Baltimore Ym & FUM Homophobia
CHUCKFAGER
I'm just back from Baltimore Yearly Meeting (BYM), and there was action
there which may interest Friends on this list, especially those from New
England and Canadian YMs, who might want to circulate and discuss the
information below.
As reported in my previous post, there has been increasing unease among
many BYM Friends about the large annual membership donation ($17400 in the 2004
budget) BYM sends to FUM, in light of FUM's homophobic employment policy and
practice.
At our sessions last week, we held three long and sometimes strenuous
threshing sessions on this topic. In them we learned that no less than eight of
the BYM monthly meetings had written and submitted minutes calling for an end
to such payments while the discriminatory policy remains in effect. There were
also calls for such payments to continue while we keep working to change the
policy. A couple voices called for BYM to quit FUM entirely.
The calls for BYM to leave FUM gained no group support. But as there was
likewise no unity to include any donation to FUM in the BYM 2005 budget, no
such payment was included. And BYM approved an epistle on this issue, which is
included below.
There were some who announced a concern for interested individuals and
meetings to raise funds for FUM outside the BYM budget, and perhaps for
projects operated by FUM Friends but not under FUM auspices. These discussions
will continue.
In addition, BYM agreed to form a committee to plan a program of visitation
by BYM Friends among FUM meetings, churches, and YMs. This visitation effort
will be aimed at increasing mutual understanding generally, and as way opens,
addressing the specific item of FUM's homophobic employment policy and the need
to change it. This committee is expected to take shape this fall.
I recommend taking a look at the epistle below; it seems quite pointed and
eloquent (and no, I didn't write it).
Peace,
Chuck Fager
- - - - - - - - - - - -
To Friends Everywhere
Baltimore Yearly Meeting is deeply troubled by Minute 8 8-GB-52 of Friends
United
Meeting (FUM) General Board as applied in the Staffs 1991 personnel manual.
This policy
effectively bars from staff and leadership positions those Friends who cannot
sign, abide by and enforce a policy of discrimination against any person in a
sexual relationship outside the bond of marriage, defined in the policy as
between one man and one woman. Our Gay and Lesbian Friends are particularly
affected by this policy. We believe the basic Gospel teaching that Christ is
"the true Light that enlightens every person who has come into the world (John
1:9)." We have seen the Light of Christ in our Friends who are not
heterosexual, and to this truth we do bear witness. Further, we believe that
this policy of discrimination is contrary to the guidance of the Living Christ,
our Inward Teacher, as we have experienced it in our gathered worship.
We cannot condemn any long and loving relationships. We respectfully call
to Friends'
attention the words of George Fox, who pointed out that marriages are not made
by magistrates or by meetings, but by God: "We many none; it is the Lord's
work." We ask Friends to affirm with us that all faithful, loving relationships
give evidence of the active and sustaining presence of Divine Guidance and
Divine Grace. Are we rejecting God's work among us by refusing to accept these
relationships? We ask all Friends to weigh this question carefully.
Baltimore Yearly Meeting has been greatly enriched over the years by the
Spirit-guided
leadership of many Friends who could not be hired nor hold leadership
volunteer positions with this policy. We have felt the power of their
ministry; we have rejoiced in their love. As members of FUM, we cannot agree to
have their voices silenced in our name. This policy has already caused great
pain for many Friends in FUM, including some of Baltimore Yearly Meeting's
most revered and Christ-centered leaders.
We believe that a policy that requires staff and volunteers to have the
endorsement of their
Meeting or Church would be a more accurate measure of their character and more
in keeping
with how God would have us treat each other in Christian love.
In spite of the pain this issue has caused, we do not wish to break
community with Friends United Meeting. We believe that we share common ground.
We unite with FIlM in affirming that all intimate relationships should be
grounded in love, respect and discipline as a reflection of God's love. God
calls us to worshipful consideration of these issues to come to a deeper
revelation of Divine Truth.
We welcome the opportunity to engage with Friends everywhere in prayerful
exploration
of what God requires of us.
Approved by Baltimore Yearly Meeting in Annual Session, Seventh Month (July)
30, 2004
Chuck Fager
--------------------
For informative and provocative articles and books on Quakerism,
check these sites: Kimo Press: http://www.kimopress.com
and A Friendly Letter: http://www.afriendlyletter.com
Marshall Massey
> cf: I'm just back from Baltimore Yearly Meeting (BYM), and
I hope that my credentials as a supporter of equal treatment for
people of differing sexual orientations are not in question here. I
did tell my story of how I sat just outside Colorado at the state line
all through my own yearly meeting, as a way of honoring the gay and
lesbian boycott of conventions in that state, fairly recently here.
That point made, however, I must say I'm really troubled by
several points in Chuck's posting, above.
The Society of Friends was not established as a political body;
traditional Friends do not decide things by means of power plays, such
as putting factional pressure and financial pressure on one another.
And yet what Chuck reports above sounds exactly like the sort of thing
that *would* come out of some political body organized on the grounds
of factional and economic pressures and other sorts of power plays --
all those clarion calls from subgroups for the yearly meeting to do
this and that, and the decision at the end to cut off funds to FUM.
Perhaps the report is misleading at those points. I've misread
things before, and maybe I've done so this time. But as it stands, it
looks to my eyes like a real indictment of modern Friends' failure to
learn how to talk with one another, and listen carefully to one
another, and work things out in love and patience, forgiving our
sisters and brothers not seven times but seventy times seven.
-- Not to mention Chuck's act in posting this thing to this
newsgroup. What on earth does he think he is accomplishing? One
doesn't do such things if one has any serious intention of working the
problem out, because taking the quarrel to the general public in this
way only tends to make people on the other side all the more reluctant
to trust any later overtures of friendship. But if there is no
intention of working the problem out, then the call to New England and
Canadian Friends can only be taken as an attempt to draw them, too,
into the partisan struggle -- and that is precisely the sort of thing
that London Yearly Meeting warned against in its general letter of
1692 --
Where any have received offence from any other, first to
speak privately to the party concerned, and endeavour
reconciliation between themselves; and not to whisper or
aggravate matters against them behind their backs, to the
making parties, and the breach wider.
In short, unless Baltimore Yearly Meeting is already committed to
disowning and discrediting FUM, what we're seeing from Chuck here
looks *way* out of gospel order, at least to me.
But if Baltimore Yearly Meeting *is* committed to disowning and
discrediting FUM, then the proposed plan of visitation described in
Chuck's letter looks rather hypocritical -- and so does Baltimore
YM's statement that it does not "wish to break community with Friends
United Meeting".
Either way, I don't feel good about what I'm seeing here.
For eight years now, I've been an attender at the annual sessions
of Great Plains Yearly Meeting (FUM) -- formerly Nebraska YM (FUM) --
whenever my budget has permitted it. The current clerk of that yearly
meeting, Dorlan Bales, grew up in the evangelical Friends world and
was formerly a recorded minister in a monthly meeting that had dual
affiliation with Nebraska (FUM) and Mid-America YM (EFI). He was
de-recorded as a minister, however, thanks to pressure from officials
in Mid-America (EFI), after he came out in public support of gays and
lesbians. Yet he still has a happy home, and a prominent position as
a yearly meeting clerk, in FUM. He is there because most FUM Friends
*do* practice reconciliation.
Great Plains YM includes members who span the whole range from
evangelicals to FUM moderates to out-and-out Beanites. They get along
in harmony. I find this wonderful; it feels like a fulfillment of
God's plan of *shalom* for Friends everywhere. It was a joy to be
among them for a few days last month.
But the more that parties on *either* side of the gay rights
debate heat up their quarrel, and polarize everyone, and make that gap
difficult to bridge, the more they threaten to tear apart Great Plains
YM and other, similar communities elsewhere. And I don't think that's
a good thing. I resent it, in fact. And I fear it as a precursor of
worse things to come. I think breaches of *shalom* are not God's
will, and I think everyone is a loser whenever one happens.
I feel Baltimore Yearly Meeting is going at this wrongly, and I
feel even worse about Chuck Fager's act of publicizing it in a
newsgroup composed mostly of non-Friends. Whatever happened to
peacemaking?
With all good wishes,
Marshall Massey <mma...@earthwitness.org>
CHUCKFAGER
Ho hum. I'm used to this sort of sniping. You had to be there, Marshall, and
you weren't.
But as usual, this has in no way inhibited you from writing as if you
understood fully all that went on at BYM, all the "hidden motives: and agendas
you are so sure were in play. You still have equal ease in pressing our process
into your own interpretive mold -- all the stuff that has made your writings
look so foolish before.
Not to mention a romanticized, naive sense of "traditional" Quaker history and
process. Early Quaker politics could be and often were much more down and dirty
than anything that BYM came within miles of in dealing with FUM.
Perhaps indeed you have "misread" these things. It wouldn't be the first time.
As I said, I'm used to it. The BYM documents and minutes, however, speak for
themselves; the YM's actions will speak also as they take shape.
Bill Samuel
>
>As I said, I'm used to it. The BYM documents and minutes, however, speak for
>themselves; the YM's actions will speak also as they take shape.
In fact, normally they such documents do not, something I recall you as having
frequently expressed a concern about in the past. They don't usually tell a
lot about the internal pressures and politics, about who chose to participate
in the process and who was so disgusted by what surrounded it that they
wouldn't touch it with a 10-foot pole, about the extent to which the group
deciding was or was not representative of the yearly meeting, about who kept
silent because they feared the insults and disrespect if they spoke what they
felt needed to be said, etc.
I have not participated in the process, but I have talked with a number who
have been involved in one way or another. Many of them speak of it in a
similar vein as does Marshall, so I'm inclined to feel that Marshall did
indeed get a fair sense of it from a distance.
It has felt very political to many. One concrete example is that staff (2
with a long letter, and the remaining staff with a short one saying they
supported everything the others said) directly lobbied the monthly meetings by
letter calling for denial of funding to FUM. To the best of my knowledge,
nothing like this has occurred before in the history of the consolidated YM.
One former Clerk of the committee that oversees the staff, who by the way is a
supporter of same-gender marriage, told me he thought the General Secretary
should have been fired for his behavior.
A number of people have told me about discussions in their monthly and
quarterly meetings filled with hate, vitriol and lies where anyone who dared
to disagree with the BYM leadership group on the issue was attacked with
insults such as they were homophobic and bigots. A number told me that they
are absenting themselves from considerations at various levels because the
atmosphere is so ugly they don't want any part of it.
I would add that most of the people with whom I have discussed it favor
Friends' support of same-gender couples.
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA bill[at]friendsinchrist.net
http://home.comcast.net/~wsamuel/ http://www.quakerinfo.com/
Internet Ministries Coordinator, Friends in Christ, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition."
Cmgreenlnd
length about the hope that the YM would leave FUM. This is not the first time
I've heard this hope voiced. I think it rather short-sighted, just as I thought
that it was short-sighted for another Yearly Meeting on the other end of the
spectrum to leave FUM.
1) FUM has fair representation in Kenya,
2) there is an effort to include the African YM's in setting FUM priorities
3) sub-Saharan Africa, including Kenya, is suffering from drought and the
diseases that come with it.
I wonder whether Friends in Baltimore YM is at all concerned about Friends in
this part of the world, or whether "inclusiveness" is limited to those of us in
North America. It's a bit like the "haves" clinging to what they have to the
detriment of those who haven't that much. What would declining to support FUM
do? I know it would limit support available for African Friends -- and I would
be exceptionally disappointed in that. Some Baltimore Friends might feel
similarly.
My hope is that religious bodies of any sort that actually live what they
profess. And we do profess compassion, at least on paper. Liberal Friends talk
a lot about it, but I see FUM and EFI Friends supporting Friends throughout the
world more actively. Liberal Friends talk a lot about equality, but in over 200
years, many Friends still aren't too sure about Friends of color. I could go
on.
With some chagrin, I realize that I was of more service to those in need as a
Catholic teenager than I ever have been as a Friend. To live my faith, I need
to change something about my life so that faith is lived out and isn't just so
many words about integrity, equality, simplicity, and peace.
Christine M. Greenland
"Give over thine own willing, give over thy own running, give over thine own
desiring to know or be anything and sink down to the seed which God sows in the
heart." Isaac Penington
The Iron Muffin
<snip>
> My hope is that religious bodies of any sort that actually live
> what they profess. And we do profess compassion, at least
> on paper.
Compassion for *all*, no matter what sexual orientation? Or just for
straight folks?
> Liberal Friends talk a lot about it, but I see FUM and EFI
> Friends supporting Friends throughout the world more actively.
Except, that is, for gay, lesbian, and bisexual Friends...
> Liberal Friends talk a lot about equality, but in over 200 years,
> many Friends still aren't too sure about Friends of color.
Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends who are not
heterosexual.
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
Louise
snip
> A number of people have told me about discussions in their monthly and
> quarterly meetings filled with hate, vitriol and lies where anyone who dared
> to disagree with the BYM leadership group on the issue was attacked with
> insults such as they were homophobic and bigots. A number told me that they
> are absenting themselves from considerations at various levels because the
> atmosphere is so ugly they don't want any part of it.
>
> I would add that most of the people with whom I have discussed it favor
> Friends' support of same-gender couples.
>
>
> Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA bill[at]friendsinchrist.net
> http://home.comcast.net/~wsamuel/ http://www.quakerinfo.com/
> Internet Ministries Coordinator, Friends in Christ, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
> Member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
> "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition."
I have noticed that wherever this topic is brought up it brings out
the most vehement response in people. I have a lot of friends at work
of whom I would never have suspected such- as you say- vitriol- who if
one even mentions that love is gender-neutral- are ready to rain down
fire and brimstone at that very moment. lw
Marshall Massey
> cf: Ho hum. I'm used to this sort of sniping. You had to be
> : there, Marshall, and you weren't.
> :
> : But as usual, this has in no way inhibited you from
> : writing as if you understood fully all that went on at
> : BYM, all the "hidden motives: and agendas you are so sure
> : were in play. You still have equal ease in pressing our
> : process into your own interpretive mold -- all the stuff
> : that has made your writings look so foolish before.
Yesterday I laid my concerns about this matter before my monthly
meeting, and we are tentatively agreed to take it up in more depth at
our meeting for business next Sunday.
Marshall Massey
> tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
> : who are not heterosexual.
Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan Bales and
Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
CHUCKFAGER
Long ago I made a personal policy decision not to engage Bill Samuel in
online discussion.
This decision was based not only on issue disagreements, but on growing
revulsion at his chronic, habitual practice of retailing gossip, second- and
third-hand reports, rumors, and downright misinformation online.
This is a shocking practice for a professed Friend, especially one
purportedly devoted to "orthodoxy," as such "talebearing and "detraction" were
repeatedly condemned and made disownable offenses in all the ancient Quaker
books of Discipline one might care to consult.
Moreover, it is clear that even echoing such innuendo and un-sourced
sniping to refute it only further muddies the waters of factual, clear
discussion and honest debate.
I will part from this policy only momentarily and this once to point out
that the post quoted below is a typical and standard example of the
reprehensible online behavior that puts his "witness" beyond the pale, at least
as far as this writer is concerned.
Chuck Fager
>
>I have not participated in the process, but I have talked with a number who
>have been involved in one way or another. Many of them speak of it in a
>similar vein as does Marshall, so I'm inclined to feel that Marshall did
>indeed get a fair sense of it from a distance.
>
>It has felt very political to many. One concrete example is that staff (2
>with a long letter, and the remaining staff with a short one saying they
>supported everything the others said) directly lobbied the monthly meetings
>by
>letter calling for denial of funding to FUM. To the best of my knowledge,
>nothing like this has occurred before in the history of the consolidated YM.
>
>One former Clerk of the committee that oversees the staff, who by the way is
>a
>supporter of same-gender marriage, told me he thought the General Secretary
>should have been fired for his behavior.
>
>A number of people have told me about discussions in their monthly and
>quarterly meetings filled with hate, vitriol and lies where anyone who dared
>to disagree with the BYM leadership group on the issue was attacked with
>insults such as they were homophobic and bigots. A number told me that they
>are absenting themselves from considerations at various levels because the
>atmosphere is so ugly they don't want any part of it.
>
>I would add that most of the people with whom I have discussed it favor
>Friends' support of same-gender couples.
>
>
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote,
> > tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
> > : who are not heterosexual.
>
> Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan Bales and
> Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
No, I didn't. I'll go back and check the thread for it now.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote,
>
> > tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
> > : who are not heterosexual.
>
> Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan Bales and
> Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
OK, I found it. Marshall, you wrote:
> For eight years now, I've been an attender at the annual sessions
> of Great Plains Yearly Meeting (FUM) -- formerly Nebraska YM
> (FUM) -- whenever my budget has permitted it. The current clerk
> of that yearly meeting, Dorlan Bales, grew up in the evangelical
> Friends world and was formerly a recorded minister in a monthly
> meeting that had dual affiliation with Nebraska (FUM) and Mid-
> America YM (EFI). He was de-recorded as a minister, however,
> thanks to pressure from officials in Mid-America (EFI), after he
> came out in public support of gays and lesbians. Yet he still has
> a happy home, and a prominent position as a yearly meeting clerk,
> in FUM. He is there because most FUM Friends *do* practice
> reconciliation.
This seems to me to miss the point entirely. What I gather from the above
is that Dorlan Bales made statements of "public support of gays and
lesbians". Are you saying that simply because his FUM meeting did not read
him out for that, FUM is somehow tolerant and accepting of homosexual
Friends? Or by "came out in public support of gays and lesbians", do you
mean "*came out* (of the closet)"? Most of the members and attenders at my
home meeting (Mount Toby Friends Meeting, Leverett, Massachusetts) would
consider it appalling that any Friend might require "reconciliation" for
stating public support of homosexuals. In fact, the meeting just recently
reaffirmed a marriage between two women (both members of the meeting) that
has been under its care for the past eleven years.
FUM's position on homosexuality seems to me to be closed-minded,
exclusionary, and entirely *not* Spirit-led.
Marshall Massey
> cf: Long ago I made a personal policy decision not to
> : engage Bill Samuel in online discussion.
> :
> : This decision was based not only on issue
> : disagreements, but on growing revulsion at his chronic,
> : habitual practice of retailing gossip, second- and
> : third-hand reports, rumors, and downright misinformation
> : online.
> :
> : This is a shocking practice for a professed Friend,
> : especially one purportedly devoted to "orthodoxy," as such
> : "talebearing and "detraction" were repeatedly condemned
> : and made disownable offenses in all the ancient Quaker
> : books of Discipline one might care to consult.
> :
> : Moreover, it is clear that even echoing such innuendo
> : and un-sourced sniping to refute it only further muddies
> : the waters of factual, clear discussion and honest debate.
[etc.]
Chuck, Friend, *you* put Baltimore YM's action on the table for
discussion here in this newsgroup -- a place where, in my personal
opinion, it doesn't belong at all, since this is a public site,
whereas the resolution of this dispute will necessarily have to be an
internal RSoF matter.
I feel your posting the story *here* was tale-bearing, frankly.
It would have been better and wiser to keep the discussion within the
RSoF until the problem was resolved.
But since you posted the story here, it seems to me entirely
right and appropriate that Bill and Christine then supplied us with
background information. While I regret the publishing of the sad
information Bill and Christine had to share, perhaps even as you did,
the information they gave us helped clarify to readers of this
newsgroup that the issue isn't as one-sided as your chosen subject
header ("Baltimore Ym & FUM Homophobia") suggests -- that there have
been failings on *both* sides of the dispute -- and so they have
helped make us cautious of taking sides.
This isn't an open-and-shut case, after all. Just as FUM -- and
the conservative end of the religious spectrum generally -- has a duty
to consider and address gays' and lesbians' genuine needs for
fulfillment, so Baltimore YM -- and the liberal end of the spectrum
generally -- has a duty to consider and address the instincts and
intuitions of religious conservatives. And while both sides are
doubtless proceeding in good will as they presently *understand* good
will, *neither* side seems to be doing a successful job of showing
consideration to the other's concerns, and willingness to address the
other side's issues, at the present time.
IMHO the solution will require a whole lot less finger-pointing,
and a whole lot more honest and careful self-criticism, and a whole
lot more willingness to work things through in patience and mutual
forgiveness, than we're seeing at present.
As I've previously said, we will be discussing this matter in our
monthly meeting for business. I'm hopeful that some people there may
have better skills for responding to this issue than I do --
For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in
all the churches of the saints.
-- I Corinthians 14:33
With all good wishes,
Marshall Massey <mma...@earthwitness.org>
Maintain that charity which suffereth long, and is kind; put
the best construction upon the conduct and opinions one of
another which circumstances will warrant. Take heed ...
that the enemy produce no dissensions among you; that
nothing like a party spirit be ever suffered to prevail.
Let each be tender of the reputation of his brother; [and]
be earnest to possess the ornament of a meek and quiet
spirit. Watch over one another for good, but not for evil;
and whilst not blind to the faults or false views of others,
be especially careful not to make them a topic of common
conversation. And even in cases in which occasion may
require that the failings of others should be disclosed, be
well satisfied, before they are made the subject of
confidential communication, either verbally or by letter,
that your own motives are sufficiently pure.
-- London Yearly Meeting, epistle (1834) --
good advice, hard to live up to!
Marshall Massey
>3tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
> : who are not heterosexual.
I had responded,
>2 mm: Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan
>2 : Bales and Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
"TIM" responded,
> tim: This seems to me to miss the point entirely. What I
> : gather from the above is that Dorlan Bales made
> : statements of "public support of gays and lesbians". Are
> : you saying that simply because his FUM meeting did not
> : read him out for that, FUM is somehow tolerant and
> : accepting of homosexual Friends? Or by "came out in
> : public support of gays and lesbians", do you mean "*came
> : out* (of the closet)"?
Dorlan was de-recorded as a minister for publicly supporting gays' and
lesbians' desire for same-sex marriage.
> tim: Most of the members and attenders at my home meeting
> : (Mount Toby Friends Meeting, Leverett, Massachusetts)
> : would consider it appalling that any Friend might require
> : "reconciliation" for stating public support of
> : homosexuals.
I wonder if you understand what I mean by reconciliation? (That
question isn't intended to be condescending; it's a sincere
uncertainty.) What I mean by "reconciliation" is making peace -- full
acceptance of the other, a burying of all hatchets, *total* arrival at
peace and harmony. It's what A. J. Muste, the executive secretary of
the Fellowship of Reconciliation, and a sometime recorded minister at
the Friends meeting in Providence, was talking about when he told an
interviewer:
Reconciliation is not synonymous with smoothing things over
in the conventional sense. Reconciliation, in every
relationship, requires bringing the deep causes of conflict
to the surface and that may be very painful. It is when the
deep differences have been faced and the pain of that
experienced, that healing and reconciliation may take place.
That, as I understand it, is what Christ requires of all of us:
...If you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember
that your brother has something against you, leave your gift
there before the altar, and go your way. First be
reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your
gift.
-- Matthew 5:23-24
Notice that this instruction from Christ says nothing about which of
you is in the right, you or your brother. That's because
reconciliation, and the *shalom* it leads to, is an *absolute* good
in Christ's gospel, a good desirable no matter what the preceding
balance of right and wrong may have been:
Then Peter came to Him and said, "Lord, how often shall my
brother sin against me, and I forgive him? Up to seven
times?"
Jesus said to him, "I do not say to you, up to seven
times, but up to seventy times seven.
-- Matthew 18:21-22
Unfortunately, in real life, only the best people persist in seeking
reconciliation with those who sin against them; the rest cling to
their axes and keep grinding them. The fact that Dorlan Bales sought
reconciliation with his adversaries, even though they'd hurt him
deeply, impresses me greatly.
I like Mount Toby Monthly Meeting a whole lot. Once upon a time
long long ago -- it was July of the year 2000 -- the "Full Moon Group"
of Mt. Toby MM produced one of the finest minutes on the environment
that I have ever set eyes upon. That minute occupies an honored place
in my files.
However, if Mount Toby MM, wonderful as it is, is not willing to
seek reconciliation with those it disagrees with, I don't think I
could call that virtuous behavior on its part. I am mindful, rather,
of some very wise words from London Yearly Meeting --
If we hope to be forgiven, we must also forgive one another.
... How can they, whose only hope is in the Lord's mercy,
indulge in hard and unforgiving thoughts towards a brother
or a sister? It may be that thou hast just ground for
offence. Is thy brother's trespass against thee any warrant
for thy own disobedience? Consider how exceeding broad is
the "new commandment" of thy Lord: "Love one another, as I
have loved you." ... Wait not until thy brother be
reconciled unto thee, or until he shall make the first
overture. Be thyself the first to seek reconciliation, and
to prove that thou art honestly desirous to submit thyself
to the government of the Prince of Peace.
-- London YM, epistles (1870, 1872)
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin had written,
> >3tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
> > : who are not heterosexual.
>
> I had responded,
>
> >2 mm: Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan
> >2 : Bales and Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
>
> "TIM" responded,
>
> > tim: This seems to me to miss the point entirely. What I
> > : gather from the above is that Dorlan Bales made
> > : statements of "public support of gays and lesbians". Are
> > : you saying that simply because his FUM meeting did not
> > : read him out for that, FUM is somehow tolerant and
> > : accepting of homosexual Friends? Or by "came out in
> > : public support of gays and lesbians", do you mean "*came
> > : out* (of the closet)"?
>
> Dorlan was de-recorded as a minister for publicly supporting gays'
> and lesbians' desire for same-sex marriage.
This, and the FUM employment policy, are exactly why I express concern about
FUM's view toward homosexual Friends.
> > tim: Most of the members and attenders at my home meeting
> > : (Mount Toby Friends Meeting, Leverett, Massachusetts)
> > : would consider it appalling that any Friend might require
> > : "reconciliation" for stating public support of
> > : homosexuals.
>
> I wonder if you understand what I mean by reconciliation?
Yes, I believe that I do.
> (That question isn't intended to be condescending; it's a sincere
> uncertainty.)
Not at all. Thank you for asking.
I agree, and I am similarly impressed by Bales' courage and commitment to
peace. However, Dorlan Bales is not who I am concerned about in FUM. I am
far more concerned about those who de-recorded him, who thereby made
reconciliation necessary.
> I like Mount Toby Monthly Meeting a whole lot. Once upon a time
> long long ago -- it was July of the year 2000 -- the "Full Moon Group"
> of Mt. Toby MM produced one of the finest minutes on the environment
> that I have ever set eyes upon. That minute occupies an honored place
> in my files.
Sadly, as of last year the Full Moon Group was laid down.
> However, if Mount Toby MM, wonderful as it is, is not willing to
> seek reconciliation with those it disagrees with, I don't think I
> could call that virtuous behavior on its part.
I am not saying that Mount Toby MM is not willing to seek reconciliation. I
am saying that the idea that one would be written out or need to be
reconciled for showing compassion, support, and understanding towards our
non-heterosexual Friends would appall most, if not all, of the members and
attenders of the meeting.
> I am mindful, rather,
> of some very wise words from London Yearly Meeting --
>
> If we hope to be forgiven, we must also forgive one another.
> ... How can they, whose only hope is in the Lord's mercy,
> indulge in hard and unforgiving thoughts towards a brother
> or a sister? It may be that thou hast just ground for
> offence. Is thy brother's trespass against thee any warrant
> for thy own disobedience? Consider how exceeding broad is
> the "new commandment" of thy Lord: "Love one another, as I
> have loved you." ... Wait not until thy brother be
> reconciled unto thee, or until he shall make the first
> overture. Be thyself the first to seek reconciliation, and
> to prove that thou art honestly desirous to submit thyself
> to the government of the Prince of Peace.
>
> -- London YM, epistles (1870, 1872)
I like it! Thank you for your reply.
Bill Samuel
>> Dorlan was de-recorded as a minister for publicly supporting gays'
>> and lesbians' desire for same-sex marriage.
>
>This, and the FUM employment policy, are exactly why I express concern about
>FUM's view toward homosexual Friends.
But he wasn't derecorded by FUM or an FUM yearly meeting, but by an EFI yearly
meeting. His monthly meeting had dual membership in two yearly meetings, one
FUM and one EFI (that monthly meeting still does, but Dorlan is now in another
meeting). Dorlan Bales was a speaker at an FUM Triennial.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > Marshall Massey wrote:
> >> Dorlan was de-recorded as a minister for publicly supporting gays'
> >> and lesbians' desire for same-sex marriage.
> >
> >This, and the FUM employment policy, are exactly why I express concern
about
> >FUM's view toward homosexual Friends.
>
> But he wasn't derecorded by FUM or an FUM yearly meeting, but by an EFI
yearly
> meeting. His monthly meeting had dual membership in two yearly meetings,
one
> FUM and one EFI (that monthly meeting still does, but Dorlan is now in
another
> meeting). Dorlan Bales was a speaker at an FUM Triennial.
I wonder what FUM's position on Dorlan Bales' ministry would be were he gay.
Marshall Massey
>4 mm: Didn't you read what I wrote in this thread about Dorlan
>4 : Bales and Great Plains YM (FUM), "Iron Muffin"?
"TIM" responded,
>3tim: OK, I found it. ...
>3 :
>3 : This seems to me to miss the point entirely. What I
>3 : gather from the above is that Dorlan Bales made
>3 : statements of "public support of gays and lesbians". Are
>3 : you saying that simply because his FUM meeting did not
>3 : read him out for that, FUM is somehow tolerant and
>3 : accepting of homosexual Friends? Or by "came out in
>3 : public support of gays and lesbians", do you mean "*came
>3 : out* (of the closet)"?
I then explained,
>2 mm: Dorlan was de-recorded as a minister for publicly
>2 : supporting gays' and lesbians' desire for same-sex
>2 : marriage.
"TIM" replied,
> tim: This, and the FUM employment policy, are exactly why I
> : express concern about FUM's view toward homosexual Friends.
> :
> : ...Dorlan Bales is not who I am concerned about in FUM. I
> : am far more concerned about those who de-recorded him, who
> : thereby made reconciliation necessary.
As I pointed out in the posting you went back and found, and as Bill
Samuel pointed out to you again later, Dorlan was de-recorded by
*EFI* officials, not FUM officials, and it was in fact a de-recording
that FUM rather pointedly did *not* join in.
Yet even after Bill pointed out that FUM did not join it, and
that FUM featured Dorlan as a speaker at its Triennial (a considerable
honor), you continued to hammer FUM for its relationship with Dorlan.
("I wonder what FUM's position on Dorlan Bales' ministry would be were
he gay.")
You hammer FUM out of a concern for justice, and yet this
treatment of FUM is not just.
>2 mm: I wonder if you understand what I mean by reconciliation?
>2 : ... What I mean by "reconciliation" is making peace --
>2 : full acceptance of the other, a burying of all hatchets,
>2 : *total* arrival at peace and harmony.
> tim: Yes, I believe that I do. ...
> :
> : I am saying that the idea that one would be written out or
> : need to be reconciled for showing compassion, support, and
> : understanding towards our non-heterosexual Friends would
> : appall most, if not all, of the members and attenders of
> : the meeting.
Which suggests to me that you *don't* yet understand what I mean by
reconciliation. Reconciliation has nothing to do with being "written
out". "Writing out" is an expression of alienation, symptomatic of a
relationship that has broken down entirely; reconciliation is a thing
that occurs again and again in any lasting relationship, and is
symptomatic of very healthy relations.
"Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward; but I am
as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I would therefore plead
with Baltimore YM to reverse its direction and seek reconciliation
instead.
>2 mm: ... Wait not until thy brother be reconciled unto
>2 : thee, or until he shall make the first overture. Be
>2 : thyself the first to seek reconciliation, and to
>2 : prove that thou art honestly desirous to submit
>2 : thyself to the government of the Prince of Peace.
>2 :
>2 : -- London YM, epistles (1870, 1872)
> tim: I like it!
Let me express my hope, then, that you will put it into practice,
vis-à-vis FUM.
The Iron Muffin
<snip>
> As I pointed out in the posting you went back and found, and as Bill
> Samuel pointed out to you again later, Dorlan was de-recorded by
> *EFI* officials, not FUM officials, and it was in fact a de-recording
> that FUM rather pointedly did *not* join in.
The inital posting said that Dorlan Bales was de-recorded as a minister by
his meeting, which held membership in both EFI and FUM. It was not at all
clear that the FUM officials did not take part in his de-recording. This is
why I said, "This, *and the FUM employment policy* (emphasis added), are
exactly why I express concern about FUM's view toward homosexual Friends".
How am I to take it when the story keeps changing? First Bales was
de-recorded as a minister by his meeting. Then he wasn't de-recorded as a
minister by *certain elements* of his meeting, but he was still de-recorded
by the meeting. If he was never de-recorded by the FUM elements of his
meeting, where is the need for reconciliation?
> Yet even after Bill pointed out that FUM did not join it, and
> that FUM featured Dorlan as a speaker at its Triennial (a considerable
> honor), you continued to hammer FUM for its relationship with Dorlan.
> ("I wonder what FUM's position on Dorlan Bales' ministry would be
> were he gay.")
If I were "hammering" FUM, I would go a lot further than expressing a
concern about their employment policy and their treatment of gay and lesbian
Friends.
> You hammer FUM out of a concern for justice, and yet this
> treatment of FUM is not just.
Neither is FUM's treatment of non-heterosexual Friends.
> >2 mm: I wonder if you understand what I mean by reconciliation?
> >2 : ... What I mean by "reconciliation" is making peace --
> >2 : full acceptance of the other, a burying of all hatchets,
> >2 : *total* arrival at peace and harmony.
>
> > tim: Yes, I believe that I do. ...
> > :
> > : I am saying that the idea that one would be written out or
> > : need to be reconciled for showing compassion, support, and
> > : understanding towards our non-heterosexual Friends would
> > : appall most, if not all, of the members and attenders of
> > : the meeting.
>
> Which suggests to me that you *don't* yet understand what I mean by
> reconciliation. Reconciliation has nothing to do with being "written
> out". "Writing out" is an expression of alienation, symptomatic of a
> relationship that has broken down entirely; reconciliation is a thing
> that occurs again and again in any lasting relationship, and is
> symptomatic of very healthy relations.
Again, I believe that this has to do with the lack of clarity in previous
posts on this topic. It seemed to me that you were saying that *because*
Bales was de-recorded as a minister, there was a need for reconciliation.
Now you are saying that FUM *did not* de-record him, and that this was
somehow reason for him to seek reconciliation. If there wasn't a problem
with Bales' support for homosexual Friends, then where is the *need* for
reconciliation? How can one reconcile a difference that does not exist in
the first place?
The fact that Dorlan Bales felt it *necessary* to seek reconciliation about
his support of non-heterosexual Friends tells me a lot about FUM, and none
of it good.
> "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward; but I am
> as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I would therefore plead
> with Baltimore YM to reverse its direction and seek reconciliation
> instead.
I agree, but as Jesus purportedly said, "No man can serve two masters". As
FUM has shown by its unrighteous treatment of our gay and lesbian Friends
(despite our best efforts to enlighten them), they have made their choice of
which master they wish to serve, and no amount of reconciliation will change
that.
> >2 mm: ... Wait not until thy brother be reconciled unto
> >2 : thee, or until he shall make the first overture. Be
> >2 : thyself the first to seek reconciliation, and to
> >2 : prove that thou art honestly desirous to submit
> >2 : thyself to the government of the Prince of Peace.
> >2 :
> >2 : -- London YM, epistles (1870, 1872)
>
> > tim: I like it!
>
> Let me express my hope, then, that you will put it into practice,
> vis-à-vis FUM.
I see no need to reconcile myself with FUM. I have had no dealings with
them in the past (except they somehow got my name and address, and have
taken to sending me money-begging letters), and I don't envision myself
having any dealings with them in the future.
CHUCKFAGER
>Which suggests to me that you *don't* yet understand what I mean by
>reconciliation. Reconciliation has nothing to do with being "written
>out". "Writing out" is an expression of alienation, symptomatic of a
>relationship that has broken down entirely; reconciliation is a thing
>that occurs again and again in any lasting relationship, and is
>symptomatic of very healthy relations.
>
> "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward; but I am
>as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I would therefore plead
>with Baltimore YM to reverse its direction and seek reconciliation
>instead. >>>
This is bosh and piffle, and uninformed besides. Baltimore YM is doing
no such thing, as was made explicit in the epistle posted here earlier. I refer
interested readers to that post for accurate information.
CHUCKFAGER
"de-recorded" as a minister by an FUM body.
Dorlan was "de-recorded" by an executive body of Mid-America YM, an EFI body.
It is correct, but irrelevant, that his local meeting, University Friends in
Wichita, had dual EFI-FUM membership; but the local meeting was not the actor
here.
This "de-recording" was a shameful act, conducted behind closed doors and with
cowardly refusal of Dorlan's repeated pleas for an open discussion. But however
shameful, it was NOT an FUM action.
Marshall Massey
>2 mm: As I pointed out in the posting you went back and found,
>2 : and as Bill Samuel pointed out to you again later, Dorlan
>2 : was de-recorded by *EFI* officials, not FUM officials, and
>2 : it was in fact a de-recording that FUM rather pointedly
>2 : did *not* join in.
"The Iron Muffin" responded,
> tim: The inital posting said that Dorlan Bales was de-recorded
> : as a minister by his meeting, which held membership in
> : both EFI and FUM. It was not at all clear that the FUM
> : officials did not take part in his de-recording.
No, that's not true. My initial posting said -- and I quote --
>11mm: The current clerk of that yearly meeting, Dorlan Bales ...
>11 : was formerly a recorded minister in a monthly meeting that
>11 : had dual affiliation with Nebraska (FUM) and Mid-America
>11 : YM (EFI). He was de-recorded as a minister, however,
>11 : thanks to pressure from officials in Mid-America (EFI),
>11 : after he came out in public support of gays and lesbians.
>11 : Yet he still has a happy home, and a prominent position as
>11 : a yearly meeting clerk, in FUM. He is there because most
>11 : FUM Friends *do* practice reconciliation.
This was my posting of Friday, August 6, 07:58:53 -0500, subject line
"Re: Baltimore Ym & FUM Homophobia". You can look it up in Google
Groups if you wish.
> tim: How am I to take it when the story keeps changing?
The story has not kept changing. The story has remained constant.
> tim: If he was never de-recorded by the FUM elements of his
> : meeting, where is the need for reconciliation?
There is no need for reconciliation between Dorlan and FUM. The need
for reconciliation is between Baltimore YM and FUM.
>2 mm: You hammer FUM out of a concern for justice, and yet
>2 : this treatment of FUM is not just.
> tim: Neither is FUM's treatment of non-heterosexual Friends.
Is it your position that two wrongs make a right?
The traditional Quaker position is that we should seek to return
good for evil, and do justice in our relationships even with people
who fail to do justice themselves.
> tim: If there wasn't a problem with Bales' support for
> : homosexual Friends, then where is the *need* for
> : reconciliation?
The need for reconciliation has to do with Baltimore YM's relationship
with FUM. FUM will not allow anyone in an active gay or lesbian
relationship to serve as paid or volunteer staff, which is something
of a departure from Biblical standards as I -- and Dorlan, and others
-- understand them. Baltimore has reacted by cutting off funds to
FUM, instead of simply continuing to work -- patiently and with love
not anger -- to raise consciousness within FUM. IMHO those two need
to stop judging each other and work it out, sharing their different
insights into truth and laboring toward a synthesis -- and they can do
so, if they will be willing to *commit* to doing so. I have great
admiration for them both; there is tremendous ability, tremendous
capacity for love and growth, on both sides. I only hope they will
remember the gospel call to patience.
> tim: The fact that Dorlan Bales felt it *necessary* to seek
> : reconciliation about his support of non-heterosexual
> : Friends tells me a lot about FUM, and none of it good.
The fact that you respond to Dorlan's act of love by condemning those
he sought to reach out to -- even condemning the wrong group of people
because you failed to get your facts straight before passing judgment
-- tells me something about you.
>2 mm: "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward;
>2 : but I am as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I
>2 : would therefore plead with Baltimore YM to reverse its
>2 : direction and seek reconciliation instead.
> tim: I agree, but as Jesus purportedly said, "No man can serve
> : two masters". As FUM has shown by its unrighteous
> : treatment of our gay and lesbian Friends (despite our best
> : efforts to enlighten them), they have made their choice of
> : which master they wish to serve, and no amount of
> : reconciliation will change that.
You don't know that. Reconciliation is *itself* a manifestation of
the God of Friends, the true God of love; who chooses reconciliation,
therefore, chooses our God.
> tim: I see no need to reconcile myself with FUM.
Then you are worse off than they are; for they do actively work at
reconciliation, and so seek to fulfill the will of God.
> tim: I have had no dealings with them in the past (except they
> : somehow got my name and address, and have taken to
> : sending me money-begging letters), and I don't envision
> : myself having any dealings with them in the future.
On the contrary, friend, you worship at an FUM meeting -- Mount Toby
Monthly Meeting. So you have dealings with them every time you go to
worship.
The Iron Muffin
"de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from officials in
Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear that FUM was not involved in his
de-recording. In fact, your inclusion of the sentence "He is there because
most FUM Friends *do* practice reconciliation" would lead me to believe
(and, in fact, *did* lead me to believe) that Bales sought reconciliation
with FUM *because* they had a hand in his de-recording.
Perhaps that is not what you meant, but that is how it came across.
> > tim: How am I to take it when the story keeps changing?
>
> The story has not kept changing. The story has remained constant.
The story was not clear, but has become somewhat more so.
> > tim: If he was never de-recorded by the FUM elements of his
> > : meeting, where is the need for reconciliation?
>
> There is no need for reconciliation between Dorlan and FUM. The need
> for reconciliation is between Baltimore YM and FUM.
Then why bother saying "He (Bales) is there (clerking an FUM yearly meeting)
because most FUM Friends *do* practice reconciliation"?
> >2 mm: You hammer FUM out of a concern for justice, and yet
> >2 : this treatment of FUM is not just.
>
> > tim: Neither is FUM's treatment of non-heterosexual Friends.
>
> Is it your position that two wrongs make a right?
Is it your position that making a statement such as "I wonder what FUM's
position would be on his ministry were he gay" amounts to "hammering"? Is
it your position that making such a statement is "wrong"?
> The traditional Quaker position is that we should seek to return
> good for evil, and do justice in our relationships even with people
> who fail to do justice themselves.
I'm aware of the traditional Quaker position, thank you. I don't feel that
my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
> > tim: If there wasn't a problem with Bales' support for
> > : homosexual Friends, then where is the *need* for
> > : reconciliation?
>
> The need for reconciliation has to do with Baltimore YM's relationship
> with FUM.
This is not what you said in your initial post. You said "He (Bales) is
there (clerking an FUM yearly meeting) because most FUM Friends *do*
practice reconciliation." This is what I meant when I said "the story keeps
changing".
> FUM will not allow anyone in an active gay or lesbian
> relationship to serve as paid or volunteer staff, which is something
> of a departure from Biblical standards as I -- and Dorlan, and others
> -- understand them. Baltimore has reacted by cutting off funds to
> FUM, instead of simply continuing to work -- patiently and with love
> not anger -- to raise consciousness within FUM. IMHO those two need
> to stop judging each other and work it out, sharing their different
> insights into truth and laboring toward a synthesis -- and they can do
> so, if they will be willing to *commit* to doing so. I have great
> admiration for them both; there is tremendous ability, tremendous
> capacity for love and growth, on both sides. I only hope they will
> remember the gospel call to patience.
Is it your position that Baltimore (or any other) YM should continue to
financially support a group that discriminates against non-heterosexual
Friends?
> > tim: The fact that Dorlan Bales felt it *necessary* to seek
> > : reconciliation about his support of non-heterosexual
> > : Friends tells me a lot about FUM, and none of it good.
>
> The fact that you respond to Dorlan's act of love by condemning
> those he sought to reach out to --
I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned *itself* by its
treatment of gay and lesbian Friends, and as long as it continues to
discriminate in such a manner, that body can expect that it will find itself
increasingly alienated from other bodies of Friends.
> even condemning the wrong group of people
FUM *doesn't* have an exclusionary and homophobic employment policy now?
> because you failed to get your facts straight
The lack of clarity in your post contributed in no small way to my facts not
being straight. If you wish to place blame for the facts not being
straight, I suggest that you get off your high horse long enough to look in
a mirror.
> before passing judgment
Oh, please. I am neither "condemning" nor "passing judgement" on anybody.
I am saying that there is something rotten in FUM, and that is simply plain
speech.
> -- tells me something about you.
Oh? And what might that be? Think carefully before you condemn me or pass
judgement on me...
> >2 mm: "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward;
> >2 : but I am as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I
> >2 : would therefore plead with Baltimore YM to reverse its
> >2 : direction and seek reconciliation instead.
>
> > tim: I agree, but as Jesus purportedly said, "No man can serve
> > : two masters". As FUM has shown by its unrighteous
> > : treatment of our gay and lesbian Friends (despite our best
> > : efforts to enlighten them), they have made their choice of
> > : which master they wish to serve, and no amount of
> > : reconciliation will change that.
>
> You don't know that. Reconciliation is *itself* a manifestation
> of the God of Friends, the true God of love; who chooses
> reconciliation, therefore, chooses our God.
And what of those who choose to discriminate against and exclude Friends, as
FUM has done?
> > tim: I see no need to reconcile myself with FUM.
>
> Then you are worse off than they are; for they do actively work
> at reconciliation, and so seek to fulfill the will of God.
...unless you happen to be gay or lesbian, then they just exclude and
discriminate against you.
> > tim: I have had no dealings with them in the past (except they
> > : somehow got my name and address, and have taken to
> > : sending me money-begging letters), and I don't envision
> > : myself having any dealings with them in the future.
>
> On the contrary, friend, you worship at an FUM meeting --
> Mount Toby Monthly Meeting. So you have dealings with
> them every time you go to worship.
New England Yearly Meeting may be a member of FUM, but that hardly makes
Mount Toby MM a "FUM meeting". It would more correctly be called a FGC
meeting. In fact, there has been quite a bit of concern within the meeting
recently about our involvement with FUM. I could be wrong, but I seem to
recall that we withheld our FUM contribution (or at least considered doing
so) this year due to our concerns regarding that body...
Bill Samuel
>>
>>Which suggests to me that you *don't* yet understand what I mean by
>>reconciliation. Reconciliation has nothing to do with being "written
>>out". "Writing out" is an expression of alienation, symptomatic of a
>>relationship that has broken down entirely; reconciliation is a thing
>>that occurs again and again in any lasting relationship, and is
>>symptomatic of very healthy relations.
>>
>> "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving toward; but I am
>>as appalled by "writing out" as you are, and I would therefore plead
>>with Baltimore YM to reverse its direction and seek reconciliation
>>instead. >>>
>
> This is bosh and piffle, and uninformed besides. Baltimore YM is doing
>no such thing, as was made explicit in the epistle posted here earlier. I refer
>interested readers to that post for accurate information.
Baltimore YM and FUM are both talking about reconciliation in the current
crisis in their relationship. But there are certainly many expressions of
alienation from FUM among BYM Friends, including a letter written by BYM staff
and sent to all Monthly Meetings. And it seems to me the stance of BYM is
effectively that FUM must change its policies in order for reconciliation to
take place. Regardless of the terminology used, this does not really seem to
me to be a reconciliation stance.
Although FUM has generously noted that there is no required financial
contribution for membership in FUM, withholding of funds which would have been
given had the relationship not become strained would seem to me to be an
expression of alienation. There is currently a lack of unity in BYM regarding
funding of BYM, and that issue has not been resolved. It seems highly
unlikely that BYM will give these funds in an unrestricted manner to FUM, but
there are other options which would result in FUM receiving funds from BYM
Friends without objecting Monthly Meetings having their funds going to FUM.
We will see what happens over time, but it is difficult to see a way forward
together for BYM and FUM given that BYM seems to find unacceptable an FUM
policy that is strongly supported by most FUM-only yearly meetings. The tail
can not wag the dog, and if doesn't succeed in wagging the dog, it seems
likely to cut itself off eventually. It seems to me that there is a
difference which is basically irreconciliable in the existing context, and
furthermore seems really to me not to be the underlying difference between BYM
and FUM, although the underlying difference (over the purpose of FUM) is
easier to paper over and pretend doesn't really exist than the instant issue.
Bill Samuel
>
>I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned *itself* by its
>treatment of gay and lesbian Friends, and as long as it continues to
>discriminate in such a manner, that body can expect that it will find itself
>increasingly alienated from other bodies of Friends.
FUM's policy is not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
It's policy also is that sexual relations are to be only within the context of
marriage between a man and a woman. Its policy is classic Quaker and
Christian understanding.
Acceptance of same-gender relationships has become the norm among FGC and
Beanite Quakers in North America, and among most Quaker groups consisting
primarily of affluent whites elsewhere in the world. I do believe Iron Muffin
is correct in indicating there will be increasing alienation between FUM and
these groups of Friends. While this is coming to a head today in Baltimore YM
and to some degree other YMs sharing its awkward stance of dual affiliation
with FGC and FUM, it is not new. For example, I know of at least one case a
number of years ago where FUM sought to work with AFSC on an international
work camp, but their differences on this issue resulted in that effort to
cooperate failing.
I would note that Iron Muffin is clearly condemning FUM.
I would note something else. This is not really a Quaker thing, but a larger
thing that is manifesting itself within Quakerism. As has gotten most
public attention related to the Anglican communion, this issue has been going
in similar directions within other traditionally Christian denominations. A
common feature is that the effort to reverse the traditional view comes from
within the "Western world" and "the West" is divided about it, but those in
the communions from the Two-Thirds World are mostly united in upholding the
traditional Christian understanding.
The particular incident that triggered the current crisis was in connection
with the first FUM Triennial ever to be held in Kenya, the country with the
largest number of Quakers. The action taken which stirred such anger and
resentment in Baltimore YM was taken at least partly in respect of the strong
views Kenyan Friends have on the issue. A parallel to the leadership of
Ugandan particularly, and African more generally, Anglicans on one side of the
controversy in the worldwide Anglican communion can be noted.
William Mitchell
>
> FUM's policy is not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
> It's policy also is that sexual relations are to be only within the context of
> marriage between a man and a woman. Its policy is classic Quaker and
> Christian understanding.
>
Well, as long as they don't allow for marriage between people of the
same sex, I would call this discrimination. There is no
requirement that straight people are expected to choose between
celibacy and marriage with someone they are not attracted to.
I can respect the fact that they feel called on by God to so
discriminate. I'd say they feel so wrongly, but right or wrong it is
discrimination.
--
Bill Mitchell
Dept of Mathematics, The University of Florida
PO Box 118105, Gainesville, FL 32611--8105
mitc...@math.ufl.edu (352) 392-0281 x284
CHUCKFAGER
Baltimore YM's decision (or rather lack of agreement) on sending funds to FUM
is not so different from FUM’s own decision in a parallel situation, namely
the conflict over its membership in the National Council of Churches (NCC):
Some years ago there were loud calls in its councils for FUM to pull out of
the NCC, which many evangelicals regard as a tool of the devil. (This is a
commmon theme of popular reactionary apocalyptic writing.)
But there were also loud voices speaking up on behalf of the NCC. FUM finally
responded by deleting a budget line for the NCC, but agreed to collect
voluntary membership contributions for NCC, which FUM would then forward.
Thus those in FUM who wanted to support the NCC (such as BYM) could do so,
while those opposed could be assured that none of their funds were going to the
NCC.
Such a proposal was offered to Baltimore YM; it did not gain agreement, but it
was not roundly rejected either; my sense is it will be considered further when
the funding issue comes up again.
Further, at BYM we were advised that there is at least one other YM in FUM ( a
more evangelical one) which has already been declining to send a membership
contribution to FUM because its anti-gay policy is not strong enough.
I think it is fair to decribe FUM as an institution (or fellowship) that is in
considerable internal struggle. Whether it can resolve its differences remains
to be seen.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned *itself* by its
> > treatment of gay and lesbian Friends, and as long as it continues to
> > discriminate in such a manner, that body can expect that it will find
itself
> > increasingly alienated from other bodies of Friends.
>
> FUM's policy is not to discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation.
FUM's policy is, indeed, to discriminate on the grounds of sexual
orientation. What else would you call excluding gay and lesbian Friends
from service?
> It's policy also is that sexual relations are to be only within the
context of
> marriage between a man and a woman. Its policy is classic Quaker and
> Christian understanding.
Its policy is exclusionary and discriminatory.
> Acceptance of same-gender relationships has become the norm among FGC and
> Beanite Quakers in North America, and among most Quaker groups consisting
> primarily of affluent whites elsewhere in the world. I do believe Iron
Muffin
> is correct in indicating there will be increasing alienation between FUM
and
> these groups of Friends. While this is coming to a head today in
Baltimore YM
> and to some degree other YMs sharing its awkward stance of dual
affiliation
> with FGC and FUM, it is not new. For example, I know of at least one case
a
> number of years ago where FUM sought to work with AFSC on an international
> work camp, but their differences on this issue resulted in that effort to
> cooperate failing.
>
> I would note that Iron Muffin is clearly condemning FUM.
I am most certainly not. Pointing out the flaws in the policies of an
organization is *not* the same thing as condemning the people who make up
that organization.
Wayfarer
must ask me for my email address.> says...
> --
> The Iron Muffin
>
> DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Especially early Dead: Live Dead, Aoxomoxoa, Anthem of the Sun
> Who are you? Where are you?
Neill aka Wayfarer. Alexandria, VA.
> How are you?
Straight and recovering. ;-)
--
Wayfarer
Journeys: http://wayfarer.brinkster.net/contact.asp
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin says...
> > --
> > The Iron Muffin
> >
> > DEAD FREAKS UNITE
>
> Especially early Dead: Live Dead, Aoxomoxoa, Anthem of the Sun
Oh, heavens to Betsy, yes!
> > Who are you? Where are you?
>
> Neill aka Wayfarer. Alexandria, VA.
Greetings. Rami, aka The Iron Muffin. Greenfield, MA.
> > How are you?
>
> Straight and recovering. ;-)
Glad to hear it!
--
The Iron Muffin
DEAD FREAKS UNITE
Who are you? Where are you?
How are you?
Bill Samuel
>
>FUM's policy is, indeed, to discriminate on the grounds of sexual
>orientation. What else would you call excluding gay and lesbian Friends
>from service?
FUM does not exclude gay and lesbian Friends from service. That question was
raised back in 1988, and FUM decided that would be wrong.
FUM does expect its staff to unite with FUM on basic matters of faith and to
follow certain behavioral standards consistent with its understanding of
Christ's call on His disciples. One of those standards is that sex be within
the framework of marriage. This applies to people regardless of sexual
orientation, and the cases I have heard of where staff were dismissed for
violation of that were of heterosexuals. A large majority of people who don't
follow this standard are heterosexual.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > FUM's policy is, indeed, to discriminate on the grounds of
> > sexual orientation. What else would you call excluding gay
> > and lesbian Friends from service?
>
> FUM does not exclude gay and lesbian Friends from service.
> That question was raised back in 1988, and FUM decided
> that would be wrong.
This is not my understanding of FUM's position on homosexual
Friends. According to Marshall Massey in a recent post, "FUM
will not allow anyone in an active gay or lesbian relationship to
serve as paid or volunteer staff..."
This is the very definition of exclusion from service. Is Marshall's
statement incorrect?
> FUM does expect its staff to unite with FUM on basic matters
> of faith and to follow certain behavioral standards consistent
> with its understanding of Christ's call on His disciples. One of
> those standards is that sex be within the framework of marriage.
> This applies to people regardless of sexual orientation, and the
> cases I have heard of where staff were dismissed for violation
> of that were of heterosexuals. A large majority of people who
> don't follow this standard are heterosexual.
Are you aware that gay and lesbian marriage, until very recently,
was illegal in every single one of the United States? It still is
throughout most of the USA, and for FUM to require of its
homosexual members that they be married before sex is to set
an impossible standard, and one that is clearly discriminatory
towards gay and lesbian Friends.
Marshall Massey
>2 mm: "Writing out" is an expression of alienation, symptomatic
>2 : of a relationship that has broken down entirely;
>2 : reconciliation is a thing that occurs again and again in
>2 : any lasting relationship, and is symptomatic of very
>2 : healthy relations.
>2 :
>2 : "Writing out" FUM is what Baltimore YM is moving
>2 : toward; but I am as appalled by "writing out" as you are,
>2 : and I would therefore plead with Baltimore YM to reverse
>2 : its direction and seek reconciliation instead.
Chuck Fager responded,
> cf: This is bosh and piffle, and uninformed besides.
> : Baltimore YM is doing no such thing, as was made explicit
> : in the epistle posted here earlier. I refer interested
> : readers to that post for accurate information.
The epistle in question was accompanied by a cover note from yourself
reporting that Baltimore YM had cut off its five-figure annual
donation to FUM this year. That is an act that will feel like a slap
in the face to people in FUM.
It already appears as a slap in the face to many Friends in this
region who have heard about it from Baltimore YM Friends other than
yourself; I know because those Friends have told me.
Actions that are felt as slaps in the face are steps toward
breaking the relationship. They are not steps toward reconciliation.
David Samuel Myers
> FUM does not exclude gay and lesbian Friends from service. That question was
> raised back in 1988, and FUM decided that would be wrong.
> FUM does expect its staff to unite with FUM on basic matters of faith and to
> follow certain behavioral standards consistent with its understanding of
> Christ's call on His disciples. One of those standards is that sex be within
> the framework of marriage. This applies to people regardless of sexual
> orientation, and the cases I have heard of where staff were dismissed for
> violation of that were of heterosexuals. A large majority of people who don't
> follow this standard are heterosexual.
My focus is on the words "within the framework of marriage."
My interest is in knowing whether FUM will oneday be amenable to the idea
of something like "within the framework of loving monogamous relationships
that have been affirmed committedly in the full view of God."
dsm
Bill Samuel
>
> Its policy is exclusionary and discriminatory.
Here are standard elements of AFSC job announcements:
> Commitment to Quaker values, testimonies and process.
> Understanding of and compatibility with the principles and
> philosophy of the American Friends Service Committee including
> non-violence and the belief in the intrinsic worth of every
> individual.
>
> Understanding of and commitment to the principles, concerns,
> and considerations of AFSC in regard to issues of race, class,
> nationality, religion, age, gender and sexual orientation, and
> disabilities. Demonstrated ability to work and communicate with
> diverse staff.
This is clearly exclusionary and discriminatory. It would exclude
most Americans.
My point is that faith-based organizations normally have exclusionary
and discriminatory personnel policies in order to maintain their
testimonies. I think very few people really object to such policies
being exclusionary and discriminatory.
So I don't believe the objection to the one particular aspect of FUM's
policies which has been brought up is really an objection to FUM being
exclusionary and discriminatory. Rather, it is a difference of
viewpoint about what are the best bases of exclusion and
discrimination.
FUM's faith understanding differs from that of FGC. If certain bodies
of Friends want to affirm the value and legitimacy of different faith
understandings among Quakers, they need to affirm FUM *with* its
different faith understnadings instead of trying to make it mirror FGC
understandings more closely. Alternatively, it is quite legitimate
for a body to decide that the understanding of a larger grouping
differs too much from its own for membership in that larger body to be
appropriate.
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA, bill[at]friendsinchrist.net
http://www.quakerinfo.com/ http://home.comcast.net/~wsamuel/
Friends in Christ, Maryland, USA, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi Monthly Meeting, Baltimore YM (FGC/FUM)
affiliate member, Rockingham Monthly Meeting, Ohio YM (Cons.)
"There is One, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
The Iron Muffin
> Bill Samuel wrote:
Indeed. Thank you for stating my point more clearly than I apparently have,
David.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > Its (FUM's) policy (of excluding homosexual Friends from service)
> > is exclusionary and discriminatory.
<snip>
Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond to the issue of
requiring sexual relations to be only within the context of marriage when
marriage is not an option for most gay and lesbian Friends?
Bill Samuel
>
>Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond to the issue of
>requiring sexual relations to be only within the context of marriage when
>marriage is not an option for most gay and lesbian Friends?
No, I haven't dodged the issue. FUM's policy is clear that it finds sexual
relations outside of marriage, which is defined as being between one man and
one woman, incompatible with service with FUM.
This is the historic Quaker position, and the historic Christian position.
Accept FUM with that policy, or get out of FUM. There is no prospect of that
policy changing within the foreseeable future.
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA bill[at]friendsinchrist.net
http://home.comcast.net/~wsamuel/ http://www.quakerinfo.com/
Internet Ministries Coordinator, Friends in Christ, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition."
Bill Samuel
>
>Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond to the issue of
>requiring sexual relations to be only within the context of marriage when
>marriage is not an option for most gay and lesbian Friends?
>
want. BYM asked FUM two questions, and FUM responded with a yes on the first
one and a no on the second one. The response was clear, but it seemed to be
viewed widely in BYM as non-responsive!
Bill Samuel, Silver Spring, MD, USA bill[at]friendsinchrist.net
http://home.comcast.net/~wsamuel/ http://www.quakerinfo.com/
Internet Ministries Coordinator, Friends in Christ, http://www.friendsinchrist.net/
Member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition."
S McFarlane
"The Iron Muffin" <You must ask me for my email address.> wrote in message
> Bill Samuel wrote:
> > The Iron Muffin wrote:
>
> > > Its (FUM's) policy (of excluding homosexual Friends from service)
> > > is exclusionary and discriminatory.
>
> <snip>
>
> Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond to the issue of
> requiring sexual relations to be only within the context of marriage when
> marriage is not an option for most gay and lesbian Friends?
>
> --
Is it possible to deal with this issue without becoming excessively divisive
and judgemental? I begin to doubt it, especially for those that feel
passionately one way or the other.
For myself, I can only really see for sure that I am to love gay and lesbian
people, Friends or otherwise. Equally, I am to love those that persecute
them. It goes without saying that I am to love those that can't bring
themselves to publicly endorse gay and lesbian lifestyles, and I can't see
how it would be fruitful to browbeat such people in an effort to make them
see the 'right' way.
It is for me very murky how God judges this issue. It is crystal clear that
it is his to judge, not mine, and only he is qualified to do so. It is
equally clear to me that it is unimportant for me to know God's judgement,
as it could not possibly affect what is nevertheless expected of me. Namely
to love my brothers and sisters. Even if they're homosexuals; even if they
are intolerant of homosexuals; even if they are adulterers; even if they
like to cast stones of righteousness at adulterers, etc.
Is the decision to withhold funds any less judgemental than the FUM policies
that prompted that action, and if so how does one calibrate the scales to in
turn judge which is more wrong?
Respectfully,
Scott
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond
> > to the issue of requiring sexual relations to be only within the
> > context of marriage when marriage is not an option for most
> > gay and lesbian Friends?
>
> No, I haven't dodged the issue. FUM's policy is clear that it
> finds sexual relations outside of marriage, which is defined as
> being between one man and one woman, incompatible with
> service with FUM.
Which policy is clearly discriminatory, exclusionary, and divisive.
> This is the historic Quaker position, and the historic Christian position.
It may be historic, but that doesn't make it right.
> Accept FUM with that policy, or get out of FUM. There is
> no prospect of that policy changing within the foreseeable future.
If what you say is true, then I guess FUM doesn't believe in the idea of
continuing revelation, either.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> >Your response seems to me to be a dodge. Will you respond
> > to the issue of requiring sexual relations to be only within the
> > context of marriage when marriage is not an option for most
> > gay and lesbian Friends?
>
> You sound like Baltimore YM.
I have no idea what this means. Would you care to explain?
> Any answer is a dodge if it's not the answer you want.
Nope. *Your* answer was a dodge, because it did not address the issue of
FUM imposing a requirement on gay and lesbian Friends that is quite
literally impossible for them to fulfill.
> BYM asked FUM two questions, and FUM responded with a
> yes on the first one and a no on the second one. The response
> was clear, but it seemed to be viewed widely in BYM as non-
> responsive!
This is meaningless to me, as I have no idea what questions you are talking
about. Again, would you care to explain?
The Iron Muffin
> Is it possible to deal with this issue without becoming excessively
> divisive and judgemental? I begin to doubt it, especially for those
> that feel passionately one way or the other.
>
> For myself, I can only really see for sure that I am to love gay and
> lesbian people, Friends or otherwise.
Agreed.
> Equally, I am to love those that persecute them. It goes without
> saying that I am to love those that can't bring themselves to publicly
> endorse gay and lesbian lifestyles,
Agreed.
> and I can't see how it would be fruitful to browbeat such people in
> an effort to make them see the 'right' way.
Nor can I. However, financially supporting FUM sends a message to them that
their policy is acceptable. For myself and many others, it is not. To
continue to financially support bigotry and prejudice would not be a loving
thing to do, in my opinion.
> It is for me very murky how God judges this issue. It is crystal
> clear that it is his to judge, not mine, and only he is qualified to
> do so. It is equally clear to me that it is unimportant for me to
> know God's judgement, as it could not possibly affect what is
> nevertheless expected of me. Namely to love my brothers and
> sisters. Even if they're homosexuals; even if they are intolerant
> of homosexuals; even if they are adulterers; even if they like to
> cast stones of righteousness at adulterers, etc.
Agreed.
> Is the decision to withhold funds any less judgemental than the
> FUM policies that prompted that action,
Yes. It is a statement that those who withhold the funds will not
financially support bigotry and prejudice rather than an exclusionary,
discriminatory practice.
> and if so how does one calibrate the scales to in turn judge which
> is more wrong?
Nobody should be required to support something that they feel is wrong,
financially or otherwise. Withholding funds from FUM should not be seen as
"wrong" in any way, as it is a statement of loving support for our gay and
lesbian Friends.
The Iron Muffin
(re: FUM's prejudicial, bigoted service policy)
> Accept FUM with that policy, or get out of FUM.
"Our way or the highway", eh?
That doesn't sound particularly Friendly to me.
I have a concern...
Marshall Massey
> tim: "de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from
> : officials in Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear
> : that FUM was not involved in his de-recording.
Perhaps we read things differently. I read -- and therefore write --
with the operating assumption, "innocent until proven guilty".
> tim: ...Your inclusion of the sentence "He is there because
> : most FUM Friends *do* practice reconciliation" would lead
> : me to believe (and, in fact, *did* lead me to believe)
> : that Bales sought reconciliation with FUM *because* they
> : had a hand in his de-recording.
What I meant by that statement was that FUM includes both Friends who
support gay rights and Friends who oppose them, and members of these
groups had no problem accepting one another in Dorlan's case.
>4 mm: You hammer FUM out of a concern for justice, and yet
>4 : this treatment of FUM is not just.
>3tim: Neither is FUM's treatment of non-heterosexual Friends.
>2 mm: Is it your position that two wrongs make a right?
> tim: Is it your position that making a statement such as "I
> : wonder what FUM's position would be on his ministry were
> : he gay" amounts to "hammering"?
What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's case even
after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's response to Dorlan's case
was very good.
> tim: Is it your position that making such a statement is
> : "wrong"?
It feels antagonistic to me, and I believe it is not helpful.
> tim: I don't feel that my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
Maybe you and I use the word "hammering" differently, then.
>2 mm: The need for reconciliation has to do with Baltimore YM's
>2 : relationship with FUM.
> tim: This is not what you said in your initial post.
Well, let me quote my initial post:
>13mm: Perhaps the report [Chuck posted, regarding events at
>3 : Baltimore YM] is misleading at those points. ... But as it
>2 : stands, it looks to my eyes like a real indictment of
>2 : modern Friends' failure to learn how to talk with one
>2 : another, and listen carefully to one another, and work
>2 : things out in love and patience, forgiving our sisters and
>2 : brothers not seven times but seventy times seven.
> tim: Is it your position that Baltimore (or any other) YM
> : should continue to financially support a group that
> : discriminates against non-heterosexual Friends?
It is my personal position that the proper way for Friends (such as
Baltimore YM) to address their perceptions of other Friends' errors
(such as FUM's stance on gays and lesbians) is by going through the
gospel order process, as Friends have done in such cases for over
three centuries.
If one goes through the gospel order process, one doesn't cut off
one's support for the other side until all avenues of reconciliation
have been exhausted. In the present case, though, all avenues of
reconciliation have *not* been exhausted; the minute from Baltimore YM
itself tells us that intervisitation has not been properly tried as
yet, and I wonder whether there might not also be a possibility of
asking in other bodies of Friends (FWCC Friends, perhaps) to help out
as mediators.
>2 mm: The fact that you respond to Dorlan's act of love by
>2 : condemning those he sought to reach out to --
> tim: I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned
> : *itself* by its treatment of gay and lesbian Friends....
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. FUM has not said, "we
condemn ourselves". You, however, have written the above words, which
amount to saying that FUM stands condemned in your eyes. I would call
that, you condemning FUM.
>2 mm: ...even condemning the wrong group of people....
> tim: FUM *doesn't* have an exclusionary and homophobic
> : employment policy now?
I was talking about your act of condemning FUM for EFI's de-recording
of Dorlan Bales. That *was* condemning the wrong group of people.
>2 mm: ...because you failed to get your facts straight before
>2 : passing judgment....
> tim: The lack of clarity in your post contributed in no small
> : way to my facts not being straight.
Friends have not, traditionally, felt it was right to judge first and
then ask clarifying questions afterwards.
>2 mm: -- tells me something about you.
> tim: Oh? And what might that be?
An excellent question. You might wish to ponder the answer.
> tim: If you wish to place blame for the facts not being
> : straight, I suggest that you get off your high horse
> : long enough to look in a mirror.
No doubt I could have spelled things out more carefully. I'll try to
do so in the future.
> tim: And what of those who choose to discriminate against and
> : exclude Friends, as FUM has done?
We can seek to raise their consciousness without alienating them.
That's what I myself have been trying to do.
>3tim: I have had no dealings with them in the past (except they
>3 : somehow got my name and address, and have taken to
>3 : sending me money-begging letters), and I don't envision
>3 : myself having any dealings with them in the future.
>2 mm: On the contrary, friend, you worship at an FUM meeting --
>2 : Mount Toby Monthly Meeting. So you have dealings with
>2 : them every time you go to worship.
> tim: New England Yearly Meeting may be a member of FUM, but
> : that hardly makes Mount Toby MM a "FUM meeting".
It does, in the same way that Massachusetts being part of the United
States makes Leverett, Massachusetts, a U.S. city. You may have
problems with FUM, and with the U.S. too, but that alone doesn't make
the fact of belonging go away.
> tim: I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that we withheld
> : our FUM contribution (or at least considered doing so)
> : this year due to our concerns regarding that body...
What I'm hearing is that there was talk at NE YM about withholding it,
but that it was not actually withheld. If that report was not
correct, I'd appreciate being straightened out.
Marshall Massey
> bs: ...It seems to me the stance of BYM is effectively that
> : FUM must change its policies in order for reconciliation
> : to take place. Regardless of the terminology used, this
> : does not really seem to me to be a reconciliation stance.
I think a reconciliation stance might be something like the following:
"We feel clear that there is truth underlying our position, and that
this truth needs to be respected. But experience teaches us that
there is almost always some measure of truth on *each* side; and we
sincerely desire a solution that will incorporate the truths on both
sides. We ask you to work with us toward this goal, in mutual love."
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > "de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from officials
> > in Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear that FUM
> > was not involved in his de-recording.
>
> Perhaps we read things differently. I read -- and therefore
> write -- with the operating assumption, "innocent until proven
> guilty".
I read and write with the operating assumption, "if it looks like bigotry
and prejudice, walks like bigotry and prejudice, and quacks like bigotry and
prejudice, then it probably *is* bigotry and prejudice." Where were the FUM
officials when it came time to stand in opposition to Bales' de-recording as
a minister?
> > Your inclusion of the sentence "He is there because most
> > FUM Friends *do* practice reconciliation" would lead me
> > to believe (and, in fact, *did* lead me to believe)> that
> > Bales sought reconciliation with FUM *because* they
> > had a hand in his de-recording.
>
> What I meant by that statement was that FUM includes both
> Friends who support gay rights and Friends who oppose them,
> and members of these groups had no problem accepting one
> another in Dorlan's case.
But if you're gay or lesbian, you can pretty much forget about acceptance
from FUM.
> > Is it your position that making a statement such as "I wonder
> > what FUM's position would be on his ministry were he gay"
> > amounts to "hammering"?
>
> What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's
> case even after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's response
> to Dorlan's case was very good.
There is still a worm in the apple. Would you prefer that I just ignore it
and take a great big bite?
> > Is it your position that making such a statement is "wrong"?
>
> It feels antagonistic to me, and I believe it is not helpful.
It is a questioning, a seeking after truth. Is this not helpful?
> > I don't feel that my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
>
> Maybe you and I use the word "hammering" differently, then.
Apparently we do, and I think that your characterization of my statement as
"hammering" is unjust.
> > The need for reconciliation has to do with Baltimore YM's
> > relationship with FUM.
>
> > This is not what you said in your initial post.
>
> Well, let me quote my initial post:
Your language at the time was unclear and misleading. I understand what you
were saying now.
> > Is it your position that Baltimore (or any other) YM should
> > continue to financially support a group that discriminates
> > against non-heterosexual Friends?
>
> It is my personal position that the proper way for Friends (such as
> Baltimore YM) to address their perceptions of other Friends' errors
> (such as FUM's stance on gays and lesbians) is by going through the
> gospel order process, as Friends have done in such cases for over
> three centuries.
>
> If one goes through the gospel order process, one doesn't cut off
> one's support for the other side until all avenues of reconciliation
> have been exhausted. In the present case, though, all avenues of
> reconciliation have *not* been exhausted; the minute from Baltimore
> YM itself tells us that intervisitation has not been properly tried as
> yet, and I wonder whether there might not also be a possibility of
> asking in other bodies of Friends (FWCC Friends, perhaps) to help
> out as mediators.
You're asking Friends to continue to financially support something that they
feel is wrong while going through the gospel order process. Withdrawing
financial support is not tantamount to cutting ties completely, nor
abandoning the other side, nor abandoning the process of gospel order. It
is refusing to fund bigotry and prejudice.
> > The fact that you respond to Dorlan's act of love by condemning
> > those he sought to reach out to --
>
> > I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned *itself*
> > by its treatment of gay and lesbian Friends....
>
> I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. FUM has not said, "we
> condemn ourselves".
Nor did I say, "I condemn FUM".
> You, however, have written the above words, which amount to saying
> that FUM stands condemned in your eyes. I would call that, you
> condemning FUM.
I would call it me condemning the discriminatory, exclusionary policy of
excluding gay and lesbian Friends from service.
> > even condemning the wrong group of people....
>
> > FUM *doesn't* have an exclusionary and homophobic employment
> > policy now?
>
> I was talking about your act of condemning FUM for EFI's de-recording
> of Dorlan Bales. That *was* condemning the wrong group of people.
Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand in opposition to
Bales' de-recording as a minister?
> > because you failed to get your facts straight before passing
judgment....
>
> > The lack of clarity in your post contributed in no small way to my facts
> > not being straight.
>
> Friends have not, traditionally, felt it was right to judge first and then
ask
> clarifying questions afterwards.
Your post *seemed* to be quite clear at the time. Only after I responded
did you feel it necessary to clarify what you *actually* meant by your
unclear words.
> > -- tells me something about you.
>
> > Oh? And what might that be?
>
> An excellent question. You might wish to ponder the answer.
You might wish to answer the question. Or you might not: Either way, it
doesn't make a bit of difference to me how you have judged me for standing
against the unfair treatment of homosexual Friends by FUM.
> > If you wish to place blame for the facts not being straight, I suggest
that
> > you get off your high horse long enough to look in a mirror.
>
> No doubt I could have spelled things out more carefully. I'll try to do
so
> in the future.
Thank you.
> > And what of those who choose to discriminate against and exclude
Friends,
> > as FUM has done?
>
> We can seek to raise their consciousness without alienating them. That's
what
> I myself have been trying to do.
That is a great idea, but I would add that we can refuse to fund their
bigotry and prejudice as well.
> > New England Yearly Meeting may be a member of FUM, but that hardly
> > makes Mount Toby MM a "FUM meeting".
>
> It does, in the same way that Massachusetts being part of the United
States
> makes Leverett, Massachusetts, a U.S. city. You may have problems with
> FUM, and with the U.S. too, but that alone doesn't make the fact of
belonging
> go away.
I find it to be deceptive that you selectively edited out my statement that
Mount Toby MM is also a member of FGC, and that we would more properly be
characterized as an "FGC meeting". In point of fact, MTMM's ties with FGC
are far stronger (we hosted several campers as well as providing meeting
space for committees, and many volunteers for, this year's FGC
gathering...which was held at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
less than 10 miles from the meetinghouse) than our ties with FUM.
In point of fact, MTMM would, indeed, be more properly characterized as an
FGC meeting than as an FUM meeting.
> > I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that we withheld our FUM
contribution
> > (or at least considered doing so) this year due to our concerns
regarding that
> > body...
>
> What I'm hearing is that there was talk at NE YM about withholding it, but
that
> it was not actually withheld. If that report was not correct, I'd
appreciate being
> straightened out.
I cannot speak for NEYM. There was talk at Mount Toby Monthly Meeting about
withholding our financial support of FUM, but it was not actually withheld.
Bill Samuel
>
>If what you say is true, then I guess FUM doesn't believe in the idea of
>continuing revelation, either.
It does. It doesn't tend to accept the liberal idea of meaning changing
revelation by the term continuing revelation, which is directly contradictory
to the early Friends understanding that God is consistent in His revelation.
Bill Samuel
>
>This is meaningless to me, as I have no idea what questions you are talking
>about. Again, would you care to explain?
BYM asked FUM "to confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual gifts
without regard to sexual orientation or whether Friends are in same gender
relationships." Notice the leading question.
FUM responded, "We do confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual gifts
without regard to sexual orientation, however, we do not confirm that leaders
are chosen without regard to whether they are in same gender relationships."
Bill Samuel
>"Our way or the highway", eh?
>
>That doesn't sound particularly Friendly to me.
It's just a matter of choosing associations based on agreement on principles.
Why belong to Young Americans for Freedom if you are a left Democrat, and then
ask YAF to change to your principles?
I think it is clear when we make parallels outside of Friends. People's
vision often gets fogged when the matter gets close to them.
Bill Samuel
>
>I think a reconciliation stance might be something like the following:
>"We feel clear that there is truth underlying our position, and that
>this truth needs to be respected. But experience teaches us that
>there is almost always some measure of truth on *each* side; and we
>sincerely desire a solution that will incorporate the truths on both
>sides. We ask you to work with us toward this goal, in mutual love."
Sometimes differences are irreconciliable. The sensible, and I think loving,
thing to do then is recognize the differences and move on. Sometimes
"dialogue" becomes a means of embittering people on both sides.
In this case, I do not believe either side is going to change its views in the
foreseeable future. So rather than one party keep seeking to labor with the
other party on this (this is a one-way deal since FUM has not sought to change
BYM), it seems to me to be the better course to move on, separately if
necessary.
As I indicated before, I do not believe the current issue is by any means the
most important thing separating the two sides. They differ on the very
fundamentals of faith. While both sides carry the name of Friends, they have
very different faith understandings. Granted BYM does not have a clear,
explicit faith understanding, but the direction in which the bulk of the YM
has gone is fairly clear, it seems to me, and it is directly contradictory to
FUM's faith understanding.
If they had the same or similar faith understandings, I would favor laboring
over the instant issue. But they don't, and thus talk past other, because
they don't have a common faith basis on which to dialogue about it.
Bill Samuel
>Where were the FUM
>officials when it came time to stand in opposition to Bales' de-recording as
>a minister?
FUM folks are not involved in the deliberations of EFI yearly meetings.
>It is a questioning, a seeking after truth. Is this not helpful?
Your whole tack in this thread has been that you know the truth, and that
anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot. I do not call this seeking after
truth. You seem totally closed to the possibility that FUM could have
correctly discerned the will of God in this matter.
>I find it to be deceptive that you selectively edited out my statement that
>Mount Toby MM is also a member of FGC, and that we would more properly be
>characterized as an "FGC meeting". In point of fact, MTMM's ties with FGC
>are far stronger (we hosted several campers as well as providing meeting
>space for committees, and many volunteers for, this year's FGC
>gathering...which was held at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst,
>less than 10 miles from the meetinghouse) than our ties with FUM.
>
>In point of fact, MTMM would, indeed, be more properly characterized as an
>FGC meeting than as an FUM meeting.
There is de jure and de facto. De jure, the dually affiliated yearly meetings
and all constituent monthly meetings are equally FUM and FGC meetings. De
facto, many of the monthly meetings relate strongly to FGC while most of their
members have severe reservations about FUM. They are FGC meetings de facto.
I maintain that one has a real problem when the de jure and de facto are far
apart. I believe it would be more consistent with the Quaker integrity
testimony if those meetings who are not in unity with FUM's faith
understandings and policies no longer maintained they were part of FUM. I am
not for separation for separation's sake. I am for separation when that is
the most honest course.
Ian Davis
Bill Samuel <bi...@friendsinchrist.net> wrote:
>In article <cJWdnepIla0...@comcast.com>, "The Iron Muffin" <You
>must ask me for my email address.> wrote:
>>
>>This is meaningless to me, as I have no idea what questions you are talking
>>about. Again, would you care to explain?
>
>BYM asked FUM "to confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual gifts
>without regard to sexual orientation or whether Friends are in same gender
>relationships." Notice the leading question.
>
>FUM responded, "We do confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual gifts
>without regard to sexual orientation, however, we do not confirm that leaders
>are chosen without regard to whether they are in same gender relationships."
>
This seems to be walking a very fine logical line indeed, reading that either
way people wish to :-). If as implied choice of leaders may be predicated
in part on the issue of them being in a same gender relationship, since there
is a refusal to say it isn't, then this at first glance would appear to be
choosing for or against with regard to sexual orientation. The only way
I can make these two statements jive is either to conclude:
a) The issue of whether one is in a same gender relationship is irrelevant to
ones spiritual gifts. People are judged on their spiritual gifts, and
when judged equally on these, then judged on other issues, which may or
may not include ones preferred gender relations.
or
b) People in same gender relationships necessarily lack all spiritual gifts
and so the choosing on the basis of spiritual gifts is possible without
regard to sexual orientation, because those in the same gender relations
will never be considered to have any spiritual gifts.
Two such contradictory interpretations stemming from the FUM response, seem
to beg further clarification. In particular which is to be master and which
slave here; ones spiritual gifts, or ones interactions with others.
Ian
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> >If what you say is true, then I guess FUM doesn't believe in the idea of
> >continuing revelation, either.
>
> It does. It doesn't tend to accept the liberal idea of meaning changing
> revelation by the term continuing revelation, which is directly
contradictory
> to the early Friends understanding that God is consistent in His
revelation.
Early Friends this, historic Friends that.
What canst THOU say?
Do *you* believe that Jesus would approve of FUM's bigotry and prejudice?
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> >This is meaningless to me, as I have no idea what questions you are
talking
> >about. Again, would you care to explain?
>
> BYM asked FUM "to confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual gifts
> without regard to sexual orientation or whether Friends are in same gender
> relationships." Notice the leading question.
>
> FUM responded, "We do confirm that leaders are chosen based on spiritual
gifts
> without regard to sexual orientation, however, we do not confirm that
leaders
> are chosen without regard to whether they are in same gender
relationships."
In other words, FUM wants to continue to discriminate against homosexual
Friends.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> >"Our way or the highway", eh?
> >
> >That doesn't sound particularly Friendly to me.
>
> It's just a matter of choosing associations based on agreement
> on principles.
It's downright unFriendly.
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand
> > in opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
>
> FUM folks are not involved in the deliberations of EFI yearly
> meetings.
What I am given to understand is that BYM is a member of both FUM and EFI.
How could Bales be de-recorded as a minister in a joint FUM/EFI meeting
without FUM having anything to say about it?
> > It is a questioning, a seeking after truth. Is this not helpful?
>
> Your whole tack in this thread has been that you know the
> truth, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a bigot.
In your view. And my view that your tack has been to attack what I see as
truth without even once considering that it might, indeed, be truth.
> I do not call this seeking after truth.
Call it whatever you like: That does not make it any less of a seeking
after truth.
> You seem totally closed to the possibility that FUM could
> have correctly discerned the will of God in this matter.
To me, god's will in this matter is quite clear: FUM's policy is wrong. I
don't believe that god is a bigot. Nor do I believe that god would have us
discriminate against our non-heterosexual Friends.
> > I find it to be deceptive that you selectively edited out my
> > statement that Mount Toby MM is also a member of FGC,
> > and that we would more properly be characterized as an
> > "FGC meeting". In point of fact, MTMM's ties with FGC
> > are far stronger (we hosted several campers as well as
> > providing meeting space for committees, and many
> > volunteers for, this year's FGC gathering...which was held
> > at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, less than 10
> > miles from the meetinghouse) than our ties with FUM.
> >
> > In point of fact, MTMM would, indeed, be more properly
> > characterized as an FGC meeting than as an FUM meeting.
>
> There is de jure and de facto. De jure, the dually affiliated
> yearly meetings and all constituent monthly meetings are equally
> FUM and FGC meetings. De facto, many of the monthly
> meetings relate strongly to FGC while most of their members
> have severe reservations about FUM. They are FGC meetings
> de facto.
Mount Toby MM is an example of this kind of meeting.
> I maintain that one has a real problem when the de jure and de
> facto are far apart. I believe it would be more consistent with
> the Quaker integrity testimony if those meetings who are not in
> unity with FUM's faith understandings and policies no longer
> maintained they were part of FUM. I am not for separation for
> separation's sake. I am for separation when that is the most
> honest course.
We agree on at least this one point. Rest assured, the issue is being
addressed at Mount Toby Friends Meeting.
Marshall Massey
> dsm: My interest is in knowing whether FUM will oneday be
> : amenable to the idea of something like "within the
> : framework of loving monogamous relationships that have
> : been affirmed committedly in the full view of God."
I think the answer is, "It's possible, but it will take time and
patience and *gracious* (not combative or judgmental) effort".
Actually, this is the same issue Guy/"Engineer"/"Lurker" has had
so much trouble with -- the issue of allowing corporate discernment to
alter one's own ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Baltimore
YM and "The Iron Muffin" want corporate discernment to alter FUM's
ideas of what is right and what is wrong, but are horrified at the
idea of letting it alter their own. Conversely, the EFI crowd, the
African FUM yearly meetings, and at least one U.S. FUM yearly meeting,
want corporate discernment to alter the liberals' ideas of what is
right and what is wrong, but are horrified at the idea of letting it
to alter *their* own.
It's a case of, everyone can see a truth that the other guy is
overlooking, but cannot see any truth that he himself is
overlooking --
Marshall Massey
> bs: ...I don't believe the objection to the one particular
> : aspect of FUM's policies which has been brought up is
> : really an objection to FUM being exclusionary and
> : discriminatory. Rather, it is a difference of viewpoint
> : about what are the best bases of exclusion and
> : discrimination.
I think this is absolutely correct, and an excellent point.
> bs: If certain bodies of Friends want to affirm the value and
> : legitimacy of different faith understandings among
> : Quakers, they need to affirm FUM *with* its different
> : faith understnadings instead of trying to make it mirror
> : FGC understandings more closely.
Again, an excellent point.
> bs: Alternatively, it is quite legitimate for a body to decide
> : that the understanding of a larger grouping differs too
> : much from its own for membership in that larger body to be
> : appropriate.
This point I'm afraid I have some problems with.
The question in my mind is: do Friends on both sides still hold
to faith in the God of *shalom*, and desire to follow the path that
leads to the Peaceable Kingdom? If so, then Friends on both sides
must be willing to practice that path amongst themselves, and learn
how to be together as loving family members. If not, then they might
as well quit all this hypocritical preaching to the nations about the
importance of making peace, for they are cultivating the poisons of
hatred and division and lack of forgiveness, the very things that
cause violence and warfare, in their own breasts.
Marshall Massey
> bs: FUM's policy is clear that it finds sexual relations
> : outside of marriage, which is defined as being between one
> : man and one woman, incompatible with service with FUM.
Yes.
> bs: This is the historic Quaker position, and the historic
> : Christian position.
But that's not quite true.
First, as regards the historic Christian position, there are
apparently records of clergy performing same-sex marriages in the
Middle Ages. And I personally think a solid case can be made that
Paul's statements regarding gay sex have been taken out of context,
and given a meaning they were not intended to have, by modern
Christians who believe the New Testament forbids same-sex marriages.
Second, although the historic Quaker position is that the Middle
Ages were an era of apostacy, nonetheless, early and traditional
Friends themselves departed from early church custom on points where
they felt they had a clearer understanding of Christ's actual intent
and God's true will -- as in regard to water baptism, communion in
outward elements, and tolerance of slavery.
FUM itself continues to oppose slavery and to refrain from
requiring water baptism or communion in outward elements, despite the
early Church's practice of all three. A careful reconsideration of
the thrust of New Testament teachings, and their implications for our
practice today, would therefore not be out of keeping with prior
Quaker practice, even in FUM.
> bs: Accept FUM with that policy, or get out of FUM. There is
> : no prospect of that policy changing within the foreseeable
> : future.
I just cannot agree. All things are possible with God; and we are
obliged to work for our own convincement and redemption and for the
convincement and redemption of our brothers and sisters, no matter
how unnecessary the former or how hopeless the latter may seem to us.
To say, as you do, that it is acceptable for the two sides to separate
before either side reforms, seems to me a variety of pleading for sin.
Marshall Massey
> sm: Is it possible to deal with this issue without becoming
> : excessively divisive and judgemental?
Yes, I think so.
> sm: I begin to doubt it, especially for those that feel
> : passionately one way or the other.
Passion is a problem in any issue, not just this one. To have clear
leadings about truths that need to be respected is one thing -- a good
thing that leads to problem-solving. To be passionate that "my side
is right" is another thing entirely, which leads to things like civil
wars over slavery and civil wars over communism.
> sm: It is crystal clear that it is his to judge, not mine, and
> : only he is qualified to do so. It is equally clear to me
> : that it is unimportant for me to know God's judgement, as
> : it could not possibly affect what is nevertheless expected
> : of me. Namely to love my brothers and sisters. Even if
> : they're homosexuals; even if they are intolerant of
> : homosexuals; even if they are adulterers; even if they
> : like to cast stones of righteousness at adulterers, etc.
I am in unity with every word of this.
> sm: Is the decision to withhold funds any less judgemental
> : than the FUM policies that prompted that action...?
It seems to me that they are different *kinds* of judgmentalism.
As regards FUM policies, one certainly does need some sort of
standards to determine who is best suited to represent one's faith in
a positive way; FUM has here chosen a standard that appears both in
I Timothy 3:2 and in the doctrinal writings of George Fox, and that
therefore represents faithfulness to God and early Christianity and
Quakerism in its eyes. This decision is one I find eminently
understandable, even though I personally think it misses the mark
(since FGC staff and volunteers do not fill a bishop's role) and is
gratuitously hurtful.
As regards Baltimore's decision to withhold funds, that is not in
accord with anything I can find in the teachings or spirit of early
Christianity or early Quakerism. Christ disagreed with the temple
cult in Jerusalem at least as strongly as Baltimore disagrees with
FUM, and yet Christ praised the widow who contributed her mite to the
temple's coffers. What Baltimore is doing is rather the sort of thing
that the Puritans used to do, and that the Christian Right does --
reacting to a perceived wrong act, not with loving ministry as Christ
did, but with an impulse to reject and punish. Beginning with
Christ's refusal to reject or stone the woman taken in adultery, early
Christians and early Friends were generally reluctant to practice this
punitive sort of Puritanism and repeatedly spoke out against it:
...The apostle warns believers, to take heed of drawing one
another on too fast, or of judging one another in such
things as some of them might have light in, others not. ...
Even in the apostles' days, Christians were too apt to
strive after a wrong unity and uniformity in outward
practices and observations, and to judge one another
unrighteously in those things; and mark, it is not the
different practice from one another that breaks the peace
and unity, but the judging of one another because of
different practices.
-- Isaac Penington, *An Examination of the
Grounds or Causes which are said to induce
the Court of Boston, in New England, to make
that order or law of banishment upon pain of
death against the Quakers* (1659 or 1660)
They have a Right to censure, that have a *Heart* to help:
The rest is Cruelty, not Justice.
-- William Penn, *Some Fruits of Solitude in
Reflections and Maxims* (1693)
Cmgreenlnd
>addressed at Mount Toby Friends Meeting.
>
And will come to New England YM in due course, as it did this summer when there
was no unity. True unity in the Spirit will take several years. If true unity
isn't sought, the Yearly Meeting will cease to be united, because some Friends
(including those now working closely with FUM) would feel that they had no
support from their Yearly Meeting.
The problem with a centrist organization is that both extremes threaten to pick
up their toys and go home if things don't go as they think it should.
(Marshall's thought, augmented by my personal observation) This happened when
Friends Church Southwest -- over the objections of at least two consitituent
Monthly Meetings left FUM for EFI. I see the same scenario playing out in the
dually affiliated YMs. This is the tag-end of the realignment controversy.
Perhaps Steve Main was 15 years ahead of his time. The issues haven't gone
away.
I wonder
1) if things are so polarized that any centrist organization has no place
and
2) whether there is still a place for me among Friends should FUM cease to
exist. Probably not. I am at heart a centrist who does not feel particularly at
home either in FGC or EFI meetings.
Loving neighbor as self -- the theme of this year's New England YM -- is a tall
order, particularly when Friends have differing understandings.
I'm not necessarily in unity with the FUM policy, but that is set by the board,
to which all the dually affiliated YMs sent representatives. That's where any
policy will change.
The ten or so staff in Richmond, Indiana (not all Friends, by the way) are all
good people, who do good work for Friends. So are those (including a family
from New England YM) who will soon take up additional responsibilities in Kenya
and elsewhere in Jamaica, Central America and Africa.
Among the 40 or so staff of Philadelphia YM, not all are Friends, either. There
is a bit more obvious diversity in race and sexual orientation than there was
25 years ago. Were I to seek employment there, I'm the wrong sexual
orientation, the wrong race and the wrong age, alas!
Now if all of us were to go back to "free Gospel ministry" and eschew the cadre
of "professional" Friends, perhaps we'd all be better off. This would mean no
paid staff and no pastors (in New England and elsewhere.) It would mean that
the Monthly Meetings would need to provide for the needs of those released for
service to the Yearly Meeting or other organization.
For New England, that would mean that there would be no field secretary, no
youth worker and no pastoral ministers. For Indiana YM, that would mean that
there would be no pastoral ministers, no superintendent, no youth workers, no
camp staff. For Philadelphia YM, it would mean that the 40 or so people on
staff (including Quarterly Meeting Coordinators) would be released from their
responsibilities and the responsibilities again assumed by members of Monthly
and Quarterly Meetings. It would also mean that FUM, FGC and EFI offices would
be run by volunteers, NOT paid staff.
And it would mean that each body, YM or umbrella group, would need to determine
for itself what "keeping one's behavior beyond reproach" might mean. That was
early Friends' advise to ministers and elders. It seems to me that is the basic
question.
Christine M. Greenland
"Give over thine own willing, give over thy own running, give over thine own
desiring to know or be anything and sink down to the seed which God sows in the
heart." Isaac Penington
The Iron Muffin
> Actually, this is the same issue Guy/"Engineer"/"Lurker" has had
> so much trouble with -- the issue of allowing corporate discernment to
> alter one's own ideas of what is right and what is wrong. Baltimore
> YM and "The Iron Muffin" want corporate discernment to alter FUM's
> ideas of what is right and what is wrong, but are horrified at the
> idea of letting it alter their own.
Wrong. I have no problem with corporate discernment. I simply don't
believe that god wants us to be bigots.
Bill Samuel
> First, as regards the historic Christian position, there are
>apparently records of clergy performing same-sex marriages in the
>Middle Ages. And I personally think a solid case can be made that
That's a quite strained interpretation of what the records actually show. I
haven't kept the arguments on both sides I have seen, but it seemed to me the
reasoning of those who say that's not what the records show was much stronger.
Bill Samuel
> As regards Baltimore's decision to withhold funds, that is not in
It should be pointed out again that Baltimore YM has not yet made a decision
with regard to withholding funds from FUM. Marshall keeps writing as if the
decision has been made.
It comes up next at Fall Interim Meeting in October. To date, there has not
been unity on the right course of action with respect to funding FUM.
Bill Samuel
>
>2) whether there is still a place for me among Friends should FUM cease to
>exist. Probably not. I am at heart a centrist who does not feel particularly at
>home either in FGC or EFI meetings.
My understanding is that you are a member of a meeting which is FGC only. Am
I mistaken? Are you still a member of Horsham in Philadelphia YM?
Both FGC and EFI meetings vary considerably. There are certainly EFI
meetings, particularly in Northwest YM, which could be regarded as centrist.
Should FUM cease to exist, presumably member meetings not already otherwise
affiliated would mostly affiliate with one of the remaining larger groupings.
Likely most pastoral meetings would affiliate with EFI, and the centrist
tendency in it would be much strengthened.
I don't know if this is what will happen. It does seem clear to me that
realignment is taking place, not in one fell swoop as was proposed in the
early 90's, but over time. It is not at all clear to me what things might
look like in another 2-3 decades when most of this may have sorted itself out.
It is possible that the dually affiliated YMs will leave FUM in a much shorter
time frame than that, but if so, I wouldn't expect that to cause a larger
realignment immediately.
In fact, it might open the door for a truly centrist yearly meeting covering
your area, which doesn't exist now. This could consist of Christ-centered
non-EFI meetings falling out of Baltimore, New York and New England yearly
meetings should they disaffiliate with FUM, plus meetings from Philadelphia YM
and independents.
Cmgreenlnd
Yes, I'm still at Horsham, which is in an FGC-only Yearly Meeting. Several of
us feel feel out of place within our Yearly Meeting at times.
I sojourned at West Richmond Friends for a few years, and miss contacts with
FUM. Had I not found a spiritual home at Horsham and nearby Meetings, with
Friends who, like me, had considerable contacts with both FUM and EFI, I
probably would have left Friends 20 years ago.
I became a member of Friends in a Yearly Meeting (Canadian) that has components
of Conservative and Evangelical.Friends, as well as FUM and FGC. I miss that
diversity, and the ability of Canadian Friends to hold their differences
lightly.
Ian Davis
Cmgreenlnd <cmgre...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote:
>Dear Bill --
>
>Yes, I'm still at Horsham, which is in an FGC-only Yearly Meeting. Several of
>us feel feel out of place within our Yearly Meeting at times.
>
>I sojourned at West Richmond Friends for a few years, and miss contacts with
>FUM. Had I not found a spiritual home at Horsham and nearby Meetings, with
>Friends who, like me, had considerable contacts with both FUM and EFI, I
>probably would have left Friends 20 years ago.
>
>I became a member of Friends in a Yearly Meeting (Canadian) that has components
>of Conservative and Evangelical.Friends, as well as FUM and FGC. I miss that
>diversity, and the ability of Canadian Friends to hold their differences
>lightly.
>
It was a side effect of politics that made Canadians connect with the
"strength through diversity theme". The world would probably be the better
if this was a more general battle cry.
Ian
Marshall Massey
>3tim: "de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from
>3 : officials in Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear
>3 : that FUM was not involved in his de-recording.
I responded,
>2 mm: Perhaps we read things differently. I read -- and
>2 : therefore write -- with the operating assumption,
>2 : "innocent until proven guilty".
"TIM" then wrote,
> tim: I read and write with the operating assumption, "if it
> : looks like bigotry and prejudice, walks like bigotry and
> : prejudice, and quacks like bigotry and prejudice, then it
> : probably *is* bigotry and prejudice."
Except it wasn't. And by your hasty judgment that it was, you judged
and condemned people (the officials of FUM) who'd done nothing wrong.
> tim: Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand in
> : opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
Giving him a loving home in FUM, as I've already said. They had the
wisdom not to try to interfere in the affairs of his local meeting,
but they gave him yearly-meeting level and national-level support at
a critical juncture both for FUM and for him. It's partly because
they did so that Great Plains YM (FUM) is the wonderful place it is
today.
> tim: But if you're gay or lesbian, you can pretty much forget
> : about acceptance from FUM.
That's not true. I can think of five FUM yearly meetings in North
America where you will be accepted, and some others where there are at
least some local meetings (maybe many) that will accept you.
>3tim: Is it your position that making a statement such as "I
>3 : wonder what FUM's position would be on his ministry were
>3 : he gay" amounts to "hammering"?
>2 mm: What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's
>2 : case even after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's
>2 : response to Dorlan's case was very good.
> tim: There is still a worm in the apple. Would you prefer that
> : I just ignore it and take a great big bite?
Is that what "hammering" means to you?
>3tim: Is it your position that making such a statement is
>3 : "wrong"?
>2 mm: It feels antagonistic to me, and I believe it is not
> : helpful.
> tim: It is a questioning, a seeking after truth. Is this not
> : helpful?
There's a way to seek truth that builds peace, and another way to do
so that feeds anger and alienation. Only the former way is consistent
with Quakerism.
>3tim: I don't feel that my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
>2 mm: Maybe you and I use the word "hammering" differently,
> : then.
> tim: Apparently we do, and I think that your characterization
> : of my statement as "hammering" is unjust.
Could that be because you persist in believing that I was using your
definition of the word, even though I have already made it clear
that I was using a different one --?
> tim: You're asking Friends to continue to financially support
> : something that they feel is wrong while going through
> : the gospel order process.
They feel the administration of central offices for FUM, and the
operation of FUM programs addressing the needs of the poor and
carrying our gospel to the far corners of the world, are wrong? I
find that hard to believe. But that's what's supported with the money
they contribute, and that's what's hurt when they withhold funds.
Their quarrel's not with the programs their money supports, but
with the bias in the hiring process. Withholding money doesn't
correct that bias, it just diminishes the scale of the programs. If
you want to *correct* the bias, you do so not by teaching the people
with the bias how to love their sisters and brothers. And you don't
teach people how to love by punitive means.
> tim: Withdrawing financial support is not tantamount to cutting
> : ties completely, nor abandoning the other side....
No, but it is a step in that direction -- a cutting of *financial*
ties, an abandoning of *financial* support.
> tim: ...nor abandoning the process of gospel order.
Yes, it is abandoning the process of gospel order. That's the central
point *I* am hammering on in this thread. The process of gospel order
requires exploring all possible avenues of reconciliation *first*,
*before* cutting any ties -- and that has not been done.
I suggest you read Sandra Cronk's *Gospel Order. A Quaker
Understanding of Faithful Church Community* (Pendle Hill Pamphlet 297,
1991).
> tim: It is refusing to fund bigotry and prejudice.
It's refusing to fund church services and charities. The bigotry and
prejudice in FUM is not funded by the organization; it is donated free
of charge to the organization by people on either side of the debate.
>3tim: I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned
>3 : *itself*....
>2 mm: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. FUM has not
>2 : said, "we condemn ourselves". You, however, have written
>2 : the above words, which amount to saying that FUM stands
>2 : condemned in your eyes.
> tim: Nor did I say, "I condemn FUM".
> :
> : I would call it me condemning the discriminatory,
> : exclusionary policy of excluding gay and lesbian Friends
> : from service.
I notice that just yesterday you called people who support FUM's
policy "bigots", and said God would never want us to be like them.
That's not just judging and condemning the policy, it's judging and
condemning the people. Which was the point.
> tim: Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand
> : in opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
Giving him a loving home in FUM, as I've already said.
> tim: I find it to be deceptive that you selectively edited out
> : my statement that Mount Toby MM is also a member of FGC,
> : and that we would more properly be characterized as an
> : "FGC meeting".
I was making a point about your relationship to FUM, not about your
relationship to FGC, and I was seeking brevity. There was no intent
to deceive.
> tim: In point of fact, MTMM's ties with FGC are far stronger....
I don't doubt it. That doesn't stop it from being an FUM meeting as
well.
Marshall Massey
>3 bs: FUM's policy is clear that it finds sexual relations
>3 : outside of marriage, which is defined as being between one
>3 : man and one woman, incompatible with service with FUM.
>3 :
>3 : This is the historic Quaker position, and the historic
>3 : Christian position.
>3 :
>3 : Accept FUM with that policy, or get out of FUM.
"The Iron Muffin" replied,
>2tim: "Our way or the highway", eh?
>2 :
>2 : That doesn't sound particularly Friendly to me.
Bill answers,
> bs: It's just a matter of choosing associations based on
> : agreement on principles.
> :
> : Why belong to Young Americans for Freedom if you are a
> : left Democrat, and then ask YAF to change to your
> : principles?
> :
> : I think it is clear when we make parallels outside of
> : Friends.
Well, it seems to me that Friends are called to unite, not on the
basis of principles (which are all too often merely human, biased, and
short-sighted), but on the basis of the living Christ.
And if that is the case, then the YAF/left Democrat comparison
doesn't work.
Marshall Massey
>2 mm: I think a reconciliation stance might be something like
>2 : the following: "We feel clear that there is truth
>2 : underlying our position, and that this truth needs to be
>2 : respected. But experience teaches us that there is almost
>2 : always some measure of truth on *each* side; and we
>2 : sincerely desire a solution that will incorporate the
>2 : truths on both sides. We ask you to work with us toward
>2 : this goal, in mutual love."
Bill Samuel responds,
> bs: Sometimes differences are irreconciliable.
If that were truly the case, Isaiah's Peaceable Kingdom vision would
be unattainable. If that were truly the case, Christ was wrong to
tell his hearers that the Kingdom was "at hand" (i.e., within reach),
and Paul was wrong to tell the Colossians that although they had once
been "alienated and enemies", God had reconciled them, provided only
that they continue in the faith.
Yes, continuing in the faith (that is, in trust in Christ) is an
important proviso; but if we do that, why should we believe that
differences are irreconcilable? Christ our teacher can show us how to
reconcile, if we will trust him to lead us.
I agree with you, Bill, that Baltimore's program of "seeking to
labor with the other party on this" is wrong-headed, but as I see it,
it is wrong-headed because Baltimore seems willing only to change the
other side and not to be changed itself.
> bs: As I indicated before, I do not believe the current issue
> : is by any means the most important thing separating the
> : two sides. They differ on the very fundamentals of faith.
I agree with you that they have deep differences, and that this is an
important fact. But IMHO the *relevant* fundamentals of faith are the
direct experience of the living Christ and the gathered community's
access to God's revealed will, and these are things that Baltimore and
FUM have in common.
> bs: If they had the same or similar faith understandings, I
> : would favor laboring over the instant issue. But they
> : don't, and thus talk past other....
Yes, that's a very serious problem. But the solution is to stop
basing their faith on "understandings", which when taken as a basis of
faith makes Quakerism into just another form of will-worship, and
start basing it on trust in the Teacher and willingness to be
straightened out by Him.
Marshall Massey
> bs: There is de jure and de facto. De jure, the dually
> : affiliated yearly meetings and all constituent monthly
> : meetings are equally FUM and FGC meetings. De facto, many
> : of the monthly meetings relate strongly to FGC while most
> : of their members have severe reservations about FUM. They
> : are FGC meetings de facto.
> :
> : I maintain that one has a real problem when the de jure
> : and de facto are far apart. I believe it would be more
> : consistent with the Quaker integrity testimony if those
> : meetings who are not in unity with FUM's faith
> : understandings and policies no longer maintained they were
> : part of FUM. I am not for separation for separation's
> : sake. I am for separation when that is the most honest
> : course.
I think the problem that I have with this position might best be
illustrated by comparing it with Christ's conversation with the woman
at the well:
Jesus said to her, "Go, call your husband, and come here."
The woman answered and said, "I have no husband."
Jesus said to her, "You have well said, 'I have no
husband,' for you have had five husbands, and the one whom
you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly."
-- John 4:16-18
"The one you now have is not your husband." "The one she now had" was
one she was obviously "relating strongly" to. And yet he was not her
*de jure* husband for all of that, but only her *de facto* husband.
And so Christ did not regard him as her "husband" at all.
It would seem, then, that Christ was inclined to give *de jure*
substantially more weight than the people around him, and *de facto*
perhaps a bit less honor. (And perhaps this was because the *de
facto* was the sort of *de facto* one finds in a fallen world, and he
wanted us to stop living in a fallen manner. -- Just a speculation.)
Something similar, but maybe even more telling, is evident in his
teaching about divorce:
...He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries
another commits adultery against her. And if a woman divorces
her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
-- Mark 10:11-12
This was "committing adultery" in Christ's eyes, even though the wife
who'd been cast off was no longer a *de facto* beloved at all. *De
facto* carried no weight with Christ in comparison with the word given
to that former wife long, long before.
And what of the word given by Baltimore and New England YMs to
FUM long, long ago? Those YMs took FUM as their family, much like
marrying a husband or wife.
If we are called to emulate Christ -- as we apparently are --
then maybe this is something we need to think about.
I'm not saying the answer is clear-cut. It may be that when
Christ said that Moses permitted divorce "because of your hard-
heartedness" (Mark 10:5), he was not condemning the permission Moses
gave, but only lamenting the hard-heartedness.
But as Friends, we are called to "perfection", i.e. consistency
in never choosing what the God Christ called "Father" disapproves.
If we are serious about that, then even if hard-heartedness is
permitted, it's not something we can rightly choose.
I suppose we might consider praying that our hearts be made more
tender and our minds more accepting of our adversaries. (And yes, I
do know how tough that can be.)
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin had written,
> > "de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from
> > officials in Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear
> > that FUM was not involved in his de-recording.
>
> > Perhaps we read things differently. I read -- and
> > therefore write -- with the operating assumption,
> > "innocent until proven guilty".
>
> > I read and write with the operating assumption, "if it
> > looks like bigotry and prejudice, walks like bigotry and
> > prejudice, and quacks like bigotry and prejudice, then it
> > probably *is* bigotry and prejudice."
>
> Except it wasn't. And by your hasty judgment that it was,
> you judged and condemned people (the officials of FUM)
Once again, I object to your characterization of what I did as a blanket
condemnation of a group of people. How many times do I have to explain that
it is not the *people* of FUM that I condemn, but the *policy*?
> who'd done nothing wrong.
As far as I can tell they did nothing right either, until after the
transgression against Bales had taken place.
> > Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand in
> > opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
>
> Giving him a loving home in FUM, as I've already said. They had the
> wisdom not to try to interfere in the affairs of his local meeting,
It is wisdom to not stand against discrimination and prejudice?
> but they gave him yearly-meeting level and national-level support at
> a critical juncture both for FUM and for him. It's partly because
> they did so that Great Plains YM (FUM) is the wonderful place it is
> today.
It is great that FUM is supporting Dorlan Bales. When will it support gay
and lesbian Friends?
> > But if you're gay or lesbian, you can pretty much forget
> > about acceptance from FUM.
>
> That's not true. I can think of five FUM yearly meetings in North
> America where you will be accepted, and some others where there
> are at least some local meetings (maybe many) that will accept you.
How many of these FUM yearly meetings will accept you as a staff member if
you are gay or lesbian? How many of these local meetings will accept you as
a minister?
> > Is it your position that making a statement such as "I wonder
> > what FUM's position would be on his ministry were he gay"
> > amounts to "hammering"?
>
> > What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's
> > case even after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's
> > response to Dorlan's case was very good.
Dorlan Bales is but one case among many. Should I drop the matter just
because, in this one instance, FUM did the right thing?
> > There is still a worm in the apple. Would you prefer that
> > I just ignore it and take a great big bite?
>
> Is that what "hammering" means to you?
I have no idea what you mean by this. Care to explain?
> > Is it your position that making such a statement is "wrong"?
>
> It feels antagonistic to me, and I believe it is not helpful.
I am sorry that you feel that way, but that does not change the fact that I
believe that there is something seriously wrong with FUM's policy, nor the
fact that I will continue to oppose said policy.
> > It is a questioning, a seeking after truth. Is this not helpful?
>
> There's a way to seek truth that builds peace, and another way to do
> so that feeds anger and alienation. Only the former way is consistent
> with Quakerism.
So George Fox and the Valiant Sixty weren't consistent with Quakerism? They
did, after all, piss off and alienate a whole lot of people...
> > I don't feel that my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
>
> > Maybe you and I use the word "hammering" differently, then.
>
> > Apparently we do, and I think that your characterization of my
> > statement as "hammering" is unjust.
>
> Could that be because you persist in believing that I was using your
> definition of the word, even though I have already made it clear
> that I was using a different one --?
If you are going to use words in such a way as defies their common usage,
you would do well not to be surprised when you are misunderstood.
> > You're asking Friends to continue to financially support
> > something that they feel is wrong while going through
> > the gospel order process.
>
> They feel the administration of central offices for FUM, and the
> operation of FUM programs addressing the needs of the poor and
> carrying our gospel to the far corners of the world, are wrong?
No. They feel that FUM's bigoted, prejudicial policy is wrong.
> I find that hard to believe. But that's what's supported with the
> money they contribute, and that's what's hurt when they withhold
> funds.
By extension, each policy of the administration of FUM is supported by their
contributions.
> Their quarrel's not with the programs their money supports, but
> with the bias in the hiring process. Withholding money doesn't
> correct that bias, it just diminishes the scale of the programs.
It shows those who administer the programs that their hiring policy is
abhorrent to those who would otherwise gladly support them and their
programs financially. The Nazi party of Germany kept the trains running on
time: Does this mean that those who lived under its rule should have
supported the Nazis without regard to the other policies of their
administration?
> If you want to *correct* the bias, you do so not by teaching the
> people with the bias how to love their sisters and brothers. And
> you don't teach people how to love by punitive means.
You seem determined to view withholding financial support as a "punishment"
of some kind.
> > Withdrawing financial support is not tantamount to cutting ties
> > completely, nor abandoning the other side....
>
> No, but it is a step in that direction -- a cutting of *financial*
> ties, an abandoning of *financial* support.
It is a refusal to fund an official policy of exclusion and prejudice.
> > ...nor abandoning the process of gospel order.
>
> Yes, it is abandoning the process of gospel order. That's the
> central point *I* am hammering on in this thread. The process
> of gospel order requires exploring all possible avenues of
> reconciliation *first*, *before* cutting any ties -- and that has
> not been done.
Does the process of gospel order require Friends to support (financially or
otherwise) a policy that they feel is wrong?
> I suggest you read Sandra Cronk's *Gospel Order. A Quaker
> Understanding of Faithful Church Community* (Pendle Hill
> Pamphlet 297, 1991).
OK.
> > It is refusing to fund bigotry and prejudice.
>
> It's refusing to fund church services and charities. The bigotry
> and prejudice in FUM is not funded by the organization; it is
> donated free of charge to the organization by people on either
> side of the debate.
It is inherent to the organization, in the form of an official policy.
> > > > I don't "condemn" anybody, Friend. FUM has condemned
> > > > *itself*....
>
> > > I'm afraid I have to disagree with you here. FUM has not
> > > said, "we condemn ourselves". You, however, have written
> > > the above words, which amount to saying that FUM stands
> > > condemned in your eyes.
>
> > Nor did I say, "I condemn FUM".
> >
> > I would call it me condemning the discriminatory, exclusionary
> > policy of excluding gay and lesbian Friends from service.
>
> I notice that just yesterday you called people who support FUM's
> policy "bigots", and said God would never want us to be like them.
> That's not just judging and condemning the policy, it's judging and
> condemning the people. Which was the point.
I can only assume that you are referring to the post in which I wrote, "To
me, god's will in this matter is quite clear: FUM's policy is wrong. I
don't believe that god is a bigot. Nor do I believe that god would have us
discriminate against our non-heterosexual Friends."
Where exactly in that statement did I call "people who support FUM's policy
'bigots'"? If it was not that statement to which you were referring, can
you provide a link or a quote of where I called *anybody* a bigot?
> > Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand in
> > opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
>
> Giving him a loving home in FUM, as I've already said.
No, that was afterward. FUM stood aside while the EFI officials called for
Bales' de-recording, as far as I can tell. You seem to consider this to be
"wisdom". I consider it to be an abandonment.
> > I find it to be deceptive that you selectively edited out my
> > statement that Mount Toby MM is also a member of FGC,
> > and that we would more properly be characterized as an
> > "FGC meeting".
>
> I was making a point about your relationship to FUM, not about
> your relationship to FGC, and I was seeking brevity. There was
> no intent to deceive.
OK. Point taken.
> > In point of fact, MTMM's ties with FGC are far stronger....
>
> I don't doubt it. That doesn't stop it from being an FUM meeting
> as well.
Sure, OK...but don't take that to mean that we are in unity with FUM.
Marshall Massey
>2 bs: BYM asked FUM "to confirm that leaders are chosen based on
>2 : spiritual gifts without regard to sexual orientation or
>2 : whether Friends are in same gender relationships." Notice
>2 : the leading question.
>2 :
>2 : FUM responded, "We do confirm that leaders are chosen
>2 : based on spiritual gifts without regard to sexual
>2 : orientation, however, we do not confirm that leaders are
>2 : chosen without regard to whether they are in same gender
>2 : relationships."
Ian Davis responded,
> ijd: This seems to be walking a very fine logical line indeed,
> : reading that either way people wish to :-). If as implied
> : choice of leaders may be predicated in part on the issue
> : of them being in a same gender relationship, since there
> : is a refusal to say it isn't, then this at first glance
> : would appear to be choosing for or against with regard to
> : sexual orientation.
In that case "first glance" would be mistaken -- as first impressions
often are.
FUM was saying that discrimination would be based not on
orientation but on behavior. Orientation may be simply something one
is born with, and if so, not a matter for condemnation. Behavior,
OTOH, is something one chooses, which is why Friends have always,
historically, placed so much emphasis on the reform of "conduct and
conversation". Sinful behavior disqualifies one for church office,
and FUM regards homosexual behavior as sinful. But if you don't
engage in the behavior, FUM has no problem with your orientation.
Does that clear the matter up any?
> ijd: In particular which is to be master and which slave here;
> : ones spiritual gifts, or ones interactions with others.
The two things are not separate.
Time for me to put on my anthropologist's hat, and explain the
customs of that strange tribe you're seeing over there --
In the New Testament view, which Protestants in general and FUM
in particular attempt to follow as best they can, there are many
spirits, not just the Holy Spirit (see e.g. I Timothy 4:1).
Such other spirits include, e.g., the spirit of lust, martial
spirit, school spirit, the entrepeneurial spirit, a spirit of
craziness, alcoholic spirits -- no, I'm not kidding: all of these can
*inspire* people to act in various ways, and the reason they *inspire*
is that *inspiration* is being filled (*in-*) with a spirit
(*-spire*).
But of all these spirits, the distinguishing mark of the *Holy*
Spirit is that it alone comes pure and unsullied from God. And being
pure from God who is righteous, it always inspires people to act in
righteousness. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is the only spirit we can say
that of. *Only the Holy Spirit consistently inspires people to act
rightly.*
So we have to test the spirits (I Thessalonians 5:21;
I Corinthians 12:20) before we allow them to guide us. And how do we
do that? Well, one crude test, since we do know that only the Holy
Spirit consistently inspires people to act rightly, is to look and see
if the inspired person is consistently acting rightly.
That is why checking to see if the person is sinning or not, is
considered a good test of whether their spiritual gifts come from the
right place or not. If, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart is hanging out with
prostitutes in his spare time, or if the Bakkers are using the
contributions they begged with such tears to buy frivolities for
themselves, this should tells the Bible-believing Protestant or FUM
Friend that their spirituality is suspect, impure. Does that make
sense to you? (I'm not asking if you agree, only if you understand.)
And if you read the New Testament in such a way as to conclude
that homosexual activity is sinful activity, then this shows that the
spiritual gifts of someone who is not content to leave his homosexual
orientation unacted upon, but falls into sin, is being moved by the
wrong spirit. Do you see how that logic works?
Marshall Massey
>3tim: Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand
>3 : in opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
Bill Samuel had responded,
>2 bs: FUM folks are not involved in the deliberations of EFI
> : yearly meetings.
"The Iron Muffin" then wrote,
> tim: What I am given to understand is that BYM is a member of
> : both FUM and EFI.
I don't know who "gave you to understand" this, "Muffin", but it
wasn't anyone in this newsgroup.
BYM (Baltimore YM) has no affiliation with EFI.
And Dorlan Bales is not connected with BYM. As I said at the
beginning of this discussion, Dorlan was, at the time of the
incident, a member of a *monthly* meeting (University Friends in
Wichita, Kansas) which had dual affiliations -- with the two *yearly
meetings* Nebraska (FUM) and Mid-America (EFI).
Nebraska YM -- now renamed Great Plains YM -- is affiliated with
FUM but not EFI. Mid-America YM is affiliated with EFI but not FUM.
So the dual affiliation was strictly at the local, monthly meeting
level.
> tim: How could Bales be de-recorded as a minister in a joint
> : FUM/EFI meeting without FUM having anything to say about
> : it?
The recording (or de-recording) of a minister, like the recording or
disowning of a member, is normally a decision reserved to the person's
local monthly meeting, and it is usually done in a friendly manner,
with the person's own approval for the action being taken. There have
been occasions when such a decision has been made at higher levels,
against the will of the person and the local meeting involved, as in
the case of John Wilbur; but when this has happened, it has generally
signified deep divisions and led to heartbreak.
In this case, the dominant members of two official bodies of
Mid-America YM (EFI), not a part of Dorlan's monthly meeting but (so
to speak) above it, and acting outside the procedure prescribed by the
discipline of that YM, declared that Dorlan's ministerial credentials
were revoked. Dorlan's monthly meeting, most of whose members felt
far closer to EFI than to FUM, duly obeyed the EFI officials and
de-recorded him.
FUM is not a part of EFI, and does not appoint members to EFI's
official bodies. It therefore has no traction with those bodies. FUM
also has no traction in Dorlan's monthly meeting, because most of the
monthly meeting's members feel far closer to EFI than to FUM. Because
of these factors, FUM had no way of altering what happened.
>2 bs: Your whole tack in this thread has been that you know
>2 : the truth, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a
> : bigot.
> tim: In your view.
Well, "Muffin", you *do* use the word "bigots" to describe those who
disagree with you in this matter. (I refer here to your posting of
Monday, where I advised corporate discernment including both the FUM
side and the liberal side, with both sides -- your side too -- being
willing to be changed; and you responded that you "don't believe that
god wants us to be bigots.")
> tim: And my view that your tack has been to attack what I see
> : as truth without even once considering that it might,
> : indeed, be truth.
But, as I have found it necessary to point out again and again, you
keep getting crucial facts wrong -- as above, concerning the yearly
meetings involved in Dorlan's case, the relative places of FUM and EFI
in that case, etc.
How can you possibly be in possession of the truth when you've
got the facts all wrong? If a judge got the facts all wrong in a
court case to which you were a party, and then ruled against you,
wouldn't you be screaming "miscarriage of justice"? But this is what
you do yourself as judge.
You haven't even begun to understand the principle that FUM is
following in refusing to give prominent positions to active
homosexuals. You've decided it's a principle of anti-homosexual
bigotry, and so you close your eyes and ears to evidence that it's
not. It never seems to occur to you that the principle FUM is
following here might be one that hits heterosexual FUM members vastly
more often than it hits homosexuals. And yet that's the case: most
of the people affected by FUM's no-sex-outside-monogamous-
heterosexual-marriage principle have been heteros (including pastors!)
practicing polygamy (in Africa) and heteros practicing extramarital
sex. Why is this, if the principle is (as you say) anti-gay?
What it is, actually, is an anti-sex-outside-of-marriage-as-
defined-by-Paul principle. It can be aptly compared to the Roman
Catholic rule that only the celibate can be priests and perform the
sacraments -- which is likewise not an anti-gay rule. (There have
been a *lot* of gays and bis who've become Roman Catholic priests,
but they've been required to give up active sex to do so, just as they
would be if they wanted to be FUM staff.)
What the FUM rule says is not, "No gays or lesbians or bis," but,
"The sexual candy store is closed. From here on, sex is for
procreation, not just passion and desire." Sort of, "No more
laughter, no more fun, Quaker meeting has begun" -- at least on the
sexual level. Or to put it in New Testament terms (Galatians 5:24):
"...Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions
and desires."
Ian Davis
Yes.. but I've a sense that sin is a dangerous brush to paint anything with.
The paint tends to cover up the good as well as the bad. I'd personally rather
deny the very existance of sin than see this beautiful universe through the
lense of sin. Were I too look at this universe through the lense of sin, I'd
see God as the greatest sinner.. for allowing sin to exist, and those who
celebrate the existance of sin as the ones most tarnished by it.
Right now I'm listening to Sandy Denny, live at the Royalty Theatre, 27th
November 1977. This was unbeknown to her to be her last concert. She
fell down some stairs, and five days later died from the resulting brain
haemorrhage. She was 31. There is a capriciousness to life, far greater
than the capriciousness of two people who love each other celebrating life
and their presence in it together. If we could see the totality of our
lives I think we'd find better uses for our short time here, than to be
targetting our concern and condemnation at the lives of others.
I hadn't really grasped that there were Quakers who were more concerned with
speaking of the bad in man, than of the good in man. To my mind the
decisions about such things do rest with the deciders, so I think FUM has
the right to set policy as it deems right, but I would caution that it is
not only homosexuals who are judged by their actions. FUM will also be
judged by their actions.. Jesus was perhaps being the wiser when he councilled
that we should not judge least we be judged. I'm sufficiently alarmed at the
notion of being judged that I'd not casually judge others -- call it an
insurance policy I hope never needs to be cashed in.
>
>
>> ijd: In particular which is to be master and which slave here;
>> : ones spiritual gifts, or ones interactions with others.
>
>The two things are not separate.
>
> Time for me to put on my anthropologist's hat, and explain the
>customs of that strange tribe you're seeing over there --
>
> In the New Testament view, which Protestants in general and FUM
>in particular attempt to follow as best they can, there are many
>spirits, not just the Holy Spirit (see e.g. I Timothy 4:1).
>
Well I largely operate from the presumption that believing there are
spirits present that influence my actions is less helpful than believing
them absent, placing the whole blame and responsibility for my acting
squarely on myself.
> Such other spirits include, e.g., the spirit of lust, martial
>spirit, school spirit, the entrepeneurial spirit, a spirit of
>craziness, alcoholic spirits -- no, I'm not kidding: all of these can
>*inspire* people to act in various ways, and the reason they *inspire*
>is that *inspiration* is being filled (*in-*) with a spirit
>(*-spire*).
>
> But of all these spirits, the distinguishing mark of the *Holy*
>Spirit is that it alone comes pure and unsullied from God. And being
>pure from God who is righteous, it always inspires people to act in
>righteousness. Indeed, the Holy Spirit is the only spirit we can say
>that of. *Only the Holy Spirit consistently inspires people to act
>rightly.*
>
This trying to walk without sin, has when I've tried it been a lot like doing
homework, and consistently getting failing grades. It hangs over one, drags
one down, reduces ones self respect and harms ones spirit. I've tried the
medicine and I think it does more harm that good. Whoever be the guide, I
think one wiser to walk as one feel led, and not as one feels expected to
by others. Sin is easier defeated by burning the books, than by agonising
over the text within them. Sin is to my mind the sin. And perhaps this is
why I earlier said that God was the greatest sinner, if sin be how he chooses
to measure us. Were I to worry about sin, sufficient unto the day would be
my own sins -- I'd not give a damn about other peoples sins. I think Jesus
understood this better than most who would focus on the sins of others. I
rather suspect that it is the people who would focus on the sins of others
who are most blind to their own.
> So we have to test the spirits (I Thessalonians 5:21;
>I Corinthians 12:20) before we allow them to guide us. And how do we
>do that? Well, one crude test, since we do know that only the Holy
>Spirit consistently inspires people to act rightly, is to look and see
>if the inspired person is consistently acting rightly.
>
I think looking for halo's would be the safer test. Those who are lovely
radiate loveliness. We are better equipped to appreciate that which is
good in our eyes, than that which is right in our eyes.
> That is why checking to see if the person is sinning or not, is
>considered a good test of whether their spiritual gifts come from the
>right place or not. If, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart is hanging out with
>prostitutes in his spare time, or if the Bakkers are using the
>contributions they begged with such tears to buy frivolities for
>themselves, this should tells the Bible-believing Protestant or FUM
>Friend that their spirituality is suspect, impure. Does that make
>sense to you? (I'm not asking if you agree, only if you understand.)
>
Yes it makes sense.. but your examples speak about the recognition of
hypocricy... is there not also a hypocricy in choosing the worst sins
to be those that do not afflict the self.
> And if you read the New Testament in such a way as to conclude
>that homosexual activity is sinful activity, then this shows that the
>spiritual gifts of someone who is not content to leave his homosexual
>orientation unacted upon, but falls into sin, is being moved by the
>wrong spirit. Do you see how that logic works?
>
Yes I see it as logical, but I don't make the words of the New Testament
my guide.. At best I'd judge arguments and positions there as I'd judge
them here -- to be weighed, understood, and to be tested against the
subjective measure of the goodness to be found within them.
I take the strange position that it is my choice who I will defend and
who I will fight for. I've friends who FUM would condemn. For me it is
a simple matter to find myself more loyal to the good I know in my love of
them, than the good or bad I can't sense in an organisation I have no knowledge
of. My own sense is one of wishing to act as I deem right in the defence
of those who need defending.. I'll always side with the victim against the
aggressor. And in politics it is only the religious right that I see as
the spawn of the devil. I'm a liberal, and liberals believe in freedom
of choice, etc. Putting people is straight jackets feels the wrong
approach, even when it seems the only choice. How can abstenance be
deemed good by FUM, when Jesus himself said that even to lust constituted
a sin.. I've not heard that abstenance cured desire.
Were I homosexual I'd love more the ones I loved for loving me for what I
was, than the ones who hated me for hating me for what I wasn't. Did Jesus
in talking to that woman at the well saw her life through his eyes, or
through her eyes? It is said that to know someone, one should first walk
a mile in their shoes. How can one condemn what can't be thus known.
Ian
S McFarlane
"Ian Davis" <ijd...@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
news:ch4rpl$q3c$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
-lots snipped-
> And perhaps this is
> why I earlier said that God was the greatest sinner, if sin be how he
chooses
> to measure us. Were I to worry about sin, sufficient unto the day would
be
> my own sins -- I'd not give a damn about other peoples sins. I think
Jesus
> understood this better than most who would focus on the sins of others. I
> rather suspect that it is the people who would focus on the sins of others
> who are most blind to their own.
I'm not sure about this. Perhaps the one of the greatest challenges to
followers of Christ is the dealing with of sin in others. The one (and
only, so far as I can see) absolute is the command to love one another and
God. So, looking at it through this lens, the question becomes what it
means to love another who is missing the mark. It doesn't seem so simple as
you put it.
For example, to say I don't give a damn about another person destroying
their life with alcohol seems tantamount to saying I don't give a damn about
that person. Likewise, it hardly seems like loving someone as oneself to
simply say 'I don't give a damn about his/her sins." It is at this
realization that the truly difficult work of Christianity begins, and it is
also when we most need the guidance of God to not in our own right stumble.
If simply ignoring sinful behavior is not to love one another as ourselves,
then the obvious question is: 'what is?' It is a difficult question that I
personally feel unequipped to deal with. For myself, I can only take it one
step at a time and ask God to guide each one.
Of course, all of this gets caught up in how one views God. Given that you
are more or less an agnostic (I believe that's what you've said; apologies
if that's not correct), the logic of that might not make any sense to you at
all. I could imagine that you might regard the analogy between
self-destructive alcoholism and garden variety sinfulness to be a false one.
Suffice it to say that I am not trying to convince you of how you should
regard sin or behave, but simply trying to explain to you how this very
difficult problem looks to at least some believers (by 'difficult problem' I
do not mean homosexuality, but rather the general case of sin in those we
love).
more snipped
> Were I homosexual I'd love more the ones I loved for loving me for what I
> was, than the ones who hated me for hating me for what I wasn't. Did Jesus
> in talking to that woman at the well saw her life through his eyes, or
> through her eyes? It is said that to know someone, one should first walk
> a mile in their shoes. How can one condemn what can't be thus known.
>
This seems to miss the point to me. If you were a homosexual, how would you
regard someone who loved you in spite of being homosexual? Someone who did
not 'condemn' you nor hate you for what you weren't, while nevertheless
refusing to endorse what they saw as wrong _behavior_ before God?
Respectfully,
Scott
Ian Davis
S McFarlane <nos...@nothankyou.com> wrote:
>
>"Ian Davis" <ijd...@softbase.math.uwaterloo.ca> wrote in message
>news:ch4rpl$q3c$1...@rumours.uwaterloo.ca...
>
>-lots snipped-
>
>> And perhaps this is
>> why I earlier said that God was the greatest sinner, if sin be how he
>chooses
>> to measure us. Were I to worry about sin, sufficient unto the day would
>be
>> my own sins -- I'd not give a damn about other peoples sins. I think
>Jesus
>> understood this better than most who would focus on the sins of others. I
>> rather suspect that it is the people who would focus on the sins of others
>> who are most blind to their own.
>
>I'm not sure about this. Perhaps the one of the greatest challenges to
>followers of Christ is the dealing with of sin in others. The one (and
>only, so far as I can see) absolute is the command to love one another and
>God. So, looking at it through this lens, the question becomes what it
>means to love another who is missing the mark. It doesn't seem so simple as
>you put it.
>
But I too miss the mark. The game is rigged.. None can actually hope to
hit the mark.. it is not that one has one group that can, and one group
that cannot. It is that none can. At 20 the failing to hit the mark
seemed like my fault.. at 50 I see more clearly that the game was always
rigged.
>For example, to say I don't give a damn about another person destroying
>their life with alcohol seems tantamount to saying I don't give a damn about
>that person. Likewise, it hardly seems like loving someone as oneself to
>simply say 'I don't give a damn about his/her sins." It is at this
>realization that the truly difficult work of Christianity begins, and it is
>also when we most need the guidance of God to not in our own right stumble.
>If simply ignoring sinful behavior is not to love one another as ourselves,
>then the obvious question is: 'what is?' It is a difficult question that I
>personally feel unequipped to deal with. For myself, I can only take it one
>step at a time and ask God to guide each one.
>
I lack a social conscience. People to me seem individuals. I can get upset
about what is happening to people I don't know, but I can not find within
myself any strong concern to help, minister to, or "save" those I don't
know. I tend to think that people have to help themselves, minister to
themselves and save themselves. Using your own example, I care passionately
about my son. He drinks considerably more than I. This alarms me. But he
is 20 years old, and his life is as much his, as mine is mine. Suggesting
that not caring about sin implies not caring about the sinner, is I think
a false logical leap. Caring about sin as I've said I think is wrong..
caring about those others might label sinners is a completely separate
issue, particularly for those such as I who genuinely question whether
the very notion of sin is a sin.
>Of course, all of this gets caught up in how one views God. Given that you
>are more or less an agnostic (I believe that's what you've said; apologies
>if that's not correct), the logic of that might not make any sense to you at
>all. I could imagine that you might regard the analogy between
>self-destructive alcoholism and garden variety sinfulness to be a false one.
>Suffice it to say that I am not trying to convince you of how you should
>regard sin or behave, but simply trying to explain to you how this very
>difficult problem looks to at least some believers (by 'difficult problem' I
>do not mean homosexuality, but rather the general case of sin in those we
>love).
>
I really don't know where I am on the issue of being an agnostic. I went from
being a hard atheist, to a respector of Christians and Christian values in my
university days. I think my respect considerably more profound than perhaps
normal since it has carried me thirty years hence, never much changing, while
many who professed far more than I, proved by their conduct to be the less
well focused.
I'd better stand condemned for not being gnostic, than condemned for being
agnostic. But, and this goes back to what I said earlier, I have not found
faith in God, faith in my sin, faith in any of the Christian concepts
about sin, redemption from sin, etc. to be good medicine for sick souls.
If others have perhaps it is that different souls need different medicines.
At a very profound level I am not at all sure whether religion is the curse
or the salvation it is claimed to be. I think it might well be that the
right religious path is to be a-religious, and that the right way of walking
rightly, is to not predicate ones actions on the existance or none existance
of God, the existance of heavenly reward or whatever, but on the existance
of choice in the matter of walking rightly. I distrust the wisdom of the
religious know-it-alls, even more than I distrust the wisdom of the neocon
know-it-alls. Better a tyranny based on there is no truth, than a tyranny
based on "we know the truth".
My religion is a very simple one. I believe that choice exists and that
it is choice between acting rightly and wrongly which give life meaning.
In the absence of such choice I think life equally meaningless no matter
what good or bad is perceived to be done.. My choice is to believe the
neocon's and more generally fascism false, for fear of believing it true.
It is life and morality that matters to me .. not the question of how such
life and morality came about. I'm more scientist than religious scholar. If
God exists he has carefully in my opinion removed himself from the equation
whose answer gives the meaning to life, the universe and everything. It
is as possible to get the right answer to that equation starting from the
premise that God exists, as from the premise that God does not exist. And
starting from either premise, getting the right answers to that equation
remains equally hard.
>
>> Were I homosexual I'd love more the ones I loved for loving me for what I
>> was, than the ones who hated me for hating me for what I wasn't. Did Jesus
>> in talking to that woman at the well saw her life through his eyes, or
>> through her eyes? It is said that to know someone, one should first walk
>> a mile in their shoes. How can one condemn what can't be thus known.
>>
>
>This seems to miss the point to me. If you were a homosexual, how would you
>regard someone who loved you in spite of being homosexual? Someone who did
>not 'condemn' you nor hate you for what you weren't, while nevertheless
>refusing to endorse what they saw as wrong _behavior_ before God?
>
I'd ask what there was to spite in my being homosexual. And what they saw
as wrong _behaviour_ before God, would unless I also saw it as wrong
behaviour would be their error -- not mine. I'm fairly sure that I'd
be just as certain that I continued to know my own universe better than
those who thought they knew it better. Its that experience which
must be common to others of living in ones own head, not other peoples
heads.
Ian
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > What I am given to understand is that BYM is a member of
> > both FUM and EFI.
>
> I don't know who "gave you to understand" this, "Muffin", but it
> wasn't anyone in this newsgroup.
Actually, "Marshall", it was you. You have spoken about BYM in the same
breath as Dorlan Bales and his meeting's dual affiliation throughout this
thread. Is it any wonder that I mistakenly connected the two?
Instead of "hammering" on me for not getting the facts straight, can you
take responsibility for your part in presenting those facts in a way that
was misleading and confusing? Can you *gently* and *lovingly* correct my
mistakes without judging me for making them?
From what I have seen so far, you cannot. Well, feel free to ignore your
own mistakes and keep "hammering" on mine.
> Bill Samuel wrote:
>
> > Your whole tack in this thread has been that you know
> > the truth, and that anyone who disagrees with you is a
> > bigot.
>
> > In your view.
>
> Well, "Muffin", you *do* use the word "bigots" to describe those
> who disagree with you in this matter.
No, I use the word "bigots" to describe those who would discriminate on the
basis of sexuality. Agreement or disagreement with me has absolutely
nothing to do with it, and your implication that it does is disingenuous.
> (I refer here to your posting of Monday, where I advised corporate
> discernment including both the FUM side and the liberal side, with
> both sides -- your side too -- being willing to be changed; and you
> responded that you "don't believe that god wants us to be bigots.")
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: 'bi-g&t
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, hypocrite, bigot
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions
and prejudices
- big·ot·ed /-g&-t&d/ adjective
- big·ot·ed·ly adverb
In what way do those who would exclude ALL homosexual Friends from service
*not* fit the above definition? Please note the words "intolerantly" and
"prejudices".
> >And my view that your tack has been to attack what I see
> > as truth without even once considering that it might,
> > indeed, be truth.
>
> But, as I have found it necessary to point out again and again, you
> keep getting crucial facts wrong -- as above, concerning the yearly
> meetings involved in Dorlan's case, the relative places of FUM and
> EFI in that case, etc.
And, as I have found it necessary to point out again and again, your lack of
clarity in presenting those "crucial facts" is what misled me. Can you take
responsibility for that lack of clarity and for contributing to my
misunderstanding of the facts?
> How can you possibly be in possession of the truth when you've
> got the facts all wrong?
The most important fact, to me, is that FUM has an exclusionary policy which
unjustly discriminates against non-heterosexual Friends. What part of that
is "all wrong"?
> If a judge got the facts all wrong in a court case to which you were
> a party, and then ruled against you, wouldn't you be screaming
> "miscarriage of justice"? But this is what you do yourself as judge.
If that judge was presented the facts in the same way that you presented the
facts of Bales' case, I would not be surprised in the slightest if he ruled
wrongly.
> You haven't even begun to understand the principle that FUM is
> following in refusing to give prominent positions to active
> homosexuals.
Thank you for telling me what I do and don't understand, but you're dead
wrong. I understand the principle quite well. I simply do not agree with
it, because it is neither fair, nor just, nor loving, towards those Friends
who are not heterosexual.
> You've decided it's a principle of anti-homosexual bigotry, and so
> you close your eyes and ears to evidence that it's not.
You spend a lot of time telling other people what they think. Perhaps you
should spend some time seeking clarity about why you do this.
> It never seems to occur to you that the principle FUM is following
> here might be one that hits heterosexual FUM members vastly
> more often than it hits homosexuals. And yet that's the case: most
> of the people affected by FUM's no-sex-outside-monogamous-
> heterosexual-marriage principle have been heteros (including pastors!)
> practicing polygamy (in Africa) and heteros practicing extramarital
> sex.
Most? How do you come to this conclusion? Only those heterosexual Friends
who practice polygamy or extramarital sex are affected by the policy. *All*
homosexual Friends, even those who are in committed, loving relationships
affirmed before god are affected.
> Why is this, if the principle is (as you say) anti-gay?
Please provide a link where I say that this principle is exclusively
anti-gay.
> What it is, actually, is an anti-sex-outside-of-marriage-as-
> defined-by-Paul principle.
And it is unfairly discriminatory towards those who cannot legally be
married, i.e., homosexual Friends.
> It can be aptly compared to the Roman Catholic rule that only the
> celibate can be priests and perform the sacraments -- which is
> likewise not an anti-gay rule. (There have been a *lot* of gays
> and bis who've become Roman Catholic priests, but they've been
> required to give up active sex to do so, just as they would be if they
> wanted to be FUM staff.)
Unless they were heterosexual, in which case they wouldn't have to give up
sex to be FUM staff. Can you honestly tell me that you don't see the
difference in standards for heterosexual and homosexual Friends?
Ian Davis
The Iron Muffin <You must ask me for my email address.> wrote:
>Marshall Massey wrote:
>The most important fact, to me, is that FUM has an exclusionary policy which
>unjustly discriminates against non-heterosexual Friends. What part of that
>is "all wrong"?
>
As I understanding it FUM only discriminates against those homosexuals who
elect to enjoy sexual relations with other homosexuals. The core issue
here to me doesn't seem to me to be FUM or discrimination. The core issues
that I think need resolving are:
a) Is homosexuality somehow unacceptable period, as murder or other socially
unacceptable things are, or is it merely a variant lifestyle.
b) Do sexual relations outside marriage between two consenting adults
constitute a religious offence.
c) Should homosexuals have the same religious right to enjoy sexual relations
within a marriage as heterosexuals.
As long as these core issues are not resolved, it seems pointless to me to
have tempers raised about the consequences of opinions on these core matters
differing. As long as the axioms from which people derive conclusions
differ one, it is only to be expected that irreconcilable difference will
result in the conclusions reached.
In examining the core issues it might be useful to review the historic
record of changing attitudes towards various "sins". For example, the
sin of divorce .. the sin of remarriage .. the sin of educating women
about birth control.. if one is going to draw lines in the sand and
say X is a sin, because it is, I think it useful to consider other
cases where people used as strong an argument to make other things
a sin.
>> What it is, actually, is an anti-sex-outside-of-marriage-as-
>> defined-by-Paul principle.
>
>And it is unfairly discriminatory towards those who cannot legally be
>married, i.e., homosexual Friends.
Tell them to come up to Canada. They can be legally married in Canada. Only
warn them that the getting married is the easy part. There doesn't exist
any mechanism in Canada for non-resident married homosexuals to get a
divorce here.
What exactly would be the status of a American homosexual married in Canada
upon return to the US. Would they be considered legally married, with all
the rights granted by marriage and all the responsibilities, or would they
be considered to not be married. What happens when certain states in the
US also recognise the rights of homosexuals to marry.
Ian.
Marshall Massey
> cmg: The problem with a centrist organization is that both
> : extremes threaten to pick up their toys and go home if
> : things don't go as they think it should.
I wouldn't call that a problem with a centrist organization, I'd call
it a problem with extremists. Even in extremist organizations, the
extremists are always threatening to pick up their toys and go home if
they don't get their way. The Communist parties in Europe and the
U.S. were cases in point. C. S. Lewis made up a parable about the
same dynamic in his portrait of the suburbs of hell, in *The Great
Divorce*.
Those of us who believe in unity across differences of viewpoint
should live by that belief. There is no better answer than that to
the extremists' grandstandings.
> cmg: I wonder
> :
> : 1) if things are so polarized that any centrist
> : organization has no place
Well, I can think of one centrist Christian organization with over a
billion members -- the Roman Catholic church. And it's still hanging
in there.
> cmg: and
> :
> : 2) whether there is still a place for me among Friends
> : should FUM cease to exist. Probably not. I am at heart a
> : centrist who does not feel particularly at home either in
> : FGC or EFI meetings.
I'd be very interested to see your reaction to Iowa (Conservative). I
would call it a different kind of centrist. Here in Nebraska, where
Iowa (Conservative) overlaps Great Plains YM (FUM), I have lately
begun to think we have the best of two worlds!
> cmg: Now if all of us were to go back to "free Gospel ministry"
> : and eschew the cadre of "professional" Friends, perhaps
> : we'd all be better off. This would mean no paid staff and
> : no pastors (in New England and elsewhere.) It would mean
> : that the Monthly Meetings would need to provide for the
> : needs of those released for service to the Yearly Meeting
> : or other organization.
It's an interesting idea! You'd have a different group of people
coming forward to do the work -- not people who think they'd like that
sort of job, but people whose meetings sat in worship with them and
came to agree that they were genuinely called to that service. You'd
also get a disproportionately large number of people coming forward
from large wealthy meetings that could afford to release them, while
fewer came from smaller poorer meetings like Omaha.
> cmg: And it would mean that each body, YM or umbrella group,
> : would need to determine for itself what "keeping one's
> : behavior beyond reproach" might mean. That was early
> : Friends' advise to ministers and elders. It seems to me
> : that is the basic question.
There was as much difficulty about deciding what that meant in the old
days as there is today; we may recall the quarrels about whether the
Hicksite and the Wilburite leaders were genuinely keeping their
behavior beyond reproach.
I think the real problem is whether the standard of what "beyond
reproach is" comes from the Bible, or from expectations picked up from
the world around us, or from inward convincement. I think part of the
problem in the FUM-versus-Baltimore controversy may be that both sides
are being substantially influenced by values they learned in the world
around them -- the FUM crowd by Protestant values, the Baltimore crowd
by social-liberal values.
My personal experience of values learned from inward convincement
is that, the more deeply I am convinced of sins I myself have
committed, the more deeply reluctant I become to condemn anyone else;
as I come to desire mercy for myself, a sinner, so I come to desire
the same mercy for others. I can't help wondering whether much of the
problem in the Hicksite/Orthodox, Wilburite/Gurneyite, and EFI/FUM
separations was not that too few of the leading actors on both sides
were sufficiently convinced of their own sins.
Bill Samuel
>Well, it seems to me that Friends are called to unite, not on the
>basis of principles (which are all too often merely human, biased, and
>short-sighted), but on the basis of the living Christ.
Right, but there is no longer agreement on that basis. In many of our
meetings, Christ is practically a dirty word to large numbers of members.
One side of this issue talks generally politically and personally about the
issue when not speaking to Christians, because this is where most of them come
from themselves in how they've developed on the issue. They bring in much
more Christian and spiritual language when communicating with Christians on
it, but this obscures since it is not the real basis of their position.
This is why I say there is not the basis on which to have a fruitful dialogue.
They are coming from very different worldviews. That all involved bear the
name of Friends obscures that they do not have a common faith.
They can cooperate on some things, but I think it is best to do so not within
the same organization.
I am not calling for separation. I am calling for integrity in recognizing
and living with the fact that the spiritual separation already exists.
Living a lie is not a good thing.
Bill Samuel
> I agree with you, Bill, that Baltimore's program of "seeking to
>labor with the other party on this" is wrong-headed, but as I see it,
>it is wrong-headed because Baltimore seems willing only to change the
>other side and not to be changed itself.
This is a key point. I don't see any realistic prospect of Baltimore YM
changing its approach to a real search for truth. The approach seems to be
that if they hammer FUM in the right way with their understanding of truth
perhaps the poor ignoramuses at FUM will see the light and agree with them.
It doesn't matter how gently and nicely it is phrased, if this is the
underlying approach the resultant dialogue will have negative consequences.
>I agree with you that they have deep differences, and that this is an
>important fact. But IMHO the *relevant* fundamentals of faith are the
>direct experience of the living Christ and the gathered community's
>access to God's revealed will, and these are things that Baltimore and
>FUM have in common.
That's where I disagree with you. I don't think this is where Baltimore YM is
at today.
>Yes, that's a very serious problem. But the solution is to stop
>basing their faith on "understandings", which when taken as a basis of
>faith makes Quakerism into just another form of will-worship, and
>start basing it on trust in the Teacher and willingness to be
>straightened out by Him.
I agree with you. I also try to look realistically at the situation and when
I do I come to the conclusion that it would take something like a Pentecost
experience for this to be done. That could happen, but I don't consider it
very likely, and I don't consider the dialogue on this issue to be a fruitful
thing to pursue before that.
Bill Samuel
>
> And what of the word given by Baltimore and New England YMs to
>FUM long, long ago? Those YMs took FUM as their family, much like
>marrying a husband or wife.
This may be true about New England, but Baltimore is a unique situation and it
is not true about Baltimore. I have been a member within Baltimore since
before its 1968 consolidation, and was extremely active in it for many years,
so I think I have a fairly good picture of the situation.
The yearly meetings did not unite in 1968, primarily because of opposition
within FGC meetings. A very big point was made that they were consolidating,
not uniting. Some of the FGC Friends were very clear that in no way were they
accepting FUM. Each monthly meeting chose whether to affiliate with just one
of the broader bodies, divide its membership (by any formula it chose, or by
each member's option) between the two bodies, or (as later developed)
affiliate fully with both.
This monthly meeting option approach remained until a few years ago. It fell
not because Friends felt spiritually united with both FGC and FUM, but because
it became an administrative nightmare and new meetings objected to being
forced to make this decision.
The monthly meeting which initiated the drive to cut off funding from FUM was
the stronghold of opposition to a united yearly meeting. I don't believe they
ever really agreed to the move to being a united YM; they just stopped being
an obstacle recognizing their position was no longer considered tenable by the
YM. They never accepted FUM as being family, although de jure it may be so.
So their current position of unwillingness to behave as family towards FUM has
a background of far more than the expressed issue of difference.
And there have been many Friends in a number of meetings in Baltimore who have
consistently stated vehemently that they are not FUM Friends throughout the
history of the consolidated/united YM.
We have an unbroken record in Baltimore since the original schism of their
being Friends, influential Friends and significant numbers of Friends, who
have not only failed to feel the Orthodox stream was family, but who have been
actively hostile to the Orthodox stream, currently expressed as FUM.
Bill Samuel
>
> What the FUM rule says is not, "No gays or lesbians or bis," but,
>"The sexual candy store is closed. From here on, sex is for
>procreation, not just passion and desire." Sort of, "No more
>laughter, no more fun, Quaker meeting has begun" -- at least on the
>sexual level. Or to put it in New Testament terms (Galatians 5:24):
>"...Those who are Christ's have crucified the flesh with its passions
>and desires."
I'm not aware that FUM has ever taken the position that sex is only for
procreation. In fact, I don't know anyone in FUM who takes that position.
That is not the position of scripture, it is not the historic position of
Friends, it is not the normative Christian position and it is not the position
of FUM.
[By the way, it is not the position of the Catholic Church either, although
lots of non-Catholics think it is.]
Bill Samuel
>wrong. I understand the principle quite well. I simply do not agree with
>it, because it is neither fair, nor just, nor loving, towards those Friends
>who are not heterosexual.
You sound like "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices" to quote from the definition of bigot you gave.
You seem to think that clinging resolutely to one's beliefs is a good thing
when you do it but a bad thing when FUM does it.
In other words, you don't seem to object to bigotry, you just want to choose
what to be bigoted about.
But one could also raise a further question: Is FUM devoted to its own
opinions and prejudices or to following the way of Christ, and finding that
this leads to policies others call bigoted?
Whereas your opinions seem to be your own derived ones.
Bill Samuel
>What exactly would be the status of a American homosexual married in Canada
>upon return to the US. Would they be considered legally married, with all
>the rights granted by marriage and all the responsibilities, or would they
>be considered to not be married. What happens when certain states in the
>US also recognise the rights of homosexuals to marry.
The U.S. and many states have passed Defense of Marriage Acts to provide for
the situation where one or more states of the U.S. (like Massachusetts, which
has same-gender marriage by judicial fiat) allows same-gender marriages. The
normal rule in the U.S. has been that states must accept all marriages
performed in another state according to that state's rules. This provides an
exception to that.
I don't think even without DOMAs states are obliged to accept all marriages
from outside the country.
William Ehrich
> I don't think even without DOMAs states are obliged to accept all marriages
> from outside the country.
How do they handle the case of a muslim immigrant with several wives?
What would a Quaker meeting do if he wanted to apply for membership?
-- Bill Ehrich
Ian Davis
Marshall Massey <mma...@earthwitness.org> wrote:
>Christine Greenland writes,
>
>> cmg: The problem with a centrist organization is that both
>> : extremes threaten to pick up their toys and go home if
>> : things don't go as they think it should.
>
>I wouldn't call that a problem with a centrist organization, I'd call
>it a problem with extremists. Even in extremist organizations, the
>extremists are always threatening to pick up their toys and go home if
>they don't get their way. The Communist parties in Europe and the
>U.S. were cases in point. C. S. Lewis made up a parable about the
>same dynamic in his portrait of the suburbs of hell, in *The Great
>Divorce*.
>
But the message there was that even if one could have whatever one wanted,
merely by wishing it, this didn't stop the rain from coming in. I think
the point here is that we tend to think that we'd be happy if we could
only get our own way, and it is not until we do get our own way that we
discover that getting ones own way doesn't change the underlying equation.
In a world where one could get whatever one wanted this wouldn't eliminate
our quarrelsome nature either. C.S. Lewis talks about how in such a world
people move further and further from their neighbours over time, because
each grows to dislike their current neighbour, and the having whatever
one wants thus translates into ever greater distances between people.
The arguments about whether the glow on the horizon constituted sun rise
or sun set, and the debating societies where the upcoming debate is on
the good Jesus could have achieved if he hadn't got himself killed..
But C.S. Lewis if I remember rightly didn't in this parable call this
gray town the suburbs of hell. He instead called it purgatory -- the
place where most would elect to remain, but where none were obliged to
remain. His use of scale is also interesting -- the massive cliffs
that separated hell from heaven on the one hand, and the mere scratch
in the ground, on the other.
Ian.
Marshall Massey
>2 mm: ...there are apparently records of clergy performing same-
>2 : sex marriages in the Middle Ages.
Bill Samuel responded,
> bs: That's a quite strained interpretation of what the records
> : actually show. I haven't kept the arguments on both sides
> : I have seen, but it seemed to me the reasoning of those
> : who say that's not what the records show was much
> : stronger.
I just checked the facts on line
( http://www2.kenyon.edu/Projects/Margin/rites.htm ).
The truth is that there are no records of clergy actually
performing such marriages, so I was wrong about that. And there is no
evidence that any higher church authority ever approved such
marriages.
What there are, though, are about seventy surviving manuscripts
of the *adelphopoiia* rite used by priests in Orthodox and Greek rite
Catholic churches, plus some circumstantial evidence (Theodore of
Studium's Reform Rules and the much later Pedalion or Rudder)
suggesting that this rite *was* used by some same-sex couples, with
the participation of a priest, to give outward formal order to their
relationships.
A person who says legitimacy in religion flows down from the
human leaders of the church would be likely to say that this evidence
shows such ceremonies were aberrations, out of good order, heterodox,
etc. A person who says legitimacy in religion flows from the Holy
Spirit, which can speak through anyone no matter how lowly, might
argue that, on the contrary, this evidence shows the Holy Spirit at
work through the lowly to right an old wrong. I would imagine FUM and
EFI would lean toward the former interpretation.
Cmgreenlnd
> My personal experience of values learned from inward convincement
>is that, the more deeply I am convinced of sins I myself have
>committed, the more deeply reluctant I become to condemn anyone else;
>as I come to desire mercy for myself, a sinner, so I come to desire
>the same mercy for others. I can't help wondering whether much of the
>problem in the Hicksite/Orthodox, Wilburite/Gurneyite, and EFI/FUM
>separations was not that too few of the leading actors on both sides
>were sufficiently convinced of their own sins.
>
I affirm the first part and agree with the second. Thanks.
Marshall Massey
> bs: It should be pointed out again that Baltimore YM has not
> : yet made a decision with regard to withholding funds from
> : FUM. Marshall keeps writing as if the decision has been
> : made.
Marshall was going by Chuck Fager's statements in the posting that
launched this thread:
>n cf: As reported in my previous post, there has been increasing
>n : unease among many BYM Friends about the large annual
>n : membership donation ($17400 in the 2004 budget) BYM sends
>n : to FUM, in light of FUM's homophobic employment policy and
>n : practice.
>n : ...
>n : The calls for BYM to leave FUM gained no group
>n : support. But as there was likewise no unity to include any
>n : donation to FUM in the BYM 2005 budget, no such payment
>n : was included.
As it stands, this statement appears to indicate that the funds
normally contributed each year ($17,400 in the 2004 budget) are not
being contributed in 2005. And need I remind so seasoned a Friend
as yourself that a change in policy from previous years -- such as a
change from including a contribution in each year's budget, to not
including one -- is never done except by an actual decision of the
gathered body involved? If there is no such actual decision, the
former policy stands. Thus the event *as described above* can only
be read as a positive decision to depart from the practice of
previous years.
> bs: It comes up next at Fall Interim Meeting in October. To
> : date, there has not been unity on the right course of
> : action with respect to funding FUM.
Chuck said nothing about further consideration of the matter at the
fall interim meeting in October. As far as I know, this is the first
time that point has been mentioned in this thread. It is certainly
the first time the point has been mentioned in any posting I have
seen.
Naturally, I appreciate having this little detail pointed out!
The Iron Muffin
> The Iron Muffin wrote:
> > Thank you for telling me what I do and don't understand,
> > but you're dead wrong. I understand the principle quite
> > well. I simply do not agree with it, because it is neither
> > fair, nor just, nor loving, towards those Friends who are
> > not heterosexual.
>
> You sound like "a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted
> to his or her own opinions and prejudices" to quote from the
> definition of bigot you gave.
Pointing out that a policy is unjust is bigotry?
> You seem to think that clinging resolutely to one's beliefs is a
> good thing when you do it but a bad thing when FUM does it.
Wrong. I think that clinging resolutely to one's beliefs is a good thing
when one's beliefs reflect the will of god, and a bad thing when one's
beliefs foster intolerance and discrimination.
> In other words, you don't seem to object to bigotry, you just
> want to choose what to be bigoted about.
What is it with the people on this newsgroup who seem to enjoy telling
others what they think? I can express my own beliefs and thoughts quite
well without you putting words in my mouth, thank you.
> But one could also raise a further question: Is FUM devoted to
> its own opinions and prejudices or to following the way of Christ,
> and finding that this leads to policies others call bigoted?
Do you truly believe that Christ would want us to discriminate against and
exclude homosexual Friends?
> Whereas your opinions seem to be your own derived ones.
My *beliefs* are based in the way of Christ, and the light within tells me
that FUM's policy is bigoted and prejudicial. No (incredibly ironic) charge
of bigotry towards me will change that, nor will your unFriendly treatment
of me.
Bill Samuel
>As it stands, this statement appears to indicate that the funds
>normally contributed each year ($17,400 in the 2004 budget) are not
>being contributed in 2005. And need I remind so seasoned a Friend
>as yourself that a change in policy from previous years -- such as a
>change from including a contribution in each year's budget, to not
>including one -- is never done except by an actual decision of the
>gathered body involved? If there is no such actual decision, the
>former policy stands. Thus the event *as described above* can only
>be read as a positive decision to depart from the practice of
>previous years.
Budgets, unlike policies, are de novo each year. Thus a decision to spend
money in a particular way only stands if it is approved in each subsequent
year.
BYM approved a budget with this item in question. Funds equivalent to what
one might expect to go to FUM if prior trends continued were included in the
budget, but how to spend them was left to a later decision.
You cannot take what everyone writes at face value. The same writer posted
the identical post on an e-mail list, and was promptly corrected by another
who was at the BYM sessions. I have seen verification of the correction from
multiple sources.
Cmgreenlnd
It does seem to me that referring to any group as "them" rather than as
individuals paves the way for intolerance, if not bigotry. In the case of FUM
administrative staff, and the board members who set policy, I just can't refer
to the whole lot as "them." Similarly, I cannot refer to my friends who are
homosexual as "them", either.
If you've worked for Friends in any capacity -- even for your Monthly Meeting
-- there is a group or several that sets policy, brings it to Meeting, where it
is either approved or questioned.
As I've said, the policy needs to be addressed at the board level, through the
representatives named by your Yearly Meeting.
To do otherwise would dishonor both those with whom you disagree, as well as
those you support.
But one point of agreement... I'm pretty certain that you're correct about what
Christ would do. However, what we both need to do is make very certain that
both of us pay greater attention to what God requires of each of us. For
myself, it is laboring with individuals, one at a time. I think John Woolman
took a similar approach, but was exceptionally clear about his own scruples.
The Iron Muffin
> Just some observations, no charges intended.
>
> It does seem to me that referring to any group as "them" rather
> than as individuals paves the way for intolerance, if not bigotry.
> In the case of FUM administrative staff, and the board members
> who set policy, I just can't refer to the whole lot as "them."
> Similarly, I cannot refer to my friends who are homosexual as
> "them", either.
>
> If you've worked for Friends in any capacity -- even for your
> Monthly Meeting -- there is a group or several that sets policy,
> brings it to Meeting, where it is either approved or questioned.
>
> As I've said, the policy needs to be addressed at the board level,
> through the representatives named by your Yearly Meeting.
>
> To do otherwise would dishonor both those with whom you
> disagree, as well as those you support.
>
> But one point of agreement... I'm pretty certain that you're correct
> about what Christ would do. However, what we both need to do
> is make very certain that both of us pay greater attention to what
> God requires of each of us. For myself, it is laboring with individuals,
> one at a time. I think John Woolman took a similar approach, but
> was exceptionally clear about his own scruples.
Rightly said, Christine. Thank you for your well-considered words.
Marshall Massey
> bs: There are certainly EFI meetings, particularly in
> : Northwest YM, which could be regarded as centrist.
I'd be interested in learning the grounds on which you'd describe
Northwest YM as centrist. I am not familiar with that YM.
I tend to be a little dubious about the idea of describing a body
such as EFI, which has veered away from the original positions of
Quakerism into pastoral meetings, programmed services, and
post-Methodist ideas of the Christian path, as "centrist". But maybe
that's just me --
I am reminded of the sign I see every time I drive into Central
City, Nebraska, to visit the FUM Friends church there. "Central
City," it says, "the center of it all!" I guess what the "center" is,
is very much in the eyes of the beholder.
CHUCKFAGER
>is that, the more deeply I am convinced of sins I myself have
>committed, the more deeply reluctant I become to condemn anyone else; >>
This is a noble sentiment. But it would be more convincing if Marshall could
forego his habit of condemning the actions of other Friends (such as BYM)
which he persistently misinterprets through his own filters, notwithstanding
the facts and the documents.
This is a piece of "keeping one's behavior above reproach" tht deserves much
more attention. There are more ways to "sin" here than in the bedroom. Indeed,
the record shows that the boudoir is one of the lesser arenas for such really
pernicious misbehavior.
Chuck Fager
CHUCKFAGER
<<< >As it stands, this statement appears to indicate that the funds normally
contributed each year ($17,400 in the 2004 budget) are not being contributed in
2005. >>
That is correct. There was no unity in the body to include a "membership"
contribution to FUM in the 2005 BYM budget, and the budget was adopted without
such in it. There was agreement to designate a large amouunt for a visitation
effort among other FUM YMs.
<< And need I remind so seasoned a Friend as yourself that a change in
policy from previous years -- such as a change from including a contribution in
each year's budget, to not including one -- is never done except by an actual
decision of the gathered body involved? If there is no such actual decision,
the former policy stands. Thus the event *as described above* can only be read
as a positive decision to depart from the practice of previous years. >>
That is your, typically tendentious interpretation. Ours is that the budget
is not a policy matter, but an annual affair. Amounts and line items in it
change frequently and usually for non-controversial reasons.
There is no "precedental value" in last year's budget amount for anything in
next year's budget.
I know this very well, having been Clerk of BYM's RE Committee in a period
when its budget amount varied widely, and not in harmony with the Committee's
desires. This was not "policy"; it was budgeting in tough economic times, and
so be it.
And similarly, whether a membership contribution to FUM will be included in
the 2006 budget was not decided at our 2004 session. That will come up next
year.
<<<
>Chuck said nothing about further consideration of the matter at the fall
interim meeting in October. As far as I know, this is the first time that
point has been mentioned in this thread. It is certainly the first time the
point has been mentioned in any posting I have seen. >>>
My understanding of the agenda for Fall Interim Meeting is to consider
further how to put flesh onto the plans for visitation with other FUM YMs. I
would be very surprised if there is a attempt to revisit the 2005 budget and
insert a contribution to FUM.
No less than eight of our MMs have submitted minutes opposing such an
action, and this clear expression by a large segment of the constituency
weighed heavily in the properly taken sense of our 2004 YM that there was no
unity to do this.
Those minutes will still be in place next month when Interim Meeting
gathers, and it is hard for me to envision a Clerk of that body permitting such
a coup.
In the more priest-ridden FUM YMs, such putschs are not uncommon -- that
is, after all, much of how we got into this situation -- but we have higher
standards for our Quaker processes in BYM, and in my time, these standards have
largely been met.
Marshall Massey
>5tim: "de-recorded as a minister...thanks to pressure from
>5 : officials in Mid-America (EFI)" does *not* make it clear
>5 : that FUM was not involved in his de-recording.
I responded,
>4 mm: Perhaps we read things differently. I read -- and
>4 : therefore write -- with the operating assumption,
>4 : "innocent until proven guilty".
"Muffin" then wrote,
>3tim: I read and write with the operating assumption, "if it
>3 : looks like bigotry and prejudice, walks like bigotry and
>3 : prejudice, and quacks like bigotry and prejudice, then it
>3 : probably *is* bigotry and prejudice."
And I replied,
>2 mm: Except it wasn't. And by your hasty judgment that it was,
>2 : you judged and condemned people (the officials of FUM)
>2 : who'd done nothing wrong.
"Muffin" now writes,
> tim: Once again, I object to your characterization of what I
> : did as a blanket condemnation of a group of people. How
> : many times do I have to explain that it is not the
> : *people* of FUM that I condemn, but the *policy*?
I look at what you've actually posted in this thread, and what I find
is --
>13tim: Apparently, FUM Friends are all *too* sure about Friends
>13 : who are not heterosexual.
-- and --
>9tim: FUM has condemned *itself*....
-- and --
>3tim: But if you're gay or lesbian, you can pretty much forget
>3 : about acceptance from FUM.
These look like blanket condemnations to me.
>2 mm: ...who'd done nothing wrong.
> tim: As far as I can tell they did nothing right either, until
> : after the transgression against Bales had taken place.
As far as I can tell, the same is true of you. Should I therefore
come down hard on your case?
>2 mm: ...They had the wisdom not to try to interfere in the
>2 : affairs of his local meeting....
> tim: It is wisdom to not stand against discrimination and
> : prejudice?
Wisdom is knowing how to stand against it in a way that produces
positive results, rather than a way that just proves you a bully.
> tim: It is great that FUM is supporting Dorlan Bales. When
> : will it support gay and lesbian Friends?
It supports them right now, friend.
>3tim: But if you're gay or lesbian, you can pretty much forget
>3 : about acceptance from FUM.
>2 mm: That's not true. I can think of five FUM yearly meetings
>2 : in North America where you will be accepted, and some
>2 : others where there are at least some local meetings
>2 : (maybe many) that will accept you.
> tim: How many of these FUM yearly meetings will accept you as a
> : staff member if you are gay or lesbian?
Five.
> tim: How many of these local meetings will accept you as a
> : minister?
I don't know, but I suspect the answer is, all of them.
>5tim: Is it your position that making a statement such as "I
>5 : wonder what FUM's position would be on his ministry were
>5 : he gay" amounts to "hammering"?
>4 mm: What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's
>4 : case even after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's
>4 : response to Dorlan's case was very good.
> tim: Dorlan Bales is but one case among many.
"Many"? Evidence, please.
> tim: Should I drop the matter just because, in this one
> : instance, FUM did the right thing?
I'm not saying you should drop the matter, but you might consider
taking a friendlier tack. You might try writing with the attitude
that FUM Friends strive to do the right thing just as you do, even
though their understanding of what is right differs from yours and
mine.
>5tim: Is it your position that making a statement such as "I
>5 : wonder what FUM's position would be on his ministry were
>5 : he gay" amounts to "hammering"?
>4 mm: What I meant by "hammering" was that you kept after FUM's
>4 : case even after Bill and I explained to you that FUM's
>4 : response to Dorlan's case was very good.
>3tim: There is still a worm in the apple. Would you prefer that
>3 : I just ignore it and take a great big bite?
>2 mm: Is that what "hammering" means to you?
> tim: I have no idea what you mean by this. Care to explain?
We were talking about what hammering means, as the above dialogue
shows. So I was wondering whether your comment about the worm in the
apple was intended as an explanation of what hammering means to you --
as meaning, I suppose, pounding wormy apples to smithereens instead of
taking a bite.
>3tim: Is it your position that making such a statement is
>3 : "wrong"?
>2 mm: It feels antagonistic to me, and I believe it is not
>2 : helpful.
>2 : ...
>2 : There's a way to seek truth that builds peace, and another
>2 : way to do so that feeds anger and alienation. Only the
>2 : former way is consistent with Quakerism.
> tim: So George Fox and the Valiant Sixty weren't consistent
> : with Quakerism? They did, after all, piss off and
> : alienate a whole lot of people...
But they weren't being antagonistic or adversarial; they weren't
*deliberately* feeding anger and alienation in any way. They made it
as clear as they knew how that they had great respect for magistrates
performing their God-given functions, and that they only refused to
say "you", to doff their hats, and to swear oaths, because these
things were forbidden by the Gospel.
They addressed magistrates and priests and military leaders with
love, even though without the niceties forbidden by the Gospel. Some
of those they addressed, like Cromwell, Judge Fell and Charles II,
heard the love and responded in kind, while others interpreted
Friends' obedience to the Gospel as intentional slights and flew into
rages.
It was an interesting dynamic. The rages of the priests and
magistrates were provoked by the standards of Christ himself. Friends
weren't seeking a quarrel, or wanting one, but simply obeying the
Gospel's demands. That's why Friends described what happened as the
Lamb's War, not as their own.
And the result of the fact that the "piss[ed] off and
alienate[d]" state of their antagonists was not in any way sought by
Friends, was that England became more and more sympathetic to Friends
as the years rolled on, seeing them as innocent, devout victims of
heavies with bad attitudes -- until finally it passed the Toleration
Act of 1689, a national renunciation of religious warfare and
persecution. And that national renunciation of religious warfare and
persecution has lasted to this day -- 315 years and counting!
So the Friends' method, by not being antagonistic or adversarial
or pugnacious, wound up building peace on a very large scale.
>5tim: I don't feel that my statement was "hammering" on anyone.
>4 mm: Maybe you and I use the word "hammering" differently,
>4 : then.
>3tim: Apparently we do, and I think that your characterization
>3 : of my statement as "hammering" is unjust.
>2 mm: Could that be because you persist in believing that I was
>2 : using your definition of the word, even though I have
>2 : already made it clear that I was using a different one --?
> tim: If you are going to use words in such a way as defies their
> : common usage, you would do well not to be surprised when
> : you are misunderstood.
The way I used it is listed as common usage in my Merriam-Webster
*Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary*, which gives as its second
meaning of the verb "hammer", "to make repeated efforts, esp. to
reiterate an opinion or attitude <the lectures all hammered away at
the same points>".
>2 mm: Their quarrel's not with the programs their money
>2 : supports, but with the bias in the hiring process.
>2 : Withholding money doesn't correct that bias, it just
>2 : diminishes the scale of the programs.
> tim: It shows those who administer the programs that their
> : hiring policy is abhorrent to those who would otherwise
> : gladly support them and their programs financially. The
> : Nazi party of Germany kept the trains running on time:
> : Does this mean that those who lived under its rule should
> : have supported the Nazis without regard to the other
> : policies of their administration?
The Romans kept the peace (the famous *Pax Romana*) in the
Mediterranean basin. But they also enslaved (and sometimes wiped out)
whole peoples, and crucified those who rebelled. Since history's
generally written by the victors, many people nowadays don't realize
that the Romans were as bad a nightmare as the Nazis -- unless,
perchance, they watch *Spartacus* and something sinks in.
So when someone asked Christ, should we pay taxes to Caesar, it
was very much the equivalent of your question, "does this mean that
those who lived under its rule should have supported the Nazis...?"
And I think you know Christ's answer.
> tim: You seem determined to view withholding financial support
> : as a "punishment" of some kind.
When I look up the word "punishment" in my Merriam-Webster dictionary,
I see
2 b : a penalty inflicted on an offender through judicial
procedure
When I look at what Baltimore has done, I see Baltimore preparing to
inflict the penalty of a loss of funding on FUM because FUM has been
an offender against its sense of proprieties, and I see it doing this
through a form of collective debate and decision-making which
approximates a trial procedure.
>4 mm: If one goes through the gospel order process, one doesn't
>4 : cut off one's support for the other side until all avenues
>4 : of reconciliation have been exhausted. In the present
>4 : case, though, all avenues of reconciliation have *not*
>4 : been exhausted; the minute from Baltimore YM itself tells
>4 : us that intervisitation has not been properly tried as
>4 : yet, and I wonder whether there might not also be a
>4 : possibility of asking in other bodies of Friends (FWCC
>4 : Friends, perhaps) to help out as mediators.
>3tim: Withdrawing financial support is not tantamount to cutting
>3 : ties completely, nor abandoning the other side....
>2 mm: No, but it is a step in that direction -- a cutting of
> : *financial* ties, an abandoning of *financial* support.
> tim: It is a refusal to fund an official policy of exclusion
> : and prejudice.
And since all avenues of reconciliation have not yet been exhausted,
that act is out of gospel order.
> tim: Does the process of gospel order require Friends to
> : support (financially or otherwise) a policy that they feel
> : is wrong?
It requires Friends to exhaust all possibilities of reconciliation
before cutting off support.
>2 mm: I suggest you read Sandra Cronk's *Gospel Order. A
>2 : Quaker Understanding of Faithful Church Community* (Pendle
>2 : Hill Pamphlet 297, 1991).
> tim: OK.
Bless you for agreeing to do so. I'll be interested in your reaction,
if you should feel right about sharing it with me.
>2 mm: The bigotry and prejudice in FUM is not funded by the
>2 : organization; it is donated free of charge to the
>2 : organization by people on either side of the debate.
> tim: It is inherent to the organization, in the form of an
> : official policy.
If it were inherent to the organization, then the organization could
not exist without it. But I believe the organization *can* exist
without it, so I do not believe it is inherent.
>2 mm: I notice that just yesterday you called people who support
>2 : FUM's policy "bigots", and said God would never want us to
>2 : be like them. That's not just judging and condemning the
>2 : policy, it's judging and condemning the people. Which was
>2 : the point.
> tim: I can only assume that you are referring to the post in
> : which I wrote, "To me, god's will in this matter is quite
> : clear: FUM's policy is wrong. I don't believe that god
> : is a bigot. Nor do I believe that god would have us
> : discriminate against our non-heterosexual Friends."
No, I'm referring to the post in which I advised corporate discernment
including both the FUM side and the liberal side, with both sides --
your side too -- being willing to be changed; and you responded that
you "don't believe that god wants us to be bigots." That labels the
people who support FUM's policy as "bigots".
>3tim: Where were the FUM officials when it came time to stand in
>3 : opposition to Bales' de-recording as a minister?
>2 mm: Giving him a loving home in FUM, as I've already said.
> tim: No, that was afterward.
No, that was all along -- before, during, and after.
> tim: FUM stood aside while the EFI officials called for Bales'
> : de-recording, as far as I can tell.
So did you, friend, and for the same reason.
> tim: You seem to consider this to be "wisdom". I consider it
> : to be an abandonment.
I see. So you consider that you yourself abandoned Dorlan in his time
of need?