QuakerInfo.com Forum

[james]

Dear Friends,

After two years of dithering, indecision, and discernment, since I first brought the idea to my committee of elders at Twin Cities Friends Meeting two years ago, last week I bit the bullet and finally launched and submitted to the search engines an intentionally simple site -- http://www.liberalquakers.org -- intended mainly to give people some idea what liberal Quakerism is and point them toward resources for finding a liberal Quaker meeting.

Secondarily I hope to facilitate supportive and friendly online conversation on the subject, again in a very simple manner. The site may expand somewhat depending on interest, but I'm not particularly shooting for a newsy, content rich site. If a non-Quaker visits the site after coming up "liberal Quaker" on Belief-o-Matic, and the site helps him or her finds a liberal Quaker meeting, I consider that a complete success even if they never come back to the site again.

It is not a nontheist Friends site, but it is a site where the wholehearted inclusion of such Friends is a given, along with a diverse variety of other Friends dedicated to contemporary liberal Quakerism, very much including Christians and other sorts of theists. I welcome you to visit the site, and either post, or send to me using the contact page, any question, suggestions, topics for discussion on the site, etc. I also welcome you to share it with your friends, and to link to it or talk about it as you feel led in conversations on the topic.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[orPowers]

Good to see. Just dipped a toe, but I'll keep visiting.
_________________
Romans 8:38-39

my blog: http://mild-side.blogspot.com/

[Kiahanie]

I just dropped by. Good work, James. I'll keep dropping by to see the latest Chuck Fager has to offer.

And your thoughts are worth the virtual trip to Minnesota, too. Peace and Light be with you in this endeavor.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[james]

Thanks, orpowers and Kiahanie.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Anthony]

[james]

Thanks to you, too, Anthony.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[jesse]

Good start James!


A comment on one section of your home page:

[aspie]

I just visited the site, and will do so again in the future. It's a worthy undertaking!

I tend to shy away from labels in general, and I'm also shy about affiliating myself with groups (not just religious groups) because I've come upon an unhealthy group-think at times that I find troubling. That said, Friends beliefs align the closest to mine of any organized religion I know of, so I'll continue attending my local meeting.
_________________
I'm a quirky soul with a strong sense of justice and a good sense of humor.

[james]

Thanks, Aspie--that's nice to hear! I'm not too shy about labels as long as 1) they reflect something substantial underneath, as I think many of the various distinctions between types of Quakers do, and 2) we don't imagine that the labels we take on describe us fully or perfectly. I am a lot of things in various ways--a Quaker, a Jew, a skeptic, a husband, a father, and much more--but knowing these things about me, or anyone else, barely get to the essence of who I am as a person. We are all much deeper and more complex than our various labels and affinities.

I see I never responded to Jesse's helpful earlier post--sorry about that. I will say that the paragraphs before the one Jesse quotes go into more detail about the different branches, and which are or are not particularly liberal. My sense is that most Conservative Friends would not describe themselves as liberal Friends, mainly because the Christian connection is seen as more essential there than among most liberal Friends, where Christian identity is common but far from universal or required. But certainly, unprogrammed worship is an important commonality between Conservative and liberal Friends.

ADDED LATER: While the unprogrammed aspect of liberal Quakerism is hugely important to me and most unprogrammed Friends, I guess I wouldn't say it is the most salient or distinctive quality of liberal Quakerism, in contrast to any of the other threads of Quakerism. A fundamental and radical openness to theological diversity, I would say, is what most clearly distinguishes liberal Friends from the rest of Quakerism. Our unprogrammed worship is important, but does not clearly distinguish us.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Patrocles]

On the long run, I don't think that communities can exist without positive "common ground". At the moment, the liberal "common ground" seems to be mostly negative (being non-Christian resp. non-theist).

As far as I see, there remain two realms where to find positive common ground: emotions and social/political activism.

I'm convinced that emotions are more important than notions, and that similar emotions can be expressed in quite different theological notions. But Quakers are not much prepared to speak about their emotions neither in an everyday nor in an academical way, and indeed that might lead to a vulgarization or trivialization of those emotions.

So, the more probable way to find positive common ground, is social/political activism. That seems to me the problem of all "liberal" churches/religious communities: they tend to develop to "liberal" political communities. James may be convinced (as he says on his site) that you can be a "liberal" Friend and at the same time politically conservative - but is that really so?

[james]

I'd have to disagree, Patrocles, that the liberal Quaker common ground is mostly negative. Most liberal Quakers, probably quite a large majority, are theist, and I suspect a pretty sizeable minority would consider themselves Christian as well, though perhaps Christian in a very unorthodox sense of the word, and a sense that remains very open to religious community with non-Christians. I would consider that openness to theological diversity very much a common ground, and don't think of it as negative at all. It is hard to know what people's theological beliefs are in a liberal Quaker meeting, because theological beliefs are widely thought to be of relatively little importance compared with practice and a life well-lived--"let your lives preach" and all that, you know.

I will grant that political conservatism is both unusual and a difficult fit within a community of liberal Quakers, but it can most definitely be found. I would like to see more open discussion around this question, so those whose politics are outside of the norm don't feel the need to hide.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Patrocles]

James,

I ought to say that I support you in two points. First, there isn't a categorical difference between believers and unbelievers (even if there may be a difference between people who cultivate belief resp. disbelief).

Secondly, it's a good thing to cultivate positive emotions (like kindness) and to overcome negative emotions (like envy, fear or hate). In tradititional churches that has been done in an indirect way (influencing emotions through mythological narratives), but perhaps it can be done in a direct way (naming the emotions directly) - in fact, that means to continue on a path whose first steps have been gone already by historical Friends (and Pietists).

I see that your experience with liberal Quakerism is positive. And I am at least enough of a Quaker to appreciate experience (not to try to crush it with theories).

So I would express myself thus: I've migrated along quite a lot of religious communities, and I've developed two rules of thumb:
1. Churches with a god glorify their god. Churches without a god glorify themselves.
2. The less explicit norms and dogmas a community has, the more implicit or unspoken rules and taboos does it tend to develop.

I won't warn you or contradict you. I'd only ask you to store my two rules of thumb in your memory and from time to time look how far they accord with your reality.

[james]

It's hard for me to find the relevance of your rules of thumb. Once again, I'll point out that liberal Quakers are not largely nontheist, but largely theist, so it is not a "church without a God" in your phrase. It tends to have a place for nontheist Friends but is not a nontheist church by a long shot.

My experience with nontheist Friends, distinct from liberal Friends, is not that they particularly glorify themselves; some do but I see a great than average amount of skepticism toward their own motives as well as that of others. That is certainly my perspective. I've never been involved with any sort of orthodox church, but in internet conversations I see a fair amount of self-glorification in connection with God. People speak of their decisions, and justify those decisions as the will of God. That sort of justification does not strike me as the least bit humble. But that is just what strikes my eye in a number of specific cases; I would not suggest for a moment that it is a common quality among most believers. I have know many, many profoundly humble believers.

Regarding norms, I find just the opposite of what you find. While all communities have norms, very much including my own, I tend to notice that communities with more restrictive explicit norms also tend to also have more restrictive implicit norms. External rigidity tends to breed internal rigidity. Among liberal Quakers I see a quality of barely contained near-anarchy in a spirit of love and good will. It doesn't suit everyone but it suits me.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org

[Patrocles]

James,

I understand that non-theist Friends need a liberal meeting where they are treated as equals. Also, it may work as a place for exchanging ideas, from which each member can use some for his self-improvement (but in that case, wouldn't self-improvement be the "common ground" I was asking for?)

Notwithstanding: I'd like you to understand my rules of thumb.

Flirst rule:
Catholics with a god tell you they have a beautiful Mother Mary.
Catholics without a god tell you they've made all that beautiful art (other than those dreary Protestants).

Protestants with a god tell you their god asks for a lot of discipline.
Protestants without a god tell you they have a good work ethics (other than those lazy Catholics).

Jews with a god tell you their god has the sound and clever ideas how to make the world a better place.
Jews without a god tell you they have the sound and clever ideas how to get the world in order (other than those un-pragmatic Christians who first erect impracticable norms and thereafter take refuge in dreams about a second world, leaving the first world in its usual mess).

That's a bit exaggerated and satirical, but if you don't see at least some truth in it, I suppose I can't express myself much better.

[Patrocles]

Second rule.

If you have been two times in a catholic mass, you know all the rules: when to sit down, when to stand up, when to speak and when to be silent. Within those rules you are completely free. (the same with what you say: if you know the dogmata, you feel free within).

In a meeting it's a bit different. There are less strict rules, but that doesn't mean that you feel free within them. I won't speak about me (I felt rather insecure but that may have been my personal problem). But I remember hints that our meeting was somewhat famous (or infamous) for its absolute silence - guest shying away from speaking at all.

The same in talks. West German Friends in the 1980s (who are liberal) were sweet, pleased with themselves and each other, and innocent as childs. If you contradicted or criticized them they would never have bitten you, they would only have been astonished, aggrieved and disturbed - and you wouldn't do that to them. Again, I try not to judge from personal impressions (perhaps I'm too pugnacious or too servile, or both at the same time - in my memory I tiptoed all the time). But I remember an American Friend visiting us who asked a question about East German Quakers and Communism, and that was definitely something you mustn't speak about.