Quakers: Just Like Ever Other Christian

… But maybe that is a good thing?

Last week I attended the North West Yearly Meeting for Friends which is an

Evangelical division of the Quaker/Friends denomination. Recently, I have been persuaded by Quakers and have been thinking that they are a different breed of Christian, a more humble and a more willing kind of Christian to discuss and dialogue. Do not get me wrong, I am not looking for a perfect Church, a perfect denomination, or a perfect representation of Jesus. I get that we are all flawed and are all poor examples in one way or another. I had hoped that Quakers might be a bit different then what my general experience of Christianity has been, but at the end of the day Quakers are really just like ever other Christian. Here’s why…

The issue before the NWYM was the issue of human sexuality. This is an issue that all Evangelical Churches are facing, and it is one that will not go away until we get it right. There is a right outcome for this issue which is just, moral, and faithful to a God who creates us as His children, and this outcome is to affirm LGBT persons and to see them as no different then the traditional heterosexual persons whom

Christianity currently favors. This is a difficult conclusion for Christians to accept as many people relate to their faith differently, and many “feel” threatened or “attacked” if this issue is to be given a platform for consideration. Progress happens slowly when you have to appeal to the consensus of lesser minds. And I do say that rather matter of fact-ly, because in their hearts they have a big and deep love for their God. They are simply used to a certain way things ought to be. Unity of spirit means being able to find a way for issues of conscience and issues of authority to coexist with one another, and for mutual dialogue to occur between those who have placed their stake.

A year ago, or so, one of the churches involved in the NWYM came out as affirming LGBT persons. This clashed with the current Faith and Practice language which prohibits it as sexually immoral. Some called for this church to leave the NWYM. Some called for a revision of the Faith and Practice. Since Quakers tend to err on the side of grace it was believed that the best course would be to see if a revision could be made to the Faith and Practice that was more tempered with grace.

A year passes and this year the revision is presented to the NWYM and in my personal opinion it was a great example of creativity and integrity. It preserved the old way of still presenting homosexuality as a distortion of God’s creation (which it is in a matter of fact sense), and it did away with language that overtly suggested condemnation, like sin and immorality. Thus it was neither affirming for LGBT or condemning. It was in a sense, neutral and matter of fact. Its positive contribution was to promote sexual wholeness in Christ. So in a sense, it was perfect because diplomatically neither side was getting what they wanted, and both sides could be happy that the other side was unhappy.

The revision failed miserably. And it is unclear why. This is the problem I have with

most Christians. They are simply not smart enough to understand the mechanisms in play. In a zero sum game either those who oppose LGBT or those who affirm LGBT will be left at the end making the decisions and deciding the policy. It is clear that there is a zero sum game between LGBT inclusion and exclusion. Those who want to include feel threatened by those who want to exclude, and those who want to exclude also feel threatened by those who want to include. Thus, to avoid a zero sum game, a non-zero sum solution must present itself.

This revision was a non-zero sum solution. The only reason to dismiss it would be to

prefer a zero sum game as opposed to a non-zero sum game. Or, the solution provided to achieve non-zero sumness seems less beneficial then the outcome which could happen from remaining in a zero sum game. Typically, if a person thinks he can win he is less likely to compromise. But the problem now is that no one has won. And the non-zero sum solution was shot down. Here is the rub. There is no chance for a zero sum game to actually happen, or the zero sum game that will play out cannot possibly meet the expectations of any single party. Those on one side who want to simply cut themselves off from the other side will not ever convince the controlling members that a zero sum game is more profitable. And the controlling members will not apply the rules in a zero sum fashion. Thus, we are in a disastrous stalemate. The only way to achieve non-zero sumness is through dishonesty.

Those who complained that the proposed revision was too unclear were being dishonest in that what they really wanted was something clear enough to cut out people from their group, and those who are now entrusted with “enforcing” the Faith and Practice must now be dishonest in not doing anything about what Faith and Practice is telling them. Both sides have to now be mutually dishonest in order to achieve their goals.

This lack of strategy on the part of all parties involved is disheartening, but it is not entirely without precedent. It simply means that Quakers are like every other Christian group who cannot maintain a vision for who they are supposed to be. The leadership should have never let the old statement stand as a possible outcome if the revision was rejected. It should have been an either-or outcome where either the revision is accepted, or the statement “we are not united on this” is added to the current statement. It is incredibly unwise to move forward with a revision if it is not agreed upon that the current statement is insufficient.

It was a strategic error for the conservatives who want to cut out members from

the group to hide behind a seeming “unclarity” for the revision, because now they are unhappy participants on all fronts. They were not happy with the revision, and now they are not happy that the revision was rejected. This error was shared with the liberals who wanted to pass the revision. They equally protested the revision arguing that it did not affirm LGBT persons, and they protested when the revision was rejected knowing that no official LGBT discrimination would happen to them.

It is unfortunate that a church has to sit in limbo because no agreement could be reached on this matter. It is unfortunate that the leadership now has to accept the burden of being dishonest, and that the conservatives and liberals now have to be dishonest as well. This is the kind of Christianity that made me become an atheist. This is the kind of faith that turns good people into supporters of dishonesty and manipulation. The revision may not have been the ideal of good and honest behavior, but it was a hope. It was a hope that people were willing to lay down their arms and begin building once again.

But this is what Christianity has become on an institutional level. I wish it was the other way around, but the God’s honest truth is that good faithful people have become sucked into a culture war that is controlled by political and corporate powers. This issue has been high-jacked by a cult of personality and all the while those truly benefiting are those in power. When a Christian ministry that helps children announced that they were changing their policy on hiring homosexuals they lost tons of money in pledges. This is not simply an issue of how to read the Bible. This is an issue with dollar signs.

So Quakers are just like every other Christian, but is that such a bad thing? We would like some “hedge” of protection upon the namesake of Christianity to show some kind of protection from beyond. But the reality is that when put in a corner we respond just the same. I only hope that we find out who and how we got here before it is too late. I have good reasons to think that this hope is well suited.

I did see things that gave me hope. The superintendent said that Jesus did not have a conventional Father and that we should open up the Gospel to as many people as possible. I saw conservatives desiring unity so much that they were willing to keep discussing the issue until unity could be reached. I saw liberals desiring unity so much that they wanted to do the same. I saw people listening to each other. I saw people talking about this issue that I have not seen in an Evangelical setting. I saw a leadership that was open and honest. I saw a willingness to take time and be patient as long as needed to stand together.

I did not see the right answers, the right attitudes, or the right strategies. There was nothing right about it. All parties involved essentially messed up, made essential mistakes that basically ruined the success for the proposed initiative, or for any future resolution to this problem. But in the midst of this, I still saw a basic commitment to one another. It was wrong, but maybe it was the right kind of wrong. The kind of wrong you want to be, if you must be wrong.

There is a modern drive to make religion into this ideological institution, and this goes both ways. But there is wisdom, humility, and courage in a devotion to

something which is at times silly, futile, weak, or dumb. There becomes this overriding desire to stick it out with one another. It is not because we have such a great rationale or system of belief that makes all others pale in comparison to ours. It is that we have decided to stay together regardless of the circumstances. It is perhaps the highest Christian ideal that should stand above all others, and it is what I saw at this Yearly Meeting. It is called Brotherhood. It may not make sense, and it may cause us to look dumb from time to time, but Quakers have it. And I do not see that as a bad thing.