A Missing Piece of the Truth

Quakers have a wonderful belief that not only can one person say NO, but that they may have a piece of the truth that the rest of the group has not noticed.  We believe this because in Meeting for business for Worship we are ALL suppose to be listening for the truth.  Thus this one lone voice is not someone's opinion, but gives voice to a deeper truth.

Like many other Quakers I belong to many other groups who operate by consensus, but in those groups usually a single or even several dissenting voices will be ignored so we can "get things" done. And of course in those groups there is no belief that we are looking for divine guidance.  In those groups we are looking for the group wisdom or just unity for action.  There we believe we are guided by our own intellects, so it again becomes easy to get competitive about differences of opinions and to be attached to desired outcomes.

In a previous piece about internalized Quakerism, I have shared about how the Quaker ways I was raised in influence the way I operate in the outside world: sometimes for the best and sometimes for the worse.  When it is for the best I am able to help inform, educate and elevate other groups I belong to.   When it is for the worst, I am unconsciously expecting people in these other secular settings to behave like Quakers and am surprised, distressed or ill prepared when they do not.  I'm sure all Quakers have had the experience of being in a secular setting where a group has to decide on something and someone calls for a "vote" and after a few people make "persuasive" ranging to "bullying" or "domineering" comments, the group votes.   The vocal majorities view point installed and everyone else's needs or wants are disregarded.  As a Quaker there is a distinctly bad feeling knowing that many people have just lost.  It does not feel better to me, as a Quaker, when my "side wins" the vote because I can feel the subtle violence of people being run over.

So the interesting question to me is how can we bring a little bit of Quakerism to the rest of the world?  I'm not talking here about preaching about Quakerism.   I think in general the voice that says: "the way my group (church) does it is..."   Is not a voice that is well appreciated.  However, I do think that if we simply use what we know to make suggestions, if we hold out the idea that it is possible that a minority view point is worth listening to, or that if we don't rush to vote once we have a majority number, but keep problem solving till more people are happy, or suggest that there could be a win/win that will please everyone...I think these suggestions are powerful ones that can be transformative for groups we are in.  I have verbalized to my climate group on several occasions that a sole voice of dissent can still be bringing us valuable information and asked us to consider that. I think this has been a very revolutionary thought for many in the group and changed how we listen to each other.

I remember in my 20's going to anti-conscription meetings that an older Quaker man was in.  He did not speak often, but whenever he did it was to urge the group to look more deeply at a minority view point that had already been stated, or to ask us to look for third ways, or to ask us to figure out how we could make the "proposal on the table even better" by addressing concerns raised about it.  I remember being comforted by his mere presence in the room and awed by how he consistently made the group function better.   Now in retrospect I can see that he was choosing to "clerk" the meeting even without the title.  What if we all did that where we are?  We could be "patterns and examples" wherever we go.

Recently in my secular climate group we went to meet with our two Senator's staffs.  In the first meeting the aid was saying things that were frankly quite ill informed and fairly useless.  One of my comrades in anger snapped at her "Could we talk to someone who knows something."   X I called out his name, stopping him, then to her I said "I'm sorry for that; we would like to know..."  After we left he was curious about why I had stopped him and eager to tell me that she did not know what she was talking about and it was appropriate to be angry."  I told him: "Emotion is always appropriate, but not disrespect.   She is simply trying to do her job.   She is a child of God just like you and I, and we get to disagree with her as much as we want, but it is not ok to treat her with disrespect".   Thus I did not have to tell him all about God within each of us, yet still I had "eldered" him about a Quaker principal in a way he could hear and understand.  (He conducted himself respectfully in the next Senator's office.)

I have written in a previous blog about having to learn how to testify in secular settings not from my intellect, but from still listening for the truth I am to speak.  This again is an example of learning how to bring my Quakerism into my activism.

My most recent and startling realization is that I was clerking secular meetings where I was providing no point of view, but trying to get the group to look at the deeper questions with the assumption that that would lead us to the truth.  After a number of very dissappointing times of the loudest voice in the room carrying the day or many people being uncomfortable because they did not know the answers to the questions I was raising, I finally realized I was misapplying the Quaker model here.  I was operating as if people where going to listen for God's voice when they were not.   So instead I listened in myself for what the truth might be as best I could grasp that.  I put it down on paper as a "proposal" and brought it to my group, stating clearly that I was not attached to the proposal and willing to see it change if we could think of better ideas.  It gave the group a jumping off place for discussion, it gave us focus and rather than hours of wandering around lost in circles we were able to have a productive discussion and come to a decision.

It was fascinating for me to realize that in that case, before hand my Quaker assumptions or patterns were not serving me well.  I now have a better way, but I will need a Quaker committee of elders or anchor committee, so I do not get lost in ego or blindspots by this way of trying to lead.  In general the American public does not see the search for Truth as part of the work of life.   But there is no reason we cannot call our fellow citizen's to look for the Truth.  In fact what a breath of fresh air for most people to have presented the idea that the Truth is out there and available and that we can hold it up!

To be Tender

Early Friends were urged to be Tender with each other.  Till fairly recently this admonishment seemed meaningless at best - overly sentimental at worst.  That  was before "James" was part of my Meeting.  (Name changed to protect the innocent).  James was a convinced Friend who became a member while attending our Meeting.  He had been a Minister previously in another Church and for various reasons had left it.  He did fairly often give vocal ministry which I enjoyed, as his messages to me seemed spirit led and used much metaphors, and were interesting.  However, some in my Meeting were suspicious of the frequency of the messages and some began to think he still thought of himself as a minister and had simply found a new pulpit.

Then he had a run in on the committee he served on.  One of the members of the committee who I have known and loved for a good dozen years confided to me how she found his deep voice intimidatingly reminiscent of her older brother who had been somewhat of a bully.   Another member of the committee would much later complain that he did not appropriately understand Quaker process and had too much of an agenda.

Eventually things came to a head during a business Meeting.  As I was someone who felt warmly towards him and was not bothered by his general behavior, but did understand the concerns of others I was asked to give him a call.   I did - during the call he referred to someone who had spent years caring for our property as "controlling", and my friend who unbeknownst to him was afraid of him as "silently disapproving."

On one level it was somewhat amusing to see how her fearfulness of him was interpreted by him as "silent disapproving."  For a moment I wanted to tell him about her brother, but thought better of it.  I am not one who believes in big T truth - I think truth looks very different depending upon which side of the road you are standing on when the cars crash.   So while I prefer to see the member of property committee as motivated by love and devotion rather than power...I can not dismiss that from another perspective it could look that way.

Which brings me to being tender with each other.  The more we know each other, in love, there is forbearance.  When we know each other well enough to know others insecurities, hopes, values, experiences there is a protection against misreading each others intentions, and a gentling of how we respond- even when we disagree.   When we listen in the spirit we can listen for that of God in each of us.  And when we trust that we are entering business in a worshipful manner then we can also trust that others share from Spirit and measure these sharings against Spirits leading.  We can have forbearance for the imperfect vessels that we each are when we speak.  We can see the insecurities, timidity - or pride and stubbornness - as slight imperfections in the vessel currently trying to deliver Source to each other.

I struggled as I tried to talk to James - and ultimately failed - to explain that these traits he was bothered by were simply imperfections in a vessel delivering the truth as they knew it.   But I failed because at least then James did not understand Quakerism well enough to have a that picture of what we are attempting in Quaker business practice - to both speak and listen for the truth.  He knew a different paradigm from another church where people argue for the truth and persuade and decisions are made by majority sentiment.  So I could not find  a way to tell him the value of being tender with each other.

I have recently been reminded of another way we are tender with each other.   Members of my Meeting keep getting dementia....we are on our 4th or 5th in the dozen and half years that I have belonged to my Meeting.  One man was always very touched by the children's return to the worship room in the last 10 minutes and would frequently rise to remind us that the Bible says: "We will come into the Kingdom like little children."  Another woman found many occasions to tell us with delight that of all the woman her husband had known that he had chosen her as his wife - how proud she was to be his wife (this was particularly sweet to me after their 60 some years of marriage that she still sounded like a besotted teenage girl!)   Most recently a member of our Meeting with Alzheimer's tells us weekly how he came to serve on the Church Council of Greater Seattle on our behalf, and how impressed he was by the people of all different faiths, all trying to do good, all good people.  His wife is embarrassed that he tells this so often.  I try to tell her not be - because we all understand.   This for me is part of being tender to each other.  It is fine for me once a week to know how deeply that experience of ecumenicalism touched his soul.  In all three cases I feel like some of their beauty has been revealed to me in their dementia.  So part of being tender to each other is also seeing each other more clearly in our diminishment.

Bringing Spiritual Intention to our Meetings

I have for many years now been a fan of Wayne Dwyer, author of the Power of Intention, among many books (and often seen on PBS) Dwyers messages is definitely spiritual, but no explicitly Christian, and so not usually spoken about in Friends Meeting - I would like however to bring part of his Light to our on going struggle to have our Meetings support the Life we want for our Meetings.

First I would say we need to have an explicit dialogue in our Meetings - what do we want?  What do we intend for our communities?  Do we want more young families?  Do we want to keep our youth? Do we want more vital ministries?  Do we want a more active and powerful social witness?  Do we want a deeper sense of community?  Do we want our business meetings to be truly spirit led?  Do we want to know the presence of God more deeply?

Whatever the longing - first we must name it - then we must imagine it fully achieved, the spirit of it - not endlessly lamenting the "not happeningness of it" as Dwyer might joke.  Then in tasting what it might taste like we must walk our selves backward from that image.  What conditions would have to exist to allow or nurture that vision?  Would a certain committee of the Meeting be different?  Would worship be different? Would community be different?  Then peel back another layer:  What committees or other activities prepare us for worship or to learn our practice?  What removes the obstacles in worship?  Do we expect to find the Divine on the bench with us? What practices could we change that would better support our cherished intentions?  What practices do we have because "we always did it this way"... or because when we had a lot of children we did x, or because of the force of personality of 1 Friend now long dead, or because we think this is how "all Quaker" do it, etc. etc?

How can we examine our practices and release those who no longer serve.  A number of years sabbatical years were popular for Meetings- laying down all committees for a year and discerning what was essential and bringing back committees only with intention and renewed purpose.  Do our committees match our numbers?  When does a meeting grown to where Ministry and Oversite should be separated (into Ministry and Worship & Pastoral Care)   And when have we shrunk to where they should be recombined into Ministry and Pastoral Care?

Sometimes this conversation becomes a little bit of a "What comes first the chicken or the egg?" conversation because we imagine we cannot do the work that it would take to make a better meeting without more people and yet we feel that without more people we cannot do that extra work.  Here Friends I would remind us that it is not our work alone to do.  This is where it is good to remember God!  How do we invite in God's help?  How do we remember that God also wants these things we want: deeper worship, greater community, etc.  and in fact if we can notice that it is really arranging the practices of our Meetings to let the Light shine through then it is not simply empty form or endless meetings - it is the joyful work of the Holy One and us as the instruments.

Internalized Quakerism

Those familiar with oppression theory know that it assumes that all people, even from privileged groups, internalize both beliefs that are held about their group and patterns of behavior that are common to their group.  I’m writing this as someone raised Quaker grappling with what I see to be my “internalized Quakerism”―both the good and the bad―of that.  My ex-partner met me when he was 33 and he said I turned his head because he’d never met anyone who’d been raised as a pacifist and with the values of equality, simplicity, and integrity – everyone else he knew in the peace movement had made their way to finding  these things.  He said “It was just sort of knit into you.”  It is, and I’m glad of that; my joke to people is “I chose Quaker parents to save myself the time and trouble of finding Quakerism.”

However, over the years I’ve come to realize there are ways of looking at the world through a solely Quaker lens that, well, at minimum are “different”―some might say have a “downside.” One thing is that being raised with the idea that there is “that of God in everyone” and urged to look for it; nothing was said about being aware of that “not of God” in others.  I have learned, partly the hard way, to recognize that people can make choices in ego, vanity, pride, greed, rage, jealousy and hatred―and those choice are not of God and represent a turning away from God.  I absolutely believe in redemption, that no one is beyond returning to God’s love and God’s healing and direction, forgiveness, if you will. 

However, that belief in redemption does not really provide guidance for anticipating that others will, sometimes predictably, choose or otherwise be impelled to act out of “that which is not God.”  I sort of wish my Quaker parents had provided such guidance before adulthood (and thus I write this partially for all readers who are parenting Quaker children).  I wish I’d been told, “look for that of God in others, also notice whether they stay close to God or stray.  Invite forth that of God in them always, but don’t deny the truth, or sugar coat it in yourself.  Ask the Provider’s guidance and protection when you face that which is unfaithful in others.”  I think I would have less wear and tear marks on me if I’d been told that.

On another happier note of internalized Quakerism, I’ve realized that a sense of political potential or empowerment is something I get from Quakerism. Being an activist I see how few of my fellow citizens have this sense of efficacy. Going in and out of Quaker business meeting all of my life has taught me, 1) we can make decisions―even important ones, 2) it is your duty to have a voice and speak the truth and, 3) you can make things change even as only one person!  These are powerful profound messages!  Think about what it is like to function in other areas of your life: your work place, your neighborhood, your relationships and to believe that it is possible to change things.  That sense of possibility is, I think, one of the gifts of decades inside Quakerism.

Because the Quaker values of peace, justice, equality, etc., are congruent with American liberalism, another internalized trait of Quakers is a fairly unexamined liberal bent. I mean by this that there is a permeable membrane where perhaps there should not be one.  Ideas, campaigns, and norms from American Liberalism enter into our thinking and our awareness somewhat under analyzed – and with little consideration of whether they come from, or belong with, the life of the spirit.  An example would be the assumption that we will have (are entitled to?) a typical American life style: a college education, a job, a home, etc.  Such a belief in modern Quakerism may actually stand in the way of perceiving or being faithful to calls for Holy Obedience that would bring us into conflict with the authorities and threaten such a life style.

American liberalism, substituted uncritically for Quaker values, would also argue for a form of tolerance and permissiveness that would make no demand of our fellow member.  It adopts an almost co-dependent posture where literally anything goes, where we must accept any mentally ill behavior, any religious behavior brought in regardless of its non-Quaker nature, or any violation of our actual value-set―all in deference to the liberal norm of acceptance of all.  Lost is the sense that we are a gathered and faithful people, called by God and asked by God to stand for certain values, to wrestle in love with those outside that which God asks. 

Perhaps the most important aspect of internalized Quakerism for me has been my internalized expectations in the encounter with others for process and the disappointing results of this.  It has taken me years to recognize that when a decision needs to be made involving another (partner, friends, co-worker, groups of any kind.)  I straightforwardly state my opinion or idea and then sit back waiting to hear other ideas, opinions or at least reactions.  I have been fooled many a time by their apparent agreement and willingness to adopt my thoughts without discussion.  Imagine my surprise when later I’m informed that I had been “opinionated” or perceived to be arbitrary, taking charge, etc.  In self-defense, I have taken to trying to warn my non-Quaker peers ahead of time that my statements of opinions should not be seen as coups d’état, but this warning has not been particularly useful.  My surprise has also run the other direction when I have entered a group assuming that all our opinions were welcome or desired, only to have it be made known that decisions would be made elsewhere and not inclusively!

I also see that this internalized Quaker expectation for process has permanently and deeply impacted my leadership style.  I never assume that I will make the decisions or say what will happen.  I have no solo leader model, only a facilitator model―a facilitator so bound to group, that without group nothing happens.  In any group, I naturally (whether leader or not) seek to elicit others’ opinions, look for what I can hold up and affirm in what others say, and look for ways to bring the group into unity.  How great, you say!  Well, yes and no; it is great for the feelings of the group members.  But for the groups unfamiliar with this process, unaccustomed to having their opinions sought, or untrained in how to bring differing opinions into unity, this cans seem bewildering, scary or at worst a huge waste of time.  The democracy model with which they are all familiar demands a vote and on to the next thing.  Thus, those who look to me (or to other Quakers) for leadership in the wide world may actually be frustrated by our ponderous process―or in some of my more frustrating situations Quakers may simply be pushed aside for more traditional top-down leadership.

It has taken me more than 50 years to consider that perhaps if I want to be effective in the world outside of Quakers I may need to be more individually decisive, I may need to learn to lead by example, to claim my ideas, to persuade when necessary, yet still I ask how can I empower those who’ve never been empowered to make decisions to be part of the process themselves?

Recently I was looking with a F/friend who has been Quaker for about four decades at her astrological chart.  We giggled together about how Quakerism has softened or blunted her inborn tendency to blurt things out, to grab the ball and run down the court with it, to ignore others opinions.  So certainly internalized Quakerism looks very good on many of us.  What about you?  How have you internalized Quakerism?

This article was published in Friends Journal in Dec. 2013