2022/07/20

Meeting for Business as Spiritual Rehearsal - Friends Journal

Meeting for Business as Spiritual Rehearsal

July 1, 2022

Illustrations by tannikart

Although I knew little about Quakers when I first started attending a Quaker meeting, I quickly became comfortable with meeting for worship. The basic beliefs and testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends corresponded so closely to the spiritual beliefs I had evolved for myself that one could say I was a Quaker without really knowing it. I was so comfortable that I felt I could apply for membership after only two or three months. However, I knew that becoming a member meant making a commitment to participate in the full life of the community, not merely to show up for an hour on Sunday morning. To test whether I was prepared to do that I felt I had to start attending meeting for business.

I knew even less about meeting for business than I did about meeting for worship. From the few books I’d read, I knew that there was no voting and that decisions were made by what I would have called “consensus,” but that’s probably about all I knew. The agendas for the meetings looked much the same as those for board or committee meetings at my office, and the business meetings themselves seemed very similar. Yes, there was a bit of silence at the beginning, but then items were presented and discussed, and eventually decisions were reached by what seemed to be unanimous consent, even though there was no voting. The process looked so similar to my work that it was natural for me to bring to these meetings the same attitude and approach I brought to meetings at my office. In those meetings my objective was to convince others that my approach to an issue was the right one and the one that should be followed. I was good at presenting my views, had strong opinions, enjoyed debate, and was verbally skillful at making my point and pointing out the weaknesses in other opinions. However, although no one complained about my behavior or eldered me or gave me any advice, I increasingly came to feel that this approach was not making me a constructive participant in meeting for business.

Although meeting for business was properly called meeting for worship with attention to business, the “for worship” part had no impact on me until I began to think more rigorously about what I was doing in meeting for worship itself. That led me to conclude that worship was a more complicated process of spiritual practice than just sitting silently waiting for a divine message to appear. I described the idea of meeting for worship as spiritual practice in the essay “Wait and Watch,” published in Friends Journal in June 2006.

In that essay, I used the word “practice” in the sense of its meaning “a repeated exercise in an activity requiring the development of a skill.” As examples, I mentioned the solitary practice of a musician or actor preparing for a concert or play, or the batting practice of a ball player in anticipation of the game. Similarly, I said, meeting for worship was an opportunity to practice and develop skills to make the performance of our daily lives more spiritually centered. In using those analogies, I forgot that there was an intermediary step between practice and performance: rehearsal. A rehearsal is an event where you take the skills you have learned in solitary practice and apply them together with others in a setting that simulates reality but is not the real situation. My Oxford American Dictionary uses the phrase “trial performance.” The most challenging aspect of a trial performance is learning to interact with others without forgetting the skills learned in solitary practice. A rehearsal provides the opportunity to do that in a safe environment, where the focus is on the process of working together. Only in the final dress rehearsal is the focus on the outcome expected to be achieved in the actual performance.

If the way we live our daily lives—the way our lives speak from a spiritual center—is the equivalent of the actual performance, then meeting for worship with attention to business—the process of interacting with others in a spiritually centered way—is the intermediary step, the bridge between practice and performance that the concept of rehearsal implies. This led me to consider how the practices I’m learning in meeting for worship inform my behavior in meeting for worship with attention to business, with the following results.

Being Present

The first skill I am practicing in worship is being present. Being present means being fully aware of where I am and what I am doing in that moment. In meeting for worship, this comes from having adequate time to settle into silence and allow my mind to free itself of the distractions that constantly occupy it. Most meetings for business begin with a brief period of silent worship that is usually too brief for me. So, when I attend such meetings, I try to arrive at least five minutes early to give myself that extra time to set aside whatever I was doing that morning or whatever I hoped to be doing later that day.

The need for an extended period of silence was captured for me by a Quaker anecdote (intended to be humorous, I think) about a clerk who started a meeting for business by saying, “We have a long and complicated agenda, so we will need a longer period of silence.” The humor is that in a secular context, the chair of the meeting would say, “We have a complicated agenda, so let’s get started quickly.” (I’ve said that myself!) The opposite approach is a clear reminder that the best decisions, the ones that strive to seek the will of God in a matter, require as much focused attention as does sitting in worship waiting expectantly to hear or be inspired to give a spiritual message, and therefore they need to be grounded in an adequate amount of silence.

Being fully present is not only required at the start of a meeting but throughout its course. Here again, a practice from worship is relevant. In meetings for worship, we are expected to allow adequate time between two messages so that the first can be fully absorbed before a new idea is introduced. For the same reason, in a meeting for business it is appropriate to allow a few minutes of silence between agenda items. When this does not happen, I find it helps me make the transition from one item to another by consciously taking three deep breaths: the first to release the previous item, the second to bring myself into the present, and the third to open myself to a new issue.

Patience

The second skill I practice in meeting for worship is patience: the patience to sit in silence, expectantly waiting to see if any divinely inspired word will come forth. Patience is even more necessary in meeting for business for several reasons.

The Quaker process of decision making can be long and sometimes feel tedious. I am often impatient, feeling that the right decision is obvious and that we should make it and move on. This is clearly the result of my eagerness to move decisions along expeditiously in my daily work. But the most obvious decision is not always the right one. Pushing hastily for a decision tends to forget that the process is more important—the journey more important than the destination, you might say—so patience is needed to let the process unfold and allow time for the right decision to emerge.

Quite often some items on the agenda interest me more than others. In those cases, patience is needed to enable me to listen attentively to the ones of less interest. Here again, however, a practice from meeting for worship is relevant. In meeting for worship, I am reminded to come without the expectation of either speaking or remaining silent. I should be open to however the Spirit leads me. The same applies to meeting for business. The fact that I feel I am not interested in a particular item may very well give me the detachment needed to see a way forward to a decision, whereas my ego involvement in other issues may make it difficult for me to see past my own opinion. Rather than be constrained by preconceived positions, I need to be engaged in the discussion but detached from the outcome and open to unexpected influences and ideas.

Remembering God

In a rehearsal for a play, there is usually a director; for a concert, there is a conductor; and for a baseball game, a coach. That is, there is always an independent entity with an overall vision of the desired outcome. In meeting for business, this independent entity is God, and that is essential for me to remember.

“Remembering God” is a Muslim phrase I used in “Wait and Watch” to describe an attitude toward meeting for worship that also applies to meeting for business. Remembering God helps me to remember that we are searching for God’s way with respect to the matters under consideration—not my way or the way of others present—and helps me develop that detachment from outcomes I mentioned before. Remembering God reminds me that there is that of God in each individual present, which helps me listen to differing opinions in a non-judgmental manner. The fact that I am advised not to respond to a message in meeting for worship makes it easy to ignore messages that don’t seem relevant to me. However, this is more difficult in meeting for business, where remembering that of God in others is more essential. Being non-judgmental applies to both what is said and who is speaking, since I know I relate more to some people than others, and that can easily affect how I perceive their opinions. Remembering that God can use anyone to deliver the message needed at that moment helps me to be receptive to ideas from unexpected sources and to maintain that sense of detachment that allows a path forward to emerge.

Knowing When to Speak

Acritical skill I learn in worship is when to speak and when to remain silent: When is a message I feel inspired to give a true message, or when is it just an interesting thought or something meant solely for me? In “Wait and Watch,” I said that I had to feel compelled to speak and used the term “foreboding”—a feeling that I could not avoid this task even if I wanted to. Much the same is true for meeting for business and here the concept of “wait and watch” is most important.

The phrase “wait and watch” comes from Jesus’s request to his three disciples when he went off to the garden to pray on his final night. He was asking them to stay awake and alert: to watch and listen for something that might happen, although he had no idea what it might be. Waiting and watching is good advice for me because my natural tendency is to state my opinion quickly in order to influence the discussion. But if I wait, someone else may express my point of view, and there is no need for me to speak at all. If I watch—in this case listen, and listen non-judgmentally—then I may change my mind about what I intended to say and either speak or not as seems appropriate, or be the one sufficiently detached to see a middle path through differing opinions that can lead to a decision.

If I speak, I try to be guided by another practice from meeting for worship, which is not to start with or to frequently use the word “I.” If a message is truly inspired, it’s not mine; it is not coming from me but through me. In meeting for business not using the word “I” helps me to speak to the issue rather than to my opinion. I could say, “I think the seat cushions should be green,” or I could say, “Green might be a nice color for the cushions,” and make the same contribution in a more constructive way.

One issue about speaking that is more difficult in meeting for business than in meeting for worship is what to do when I disagree with the decision that the meeting as a whole seems to favor. In worship, I can easily let messages that don’t speak to my condition pass by, but that is harder to do in meeting for business and, in some respects, may even be inappropriate. In those instances, I have first to ask myself if I have listened well to other opinions; is my disagreement coming from a clear spiritual place, or is it just my ego disappointed at not getting my own way? I may conclude that my lack of agreement needs to be noted but not feel so certain that I prevent a decision from moving forward; thus I am willing to stand aside, as it is called. But there have been a few times when I felt unable to stand aside. To take such a position is a terrible feeling for me and one that I approach with much of the same fear and trembling I often experience when speaking in worship. On some occasions, my reservations have brought forth similar reservations from others, and through further discussion, a new decision acceptable to all has been reached. But there have also been one or two instances when I stood alone or when I have participated in meetings where someone else was unable to stand aside.

One of the truly wonderful things about the Quaker process of trying to discern the sense of the meeting is a willingness to take no action, even when there is only one voice that can’t come into unity with others. In those instances, a decision may be deferred with the expectation that all parties will consider the issue further and hopefully come back later and reach agreement. But I have also experienced situations where this was not the case, and complete unity could not be achieved on an issue that was essential for a meeting to address. Such a situation tests the commitment of the community to its individual members—which may involve a long period of struggle to discern a way forward—and the commitment of an individual member to participate in that struggle and remain a part of the community. There are times when such struggles may not result in agreements, in which case it is important to remember that sense of the meeting does not mean unanimity.

Meeting for worship and meeting for business are the twin pillars of Quaker practice. Just as it is not possible to give a good concert or stage a good play without both solitary practice and group rehearsal, so I believe it is not possible to develop the skills to lead a spiritually centered daily life without participating in both types of meetings. Viewing meeting for worship with attention to business as a spiritual rehearsal connection with meeting for worship that enables me to bring the skills I practice in one to bear upon the other. It reminds me that my interaction with others in a spiritually led manner is the real focus of such meetings, and that it is God, the great conductor, who is guiding the outcome, if we are willing to wait patiently and listen attentively for the movement of the Spirit within and among us.

Features

John Andrew Gallery

Since discovering the Religious Society of Friends in 1990, John Andrew Gallery has pursued a ministry of writing. In addition to articles published in Friends Journal, he has published three Pendle Hill pamphlets, the most recent of which is Be Patterns: Reflections on Words of George Fox. Contact: Johnandrewgallery.com.

Friends and Patriotism - Friends Journal

Friends and Patriotism

August 1, 1992

By Allan Kohrman

Originally published August 1, 1992

Every group has issues it would rather not discuss; Quakers are no exception. For unprogrammed Friends, these issues include sin and Christ. When programmed Friends force us to discuss them, we often do so unwillingly. Patriotism is another such issue, except that no Quaker group forces us to confront it. Our attitudes seem to range from suspicion of patriotism to a conviction that it is evil.

Perhaps this is so because most Quakers equate patriotism with nationalism, and thus associate patriotism with war and a “my country, right or wrong” attitude. But what patriotism really means is love not of country but what our country stands for: equality, liberty, democracy, and freedom. These values make our country different from most others and much more desirable to live in. It is these values that we ought to find Quakerly ways to celebrate.

Most Friends, however, seemingly despise everything our country does; all they can do is be highly critical, a position as extreme and as wrongheaded as blindly supporting our country in all cases. For example, Philips Moulton wrote in the July 1990 Friends Journal: “Naturally, we tend to idealize those our government opposes . . . and to denigrate the other side.” Moulton is a respected mainstream Quaker peace activist, and his statement is, I believe, representative of a great many Quakers; for them to oppose U.S. foreign policy—and most of its domestic policy—is as natural as breathing. Of course the United States has not always lived up to its ideals. But many Quakers have castigated our country without end while muting their criticism of other countries.

This behavior was understandable during the Vietnam years, when, for perhaps the first time in history, the United States was perpetrating more evil than any nation on earth. But our relationship to our country never changed once the war ended. We continued to criticize the United States, but we did not criticize other countries with the same force, except for a few who were supported by the United States. In other words, we did not criticize evil wherever we found it. For example, we hardly criticized the equally destructive Russian invasion of Afghanistan. We muted—perhaps subverted—our pacifism and lent support to military “freedom” movements in the Middle East, Central America, and Southern Africa. We criticized Iran under the oppressive Shah, who had U.S. support, but seldom criticize Iran under the far more oppressive “revolutionary” regime.

Now that Communism has collapsed of its own accord in so many areas of the world, removing the principal twentieth-century alternative to our way of life, perhaps it is time to rethink our attitude toward our own country. One way of doing this is to adopt a more balanced view of our country’s ideals and actions, perhaps realizing that our nation is more than a repository of evil.

Another way is to rethink our attitude toward our country’s laws. Many Friends seem to define civil disobedience as breaking any law they feel is morally wrong. Some will not pay war taxes, testifying that God has called them to resist. I would argue that paying taxes is a basic responsibility of citizenship, a function of my almost mystical relationship to my country. God calls me to pay my taxes much as God calls others to resist them.

A number of Quakers can even strongly support some sections of a law and break others; many wish us to react to the recent immigration act in this way. Imagine if all our citizens examined every section of every law, deciding what to obey and disobey. Soon, clearly, we would be plunged into anarchy.

None of this should be construed as an argument that Quakers should forego civil disobedience. But we should be very cautious indeed about breaking the law.

Quakers might also consider breaking our relationships with violent revolutionaries all over the world. We might even consider a moratorium on our work for “justice,” given that our work often entails supporting groups who reject the Quaker peace testimony. Instead, we might consider a return to the relief work we do so well. We could return to our traditional function of trying to mediate disputes instead of clearly supporting one side against the other. Both sides in a dispute then might welcome Quaker humanitarian aid.

We could rethink, too, our attitude toward patriotism, examining what is good about our country as well as what is not. We could, as a beginning, think about how we might celebrate the values our country has given us. Consider flying the flag on patriotic holidays and displaying the flag during meeting for worship on Sundays. Singing ministry might include “God Bless America” as well as “Simple Gifts.” On Memorial Day, one might offer ministry about the sometimes desirable results of wars. Had the Germans been allowed to invade our country during World War II, for example, all U.S. Jews would have been murdered as well as all Quakers who would not acquiesce to Nazism. As a Quaker from a Jewish background, I am thankful this invasion was resisted, even though war was necessary to prevent it.

When war does come, let us criticize our enemies as well as ourselves. Let us examine the cause of the war and the possible results. In the recent Persian Gulf War, it was almost impossible not to castigate Iraq for its behavior; nonetheless, many Friends were unwilling to do so. And some Friends had difficulty realizing the United States was fighting to protect its access to Middle East oil, without which our economy and possibly our government would disintegrate. I do not argue that we abandon the peace testimony. I do argue that we should realize the possible consequences if our country does not choose to fight, including the possibility that we might lose our country’s most cherished values.

Let us celebrate what we hold dear. Let us search for ways to praise our country as well as criticize it.

Viewpoint

Allan Kohrman

Allan Kohrman lives in Newton Highlands, Mas

Safe Meetings Don’t Avoid Conflict - Friends Journal

Safe Meetings Don’t Avoid Conflict

July 18, 2022

By Donald W. McCormick

Illustrations by Good Studio

Originally published March 2022

Ibecame aware that our meeting wasn’t safe when a friend (I’ll call her Barbara) told me that she spoke to an older woman from meeting. The woman said, “I’d like to come to meeting more often, but I don’t feel safe. John corners me in the parking lot and tries to sell me things.” John isn’t his real name.

Barbara said, “I’ll meet you in the parking lot every Sunday. I’ll walk you to your car after meeting. This is not OK.” After the call, Barbara looked into things and found that John had been trying to get relatively well-to-do widowed and single, older women from meeting to buy expensive, sketchy vitamin supplements and dubious investments, including mining operations on asteroids. Although he had been doing this for years and many people knew about it, no one had done anything.

This didn’t surprise Barbara. Years earlier she’d been struck with Meniere’s disease and suffered from episodes of vertigo and vomiting. In meeting, people asked that Barbara be held in the Light. Soon after, John called her and gave her the hard sell: “These vitamins will cure your problem!” She listened for a while and then blurted out, “Do you even know what’s wrong with me?” He quickly got off the phone and avoided Barbara at meeting. (Although for weeks afterwards, John pestered her husband to buy the vitamins for her.)

Barbara was angry. Unafraid of conflict, she brought this problem to Ministry and Worship Committee and the meeting’s clerk, and they became concerned. This started a months-long process of discernment, during which the committee and the clerk dealt with open conflict in business meeting and the meeting as a whole. Eventually, the meeting decided to expel John.

What Is a Safe Meeting?

We want safe meetings, but what does that mean? In safe meetings people are free from bullying, bigotry, predatory behavior (like John’s), abuse, harassment, racism, and being attacked for their vocal ministry.

Quaker meetings need more psychological safety than ordinary organizations—even more than churches. That’s because we share intimate messages from the Spirit in our worship services. To say, out loud, things that are close to our soul makes us vulnerable, but we need to be able to share these in meetings for worship, business meetings, and clearness committees without fear of being attacked or excluded. If we don’t speak because we don’t feel safe enough to share what the Spirit calls us to say, Quakerism falls apart.

To say, out loud, things that are close to our soul makes us vulnerable, but we need to be able to share these in meetings for worship, business meetings, and clearness committees without fear of being attacked or excluded. If we don’t speak because we don’t feel safe enough to share what the Spirit calls us to say, Quakerism falls apart.

If We Avoid Conflict, We Can’t Confront Behavior That Makes Meetings Unsafe

Why did so many of us stay silent about John? Why did we take years to work together to protect the meeting? Why didn’t we feel safe enough to raise our concerns?

Conflict avoidance is a big reason. It prevents us from confronting people who make a meeting unsafe. And as long as we avoid conflict, the meeting stays unsafe.

My first taste of Quaker conflict avoidance came soon after I began attending meeting. Much like in high school, where I got the message about what clothes to wear even though no one told me directly, in meeting I got the message that conflict was unquakerly and that good Quakers don’t get angry. This impression lingered for years until I organized a Quaker movie night at my monthly meeting, watched a video about George Fox’s life, and saw that he wasn’t afraid of conflict. Sometimes he got really angry. He did things like stand up during a Church of England service and ask the preacher: “You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say?”

Learning about Fox made me realize that I didn’t have to suppress emotions like anger or avoid conflict to be a good Quaker. I asked a psychiatrist friend, who has been an active Quaker for decades, if there was much conflict avoidance in Quakerism. She emphatically said there was. She also pointed out the importance of distinguishing between feeling angry, and acting on your anger to hurt someone. Healthy anger, and the response to it, brings people closer together.

Where does Quaker conflict avoidance come from? In Friends Journal, George Lakey said:

It’s very middle-class, professional behavior to mince words, not to tell the truth that’s uncomfortable, and to avoid conflict. . . . Among early Quakers there was real conflict and expression of a range of human emotion.

He says that over time, as the middle class increasingly captured Quaker culture:

we also became reluctant to state hard truths. . . . [E]arly Quakers . . . were willing to call things as they saw them, being chiefly concerned to be faithful to the truth even at considerable cost.

Reluctance to state hard truths isn’t an essential part of Quakerism. It’s just a preference of the middle class—one that can make meetings unsafe.

Although some may see conflict as destructive, our experience shows that a meeting can grow and become healthier if it doesn’t avoid conflict, maintains its integrity, and is willing to set boundaries by confronting behavior that makes the meeting unsafe.

How Can We Encourage People to Confront Behavior That Makes Meetings Unsafe?

First, we can create a climate in meetings that encourages people to raise their safety concerns. In Friends Journal, Herb Lape writes about a committee in his meeting that created this climate. The committee members called everyone in the meeting and asked them how well the meeting was serving their needs. This made it clear that the meeting wanted to know their concerns. These calls also allowed the committee:

to hear first hand the frustrations that some individuals have about individual behavior and messages in our meetings for worship and business. In the past, these folks might have left, figuring that there was no avenue for expressing their concerns or that no one would take action.

But the committee did take action—eldering some people and holding adult education sessions that addressed concerns that were raised. I suspect that if this had happened in my old meeting, people would have raised their concerns about John’s behavior much sooner.

Second, once concerns about safety are raised, a meeting can take steps that range from the empathic to the forceful. If possible, it’s good for the first step to be empathic. One or two people could talk with the person who is making the meeting less safe, try to understand their perspective, and share the meeting’s concerns. This is kinder and more effective than just telling them what to do. After all, we’re all more likely to be persuaded by someone who first genuinely listens to our views. My psychiatrist friend and I took this approach when eldering a member of our meeting, and while it didn’t stop the member’s offending behavior permanently, it did cause it to stop for quite a while.

Herb Lape writes that in his meeting, when this step doesn’t work, the committee’s next step is writing the person a letter that spells out the behavior that needs to change. A third step has committee members commit to speak to the person right away if they see them engaging in the behavior. If the behavior has significant enough consequences and continues (like John’s did), a fourth step may be to expel the person from the meeting. In Friends Journal, Margery Mears Larrabee urges people involved in eldering to be open to strong action. She also suggests that:

any desire to elder be taken to the appropriate standing committee first [as it can offer] clarity and direction [as well as] safeguards against individualism [and] egocentricity.

Unfortunately, we can’t always do this. Sometimes there isn’t enough time.

Third, we can interrupt the behavior by letting the person know that their words or actions won’t be tolerated. Sometimes you need to stop a person right away before they continue bullying, making racist comments, or verbally abusing someone. Committees can’t act in the moment, but individuals can. And each time someone publicly confronts behavior that interferes with meeting safety, it emboldens others to speak up in similar situations.

I received this kind of eldering years ago when I was new to Quakerism. During meeting for worship, another relative newcomer said something in vocal ministry that I strongly disagreed with. After a minute or two, I said something that—while not addressing him directly—did disagree with what he said. A couple of minutes later, he said something that refuted what I had just said. We went back and forth for a while. Then the meeting’s clerk eldered us. He interrupted us by standing up and saying that vocal ministry wasn’t a discussion. Although he didn’t single us out or address us directly, he was clearly talking about me and my unofficial debate partner. I’m glad he interrupted us; we were degrading the quality of meeting for worship and were likely to keep doing so. Also, we were giving people in meeting who were unfamiliar with Quakerism the wrong idea about worship. It’s important that people feel safe enough to give vocal ministry. My slow-motion argument with this guy could have led newcomers to think that if they gave vocal ministry, people would argue with them. In the future, this could scare them off from sharing a message from the Spirit.

Fourth, we can debunk mistaken beliefs that support conflict avoidance, like the idea that good Quakers don’t express the full range of human emotion (including anger), are always loving, and are nice all the time. For me, learning about George Fox broke the myth about anger. Margery Mears Larrabee debunked the continuous niceness myth when she wrote about John Woolman visiting slave owners’ homes. Many of them were his friends, were happy he was their guest, and made him feel welcome. He felt obligated to be nice to his hosts but knew this would interfere with the work the Spirit called him to do: initiating difficult conversations with them about owning slaves. He didn’t feel that he could avoid confronting his hosts about this. He believed that doing God’s work was more important than avoiding conflict.

Fifth, we can become more welcoming to people from a variety of social classes, ethnic groups, racial groups, and other societal groups that have different approaches to conflict.

And finally, we can celebrate eldering and teach people when and how to do it. We can teach this in sessions and workshops at monthly meetings, quarterly meetings, yearly meetings, Quaker retreat centers, and Friends General Conference Gatherings. We can also celebrate and teach eldering through Quaker magazines, newsletters, online discussion groups, online courses, pamphlets, and books. This is essential; people won’t engage in eldering unless they know when and how to do it.

Eldering gives us a way to confront people who make our meetings unsafe and a way to manage this conflict in a spiritual manner. If we don’t provide a spiritual way to do this, what will happen? Without a positive model for confrontation and handling conflict, we’re likely to accept the idea that conflict is inherently destructive and try to suppress it. When conflict finally surfaces, we’re likely to handle it in the only way we can think of—destructively. Either that, or the conflict will be denied or driven underground. And we will avoid issues that we should address. Luckily, though, our tradition of eldering gives us a model for how to confront unacceptable behavior and make our meetings safe.

So what happened to my meeting after John was expelled? Did the conflict over the decision tear the meeting apart and drive people away? No, just the opposite. Many people who hadn’t come to meeting for a long time started attending again. The total number of people who participated in our meeting increased. Although some may see conflict as destructive, our experience shows that a meeting can grow and become healthier if it doesn’t avoid conflict, maintains its integrity, and is willing to set boundaries by confronting behavior that makes the meeting unsafe.

Friends Journal

person

Quakerism

Spirit

Features

Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)

Donald W. McCormick

Donald W. McCormick is a member of Grass Valley Meeting, which is in the Sierra Nevada Mountains of California. He has long been interested in conflict in organizations. He received an award from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management for his research on gender and racial conflict at the National Institutes of Health. Contact: donmccormick2@gmail.com.

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Get free news and updates from Friends Journal and our QuakerSpeak video series.

Name:

Email:

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Receive weekly updates on new FJ stories and features

Name:

Email:

Current Issue

Vocal Ministry

June-July 2022

Recent Comments

Peter Harkness on Entering Contemplative Worship

I met Sheldon many years ago in Canada and was very interested to see his name...

Mahayana Landowne on Not Quite Ministry

Thank you for this article, I'd like to add... for me I experience that after words...

Soren Hauge on Our Letter To Hazel

An update: thanks to Hazel's query, our worship group's support, and the brighter sun of June,...

George Powell on The Ministry Of Listening

When I speak, where does it come from? When I speak, where does it go? My...

Featured Classified

A Wider Horizon

What happens when a minister loses his calling? He takes his family to an intentional community in Paraguay. This is…

See More Classifieds

Features

God’s Voice in the Chaos

Staying Centered in the Occasional Bedlam of a Busy Meeting.

J. E. McNeil

Features

Can Quakerism Survive?

Why is there no vision of the future of Quakerism?

Donald W. McCormick

Features

My Experience as an African American Quaker

A planned memorial for freed slaves in the cemetery exposes lingering divides.

Avis Wanda McClinton

12 thoughts on “Safe Meetings Don’t Avoid Conflict”

Francine Brocious

Collegeville, PA, March 3, 2022 at 4:03 pm

Thank you for this article. I have recently left the Quaker world, after a number of cliquey, unaddressed behaviors by Quaker organizations and committee and meeting clerks over the past few years I’ve tried to be a part of it. These behaviors have shocked me, based on the values Quakers claim to practice.

Some of the worst behaviors were being told that, at age 40 and a newer member, I was deemed “not seasoned enough” to be on the Care and Visiting committee in my meeting, because ageism and tenure reigned supreme in that meeting, apparently.

Also I was told that I “wasn’t needed” as a volunteer at a Quaker retirement community, and apparently not wanted there either, and that my hopes to simply bake cookies for some people there last year when I was extremely isolated were considered by at least one long-term Quaker to be “inappropriate and odd.”

I tried to bring all of this up with many people, first privately and then more publicly, multiple times, and only received avoidance or silence from everyone. Or veiled avoidance, like “don’t take it personally,” or “just join another committee.” Who cared if my gifts weren’t suited for other committees??

Yet, someone privately called the committee clerk mentioned above and complained about my “inappropriate” behavior of trying to raise my deep hurt and concerns. That clerk then called me to talk, and he said that he never had even read a private email I had sent him about my hurt feelings months prior, because apparently to him the email appeared to be “too long.”

So after all that heartbreak, avoidance, and silence, I have left the Quaker world and will practice my Quaker values alone in the larger world.

Also, just FYI, even the term “eldering” is an ageist term, in case anyone cares. It indirectly implies that only older or “tenured” members or people in Quaker meetings or communities can or should be allowed to call someone out for hurtful behavior.

You all need a new term, that is, if you have any desire whatsoever to be “eldered” by younger and newer people who actually want to practice George Fox’s values. Or if you have any desire to see your tradition continue.

Because many in my generation are getting ignored and dismissed so much in these ways, and we are leaving the official Quaker world as fast as we try to enter it. We know our worth, and we know how much “seasoning” we have to offer a community, even if we are younger or newer. When we actually feel wanted, heard, and *truly* included, we *may* decide to return…..

Good luck!

George Powell

Carmel Valley CA, March 28, 2022 at 6:23 pm

I have also left my Quaker meeting after 28 years for very similar reasons. Over the years we replaced God with good works as the center of our worship. We have become Pharisees, with materialism our central concern.

donmccormick2

Grass Valley CA, March 4, 2022 at 3:41 pm

It’s disturbing to hear about the way you were treated. Nationally, we are trying to make our meetings more welcoming and the behavior you described is really unwelcoming. Although I don’t have experience with a lot of different meetings, and no experience with any meetings back East except Pendle Hill’s, I don’t get the impression that this kind of behavior is widespread. If you ever give us Quakers a second chance, be sure to try a different meeting.

I think the point you make about the term “Eldering” is a good one.

Francine Brocious

Collegeville, PA, March 5, 2022 at 2:34 pm

Thanks, Donald. And sadly, this behavior is actually more widespread than you might realize.

There was a session from, I believe, PYM that I attended online last summer. There were about 35 others there, mostly in the left-out age demographic of between 30 and 65. There were many similar sentiments and experiences shared.

We “younger” (under-65) adults have been trying to get through in multiple ways. Over two years ago, I had an article published in the Friends Journal, called, “Wanted: A Network of Soul Connection.” Obviously no action was taken after that one.

And there have been a few other articles by younger people in the Quaker world regarding these topics also. One, I believe, was just in the last couple of months, detailing what younger people desire to feel included in Quaker meetings and organizations. Nine other people in my generation worked on that article. And there was another one written by someone else last October, I believe.

We have been trying so hard to be heard. But your article is very on point in saying that because Quakers avoid conflict so much, there has only been silence, avoidance, or dismissal of us, to the point where we just give up and leave.

Our energies are better spent in healthier environments where people actually listen to us, consider our viewpoints, and work to find ways to more fully include us and see and appreciate our value. For a group that’s so desperate for “young people,” you’d think they would care a lot more about treating us better.

The first Quaker meeting I attended for over a year (before the one I mentioned above) didn’t even have a regular weekly social hour (pre-Covid). It took them over a year to listen to my suggestion enough to start one, since I was the only new person there who didn’t know everyone else like they all knew each other.

They started a *monthly* one, which went so well. And then the next month they moved it to a person’s house, without telling everyone except for sign-up sheets in the meeting which I had missed, as I’d been away. So I came to meeting that morning, only to be told that virtually everyone else was at that person’s house that morning.

And then, later, they dared to ask me why I didn’t join their new Friendly Eights group when I complained (still) about feeling left out and not knowing people more deeply.

This, after I had also suggested *that* idea over a year prior, and everyone just brushed that off, saying there probably wouldn’t be the interest for that group.

So over a year later they finally started one, without having even *told* me that they’d now started it or having invited me to be a part.

I swear, it all feels like a big high-school clique all over again….

I don’t have the energy to try out yet another meeting until more of these problems get solved internally. Quakers have to be willing to take off their ageist and classist blinders and do better. It’s such a shame, because there are so many good souls in these groups that simply seem ignorant of the ways they are treating us, and then when we dare “elder” them about it, they stonewall us and don’t change.

The philosophies and ideals in Quakerism really are so beautiful. I just wish they’d tackle their blind spots like these, which are driving the “younger” people away…..

Shannon Roberts Smith

Berea, KY, March 21, 2022 at 11:34 am

I am not a believer in “safe” space – in Quakerdom nor anywhere else. I understand the concept as an ideal, but it seems to be no more than that – an ideal.

That said, I can testify that the *white* middle-class cultural norms that pervade our meetings can be particularly insidious when directed against folks who inhabit more marginal identities. Particularly Friends of Color.

For example, I have lost track of the number of times I have heard about/ personally witnessed vocal, culturally proud, and righteously angry BIPOC Friends being “eldered” (tone policed) over how they show up in Quaker spaces. And that is just the tip of the iceberg…

All Quaker meetings need to introspect and examine what is meant by “safety” (safe for whom?) and what needs to happen to make our spaces open and welcoming beyond platitudes. Too often we define/confuse “safe” with “comfortable” which actually feeds the toxic conflict adverse pattern.

Don McCormick

Grass Valley, CA, March 22, 2022 at 7:55 pm

I like your question “safe for whom?” If we don’t make Quaker meetings safe for Friends of Color, and for people from groups that are disempowered yet increasingly make up the majority, Quakerism will disappear in the Americas all too soon.

Anne Remley

Boulder, CO, March 21, 2022 at 4:49 pm

Let’s start with empathy, respect for that of God within, listening, sharing concerns. Then ask them to meet with a Clearness Committee–and/or arrange for them to meet with other concerned Friends.

Help them start to hear and change their action and be a loved part of the community, if possible.

That feels Quakerly to me. (And I’m from a meeting that actually tried all of this over a period of many months with a disruptive, disturbed and disturbing attender. And failing at last, though, we still continued to try to keep the psychologically troubled man in our hearts. That was a priority for Friends, we felt. It drew us together, too, as seekers, as would-be problem solvers. When at last it failed, we actually felt we had to take him to court, where the judge told him to leave our meeting OR go to jail!! What a memory! I’d go that route again, though, before simply “confronting and expelling.” What’s a Quaker to do!

Carol

Hilltown, PA, March 22, 2022 at 10:06 am

I agree with the comments from this post. I love Quakerism but find it hard to feel safe. Meetings lack the insight and skills to deal with conflict. Things are swept under the rug. I have even heard we don’t want to air our dirty laundry outside of meeting regarding getting help from Yearly Meeting. Opening your eyes to new ideas and Friends concerns are a way to become closer at heart and to be a healthier community. Thank you so much for writing this article. I hope it encourages personal and community reflection.

Don McCormick

Grass Valley, CA, March 22, 2022 at 8:03 pm

Thank you for your kind words. I too hope that it spurs reflection on the question of whether we are conflict avoidant and if that serves us. It will be interesting to see if that happens. If you hear of anything, please let me know.

Eric Straatsma

Bellevue, March 22, 2022 at 2:52 pm

What if there are multiple ‘taboo’ subjects around ‘safety’ in Quaker meetings?

What if there are many assumptions and misinformation applied on top of many surface layer assumptions around ‘safety’ and how to ‘enforce’ it?

Hard truths are sometimes very difficult to talk about. An experienced clerk can navigate these rough waters and help the community find the deeper unity within diversity beneath the surface tumult.

By avoiding difficult subjects and not airing them out in public, and by not allowing all ‘sides’ and perspectives to be talked about or discussed, what ends up happening in many cases, is a ‘purge’ by force, or by some feeling very unwelcome, via ‘group think’.

Quaker process is all about finding unity within diversity, even with ‘hard truths’, or difficult to talk about subjects. There are many ‘hard truths’ including things like racism, sexism, militarism, predatory capitalism, imperialism, colonialism, nuclearism, homelessness, LGBTQ, atheism, paganism, Christianity, and many more. Quakers have found unity within diversity in these ‘hard truths’, which is very courageous and noble.

Quaker process around ‘hard truths’ often involves opening up the meeting and inviting in outside community members who may not even be Quakers at all, and who may have very different opinions from those attending Quaker meetings. In my experience among 3 meetings, Quakers are pretty good at talking about the above ‘hard truths’, and it was a large part of what attracted me to Unprogrammed Quakers, in addition to going deeper spiritually inside of the silence of silent worship.

Unity CANNOT EVER BE FOUND by AVOIDING hard truths. De-nial is not a river in Egypt. Deeper truths such as unity within diversity or how to feel safe in a meeting is not found by making ‘hard truth’ discussions TABOO, nor by demonizing, dehumanizing, expelling, firing, threatening, coercing, bribing, jailing or killing all those who disagree with us.

True Unity is not found by purging those who disagree with the ‘majority’. ‘Hard truth’ discussion involves inclusive, open discussion, debate, and by being led via the sense of the meeting. Everyone has to feel ‘safe’ enough in a meeting like this, so that they can freely express their truth and/or point of view, and not be ‘punished’ for it by being expelling just for stating their viewpoint.

By seeking unity with opposing viewpoints, deeper truths are found inside of diversity, underneath the seeming surface disagreement and ‘certainty’ of being absolutely ‘right’, or of staying ‘safe’ inside of a cocoon of absolute guaranteed ‘I am right, you are wrong’ opinions. I have not seen any of the above happening recently around two subjects that are causing harm, and may even threaten the very existence of Quaker meetings generally, in the longer term.

For example, in my experience, no bottoms up community discussion is ‘allowed’ around the ‘taboo’ Quaker subjects of masks and vaccines. Why is no community based discussion allowed around these two subjects, when other ‘hard truths’ like different beliefs around religion, skin colors, sexual orientation, militarism and other ‘hard truth’ issues are regularly and normally discussed by the Quaker community?

[Truncated. FJ comments limited to 500 words]

donmccormick2

Grass Valley CA, March 24, 2022 at 3:29 am

I had not thought about safety in meetings in terms of COVID before, but now that you mention it, of course safety in meetings involves keeping participants safe from getting it. That’s a whole new dimension of safety that I hadn’t thought of before. I wonder if it is mentioned in other articles or comments on articles.

Leigh

Cape Cod MA, July 18, 2022 at 3:53 pm

I really appreciated this article as it helped me understand why Quakers have such difficulty addressing conflict even though it certainly can create “wounded meetings and those who have been attacked left to feel completely unsupported and further isolated. While the term “eldering” can have different meanings, someone who is considered an “elder” should not automatically be associated with age as anyone deeply grounded in the spirit can be an elder and this person can come in all ages. Someone can serve as an elder for a person facilitating a meeting and/or a committee, holding the person and/or meeting in prayer. And the term most people think of which tends to have a negative connotation, is “eldering” when someone is spoken to for disruptive and/or inappropriate behavior. When done with love and positive intentions this too can be productive to a point and then I’m all for more drastic actions in order to protect the meeting when necessary.

The Clear Light: Spiritual Reflections and Meditations - Friends Journal

The Clear Light: Spiritual Reflections and Meditations

Reviewed by Claire J. Salkowski

January 1, 2022

By Steve Taylor. New World Library, 2020. 136 pages. $18.95/hardcover or eBook.
Buy from QuakerBooks

For many of us, sustaining the habit of a daily, or at least consistent, meditation practice is a real challenge amid the demands of a busy schedule and life in the twenty-first century. Being open and truly present to each moment is the overarching goal for those who seek to practice the art of mindfulness. As Quakers, we often strive to incorporate such practices into our life as a way of living in the Light and practicing our faith.

Poetry and inspirational readings can be useful tools for moving into that sacred space. Steve Taylor’s “spiritual reflections and meditations” in his most recent book, The Clear Light, are such tools. His lovely poetry and artful reflections are filled with suggestions and lessons for how we might still the mind and open the heart as we journey within to find the inner Light and hear the quiet voice of our own inner teacher. He inspires and challenges the reader to embrace the beauty and profound truth in each moment by being fully present, open, and aware, even in the midst of the mundane and repetitive but necessary tasks and challenges of everyday life.

In his very first poetic offering, “Meeting Purely in Presence,” he speaks directly to readers, connecting and inviting them to the present moment, “because we’re already related / knowing that there’s nothing we need to do / except allow ourselves to be.” The invitation to self-discovery and a deepening spiritual experience is woven throughout each page in the 60 poetic meditations that spark the imagination and inspire the soul.

The offerings in Taylor’s book, which is part of the publisher’s Eckhart Tolle Editions series, remind us of the daily choices we face when confronted with the stark realities of the world we live in and urge us to go “Beyond Fear” to “find a stable place, a vantage point / where you can stand still and watch the thoughts pass by / without being carried away.” Whatever our challenges or heartbreak, we are gently yet firmly entreated to open ourselves “to that spacious fullness,” and we’re promised that “Soon your mind will be empty / like a clear sky after a storm has passed. / And then there will be no more fear.”

Like the master teacher he is, Taylor illuminates a simple truth in “Creating Your Reality” when he reminds us that “To the mind there are no truths, only possibilities / that become manifest when it selects them / like particles that are everywhere and nowhere” until observation makes them real, so “why create your own reality / when reality already exists?” We would be more content and at peace if we “[l]et the past sleep, let the future wait / and let the present exist as it is / without your interpretation.”

The lessons continue page after page as he poses questions, lays bare the obvious, and guides us with words woven into the fabric of poetry. If you are looking for inspiration, reminders to be mindful, and the words of the wise to help you on your own spiritual path, this is a guidebook you’ll want to have.

Claire J. Salkowski is a member of Stony Run Meeting in Baltimore, Md., where she is active in the life and committee work of the meeting. Claire also attends the Northern Neck Worship Group when she stays at her home in the Northern Neck of Virginia. She is currently an educational consultant and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) specialist.