Unity

It’s the glue. It’s the mysterious “something” which holds a group together. It’s the sense of common purpose, of shared goals, of joint decisions, of a common story which makes us all one in spite of our differences.

A lot of the time, it’s taken for granted. But when it’s missing, everyone knows it by its absence.

There are a number of cheap substitutes for unity – things we try because unity is sometimes difficult, painful or expensive to achieve. Among these cheap substitutes are:

1. Toleration, which says, “Whatever each of us does is all right — you do your thing, and I’ll do mine, and we won’t say anything about each others’ actions.”
2. Uniformity, which insists that everyone think alike, look alike, act alike, and feel alike. Uniformity often creates an outward unity, which easily masks inward disagreement and resentment.
3. Exclusion or division – just throw out anyone who disagrees or doesn’t conform, or make them so uncomfortable enough that they leave or shut up.

There are many passages in the Bible about spiritual unity. In Jesus’ last prayer, he prayed, “that they may all be one; even as you, Father are in me and I am in you, may they also be one in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. . .” (John 17:20-21)

Or Paul’s letter to the Corinthians, where he says, “.. . there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; and there are varieties of working, but it is the same God who inspires them all in every one. . .” (I Corinthians 12:4-6)

Paul uses the analogy of the unity of the human body. We are all different, Paul says, and we will inevitably have different, perceptions, roles and understandings. And yet, we need one another. Unity is the clear recognition that we will die without each other.

As Paul says, a foot can’t say to some other part of the body, “I don’t need you!” or “I don’t belong to you!” Unity begins with the fundamental understanding that we belong to one another, and that we cannot deny each other.

The unity of Friends often comes under strain, because people and times and conditions are always changing. Last year, Indiana Yearly Meeting agreed to divide. It’s a decision which many Friends, including myself, did not like or agree with. 

In traditional Quaker business practice, if the group cannot unite on a proposed decision, the matter is held over for further discussion, searching and prayer. At least 10% of the Friends who were present at Representative Council in October of 2011 stated their opposition to the proposal to divide the yearly meeting, while other Friends threatened to leave if the division did not go forward. 

The presiding clerk stated that in his opinion there was “enough unity” for the division to take place. It might have been more truthful for the clerk to have said that there was not enough unity for Indiana Yearly Meeting to stay together. 

Since then, a Task Force on Reconfiguration has been laboring to come up with documents describing a new “IYM A” and “IYM B”, and monthly meetings have been asked to consider which group they want to belong to. 

Many Friends continue to say that they do not want to be forced to choose or take sides. Other Friends, like myself, express serious doubts that division is the will of God for us.  The official answer is always, “The decision has been made and is going forward.” 

Quakers believe that God knows what is truly right. And we believe God is willing to lead us. Unity means that if we are faithful, if we are honest, and if we refuse to deny each other, then God can lead us together.

What matters most?

I haven’t had time to post anything new for several weeks – a major family medical emergency took all of my available energy for a while, then I was busy preaching the good news at Easter. Then I had a call to come to the bedside of an old woman why was dying. I prayed with her, and held her hand until she died, then organized her memorial service.

Somewhere in there, I was also busy praying for 3 people who are gravely ill, I worked at our meeting’s coffeehouse, I helped with a wonderful choir exchange with our sister meeting, I tried to solve a couple of long-standing repair needs at our meetinghouse, I helped prepare for a major fund raising event to help the poor of our community, I made over 30 pastoral calls, I led Bible studies, I helped a seminary student get a scholarship, I wrote several devotional articles, and I led worship on Sundays. I even went home and mowed the grass!

What am I saying? The controversy in Indiana Yearly Meeting is important, but so are a lot of other things. I have read the comments posted on the IYM Facebook discussion page, but for the most part I have stayed out of the various threads, which have often seemed to me to be mean-spirited, misinformed, and more interested in fanning the flames of distrust and division than achieving anything good for Christ’s kingdom.

I would rather spend my time building up than tearing down. I would rather spend my energy trying to heal than picking at old wounds. I want to share the truth that I see, and listen respectfully to what other people of faith believe, than take part in a holy war among Friends which I don’t think Jesus would ever give His name to.

It doesn’t bother me when people disagree – it never has. I never expect everyone to agree with me. What bothers me is when we get away from doing the things Jesus wants us to do – sharing the good news, visiting the sick, comforting the dying, caring for the poor, reaching out to people who are lost and searching, building up the church, teaching children that God loves them, welcoming everyone in Jesus’ name.

It bothers me that Friends in Indiana seem to think it’s more important to be ideologically pure, than to love one another, as Jesus himself commanded us. It bothers me that we can’t agree to disagree on a few issues, and stay together for Christ’s sake, hoping that Jesus will straighten us out in His own time.

I have never been convinced that division is the will of God for us. It has always seemed to me that our plans for division are a well-meant but very human response to our differences. Division is the easy way out, and I don’t think it’s what God wants. I think that spiritually mature Christians, who pray for the help of the Holy Spirit and who are willing to stay with each other for a while even when it’s painful, should be able to come up with something better than what we’re doing. I certainly honor the faith of Friends who disagree with me, and I only wish they would honor mine in turn.

If we divide our yearly meeting, I think that the Spirit will spend the next couple of generations trying to undo our mistakes and bring us back together again. No matter how far we try to move away from each other, I think that the Spirit will keep trying to build bridges between us. If the older Friends of this generation insist on dividing, then I think that the younger generation of Friends will simply ignore the barriers and find ways to pray and worship and work together.

I plan to keep on doing the same things I’ve always done in a lifetime of love for Jesus and service for His people. I wish we could stay together – I truly believe that’s what Jesus wants. If we go ahead with dividing, then I will continue to work towards understanding and reunion.

When we all stand before Christ, I don’t think he will praise us for choosing Yearly Meeting A or Yearly Meeting B. If He praises us at all, I think it will be for doing the important things which He commanded. That’s what I’d like to work on.

We’re not that big. . .

Last week I had to drive from Indiana to Buffalo, NY for a family medical emergency. As I drove along the way, I passed literally millions of people who have never heard of Quakers, and who couldn’t care less about the controversies of Indiana Yearly Meeting, even if someone could explain the controversies in a coherent way. 

The entire membership of Indiana Yearly Meeting, put together, wouldn’t make up a single large congregation in one of our major cities. We act as if we’re the center of the universe. The angel in the book of Revelation would probably say, “You do not realize that you are wretched, pitiable, poor, blind and naked.” 

Speaking only for myself (not for my meeting), I have never sought to create division in our yearly meeting. I don’t think it’s the will of God for us. If we are forced to divide, I will do my best to promote reconciliation and reunion in the future.

In conversations from many different quarters, I hear few Friends who are excited about the prospect of division, and many Friends who wish we could stay together and find some way to “agree to disagree”. That’s what I’d like myself. 

More quarterly meeting thoughts

Well, the last posting (“Who Killed Quarterly Meeting?”) certainly drew a response – more comments on this topic than anything which has appeared in this blog to date! Thanks for all your ideas, and here are a few more to stoke the discussion.

I remember years ago visiting with an older Friend from Sandwich Quarter in New England Yearly Meeting. She said that in her mother’s time, that Quarterly meeting was so big that there were special chartered trains to bring all the Quakers, and a fleet of schooners came across from Nantucket to bring everyone to Quarterly meeting!

I also remember what we did in New York Yearly Meeting in the early 1980′s. In our area there were 3 small, weak quarters – two of them descended from Hicksite groups, and one of them an old Orthodox quarter. When I met with the leaders of the various meetings, they remembered that their grandparents had carried down memories of the old Orthodox/Hicksite bitterness, but they didn’t really know what the arguments had been about.

We managed to bring together the 10 local meetings, with about 300 members, into the new Northeast Quarter. (Strange fact of Quaker geography: Northeast Quarter, in New York Yearly Meeting, is just across the border from Northwest Quarter in New England Yearly Meeting. But Northeast (NYYM) is to the WEST of Northwest (NEYM), and Northwest (NEYM) is to the EAST of Northeast (NYYM). Go figure.

Most of our gatherings drew at least 30-40 people (10%+ of the membership), and our annual retreats often drew over 100 people (30% of the membership).

Besides worship, lectures and discussion groups, children’s activities and family fun, the Northeast Quarter also sponsored 2 years of the Quaker Studies Program, which drew participants from 7 or 8 monthly meetings. The Quaker Studies Program helped produce a whole new generation of monthly meeting and committee clerks, First Day School teachers and Friends active in social concerns. So, add serious adult study groups to the list of important services which a well-run quarterly meeting can provide.

So much depends on good leadership. We didn’t wait for someone to volunteer – in so many quarters, the clerk winds up being the last person to turn down the job. We went out and recruited the best people we could think of to be clerks, speakers, program planning people, and so on. We asked each meeting to contribute $2 per member to the quarter, which gave us about $600 a year to work with – enough to pay travel for a couple of speakers and offer reduced registration fees for our annual retreats. Quarterly meeting wasn’t a tired relic of the past, but an active gathering serving the present day.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but some of the yearly meetings here in the Midwest have declined in numbers to the point that they might do better to think of themselves as large quarterly meetings. We make noises like a full-size denomination, but we struggle to keep things going. Would we be better off as independent quarterly meetings?

 

Who killed Quarterly Meeting?

One of the Great Mysteries of Life among Friends in the U.S. is why we continue to have quarterly meetings. Many yearly meetings have dropped them entirely, or re-packaged them as “regional” or “area” meetings. With rare exceptions, they exist mainly on paper, and are poorly led, poorly financed, and poorly programmed. Ask a newbie at any Friends meeting what they know about quarterly meeting, and the answer is likely to be, “Huh?”

Quarterly meetings used to have a lot more clout. In many yearly meetings, they controlled finances, made important decisions, recorded ministers, ran schools, started new meetings, sponsored missionaries, and did many of the things which yearly meetings now do.*

A good argument could be made that what killed quarterly meetings was the automobile. Quarterly meetings traditionally included all the local meetings which could reach each other within, say, a couple of hours of travel time. Most quarterly meetings were set up during the horse-and-buggy era. As cars got cheaper and roads got better, the yearly meeting centralized more functions and the quarters got weaker.

On the other hand, yearly meeting sessions were never a gathering of neighbors, and Friends lost much of our sense of “neighborliness” as the centralization of yearly meetings grew. Many of our yearly meeting sessions have become places where strangers come to lash out at each other over positions and ideas they fear that other people have.

Is there still a role for quarterly meeting? Or, as Indiana Yearly Meeting pursues the path to division, could the old-style, functional and active quarterly meeting provide a model for us?

A group of like-minded Friends from the same geographical area can do a lot together. Many local meetings are too small to have a good youth program. Peacemakers in our meetings are eager to work together. Women’s groups like the USFWI delight in working together on projects. Many Friends with special interests or ministries would be strengthened by each others’ presence. Pastors, recorded ministers and Friends in public ministry especially benefit from conversation, study, and prayer together.

What makes a good quarterly meeting – or a good small yearly meeting – work?

• Number of meetings – somewhere between 2 and 10 monthly meetings feels right. More would make it difficult to know or care about each other.
• Size of the group – again, somewhere between 100 and 500 Friends makes a diverse group with plenty of energy and individual gifts, but small enough to form a network of relationships.
• Budget – a quarter should have real, and not just ceremonial power to handle money. For its own needs, a quarter budget could start quite modestly – $3 or $5 per member should be adequate for speakers, social events, and financial assistance.
• Leadership – this a key “missing piece” in many failed quarterly meetings, where the person who becomes clerk is often the last person to refuse the job. A good organization recruits leaders, instead of letting leadership happen accidentally. And a good organization creates and maintains a core of dedicated and motivated people who make the group a priority.
• Worship – people really respond to a good meeting for worship which speaks to their hearts and minds. Planning ahead and setting this up every time needs to be the #1 priority for the leaders.
• Program – a group like this can get by with one business meeting a year to set priorities; a couple of gatherings a year for education, fun and fellowship; and one gathering a year set aside for a retreat or specialized workshop.
• Ministries – depending on the size of the quarter, it can support simple one-time work projects, longer-term relief efforts, or something as ambitious as a Quaker school or ministry in a nearby prison. One of the key ideas here is that Friends in the quarter have a meaningful ministry together – we need to undo the idea that only the yearly meeting is big enough to do ministry.

A smaller group like this is much better positioned to provide help in times of conflict, or to encourage intervisitation. Recorded ministers can easily move back and forth as they are needed to help nearby meetings. A group of local meetings like this is the ideal size for Friends to get to know each other and work together.

Quarterly meetings were one of our greatest tools for building the Society of Friends; they can also be one of our greatest tools for re-building it as well.

+     +     +

* – OK, full disclosure: Several elderly Friends have told me that back when Friends only married other Friends, that quarterly meeting also served an important (unofficial) purpose as a place where young Friends could meet potential spouses and go courting!

The questions we ask. . .

For more than 300 years, one of the most distinctive things about Friends has been that we have not had a creed. Instead, we ask questions. Whether they are called “queries” or “questions for spiritual growth”, we have found it more effective to ask people to think instead of telling people what to do.

Rather than saying, “Do this, do that,” Friends ask, “Have you thought about this or that issue? Have you reflected carefully on how you live your faith?”

Many meetings read one of the queries at the start of each monthly meeting. Unfortunately, we don’t usually take the next step and take time to discuss them in depth. In the old days, this was one of the main purposes of meeting for business – meetings reflected on the queries and provided written reports on their struggle to follow God’s leading faithfully.

Like anything else, the language of the queries can easily become stilted and old-fashioned. And as the queries are revised, they tend to become longer. Quakers also have a bad habit of using the passive voice (“Are meetings held regularly?”) rather than stating questions in an active way (“Do you make meeting one of your top priorities?”)

Too many times, Friends ask questions which make us feel guilty, rather than feeling encouraged to change.  We need to ask challenging questions in a more inviting way.

And every so often, we need to dust off the queries, make them sharper, and re-tune them for the coming generation.

Here are some re-phrasings of traditional queries which should give you the idea:

1. Is meeting a priority for us, and not just another “extra” stuck onto our week? Do we expect God to guide us in all parts of life, and especially in our life together?
2. Are daily thanksgiving, daily communion, and daily awareness of God’s presence a part of our lives? Do we have an active sense of life as an adventure with God?
3.  Do we seek the living Word of God, whether from the Holy Bible, the Holy Spirit, or the holy community? Is our ministry holy? What real, spiritual growth do we see in each other?
4.  Are unity and healing dynamic concerns for us? How do our actions contribute to reconciliation?
5.  Is God truly present in our homes and in our lifestyles, in our work and in our times of relaxation? What choices do we make?
6.  Do our personal and meeting priorities reflect the fact that children are especially beloved by God, and not just nuisances to be dealt with so that we can get on with more “important” concerns? What do we teach our children?
7.  Does God have anything to do with the choice and practice of our vocations? How does God influence our business dealings? Do fantasies about money exert a destructive influence on our lives?
8.  Do we avoid abusive behavior in our lives, whether of ourselves or others? Are we truly free from gambling, alcohol and drug abuse, addictive behaviors of all kinds? Do we in any way misuse God’s creation?
9.  How do we live out our calling to be responsible, active citizens? Do we work for the good of our society, and do we refuse to go along with our society when it would be contrary to the leading of God? Do our lives reflect our concern for truth, fairness and justice?
10.  Do we have a reverence for all life, and do we struggle to bring that reverence to bear on all aspects of life?
11.  Do we live in the awareness that there is only one humanity, and that all of us are made in the image of God? Do we practice any kind of discrimination or prejudice? Do we look for active ways to reduce suffering, poverty and misery in the world? What are we doing to set people free?
12.  Do we live in that peace and power which take away the occasion of all wars? Are we mindful of our calling to share that peace and power, and not just talk about it?

There are many other questions we want to ask ourselves. Let’s keep them sharp, and let’s keep them positive — and let’s use the queries to change our own lives and our life together.

Who’s in? Who’s out?

When you come down to it, the controversy which has split Indiana Yearly Meeting is all about membership. Who can be accepted as a member – and who will be excluded?

The current conflict in Indiana Yearly Meeting rose because some monthly meetings have assumed that homosexuals are barred from membership, while other monthly meetings have expressed their willingness to welcome and accept openly gay and lesbian people as members.

The meetings which oppose homosexuality feel strongly that being a gay or lesbian person is sinful, and they do not want to be associated in any way with sin. In effect, they want to exercise veto power over the membership decisions of all monthly meetings. If they don’t get their way, they want to divide the yearly meeting so that they will not have to associate with monthly meetings which welcome and accept homosexuals.

The Quaker “rule book”, Faith and Practice, says, rather dryly:

“Friends accept into adult membership those whose faith in God and in Jesus Christ as personal Savior and Lord is manifest in their lives and who are in unity with the teachings of Christian truth as held by the Religious Society of Friends.” (Indiana Yearly Meeting Faith and Practice, 2011 edition, p. 51)

The decision about who to welcome and accept as members always rests with the local monthly meeting – not with the yearly meeting or with anyone else. Some meetings organize classes for new or prospective members, while other meetings offer reading material or have no formal training or exploration of beliefs.

Faith and Practice recommends that Friends  meet with applicants for membership. However, the guidelines are very vague:

“The point of the conference is not to conduct a pointed examination. It is to share views and to ascertain whether the applicant seeks a fuller understanding of the basic principles of Christian living, finds satisfaction in the faith and meetings for worship of Friends, and desires to join with Friends in corporate and continuing search for Truth.” (Faith and Practice, 2011 edition, p. 79)

Reality check:  when assessments were fairly cheap, there was a lot of prestige attached to having a many members in your meeting. In recent years, though, many meetings have been cutting their membership rolls, in order to reduce the amount they have to pay to the yearly meeting.  In 2011, the assessment by Indiana Yearly Meeting is $150 per adult member — meetings have a very strong financial disincentive against adding new members!

In addition, studies for more than 40 years have shown that formal church membership is not a high priority for many people – they come to worship, participate in activities, and give generously, but “being a member” just isn’t as important as it was to earlier generations.

So, in some ways, this whole conflict seems pretty silly. Membership decisions are local, and Faith and Practice is nearly silent on the issue of homosexuality. Formal membership in general is declining in popularity. And splitting the yearly meeting will only lead to a further decrease in membership on all sides.

And yet, the issue still generates a lot of heat among Friends. The right to be inclusive, or the right not to associate with people with whom we disagree at a deep spiritual level, seems to be very fundamental – so fundamental that Friends are willing to break a fellowship which has existed for over 200 years.

Other Friends around the country (and even around the world!) are watching Indiana Friends closely. How the question of membership plays out, and the spirit in which we proceed, will have a tremendous effect on our future.

The Future of Faith and Practice

In a very real sense, the future of Friends in the coming generation is going to depend on what kind of Faith and Practice we use, and the spirit in which we use it. Many of the battles in Indiana Yearly Meeting over the last few years have centered around key sections in Faith and Practice which have been interpreted very differently by groups of Friends on various sides.

Some Friends see Faith and Practice as a “rule book” which allows the conservative/evangelical majority to enforce their views on a literal reading of the Bible. Other Friends have demanded that Faith and Practice be used to crack down on meetings which would like to use outward physical sacraments of baptism and communion.

Most yearly meetings make it very difficult to change Faith and Practice, and the struggles to change it have become “proxy wars” for the various theological, spiritual and cultural differences among Friends. It may be worth taking a moment to step back and look at the history of Faith and Practice, and at how various groups of Friends use this resource.

Friends in Great Britain started making collections of minutes on various subjects as early as the late 1600′s. The earliest collection, the “Epistle from the Elders at Balby” of 1656, was careful to conclude,

“Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by; but that all, with a measure of the light, which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these things may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not in the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.”

A major step in the evolution of Faith and Practice in our area was the creation of the Uniform Discipline in 1897 by Five Years Meeting (now Friends United Meeting). This was intended to provide a common basis for Friends in the Orthodox tradition, and many yearly meetings still draw heavily on this document.

Things started to break up when the Uniform Discipline was revised in 1940 and divided into 3 sections: 1) Faith and Life; 2) Organization and Business Procedure; 3) Authorised Declaration of Faith. Some yearly meetings refused to include the Declaration of Faith. Most adopted the second section on organization and business procedure, and have adapted it over the years to their own situation.

A number of Friends have suggested that as Indiana Yearly Meeting prepares to divide, that both sides be allowed to continue to use the old Faith and Practice, or adopt sections of it, till they have time to come up with their own new version. One other suggestion would be to change the order of the material, and place the Richmond Declaration of Faith at the rear of the book as an historical document, and make the opening of the book focus on our mission statement today.

For many Friends today, the language of Faith and Practice has become dated, stilted and old-fashioned. It’s no longer a guide filled with living voices on important issues – it’s almost a “dead letter”.

A few yearly meetings have taken a different approach. Britain Yearly Meeting and New England Yearly Meeting have created anthologies of quotations from Friends of many different opinions, which reflect the majority views of their yearly meetings but which include prophetic voices of Friends on the cutting edge of various issues. This approach is particularly helpful as a way for Friends to discuss “hot button” issues such as human sexuality, or rapidly-changing issues such as peace or linking Friends together using electronic technology.

Another helpful development has come as some yearly meetings have made their Faith and Practice available online in .pdf format which can be searched easily for information. An even better practice is to use hyperlinks to make it easy to navigate – click here to see how this works.

Smaller yearly meetings, or independent/unaffiliated monthly meetings, have had the freedom to create fresh versions of Faith and Practice. They typically try to stay within the broad tradition of Friends, but use modern language and often address difficult issues in a fresh way. For example, click here to look at the Faith and Practice of Freedom Friends Meeting.

In a future post, let’s take a look at a particular section of Faith and Practice – the Advices and Queries.

+   +   +

Click here for more examples of Faith and Practice of other Friends meetings.

Breaking up is hard to do

This is not the first time Friends in the Midwest have been talking about realignment. Back in the late 1980′s there was a similar push to separate the sheep from the goats. The impetus at that time came from a handful of pastors and leaders, and was spearheaded by the general secretary of Friends United Meeting.

The idea then was to purify FUM of all of the yearly meetings which are dually-affiliated with both Friends United Meeting and Friends General Conference. The remaining yearly meetings would remain as a core of a renewed, theologically correct FUM – or possibly join forces with Evangelical Friends International. This latter vision would have removed any kind of middle ground for Friends in North America, leaving only a right wing and a left wing.

The realignment movement failed back then, but the idea remained alive in the minds of a number of Quakers. It’s come back to life again, and Indiana Yearly Meeting is currently in the process of “realigning” itself by dividing into two new bodies.

The realignment of Indiana Yearly Meeting is causing many Friends to ask themselves, “Is there any place left for us?” These folks don’t see themselves as either evangelical/holiness Quakers or as liberal, unprogrammed Friends. They are used to seeing themselves as being firmly in the middle – as Christian Quakers in the pastoral tradition, but open to a good deal of friendly discussion from many points of view and deeply committed to Jesus’ great commandment to love God and serve their neighbors throughout the world.

As Indiana Yearly Meeting has moved toward harder positions less tolerant of diversity, the push is on to make Friends in the middle choose sides, whether they want to do so or not. As the division proceeds, Friends who have no heart for taking part in disputes are less likely to be involved with the yearly meeting than they have been in the past. The result of the realignment is likely to be two smaller yearly meetings, with a large number of Friends who feel unaligned or disaligned with either group.

A related, serious question is whether either or both of the new yearly meetings will align with Friends United Meeting. None of the architects of realignment have suggested that they want to leave FUM. Is there an assumption on the part of evangelical/holiness Friends that they alone have the right to membership and participation in Friends United Meeting, and that those “other” Friends will just go somewhere else?

Most Friends in Indiana are enthusiastic supporters of Quaker mission work, and have contributed leadership, funds and missionaries to the work of Friends United Meeting for over 100 years. It’s likely that all Friends in Indiana Yearly Meeting, however the realignment proceeds, will want to continue their relationship with FUM.

This could make things pretty awkward for Friends United Meeting. Will FUM recognize one of the new yearly meetings, but not the other? Or will FUM say, “Keep your divisions to yourselves. Fight your battles someplace else. If you are in unity with the mission statement of Friends United Meeting and are willing to contribute to the work, you’re welcome here.” Other Quakers shouldn’t be forced to take up sides, just because Quakers in Indiana can’t get along with each other.

What are the choices?

In the popular Harry Potter series of children’s books, when new students arrive at school they are divided into residences by a device called the Sorting Hat. When the hat is placed on their heads, it magically reads their minds and discerns their characters, and decides the house they will belong to. As each new student emerges from the discernment process, the members of their new house greet them with thunderous cheers.

Friends in Indiana Yearly Meeting are about to be divvied up in a different way. According to the decision of the special called meeting of Representative Council last October 1, we are starting a Deliberative/Collaborative Reconfiguration, described as “ a year-long process of seeking a future that honors each other’s consciences and understandings of scriptural guidance, and that is life-giving for all of our monthly meetings.”

We are asked to “discern whether they want to be part of a yearly meeting that, as our current Faith and Practice provides, has the power to set bounds and exercise authority over subordinate monthly meetings; or whether they wish to be part of a yearly meeting that is a collaborative association, with monthly meetings maintaining considerable autonomy and allowing great freedom in matters of doctrine.”

It’s not at all clear how meetings will decide which way they will go. And from the discussion at the regular meeting of Representative Council in November, and in many discussions and forums around the yearly meeting, it seems that many Friends are not happy with being forced to choose in this way.

When you ask Friends to describe how they want their meetings to be aligned, a minority in Indiana Yearly Meeting express a great unity with our existing Faith and Practice, together with a desire for more freedom in specific matters of conscience. A somewhat larger group, often led by their pastors, express a desire for more doctrinal rigidity. And a great many meetings, when pressed, say that they wish we could just continue as we are, and find a way to get along.

Various speakers and writers in our yearly meeting have implied that they are the real Christians, and that their interpretation of the Bible is the only valid one. Scratch just below the surface, and they’ll say that Friends who disagree with them are not Christians at all.

Who does the sorting? Who decides? Old labels don’t seem to work very well – left, center or right; liberal, moderate or evangelical. Are you a Gryffindor because you think our yearly meeting ought to be a “big tent”? Are a Slytherin because you want to cast out people who don’t agree with your point of view? Are you a Hufflepuff if you wish things wouldn’t change?

We all want to be considered “real” Friends. Several speakers at Representative Council demanded, in effect, that the Orthodox Friends stand up and be counted. But most of us have strong roots in the Orthodox Quaker tradition. And many of us don’t want to draw a line in the sand which would exclude relations with Holiness Friends who we love and respect, or with Hicksite or unprogrammed Friends with whom we have worked and worshiped for generations.

If each local meeting is going to be forced to choose, it seems only fair that each local meeting should be allowed to describe the kind of yearly meeting or larger group they want to be a part of. The choices we are being offered may not accurately reflect the way we see ourselves or who we want to be.