemann.

See you at No Kings Day.


Ending scenes and credits from Blues Brothers 2000, including glimpses of my lifelong blues icon Junior Wells. He died a month before the film was released. As some reviewers acknowledged, it was not much of a movie—except for the soundtrack and the incredible list of participating musicians. It's bittersweet to watch this clip now; so many of them are no longer with us.

07 May 2025

Speaking of speaking

Source.  

My heart is pounding, words are lining up impatiently at the tip of my tongue, the silent room suddenly feels as if it's holding its breath, I'm starting to tremble.... Should I speak? 

The first time I had this experience in a Quaker meeting for worship was around Christmas 1974, at Uwchlan Meeting in Downingtown, Pennsylvania. I knew the theoretical answer to my urgent question. In the words of Ruth M. Pitman in the Canadian Friend magazine (later published as "On the Vocal Ministry"): 

It is understood in such a Meeting that any messages that are spoken strive to be God’s word for these people at this time; that is, no one will speak unless he has prayerfully considered two questions: whether the message is God’s or his own, and whether it should be given to these people now, or is for the individual alone.

But I had been among Friends for only a few months, and furthermore, this particular group was not my home meeting.  Who was I to say whether God was the source of my thoughts in this time and place? What business did I have interrupting this peaceful assembly?

I did overcome my self-doubts, and spoke a message on spiritual power in the context of the recent oil embargo. I make no claims as to the merits of this first message, but the experience felt like a sort of baptism.

These were the memories that came back to me as as I began to read Rhiannon Grant's new book in the "Quaker Quicks" series: Speaking in Quaker Meeting for Worship: what, when, how, and why? I wish a guide like hers had been available to me five decades ago!

Confession: I approached the book with some initial skepticism, which may say more about my prejudices than anything about the book or author. First of all, Rhiannon Grant's Quaker community is Britain Yearly Meeting, which despite its variety is typically described as liberal. Its meetings for worship are, except for special occasions, unprogrammed (see this post for a bit about "programmed" and "unprogrammed"). Although I spent my first eight years as a Friend in similar cultures in Canadian, New England, and Baltimore Yearly Meetings, the rest of my Quaker experience of forty-plus years have mainly been among programmed Friends served by pastors. Would any of her observations apply where I live?

My second apprehension: would a book-length (even a Quaker Quicks-length) treatment come across as an attempt to groom the aesthetically perfect unprogrammed meeting, pitched to the comfort level of Atlantic-culture demographics in terms of class, education, verbal fluency, and long attention spans, or would there be room for Holy Spirit spontaneity, of grief, ecstasy, confession, prophecy, song, all that potentially attaches to Quakers quaking? 

My apprehensions were unfounded.

First of all, Rhiannon Grant is clear about her own Quaker context, but is aware of the range of worship styles among Friends, including programmed worship. More importantly, her practical guidance on speaking in worship seems to me to apply to any Friends meeting in which time is set aside for what programmed Friends often call "open worship." As she says early on, "The understanding of this book is that when we are open and willing in the stillness of meeting for worship, any of us can be moved to speak." That's why "any of us" can benefit from her observations.

She doesn't address the specific situation of a Friends pastor or regular speaker preparing a sermon, but even here many of her suggestions would be useful. It's clear that in her culture, advance preparation of a message is usually inappropriate—but there is no hint of taboo. (My own belief is that the work of worship-planning and sermon-writing should be surrounded by the same level of sensitivity that we expect in meeting for worship. I'm sometimes startled by how similar sermon-writing can be to giving spontaneous messages in unprogrammed worship.)

Another feature of Grant's book: its kind, unpretentious, open-ended tone, often grounded in personal experience, with touches of humor. Examples:

Contrasting ordinary speech with ministry during worship: (Link added.)

In ministry, by contrast, the majority of the source is inspiration: even if I have done a little bit of planning, like being asked to read from Advices & Queries, I wait to be led to speak and to feel what would be right to read. Usually, I don't speak at all unless that strong inspiration arrives. There will still be a little bit of me in there—including whatever I feel about having to speak in front of others—but ego is in the minority and the promptings of love and truth are in the lead.

There can be times when it is hard to tell which element is strongest. Am I really inspired to say this, or do I want to say it? Am I sharing this story about having a wonderful spiritual experience on holiday because it's brought me insight, or because I want other people to know about my holiday and my spirituality?

When you have finished saying what you have been given to say:

After giving ministry, there can be a sense of relief. If you experience physical sensations like shaking, they might either stop or briefly get worse. Sometimes I experience a wave of anxiety about the mundane social side of the situation—in my discernment process, I focussed on the message, and it's only afterwards that I ask myself whether I said something ridiculous and whether everyone hates me now.

What about theology? Rhiannon Grant explicitly says that theology is a secondary concern for this book, and refers readers to her books that focus more directly on theology. As a self-described evangelical Quaker (sometimes in despair that the word "evangelical" doesn't communicate what I stubbornly think it ought to!), I'm guessing that she and I are probably not in the exact same place. This book, however, communicates a warm theological hospitality that enhances rather than weakens the practical guidance she gives for speaking in worship.

One of her book's great virtues is that it simultaneously honors and demythologizes the ministry of speaking in worship. Grant recognizes its high value as a way God shapes us as a community and guides us toward other ways of ministering to our world. At the same time, she considers all the various temperaments we find among us, including those who speak too readily, and those who feel totally unready to speak at all. She describes various ways that spoken ministry can derail a meeting for worship—and how Friends might respond—but also points out that disruption might at times be God's actual intent! She holds up the precious service of elders or other experienced Friends who can encourage the budding minister or help those whose ministry can be unhelpful. She considers the practice of "afterword" or "afterwords," a time after the end of the worship when thoughts that did not seem to rise to the level of ministry during worship—perhaps less than prophecy but more than casual discussion—can be shared with the group. She describes a variety of ways to organize this supplementary opportunity, and outlines their advantages and disadvantages.

Grant's book is well-organized. Her first few chapters define her terms and concepts, and would be helpful to anyone mystified by how we Friends use terms that mean different things among us than they do in the wider world. After some basic observations on worship among Friends, she describes the ways that speaking contributes to the depth and power of worship, and the general patterns that often prevail when things are going well.

Then: when things are not going so well, what might be happening, and how might we respond? Her list of possible dysfunctions is telling...

  • Popcorn ministry (too many messages too quickly, without enough time in between to absorb them or to discern one's own participation)
  • A message is too long
  • Predictable ministry
  • Absent ministry
  • Inappropriate ministry, and
  • Is it really wrong?

On that last point, it's worth quoting her directly:

It isn't always clear about how to draw a boundary about what's acceptable or not, and being told to trust your discernment might only make things worse if discernment is not already a strong and regular practice in your life. Add in issues of politeness, status, insecurity about belonging to the community, challenges around the role of authority without hierarchy, along with some questions about theology, which touch on very personal religious matters, and the situation is undoubtedly sometimes very difficult.

...

If my community is also a body, I have to expect that the painful will come with the pleasurable and that things I don't notice and can't control will be happening alongside the things where I have some choice. It's part of the gift of being together.

The following sections of the book help us apply all these insights to ourselves, our own discernment on whether or not to speak, how we speak, and how we then return to the quiet center from which our ministry arose. Finally, Grant addresses questions of assistive technology, online and hybrid worship, and the sometimes awkward questions arising from these newer modes of worship. She ends her book with a list of print and online resources.

If your Friends meeting or church uses this book in a discussion group or a class for newcomers, I think you'll be delighted with its scope. Rhiannon Grant succeeds in linking her central topic—speaking in meeting for worship—with just about all aspects of our life as a worshipping community. Her approach is grounded but not rigid, and should lead to many fertile conversations.


Here is an older guide to "Open Worship" including whether and when to speak during worship. It was adapted from a pamphlet written by the late Stan Thornburg, who served Friends churches in Mid-America and Northwest Yearly Meetings. His chart has been used and adapted to various formats in several Friends meetings and churches.

And here again is the link to Ruth M. Pitman's "On the Vocal Ministry." Ruth Pitman identifies with Conservative Friends and has been a frequent contributor to Quaker Religious Thought. In this post from 2017, I said more about Pitman's tract and my first experience of speaking in meeting.

Patrick Nugent's article (1996) "On Speaking in Meeting for Worship" appeared in this issue of Friends Journal, starting on page seven.

Here are Friends' opinions on the use of queries as framing for open worship, part one, part two.


Mass Observation, May 12. Are you in the UK? Are you planning to participate in this national diary? (With thanks to Rebecca Rosewarne for the link.) Does your country have a similar archive project?

Revoking international students' visas "makes America smaller, not stronger." I have a Palestinian friend, a young doctor who is scheduled to arrive soon for a residency in the USA, so these days I'm very alert to this concern.

Mondoweiss on Gaza: Israeli forces are working toward making Gaza uninhabitable for its current population, but they are running low on soldiers.

May's theme at the Daily Quaker Message is peace and nonviolence. I continue to appreciate these daily posts. Here's Tuesday's post, with a quote from Duncan Wood.

Sarah Thomas Baldwin: When we "spiritually amphibious creatures" can't quite find our souls.

Beth Woolsey's Irrational Joy Project. (Also: "...wallowing is an underrated stage of grief.")


Here (audio only) is the late Joe Louis Walker's version of "Wade in the Water." Rest in peace.

01 May 2025

Love, theoretically

Source.  

FCNL via Facebook  
friendsincubator.org  
fwcc.world  

Three of the gospels tell the story of the rich man who asked Jesus what he (the questioner) needed to do to get eternal life. Jesus sums up the commandments, and the man says that he's been observing them all his life. Jesus says that he lacks just one thing: he needs to sell all he has, give the proceeds to people in poverty, and follow Jesus.

Matthew. Mark. Luke.

I remember one particular sermon on this passage. Judy and I were on Boston Common on a rainy day in October 1979, on the first day of Pope John Paul II's visit that fall to the USA. In his sermon, the Pope pointed out a detail that only Mark's version has: namely, "...what the young man in the Gospel experienced : 'Jesus looked at him with love' (Mark 10:21)," before explaining what the cost of his hopes would be.

The love of Christ is unconditional; it precedes our response. The response that Jesus gave the wealthy man was not just theoretical, saying "yes" to a doctrine; it was practical. And if the first part of the advice to the man seemed difficult (and Jesus says it will be, for it's harder for a rich person to enter heaven than for a camel to go through a needle's eye), the second part of the advice is more than compensation: "Then come, follow me." In other words, you won't be alone.

With a certain bit of irony, Jesus expands on this compensation:

... No one who has left home or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or fields for me and the gospel will fail to receive a hundred times as much in this present age: homes, brothers, sisters, mothers, children and fields—along with persecutions—and in the age to come eternal life.

The way Jesus looked at the inquirer—with love—is the way he looks at each of us. No exceptions, as the Friends Committee on National Legislation campaign puts it. And as I've mentioned before, we are to "regard" each other the same way.

At least, that's the theory. The important thing in my life was that, having decided to trust Jesus, I did not have to work out the practical implications alone! The nuclear family that didn't understand or like my conversion receded into the background (not entirely, of course) and my earliest emotional support came from my Canadian relatives, with whom I was living as I went through all the stages of grief at losing one sister to murder and another because of being asked to leave my home. Then Ottawa Friends, and wider circles of Canadian Friends, came alongside me. They decided to make this utter newbie a representative to the Friends World Committee's triennial sessions in Hamilton, Ontario, and I soon realized I had a global family. A couple of years later, I was serving that extended Quaker family in Boston, Massachusetts, and there I met my life companion, Judy.

Now many of us are in a season of persecutions. The values that are precious to us, particularly equality and nonviolence, are under sustained attack. On a more doctrinal level, the gospel is being grievously misrepresented by Christian nationalists and their toxic enmeshment with state power—and not just in the USA.

Again: we don't have to work out the implications alone! Our Quaker and ecumenical and interfaith networks are alongside us. Our traveling Friends ministers and community-building events (see posters above) can give us ideas and spiritual refreshment from far and near. The gift-based division of labor means that we equally treasure our mystics and our activists, our evangelists and tax refusers, our street theater organizers and our potluck dinner organizers. They are all part of the "hundreds of times as much in this present age...."

There are three particular gifts that I want to hold up, and they're closely related. First: how do we extend the blessing of no exceptions to those who seem to be spreading counterfeit gospels at the expense of immigrants and other marginalized people, not to mention the reputation of the gospel itself? After we get good and angry (speaking personally, here!), then what? I love the idea of the "Truth Brigade" Judy mentioned in this post, and hope that those of us who are suited to, and called to, this kind of ministry of fierce love will find encouragement for their work.

Second: we need evangelists who understand that all our theories of love will atrophy if our communities are closed to new people, and when we subconsciously assume that all marginalized people are external beneficiaries rather than being among us as equal participants. So ... to the gifted evangelists still among us: please forgive us when we seem to pretend that you don't even exist; and help us identify the barriers and filters that too often result in welcoming only people who match our prevailing demographics.

Third: we need pastors and elders who understand the rhythms of enthusiasm and discouragement, help us when we get on each other's nerves, and know how to help us spell each other as needed.


"Love Your Neighbour" is not just a Friends Committee on National Legislation campaign, it is also the theme of this year's World Quaker Day, October 5.

Another occasion of mutual care in the global family: the Africa Section of the Friends World Committee for Consultation is hosting the next FWCC global online meeting for worship on June 8, 4:00 p.m. Nairobi time.

"Love in Motion: Friends Traveling in Ministry" (see graphic above): Brian Drayton will help us consider the specific role of traveling in the ministry, which I see as part of the ways we can be each other's encouragement in challenging times. This online presentation and discussion is scheduled for May 21, 8:00 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. Eastern U.S. time. (By the way, Brian Drayton signed Judy's and my certificate of marriage for the registry of vital records in Boston, nearly 45 years ago.)

"Dear Pope Francis": Diana Hadjiyane writes about Francis, community, and ecumenism from her Eastern Orthodox perspective.

Speaking of love, Levi Gaytán's "wildest dreams" came true. 

Elderchaplain Greg Morgan:

.... Death sometimes arrives with no forewarning: a massive heart attack, a brain aneurysm, an accident. Past a certain age, though, we are more likely to die from conditions that progress relatively slowly: cancer, congestive heart failure, or simply old age. This is largely a blessing, I think, as it gives both the dying person and their loved ones time to prepare, and to share conversations that can be among the most intimate and meaningful of their lives.

But this blessing brings with it a challenge....

The monthly gathering of the Bremerton (Washington) Friends worship group is happening again this Sunday at 4 p.m.

The latest United Nations humanitarian situation reports on Palestine: the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.


Another global family, Playing for Change, presents their version of "Crossroads."

24 April 2025

Simon and Francis, part two

Source: found on threads.net, credited to AFP on this BBC page.

It has been a bit more than twelve years since the late Pope Francis began his papacy, and just three short days since his death in his Vatican residence.

I won't attempt to write an obituary; you've probably seen several already. Here are some that I found interesting:

Soon after Jorge Mario Bergoglio was elected pope in 2013, our friend Margaret Benefiel published a very helpful blog post: Papal Leadership without Easy Answers. Her article reinforced my own hopes that the new pope's leadership would give a powerful witness to humane and evangelical (in the broad sense) values.

As I wrote at the time in my post Simon and Francis, I had two particular hopes for the leadership of Pope Francis, one personal and one more global. On a personal level, I wanted his help in my own battles with cynicism, which I imagine is an occupational hazard for all political scientists, however idealistic. 

In turn, I wanted to be one of the pope's Simon-like helpers in my own microscopic way, by committing to pray for him daily, which I've done.

I described my more global hope for his pontificate in my response to Margaret's post:

It's a mysterious and (hopefully) fertile anomaly that the titular head of a Christian confession automatically becomes a world leader, entitled to visibility and influence in an otherwise severely secular and often ruthlessly pragmatic circle. By design, Providence, or both, John Paul II became a hugely important figure on the global stage in his own time. He created and exploited disequilibrium in Eastern Europe on a mass scale. What I hope for Francis is that he will create and exploit disequilibrium in a more specific realm: the "world leaders" themselves, in how they envision leadership, the image of leader, the "God-bearing" quality inherent in spiritually grounded leadership. By helping them, consciously or unconsciously, "confront the gap between their espoused values and lived values," he might help accomplish a shift that is just as important as adoption of this or that policy.

Source: BBC, "Is the Pope a Communist?"
As a role model and idealistic provocateur, Francis definitely succeeded. His political critics on the right ("He's a communist!") may not have realized how rooted Francis was in longstanding Catholic social teaching, but what gave his position added credibility were the ways he consistently advocated and modeled care for people in poverty and distress, for the earth, and for peace. He was criticized by progressives for not changing doctrines sufficiently, but he had the gift of forming friendships across all sorts of social, cultural, and theological differences, in full view of his critics and skeptics.

This consistency, and the creative (and sometimes humorous) ways it was shown, ministered directly to my own struggle against cynicism. It's harder to say whether all of this made an impact on his peers among world leaders. Now, in the wake of his death, the presidents and potentates of the world are praising him, but few of them seemed to try to meet his standard in their own lives and careers. (If I'm forgetting about someone, please correct me!) Even so, his example proved that it was possible. And in the meantime, his inspiration lit up the lives and efforts of many mystics, philosophers, and activists worldwide who might otherwise have been subdued by cynicism.


Pope Francis was sometimes criticized for not taking a stronger pro-Ukrainian stance after Russia's full-scale invasion. However, one powerful incident for me was his challenge to the Russian Orthodox patriarch, Kirill, as told in this article by CNN's Delia Gallagher.

In one of my posts about the strange popularity of hell among some Christians, I compared Grayson Gilbert's God and the Pope's God.... God's sweet revenge.


Many world leaders are showing up on Saturday for the funeral of Pope Francis. As Harriet Sherwood (the Guardian) points out, from a diplomatic point of view, there may be both risks and opportunities.

Diana Butler Bass on Francis, his amazing final sermon, and the stakes in choosing his successor.

Ashley Wilcox, A.L.S., and her very particular path to marriage. A powerful article.

Could Lamorna Ash become a Christian in a year? (I was intrigued enough to pre-order her book.)

Nancy Thomas, her leftover chicken gumbo, and her hidden inner critic. (I really would like to pre-order her book. Watch this space!)


This afternoon, Judy and I went to St. Olave's Church on Hart Street, about a fifteen-minute walk from here, for today's lunchtime recital. The musicians were the Quartet Concrète. The first work they performed was Bach's "Komm, süßer Tod, komm selge Ruh" (Come, sweet death, come, blessed rest). I couldn't find a video of this quartet performing that piece, so the video below is another arrangement altogether. (Here's the quartet in a different recital; they're good!) 

I'm including the video below in memory of Pope Francis, although I don't think the lyrics to "Komm, süßer Tod" exactly match his outgoing personality. ("For I am weary of the world...."—I don't think so.) His death reminds me more of the way he sometimes went to sleep while praying, because it is good to fall asleep in the arms of God.

10 April 2025

What I know for certain

Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (played by Ralph Fiennes) giving his homily on certainty in the film Conclave.
Cardinal Thomas Lawrence (played by Ralph Fiennes) giving his homily on certainty in the film Conclave. Screenshot from source.

Conclave's fictional Cardinal Lawrence, addressing his fellow cardinals as they prepare to elect a new pope, warns them of a dangerous attitude: certainty.

There is one sin which I have come to fear above all others: certainty. Certainty is the great enemy of unity. Certainty is the deadly enemy of tolerance. … Our faith is a living thing precisely because it walks hand in hand with doubt. If there was only certainty and no doubt, there would be no mystery and, therefore, no need for faith. Let us pray that God grants us a pope who doubts. [Source.]

I don't totally agree. A personal sense of certainty can be a source of strength and courage. A few years ago, in a blog post inspired by Chris Hedges' When Atheism Becomes Religion, I made a distinction between personal certainty, on the one hand, and assertions of certainty in the social arena—particularly as categorical and coercive action.

I also admitted that ...

Certainty is a slippery quality. In my experience, it comes and goes—and returns. More importantly, it is relational rather than operational: I can be certain that God wants the best for you and me, and that God will be with you and me as we work for that best, but I'm hardly ever certain about what concrete steps to take next. For that decision, I need a mix of intuition, prayer, plain secular fact-checking, the wisdom of others, and a willingness to risk being wrong.

In the film Conclave, part of the context of Lawrence's homily on certainty is his understanding that the late pope, toward his end, had doubts—not about God, but about the church. It is institutionalized certainty that is the greater danger, and the cardinals would be wise to choose a pope who understands this.

This balancing act between personal certainty and socio-political uncertainty seems to me to be the way God set things up in the first place. I'm recalling the words of Anthony Bloom on God's powerlessness that I've quoted several times before. The context: In response to an interviewer's question, Bloom is commenting on the history of church/state relationships in Russia.

No party at all should be able to claim the Church as its own, but at the same time the Church is not non-party, or above parties. She must be the voice of a conscience illuminated by the Light of God. In the ideal state, the Church must be in a condition to speak to any party, any movement: "This is worthy of humanity and of God, and that is not." Of course, this can be done from either of two positions: either from a position of strength, or from a position of complete helplessness. It seems to me—and I'm deeply convinced of this—that the Church must never speak from a position of strength. The Church must not be one of the powers operating in this or that government; she must be, if you like, just as powerless as God, Who does not coerce, Who only calls us and reveals the beauty and truth of things, but doesn't enforce them on us; Who, similarly to the way our consciences work, points out the truth, but leaves us free to listen to truth and beauty—or to refuse them. It seems to me that this is how the Church should be. If the Church takes its place among those organizations that have power, that are able to force and direct events, then there will always be the risk that she would find power desirable; and as soon as the Church begins to dominate, she loses the most profound thing, the love of God, and an understanding of those who need salvation rather than the works of destruction and rebuilding.

(A lengthier extract is here, toward the end.)

For me, it follows that the work of evangelism is to encourage and draw out people's capacity to respond to God's call, God's offer of relationship, which would be reflected in our own offer of relationship, and our truthful testimony of how we have experienced that relationship in our faith community. This work does not depend on a convincing string of logical propositions, because no such string exists objectively apart from relationship. Just as with the turtles, it's relationships all the way down.

Photo: Judy Maurer, April 5.
Maybe God could have designed a more internally consistent and self-interpreting Bible and left manuscripts for it in perfect condition. Maybe God could have given us the ideal template for church government, along with sinless leaders to occupy perfectly-designed roles. And maybe God could have intervened more frequently and forcefully when we humans treated each other with gleeful cruelty. But as Eugene Peterson commented on the "nearly unrelieved mayhem" of the Book of Judges, 

Twice in Judges (17:6 and 21:25) there is the telling refrain: “At that time there was no king in Israel. People did whatever they felt like doing.” But we readers know that there was a king in Israel: God was king. And so, while the lack of an earthly king accounts for the moral and political anarchy, the presence of the sovereign God, however obscurely realized, means that the reality of the kingdom is never in doubt.

However strong our faith, no human being ever has the whole picture—and we just make things worse when we pretend otherwise. God has, for reasons that may always remain obscure, chosen to fulfill the promises of God through us and our fractious, fragile communities. In the short run, even if our faith is strong, failure is an option, but then we dust each other off and once again wait for God's pull on our hearts. The next steps might not be clear all at once, and we may disagree any number of ways. But the certainty of God's love shared among us motivates us to keep praying for unity, discernment, perspective, and courage. There are no shortcuts; weaponized certainty and coercion are just dead ends.


Tim Gee with more on the police raid on Westminster Friends' meetinghouse.

Tom Gates considers the Rwandan genocide of 1994, "...one of recent history’s most extraordinary cases of mass scapegoating."

David Roberts speaks to Spokane Friends on the dark side of community.

Have you seen the second season of the television drama Severance? Beth Felker Jones gives us a theological commentary. (Spoilers. I have just started watching the second season, so I didn't read her commentary to the end....)

Jeff Sharlet and the eroticization of cruelty: what did we see when Kristi Noem went to El Salvador?


My favorite Canadian blues guitarist, "The Ice Queen," Sue Foley.

27 March 2025

Due process, the Bible, and lunacy

Seizing Rumeysa Ozturk in broad daylight.
Source 

One witness is not enough to convict anyone accused of any crime or offense they may have committed. A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.
The Bible

We do it every day, every time I find one of these lunatics.
Marco Rubio on cancellation of student visa of Rumeysa Ozturk, arrested Tuesday morning.


Evidence is ever more abundant that, among decisionmakers at the top of the current U.S. government, the law is seen as irrelevant, or even a nuisance, and the emphasis is on aggressive, swift, ruthless, secretive action.

The video of Ozturk's arrest published today in the Washington Post is shocking. A group of men in plain clothes, some hiding their faces, leave an unmarked car, grab her, and whisk her away handcuffed. Her phone has been seized. Before we (or a judge) know it, she is in Louisiana. Her student visa is cancelled. I thought maybe I was growing accustomed to the Trump-era eradication of normal due process, but I guess not, thank God—we should never get used to this. But it's a crushing disenchantment to see this happening in the "Land of Liberty."

(More about Ozturk's experience is here.)

It appears that official outrage against international students and green card holders is directed especially at people defending Palestinian human rights. Questioning U.S. support for Israel's treatment of the Gaza Strip (population 2.14 million) has been casually classified as aiding Hamas (membership 20,000?), but there seems to be no interest in making this distinction, or, indeed, proving anything at all. We are supposed to accept whatever Trump, Rubio, and their operatives tell us concerning the alleged misdeeds of the people they grab.

This is the administration for which 82% of the USA's evangelical or born-again Christians voted. For them, I dedicate a brief Bible study:

The qualities many of us usually associate with God are grace and mercy. Grace is God's goodwill to us and the whole creation—it's something we don't have to earn, in fact can't earn, but we can pass it on in the way we treat others. And when we fall short, this grace is expressed as mercy—compassion and restoration instead of punishment.

“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not die. None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked?” declares the Sovereign Lord. “Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?”
Ezekiel 18:21-23 

The Lord is not slow in keeping this promise, as some understand slowness. Instead the Lord is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.
2 Peter 3:9

As with grace, God is the source of mercy, but also as with grace, we are to pass that mercy on.

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
    and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

Hosea 6:6

Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.

Matthew 5:7

There is one specific aspect of mercy that we and our leaders are not at liberty to ignore. We know this aspect as due process. It's a core principle of U.S. constitutional law (see the Fifth Amendment and the Fourteenth), but the Bible witnesses to its antiquity, as in, for example, the quotation at the top of this post: "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses."Deuteronomy 19:15.

Concerning the centrality of this principle, jazz critic and commentator Nat Hentoff had the right idea. Back in 1989, he told a story about a visit he made to a conference in Israel:

I ran into a rabbi in Jerusalem, he’s a philosopher, he’s a big macher in many ways, David Hartman. I’d never met him before, and there was a brief respite between the discussions, and I met him in the corridor and he said, “Hentoff, I want you to tell me the most important development in the history of mankind”. And I said, “Due process”. He said, “Right”, and that’s the last I ever heard of him.

The ethic of due process is reflected in several other biblical passages. The Ten Commandments in Exodus chapter 20 and Deuteronomy chapter 5, include this central demand: “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.” This may well be the most violated commandment of our political life.

Other examples:

Learn to do right; seek justice.
    Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
    plead the case of the widow.

Isaiah 1:17

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.
Leviticus 19:15

Ecclesiastes has an acid comment on politics without this ethic:

"If you see the poor oppressed in a district, and justice and rights denied, do not be surprised at such things; for one official is eyed by a higher one, and over them both are others higher still."
Ecclesiastes 5:8

The principle comes up in the New Testament, too, as in the dramatic scenes of the gospel of John, chapter 7, when Jesus shows up in Jerusalem halfway through the Festival of Tabernacles, and begins teaching in the temple court, fully aware of the risk. The authorities send guards to seize him, but ...

Finally the temple guards went back to the chief priests and the Pharisees, who asked them, “Why didn’t you bring him in?”

“No one ever spoke the way this man does,” the guards replied.

“You mean he has deceived you also?” the Pharisees retorted. “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed in him? No! But this mob that knows nothing of the law—there is a curse on them.”

Nicodemus, who had gone to Jesus earlier and who was one of their own number, asked, “Does our law condemn a man without first hearing him to find out what he has been doing?”

They replied, “Are you from Galilee, too? Look into it, and you will find that a prophet does not come out of Galilee.”
John 7:45-52

As for Marco Rubio calling Rumeysa Ozturk and people like her "lunatics," along with the choice insults he and his colleagues (led by the president) use for judges they don't like, and other targets of convenience, I don't want to push this Bible passage too hard, but it's interesting:

But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment, and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council, and if you say, ‘You fool,’ you will be liable to the hell of fire.
Matthew 5:22; follow link for the footnotes.

Finally:

Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For the judgment you give will be the judgment you get, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.
Matthew 7:1-2 


Here's a sobering perspective from Cornel West's presentation last Saturday at Reedwood Friends Church (sponsored by The Cultural Soul Project):

Democracy ain't nothing but a moment of interruption in the history of non-democratic and anti-democratic regimes going back to the beginnings of the species. And it doesn't last forever. You got to fight for it, sacrifice for it, truth-tell, justice-seek for it. And in the end there is still no guarantee.

(Be sure to watch the whole video; there's plenty more about the spiritual resources we draw on to truth-tell and justice-seek. And you'll get occasional glimpses of Judy and me in the third row!)


Related posts:  Grace and mercy; Have mercyGrace and peace.


Friday addition: Jonathan Last recommends thinking and acting "like a dissident movement" in these specific ways. It makes a lot of sense to me.

Heather Cox Richardson looks at some of the words of J.D. Vance (in 2021) and Curtis Yarvin (in 2022) that might help us understand the American future they and their networks are looking forward to: a future without democracy. What do you think: is the current DOGE chainsaw operation a fulfillment of those stated visions?

Andy Olsen at Christianity Today: How are Hispanic churches in Florida dealing with the state's "double immigration crackdown"?

Alexander Vindman on the shutdown of Radio Free Europe and its sister channels. Checking this evening, Voice of America and its Russian service seem to be frozen on March 15, but RFE/RL's Russian service (svoboda.org) is still alive.

Elizabeth Bruenig asks, "Can Silicon Valley Find Christianity?" As you guessed, it's complicated: "Christianity, they ought to know, is not a life hack: It’s a life-upending surrender to the fact of divine love."

The Council of Europe's Venice Commission provided an amicus curiae brief to Ukraine's Supreme Court on the subject of conscientious objection, particularly in wartime. Page 13 summarizes relevant Quaker experience. (Thanks to Ukrainian Quakers for the link.)

Is Nancy Thomas an official old soul?

The latest list of happiest countries. By the way, John Helliwell (World Happiness Report) tells us: “Negativity is poisonous to happiness.”


Mavis Staples, with Rick Holmstrom on the guitar: "Wade in the Water."

20 February 2025

Enthusiasm and politics

Screenshot from source.  

In his book, The Violent Take It by Force: The Christian Movement that is Threatening our Democracy, Matthew Taylor documents how two movements overlap: the Christians he classifies as Independent Charismatics, and the political phenomenon that brought victory to Donald Trump in the USA's 2024 presidential election.

It is no surprise that many Americans have not heard of the "network of networks" that compose Independent Charismatics, particularly those centered on Peter Wagner's New Apostolic Reformation. (See this post, Are we agents of Lucifer?, for a brief introduction.) Those of us who just catch occasional glimpses of Pentecostal and charismatic subcultures may find them either absurd or disturbing, especially if we rely on video clips of "preachers gone wild" and the like. We are therefore likely to underestimate the appeal and reach of those subcultures.

Taylor points out that, contrary to some stereotypes, the Independent Charismatic leaders who enter the political realm are ethnically diverse, have women in major leadership positions, and are far from biblically illiterate. Their political significance is rooted in several interrelated theological themes that, as Taylor describes, unite the vast majority of this Christian movement: they believe that their leaders are apostles and prophets, with all the authority that comes from the biblical models linked to those labels; they believe that Christians are (directly or indirectly) to dominate all the major institutions of society, including government; and to get there, they are to confront the territorial demons wherever those demons are in control. Given these beliefs, it is not surprising that this enthusiastic core of Trump's political support are (so far) apparently not disturbed by the blatant authoritarianism evident in the first month of the new presidency.

The largest part of Taylor's book examines the formation and careers of several of the major figures in the movement, and how together they built up the theological pillars of their politics ... and came to identify Donald Trump as the crucial "Cyrus" they were to anoint to high office. Those figures include Peter Wagner (arguably the central figure in the formation of the New Apostolic Reformation), Paula White, Cindy Jacobs, Lance Wallnau, Dutch Sheets, Rebecca Greenwood, Ché Ahn, and Sean Feucht.

Matthew Taylor and others have done a useful job in examining the personalities, theologies, and politics of these and other leaders, along with their congregations and networks. I'm intrigued by something else: the sense of mobilization and enthusiasm among their followers, compared with the rest of the USA's Christians.

Taylor writes,

To be charismatic is to seek fulfillment of two deep and driving desires. The first desire is mostly individual: charismatics want to feel supernatural power flowing through them. This personal desire usually gets discussed under the rubric of the biblical "spiritual gifts." Charismatics want to be filled with the Holy Spirit on a deep, existential level so that they can participate in a world of miracles, ongoing revelations, and a personal sense of closeness to God.

The second desire is more communal and global: charismatics want to be part of an extraordinary work of God in the world. This is usually framed in terms of seeking "revival": a fresh, unpredictable, collective outpouring of God's Spirit in such a way that thousands or millions of people are rejuvenated in their faith. Many Christians in many traditions hope for revival and talk about it in different ways. But I have never encountered any section of Christianity so singularly preoccupied with revival as Independent Charismatics. They pray for revival, prophesy about revival, strategize for revival, study revival history, and hanker for a bracing new work of God.

The steady pursuit of these two desires is what gives charismaticism its remarkable energy and even gravitational pull. For many Christians, the promise of having Holy Ghost power flow through you and seeing the extraordinary outpouring of God's energy into the world is irresistible.

Taylor and other observers of these movements also point out that their worship experiences, including immersive music and inspirational sermons, play a role in building up feelings of "supernatural power flowing through them." They are blessed, not just by their own spiritual gifts, but by each other's.

Source.  

With these "two deep and driving desires," it's not hard to see how participating in the enthronement of a supposed Cyrus figure such as Trump would be deeply satisfying. It would not be fair to describe these millions of people as spiritual zombies without wills or minds of their own; many of them have made the deliberate calculation that, to defeat the demons corrupting our country, it is worth the risk of having an authoritarian in charge who is (they believe) answerable to them through their prophets and apostles.

At the same time, it's also important to say that many Christians of a charismatic temperament have not signed up for this. They may share those same personal and communal desires, but work for goals along different lines: revival, yes; but in the meantime, planting churches that love their local communities in practical ways. They are not busy trying to flip presidencies, but they do understand that their local faithfulness will have global effects.

And that brings me to Quakers. When I read about "ongoing revelations and a personal sense of closeness to God," am I not right in detecting desires that we Quakers share? Don't we want to be part of "an extraordinary work of God" in this world where so many suffer from violence, poverty, and degradation of the environment? (Not to mention the principalities and powers, and evil in high places. "The world is dying for lack of Quakerism in action," said Hugh Doncaster in his address to the Friends World Conference in 1967.) 

If so, how do we encourage and express these personal and communal desires as Taylor described them, or reasonably similar desires? What factors get in the way? Do we assume that we are spiritually or culturally superior to those whom Taylor describes? Do we think there is something unseemly about sharing enthusiasm? Or, as in the case of some in my own extended family, have we been burned by communities that emphasize obedience to the apostle or prophet, rather than mutual trust? How do we find a healing that doesn't involve quenching the Spirit in others?

Also: if a political leader rose up who was far more palatable to us than Donald Trump, would we become as starry-eyed on their behalf as his current followers are on his? (Truthfully, I have several candidates in mind!)


Related posts on enthusiasm...

Enthusiasm

Some cautious thoughts on enthusiasm

So Peter wants to build dwellings?

What does it mean to live life with expectancy?

The ecstasy of worship is connected to pure intention


Robert P. Jones offers a reality check on the reach of white Christian nationalism in seven charts.

Minutes of support for Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's participation in the lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

John Muhanji, Stop the Blame Game!!—on colonialism and corruption. John is the African Ministries director of Friends United Meeting.

Daniel Smith-Christopher is coming to Reedwood Friends Church, Portland, Oregon, USA, to present a program, Digital Doubts? Faith in the Future with A.I. Wednesday evening, March 5, 6:30 p.m. Pacific time. 

Jane Ciabattari talks with author Elyse Durham on "depicting the artistic side of the Cold War in Fiction."

In the spirit of the times, Nancy Thomas has a modest proposal: to rename America.


Lazy Lester is "A Lover Not a Fighter." With guitarist Eve Monsees.