EFI, the Richmond Declaration, "Majprity" Quakerism, Etc.
WmRMartin
In a message dated 4/29/1998 22:23:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
CHUCK...@aol.com writes:
<< Dear Friends--
I hope you will be patient with Bill Martin's effusions about EFI,
the
Richmond Declaration, and the "majority" of Friends. He is very new to the
EFI world, and there is much he has yet to learn about it. I personally
hope
that ina few years we may be hearing from a somehat wiser Bill MArtin.
(Bill Martin responding) I have known and worked with Friend from every
branch of Friends since my youth. Some of my best days as a yourth were with
the Young Friends Committee of North America where Friends from every branch
could meet, play, pray, work and come together to learn and appreciate each
other. That goes back more than 40 years. In those days a close Friend was
the President of YFCNA wqho was a member of Kansas Yearly Meeting (an
evangelical Yearly Meeting). I have had a cousin who left the Church of the
Brethren to join a Friends church in Oregon (now Northwest Yearly Meeting).
While clerk of Medford, NJ meeting, I frequently purchased materials from
Barclay Press as I found them to have some of the best peace materials
available. Politically, while I worked for the US Senate, I knew other
Quakers who were from other Yearly Meetings. So, your statement that I am so
new to EFI Friends is simply false. There are of course some things that I
don;'t like about some EFI practices and I feel very free to state them. They
know, I don;t think it proper for an American flag to be present in a church.
We are worshiping God, a universal God and not just a God of America. I also
know that since Friends from our two groups have been meeting together, the
EFI Friends in Sarasota have been much more sensitive to the social concerns
of Friends again. When groups divide, we tend to go to extremes to try to
show how different we are. When Sarasota Friends came together, we are
finding how closer we really are (at least for many of us).
Among the tiems which I hope experience and reflection will bring
more clarity for him include the following:
1. Talk of "majorities" among Friends is more meaningful among his
new
EFI brethren, especially the Eastern Region branch his Jacaranda is now part
of:
Bill Martin responding: Woodmere at Jacaranda is not directly or indirectly
related to EFI. Itr has deliberately chosen to remain completely independent
and for that we have received some criticism. We are open to serve all
Friends, not EFI Friends, not FUM Friends, not conservative Friends, not FGC
Friends ---- but all Friends. Any talk which I have had about majoriities
relfect actualities -- the more conservative theological Friends greatly
outnumber the extremist element in the Society of Friends and of course
represent, like many radical groups, the loudest voice.
that yearly meeting votes on all important matters; its basic category of
adult membership is "Voting" members.
Bill Martin responding: I am aware that EFC-ER has the right to vote. But I
have attended a Yearly Meeting and I have watched as have others while they
seek concensus. I have also heard of times when there was clearly a majority
but not a sense of the Meeting and the matter was deferred. I prefer the
sense of the Meeting approach. (Check the minutes if you doubt this.)
Martin will be happy with the decisiveness of this polity--until he finds
himself on the losing side a few times.
Bill Martin responding: While attending the EFC-ER Yearly Meeting as a guest,
I was not at all uncomfortable. In dealing with EFC-ER Friends, I find them
very fine people to deal with and persons with whom I can disagree and not be
disagreeable -- and over time, I find that we come to unity.
Let him try his "standing in the way" routine on the EFI leadership; I look
forward to hearing his report on that experience....
Bill Martin responding: I would have "stood in the way" in SEYM on matters of
basic faith on which the Evangelical Friends and I were in fundamental
agreement. Consequently, there is no likelihood that I would even want to
stand in the way. One doesnot stand in the way except on the most fundamental
issues on which one simply cannot under any circumstances accept. Frequently,
in FGC meetings, I personally might have favored a slightly different
approach, but I was completely satisfied with the sense of the Meeting
reached. Likewise, I can accept most democratic votes of our nation, but that
is getting to a point where I am having problems when we deal with some of the
lack of moral stands.
2. Support for the Richmond Declaration among YMs such as his new one
is in fact quite selective and qualified; for instance, if he were to present
the passage on pacifism from the RD and put it up for a vote in his EFI YM, I
think he would be very surprised and disappointed by the results. At least,
I
HOPE he would be.
Bill Martin responding: I am not satisfied with the support of any Yearly
Meeting on the Peace testimony. No Yearly Meeting gave majority support to
the peace testimony during the World Wars. But isn;t it ironic that based on
the best statistics we have been able to gather, the conservative and
Evangelical Friends were the strongest and FGC Friends had a greater
percentage of men participating int the war.
3. FUM and EFI are not the same, tho the EFI leadership, for more
than
a generation, has made it a goal to turn them into the same thing, mainly by
purging all non-evangelicals from FUM and essentially absorbing it.
Bill Martin responding: That is your opinion Chuck. I think Johan Mauer is
doing an outstanding job of bring back FUM to the basics of Quakerism and
Christianity. I am also among those who would and do favor much closer
relationships between the two groups and I think we will see that in the near
future. Already, as a result of Woodmere, and the fact that many EFI Friends
have met FUM Friends, there is a great love. Recently, Wayne Carter, the
Clerk of FUM visited and had lunch with several of us and I never heard such
praise of a person as came from my EFI Friends. When I was at the EFC-ER
Yearly Meeting two years ago, it was obvious that many pastors constantly come
and go from FUM to EFC-ER -- both ways. In the Sarasota Friends Church,
perhaps half of the members are actually FUM members and they feel quite
comfortable.
(Cf.the discussion of "realignment" for background on a recent example of
this.) I
will be very interested in hearing from Martin after he has been through a
couple of these internal purges. (Bill Martin responding: no comment
needed or warranted)
As comparisons, Pacho Lane's allusions to the experience among the Russian
revolutionaries are not as far-fetched as some might think.
Bill Martin responding: Most Friends know I think little of Pacho Lane's
comments and refuse to respond and usually refuse to even read his postings --
he is as far from my definition of a Quaker as one can get.
4. The definition of the Friends "majority" depends largely on what
you
mean by "Friends."
Bill Martin responding. Legally and morally, we all have the same heritage.
My definition of a majority is simply adding up the actual number of Friends
from the EFI, FUM and similar groups and comparing them with the actual
numbers in the very liberal branches. That's the same way a statistician
would count and divide Friends.
I have heard repeatedly from the ranks of his new brethren
that they "are Christians first and Quakers (more often "Friends") second."
Bill Martin responding: I have always stated that I am a Christian first and
a Quaker second -- the same as I would suppose most Quakers would consider
themselves.
I don't doubt these statements, except that in many cases I have observed,
the
actual priority is "[evangelical-fundamentalist]Christians first, and
Quakers/Friends somewhere about tenth or eleventh,
Bill Martin repsonding: Most EFI and FUM Quakers I know do not consider
themselves fundamentalists. Where do you Chuck get your information ==
certainly not from personal knowledge of these Friends.
A little exploration beyond sarasota will show martin that virtually
all identifiable Quaker distinctives have either disappeared or been geatly
attenuated in most of these groups.
Bill Martin responding: Absolutely false. Consider NWYM. No Yearly Meeting
is stronger on the peace testimony. Is there a Quaker with more significant
credentials than Arthnur Roberts, a frequent poster to these lists" What
about Richard Foster whose books are leading books used by many Christians?
(An example: His new EFI has purposefully shed the term "Quaker," and this
can be shown in its publications.
Bill Martin responding: Not completely. I asked the Superintendent about
this and his concern is about museum Quakers. Further, and I will attest to
this in Philadelphia, Quakers are frequently considered Blue Blood and many do
not feel others are welcomed. I see much material coming from EFI and EFC-ER
which refers to themselves as Quakers. True, they prefer to use the original
term Friend as did the original Quakers. Quaker came about not in a very
positive manner. And many of today's most vocal Quakers cause great
embarrassment to many of us other Quakers. I find it terriblly embarrassing
when a Quaker tells someone that adultery is OK -- sexual relationships
outside of marriage is OK. Homosexual relationships is OK. Or when Quakers
state that one can believe almost anything and be a Quaker.
Another: It permits water baptism and communion services.
\Bill Martin responding: Some yearly meetings do but as far as I can
determine it is rarely practiced. When I visit another church throughout the
world, I do not find it objectional to take communion even though it doesn't
have tghe meaning and necessityfor me as it does for some. However, it
doesn;t harm me and I can show my respect for what is meaningful to others.
A third: pacifists and COs are very few and far between in its company.
Bill Martin responding: FALSE. Check out our own statistics particularly
during the war. The conservative Friends had a greater number of CO's than
did we liberal Quakers. Since Friends in Sarasota started coming together,
the question of pacifism is no longer a taboo. Hardly a week goes by when it
is not discussed and certainly every person whom I know in EFC-ER knows and
respects my position.\
A fourth: check out the flags and "sanctuaries" in its big, flashy
successful "churches.")
Bill Martin responding: I have already spoken about this. I don;t approve of
any flags in sanctuaries for the reasons stated above. Friends are not the
only church that has this problem. My brother-in-law a pastor in the Church
of the Brethren is a leader to rid the churches of the American and other
flags. However, I would not be opposed to having the flag of every nation in
a sanctuary. And at EFC-ER they usually have the flags of every nation in
which they have mission efforts. That's far better than showing or saying
that we are worshiping a God of "America.
5. If by "Friends" one means any group which retains the name, no
matter how fully assimilated to the generic evangelical mainstream, and no
matter how completely shorn of empirical distinctives, then the majoritarian
view is corect.
But if being a Friends body implies a meaningful, measurable
connection to the disciplines and practices by which the Religious Society of
Friends was constituted for its first 200 years, then a very large part of
what Martin claims as the "Friends" majority can be put in the same class as
the "Americans" who vote solidly against the Bill of Rights when it is
presented to them by pollsters. You do the math.
Bill Martin responding: We will probably never agree Chuck. Like most of my
fellow Quakers including those I know in Philadelphia, I remain a Republican
and the liberal Quakers would contend that that is unQuakerly. Yet,
historically, Quakers have always been Republicans as a group. We can also
have differences as to whatr is meant by the Bill of Rights. For many years I
was very active in theACLU (itr was founded by Quakers and led by Quakers
until about 1970. I left thatorganization when it changed its direction. I
do not support pornography and I believe that with every right there is a
responsibilty. So do most Friends.
As for drawing lines between individuals or groups, to decide who
is or is not a "real" Quaker, no individual has been appointed to make that
call. Still, if words have meaning, as the old saw goes, if many among the
"Friends majority" were arrested and charged with being "Quakers," there
would
not be enough evidence to go to a preliminary hearing, never mind get a
conviction. And it is not unfair in my mind to regard those to whom the
classic disciplines and practices of Friends, and who are not ashamed of the
word "Quaker" as being more substantially part of however many make up the
"real" Quaker "majority."
Bill Martin responding: Look at much of the social work of the FUM and EFI
Friends., Look at the Friends Disaster Service. Look at their other social
work. Look at their programs to solve or help in America's social problems.
How many Friends Meeting have divorce recovery programs -- programs that work
and help people as Christ would have us work to help people.
Or to put it another way, I think "real majority" Quakerism is a lot
like pornography--hard to define precisely, but I sure know it when I see it.
And I think that once his Jacaranda is built and sold, and he has looked
beyond it sufficiently, Martin will gain more light on this matter than he
currently displays.
Bill Martin responding. Like Churck, I too recognize a real Quaker. It
doesn';t matter what s/he calls him/herself. Let his/her life speak in the
manner of George Fox and our early Quaker founders.
Peace,
Chuck Fager
Peace and love to all:
Bill Martin
>>
This is a letter which Chuck Fager, posted on Quaker Spectrum. I am reposting
my answer and also posting it on Quaker-Theology and hope that others will
respond better than I am able. If y ou are not listed for Quaker Spectrum, I
will be glad to repost your response to Quaker Spectrum. Bill Martin