I *do* see that you’ve added new material, including some of the response from Meeting for Worship for Business and the note that the meeting is still working on a statement, so I appreciate that clarification very much.

Hindsight being what it is, when the document was first placed on the website, blogs were not terribly active and I don’t think I even *knew* of QUF’s publication. Knowing what I know now, and having experienced how Canadian Yearly Meeting and QUF drew on the document, I’ve become resistant to having things that still require a decision and are under consideration by the meeting placed on the open part of the website.

Yes, giving members of the meeting community online access to materials is helpful, but as times and technology change, I am thinking we as a meeting should take another look at how we use the website from time to time. At least, it seems that *I* will take another look, anyway.

Back to the document: I suppose a small group of Friends could sign off on the current drafted statement on the variety of belief/what binds us together, (or craft a whole new one–yipes!), go through a similar threshing as what happened with the first document, and ultimately get permission to have that posted on the website too…

But what good is it then to have the monthly meeting approve anything, if all these drafts and sub-group’s opinions/ideas are out there, for anyone to point to and say “This meeting has said…”?

. . . . . . . . .

John, I am content that the first document made the rounds a few years ago within TCFM, for new Light has come out of it. And I am among those who affirm that one of the ministries of the meeting is how TCFM embraces and enfolds members and attends who may or may not believe in anything D/divine, even as we also wonder what it is that binds us together.

In addition, I hope we be (more) careful about the *perceptions* and the jumps to conclusion that non-TCFM folk make… I’ve seen it happen and I’m concerned.

Blessings,
Liz

However, to imply that because we allow people to be Quakers regardless of their theology makes it correct to allow them membership, is the same fallacy as “War in Iraq is justified because we must support our troops who are fighting in Iraq.”

On the other hand, to say, for instance during a clearness committee, “Consider not being a Quaker because you are so certain of your truth you can no longer join us in the search for the truth.” might perhaps be a quite Quakerly statement? We are “seekers” are we not? And if we are not seeking can we be Quakers?

Would it be fair to say that our certainty is in the worth of the process, and not in this or that specific result of the process in this moment?

Liz, I am sympathetic to your desire that the meeting not be misunderstood but what can you do except what you have done? By the time the Gospels were written many of Jesus’ parables were bent to mean exactly the opposite of what he intended. As a loyal follower of Jesus I find that very irritating, but I am still happy the parables were published.

John

First of all, the meeting specifically directed this statement to be posted on the web site and opened to comments–both before and after it was considered and finally not adopted by meeting for business–so I don’t see how it is out of order to have it here. If it were presented as a statement by the meeting, I would see your point. But it’s not presented that way at all.

Secondly, the statement remains a legitimate expression of the undersigned Friends within our meeting. The fact that our meeting did not adopt it does not make it illegitimate or secret. The process we went through is part of our meeting’s public history, well-documented in our newsletters. It cannot and to my mind should not be expunged, nor prevented from further distribution.

I can see the sense in adding a footnote spelling out that it was not adopted by our meeting, perhaps quoting from the minutes where that was expressed. I will work on that.

It seems so out of any sort of gospel order that, even with the word “Draft” in its title, the document is occasionally being picked up by folks like Quaker bloggers and the Quaker Universalist Fellowship without regard for the meeting’s own process.

Since no statement has been adopted by the corporate body that is the meeting, it seems inappropriate to have even this drafted one so accessible.

Blessings,

Liz Opp(enheimer)
The Good Raised Up

As a Quaker who doesn’t believe in God, I can appreciate your frustration with indignant atheists. It does seem like the ones most likely to publicly describe themselves as such, are the ones most likely to toss indiscriminate brickbats at even the most tolerant believers.

At the same time, there are a much larger number of unbelievers who are reluctantant to say so out loud because of the fairly commonly expressed view that we are morally bankrupt by definition.

So, it’s certainly unfair for these public atheists to be intolerant toward you, but in many cases this might reflect an understandable defensiveness resulting from a very real and common prejudice.

Anyway, thanks for not bursting out laughing.

“Religious values motivate love, compassion, humility, justice and liberty for all people;
religious beliefs and practices motivate hatred, cruelty, division, arrogance, injustice and oppression of others.”

Reverend Kenneth Carder, United Methodist Bishop, State of Mississippi
Currently director of Duke University Divinity School’s Center of Excellence in Ministry