Business began on Thursday with a roll call of yearly meetings, including US yearly meetings, Canada Yearly Meeting, many Kenyan yearly meetings, Jamaica Yearly Meeting, and visitors from FGC, FWCC, and Britain. Southeastern Yearly Meeting was present, with two observers. I was saddened to reflect on the possibility that this could be the last time that Southeastern is present at an FUM event in any official way, as they decide in this coming year whether to maintain their relationship with Friends United Meeting.
There is a clear sense of concern among Friends at these sessions, a feeling that we are at a turning point in FUM's history. On the one hand, it seems that relations among Friends have grown more civil. On the other hand, despite our increased civility, it is not entirely clear who we are or what we are doing as a body. Perhaps the primary question that Friends gathered here are wrestling with is the question of FUM's call and identity. What is FUM? A missions board? A denominational head? A non-profit foreign aid organization? An "umbrella group" for one branch of Friends to come together and share fellowship? At times it seems that FUM attempts to be all of these things, and more, but often fails to carry out any of these roles satisfactorily.
At these triennial sessions, there has been an enormous emphasis on overseas missions. Sylvia Graves, General Secretary of Friends United Meeting, made it clear in responding to questions on Thursday morning that at this point in history she sees FUM's role as being in carrying out overseas mission work. The reasoning that she presented was that foreign missions is something that FUM can do far better than yearly meetings could do on their own. Encouraging and supporting Friends in North America is, in her view, the responsibility of each yearly meeting. This viewpoint, while having its merits, is very frustrating for me, as one who feels called to serve Friends in North America at the present time. The reality is, our yearly meetings are not adequately supporting home missions. What FUM's role in all of this is, I am unsure, but I am uncomfortable with all attention being given to sending support to overseas projects when our Religious Society is in such dire condition here in North America.
The schedule at these sessions is packed full of business, though I haven't seen any decisions made yet. The business sessions on Thursday and Friday have been largely filled by reports from field staff in East Africa, Belize, and the Ramallah Friends School. There has been very little time for worship beyond singing a few hymns and holding a moment of silence before field staff reports. There was a remarkable tension this morning, as open worship was cut off after only one minute by an FUM staff member introducing the next presenter. As she attempted to close the extremely brief worship, another woman rose from the body and read in a strong voice from an epistle of George Fox to Friends in New Jersey. The staff member stood aside, gave about fifteen seconds of space after the minister had sat down, and then proceeded to introduce the next speaker. I wonder at this lack of open worship at the feet of our Lord who we claim as our leader. Why is there not more expectant waiting on Christ? Do we imagine that there is not enough time to spare in our sessions to receive communion together? Are we afraid to wait on the Lord as a body?
When we are not hearing reports, we are listening to speakers. Wednesday evening was Sylvia Graves, who gave us an extensive report on FUM's activities over the past three years. Landrum Bolling spoke on Thursday evening about the need to re-examine our Peace Testimony in light of current events. He insisted that, "there are consequences," to our testimony of Christ's call to peacemaking. Among these consequences, he stressed the imperative that we resist the current push for expanding the present war into Iran.
Thursday night, after Bolling's presentation, the few Young Adult Friends present at this event gathered together, along with a few other YAFs who had come over from North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), which is holding its annual sessions in nearby Greensboro. There were about a dozen of us, and we shared together about our experiences in the past few years, as well as about our frustrations as young adults in a religious community that alternately pampers us and patronizes us. There was a great sense that we are hungry for a more intergenerational life in community. We are, first and foremost, adult Friends. We just happen to be part of a religious community that tends towards the upper age range. Christ is teaching his people himself, and it's not limited to any age group.
You write, "I wonder at this lack of open worship at the feet of our Lord who we claim as our leader...Do we imagine that there is not enough time to spare in our sessions to receive communion together?"
ReplyDeleteI am extremely concerned to read this, and I'm waiting in some suspense for your next report.
(I also find myself once again wanting to fudge the dates on my license so I can hang out with YAFs. Y'all are so cool... maybe if I dyed my hair?)
I regret if there was little time for open worship. I remember my first Triennial in 1987. One evening was a worship session. Open worship went on for a couple of hours, and then the Friends on the podium shook hands. It might have been the schedule's time for it to end, but it wasn't the Lord's. The gathered Friends basically ignored what had happened on the podium, and continued for maybe another hour. It was a very powerful experience.
ReplyDeleteDue to the tensions and vastly different views within FUM, open worship can be challenging but it can also be an incredibly rich experience hearing from Friends of such different backgrounds and even languages gathered in the Lord.
I find the abrupt ending of open worship to be troubling, too--especially since I witnessed this firsthand at a Meeting for Worship because a dinner had been planned and guests had begun to arrive.
ReplyDeleteThe Meeting for Worship was not going beyond its normal time, but was instead stopped short. Surely the guests, who were also Friends, would have understood that it is the Spirit who concludes Meeting for worship and not any one individual.
I wonder if personal agendas sometimes take up so much inner "space" that the promptings of the Spirit cannot be heard.
Very troubling, indeed.
cath
Good report, Micah. I think your insights and questions are, from my long association w/ FUM, right on target. I think a number of Friends organizations (FUM, YMtgs, others) are at a decision point -- how to be relevant in a world centuries apart from their founding date and founding purpose. Have they kept pace? Is it time for radical redirection? What is the place of worship in meetings for worship for business?
ReplyDeleteI was impressed that there was any open worship at the FUM business sessions. In NCYM-FUM, we rush through pre-set agendae at the urging of our clerk so that we can have more "free time."
ReplyDeleteMany pastored meetings only have about 5 minutes of open worship after all else is said and done. Some have longer; some have it before the prepared message. But, often, it is a mere nod--literally and figuratively--at the Quaker practice of expectant waiting. It was a pleasant surprise to find worship sharing and even brief pauses included in the FUM sessions.
A bigger concern for me was that a woman expressed being "afraid to stand up" and question the number of women on the FUM board of trustees (the answer to which was just one). Since when is a Friend afraid to question other Friends about equal representation of genders? The Triennial sessions were blanketed by this sort of fear of speaking truth: speaking truth to power, speaking truth that "a hope and a future" are denied gay Friends when it comes to FUM, speaking truth that poverty is also an issue of concern in the U.S.
Silence in worship is one thing. Silence in speaking truth is another
God's Fool comments that a Friend said she was "afraid to question" the gender balance of the FUM trustees. I could offer that her comment might have had more to do with her temperament than with the nature of FUM. Regardless of her temperament you will notice that she did stand up and question it--and she was heard.
ReplyDeleteFriends, it is good to remember when looking at the nominations offered to any body for approval--monthly or yearly meeting, even Friends United Meeting--that the names brought forward reflect not who the nominating committee asked to serve, but who said yes.
As to the comment that FUM is denying a hope and a future to gays, you need to know that work is being done by some of the Quakers in Kenya to ease the homophobia in a culture where you will hear it said that "we have no homosexuals in Kenya." It is long-term--essentially one-on-one--work from what I understand, but it has begun.