Friends and Conflict

It may not surprise you to hear me say Quakers are not good at conflict!  I believe this is because our reputation as “Peacemakers” and “Peaceful People” have attracted many who dislike conflict and may erroneously believe that belong to a Friends Meeting means the absence of conflict.  I think overall Friends do not have good conflict skills.   Part of this has to do with some aspects of our Faith and Practice that do not seem to actually help conflict resolution practices.

1)      The underlying assumption of Quaker business practice is that we will listen for God’s will and follow it and that is how decisions will be made.   The problem is that too many of us are not doing that but instead following secular business practice of listening to our own thinking and then trying to persuade or push others to follow that thinking.

2)      We are supposed to trust the work of our committees and generally accept their work as it is brought to Business Meeting.  Two problems here: 1) are our committee really doing the work and also listening for divine guidance   and 2) if they have our we trusting the process and their work?

3)      The general advice for conduct in Meeting for Worship for Business is that we listen worshipfully to what others say and only speak if lead.   This means that it is not considered appropriate to do “rebuttals” of what others have said, or to speak repeatedly. 

4)      This particularly presents a problem if people say things in Meeting for Worship that are untrue.  This leaves no good way to address misinformation since it places one into a position of “rebuttal of a previous speaker”.

5)      It is common in our committee structure that some committees may have confidential information about the situations of some members or about issues creating conflict in the Meeting.  The fact that everyone does not have the same information creates problems for the clearing of conflict.

6)      In other kinds of group conflicts created by people living with mental health problems or very difficult personalities are usually handled by people higher up in a hierarchal structure taking some kind of action to reign in their behavior.   We live most of our lives in these other structure and thus when in Friends Meeting seem to look around for the ‘adult in the room” when someone is misbehaving rather than speaking out about it (as our eldering tradition would suggest.)

7)      Good conflict resolution practice suggests that we listen to each other, reflect what we have heard for accuracy and then look for common ground and ways to address each others concerns.   While sense of the Meeting also seeks to hear all of us and look for a common way to address our concerns – when individual members become upset with each other because of what is said in business meeting our practice does not allow for that direct immediacy that might cool and calm the conflict.

8)      Good conflict resolution practice also suggests that we have boundaries and that when those are violated that we protect or reassert our boundaries.  Because we have a non-dogmatic faith it asserts for less things as absolutes or truths than most religions – and even those it does: non, violence, equality, integrity, etc it does not tell us what to do when someone violates those cherished beliefs.  Some thing about our stance as a non-dogmatic seeking faith, or the lack of hierarchy seems to make us very reluctant or slow to say no, to defend our community agreements and our shared practices when they are violated.

9)      A time honored practice among all humans who hate conflict is to simply avoid it.  So as the conflict rages on more people stay away from Meeting or Meeting for business.   We hope that someone else will solve it.   But who will that be?  We govern as a group.

So what’s a Quaker to do?  I don’t want this article to simply be a catalogue of Quaker shortcomings when it comes to conflict.  As best I can see it here are our ways out and forward as they related to the numbered problems above.

1)       Return to the true practice of Meeting for Worship for business.  Educate our whole group about worship grounded God directed decision making.  The clerk must be diligent and careful in who is called in and when silence is called for and in reminding of the group of what we are doing.

2)      This educating about the true guidance behind our work must extend to our committees there must not be committee reports brought to the floor that all members of the committee are not in consent of.  We must nominate committee clerks that will conduct committees with consensus and members who are willing to operate from that basis. Then we must remind each other on the floor of business meeting that we are not there to redo their work on the floor of business meeting.  We must trust our committees and the nominating process that created them.

3)      If the clerk does not call on people who are making rebuttals or are speaking too often this helps to eliminate such behavior in Meeting for Worship for business.   We must also check ourselves before we speak.  Out of what spirit are we speaking.

4)      I am baffled about this one frankly.   I would hope that if we are listening for the word of God someone would be given words of truth to speak next that are not a rebuttal but in my own efforts to not engage in rebuttal I have remained silent after things have been said that I know to be untrue.

5)      I think committees do have to consider carefully what information they release, when and for what purpose.  I think in general it is good to keep the whole body as informed as does not violate the privacy or vulnerabilities of some of our members.

6)      This is a very challenging area for Friends and I think Friends are both compassionate but also generally aware of what they don’t know when it comes to people with mental health problems.  We either need to get outside advice from mental health professionals or simply insist on normal boundaries that we ask of others.   We do not do folks with mental illness favors by treating them differently than others, allowing them to break norms and boundaries and accrue resentments from the body.  We have to stop looking for “someone else” to handle it.  We must each think clearly about what makes sense to say and do and know we are the adult in the room.

7)      My Meeting recently passed a conflict resolution minute affirming out intention for interpersonal conflicts to be addressed and not be allowed to fester and poison the communal waters for all.  It identified a list of trained mediators and asked folks to first try to talk directly with those they have conflict with and if they cannot or if that did not to use this list of mediators for help talking with the other person.   I would suggest that unresolved interpersonal conflict is a key ingredient in Meeting Conflicts and that we need to create more of these one on one dialogues intended to use best conflict resolution practice (also so described in the Bible) to address the conflict.

8)      Quakers need to get MUCH clearer about our collective boundaries.  I have often joked that it might take someone practicing animal sacrifice in the middle of the Meetinghouse floor before we would rise up and say no.  Even then some Friends would be looking around to see that someone else besides themselves would speak.  It would help if individual committees got clear about behaviors that are and are not acceptable within their area of attention.  (Could the property committee be clear that we do not allow practices that damage the building.  Could worship and ministry be clear that we do not allow other forms of worship to occur during our worship?   Would either of those boundary clarifications empower someone to say no to the animal sacrifice example?)  This is where we need to return to our eldering practices – if we could speak early and lovingly to those who we feel are engaging behavior that is disruptive to the community we could resolve many things.  This is your sacred community – if you won’t speak for it then how will it remain sacred?

9)      Well as already alluded to above.  If you want the sacred community you will have to stop avoiding the conflict and stand for the faith and practices you want.

For those readers who have been paying attention….yes it has been two months since I posted.  The conflict in my Meeting has been wearing me down.   It has real costs when Friends abdicate their part in working on the problems in our Meetings.   I pray we can all tune up regarding conflict.   There is hidden in it the silver lining of the chance to find and reassert our true values, return to our real practices, and come to new agreements with each other that serve us better.

Polarization

Typically in polarized issues we think of it as sort of either or.  It is a or b, black or white, good or bad.   We do not as often think of the polls as falling on a spectrum, and we definitely don’t think of a spectrum as curving the point where the far ends might meet up (An example of this being if you put American politics on a circle the far left anarchist and the far right libertarians begin to meet up.)

It is painfully apparent that the US is extremely polarized right now on almost every issue and politics have become so divisive again (I say again because it is actually not the first time – remember families divided by the civil war? or not speaking to each other in the 70’s over hot button issues?) that once again there are families that cannot sit down to a civil Thanksgiving and where people I know are disowning family members.   I hear much despair both about how these gulfs will be bridged in families but also about how our country will be governable again.

Ironically, at the same time my Meeting has also become very polarized – but over a very different issue.   A registered Sex Offender has come to our Meeting and there was been far-ranging response to his presence in Meeting as well as far ranging interpretations of his behavior while in Meeting.  The Meeting initially came up with a policy regarding sex offenders and then after an incident where it became very clear that vagueness in the policy resulted in widely varying interpretation of whether the policy was violated or not, the Meeting has set out to rewrite the policy.  Sadly, the Meeting has also become very polarized in the process.

One Friend has helpfully asked us to think of this polarization as not whether x did Y or whether Z has unfairly accused x of something, but rather as that all of us in Meeting fall at different places on a spectrum that at one end values welcoming people, anyone, especially those who maybe underdogs in our society into the Meeting, and the other end of the spectrum those valuing safety for all the members of our Meeting and holding up the Meeting Community as of supreme importance.   This same member has then invited us in a series of conversations to notice the things we actually believe in common – which winds up being that:

* we would all like to feel safe

*that we believe in the redemptability of our fellow human

*we all want to be welcoming to other humans

*the world holds no guarantees anywhere about safety

*we believe in taking sensible precautions to reduce risk when we can, etc.  

By finding these initial values we agree upon we are slowly inching our way forward.

Like most Friends in the Meeting I was so dismayed that we were having this conflict and also that it was having the destructive power that it was having in the Meeting. I wondered how this could possibly come out right?   But also being new to the Meeting it was very clear to me that the conflict like some sort of bull dozer was pushing up to the light of day all the dark places, all the dysfunctioning and broken places in the Meeting.   And it becomes increasingly clear that there is no way through this conflict without fixing all the broken places….which if we fail will leave us shattered and if we succeed will make us stronger and vastly better as a community.

Recently George Lakey came to town giving a workshop on his new book: How We Win.  One of the very encouraging things George shared was how in his research for his previous book Viking Economics he discovered that the Scandinavian countries, now amazing models for the world in so many arenas, were a “mess” before they transformed into democratic socialist countries.  He discovered that they were at their most polarized point right before that change in governments.  Out of the polarization the common people kicked the 1% out of rulership.  He then looked at our own US history and realized that out of the polarization and class divide of the Great Depression came all of the reforms of the New Deal and out of the polarization of the 60’s and 70’s came the civil rights movement, the Clean Water and Clean air act, etc.   In listening to a friend of his who did beautiful metal work he heard his friend talking about having to heat up the metal to make it pliable and George realized that this is what polarization does – it heats things up till they become changeable. George asks us to see the polarization of our time as an amazing set of possibilities about to unfold.

I have believed about the Meeting conflict that if we succeed that we may find some answers that our society has yet to find about how we allow people who have committed crimes against society to be welcomed back into society and integrated back in.   But this week I had the even more radical thought that the nations polarity on immigration goes on the same poll between those who want to be welcoming to all and those that want our country tot be a “safe place” that provides for those already here.  I realized that if the Meeting succeeds maybe we will find some answers on how the heat of conflict and the longing to be community allows for the transformation of our broken US society.   Maybe it will equip some of us with some ways to approach the yawning US political divide which I think begins with finding where we hold common values even when our rhetoric and preferred policies are worlds apart. 

It is also very helpful to remember that God exists at all points of our poll.  The Creator is not just hanging out on one side of that poll.  So if God is in all part of the poll, the Divine is able to hold the tension of those conflicting points of views and to keep seeing as loveable all members of the conflict.

Conflict in Meetings

Recently I was asked by someone on my Yearly Meetings Faith and Practice committee for suggestions for a new section they are writing on Conflict in Meeting which prompted this blog.

The first thing I think is to realize that many Friends come to us from other traditions and are attracted to our reputation as peacemakers.  I think there is a hope that this means no conflict.  We must surrender our pretense about this.  We have as many conflicts as any other group!  Conflicts happen because people have different needs or point of view. Conflicts happen because there are difficult personalities or personality combinations in any group of people.  Conflicts happen because we have an opportunity for change that we maybe trying to avoid.

For many Meetings the most important thing would be to start to recognize the conflict amidst us.  This means that when someone disappears we do not assume they are busy, or have changed their minds about our Meeting.  We need to have a practice of M&O, Oversite, or Pastoral Care (depending upon what you call this in your meeting) – keeping track of people and doing a friendly check in if someone has disappeared.

It also means that when something is bothering us in Meeting, rather than gritting our teeth and assuming “they” will handle it, and why aren’t “they”  (who is they?) that we decide what committee should be addressing the issue and go speak to the committee stating clearly what our concern is and what if anything we see as a way forward on the issue.

It means that as a community we need to reclaim what eldering is suppose to be about, nurturing people in faith and holding them accountable lovingly if they are behaving in unQuakerly ways.  For example if someone is starting to make people in meeting uncomfortable with their behavior that we speak to them stating clearly what the behavior is and how it effects people rather than hoping the problem will just stop and waiting till a bigger crisis arrives when they upset someone who then also acts inappropriately.

It means that when there is a “difficult” personality in the Meeting, that the committees which are affected need to talk about how to respond lovingly.  This may mean setting clear boundaries for the person, consistent feedback, support so they can observe requirements of the meeting, mediating between them and other Friends they have upset, or naming clearly to community what the problem is.  The committee handling it needs to consider whether there is a mental health issue at hand.  Ignoring this question often leaves the committee under prepared and misguided in their approach.  If it is a mental health issue, consulting with a mental health professional, and tailoring an appropriate response will be more effective and ultimately more loving.

Some examples of this:  One Meeting had a man who was schizophrenic who came and would regularly stand and give long delusional paranoid rambling messages.  Pastoral care first gave him guidelines for appropriate speaking in Meeting.  When he was not able to observe these guidelines, they told him that some of them would meet with him each Sunday in the library for worship until he could observe boundaries.  He came to the library a couple of times and then chose not to attend anymore.

Another Meeting had two people who were very provoked by each other and often responded to each others messages, “arguing” in their responses.  M&W met with each separately reminding them of the ground rule of not responding to each other in Meeting for Worship.  When this did not work they convened a meeting with both present to discuss the problem and their reactions to each other.  While this was not wholly successful either, it is an example of engaging the problem rather than avoiding it.

In a third example a person regularly had “tantrums” during business Meeting – nothing was done, awkward silence followed month after month.  More and more members started leaving the Business Meeting and also the Meeting as a whole.  This is an example of not handling the conflict and the price that is paid.

Sometimes a difficult issue may cause huge conflict over a period of time in business Meeting and when the issue is finally resolved or laid down, there are still hurt feelings and disturbed relations within the Meeting.  Again best to address this directly, sometimes M&O can facilitate healing dialogues with parties especially estranged.  Another practice used successfully by many Meetings is holding a “Meeting for Worship for Healing” after the conflict ends.  Someone reads a brief statement of what has occurred that has left wounds and then the hour is give to worship for healing.  Remarkable messages and forgiveness can arise out of such Meetings for Worship.

I want to recognize also that conflict is different in Meetings of different sizes.  In very large Meetings often things can fall between the cracks because not everyone is even aware of a problem, it is often unclear what committee should address it, etc.  In more medium size ones members maybe stressed with other Meeting demands and find it hard to marshal time and energy around conflicts.  But in small worship groups or Meetings conflict can be really deadly.  There is no “neutral committee” because everyone is involved in some way.  Conflict can threaten to have people leave and this can than threaten the very survival of the group itself.  Those who contribute more to the Meeting, whether energy or money, maybe attended to more than others, etc.   So in small Meetings it becomes especially important to figure out how to pull in outside resources.

Seeking outside resources may mean inviting someone from M&O of Quarterly or Yearly Meeting, or a FGC traveling ministry Friend, or even sometimes inviting speakers or outside Quaker visitors can break up the dynamic and bring new ideas, points of view, etc.  It may mean knowing social service resources available in the community.  In general I think a Meeting has to view realistically the energy and people available within the Meeting and figure out when to pull in outside resources or when they maybe more appropriate.  For example a couple having problems in the Meeting may better be served by a referral to couple’s counseling than by a clearness committee trying to work with issues beyond their skill level.

The Chinese character for conflict also contains the character for opportunity. Perhaps if we approach conflicts in Meeting this way we can also reap its benefits.  Just as we experience in consensus decision making that by listening more deeply to each other we can sometimes to come to more eloquent and complete responses.

Twenty-One Tips on Personal Peace Making

I think we as Quakers spend a lot of time thinking about and discussing peacemaking, but when it comes to how to do it on the personal, one-to-one level we are often at a great loss. Last year I was supervisor of a group of six people who were going through a huge amount of personal conflict and upheaval among them. I found myself reflecting on everything I had ever learned in my life about how to heal or avoid personal conflict. I wrote it all down to share with them. When I was finished I realized that it is useful for many people to think about this. Here are the 20 things about conflict that I have learned in nearly 50 years.

1. Nothing is gained in trying to decide whose version of what happened is true. It does not matter in the end. What matters is that each person truly experienced it the way he or she reports it. That is how each person heard the words, and that is what each meant by his or her communication when saying it. That is how things looked to that person and that is what things meant to him or her. (Of course, it’s absolutely vital that the parties are being honest with themselves about their experiences.) Attaining peace doesn’t require one party to accept or capitulate to the other party’s version of truth. Each person simply has to grant that what it has heard is the experience of the other person. For instance, if two people went on two separate vacations and one person’s vacation was “wonderful until x happened” and the other person’s vacation was horrible “all along,” they would not argue about that, but would express sympathy and try to figure out how to do it differently and better next time. This could also happen if they went on the same vacation but had different experiences.

2. Blame is not a helpful concept. It does not move things forward. No one wants to be the blamed one. No one wants to be wrong. No one wants to have been bad or have harmed other people. When we blame, it increases the other person’s defensiveness and blocks his or her willingness to listen to us. Blaming, either internally or aloud, is a way to focus on the other person and his or her behavior, rather than on our own painful feelings and our part in what has happened.

3. Instead of saying: “It is his fault,” “It is her fault,” or “It is my fault,” it is more helpful simply to say, “It is.” If you can begin to look at the events of a conflict as simply what is, what happened, you will find it begins to change how you feel about it. It just is. That does not mean it is not still painful or that you still might not seek to change the situation in some way. This simply takes out the poison of blame and judgment and in some way helps us focus on more practical actions for the future and lessons to learn from the past.

4. Running away from conflict does not solve it. The conflict is still there when we return, but now someone may also feel abandoned or insignificant. Often, the resulting lapse of time has allowed bad feelings to fester and false assumptions to be made. It is best to address conflict as soon as one has control over one’s emotions and the other person is able to engage.

5. When people are very, very upset they get flooded by adrenaline. This is a biological wiring for “fight or flight.” We cannot just turn it off. It takes at least 20 minutes with attention off of conflict—longer if it is hard to get attention off of it, to get rid of all the adrenaline. If the other party asks for a break and then watches TV, it does not mean this person does not care. It may simply mean he or she is trying not to focus on the conflict in order to reduce adrenaline. It is a bad idea for someone to try to talk, listen, or make decisions while flooded with adrenaline. Rational thinking is impaired and the brain has a difficult time working constructively.

6. Timing of efforts to address a conflict is a two-party affair. People exist on a broad spectrum from “eager to address issues” to “extremely terrified about addressing issues.” It is not fair for the most willing party to demand that the other person engage because the first party wants to/needs to, and it is similarly not fair for the more avoidant party to insist that his or her non-engagement policy be accepted by both (or to continue avoiding without addressing when he or she will be willing to engage). If the two parties are not both willing to engage at the moment a problem arises, the one who needs more time to either calm down or gather thoughts needs to indicate that he or she needs this time and when he or she will be willing to meet. This agreement really must be met if the avoidant party expects the other party to do the hard work of holding onto oneself while waiting.

7. When in a conflict with another person, it is not helpful to keep going over in our mind (or with another person) how bad the other person is, or how bad his or her actions were, how upset he or she makes us, or how much we hate this person. All these kinds of thoughts just magnify the conflict, keep us connected to the difficult part of the person, keep us flooded with adrenaline, and prevent us from being able to move into a new place with the person. Contrary to how it often feels, focusing in this negative way does not protect us from the other person.

8. What is helpful is to focus on the good points of the person. If we are not aware of any, try to notice what those might be or what other people like about that person. In a pinch, make up something: “This person is kind and loving to his or her cat at home.” The idea here is not to lie to ourselves or live in fantasy, but we need to start connecting to the part of that person that we would like to have in our life. No one is without good. The more we focus on what we do not like about a person, the more we experience what we do not like about him or her.

9. Making fun of the person you are in conflict with, or engaging in sarcasm or ridicule is poison. When you disrespect a person, you are very far away from where reconciliation or peace can happen. It is in fact known to be one of the markers for a marriage that will end in divorce.

10. Each person has something to teach us. People do not arrive in our lives by mistake, even when we did not choose them to be in our lives. If we successfully evade one “nuisance,” another one with the same traits will show up. It is best to learn the lessons about ourselves and life that we are to learn from this person. That we do not like this kind of person is not the lesson. This person is in your life as a teacher. It is not that this person is sitting around thinking up lessons for you in a conscious way, but in the sense that God has sent this person to illuminate an area where you struggle and where you can grow.

11. Judging a person or deciding “who is wrong and who is right” is just another form of blaming. People have differences in opinion, in cultural norms, in styles of doing things, in interpreting information, and in acting in the world. There is not a right or a wrong way about this. Our standards are right for each of us because of the life we have lived. That does not make our standards right for someone else, who has lived a different life (which, of course, is why you are free to disagree with me about this if you choose). When we judge someone else or try to define him or her as wrong based on “our truth,” we are insisting that our way is the way. Instead of this, we must acknowledge and accept the differences. We must figure out how to build bridges across the differences.

12. People do not cause other people’s feelings. Rather, Person A does something and Person B observes that action and then decides what it means to him or her. We all have had experiences of starting out feeling one way about something, getting a slightly different perspective, and then having a different feeling about it. Despite the sense we have that our feelings are automatic and unbidden, we actually do choose what we feel. When we have been hurt in childhood and in our adult years, we often have an accumulation of feelings about a certain set of behaviors. When someone engages in that behavior, then we have those feelings. This is called re-stimulation, and it is something within us. It is not caused by the other person. Even though we may not welcome it, it is a chance to look at our old feelings, process them, and heal.

13. When someone else is disappointed or angry with us, this does not mean that we are bad or unworthy. We may have been told this in the past, and therefore this feeling may readily rear its head. It actually just means the other person is having a lot of strong and perhaps complex feelings. It is a good idea to care about others’ feelings, but when we start operating/speaking out of guilt or shame, we are now actually having a competing upset that steals the attention from the person who was originally upset. Once two people are upset, the whole thing becomes a much larger mess.

14. Dragging other people in by trying to convince them of our point of view or trying to get others to choose sides just makes the conflict bigger and worse. As a result, this causes pain in additional people and is another reason for the person with whom we are in conflict to be angry with us. It is one thing to ask someone to process feelings with us (ideally someone who does not know the person) or to speak without identifying the person. But it is quite another thing to “compile a case together” or confirm each other’s negative feelings.

15. When we direct all of our actions towards trying to prevent another person from feeling a certain way (angry, hurt, disappointed), we find ourselves caught in co-dependent emotional caretaking. We need to redirect our attention toward how we are feeling, what our needs are, and how we feel about our own behavior.

16. When speaking to another person about our upsets, it is best to use “I” statements of our experience and reactions as our own, rather than blaming others or making them responsible for our feelings. It is also best to listen carefully and respectfully to the other person’s responses and be willing to change our minds if presented with different information.

17. The use of drugs, alcohol or violence during a conflict, or during the attempt to fix it, will make the conflict worse.

18. People who are very alike often have a great deal of conflict. This is because the behavior of the other person reminds one of oneself in some very painful ways. Perhaps we see our worst or most detested trait in the other person (but of course it looks much worse on him or her). What is helpful is not to focus on how awful the other person is but to focus back on how we feel about ourselves when we behave that way and begin by working on forgiving ourselves for our own behavior. When we can love ourselves as we are, the other person magically becomes much less annoying and more an object for compassion.

19. We are responsible at all times for choosing behavior that meets our highest moral/ethical standards—to truly live by the Golden Rule, to live in such a way that, if anything true we did was published somewhere for all to see, we would have no embarrassment, guilt, or shame about our action.

           
20.  Culture does impact conflict.  Different cultures have different ways of showing respect, caring, boundaries, etc.  The culture we are raised in is invisible to us – it is like air.  It is just their and is presented as “normal” or “reality” or “the way things are”.  We all therefore are somewhat blind to our own cultural assumptions and usually sadly ignorant of other peoples.  It is very easy to transgress without realizing it.  It is however helpful to realize this potential and try to figure out if it is part of the conflict and if so to try to address it and use if as an opportunity for learning.  White people in particular often make the mistake of assuming that other white people are the same “culture” as they are which is generally not true.  Second generation American’s and beyond tend to think of themselves as totally assimilated and are unaware of the cultural beliefs passed down through their families even centuries later.  It is helpful to learn more about one’s own cultural roots and those of people we are closely connected with.

21. When we have made a mistake, it is best to apologize immediately, rather than trying to justify, rationalize, diminish, or cover up the mistake we made. We are not bad because we made a mistake. If we live without blaming, others should also be able to accept our mistakes without blaming. If someone else engages in blaming, that is the other person’s issue and not something we have to take on ourselves
Published in Friends Journal Aug 2008

Vibrant Meetings Grow the Society of Friends

  In 2007 FWCC reports 35,413 unprogrammed Friends, about a 10^th of 1% of the US population.  FWCC also reports this to be a 3% drop in our membership numbers in the past 30 years.  I don’t wish to be an alarmist, but no group can maintain the integrity of its traditions or its viability when it drops below a certain critical mass.  It is hard to say what the critical mass is, but this is a problem we need to address now before we reach that point.  Quakers have a proud heritage of what they have contributed to US history and I believe they can play a critical role in the 21^st century as well.  It is of the utmost importance that we look seriously at and address the factors leading to a decline in our membership.  For decades now the number of our members lost through death has exceeded the number of children born into Quakerism, as evidenced by the majority of grey and white heads at any Quaker gathering.  There is no difficulty in having many long living Friends, but we need to gain at least as many new members as the number of those dying!  The problem is one of not attracting enough new members, not retaining the members we have, and not keeping our youth.

Sharing Quakerism

We must go to the heart of our relationship with each other as a community of Faith if we want to address declining membership.  The reason that people come to our church or any church is to share religious fellowship with others whom we perceive share common theological beliefs with us and choose to worship in the same manner.  It is my firm belief that if more people knew about Quakerism, more people would indeed choose Quakerism.  (In fact a popular web site which provides a quiz on theological belief to match people with the religion that best fits their beliefs, directs thousands of people a year to the Society of Friends.)  I believe Quakerism combines many elements that people long for:  a non-dogmatic approach to the Divine, an open and accepting environment, a proud history of aligning values with actions for justice, and the space to find Truth, to find one’s Inner Voice or Teacher, and a deep mystical union with the Holy One.  How many people long for just such a faith are discouraged to the point of paralysis by churches that are bound by close-minded dogmas, that have ugly histories of oppression or apathy, or that lack the space to allow for experientially found Truths?  Somehow in our historic opposition to proselytizing we seem to have forgotten that we have something uniquely wonderful to offer friends, family, and co-workers.  If we would enthusiastically lend someone a favorite book, or recommend a movie or TV show that we found enriching, then why on earth would we not recommend to them that which we find fulfilling in our Meetings?

Disturbingly, I think this is because many of us are not enriched in our Meetings.  We may go because our family does or because we have decades-old friendships there, it’s a nice group of people to hang out with, or because we want our children to have a religion.  Now these aren’t terrible reasons to go; probably all churches have some percentage of people who attend for these reasons.  But those reasons are not the ones that will cause us to enthusiastically encourage a friend to go, nor are they reasons that will draw a newcomer back again. 

What will allow us to do genuine and moving outreach is that our Meetings are, or once again will be, places of spiritual inspiration that nourish our souls; places where spoken ministry sometimes moves us to tears or stuns us by how amazingly it speaks to our unspoken condition; where we are so closely connected by Light that a message for another can come through one person’s mouth and be spoken in total faithfulness - even words or ideas alien to speaker, but clearly intended for one of the community members sitting amidst us; where souls weary and wounded from the events of the world can come and in the silence be restored again.  When our Meetings are such places, how could we fail to recommend them to those we care for, and how could a seeker finding us for the first time not be enthralled and delighted at having found what they sought?  Why would our young people want to leave such a home?

Now before hundreds of Friends take up paper to write FJ protesting that their Meetings are just such places, I want to say that I know there are many such Meetings, thank God, throughout the U.S.  But I also know that, sadly, there are many that are not.  In many Meetings that through dangerous smallness (bordering on dissolution) or through Meeting dry spells, unaddressed by the membership, there is no verbal ministry Sunday after Sunday and little happens within the silence.  There are also Meetings so large and undisciplined (or uneldered) that popcorn messages with much chaff and conflict are delivered every Sunday, leaving the recipients overfed and dull, but not nourished. 

We have work to do in our local Meetings and our Yearly Meetings if we wish to see a spiritual health in our Meetings that can again lead to the growth of our Society as a whole.

The easiest place to begin is in taking an earnest stock of why we have lost members or long time attenders from our Meetings.  Many Meetings have no process in place for even checking in with Friends who suddenly stop attending.  Such Meetings feel it is none of their business or the Friend’s own choice to make.  Such complete autonomy from each other, I believe, renders meaningless the idea of membership, having a marriage under our care, or being in fellowship with each other.  Early Friends believed that living a truly spirit-centered life was no easy matter, but one in which we helped each other achieve this in loving fellowship.  This suggests to me, at bare minimum, that our M & O’s or our Pastoral Care Committees call Friends who have been absent for several months to check on them!  Reasons may range from poor health or family crisis, (which could benefit from some Meeting support), or a spiritual crisis, or a dark night of the soul which might also benefit from some ministry by caring Meeting members, to perhaps being really angry with the Meeting or some of its members over things which have happened at the Meeting.  This last should definitely be addressed because where one is driven away by conflict, others will be too.  Two close and dear friends of mine, attending Meetings on different ends of the country, have stopped going to their Meetings to worship because of badly handled conflicts in their Meetings, and in each case no one has even called them.  (Calling a year after the person has stopped coming and after they have sent a letter declining to serve on any committees, simply adds insult to injury.)  This should never happen!  

Healing our Conflict

Our unresolved conflicts are probably one of the biggest ways we loose people.  I hate to say it, but we Quakers for all our reputation as peacemakers are not very good at conflict!  Too many come to us attracted to the peace, wishing to leave behind troubling memories of conflict elsewhere, but without having learned skills for conflict.  We don’t teach conflict skills, because one of our great myths is:  “We all get along”.  I think it would be much more productive if we said:  “Peace is our ideal and like the rest of the human race, we still have to learn how to do it.”  The next step would be to start telling the truth about the conflicts in our Meetings - the decade old conflicts between 2 parties or 2 factions (sometimes carried on beyond our memory of why).  If we put on the table the fresh, still bleeding and still festering conflicts and hurts about contentious decisions and figured out what resources to call on to create personal or Meeting wide events for healing, then there might be forgiveness and reconstruction of new ways forward!  The good news is all Yearly Meetings, as well as programs like FGC, FWCC and our retreat Centers have skilled, seasoned Friends who do know how to help facilitate and give birth to such healing!

Keeping our Youth

I want to start the topic of keeping our youth by saying no church keeps a very high                           percentage of their youth.  This is in the nature of life.  Parents’ choices are not always right for their off-spring.  As seekers we know people are drawn to different expressions.  It is part of the developmental work of teenagers to differentiate from their parents.  So I don’t expect us to keep all our youth or view it as failure when we don’t.  But I would like to feel that we have something to offer and nourish youth who are drawn to us (unfortunately I am not confident that this is what happens).  Many, many Meetings, even those with large First Day programs do not have high school (H.S.) programs.  Such myths exist as:  H.S. age Friends just don’t like going to churches; we have no H.S. Friends in our Meeting; we don’t have enough H.S.’ers to hold a program together or “they” are happy to just go to Yearly Meeting events once or twice a year.  (Does once or twice a year nourish any soul?)  Usually our Meetings have not ever directly asked the H.S. Friends what they would like.  To go on much more runs the danger of trying to speak for them, a form of ageism we practice far too often.  Instead I will stop on this topic with the encouragement that we take seriously the charge to mentor the next generation of Friends and for us to be ministered to by the passion and intensity of their Lights!  

One important part of this is allowing them to become adults in their Meeting.  I went to Earlham College and so knew many other Young Adult Friends my age.  I remember one of my Friends telling me a few years after we graduated that he felt he had to leave the Meeting he grew up in (and the only one by him) because too many people could not see him as an adult.  He said they continued to refer to him as “X’s son”, even though he was a Member.  I, on the other hand, grew up a Friend and stayed one so I know it is possible!  I have sat in a Business Meeting where a discussion was taking place about Children’s Meeting and where a young Friend home from college had come to Business Meeting.  Someone referred to the “children” of the Meeting while gesturing at him!  Routinely our nominating committees do not approach Young Adult Friends about service on committees, still seeing them as children.  Some Meetings do have some sort of ritual designed to acknowledge passage into adulthood for their teen members.  This may be more important for the members of Meeting than the young person if we have trouble seeing them as adult members of our Meetings.

Mentoring Newcomers

Much of what our youth need is what our newcomers need – a way to learn Quaker practice that does not leave them constantly feeling they are making faux pas or forever “outside” a mountain of inside knowledge and rules.  This ranges all the way from Quaker speak (our alphabet soup of FGC, FWCC, AFSC, etc.) to our historic phrases (“seasoned”, “the way opens”, “eldering”, etc.).  Yes, the ambitious new Friend may pick up a book of Quaker history or Quaker practice, but not all are so inclined to learn this way.  How do we lovingly non-critically help them learn those things as well as our practices for business and committee work?  How do you teach the history and experiences that have led to our testimonies?  How do we teach our Meeting’s unique way of doing certain things?

This is very important because no on likes feeling stupid, awkward or like an outsider and if we leave them feeling that way too long they simply don’t return.  Maybe worse yet, in large Meetings with big influxes of new Friends and a shortage of seasoned Friends to help explain our practices, newcomers simply substitute ways they have learned outside.  Sometimes this may be good – but more often can lead to poor process, more conflict, more issues to heal and more loss of what is unique and powerful in Quakerism.  Therefore, mentoring newcomers is of key importance.

Some Meetings are so small that the newcomer is attended to by every member of Meeting, which can be “too much”, overwhelming, or cause much self consciousness!  Small Meetings have to figure out how to do this lightly.  Large Meetings may have a regular Introductory Quakerism class or monthly intro talk which is very helpful.  They still may need to add intentional mentoring to that structure.  In the medium size Meetings there may be no systematic way and at this size it is when unseasoned Friends are pressed into committee service that they can really be left to navigate without a map.  It is important that these Meetings really have dialogue about how they help their newcomers.  Recent newcomers are great sources of information about what is needed and where the holes are!

The Heart of the Matter

I have talked about sharing Quakerism, attending to lost members, healing our conflicts, keeping our youth and making a place for newcomers.  Obviously this is enough to keep M & O’s busy for a long time!  However these are only structural matters unless they come from a spiritual center.  The heart of the matter is really that our fellowship be infused with a tender love for one another.  Early Friends were on fire with the mission of living a life completely faithful to God.  They saw their relationships with each other as key to that; they held each other accountable; they prayed for each other and they bathed in the Light of God together in worship.  Committee work was a joyful carrying forward of the spiritual work of the community and a time of spiritual fellowship.  It is still possible that we can infuse our nominating process and our committee work with this Spirit.  It is also possible that we can find ways to deepen the spiritual life of the Meeting and to make the silence again a living silence, not a dead silence; that we can tend to the growth of membership in our Meetings with a sense of the vital and vibrant spirituality that we have to share with each other; that we can come to a Living Center that is compelling to any seeker to return to again and again!

Published In Friends Journal May 2008