Birds of Many Feathers

Benigno Sanchez-Eppler spoke as the Friend in residence at NPYM.  One of the things he shared with us about is both the evolutionary path of salamanders as they went from the south end of the desert in California around both sides and meeting again at the top, and also a certain song bird in the Gobi desert also evolving around both sides and meeting again at the top.  He explains the salamanders change a little in each range while containing outliers in each range like salamanders from the other groups.  But by the time the two groups again meet at the top of the dessert they are too different in their internal structure to mate.  With the song birds he says he finds most tragic that "they do not recognize each others love songs."  He says that scientists however cannot categorize them as separate species because they share the common ancestor and are still genetically far more similar to dissimilar.  (My daughter tells me that scientifically they would be different species but the same genotype.)

While Benigno does not directly compare these creatures to the Society of Friends, the parrells are fairly strongly apparent.  All branches of the Society of Friends claim George Fox as their founder and are influenced and inspired by his life and words in different ways.  And it is also true that for the most part we are no longer able to comfortably worship together.  There are outliers in each branch that look more like and might more comfortably fit in other branch.  There are Quakers that have moved from one branch to the other.  And yet if we were to try to merge back together eliminating the splits- there are differences so great that a great violence would be done - alienating or destroying many of the flock"  of each branch along the way.

However, Benigno points out by the diversification and adaptation of each group "they cover a lot more territory" and the cross mating by the most closely related groups strengthens both groups.  I feel a sigh of relief and contentment at this.  Yes I am happy that Quakerism took an adaptation that allowed it to reach millions in Africa, and that it took forms that allowed it to survive in revivalist corn-belt communities, etc.  I am glad that there are "birds" like me across the world who hold up ideals of non-violence, simplicity and equality and integrity.  I don't need them to be just like me or worship like me, nor do I wish to be just like them.  Some life long feeling that we are out of integrity with our own peace testimony because we cannot heal our own splits, melts in me.  I feel my whole body relax.  Maybe we can just appreciate the diversity with which Friends show up in the world and breadth and depth of our reach upon the planet!

Membership in the Society of Friends

The April issue of Friend's Journal raises a number of interesting issues about membership.  One being the peculiar habit Friends have of identifying through their membership in a Meeting (specific Congregation), a trait not found in other denominations.  It also asks us to look at whether this emphasis on membership also makes some (especially young adults not yet able to put down roots) feel unwelcome or like second class citizens.  These are good questions.  Too some degree the concept of membership is one that belongs heavily to another time and place.

However, I think, that like other things, in a heavily secular world we begin to forget the religious reasons for membership.  Early Friends believed deeply in an accountability to the fellowship which was held in a Meeting and a group of people. Quakers had rejected both a Pope or clerical hierarchy as the source of Truth and even said the Bible was not the primary source of truth (but A source of Truth), but rather that Truth was to be found experientially.  After the James Naylor incident, it became clear to Friends that there had to be some sort of check and balance on the truth that was found individually - that it had to be tested and held accountable to the collective wisdom or Truth of the fellowship.  Thus membership in a Meeting became the group which would discern with a member all of the most important decisions of a lifetime: to marry, to pursue a specific career or a call to ministry or activism.

Fast forward 350 years to the United States where the entire population is highly mobile - usually living in many locations during a lifetime - and where young adults are the most transit of all and our current way of doing membership does not fit particularly well.  I personally favor moving to allowing young adults to place their membership in their Yearly Meeting until they feel rooted enough in one place to move it to a specific Monthly Meeting.   I was raised a Friend and so went off to college with my membership sitting in the Meeting I grew up in.  I knew it did not make sense to transfer it while I was in college (often to tired to even get to Meeting on Sunday.)  And in my twenties and early 30s, post college I lived in 6 locations before I settled.  I then moved to Seattle which has 4 Meetings and worship groups.  For one reason or another I was in each of them before I finally knew I was home at the 4th one.  By then I was 36!  In other words it was a long journey, yet I had the convenience of having my membership sit in my patient Meeting I grew up with, while being able to list where I was sojourning at the time.  What if I had not already had a membership somewhere?

It makes more sense to me that we hold young Friends membership in their Yearly Meeting than go the direction that some would suggest of simply discarding the idea of membership.  They could pay theirannual fee directly into the Yearly Meeting.   Although of course there is the practical reality that Meeting Houses cost money and that membership is a shared agreement to shoulder together the costs of our collective existence.

For those who come to Quakerism from another faith I think our approach to membership is somewhat puzzling.  For many churches becoming a member is not any more significant than signing up for a book group.  We however, hold a clearness committee for potential members and report back to Business Meeting whether we feel clear to accept the person into membership.  For many this is an intimidating process.  I recall in my Meeting growing up a long time attender who never applied for membership out of concern that her husband's employment for a major arms manufacturer might "disqualify" her  - she was never talked out of this concern because there were indeed members of Meeting who felt they would not be clear to accept her under that circumstance.   Is membership as value free as taking out a library card?  Or does it stand for a set of values?  This I think is something we must continue to grapple with and not ignore.  I also recall someone in my Yearly Meeting not applying for membership because they felt they were not "good enough" morally pure enough.  That seemed tragic to me.

For those older attenders who are ambivalent about membership - unclear what's its purpose or benefits might be, I would offer the following:  Some of us look for the perfect Meeting waiting to apply for membership till we find that Meeting- like some singles on the dating scene that will be an eternal wait - there are no perfect mates or Meetings!  In fact I think it is very helpful to think of membership sort of like a marriage - it is a two way commitment.  At its best it brings great gifts and fulfillment, at its worst it can be a lot of work and sometimes painful.  However, like a marriage when we find it not wholly satisfying or lacking in someway it is time to work at improving it, rather than treating it like we are spectators of a sporting event, uninvolved in the outcome.  Like a marriage we may also be asked of in ways that stretch us and lead to growth.

Both as a place of accountability and as a place of spiritual work and growth, I think the spiritual aspects of membership are compelling and not to be cast aside as some sort of old fashion idea.  We need to not confuse it with membership in a more secular group like a social club, or membership where memberships either help define social status or identity.  That is not I think what "the society of Friends" is about, or what membership means in this case.

Why should NPYM affiliate with FGC?

The first time I went to FGC was when I was 22.  I went every year for the next 13 years until my daughter was born after which I went more irregularly. I think I have been 22 times.  In my twenties like many Young Friends I moved around the country until I finally landed in Seattle at 26.  My membership remained in the Meeting I grew up in until at 36 I knew I was going to stay somewhere and transferred.  So between 18 when I left home and 36 the constant in my Quaker experience was my annual attendance at FGC.  Some of my deepest most profound experiences have happened at FGC.  Thus I would say from personal experience FGC helps keeps young people attached to Quakerism.


What was so important to me at FGC?  The format of FGC is different than a Yearly Meeting.  No business is done at the national level – that is properly left to the Yearly Meetings.  It is Sat to Sat affair.  There is 5 whole days of the mornings spent in workshop- you choose one topic from a smorgasbord of topics and immerse yourself for 3 hours a day in that topic.  The topics are on a range of spiritual and Quaker Practice topics (with a few purely recreational topics).  Most attendees rank the workshops as the highlight of their week. Children attend a very fun children’s program during the same time and also in the evening while parents are at Plenary.  The Plenaries are talks or performances given by well known Quakers or one prominent none Friend (Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke at FGC during this lifetime.)  The “free time” in the afternoon is jam packed full of opportunities to go on local field trips, hear speakers from Quaker organizations or meet in any number of interest groups or support groups (Women’s Center, Men’s Center, Family Center, Friends of Color, AA, etc.)  This is why my ex-husband used to say:  “You go there every year like a dead battery and you come back renewed.”


I’m not a native Northwestern, although on my next birthday I will have lived in Seattle longer than my Midwestern origins.  I do understand the intentions of the founders of this Yearly Meeting to remain separate from the divisions in Quakerism – to perhaps be an assistance to the healing.  This is a very worthy goal. I also know that currently the Yearly Meeting is made up of unprogrammed Meetings – just as FGC is.  In fact, FGC has two United Yearly Meetings affiliated, it has Meetings that are programmed and also affiliated with FUM in its midst.  I know that when Friends move out to the west from FGC affiliated Yearly Meetings, they look up our Meetings and attend them, and they never notice the difference.   I traveled broadly among Unprogrammed Friends, and honestly I cannot tell you one difference I have been able to notice in Independent Meetings vs  Unprogrammed Friends.  For me it feels far less divisive to stop talking about Beanites and Hicksites and instead just talk about unprogrammed Friends.

This is not to sweep away the importance of the issue of what should we do about the divisions in Quakerism?  I simply would say if we want to focus on that, then we ought to focus on that, and figure out something to actually do.  Not affiliating is a non-action.  It is a not doing anything.  Given that there are other Yearly Meetings in the NW that are affiliated with FUM and with Evangelical Friends – I fail to see how our Independence has healed anything.  If those Yearly Meetings would be upset by our affiliation I would have to ask them why they affiliated long ago?

In the meantime if we look at the programs of FGC:
The Bookstore and its publications
The Annual Gathering of FGC held in July each year
Small conferences and workshops
The interfaith committee
Traveling Ministries programs
Friends Meeting House Fund
Committee on Ministry for racism
Youth Ministries Committee

There is much we already benefit from here and much more we could benefit from.  Most Meetings in this yearly Meeting have purchased books or First Day curriculum from FGC bookstore and many Meetings have benefited from the Meeting House Fund.  Many Friends scattered throughout our Yearly Meeting have on occasion (a few regularly) attended the Gathering.  Traveling Ministries offers to send Seasoned Friends to help a Meeting solve a problem or deepen its spiritual life.  Not unlike M&O of our Yearly Meeting does – but it is another resource, sometimes more neutral.  We could benefit from more exposure to the Committee on Ministry for Racism’s gentle nudges to see the racism we maybe unaware of.  The Youth Ministries Committee while new is hard at work trying to figure out how to nurture Young Friends- they are seeing to the future of Quakerism.  FGC offers all these services to any Meeting in the US or Canada regardless of whether they are affiliated which is why we have been able to make use of many of these programs.  However, I feel we need to apply the NPR standard here. I listen to NPR and because I do, I choose to pay an annual membership to it.  I could just listen- but I don’t think that is fair.

Friends rightly are concerned about whether paying for our affiliation, finding representatives and paying for their flight will be a burden to the Yearly Meeting.  For myself I wonder if we need all 4 representatives we are allowed.  I think we could get by just fine with two- its not like in consensus there is some numerical advantage to having more representatives.  I think like our other representatives some who serve will combine their service with visits to friends or family that they intend to take anyway and will not therefore ask to be reimbursed for travel.  I also think all Quaker organizations are being pressed to look in this area of declining oil and increasing carbon pollution at how we can to our business in more environmentally friendly ways.  I think Friends are increasingly trying to use technology: conference calls, skype, etc to do our business.   FGC is actively looking at how to reduce the number of committee meetings.  In fact FGC may have to look at creating a West Coast and an East Coast Gathering because of the travel cost.  If there was a Gathering of OK Friends, Intermountain Yearly Meeting, Pacific Yearly Meeting,  Alaska Yearly Meeting, and NPYM would that be something that would make you glad to be part of FGC?

I have noticed among some of my lifelong NWYM folks a sort of suspiciousness or distrust of those “East coast Philly folks”.   (Kind of like the joking maps of the US – the ones on the east coast showing some detail till you get to the Mississippi and then after that a sort of misshapen expanse.  The ones drawn on the west coast showing detail to the Rockies and then misshapen expanse with Chicago, NYC and DC drawn in.)  I’m not sure this kind of world view moves any of us forward.   We shake our heads when Americans make gross characterizations of people from other countries they have never visited.  It would be good if we could not do that about other Quakers because they come from other parts of the country.   We have things to learn from them and they have things to learn from us.  For those who feel this uneasiness about affiliating I think we must look closely and figure out is the easiness about real issues, or about a sort of unconscious distrust of the unfamiliar?

I asked my daughter, age 14 who has been to FGC most of her life what role it plays in her close identification with Quakerism.  She said:  I saw there that Quakerism is big.  (Gatherings held on college campuses tend to be about 1500 to 2000.) and the workshops I went to (children’s gathering) we did worship sharing and that’s the only place I have done that ,and I had spiritual experiences there.  I made friends with Quakers my age.”  (She stays in touch with them all year via email and Facebook.)  Like many young friends there are not enough young people her age to have that experience in our Meeting or even really in Yearly Meeting.

My greatest reason why I wish our Yearly Meeting would affiliate with FGC is the concern that I have carried for decades: the concern for the survival of unprogrammed Friends.  All my adult life I have been waiting to not be one of the youngest Friends in the room.  Sadly at 51 I’m usually still one of the youngest in the room.  There is something very wrong with that picture!   Since FGC’s whole mission is about nurturing the spiritual life of unprogrammed Friends – I feel it’s mission is something that is really, really important.  A Yearly Meeting simply does not have the resources to do the kind of nurturing that a national organization does.  I’m not sure how we will heal the splits of Quakerism by simply witnessing the slow decline decade by decade of unprogrammed Friends.