I have led and followed and have no difficulty with either position in itself, although on occasion the circumstances have made taking either role unpleasant. Perhaps the difficulty that is being expressed on this string with leadership has something to do with followership? Perhaps following is seen as supine, flaccid, sheeplike?

In the best case I follow because I like the vision the leader is presenting or causing to be presented. For instance on the whole I like the clerk’s vision for the Meeting for Worship with attention to Business.

After I have had occasion to know a leader for a while sometimes I take the vision on faith because he or she has shown me over time that they tend to get it right. For instance when my wife tells me that I am inappropriately dressed for a party. Or, when the clerk introduces the Q-horn which I instantly dislike but am giving it a ride because he has been appointed to lead our process and the very fact of his being appointed, (begged?) indicates he may know something I do not.

(Note there, that while clerks do not lead the content they certainly lead the process.)

Sometimes I follow because I have no idea what is the correct thing to do. For instance my mechanic says the brake pads need changing.

Sometimes I follow because the other person saw the need first. Fixing the mold in the meeting house did not occur to me but now that some have led on the matter I am willing to follow. Make that “eager to follow.”

In some cases I follow leaders because I am paid to do so. Whenever possible if I do not value their vision or feel that I have the opportunity to influence it I seek work elsewhere.

And sometimes I refuse to follow. As a person who enjoys leading I am continually setting directions and inviting others to follow. When they do I also invite them to help set the direction. And if they do not follow, I take that as a sign I probably had an idea that lacks charm. So be it.

There are other forms of leadership besides “despotic.” Why change the name?

An organization that did not value or support leadership I suspect would wander around in circles, debating small things forever while large things went undone.

I have no idea what is the case.

The eight thirty meeting which I regularly attend has some late comers who I wish could be on time, but seems to me to often speak with the voice of the spirit. The issue addressed by the epistle seems to be the eleven o’ clock meeting which I seldom attend, so I have little understanding of the level of dissonance or of the depth of the ministry.

What I heard in the epistle was a framing of the first question in terms of individual preference. While I prefer zero dissonance, I do not know to what extent dissonance interferes with the movement of the spirit. Therefore, I think the fiirst question should be: “Is the level of dissonance interfering witth the movement of the spirit?”

John

That seems to clearly express concerns with obstruction of spirit.

But I’m probably misunderstanding you. I’d love to know what you actually believe to be the case.

1) Can the spirit move among us in a meeting with people coming and going, or 2) is the Spirit regularly obstructed by dissonance. And your answer would differ depending on whether you hold with 1 or 2.

Personally, I would have to hold with both 1 and 2, and I think that makes a difference. The spirit can and does move among us, and the spirit is regularly obstructed to some extent by dissonance. This is not true only of Quaker worship, but of life itself. Always, invariably.

That doesn’t mean we can’t or shouldn’t consider friendly, open-hearted adjustments of our norms/rules to free up spirit as much as possible. But in the end our worship practice doesn’t require the world to be silent or free of dissonance. If it did we wouldn’t stand a chance. It requires that *we* be silent, and listen to whatever is there.

I certainly wouldn’t dismiss your concerns, but I’m not sure tighter norms are what we need. Tight norms, it seems to me, are in themselves likely to obstruct spirit, at least as much as noise and motion do. The best way to deepen our worship, it seems to me, is to worship more deeply.

If the Spirit can move among us in a meeting with people coming and going, I who prefer stillness can tolerate noise and motion for the sake of the unavoidably late and children. If the Spirit is regularly obstructed by dissonance, then it seems to me the norms for meeting behavior must be tight without regard to other needs.

This is a bald answer to a bald question. I expect that out of the discussion a more subtle answer will emerge.

But let’s get some perspective on this. There were never any good old days. This is nowhere near the point of the greatest government corruption in US or world history. Perhaps it’s worse now than it’s been in the U.S. for 30 years or so, but go back a century, or look at many other local or state or national governments in the world now or then, and you will find corruption that makes the Bush gang look like pikers. Liberal democracy is the exception in history, not the norm.

Which is all the more reason to keep up the pressure. Things could get a lot worse than they are, and if we’re not vigilant they will.

The cause? There are many, and pressure must be maintained on it to reform, prayerfully avoiding violent reaction. However, it seems that the use of professional politicians has so corrupted the two legislative houses that reform may be out of the question.
Pray for Peace