And today, the buy-in moment....

Today was probably close to my breaking point in terms of a long week of Quaker information. I find it doubly exhausting to be so spiritually awakened and yet physically drained. Today had all the exasperating elements of growth and struggle, wrapped up in one day...


As I spend more time with the F/friends of Amesbury and beyond, I grow more curious as to my perspective, and how it influences what I see. All these queries of late, perhaps this whole process, has changed me to the core - the very way I perceive the world around me.


Today was yet another snapshot of Quaker procedure - a quarterly meeting. I had strong opinions regarding many of the issues considered, but I didn't feel quite comfortable yet speaking of issues that I had just been introduced to. I am sure my comments would have been heard and welcomed, but I felt that I merely wanted to respond to the emotion in the room, but not the facts that were then still unclear to me. Thus, I sat and listened with careful concern.


There are many huge issues facing Quakers today - and I came away still convinced of my own views, willing to seek more clarity, but pondering a separate issue - how do we as Quakers, as humans, choose to interact and communicate? Are we truly providing avenues and openings for shared meaning and understanding? Something to ponder:

God comes to us in the midst of human need, and the most pressing needs of our time demand community in response. How can I participate in a fairer distribution of resources unless I live in a community which makes it possible to consume less? How can I learn accountability unless I live in a community where my acts and their consequences are visible to all? How can I learn to share power unless I live in a community where hierarchy is unnatural? How can I take the risks which right action demands unless I belong to a community which gives support? How can I learn the sanctity of each life unless I live in a community where we can be persons not roles to one another? - Parker Palmer

I came away disheartened perhaps at our "failure" to find a resolution to a serious concern. I also was comforted by my strong belief that it is this very crisis of inability to come together that might lead us into new relations with each other.

The words of a friend of mine, who left his Protestant ministerial post years ago, kept popping up into my mind throughout the afternoon. When asked why he left the church he had loved for so many years, he described his conflict in this way, "I see our church and its people as sitting inside a great building, lovely to sit in, but we are merely looking through the windows to the outside as we watch the world pass us by". This was his explanation for why he left that path of faith, that he found stagnant and ineffective.

How many steps does it take for any organization to get to the "easy way out" of blind following without questioning? I chose to associate with my particular membership of Quakers because I find them each, in their own way, deeply caring for others and welcoming. I haven't seen any conflict within their ranks yet - but I have a deep inner sense that when they do encounter conflict, their caring for each other will help them to find a way to come to unity in a way that teaches us all.

So, here's my take on the Quaker version of "un-Robert's Rules of Order": if there is no unity in opinions and views gained after careful thought and prayer, then the issue gets tabled. I get that. But isn't that a little simple? Today a number of us felt there was not unity in our statements re: same-sex marriage. Thus, we developed a new minute that for now, addresses the fact that some of us are not really addressing it yet. And we're going to ask everyone to please try to address it.

Someone also brought up exactly what I had been thinking throughout the first half of our meeting: While this issue keeps coming around for discussion, what if there are there other issues that perhaps are being left out of discussion, that are equally important to us? While we are bantering around with terminology and semantics, the world around us in falling apart, and we have precious little time in which to fix the messes.

And I agree in some sense, determining what takes precedent is a difficult but worthy consideration. But looking back on it now, I do not see today's concern as simply that of same-sex marriage, or even marriage in general. I think it was a symptom of what happens when problems get too big in a meeting - and I'm not so sure the "Quaker way" as I understand it now is capable of responding. I'm still VERY new to all this - and I'm also not sure if my "educational" background in group dynamics and organizational change is helping me to see this as it truly is, or just clouding what is probably still a non-Quaker view of all this. But I did come away today with one more question to ponder: Is silence on an issue, reluctance or inablity to make a statement (even out of respect for members who are conflicted), in itself a statement of purpose or intent? Is it seen that way to outsiders? Or to the membership entrusted to our care?

Of one thing I am sure - very often in these past months, despite the warm welcome, I have still felt like an outsider. This was not imposed upon me, the feeling came from inside. Today was the buy-in. I no longer feel like I don't know enough, haven't read enough, don't have an "issue" to ponder or weigh in on, am too new to the meeting/area/town, etc. Perhaps it took being in a room where I was not the latest unfamiliar face - perhaps I just needed to hear about an issue that for me, was closer to home. Regardless of the whys, THIS message is clear: conflict and consternation aside, I have still arrived home. It's a good feeling.