A Friendly Letter, The Blog.

At Thursday morning’s program (Jan. 15, 2009), attendance was down significantly from yesterday. Is it just me, or could the smiling positive pietism be wearing on the patience of many?

The morning’s panel, entitled “Speak Truth to Power,” was another “surprise” lineup, not identified until we showed up. Yet in fact it was utterly predictable, made up of church lobbyists, all based in Washington.

Individually they were all fine, articulate, dedicated people. Yet they reminded me of a rule of thumb of mine, which is to question whether it is a worthwhile investment of time, expense or energy resources to travel many hours to a gathering, the bottom line of which is being told to write to Congress.

 Folks, without getting up from my chair, I am told that daily, again and again. To drive 500 miles to hear it several more times is beyond repetitive, it is tedious and patronizing. Yes these are good groups; but life is short – tell us something we don’t already know, and haven’t heard a hundred times before.

I had imagined (but not expected) a different kind of panel: one featuring several activists who are involved in lively, active, church-based programs far from Washington, but having impact there and in other circles of “power.” The Bronx youth program described Wednesday by Alexie Torres Fleming, which was all new to me, would be a prime example. There are several other such vibrant projects whose activist staff are represented here, who have had and are unlikely to get any such visibility.

Imagination, however, has not been a strong point of the program.

Thursday evening opened with a reading of the event’s Epistle, which has been mentioned previously. It was read to us, and we were told to write responses to it right that minute, on little cards which were then collected. Before the reading we were also advised that (for reasons which I’m hazy about) the text would not include specifics or name names.

This proscription applied not only to the names of persons, but to many other nouns, such as, for instance, “war,” “violence,” or militarism.” However, without the burden of specifics, the text unwittingly took on a load of ambiguity, which got heavier as I listened.

In fact, toward the end, I got an eerie feeling that I had read or heard many similar expressions, not in church documents, but in military texts and prayers. (Yes they exist; oh brother, do they.)

That is, it turns out that much or most of what was read to us in this virtually content-free text could have been endorsed by the most militant war-fighter on Fort Bragg.

Permit me a few examples:

Draft epistle (DE): “We believe this is a time when peace can happen, if we will heed God’s call . . . .”

Military: “Peace Is Our Profession.” (Motto of the Strategic Air Command – the nuclear bomber fleet) during the years I was growing up on Air Force bases.

DE: ‘We discovered afresh the call of the scriptures to partner with God in walking with people at risk.”

Military: “De oppresso Liber” “To liberate the oppressed.” Motto of the US Special Forces.

DE: “We recognize that not everyone wants God’s way of peace. The cost is high. The life of Jesus demonstrated the loss of security, transformation, suffering, and dying. . . . Let us be bold. In the face of so many terrors, let us fight off disillusion. The Holy Spirit must rise up in you and me to set all people free.”

Military: “Almighty GOD, Who art the Author of Liberty and the Champion of the Oppressed, hear our prayer. We, the men of Special Forces, acknowledge our dependence upon Thee in the preservation of human freedom. Go with us as we seek to defend the defenseless and to free the enslaved. . . . It is for Thee that we do battle, and to Thee belongs the victor’s crown.” (Special Forces Prayer.)

“I know that I will be called upon to perform tasks in isolation, far from familiar faces and voices, with the help and guidance of my God.” (From the Special Forces Creed.)

Two late additions: “People want to live in peace; they want to grow up in a peaceful environment. And the decision I made is going to help the Iraqi government do that.” Outgoing US president, February 14, 2007.

“Freeing people from oppression and despair is eternally right. This nation must continue to speak out for justice and truth. We must always be willing to act in their defense — and to advance the cause of peace.” Outgoing president, farewell speech, January 15, 2009

And so forth. To be sure, there are other, more warlike passages in the documents quoted. But the point is that the DE’s carefully non-specific talk of God, sacrifice, the oppressed, risk etc., could be folded into them and not be noticed, except possibly for the single mention of “nonviolent direct action.”

My suspicion is that the authors of the DE have little or no inkling of what’s described here. And I also suspect this is an indication that among the plannners and presenters there is very little direct familiarity with the military, the wars that it makes in the name of peace, or the extensive religious justifications of such wars as God’s will, America’s divinely-ordained mission, and the path for true followers of Jesus.

 I am not the first to point out this huge cultural gap; the book AWOL does it in convincing detail.

But the book does not make the point that such innocence fails to serve the work of religious peacemaking, indeed sharply limits its potential. So let me make it, loud and clear.

One hopes that the revised text to be delivered Friday will manage to acquire a modicum of specificity, at least enough so that there is some recognizable space between it and frankly more military texts and prayers. To that end, here is a proposed list of nouns that might be worked into it:

war; violence; militarism; military industrial complex; torture; Iraq; Afghanistan; Gaza; Christian Zionism; soldiers; wounded; casualties; imperialism . . .

You are invited to add more.

And by the way – there has been much talk this week, and in particular today, about Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and his legacy. It’s worth noting here that at Fort Bragg, near where I live at Quaker House, they too have annual ceremonies to remember Dr. King.

Are they the “wrong” kind of commemorations? Maybe. But let us remember – does anyone here?– that the US military was racially desegrated well ahead of the rest of US society.   

 And looking ahead. Tomorrow we are supposed to be given opportunities to join “focus groups” on topics selected from brief discussions after the epistle Thursday night.  To have such specificity delayed until the conference’s last day seems to me very strange and unhelpful; bass-ackward as they say in North Carolina.

Oh well. I’m hoping for one on torture and accountability. That’s an awfully specific, and potentially non-positive subject compared to the pablum we’ve been fed. Let’s see if it happens.

The conference speaker Wednesday night was a welcome improvement. Alexie Torres Fleming’s story is easy to summarize: born and raised poor in the south Bronx, she escaped from a collapsing neighborhood into middle class respectability, but then was drawn back to live and work in her home turf. She now operates a youth program.

Torres Fleming spoke well, and made two comments that stick in my memory. The first was about her program, which was that through it she is not seeking to “save” the young people in her still very problematic area, as much as to be saved by them.

The second comment came in response to a written question. It said, in sum, You were raised in the South Bronx and returned there to respond to God’s call. Most of us (in the audience) are of middle class origin, and have no such oppressed home area to return to. What are WE supposed to do?”

Torres Fleming gave exactly the right answer to this, which was: “I don’t know.” That is, it’s up to the questioner and others (plus God) to figure out their own call and respond faithfully.

This was the right answer, not only because it was correct, but also because it displayed a welcome modesty. She did not rise to the bait of telling us we must do this and must do that. This is so easy for someone in control of the microphone to fall into, especially in a religious setting, and especially when someone with certified ”oppressed” credentials faces a “privileged” audience. I admire her for having the humility and integrity to refuse this rhetorical pose.

The answer also resonated with a conversation from earlier in the day, with someone on the Epistle Committee, whose first draft is to be read initially on Thursday, then finalized on Friday.

Quaker readers will know that Epistles are generally summary documents, traditionally used as a means of communicating with sister Quaker communities. Their format usually runs something like, “To Friends Everywhere, we met on X dates, worshiped and heard various speakers, did this and that, conducted our business, and hope to meet again next time, as way opens, and God(or Christ)’s Love to You All.” More or less.

However, the person I spoke with was not a Quaker, and his hopes for the document were quite different. He wanted to see something like a manifesto emerge, a ringing declaration which would catch the attention of the media and the outside world.

I’m afraid I did not encourage him in what to me is a very naive notion. For one thing, the idea that the media gives a hoot what 300 or so church people do in a series of wordy meetings in busy downtown Philadelphia is a pipe dream. And ditto in spades for the world beyond that, and especially those holding worldly power.

Yet some older Quakers and others still cling to mouldering memories of the days when the AFSC’s Clarence Pickett was reputed to be a confidant of Eleanor Roosevelt; and when senators and supreme court justices (and Martin Luther King) could be coaxed into appearing at the FGC conferences in Cape May New Jersey.

 The good old days, when the mighty of the world seemed to be concerned with What The Quakers Think about Things.

Well, I’m here to tell thee that those days (which I think are rosier in retrospect than in reality), are gone, long gone. The minutes that meetings struggle over so agonizingly, telling Congress to do this and the president to stop doing that, are of interest mainly to historians in generations to come. It may still be considered gauche to say this out loud, but nobody in Washington pays them any mind.

In any case, there is no time on the schedule for much agonizing: 15 minutes is allotted for each reading. This fits: as there has been no open discussion in any plenary thus far, why should that be expected to change now?

But it’s just as well. To bring forward the draft of The Great Arch Street Declaration On Peace of 2009 would pull the stopper out of froth of bottled up desire to comment, not to mention the standard Quaker practice of wordsmithing such texts. If such is attempted, the outcome is likely to be most lamentable.

Besides which, what could this conference possibly say that would have worldly news value – that we believe Jesus preferred peace to war? FRONT-PAGE headlines! Or further, that we agree with him? STOP the presses!

If there is any media response to the conference, I predict it will be tiny and token. So I hope the Epistle Committee will dial back their aspirations and not lose sleep over their task.

For that matter, the Epistle as of Wednesday could be very brief, not much more than “they talked, we listened.” We were told Wednesday night that this will change on Thursday, that those in charge will graciously open some space to hear what attenders are concerned about.

That’s awfully good of them, and perhaps it is about time. Some here may have needed all the hours of pietistic praise services; this Friend did not. It was more of a reminder than I sought as to why my last four-plus decades have been spent in the silence-based Quaker stream; that other stuff is not my cup of tea.

Moreover, this Friend’s wish is that among the planners there had been more of the spirit of Alexie Torres Fleming’s second answer, about what we should do: “I don’t know.” Perhaps then they would have allowed us get down to the business of finding, sharing and refining our own answers sooner, and in more depth.

Fortunately there are other consolations, which we can venture into in another post.

Folks, I don’t get it.

I’m here in Philadelphia, at a conference entitled “Heeding God’s Call” . It started on Tuesday Jan. 13, 2009 and will extend into Saturday the 17th.

It’s supposed to be about strengthening the peace witness of churches and other faith groups, but especially that of the so-called “Historic peace Churches,” namely Quakers, Mennonites & Brethren. These three groups, especially the first, made up the large majority of the 270 or so persons I counted present in the opening session.

Several features of the event deserve comment. Here I’ll start with one, the workshops, that left me thoroughly befuddled.

The workshops are supposed to last for not less than three hours, which is a sizeable chunk of our time. So one presumes they are meant to be substantive. There are 22 of them, and the complete list is available here  .

Attenders were sent several emails urging us to sign up for workshops in advance. But making a selection was not easy for me. That’s because there was very little on the list that seems pertinent to my work in this area, or on many related issues I’m interested in but not actively pursuing.

Here’s what I mean. In the 22 workshop descriptions, the word “war” or “wars” occurs in only two; and in one of those , #5A, it is in the title, “How Can I Preach Peace without Starting a War (in my congregation?).”

Which frankly sounds like it’s more about helping nervous pastors keep their jobs, and rather tenuously related to actual “war.”

Only workshop #6A, and not in the title but in its very terse description, invited attenders to “Explore the Connection between wars abroad with ‘wars’ at home.”

This great scarcity of the term was curious to me. In what is billed as a major conference on peace, of 22 workshops, none includes “war” (as in large organized violent conflict) in its title, and only one refers to that subject, and then only in part.

To quote my 20-something daughter, “What’s Up With That?”

Similarly, only one workshop, #2B, mentions the military, viz, “How Can We Talk to the Military?”

That’s a good question. But again, is that all that need be raised here about the key segment of the population that makes war happen? This spareness felt puzzling and inadequate. Making peace and dealing with war seem to me closely, indeed intimately related.

Ditto for the military, its supporting machinery, and its deep roots in our culture. Perhaps that’s a wildly skewed notion, but it reflects considerable experience, and I am bold to say I think it very reasonable. But evidently not for the planners.

Curiosity thus piqued, I did more searching, and discovered that numerous other terms and topics, which likewise seemed to me strongly connected with peacemaking in our actual world, were completely missing, from the 22-item workshop roster –AWOL in army jargon.

Among them:

Torture ; Terror/terrorism;

Militarism; Soldiers

Occupation(s)

Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Darfur, Congo, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine; etc.

Besides single terms, there were a number of crucial phrases that one looked for in vain. Such as:

Christian Zionism;

Military Industrial Complex;

nuclear weapons;

pervasive military recruiting among young persons (and the not so young);

war-supporting christianity;

the infiltration of the US military by extreme versions of crusading fundamentalism;

ministry to servicemembers and families scarred by PTSD or military-related violence, including domestic violence;

Strengths & weaknesses in religious peace witness today; how to build on the former and overcome the latter.

In this listing, which could be longer, I have consciously leaned toward topics which have clear religious dimensions; this is a church conference after all, and I for one believe that religion, especially in America, has a great deal to with war and peace.

Hmmmm. I’ll ask around as way opens in the next day or so, and see if I can gain any new insight into this conundrum. And I’ll speak of some other puzzling aspects of this event in upcoming posts.

But what’s going on here? And what’s NOT going on?

Folks, I don’t get it.I’m here in Philadelphia, at a conference entitled “Heeding God’s Call” http://www.peacegathering2009.org/  . It started on Tuesday Jan. 13, 2009 and will extend into Saturday the 17th.  It’s supposed to be about strengthening the peace witness of churches and other faith groups, but especially that of the so-called “Historic peace Churches,” namely Quakers, Mennonites & Brethren.  These three groups, especially the first, made up the large majority of the 270 or so persons I counted present in the opening session.  Several features of the event deserve comment. Here I’ll start with one, the workshops, that left me thoroughly befuddled.The workshops are supposed to last for not less than three hours, which is a sizeable chunk of our time. So one presumes they are meant to be substantive.  There are 22 of them, and the complete list is available here http://www.peacegathering2009.org/delegates/workshops .  Attenders were sent several emails urging us to sign up for workshops in advance. But making a selection was not easy for me. That’s because there was very little on the list that seems pertinent to my work in this area, or on many related issues I’m interested in but not actively pursuing.Here’s what I mean. In the 22 workshop descriptions, the word “war” or “wars” occurs in only two; and in one of those , #5A, it is in the title, “How Can I Preach Peace without Starting a War (in my congregation?).”  Which frankly sounds like it’s more about helping nervous pastors keep their jobs, and rather tenuously related to actual “war.”Only workshop #6A, and not in the title but in its very terse description, invited attenders to “Explore the Connection between wars abroad with ‘wars’ at home.” This great scarcity of the term was curious to me. In what is billed as a major conference on peace, of 22 workshops, none includes “war” (as in large organized violent conflict) in its title, and only one refers to that subject, and then only in part.To quote my 20-something daughter, “What’s Up With That?”Similarly, only one workshop, #2B, mentions the military, viz, “How Can We Talk to the Military?”That’s a good question. But again, is that all that need be raised here about the key segment of the population that makes war happen? This spareness felt puzzling and inadequate. Making peace and dealing with war seem to me closely, indeed intimately related. Ditto for the military, its supporting machinery, and its deep roots in our culture. Perhaps that’s a wildly skewed notion, but it reflects considerable experience, and I am bold to say I think it very reasonable.  But evidently not  for the planners.Curiosity thus piqued, I did more searching, and discovered that numerous other terms and topics, which likewise seemed to me strongly connected with peacemaking in our actual world, were completely missing, from the 22-item workshop roster –AWOL in army jargon.Among them:TortureTerror/terrorismMilitarismSoldiersOccupation(s)Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Georgia, Chechnya, Darfur, Congo, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine; etc. Besides single terms, there were a number of crucial phrases that one looked for in vain. Such as: Christian Zionism; Military Industrial Complex; nuclear weapons;pervasive military recruiting among young persons (and the not so young);war-supporting christianity; the infiltration of the US military by extreme versions of crusading fundamentalism;ministry to servicemembers and families scarred by PTSD or military-related violence, including domestic violence;Strengths & weaknesses in religious peace witness today; how to build on the former and overcome the latter.In this listing, I have consciously leaned toward topics which have clear religious dimensions; this is a church conference after all, and I for one believe that religion, especially in America, has a great deal to with war and peace.Hmmmm. I’ll ask around as way opens in the next day or so, and see if I can gain any new insight into this conundrum.   And I’ll speak of some other puzzling aspects of this event in upcoming posts.But what’s going on here?  And what’s NOT going on?

A good friend of mine from college days is a member of the Tennessee Valley Unitarian church in Knoxville that was shot up on Sunday, July 27. She was there with her husband, but thankfully was not hit.

(Thankfully. I feel a twinge of survivor’s guilt writing that; but there it is.)

The reports Monday about the rantings of the shooter, wanting to kill all liberals and gays, and the targeting of this particular church, well-known for its welcoming stance and other progressive views, brings a lot of things home to me.

Read the rest of this entry »

The short essay below is by a Friend who has spent much time in Africa, working with the Africa Great Lakes Initiative (AGLI) project.

I believe Dave makes some cogent points. In particular, I agree that “engaging” Friends United Meeting (FUM) over the issues of homophobia, and the other matters listed in my post below, “Wrestling With a Roomful of Elephants,” is the best course.

I also think such “engagement” can be done in a variety of ways. The path that makes the most sense to me is the one currently followed by my own YM, Baltimore, which has stayed a member of FUM, but has declined to send financial support while its homophobic policies remain in place. (I’m not sure what Dave Zarembka, who is also a member of Baltimore YM, thinks of this stance, and don’t wish to imply that he shares it.)

For those not associated with FUM, but who want to follow Dave’s advice, let me suggest they consider support of the Africa Great Lakes Initiative (AGLI, a project of Friends Peace Teams. Friends Peace Teams is a group based in St. Louis, which is supported by 17 US Yearly Meetings. Among these are three pastoral-FUM groups, but none of the Evangelical YMs.

AGLI has organized many workshops and trainings regarding violence reduction and healing in the aftermath of violence. [One very interesting account of an American unprogrammed Quaker’s volunteer stint with AGLI is online here .] AGLI works with FUM-sponsored groups in Kenya, but is not itself under FUM’s umbrella.

Thanks to Dave for a useful and thought-provoking contribution to this conversation. Read the rest of this entry »

Below is the complete text of two epistles issued by East Africa Yearly Meeting — North.

I note that the 2007 Epistle comments on the statements at the FUM General Board session in Kenya, as well as responding to some reaction to them from a Yearly Meeting in North America.

From this 2007 Epistle, it appears to me that it would be a mistake to consider this matter in any way “resolved.”

Update: Note the reply from an FUM staffer included after the Epistles.

Readers may also want to look over the earlier post, “Wrestling With a Roomful of Elephants,” and the response to it from Patrick Nugent.

Read the rest of this entry »

FUM After Kenya (First posted on June 1, 2007)

[See the response linked below from Patrick Nugent, former head of the Friends Bible College, Kenya.]

Current Quote: “While somewhat less colonial, the [Friends United Meeting] work in East Africa is still structured around economic disparities that promote patterns of dependency. FUM has made a lot of progress in this area, but old patterns die very hard. Impoverished Kenyans and Ugandans expect all help to come from outside, in the form of U.S. dollars.

There is very little sense of empowerment or recognition of the need or ability to build upon the assets already existing in East Africa. Patterns of dependency are still deeply intertwined in the good intentions of North Americans, who instinctively use money to fix desperate needs, and in the desires of Africans to have outsiders provide the solutions.

These patterns of dependency are compounded by endemic corruption, with Kenya deemed the second most corrupt country in Africa, and Uganda only somewhat better, which makes getting intended resources to desired recipients very difficult. Every single effort of North Americans who are attempting to do useful work in East Africa has to take this systemic corruption into account, or risk being very wasteful of resources.“

– From the Report by the New York Yearly Meeting Representatives to the FUM Board Sessions in Kenya, second Month, 2007

When FUM comes up for discussion, in almost any context, I have found that the old saw about the “elephant in the room” is very apt. Except not in the singular. Over time, I have felt such rooms crowded with not one elephant, but several — by my latest count, at least five.The recent turbulent FUM Board sessions in Kenya, and the reports and related documents I have read about them this spring, mention most of these creatures, while being largely fixated on only one. So I think it might be useful to specify my list, as the basis for my own stance on the recent events, and suggestions for future steps.Let me add here that my sense of this herd of pachyderms was only marginally brought into view by the Kenya events. Rather, it grows out of more than twenty years exposure to FUM, including several years of close involvement with its issues and internal structures, and is rather confirmed by this latest episode.

Here is my list:

Elephant #1. Homophobia. This is the most salient among my liberal Quaker brethren, and does not need much exposition here. Advocates of the FUM status quo profess great weariness that some among the liberal YM reps keep “harping” on this issue, when, they say, there are so many more pressing matters to consider, including people starving.

That’s as may be. For my part, I share the strong feelings of revulsion voiced by some others, and must decline to be silent about it. Yet I have a regret about the heavy liberal emphasis on this issue, namely that it diverts the from the second elephant, which in my view is of more institutional significance, namely:

Elephant #2. Rampant Corruption. I am grateful to the New York YM representatives, whose report on the Kenya sessions was the only one I have seen which names this scourge and speaks of it plainly. The situation is fairly straightforward: Kenyan public culture is deeply, deeply corrupt. The highly respected anti-corruption monitoring group Transparency International lists Kenya as among the most corrupt societies in the world.

The impact of this cultural reality on FUM dealings with Kenyan Friends has been pervasive and dreadful, both there and among FUM groups in the USA. The Southeastern YM report noted in horror how almost all the Quaker facilities their rep was taken to had been stripped bare by theft and looting. But she does not know the half of it. Nor is this larceny new; in my time on the FUM missions board, twenty years ago, the hushed up reports of wholesale thievery and embezzlement were legion.

The exception to this pattern, Friends Theological College, proves the rule: its Director, Patrick Nugent, an expatriate American, stated frankly in his most recent letter to US supporters that one of the principal duties of the expatriate director of this institution is to “safeguard its assets.” This is a delicate phrase for protecting them from being looted. It appears he has done a good job of this; but can that continue? More on this presently.

It’s hard to overstate how shocked I was when I began to plumb the depth of this corruption, and how deeply the FUM corporate culture was complicit in and codependent with it.

Here it is worth repeating a key sentence from the New York YM Reps’ report: Every single effort of North Americans who are attempting to do useful work in East Africa has to take this systemic corruption into account, or risk being very wasteful of resources.”

My reaction to this sad reality soon crystallized into a conviction that is still unshaken: US Friends should not send another penny to corrupt operations. To do so is neither “christian” nor prudent, or even generous. It is a failure at the most basic level: sending American money to Third World crooks does not keep the poor in those nations from starving.

More on this as well in a few moments. Thence to the third elephant:

Elephant #3. The Richmond Declaration of Faith. There are several aspects of this document to mention: its checkered and unhappy history; the misrepresentations about it which are so often repeated; and above all for me, the theology it articulates.

Its history is one of being repeatedly used as a creedal club; the misrepresentations focus on disingenuous assertions that this record is not what it so plainly is; and its theology was controversial, and rejected by many utterly Orthodox Friends and YMs from the day it was presented. Moreover, these early rejections were due as much to the fact that many Orthodox Quakers simply did not believe much of it, as they were to the quite justified fears of its use as a creedal weapon.

An essay I published in 1987 detailing the case against the Richmond Declaration (with a link to the Declaration’s text) is online here. I stand by its main points today.

But these doctrinal issues are not limited to the YMs which are now described as “reunited”; indeed, they have raged within many of the “undivided” FUM YMs as well. Which bumps us right up against the tusks of the next elephant:

Elephant #4. Chronic divisions within heartland FUM yearly meetings. When I was working as a Quaker journalist, it took only a modest amount of digging to uncover the fact that, behind the screen of efforts to purge us “liberals,” several of these groups were beset by chronic internal factional strife.

Among the contested items were such matters as THEIR dual affiliations with evangelical associations, efforts to adopt outward sacraments (in clear defiance of the Richmond Declaration and their own histories); outbreaks of glossolalia; and not least, widespread and vocal abandonment of anything resembling Quaker pacifism. (It is ironic indeed that several of the most hotly contested matters would violate the plain letter of the Richmond Declaration as much as any liberal YM ever did.) Off the record, YM superintendents ruefully admitted having to fend off repeated attempts to split their bodies from one of these directions or another.

Against this turbulent background, jabs at the “liberal” YMs in the body were a convenient foil and distraction. But in truth, we had very little to do with all those troubles, and our disappearance would not cure them. The results of these and related trends add up to what, seen from the more orthodox end of FUM, may well be the largest of this unhappy herd of quadrupeds, namely:

Elephant #5. The drastic decline of the main FUM bodies. Here in North Carolina, as an example, the FUM YM, the largest in the US, has lost thirty per cent of its membership in the past two decades, and the attrition continues. To the west, Indiana and Western YMs, once quite large themselves, have each shrunk as dramatically. They are now reported to be looking at consolidating, in hopes there might be enough membership between them to support a single YM superstructure.

Among the effects of this galloping deflation are an increase in internal tension, which manifests, among other ways, in a search for scapegoats (e.g., the gays, “universalists,” and “liberals”); increasingly frantic and futile efforts to find a magic evangelistic bullet to reverse the trend; and a steady decline in the caliber of their community leadership, because the body can’t afford quality help.

(Here I return, for evidence, to the situation of Patrick Nugent, Director of the Friends Theological College, the best and least corrupt of FUM’s African ventures: his most recent letter, dated 22 April 2007, announced his abrupt resignation, cutting short what he had hoped would be a career-long assignment there, because FUM could not afford to support his family. This is a very revealing indicator: supporting one family was too much for FUM’s sinking resources. I rest my case.)

I have no remedy to offer for this decline in the FUM heartland YMs, only a stubborn, even truculent observation, reinforced by much study and observation: despite the jibes and jabs aimed in our direction at the Kenya sessions and earlier confrontations, this collapse is NOT THE FAULT of the liberal FUM bodies, and forcing them (us) out would not mend it.

So. In the face of this herd of elephants crowding the room at any FUM-related session, what course can be suggested for other concerned Friends, particularly among its “liberal” YMs?

First, of course, I affirm that each body will find its own way. Being more “liberal” than some other FUM groups does not make them/us all alike, candidates for some one-size fits all response. Already, it appears that Southeastern YM has taken steps likely to end in its departure from FUM; so that could be one pole of response.

On the other end, the New York YM representatives’ report urges the opposite course, one of “staying at the table,” based on their perception of a high degree of underlying commonality between them and other FUM groups.

My own reaction is more assertive, but comes down to what, for a Baltimore YM Friend, is something of a status quo stance, at least for us. Baltimore YM since 2004 has made clear that it will not leave FUM, but at the same time it will not support programs including homophobia. As a result it has continued to appoint representatives, but has declined to send FUM a financial contribution; one compromise offer to send funds designated for use outside its homophobic policy was rebuffed.

In short, Baltimore is “in struggle” with FUM — not simply grinning and bearing it, but not storming out in a huff either. From my perspective, this is the best available response. That’s because I believe it expresses the truth of BYM’s relation to FUM, and gives it concrete form. It continues conversations and maintains opportunities for constructive service. It also keeps the institutional form of our relationship (money) in line with our convictions. And I hope it stays that way until some of these key issues are satisfactorily resolved.

For BYM this stance was sparked mainly in reaction to Elephant #1, FUM’s homophobic culture and policy, which was on flagrant and repulsive display in Kenya, and which has impacted BYM in particular before. Yet it also serves very well for dealing with the second, which in my view is just as bad: it means we are not helping keep afloat the culture of corruption that is so ingrained in FUM’s relations with its international missions.

For me this is absolutely the proper stance; no funds should go to any such projects without ironclad guarantees that they will be honestly and properly used. Not a dime. I would welcome the addition of an anti-corruption concern to BYM’s brief in support of its stance.

In this connection, I have heard references to a legacy of colonialism and racism in the relationships between American Friends and Kenyans. No doubt that history is there; and the present reality of vast differences in wealth persists. Nevertheless, I am unmoved by any replaying of such rhetorical cards to argue for our continuing to support theft, embezzlement or diversion. Tolerating corruption does not promote justice, equality, development, or for that matter, the gospel. “Thou Shalt Not Steal” is as orthodox as anyone could ask.

But perhaps liberal Friends could be helpful to FUM in this area. Because we are mostly not invested in the corrupt aspects of this system, if we send them representatives who are knowledgeable, sophisticated and vocally intolerant of such malfeasance, they could be a valuable resource if and when the corporate culture becomes truly ready for positive change.

The BYM stance could likewise serve as a useful starting point for tackling Elephant #3, the Richmond Declaration. Informed challenges to the outdated and divisive notions which produced it are entirely in order, and in fact have been raised repeatedly since its drafting in 1887. Informed theological debate would be an asset to FUM, no matter how annoying some might find it.

However, in this regard, liberal Friends as a group are hobbled by their gross ignorance of theology generally, never mind the specific theology underlying that document, and the very dubious interpretation of the Bible the Declaration purports to uphold. If the liberal YMs were to insist that their representatives to FUM were knowledgeable in these areas, and ready to advocate for them, the level of discourse could be much elevated, though differences would not be banished. I am not overly hopeful about much progress there, in the short run at least. But the hope remains, as does the need.

As for Elephants #4 and #5, the internal divisions and membership collapse decimating so many of the “orthodox” FUM bodies, I don’t think the liberal YMs really have much to offer, except perhaps an example of a Quaker way that is proving to be much more viable. Not that I expect many of the “orthodox” bodies to follow this other path — although here and there, I hear of local Friends churches moving in that direction, and they could bear encouragement and fellowship.

Indeed, overall the plight of FUM appears to be growing increasingly grave. The sudden resignation of Patrick Nugent, as devoted and able a servant as the body has had in recent decades, is for me a telling and somber indicator. Less dramatic reports of downsizings and cutbacks in its operations have become a regular occurrence.

NO Bailouts: As these comments suggest, my perception is that these misfortunes are largely self-inflicted. In this case, it would be a big mistake, I believe, for liberal Friends to heed any call to rescue FUM from the consequences of these internal weaknesses, financial, theological, or otherwise, until at least elephants One, Two and Three have been dealt with.

Similarly, I am unable to go along with pleas to keep quiet about these things in the interest of some notion of civility or fear of giving offense. Sermons describing LGBT persons as worthy of death need to be vigorously repudiated, whenever they appear. Ignoring corruption only feeds the cancer. And challenging the flawed theology of the Richmond Declaration is a mandate.

At the same time, liberal FUM Friends can be ready to help pick up the pieces. And by continuing to stand up for their core values, they can bear a useful, if not always comfortable, witness, and build community with those who are prepared to do so.

As far as it can be glimpsed from here, the future for FUM looks clouded and troubled indeed. The role of the liberal YMs within it is likely to continue to be beset by controversy and occasional acrimony. Such it seems is our fate. Will liberal Friends in FUM be up to this call?

Send comments to: chuckfager(at)aol(dot)com

A response from Patrick Nugent, former head of Friends Bible College, Kenya

- - - - - - - - - -

Reports On The Kenya FUM Sessions Available on the Web

(If I have missed links, please let me know.)

SEYM Rep’s report (Lisa Stewart): http://www.seym.org/FUMltrs.pdf/FUM%20GEN%20BOARD%20IN%20AFRICA%5B1%5D.pdf

New York YM Reps’ report on Kenya FUM Session:

http://www.nyym.org/pubs/FUMRepsReport0704.pdf

Will Taber of New England YM’s blog report on his trip to Kenya — with numerous comments: http://gtitl.blogspot.com/2007/02/back-from-africa-with-broken-heart.html

Will Taber’s comments on “the discussion so far”: http://gtitl.blogspot.com/2007/03/reflections-on-conversation-thus-far.html

Transparency International International Corruption report:

http://www.transparency.org/policy_research/surveys_indices/cpi/2006

By Chuck Fager

Dear Friends,

One of the finest, most eloquent ministers of this generation of liberal Quakers has left us. William J. “Bill” Kreidler, of Beacon Hill Meeting in Boston, died on June 10, 2000. This is a time to mourn, and also a time to remember, and to pay tribute, which is what I want to do here

Of Bill’s biography, I know only a few scattered facts: He was from a farm community in western New York, and grew up in the Dutch Reformed Church. He began college in Buffalo and finished in Boston, where he became a public school teacher. He was gay. He wrote books about conflict resolution in schools, and did consulting with school systems on violence prevention. Where and how he came to Friends I don’t know; but he was a founding member of Beacon Hill Meeting.

My first memory of Bill is from St. Lawrence University, at the FGC Gathering of 1984. I was leading a workshop, my first for FGC, on the Basics of Bible Study, and he was in it.

Well, partway in it anyhow. As I recall, he spent most of those weekday mornings perched on the sill of an open window, there on the second or third floor of our old classroom building. I didn’t think he was going to jump out; it was brutally hot, the building was not air-conditioned, and he was trying to breathe.

But at the same time, he did seem to be keeping a safe distance, a space between him and the dangerous book I was waving around, and maybe the bearded breeder who was waving it as well.

During the workshop we spent a lot of time reading aloud the story of David, Jonathan, Saul, and Jonathan’s crippled son, Mephibosheth, as I had culled it from the First and Second books of Samuel. This is a gripping, mournful story, which I called “The Bible as Soap Opera,” and perhaps it went on too long, especially given the weather.

But all through it, there is a clear image of Bill, still on the windowsill, head cocked to one side, paying close attention as we plowed through this saga of love, betrayal, death, and loyalty beyond death. Glancing over at Bill from time to time, I wondered if something about it was sinking in. I now think that it was.

Three years later, Bill and I met again at FGC, this time in Oberlin, Ohio. The weather was better that week, and we sat down on a green lawn and asked each other how we were doing. My story was pretty routine, but Bill had a saga of his own. He was, he said candidly, coming out of a bad relationship and a long cocaine addiction. He had found the support and love there, especially among the gay Friends, to make a turn toward the twelve steps. Things were looking up.

There was much more to this remarkable story, but I didn’t hear it until a few years later, when someone gave me a tape of Bill’s keynote talk at the 1989 Midwinter Gathering of Friends for Lesbian and Gay Concerns. On the tape I heard a polished storyteller, but one who was using his talents and gifts for something far beyond a mere performance.

“I’m 36 years old,” he began, “and I’ve finally figured out what I want to be when I grow up.

“I want to be an old Quaker lady.”

Over the laughter, he continued:

“I don’t say this lightly; I have thought long and hard about growing up to be Gene Kelly. I never learned to tap dance, though — at least not yet.”

As the chuckles died down, he explained that “old Quaker ladies” weren’t necessarily either old, Quaker, or even ladies; this image was a metaphor for a kind of spiritual centeredness that he had lost, and was now slowly, painfully working to regain. “This is a really pitiful story,” he remarked about halfway through. “I tell it well, but it’s a really pitiful story.”

The twelve step pilgrimage he recounted was familiar in outline; it retold, as most of them do, the story of “Amazing Grace,” lived out: he once was lost, in a maze of drugs, alcohol, and abuse; but now he was being found. Some of his specifics were new, though, especially when he got to the part about a spiritual awakening. In his report of it there was, as I expected, some mention of familiar Quaker names, Fox and Woolman; but more important, it turned out that Bill had discovered, or been discovered by, some of the key women saints in the western mystical tradition, especially Julian of Norwich and Teresa of Avila.

“Terry and Julie,” he called them, making us laugh, but not making a joke of it. They too, had remarkable stories, which meant a reat deal to him. He had been taken on what became a long-term version of what Douglas Steere calls “the journey in,” by way of prayer and related spiritual disciplines. He wasn’t sure where it was leading him. He wasn’t sure how it all fit together. But it did. And he was willing to let us in on it.

Even on my tinny old tape player, the eloquence and depth of Bill’s presentation–his witness, really– still comes through clearly, more than a decade later. It was a sermon, but like few I had ever heard: equal parts polished standup comedy, wrenching personal confession, and straight-out preaching, it was at once ego-tripping and deeply humble, and entirely compelling.

Further, while many of the religious themes of Bill’s talk were traditional, their context was not: for him, the saving community had been, not a conventional church or even a meeting, but rather the group, Friends for Lesbian and Gay Concerns (FLGC).

While by 1989 FLGC was essentially an accepted presence at the annual FGC Gatherings, this acceptance was still relatively new, and not uncontroversial. Furthermore, FLGC, like all other such groups, was feeling the impact of the AIDS epidemic, and the ramifications of this crisis were still sinking in.

One of these ramifications was the targeting of gay and lesbian groups as a locus of personal and social evil by powerful and very vocal forces in society at large. To have a member of such a group describe it so convincingly as a vehicle of personal salvation was very much at variance from this reverberating chorus, and Bill’s audience was very moved by his affirmation of it.

Not that there was any politics in his talk. Rather, one of the points he most wanted to make was that, “As lesbians and gays, I think that joy is one of the things that we have to offer. And I don’t just mean that we have better taste and more fun. Although of course, we do.”

When he closed with by evoking an image of FLGC at its best as, “a room full of old Quaker ladies, and they all were tap-dancing,” it’s a safe bet there was hardly a dry eye in the meetinghouse.

Whether Bill knew it then or not, talks like this soon launched him on what Friends call a public ministry. He was already well-known in educational circles as a consultant to schools on conflict resolution and violence prevention. This was a job he had essentially created for himself, growing out of his work as a schoolteacher in tough Boston public schools. Soon he was combining this work with his ministry among and to Friends.

Update by Chuck Fager

Wichita, KS — On this Friday the 13th, U.S. Judge Monti Belot accepted Priscilla Deters’ plan for remaining free on bail until her sentencing, but imposed tough restrictions on the now convicted felon, and spoke darkly of her likely jail sentence. Belot also predicted that there might be additional prosecutions in the multimillion dollar church fraud case.

Belot set bond for Deters at $200,000, and gave her until today to post it. Rather than come up with that amount herself, Deters made arrangements with a bonding company, to which she was obliged to pay a reported twelve percent of the total, $24,000, as a fee which will not be returned. The source of the $24,000 was not made public.

This bail fee could be thought of as a kind of rent; it buys Deters about nine weeks of freedom. Belot set the sentencing date for May 22, and reiterated his intention to send Deters to jail at that time, not waiting for any appeal.

In addition to the steep bail amount, Belot set tough restrictions on Deters for this period: He ordered her not to have any contact with her victims or investors, and to cease any efforts to raise funds. He also ordered that Deter’s identical twin sister, Phyllis Beaver, be required to surrender her passport.

This was due to the sisters’ close physical resemblance, which the judge regarded as increasing the potential risk of flight. When Deters’ attorney, Steve Gradert, said Deters had told him her sister did not have a passport, the judge retorted that he did not believe anything Deters said, and insisted that government passport records be examined.

Deters was also directed not to leave her home area–except, the judge added, to answer any additional indictments. Deters defrauded churches and persons in 21 states. There are reports that Kansas federal prosecutors have been contacted by prosecutors in other states, regarding use of the extensive body of evidence they obtained and introduced at the trial.

Future prosecutions might not be limited to Priscilla Deters alone. Judge Belot noted that Deters had been aided by several other persons in her fraud scheme, and he said these other persons, included both family members and Quaker pastor Randy Littlefield, a defense witness whom Belot scorned as “despicable.” All, he declared, were “candidates for indictment.”

Deters’ future, according to the judge, is bleak. Under federal law, she could receive as much as four years for each of the twelve counts on which she was convicted. Belot said that in passing sentence, he would take into account the number of her victims, the amounts involved, her extensive efforts to obstruct investigations into her activities, and her lack of any signs of remorse. He stated that Deters, who is 63, would likely spend the rest of her life in prison.