Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

ROF and Membership

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Kirby Urner

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 3:27:47 PM12/11/05
to

Greetings all --

Friend Timothy Travis suggested I swing by and add some perspective to recent
threads on Quakers and membership.

I've started a new brand of Quaker that recognizes attender and non-attender
status. This reflects an inner state, i.e. we may attend or not attend to
Spirit off and on during any given day. When attending, we're in the Light, and
therefore Friends. Of course there's more to it than that, but the basic move
is to rule out any recognition of a permanent status called "member of." In
practice, this is easy to implement, as attenders are just as active and
responsible as members in NPYM. The distinction is mainly bureaucratic in
flavor (and way too time-consuming).

If you're interested in knowing more about my brand of Quaker, feel free to
check my journal er blog, e.g.
http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2004/11/quaker-politics_110167340290091180.html

Here's an excerpt:

=========

Consequent to all of the above, I'm starting a denomination of Quaker that
abandons "membership" as a category and recognizes only the various species of
attender, as in "attending to Spirit." The word "Friend" in "Religious Society
of Friends" (the more formal name for the Quakers), traces to a Biblical passage
(John 15:15) wherein Jesus says he wants friends, not servants, i.e. peers,
colleagues, people willing to do hard work without always begging him to boss
them around (he's busy enough as it is). But friendship doesn't commensurate
with the clubby aesthetics of a membership organization. One may fall out of
friendship, stop attending to Spirit.

Yet some Quakers think they're Friends for life, just by virtue of membership in
some Society. I say not. Jesus was friendly with all sorts of characters,
outside his immediate circle of disciples (they gave him flak for it -- tax
collectors? Roman soldiers?). Whether you're a friend of Jesus or not is really
up to him, not some clearness committee or business meeting minute. Having
served on Oversight for like seven years or something, I'm confidant in saying
that Friends spend entirely too much time worrying about membership (who is, who
isn't, who might become one, who should no longer be one). It's
obsessive-compulsive at this point in history. I'd rather not bother. Attenders
only, end of story. And I recognize that my brand of Quaker is taking the
minority view here -- a fact which bothers me not one whit.

==========

Historical note: I resigned my status as a so-called birthright Friend in order
to pioneer this branch of Quakerism more effectively. I'm considered an
attender within my own Meeting, which is how I see it as well.

Kirby
BCFM
Portland, Oregon

Ian Davis

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 3:49:50 PM12/11/05
to
In article <9b2pp19glutoc6jdi...@4ax.com>,

Kirby Urner <ur...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Greetings all --
>
>Friend Timothy Travis suggested I swing by and add some perspective to recent
>threads on Quakers and membership.
>
>I've started a new brand of Quaker that recognizes attender and non-attender
>status. This reflects an inner state, i.e. we may attend or not attend to
>Spirit off and on during any given day. When attending, we're in the Light, and
>therefore Friends. Of course there's more to it than that, but the basic move
>is to rule out any recognition of a permanent status called "member of." In
>practice, this is easy to implement, as attenders are just as active and
>responsible as members in NPYM. The distinction is mainly bureaucratic in
>flavor (and way too time-consuming).
>
>If you're interested in knowing more about my brand of Quaker, feel free to
>check my journal er blog, e.g.
>http://worldgame.blogspot.com/2004/11/quaker-politics_110167340290091180.html
>

Awesome blog. My only concern with you proposal is that it might leave no
mechanism to deal with those who insist that they have the right to speak
to their understanding of marriage at meeting for worship, so often that
the entire attending group wishes to become un-attenders the better that
they could un-attend others.

Ian


Ian Davis

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 3:58:30 PM12/11/05
to
In article <dni3de$sjg$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca>,

Ian Davis <ijd...@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
>
>Awesome blog. My only concern with you proposal is that it might leave no
>mechanism to deal with those who insist that they have the right to speak
>to their understanding of marriage at meeting for worship, so often that
>the entire attending group wishes to become un-attenders the better that
>they could un-attend others.
>
>Ian
>

Adding an addendum here I also think the issue of trust might be problematic.
Who controlled money, who owned buildings, who was liable for someone falling
on the ice, cause the path to the meeting had not been properly cleared..
Members take a burden and responsibility on themselves, which it is not clear
could be effectively delegated to attenders.

Ian

Engineer

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 4:07:18 PM12/11/05
to

>become un-attenders[...]

That one is easy to solve. Simply address the behavior. There are
many organizations that have no concept of members being different
from attenders, and yet they all manage to deal with those who
disrupt meetings.

Kirby Urner

unread,
Dec 11, 2005, 5:23:18 PM12/11/05
to

>Adding an addendum here I also think the issue of trust might be problematic.
>Who controlled money, who owned buildings, who was liable for someone falling
>on the ice, cause the path to the meeting had not been properly cleared..
>Members take a burden and responsibility on themselves, which it is not clear
>could be effectively delegated to attenders.
>
>Ian

Yes. There's still a division of labor and a need to fill / rotate the various
positions. People develop different levels of commitment to our Religious
Society, even in the absence of any formal "member of" check box.

Like, I might write software that helped Meetings enfranchise all over the
world, perhaps in corporate skytowers (science fiction at this point).

Issues of liability don't magically go away. Historically, Quakerism has been
something of a high risk enterprise (we've championed unpopular causes). I'm
willing for that to continue. Slippery ice shouldn't top our list of concerns,
though I agree its a hazard.

Nor is this an equality testimony in the sense that we all have an equal stake
in this or that plan succeeding. We don't. Diversity is still a hallmark, as
is freedom to choose among options. Two Meetings, agreeing to dispense with
membership, might still disagree on other fronts, e.g. on what relationships to
officially certify and care about.

By this same token, I'm not suggesting my new brand or prototype replace the
more traditional brands of Friend. If you want to continue acknowledging the
member/non-member distinction, go right ahead. So what if I don't? I've
adopted a live and let live philosophy on this point, as I've tried to make
clear in my faith and practice.

Kirby

margarita

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 1:13:45 PM12/12/05
to
you can be a Quaker and/or Friend as it is also called, without any
membership in any society, meeting, etc.

you don't have to attend anything, just your own inner light


> "When attending, we're in the Light, and therefore Friends."

No, Quakers/Friends are always "in the Light"


Kirby Urner

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 1:26:57 PM12/12/05
to
"margarita" <HOWmanyKI...@FORbigOIL.com> wrote:

>> "When attending, we're in the Light, and therefore Friends."
>
>No, Quakers/Friends are always "in the Light"
>

Well then, I guess I could say I'm a Quaker/Friend on and off, throughout my day
(because sometimes I'm "in the Dark").

Kirby

jam...@gmail.com

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 2:42:23 PM12/12/05
to
Kirby,

Wow. You really raise some important questions for Quakers here.

I absolutely love serving on clearness committees for membership, and
the greatest purpose I can find for the institution of membership is
that it provides an excuse for a group of Friends to spend many hours
exploring the life and spirit of an individual who has come to think of
him/herself as one of our community. To date, it has never felt like
being part of a group deciding whether the applicant is worthy, though
the overall practice certainly looks that way. On almost every such
committee I've served on, I've made some comment to the effect that,
the main requirement for being a Friend is showing up and taking part.
Of course, opinions differ on what constitutes "taking part."

In my meeting, the primary practical difference between members and
attenders is, members can serve on ministry and counsel committee (also
meeting clerk and trustees, I think). I've considered raising the issue
in my meeting as to whether that limitation is wise. This message of
yours opens the question up further.

As I said, I find the process of clearness committees for membership
deeply rewarding, and genuine, but not in terms of its final outcome.
Perhaps--almost certainly--there are better ways to give this sort of
deep attention to those who have found themselves among us.

I love the thought you've given to this. Thank you.

William Ehrich

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 3:07:49 PM12/12/05
to
jam...@gmail.com wrote:

> it has never felt like being part of a group deciding whether
> the applicant is worthy, though the overall practice certainly
> looks that way.

Or maybe more like whether she would fit in.


Ian Davis

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 3:26:04 PM12/12/05
to
In article <0001HW.BFC334B5...@news.mninter.net>,

I think Marshall's position is far stronger than this. I won't
expand upon it for I almost certainly would end up doing it an
injustice but I think his position worth repeating, precisely
because it is so very far removed from your notion William.

Ian

-------

Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
From: Marshall Massey <mmas...@earthwitness.org>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:06:08 -0600
Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 2:06 pm
Subject: Re: "You aren't a Real Quaker," Spake The Accuser

<<snip>>

Second, being a Quaker is not something *defined* by an earthly
organization, it is something *corporately discerned* by an earthly
community. The earthly community which is the Quaker community to
which one has applied for membership, *discerns* one's membership in
itself, and one's commitment to walk in the path of love. Far from
*defining* membership, it is *taught something new* about what
membership is with each fresh act of corporate discernment.


Kirby Urner

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 5:17:29 PM12/12/05
to
>Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
>From: Marshall Massey <mmas...@earthwitness.org>
>Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 08:06:08 -0600
>Local: Wed, Feb 16 2005 2:06 pm
>Subject: Re: "You aren't a Real Quaker," Spake The Accuser
>
><<snip>>
>
> Second, being a Quaker is not something *defined* by an earthly
>organization, it is something *corporately discerned* by an earthly
>community. The earthly community which is the Quaker community to
>which one has applied for membership, *discerns* one's membership in
>itself, and one's commitment to walk in the path of love. Far from
>*defining* membership, it is *taught something new* about what
>membership is with each fresh act of corporate discernment.
>

Hmmmmm, interesting. I realize I'm not up to date on Massey's thinking. Perhaps
the membership-focused Quakers will evolve their thinking to a new level, even
as my attender-based Quakers fork off in some usefully insightful way.

The above quote reminds me of something in Wittgenstein, where he holds that
adding new digits to the expansion of PI represents an expansion of mathematics
as a whole. Adding new members expands what it *means* to be a Friend.

However, my view is likewise Wittgenstein-inspired. I look at what we mean by
"friendship" in ordinary parlance, and compare this to what Jesus asked: that
we be his friends. Friendship isn't membership. You can't clubify that
relationship. We each have the ability to betray, in ways no "community" could
detect (nor be held accountable for).

In a way, I'm being selfishly protective. I don't want to acknowledge everyone
who claims membership as a Friend. There was this guy on Quaker-P recently,
openly advocating extreme violence against Iraqis, because that's the name of
the game (all's fair in love and war, basically). Given I'm not
membership-focussed, it's easier for me to not give a damn if he claims
membership in our Religious Society. He's no Friend in *my* book, that's for
sure.

Kirby

Engineer

unread,
Dec 12, 2005, 10:59:09 PM12/12/05
to

I rather suspect that if someone approached you and asked to go
through the same process that a member goes through - even though
he chooses to remain an attender - your clearness committee would
be happy to accommodate her or him.


james.riemermann

unread,
Dec 13, 2005, 9:13:00 AM12/13/05
to
Engineer wrote:

> jam...@gmail.com wrote:
> >As I said, I find the process of clearness committees for membership
> >deeply rewarding, and genuine, but not in terms of its final outcome.
> >Perhaps--almost certainly--there are better ways to give this sort of
> >deep attention to those who have found themselves among us.
>
> I rather suspect that if someone approached you and asked to go
> through the same process that a member goes through - even though
> he chooses to remain an attender - your clearness committee would
> be happy to accommodate her or him.

We Quakers can be a pretty accommodating bunch, yes. At the same time,
with no structure or tradition for something that works like a
membership clearness committee, it's unlikely that many Friends would
have the temerity to ask for such a process. Also, we tend to be slower
to accommodate attenders who have "difficult" personalities, as well as
those who tend to fade into the woodwork.

I don't intend this as a defense of membership as it currently
works--the institution has problems, some of which Kirby points out.
But there might be other structures to help build deeper, more
intentional community, while steering clear of the "clubbiness" that
can be a barrier to wider, more inclusive community.

0 new messages