A Friendly Letter, The Blog.

Philip Gourevitch is a writer for the New Yorker, and a student of foreign affairs, including wars. In the Oct.11 issue of the magazine, he published a stunning piece, “Alms Dealers,” which demands the attention of every one who ever wanted to give money or time to help someone in distress far away, or even nearby. It is especially salient and urgent for Quakers concerned with the transfer of cash from US Quaker groups to churches and projects in Kenya.

In the article, Gourevitch charts the rise of the “humanitarianism industry” from modest beginnings before the late 1960s, to its multi-billion multinational heyday, which happens to be right now. He does this by reviewing several books by international journalists which take a close and critical look at this industry.

There are many shocking stories in these accounts; the all-too common theft and embezzlement that so preoccupy queasy Friends like myself are the least of it. Much more sinister, even deadly, are the reports of many occasions when “refugee camps” run by NGOs or the UN near war zones have been infiltrated by warlords and turned into havens for militias planning more warfare and terror, and turning the “humanitarian” sponsors into captive cash cows, supporting the preparations for war under the guise of relieving its ravages. Furthermore, the books, and the review, both point out that this huge “industry” is entirely unregulated and unsupervised.

Such charges as these in the pages of as prestigious a journal as the New Yorker are bound to elicit responses, and on the magazine’s website, the feedback is fast and furious. Gourevitch has a major response, with links to some critical letters, here.

As Gourevitch notes,

. . . humanitarianism is an industry. So we should examine it and hold it to account as such. To treat humanitarian or human-rights organizations with automatic deference, as if they were disinterested higher authorities rather than activists and lobbyists with political and institutional interests and biases, and with uneven histories of reliability or success, is to do ourselves, and them, a disservice. That does not mean—as the many books I reviewed, and many more still, make clear—taking a hostile stance toward N.G.O.s. It simply means not accepting their hostility to critical scrutiny. It means not letting them claim to do our work for us. It means insisting on asking the questions for which they may have no good answers.

On our vastly smaller scale, Quakers can make no less searching demands of those who ask us to send our limited funds far away, in order to do good, and fulfill the claims of the gospel.

(Dear reader, this post will not likely make much sense if you’re unfamiliar with a series of posts from last week.Part I of the series is here; then Part II is here; and Part III is here. Part IV is here, and a last-minute postscript is here .

With this funding issue now behind us, I hope BYM will turn much more attention in relation to FUM to the ongoing work of rooting out corruption in and around FUM international projects, principally in Kenya. As I have pointed out before, among other places here and here, a culture of silence and “let-the-insiders-handle-it-we-know-best” has long been part of the problem, and still needs to be decisively broken with.

Yet there is one other aspect of this whole process which, while delicate, can’t be avoided. Besides the heartfelt individual expressions on Saturday, there was in this process, especially since 2008 when the first version of the “wrapping” text was presented, very much a sense of a BYM “Establishment” working behind the scenes to get the hoi polloi backbenchers back in order, after the uprising of 2004 which had disrupted the Establishmentarians’ familiar and comfortable notions of how things should be done.

This attitude was evident throughout the “wrapping” text — perhaps most visibly by the way it completely left out any account of the actual grass-roots upheaval which produced the 2004 Witness. As noted in Part II of my initial posts, such neglect amounts to falsification of the record, and could not be permitted to stand.

It was also visible in the way the “wrapping” text was tweaked at the very last minute before the session, in an attempt to turn the bulk of it into a “report” which need not be formally acted upon — but which would still appear in the record. (This transparent ploy failed.) It surfaced again in the paragraph which falsely declared the opposition of New England and New York Yearly Meetings to the 2004 Witness.

Personally I don’t think this misstatement was a deliberate deception; it simply articulated the tendency of some to identify themselves, and the other yearly meeting poohbahs they interact with, as the embodiments of their respective bodies. This is a common failing in both religious and political settings, but one which needs to be corrected, as this one was.

The Establishment bias was even obvious in the ballet of the report on the Intervisitation Program, which notably failed to mention its origins in the 2004 Witness.

This outlook was expressed more baldly in caustic comments on the BYM peace and social concerns email list in the last days before the Interim Meeting. One BYM rep to FUM posted there, charging the questioners of the Proposed Minute & “wrapping” text with hypocrisy and cowardice, evidently because we were not prepared to quietly let our betters handle things behind the scenes, informing us as and when they felt it meet.

One hopes this “Establishment” will take some lessons from the outcome of this labor: such framing and the notions behind it can be challenged and effectively resisted. And such “Establishment” behavior does not go unnoticed or unremarked.

Visiting the Future? Below: The very first BYM Intervisitation group, in North Carolina, pauses at Guilford College in Greensboro to contemplate a student artwork made entirely of bottle caps and jar lids. Photo from October 2005.

Late this morning, BYM sent out a revised version of the Proposed Minute on money to FUM.

IThe text has been tweaked and reshuffled, and a bit of the offensive text has been edited out.

But not enough. Here’s how the key paragraphs look now (as of 1:15 Pm Friday October 15), with some quick comments inter-leaved:

Our witness on the use of money

In the course of our deliberations we have come to see that money is not really the issue. >>

No, Friends, we have NOT come to see that. Let’s review: if money is not the issue, then it doesn’t matter if we send it or not. But if they want us to send money, then money IS the issue.

There are lots of ways this statement could have been rewritten to make it more accurate and acceptable. But it wasn’t. That spells trouble.

Back to the text.

We believe that an undue focus on money . . .

There it is again: money is “not really the issue,” but still we have an “undue focus on money.” [Really; which makes it an issue.] Having it both ways seems to be a key part of what this minute is about. Whch doesn’t help.

<< . . . is getting in the way of the work we are called to, work which includes being present with lesbian and gay Friends in FUM-only yearly meetings, and engaging actively with the rest of FUM in working and witnessing for peace and equality.>>

As mentioned in the earlier blog posts, not sending the money has by no means stopped BYM from the “work we are called to do,” including the activities mentioned. Quite the contrary. This statement is false to the record, and attempts to smuggle in an unwarranted condemnation of the witness. Loading the dice. Not gonna fly.

<< Money is a clumsy form of communication that cannot convey the transformational power of our spiritual concern. >>

Balderdash. Money is no less clumsy or “transformational” if we send it than if we don’t. This is more covert trashing of a successful witness; and self-contradictory to boot.

We trust that the Holy Spirit is working among us, for purposes that we do not yet fully understand. We know that it is the Inward Teacher who transforms hearts.

This may mark the biggest change in the present draft: the words “have come to” before “trust that the Holy Spirit is working” have been deleted. For the record, that does improve the passage; it was thus shorn of the insulting insinuation that only those who wanted to send the money were truly ready or able to “trust the Spirit.” But that’s pretty small beer.

<< Buy cytoxan In the spirit of seeing our relationship with FUM, not as a problem, but as an opportunity to witness actively for peace, equality, and compassion, >>

Unchanged, and more covert ad hominem attacks. Our witness to FUM since 2004 HAS been active, and HAS been for peace, equality and compassion. The minute remains loaded with slaps at those who actively pushed back against hate, and such passive aggressive junk is just unacceptable.

we approve the following action:

We will resume payment to FUM, with a portion sent unrestricted and an equal portion for a designated program of FUM, starting with the 2011 budget.

Not on this basis we shouldn’t. What part of, “our witness has been something to celebrate, not some shameful transgression to be apologized for”, don’t some understand?

And one other point. Much of the text has been shifted into what is now called a

Report on our recent activities with Friends United Meeting

One wonders about the significance of the shift. Does this mean it is simply in the record, and not subject to our approval? In any event, here is part of the first paragraph, which still includes a crucial omission:

< For a number of years BYM has struggled to discern our role as a member of Friends United Meeting. While few objections were raised by us in 1988, the FUM General Board, with BYM representatives present, adopted a personnel policy which set the expectation that its staff and volunteers would restrict their intimate sexual relations to marriage, understood to be between one man and one woman. Many BYM Friends find this policy, effectively excluding same-gender relationships, to be offensive and discriminatory. As a consequence, in 2004, BYM continued its membership and continued to send Board members, but withheld our contributions to FUM while we sought discernment. We felt torn: many among us find a spiritual home in FUM and are blessed by an opportunity to participate in its ministries; at the same time, many are uneasy as a matter of conscience about financially supporting an organization that engages in employment discrimination. >>

This text still continues to silence and suppress the record of the crucial events that climaxed in 2004, as pointed out in earlier posts. That’s just not right; it wasn’t right before, it’s not right today, and it won’t be right tomorrow.

Added up, the tweaking of the minute doesn’t look like anything able to break the impasse BYM has faced. That doesn’t dismay me much. If we’re still divided about this, there’s no disgrace in that.

Part IV

(Dear reader, this last post will not likely make much sense if you’re unfamiliar with those that came before. Part i is here; then Part II is here; and Part III is here. )

So, once more into the breach. On the Proposed Minute that’s coming before Baltimore YM this weekend on BYM sending money to FUM:

Bottom line: why should BYM send FUM the money?

If I had to make the case for doing so, especially if I was determined to be fair to the concerns which produced the witness since 2004, rather than denying, denigrating and discounting them, here’s what it would be.

(Keep in mind, this is for the sake of discussion only; I’m not certain if I agree.) But watch closely, drafters, or you’ll miss it:

BYM’s financial witness to FUM since 2004 has been a huge success. While there’s still much work to do, it has accomplished enough to be laid down without losing the momentum for positive change.

Got that?

So simple. So concise. And respectful. Even logical.

Try repeating it three times; out loud it’s only nine seconds long.

Again, I’m not sure I agree with this. But it’s clear. It’s scrubbed of all the demeaning balderdash. It makes sense.

So really, it could work.

And still leave time for that party.

Don’t forget the funny hats.

Part III

(Dear reader, if you missed the first two posts in this series, they are on the blog, part One here; and Part Two here. )

Now, back to the Proposed Minute that will come to BYM Interim Meeting this weekend:

Under the heading of

<< Our witness on the use of money >>

The draft BYM minute on sending money to FUM opens by declaring that,

<< In the course of our deliberations we have come to see that money is not really the issue. >>

Are they kidding?

Money has been precisely the issue. We stopped sending (all the) money; some are determined that we resume sending all the money. And the minute has just told us how scandalized the drafters are that some in other YMs don’t approve of our not sending money. How can money possibly not be the issue?

Actually, the thought in that quoted sentence is incomplete. Here’s the rest of it: [money is not really the issue] — “so we should start sending the money again.”

Yet if money was truly “not the issue,” it wouldn’t matter if we sent it or didn’t. That is, when complete, the proposition above is self-contradictory. Do you see that the dice are being loaded here, right before our eyes? That’s the first problem with this climactic section.

<< We believe that an undue focus on money is getting in the way of the work we are called to, work which includes being present with lesbian and gay Friends in FUM-only yearly meetings, and engaging actively with the rest of FUM in working and witnessing for peace and equality. >>

Nope. This sentence is, as we say in the country, bass-ackward. Especially in light of how our witness has opened the way to such huge strides of progress in FUM — just exactly when, by whom, and how was it decided that the focus on money — that is, on backing up our witness by not sending it, was “undue”? (Have these strides been enough? We’ll come to that later.) Do you see the dice being loaded even more here?

<< Money is a clumsy form of communication -- a blunt weapon -- that cannot convey the transformational power of our spiritual concern. >>

More self-contradiction, and dice-loading. Again, let’s complete the proposition here: [Money is a clumsy form of communication] “so let’s communicate better by sending money.” Further, [money is a blunt weapon], “so let’s not use blunt weapons, by, umm, sending money.”

See the point? Money is “clumsy” if we DON’T send it. [It's agile and nimble if we do.] Money is a [gasp] “blunt weapon” — if we DON’T send it. [Presumably it's the finely calibrated balm of peace -- if we do send it.]

Here in the boonies, there’s a pungently descriptive agricultural term for this sort of flim-flam. But I had to put it through a handheld Digital Quaker Language Euphemizer to convert it to printable form.

Ah, there it is: balderdash. Certified, unadulterated balderdash.

We’re just not buying it. Every time BYM adopts a budget, we deploy our money — put it to use here and here, but not over there, as we are best led. Whatever “transformational power” our concerns have is made concrete in our budgets year by year, three hundred and thirty nine times so far, by where the money goes, and where it doesn’t. Anybody who says otherwise is shoveling — well, balderdash.

<< We have come to trust that the Holy Spirit is working among us, for purposes that we do not yet fully understand. >>

Hold on another minute. So by changing the way we deal with money for FUM, that means we quit trusting the Holy Spirit? Well, thanks for that, folks. What other ad hominem slurs are there to dump on the concerns which produced this witness?

<< We know that it is not money but the Inward Teacher who transforms hearts. >>

Once more, complete the thought: It’s NOT money that “transforms hearts” — so we should send money.

Please; give us a break here.

And the grand finale:

<< In the spirit of seeing our relationship with FUM, not as a problem, but as an opportunity to witness actively for peace, equality, and compassion . . . >>

So we have NOT been witnessing “actively” for these values since 2004?? (I knew there were more slurs to come.) So we have NOT been using our witness as an “opportunity” as well as a problem? (Shovel it on.)

Let’s recap the windup to this pitch:

Because money is not the issue;
because we have unduly “focused” on money;
because money is a dreadful “weapon”;
because we’re clumsy to have used money;
because by our use of money we thereby stopped trusting the Spirit;
because by our action regarding money we have been culpably “inactive”;
because by this use of money we have seen only problems and missed great opportunities, notably to pay for what we can’t abide–

We can begin to redeem ourselves, pull ourselves up out of the moral mire — by sending money.

Do I have to belabor the point that this kind of rationale is an insulting, condescending non-starter? I’ve mulled it over for a long time, but haven’t yet come up with a less convincing case for sending the money, even as a caricature to poke fun at.

Especially since an alternative, non-insulting, non-condescending, non-dice-loaded case for sending the money is so easy to make.

Easy-squeezy.

That will be laid out in the final post of this series.

Part II

I’m not sure what committee(s) drafted the minute on the BYM-FUM issue that came to BYM’s annual sessions in 2010 and now will be considered at BYM’s autumn Interim Meeting. But its spirit is drastically different from the call to celebrate the achievements of that witness voiced here in the first post.

Indeed, the proposed minute reads more like an apology, a retraction, an abject mea culpa, almost a plea for forgiveness.

So as you might expect, I have some problems with it.

My difficulties are distinct from its bottom line proposal to resume membership payments to FUM. We’ll set that aside for now. Because, pay or no pay, should we be begging absolution for the witness since 2004?

Not just no, Friends, but HELL NO!

Pardon my warmth; didn’t mean to shout. But to see why feelings run high, let’s review a bit:

First, how did we come to suspend membership payments in 2004? The draft minute speaks of it this way:

<<< For a number of years BYM has struggled to discern our role as a member of Friends United Meeting. In 1988, the FUM General Board, with BYM representatives present, adopted a personnel policy which set the expectation that its staff and volunteers would restrict their intimate sexual relations to marriage, understood to be between one man and one woman. Many BYM Friends find this policy, effectively excluding same-gender relationships, to be offensive and discriminatory. As a consequence, in 2004, BYM continued its membership and continued to send Board members, but withheld our contributions to FUM while we sought discernment. >>>

When I read this, my eyebrows almost jumped off my forehead in amazement. “As a consequence . . .” ?? Had the drafters completely forgotten how this matter came to a head in 2004?

Well if they don’t remember, I do. In part that’s because I was one of the lone voices raising questions about paying for homophobia in FUM for several years before then; and I know how isolated and ignored those protests were. (But don’t cry for me, Argentina.) There was no “struggle” then.

So what changed in 2004? It happened in two parts: in 2003, our Clerk, in whom we were well pleased, went to Kenya for an FUM event, along with several eminent BYM Friends. There he was treated shockingly, shabbily, and shamefully — right in front of God and everybody–because he is known to be gay. Among those who witnessed this spectacle were some weighty folks who had long been pooh-poohing the concerns raised about FUM policies and practice. But now, even they could not deny how it produced dehumanizing and disgraceful behavior.

That was part one.

Part two happened, so far as I know, spontaneously, and crested at the 2004 annual sessions: when they opened, Friends were presented with eight — count ‘em, EIGHT – Monthly Meeting minutes. All the minutes demanded concrete action to challenge and change the policies which permitted such treatment of our members or anyone else in dealings with FUM.

I, for one, was astounded; I’d never seen anything like it.

In the ensuing discussion, there were calls for us to leave FUM. I opposed that idea, which put me in the novel stance of being a moderate compromiser. I felt we should stay in and bear witness — but bear it in actions, not merely in handwringing or indignant, impotent epistles. Many others felt similarly, and the decision to suspend payments to FUM was the result.

Some call this action a matter of “failing to reach unity.” That’s not how I recall it. We approved all the other budget items; we did not approve the line with funds for FUM. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a decision, and in 2004 it was clear and strongly felt.

That’s not just my opinion. Here’s what our 2004 “Epistle Regarding FUM’s Personnel Policy” said:

“BYM 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 [FUM] 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 BYM’s most revered and Christ-centered leaders.”

Amen! Strong and clear, yes; but not universally supported.

This “lack of unity” since 2004 has often been deplored. In my view, these laments come from two main sources: on the one hand, from those who dislike the decision and have attempted, year by year, to reverse it. There has indeed been a “lack of unity” to do so thus far.

And on the other hand, I hear in them the anxiety of the conflict-avoiders: those who find the fact of visible, voiced conflict among us embarrassing, even humiliating, and certainly something to get out of sight and out of mind, ASAP and at almost any cost in internal cohesion.

The years since 2004 have indeed been difficult ones for both tendencies. But I have little sympathy with either view. Conflict-avoidance is a vice among Friends, not a virtue. And whether we resume payments to FUM should depend on whether there has been enough positive change there to satisfy those in BYM who were unwilling to put up with the previous compromised status quo any longer — not whether some can’t bear to have an open division of view among us.

It is not only very disappointing that the draft minute completely bypasses the events that brought about this witness. This neglect lacks integrity, and smacks of historical airbrushing. But 2004 was not just a number on the calendar: it was the outcome of real, repugnant events that dropped the scales from many eyes.

Let this history not be forgotten or silenced or written out of our records. And whatever we do about FUM payments, apologizing and hanging our heads better not be part of it.

This stance shapes my response to the minute’s comment on the reported reactions from other YMs:

<<
North American Yearly Meetings of FUM do not understand how a Yearly Meeting can continue to send members to serve on the General Board of FUM while refusing to pay any administrative costs. This includes Yearly Meetings that agree with our stance against discrimination. >>

This comment is presented as if it somehow unanswerably demolishes our witness. But that to me simply shows a lack of resolve, or an unwillingness to speak up for it.

Here’s an alternate response to the questioners, those who supposedly deplore the homophobia in FUM, but have still been paying for it all along:

How can BYM stay in FUM and send members to the board while refusing to pay?

“Simple: watch us. We not only can do it, we’ve been doing it, and our board reps have played very valuable roles in FUM’s rapid evolution since 2004.
“You say you don’t understand? Well, there are names for such behavior, Friends. One is ‘refusing to be victims anymore.’ Another is ‘leadership.’
“You got a problem with that?”

Which brings us to what the draft minute calls:

<< Our witness on the use of money >>

And this will also get us to the “bottom line” of the proposed minute, and requires some line-by-line scrutiny. Which it will receive in the third post of this series.

NOTE: This post is somewhat “inside baseball,” mainly dealing with Baltimore Yearly Meeting and its relationship with Friends United Meeting. But it may be of interest to some others who are concerned with questions of church governance, challenging religious homophobia, and managing conflicts in church groups. Much of the background is assumed in this initial post, but will be filled in as we go along.

While I missed the 2010 annual sessions of Baltimore Yearly Meeting (BYM — my home Quaker community), I’ve read through the 2010 minutes (and attachments), and heard informal reports from a number of attenders. And even while far away that week in Eighth Month, BYM, its community and deliberations were much in my thoughts and prayers — and yes, my opinions.

I was especially interested in two matters, the resolution of the accounting mess that left BYM with much less funds than we thought; and the relationship to FUM, including the matter of funding. I’ll concentrate on the BYM-FUM concern here, because it will be on the agenda of BYM’s Interim Meeting at its October 15 , and appears to still be be unresolved.

The proposed minute on FUM funding will be dealt with presently. First let me describe what I’d like to see at BYM’s Interim Meeting this weekend, when this topic comes up:

A celebration.

That’s right, a jubilee — maybe even a party, with cake.

Why? What’s to celebrate?

Easy: the plain fact that our witness to FUM since 2004 has been the most successful and productive social justice action I have seen BYM Friends take in thirty-plus years of involvement. We should be (humbly) proud of how much it has accomplished, and congratulating our corporate selves for making it happen and sustaining it so long.

How has our witness to FUM been positive and productive? Let me count some of the ways:

1. For once, a Liberal Friends body actually stood up to homophobes and homophobia. We didn’t just write a toothless minute and sulk, then keep paying, codependently enabling the abuse of our and other members. Instead, we pushed back. BYM has shown REAL leadership on this whole front. That puts us in the forefront of Friends groups, and we should brook no belittling or demeaning of this signal fact.

2. Almost immediately, our stance of action and not just talk shifted the balance of forces in FUM. BYM thereby did the heavy lifting for more timid groups that could only write milquetoast letters of concern, and keep on paying for homophobia. Let them explain that if they can; our conscience, for these years at least, is clear. And beyond that, we created the space for actual change to begin.

3. Then our witness helped fill that space with real and substantial IMPACT. Early on, for instance, FUM actually carved out exceptions to the homophobe policy to meet our objections (in part).

4. This response and others showed that BYM’s witness had put the advocates of homophobic policies and attitudes on the defensive. For instance, the Kenyan pastor who extolled the killer Biblical text from Romans 1, discovered, much to his amazement, that he had to apologize dfor endorsing the idea that gays should be killed. (Would that this idea had thereby been banished; but it has not, so there’s still much more to do.) FUM then adopted a strong minute against hateful actions and preaching against LGBT persons (though it still maintains the homophobic personnel policy.)

5. Within our own ranks, this witness produced the Intervisitation program, which is a big success. I’ve been a fan of this work since Day One, and helped set up the very first visit.

6. One of the most significant results is as yet the least visible. The FUM board has now agreed to change the basis of the organization, dropping the pretense of being a denominational judicatory with some kind of authority over member YMs, and shifting to being an association of autonomous bodies. This ought to be the biggest structural change In FUM’s 110 year history, among other things opening the way to freeing us (and the other liberal FUM YMs) from the chronic accusations that we don’t really belong because we’re not “Christian” enough for someone or other. Face it: we made that possible.

7. And there’s more: even while not paying general dues, BYM reps to FUM have made important, high-value contributions to the group, guiding the way toward reorganization, internal fiscal reforms, and raising awareness of the critical matters of public and legal homophobia in Kenya Buy paracetamol and other African countries. It’s not too much to say that this witness, and their work, if they keep at it, could end up saving lives.

8. Our witness also brought heightened visibility to the ongoing problem of chronic mishandling and theft of FUM funds in its programs, especially in Kenya. In my view this issue is unresolved and deserves even more attention. But largely as a result of the space created by BYM’s challenge, it is now out in the open, as part of the FUM reform agenda.

All this was achieved in the face of a general financial crash and BYM’s own internal fiscal crisis; that’s some very big bang for some very small bucks.

And it’s not finished: I believe that our reps need to keep the pressure on. For instance, they should ensure that the new General Secretary is liberal-friendly, and willing to work around the homophobe policy, to keep the momentum of change going. This is no small matter; the homophobe-bibliocrats could make choosing her successor their last stand; if so, our reps should hold firm. (Actually, it’s hard to imagine who would want the General Secretary’s job; but that FUM’s problem.)

With this record, if BYM Friends now feel that our ground-breaking witness had evoked enough progress within the FUM orbit that we could resume general payments, and there was unity on that, then so be it.

But either way, we ought to be celebrating these years of witness and the landmarks they have produced.

Yes, definitely cake. Maybe even funny hats.

Somehow, though, that’s not the sense I get from the proposed minute that was debated at annual sessions and will be coming back before Interim Meeting this weekend. We’ll take up that text in the next post.