The Revitalization of the Quaker Message for Today: The Final Report on the Recent Retreat

This is the final report from the revitalization retreat held at Quaker Hill Conference Center last month. In the final session, I introduced the group to some positive change tools that could be used in their local meetings.

Since we were running out of time we only did one of the tools as a group (more about that later). The three tools were:

• Interview
• Asset Mapping
• Flourishing Café
  

Since "Interview" is the tool we used, I'll talk about it in this report last -- and show what results we had from doing it.

Asset Mapping is an exercise that has the purpose of transforming thinking from “deficit based” to “abundance.” We often talk about what we don't have (our lacks) instead of what we do have (our assets). When we approach things from an asset point of view, we can see "deficits" in a new way and turn them into positives. Assets we were going to map as part of the retreat were
physical assets, individual assets, associations, institutions, and economic assets.

If you're interested in seeing how you can use asset mapping in your Meeting, go to http://www.alban.org/uploadedFiles/Alban/Bookstore/pdf/resources/Asset_Mapping/resource2.pdf

World Café -- I had planned to use this tool last in the day. World Café is an innovative yet simple methodology for hosting conversations about questions that matter about important questions that a group needs to work on. These conversations link and build on each other as people move between groups, cross-pollinate ideas, and discover new insights into the questions or issues that are most important in Meeting. As a process, the World Café is meant to make visible the collective intelligence of any group. To see how it works, visit http://www.theworldcafe.com/

We were going to use it, as a group, to address three questions:

• what has the retreat said about Friends at our best?
• what three practices, conditions, or circumstances contribute to revitalization?
• what have you heard that has real meaning/resonates with you?
  

The tool we used was "Interview." I asked everyone to pair up with someone they did not know well (which was not difficult, given the diversity of the crowd). Once they had chosen a person to interview, I explained that I would give them three questions. It was to be an interview, not a dialogue. So each person got fifteen minutes to ask their partner the three questions. They should take notes, just like a "real" interview. Then their partner would ask them the same three questions.

The questions were:

• what attracted you to/kept you among Friends?
• what was a “best moment” for you among Friends?
• what three wishes do you have for Friends?

The purpose of these questions was to discover the circumstances, condition, and/or practices that contribute to vitality. After 30 minutes, the group came back together and reported what they found in their interviews. I recorded the answers to questions one and three. I have not edited or commented on what was said. They are in the order they were presented to the group. I offer them for your thinking/observation.

What Brought You To/Kept You Among Friends?

Being a camp counselor
Hearing an inner voice
Strong youth group
Wife is a Quaker minister
Was a church/meeting for the whole community
The mystical worship where God was experiences
The values and beliefs made sense to me
I was born a Quaker, believed the tenets, and experience the truth of it for myself
Silence
Learning that I didn’t have to be born a Friend
The people were friendly
There were women in ministry
The lack of liturgy and doctrine
The contemplative nature of worship
The emphasis on peace

What Three Wishes Do You Have for Friends?

We’d be open to change
We’d share non-violence
We’d have the ability to communicate in English instead of Quaker-ese
We’d nurture everyone’s spiritual gifts
We’d Spread message of tolerance/forebearance
That more Friends could have the ESR experience
We’d stop divisiveness
We’d be able to listen deeply to each other
We’d live faithful, holy lives
We’d exemplify integrity
We’d leave a positive legacy
We’d let our current light shine
We’d humble ourselves
We’d grow numerically and spiritually
We’d have some positive surprises

I found the time together engaging and energizing and would love to do it again. The conversations were rich and deep. I just wish we'd have had more Friends present and more time together.

-- Brent

The Revitalization of the Quaker Message for Today: Report 4 on the Recent Retreat

After the groups reported out on their responses to the four proposals ("Unprogrammed Programmed or Programmed Unprogrammed?", "Where to Sit: A Shift in Architecture", "The End of the Quaker Pastorate" and "Seeking the Seekers"), Katie Terrell and I had a "public conversation" about worship groups and why we each participate in one. The title for the session was "New Worship Forms."

We opened by me giving a brief introduction to three main forms:

• Monastic Communities
• House Churches
• Worship Groups

I noted that New Monasticism differs from traditional Christian monastic movements in many ways. The New Monastics generally do adopt a "rule of life" (i.e. the Benedictines) though traditional monastic vows of celibacy, poverty and obedience are not normally taken. People who participate in New Monastic communities do not always live in a single place but rather geographic proximity. New Monasticism allows married couples and celibate singles and their
members do not tend to wear religious habits.

I had additional information to present at the retreat, but since time was getting tight, I did not share it there. The following is what I would have presented, if I would have had time.

New Monasticism is characterized by (in their words):

1. relocation to the abandoned places of Empire
2. sharing economic resources with fellow community members and the needy among us.
3. hospitality to the stranger
4. lament for racial divisions within the church and our communities
5. combined with the active pursuit of a just reconciliation
6. humble submission to Christ’s body, the church
7. intentional formation in the way of Christ and the rule of the community along the lines of the old novitiate
8. nurturing common life among members of intentional community
9. support for celibate singles alongside monogamous married couples and their children
10. geographical proximity to community members who share a common rule of life
11. care for the plot of God’s earth given to us along with support of our local economies
12. peacemaking in the midst of violence and conflict resolution within communities along the lines of Matthew 18
13. commitment to a disciplined contemplative life

Some of the people who are known for participating in and writing/speaking about this movement are Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove, Shane Claiborne, and Maria Kenney, and Sarah Jobe. For information, check out http://www.thesimpleway.org/

Next I spoke about House Churches. It is estimated that there are between 30 - 50,000 house churches in the United States with between 5 - 12,000,000 adults attended regularly. According to one pollster (Barna) 10% of the adult population claims to have attended a house church in the past month.

House Churches are also known as “simple church” and they share particular characteristics:

• they are born out of the spiritual life of their founders/original participants
• they tend to be grass roots/local experiences
• they believe in face-to-face community
• every-member has a role and responsibility to the church
• their meetings are open-participation
• their leadership is non-hierarchical
• they celebrate centrality and supremacy of Jesus Christ as the functional Leader and Head of the gathering
  

For more information, go to http://www.housechurchresource.org/ or http://www.housechurch.org/

Next Katie and I began our conversation on worship groups. We both shared how we had felt led to begin worship groups -- but that we needed, to an extent, the encouragement of others to do it (mini-clearness committees?).

The Friends in Fellowship group that meets biweekly at Ploughshares Farm (Brent's farm) was started as place of theological hospitality -- where everyone is encouraged to speak of her or his spiritual journey in her or his theological language. Those who gather listen respectfully and we hope to learn from each other. We have programmed Friends and unprogrammed Friends who attend. There is theological diversity represented -- from Friends who a theologically conservative to very liberal. There is no "program" -- other than a starting time, the evening progresses as the Spirit leads. FoF is open to all (Quaker or not) and we occasionally advertise on Facebook. The group was started largely by e-mail invitation (sent to people we though might be interested, many of whom passed it along to others). We have had as few as 3 and as many as 25 in attendance. Once a year we decide, via sense of the Meeting, whether we feel led to continue the group or lay it down. This group has been meeting a bit more than 3 years.

Katie spoke of her group, which consists of three women who are single and have no children and live on the same street. Their goal is to go deeper in their spiritual lives and to provide spiritual support for each other. Like the FoF group, they have no set program. They have a starting time and meeting place (in a home) and leave the "work" to the Spirit. Participation is by invitation only and occasionally (by invitation) other women attend.

Both of us said that the groups we participate in do not replace our desire to be active in a local worshipping community. We both feel that being a part of a worship group sharpens our spiritual lives and makes us long for real connection with a vital, living worshipping community. We both cautioned that Meetings should not think about starting worship groups primarily as a way to attract new members. Such groups need to arise from a true movement of the Spirit and leading by people who have a deep spiritual need.

We offered some queries for people as they think about worship groups:

• do they replace/supplement congregational life?
• what needs are they serving?
• do they contribute to revitalization of larger faith tradition – or just for personal growth?

For more information on starting a worship group, go to http://www.ohioyearlymeeting.org/startingworshipgroup.htm

The next post will be about final session of the retreat -- including "what brought you/kept you in Friends?" and "what are your three wishes for Friends?"

-- Brent

The Revitalization of the Quaker Message for Today: Report 3 on the Recent Retreat

Following the presentation of my four proposals for revitalization, the group (again -- consisting of Friends from a number of states and pastoral and unprogrammed (Conservative and FGC) traditions), the participants then self-selected which topic most interested (or irritated!) them and joined a group to address that topic.

Below are the notes (unedited or commented on by me) from the four discussion groups. They are rough -- but should give you an idea of some of the groups' thinking. The "Unprogrammed Programmed or Programmed Unprogrammed" and "Where to Sit" were the smallest -- 2-5 participants in each one. The "End of the Pastorate" and "Seeking the Seekers" were the largest, with about 15 participants each.


Unprogrammed Programmed: Group Notes
Having a bulletin is okay if there is plenty of time for meaningful open worship.
• Announcements on paper are helpful
Involve kids by having them help with offering, children’s message, reading scripture
Begin worship with period of silence
Remember, the Spirit works during the week (in planning), too! Not just “in the moment”
Having no bulletin means pressure on the organist
A challenge will be how to get people to go through the initial anxiety of not having a bulletin/order of worship
• Also is a challenge for the worship leader (if you have one)

Where to Sit: Small Group Notes
Sitting in the arrangement proposed in “A Modest Proposal”
• This setting promotes engagement
• Promotes the atmosphere of the equality of all believers
• Individual seats would provide more flexibility than pews
The current forward facing seats (of most Friends churches) promote passive observation of worship
• Forward seats promote a desire to be entertained or “fed” or disengaged critique rather than full engagement
• Forward facing makes hearing and sharing/vocal ministry difficult
o Speaking to backs of heads
o No dialogue or feeling of interchange
Meetings members will be highly resistant to change
• Perhaps short term experiments in new seating arrangements might overcome resistance
Some Meetinghouses’ architecture would make reconfiguration difficult – sloping/angled floors

End of the Quaker Pastorate: Group Notes
Unprogrammed Friends – yes to “released minister”
Survival is dependent on local people
Empower people in worship/care
Too many rules in open worship (what can be said/not said/how said)
• Some Meetings don’t have so many rules
Released minister
• Courage to say Spirit did not guide me to give the message today
• Congregations would have to trust the minister
o People want their “money’s worth” – what do you do w/ rest of your time???
Other examples
• Baltimore YM – Meeting Coordinator
• West Richmond – “Pastoral Minister” (not always charged w/ preaching)
Fifth Sundays could be opportunities for unprogrammed worship and encouraging members to minister
• Fewer people come on Fifth Sunday
• Try to break tradition
o 5 or 10 minutes of silence to start
Spend more time in prayer arising out of silence
Empower more small groups
Have to be more externally centered (not so inward)
How do we heal churches and communities from division
• Overcoming judgmentalism
• Love quietness and hear God’s speaking of love
• Listen for Christ’s example of forgiveness
What do you expect of worship?
• Inspiration
• Worldview expanded out of narrow-mindedness
• It’s not theology – it’s loving everybody
Speaking out of silence
• Different window to look through
• Speak from experience
• Worship is a process
• Train congregation HOW to hear ministry
o There is an art to listening
• Train ministers to affirm ministry by the congregation
Need more “teaching meetings”
• Where mentoring of ministers can occur
Acquaint congregations with what is coming out of ESR
• More mentoring of current ministers by ESR?
• Most denominations have problems with their seminaries
When people leave a congregation, minister by talking with them and learning why
• No one calls to see why people leave
Remember – absolutes don’t work.
Church of the Brethren is facing many of this issues, too

Seeking the Seekers: Group Notes
Regarding using “social media” we don’t know what we don’t know. Need more training.
• Suggested Indiana folks could attend a workshop social media held by the Indianapolis Center for Congregations on either May 19 or May 20 (depending on their location
Get training on what makes for a good website
Should look for outreach opportunities (i.e. QuakerQuest, etc)
Investigate other times than Sunday morning for events/worship

Following the small group discussions, each group had someone report their discussion and notes to larger group. The total group then engaged in asking clarifying questions, offering comments, and so on. It was a very energizing time -- with much positive language and feeling.

Next up was the conversation between Katie Terrell and me about new monasticism, house churches, and worship groups. And then participation in a positive change activity -- that's all in the next report.

-- Brent

The Revitalization of the Quaker Message for Today: Report 2 on the Recent Retreat

The second session of the revitalization retreat began on Saturday morning with a look a four topics, three of which had been included in A Modest Proposal. The topics were

• Unprogrammed Programmed or Programmed Unprogrammed?
• Where to Sit: A Shift in Architecture
• The End of the Quaker Pastorate
• Seeking the Seekers

In the "Unprogrammed Programmed or Programmed Unprogrammed?" I said that what Quakers have for others (and ourselves) is a winsome invitation – to meet God. It's this idea of silence being an opportunity for participatory listening to/for God sets us apart from other Christians. We don't have a mass or proclamation of the Word as other Christians do. So we should scrap a written order of worship included in a bulletin and formalized worship planning (again as in the order -- "We'll do this now and that next and then..."). Let's trust the Spirit to lead worship.

I said I felt that if we did that that perhaps more of us would come prepared to encounter the Divine because worship would require us to be to be more participatory. We could recapture the idea that we are each responsible for being fed in worship -- and stop looking to the singing, or choir, or message from some "official person" to feed us.

I said I was not proposing that we scrap singing, choir, sermon, etc. No. Choirs can still rehearse. Pastors can still plan sermons. What I was saying that we should hold worship in holy silence and trust God to lead people to sing, share, sermonize at the right time. We should also try to find creative ways to involve children and kids and young adults in worship.

I said our goal in ditching the printed (or implied) order of worship was to create a sense of spiritual hospitality in the silence where there was a feeling of expectation that “anything, God willing” can happen -- and would!

In "Where to Sit" I noted that the buildings of Friends churches (primarily) resemble other church buildings and that this seating arrangement puts the focus on people and performance — not on God. Again we have no mass to celebrate or Word to be proclaimed by an ordained clergy authorized to do just that, so why are we all facing the front? This doesn’t fit what Quaker worship should be about — welcoming the presence of Christ in our midst.

I said we should do a seating arrangement something like this:

I then gave three reasons for this alteration. One is so we change from looking at a particular place from which we expect ministry to a view that says ministry comes from anywhere/anyone. The second reason is that the said rearrangement makes it easier to hear vocal ministry which can arise from anywhere. The third reason is so that we can see the faces of those God has gathered that day -- as we see the gathered community, we pray for, care, and love them.

The next proposal was to "End the Quaker Pastorate." In this I noted that the concern about Quaker pastoral ministry has always been that it will evolve into “profession.” Using the word "Pastor" has led us more toward that evolution, especially since most congregations members have a well formed idea of what a pastor is based on their experience in other congregations. A former Lutheran turned Quaker has an idea of what a pastor is and does that is different from what Roman Catholic turned Quaker does and what a Quaker who's always been Quaker. All of which may be completely different from what the reality of what a Quaker paid minister should be -- some odd creation!

For our congregations to be receptive to the Spirit in this day, there are four needs.

• specialized ministry of a trained and called paid minister and the universal ministry of a called and equipped congregation
• the meeting for worship must be free from rigidity which prevents the workings of the Spirit
• preaching in our meetings for worship must be under the leadership of the Spirit.
  we must adhere to Friends’ business methods and never let power and authority be centralized in the pastor
• paid ministers and the other members of the meeting must be trained in the art of silence.

Lorton Huesel, former General Secretary of Friends United Meeting and a Friends pastor, formulated these -- not me!

I proposed that a new descriptive name could be 'released minister.” This helps us recover the idea that all of us are ministers and recapture the Friendly idea that there are many types of ministry. We also need to encourage local Friends congregations to recognize those among them who exhibit gifts of ministry – but may not be “professionals.”

In the "Seeking the Seekers" section, I said that we needed to think outside the Church Box by becoming more missional and reaching out to those who would resonate with our message. I showed three videos...

Seeking the Seekers, Part 1

Seeking the Seekers, Part 2

Social Media
Then I spoke about using Social Media to advertise this retreat. I took out a Facebook ad for this conference and targeted people who live in the United States, aged age 18 and older
who like Quaker, Quakers or Religious Society of Friends. The ad generated 120,000 views in 9 days and resulted in 180 clicks on the Quaker Hill Conference Center site for a cost of $47.55.

We then broke into four small groups to based on interest in these four topics. My next post will be the notes those interest groups developed.

-- Brent

The Revitalization of the Quaker Message for Today: A Report on the Recent Retreat

On Friday and Saturday January 27-28, around forty Friends (and others) gathered at Quaker Hill Conference Center in Richmond, Indiana to talk about how to revitalize the Friends message. Friends came from a variety of states (mostly Indiana, Ohio, and Illinois), represented unprogrammed Friends (FGC and Conservative) and pastoral Friends (FUM). The following is a summary of the weekend. More detailed reports on each session will follow.

The retreat's titles was "Worship Groups and Other Alternatives to “Traditional” Church: A conversation about the revitalization of the Quaker message for Today." On Friday night we began with my presentation "Facts and Figures." After a season of deep worship, I opened with this quote by George Fox:

“The Lord had said unto me that if but one man or woman were raised by His power to stand and live in the same Spirit that the prophets and apostles were in who gave forth the Scriptures, that man or woman should shake all the country in their profession for ten miles round.”

I mentioned that everything that followed had to be predicated on our being open to being vessels of the Spirit -- otherwise we were merely rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. Well, if not the Titanic, maybe the Woodhouse.

I then presented some statistics (most of which are in "A Modest Proposal"), beginning with
the idea that "Congregations Still Matter" and noted that in the past 20 years there were
+32,000 new congregations in the US, with +28,803,815 new attendees, and that religious affiliation is up 26%.

Then I asked "But… do Quaker Congregations Still Matter?" and noted that in the past 20 years
we’ve added 311 new congregations, but have have lost 17,000 members, and dropped recognized affiliation by 14%. Friends United Meeting has dropped 15,000 members, Evangelical Friends International has dropped 3,000 members, and Friends General Conference has grown 1,000 members.

I spoke of myths that we (as congregational members) live by, strengths of growing (spiritually, numerically) congregations, activities that are undertaken by growing congregations (not just numerically growing!), and showed the interrelation of theology and growth (none!). These were all based on scientific studies of religious life in the United States and Canada.

On Saturday we began with me presenting "A (Not So) Modest Proposal. This consisted four ideas, three of which came from my tract (pamphlet, essay, rant) "A Modest Proposal." The four were:
Unprogrammed Programmed or Programmed Unprogrammed?
Where to Sit: A Shift in Architecture
The End of the Quaker Pastorate
Seeking the Seekers

After I presented these ideas, the group broke into four self selected groups to talk for about an hour on the topic that most interested them. They gathered their thoughts on presentation pads. At the end of this session, the groups on "Unprogrammed Programmed" and "Where to Sit" presented the highlights of their discussion. The entire group then asked questions (clarifying ones, mostly) and offered some opinions/thoughts.

Following lunch, we heard from "The End of the Pastorate" and "Seeking the Seekers" groups -- again followed with questions and thoughts.

Immediately after that, Katie Terrell and I had a dialogue, with questions and conversation from the attendees, about "New Worship Forms" -- including New Monasticism, House Churches and Worship Groups. Katie and I both belong to (and helped start) worship groups that meet in homes. They have very different purposes (except for the common theme of worship and sharing) but shared some similarities -- wanting to go deeper in faith, allowing the Spirit to lead the time together, having a set starting time but not ending time, and other things.

After a short break, I introduced the group to some positive change tools that could be used in local Meetings, at Yearly Meeting, in YM committees or other places that wanted to address revitalization issues. The three were interview, asset, mapping, and World Café.

As we were near the end of the day, there was only time to practice one of the tools -- interview. I asked everyone to pair up with someone they did not know well (which was not difficult, given the diversity of the crowd). Once they had chosen a person to interview, I explained that I would give them three questions. It was to be an interview, not a dialogue. So each person got fifteen minutes to ask their partner the three questions. They should take notes, just like a "real" interview. Then their partner would ask them the same three questions.
The questions were:
what attracted you to/kept you among Friends?
what was a “best moment” for you among Friends?
what three wishes do you have for Friends?

The purpose of these questions was to discover the circumstances, condition, and/or practices that contribute to vitality.

After thirty minutes (give or take a few minutes -- you know how Quakers are!), we got back together and people shared their "interviewee's" answers to the questions. I captured these on chart paper.

Then, since time was waning, we went into a period of rich worship, with some vocal ministry.

All in all, I found the retreat a powerful experience. There seemed to be high energy and engagement in the topic. Friends also seemed to be sorry that the time was drawing to a close -- feeling that we could have gone on longer. Of course, that's my perspective as a leader. I'll be curious to hear what participants think!

More detailed reports on each session (especially the notes by the groups and thoughts from the interviews) will follow in the coming days.

-- Brent

Conditions for Gospel Ministry: A Least for Me...

I am speaking at a Friends Meeting on Sunday. That's not unusual. I receive regular invitations to travel in ministry -- which often includes giving a message if the place I've been invited is a pastoral meeting. But lately, as I've been working on the ideas in "A Modest Proposal" and how they impact my personal ministry, I have been feeling more and more led to adopt some new conditions (though that sounds harsher than I mean it) before I accept an invitation. Most of them have to do with my needing to both think about and practice what it means for me to be a Friends minister traveling in Gospel ministry. So I've been mulling over things such as not using a prepared text (as I normally do) and sitting out in the congregation and speaking from there.

So, in the interest of trying to follow this leading, I am going to be sharing the following with any pastoral meeting that invites me to come share in worship --

Hello XX –

Thanks so much for inviting me to bring a message at XX Friends Meeting on XX. I appreciate this opportunity. There are a few things, however, that you should know before I accept your invitation. Each of these is a response to my wishing to be faithful to my understanding of what it means to be a Friends minister traveling in Gospel service.

1. As I endeavor to honor the Friends witness of speaking only when led, I will not prepare a written sermon beforehand. Therefore, I won’t be able to send a sermon title or scripture reading to you for the bulletin (if you have one). I will continue to read and study in preparation for speaking, as I always have.
2. Also, when God’s spirit directs me to I will speak out of the time designated for holy silence (open worship, silent worship, etc.) of the gathered people of faith. I do try to be faithful to listening to Christ our present teacher and so, if I do not feel lead, will not speak. While this has rarely happened, I do want to honor the direct leading of the Spirit.
3. If you have a time in Meeting for Worship in which the pastor normally prays aloud (pastoral prayer), I will be honored to do that, if requested.
4. I do not have a set fee nor do I require an honorarium to bring a message. If you are led to support my ministry, then any amount (or none) is welcome.
5. If possible, I would prefer to not speak from behind a pulpit or lectern. I would rather stand and speak, when lead, from the same level on which the other Friends are seated.

These things are not meant to be quirks or set me apart from other Friends ministers. Rather , they are ways that I am attempting to be faithful to the way Christ continues to teach me what it means for me to be a Friends minister. They are negotiable, depending on the needs of your Meeting. I certainly understand if you find these a bit odd and would prefer to invite someone else to speak to you. If God continues to lead you to issue an invitation, I look forward to worshipping with you.

In Friendship,
Brent


Following this leading is a real leap of faith for Mr. Anal-Retentive, Obsessive-Compulsive. But, in my lifelong quest for faithfulness to where I am in my life with God, I think it's what I'm supposed to do. And I certainly don't recommend this as THE way for anyone else -- it's just where I am right now.

Especially as regards the first point in the letter, I want to make clear what I mean by "prepare." What I mean is that I won't prepare a specific written manuscript, which has been my tendency. This is a real challenge for me...

When I first started out in pastoral ministry I was so smart and knew exactly what God wanted me to say (well, that's a bit strong, but not much. I think I probably came across as more than a little bit arrogant. I hope not, but ...). Back then I gave sermons based on 3 points I jotted down on a 3 x 5 card. I filled in the rest from the vast storehouse of knowledge in my shallow soul.

As I aged though, and after a hiatus from pastoral ministry, I changed and began using prepared manuscripts. That's because I'd writing much more and deeper and was learning to be care-ful with words. Words are so important -- especially in communicating the deep riches of the spiritual life. But as I look back, perhaps I was too slavish in adhering to them and in trying "plan" worship too much along the lines I thought the congregation should go/needed.

I'm not sure that either of the above (my young fill in the blanks approach or my older power of words approach) those are bad things. They might even have been good things. I'm just no longer convinced that they were the best thing. The most faithful thing. And I think the Gospel ministry deserves the best, most faithful thing.

So when I say I'm not going to prepare as I used to, what I mean is that I won't write anything down. I will think about what's in my heart/mind as I see the day approaching. And I will continue to read and study during the week. Just not with an eye toward coming up with some amazing technical points or fascinating anecdotes. I will spend time in silence listening for the voice of God around a couple of queries -- "Why did You have them invite me to give a message?" and "What is the message You want me to bring.?"

Now before someone asks, "Do you believe that God can only lead you to speak during the time allotted to waiting/open/silent worship? Couldn’t God also lead you to the message in advance?", let me say that I believe that. I think God can work in all sorts of ways. I think that my past prepared manuscripts (and even the 3x5 cards) were examples of God at work in the "advance" instead of the moment.

Who knows (or maybe I should say "God only knows" ) maybe I'll be led to some combination new combination of preparation -- 3x5 notes, typed manuscript, and complete openness to the movement of the Spirit in the moment.

For now, though, this seems like the place for me to set out on a new adventure of being a disciple and learning to listen more carefully. And for renewing my own ministry.

-- Brent

PS The photo is of the young 3x5 card Brent Bill. More hair but even less smarts than now.

What Kind of Christian ARE You?

Emergent. Missional. Post-Christian. Post-modern. Pre-post-missional emergent traditional Orthodox. What canst thou say?



-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: A Conversation Invitation

As I've said in my series of posts titled "A Modest Proposal for the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States," despite it's widely assumed death, religious life in America is growing. New congregations are starting, old ones are in the midst of renewal, and thousands of new people are coming to worship. And there is a huge uptick of interest in Quakers, as evidenced by such things as the sale of books about Friends and interest generated by Quaker Internet sites.

I also noted that English Quaker Edgar Dunstan once asked -- "What … have we [Friends] to declare to this generation that is of sufficient importance to justify our separate existence as part of the Christian fellowship?"

If you care about the answer to that question, I invited you to join me for a workshop/conversation to be held at Quaker Hill Conference Center (in Richmond, IN) on January 28 & 29, 2011. The conversation will use a combination of worship, social research about religious and congregational life in the U.S., and interactive discussions and activities.

The title is "Worship Groups and Other Alternatives to "Traditional" Church" and the subtitle is "A Conversation about the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in America." It is my hope that a broad range of folks -- pastoral, unprogrammed, Evangelical, Conservative, Liberal (whatever those titles really mean) -- will come together to talk about ways we can revitalize -- not institutions -- but the message of Friends. What have we to say to this generation -- and the next?

The schedule looks like this:

Friday, January 28
5:00-6:00 Arrival and Registration
6:00 Dinner
7:00 Session 1 – ―A Look at the Religious Landscape and Vital Congregations

Saturday, January 29
8:00 Breakfast
9:00 Session 2 – ―Proposals for Revitalization (based on my "A Modest Proposal")
12:00 Lunch
1:00 Session 3 — ―Worship Groups and Other Alternatives to "Traditional" Church
Afternoon Break
Session 4 – ―What is God calling us to do at this time?
4:00 Closing

This is not going to be a lecture. I hope for a deep, engaged, rich conversation and interaction. And, God willing, perhaps we will feel a fresh wind of the Spirit blowing across and through our little society -- imbuing it with a message for this generation and the ones that follow.

-- Brent

PS -- if you'd like a PDF of the conference brochure, drop me an email @ brentbil@brentbill.com

PPS I am working on a PDF booklet of "A Modest Proposal." It will be available for download in the near future.

A Modest Proposal: Part 8 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

This is the final installment (I think) in my modest proposal. There are lots of specific proposals that I could make (about outreach, use of new media, and more) but they are really outside the scope of this series, which was to paint some big ideas with fairly broad strokes and to invoke the art critic in people who care about the future of the Friends message and get them to respond.

So, to that end, one more probably improbable proposal. Let's change our name.

YIKES!!! He can't be serious???

Ah, but he is. While I dearly love "Religious Society of Friends" and am even proud to be a humble Quaker, I'm not sure that either really help us share our message.

I'll concede to keeping "Quaker." It has a homey, friendly appeal -- thanks in no small part to a certain breakfast cereal conglomerate and a nostalgic view that folks outside our Society have when they hear that word.

But Religious Society of Friends says ... um... nothing to people outside of our little group. So let's dump it in favor of some simpler, more descriptive phrase.

How about "Friends of Jesus?"

OMG!! Jesus?

Well, as I recall, we took the name Friends because a certain Biblical figure uttered some words that we liked -- "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you." (John 15:14 & 15, KJV).

And who was the Biblical personage who uttered those words? Hmmm ... Jesus!

Now, before I am accused of being totally ignorant of the breadth of Friends theological thinking and language and some Friends dislike of the name (if not the person) of Jesus, I know that this will stick in some Quaker craws. It does in mine just a bit -- especially during those times that Jesus words bug me. And I'm pretty sure some members of my family won't like it. But, it does get back to the intent behind the early Friends calling themselves Friends. They were -- or at least hoped to be -- the friends of Jesus.

Think of how it would simplify how we identify ourselves to outsiders -- or those we hope to attract? What would it be like to invite someone to visit the Friends of Jesus in Plainfield instead of Plainfield Friends Church? Or Plainville Friends of Jesus instead of Plainville Friends Meeting?

Sounds sort of fresh and new and Biblical and ... um... George Fox-y, doesn't it?

I think it could have a special appeal to those folks who say they like Jesus and his message, but just aren't too sure about the church.

Of course, changing the name will not make any difference if the Friends of Jesus are just the same old church/meeting dressed up in a new moniker. But the name itself is an invitation -- and a challenge. Do we wish to live up to the potential of the original intent of our name? Do we, individually and corporately, want to be the friends of Jesus? To live and move and have our being in the same Spirit that inspired the women and men who founded our movement? To do whatsoever God commands us? To live our faith daily within a community of belief and seeking God, held in a soulful tension of learning and growing?

Ah, it's only a name.

Or is it?

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: Part 7 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

A year or so ago, after an address I was giving to and for Quakers, during the question and answer period a woman asked me if I thought their Yearly Meeting would ever reach agreement on a new version of Faith and Practice. I said, "Tell me more" and she went on to explain that they had been struggling with coming up with a new version for a number of years and were not seemingly able to agree on a new edition.

After hearing that, I said that I doubted that they would reach agreement unless they returned to an older model of Faith and Practice -- one that more resembled the 1967 Christian faith and practice in the experience of the Society of Friends of London Yearly Meeting than it does the Book of Discipline of the United Methodist Church or the Presbyterian Book of Order.

The "old" Christian Faith and Practice is filled with, as the title implies, the experiences of Friends regarding important faith issues and their practice -- God, the Bible, worship, family life, and more. It is instructional in an illuminating -- not dictatorial -- way.

But many books of Faith and Practice are becoming imitations of other Protestant denominations books of discipline -- which I think indicates that the creeping denominationalism has moved more into many of our Yearly Meetings becoming Protestant judicatories like synods or presbyteries or dioceses. According to one definition, a judicatory "is an administrative structure or organization found in a religious denominations between the local congregation and the ... [body] which is [a] higher court. ... the judicatory can have decisive authority over a local church, can offer standing for clergy members, ..."

I think this court language is especially dangerous -- especially in light of some things going on in certain largely programmed Yearly Meetings. I think it's dangerous because it shifts the emphasis from a focus on serving local congregations to the local congregations being subservient to and under the direction of the Yearly Meeting. And plays into the potential for power plays and an increasing disconnect between the Yearly Meetings and the local meetings.

I am not advocating anarchy -- we Friends say we are about Gospel order. I agree. And there is much written in the Bible and other places about what that means and how to follow it. What I am against is a institutionalism that is dedicated to keeping institutions alive -- and to get rid of anyone (or meeting or group) that disagrees with the institutional hierarchy.

So part 7 of my modest proposal is that Yearly Meetings and other Friends bodies (whether they are centuries old, decades old or relatively new) stop and do serious examination of their purpose and programs. By that, Friends (and the institutions) need to ask things such as

• Why do we have Yearly Meetings or other institutions?
• What is their role?
• What is their purpose?
• Why were they created?
• Does that need still exist?
• What are they doing that needs to continue to be done?
• Is there a better way of doing these things?
• Is the institution serving the needs of the local Meetings or are the Meetings serving the needs of the institution

Further, I think these larger institutions and their staff and constituencies need to look at every program and staff position and ask the question "How does this fit with our mission -- our raison d'être?" We shouldnt' be asking "Is it good or worthy?" Many programs and staff people may be good and worthy, but they may also detract from the institution's primary purposes. In which case the organization then does not do the ministry for which it was created.

I fear we spend too much time staffing boards and committees that may no longer be needed -- simply because Faith and Practice tells us that we need X number of representatives from each Meeting, Quarterly Meeting or whatever to serve on such and such a board. And we hear reports and do some business and rarely ask, "Is this what God is calling us to at this time?"

It is my contention that the primary purpose of these larger institutions at this particular time should be

• to serve the local meetings and their needs (which means asking them how best to do that!)
• asking God where we should be taking the Quaker message and supporting folks ala the Valiant 60 to do that
• nurturing groups of Young Adult Friends (at colleges or in cities where there are no organized Friends Meetings) by supplying leaders at those places

Of course, there are many nuances to the three things above. They can be parsed a number of ways depending upon the institution's answer to some queries

• Who are we?
• Why do we exist -- what's our mission?
• What is God calling us to be and do?
• How do we relate to our constituency?
• How do we adapt to change?
• Are we willing to adapt to change?

These questions seem vital to me -- especially if our larger institutions want to become or remain vital. The questions need to be asked regularly. They can't be answered once and for all time. If the organizations don't ask these questions -- and engage the people served by them in a discussion of the questions -- the organizations, no matter how worthy or long-lived up until now, will become increasingly anachronistic. They will then either die or be replaced by new organizations that spring up to meet the needs they are not fulfilling. Organizations that are mission driven, leaner, think faster on their feet, and adapt to the needs of the people and organizations that created them.

That's one way to look at how early Quakerism came into being. As a fresh way to communicate a Gospel that had been boxed in by institutionalism, rites, rituals, clergy, and books. Fox and the early Friends sprung up in reaction to and against that. What would they think of us today?

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: Part 6B For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

Before I get to my proposed name change, let me say just a bit more about why I think it's time for a change. I'll make it explicit -- and that is the idea in the minds of many (primarily programmed Friends) that minster is synonymous with pastor. And that tain't necessarily so -- or at least it shouldn't be. We Quakers have long recognized various gifts of ministry. But this creeping clergyism is too quickly leading to the inevitable (I think) conclusion that the only ministry that is recognized is that of pastor.

That's already happening in some places. I live within the geographical confines of one yearly meeting and am a member of the yearly meeting "next door." I am a congregational consultant, which I consider very much a ministry. Yet, because I am not a pastor, I am not included in any mailings for ministers -- other than the yearly report I am asked to complete to demonstrate that I am using my ministry gifts. I am not invited to Pastor Short Courses, luncheons, retreats, information/training sessions, etc. It is as if, even though I have been a recorded minister for 30 years now, that I am not considered a minister by these yearly meetings since I am not a pastor.

I know I'm not the only recorded minister who has experienced this.

Another thing I worry about is, if we start using the title "Pastor" can there be a "Bishop" (in name or action) far behind? I fear we are closing in on the attitude, if not the title, already. And this goes against our call to present the Gospel of direct communication with God without a need for rite, ritual, or clergy.

So what do I propose? I have thought a long time about this and here's my ungainly name -- "released minister."

I think it's a good name for a number of reasons -- two of which I'll address here. One is that it gets us back to the idea of what we name all Friends. We are all ministers, are we not? Or at least we're supposed to be. Let's start by calling our paid staff person by the same name we all need to be going by.

Another is that this name will have to be explained. If, upon meeting somebody for the first time and they inquire about how I spend my days and I say that I am the pastor of Podunk Friends Church, they immediately know what that means based on their experience of what a pastor does. But if I say, "I'm the released minister at Podunk Friends" then I have, as Desi Arnaz used to say, some 'splaining to do. I then get to tell how we Friends believe that we are each ministers and that I am fortunate enough to have been released from seeking full time secular employment to use my ministry gifts in the service of the other ministers. I think that can be a powerful witness.

I think it also gives other Friends a chance to witness -- and relearn -- the amazing fact that we are all ministers. If we aren't allowed to say "She's our pastor" anymore and say "She's our released minister," then it is, like above, an opportunity to say what we believe about ministry and why. Which means, of course, that Friends need to be educated enough in our Gospel message that they can articulate it.

Another thing I think this title could help us do is to focus on what are we calling a staff person to come do for and with us as a local congregation. We could then move from some boiler-plate job description of pastor handed down by a committee from the Yearly Meeting to developing a position that meets our needs. We would then have to ask, what are we releasing someone to do? To preach? To visit the sick and dying? To teach us? What do we need done by a paid staff person that we cannot (not will not) do ourselves?

This then allows us to match the person and her or his gifts with the Meeting and its expressed needs. It is not about developing a professional quasi-clergy profession where congregations advertise for a pastor and everyone's resume looks the same because the job has been the same from location to location. What a joy to match gifts and strengths to a people and place that can make use of them in unique ways.

It also allows us to recover the Friendly idea that there are many types of ministry. A large Meeting might have released ministers serving as pastors, youth ministers, pastoral counselors, chaplains in local institutions and more. No one is senior pastor versus junior pastor -- all gifts and people are equally respected.

I think the title "released minister" is one that could be used for paid staff in unprogrammed meetings, too. It is no less arcane, and certainly more descriptive, than titles such as Meeting secretary.

Notice in this idea of the name change, I have nowhere advocated for an end to paid and/or trained ministers. While Friend George did say that "being bred at Oxford and Cambridge did not qualify or fit a man to be a minister of Christ," it doesn't necessarily hurt, either. I think we Friends can be well served by women and men who are trained in congregation administration, religious education, preaching, counseling, and the like. And if a woman or man feels called to serve Friends full time and her or his gifts in ministry are confirmed by the Meeting or Yearly Meeting or whatever, then she or he should be compensated.

Yes, this may all seem to be a bit idealistic. If so, I plead guilty. And yet, it seems to me, that the Quaker message is an idealistic one -- a Gospel that calls us -- and expects us -- to experience God individually in community. Our paid staff people should be empowered to help us keep to that ideal through various ministry roles. To be a released minister -- instead of pastor -- would be, I think, immensely freeing. If, that is, one truly cares about being a Friend of Jesus and not about being in a position of power or titular authority.

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: Part 6A For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

"The first thing we do, let's kill all the Quaker pastors." Brently VI, part II, Act 4, scene 2 (with apologies to William Shakespeare -- and all the Quaker pastors.)

Okay, now that I have your attention, I do not mean that literally. Any more than Shakespeare did when he had Dick the Butcher utter that now famous line from Henry VI -- "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." As one scholarly analysis of those words says, "... the famous remark by the plotter of treachery in Shakespeare's King Henry VI shows [that] the surest way to chaos and tyranny even then was to remove the guardians of independent thinking."

So, with tongue firmly in cheek, I propose we kill off the Quaker pastorate. Well, with tongue out of cheek, at least the way it is currently constituted.

Since our earliest days, Friends have railed against the hireling ministry. As George Fox himself said, "Christ saith to his ministers, 'freely you have received, freely give,' and they laboured 'to keep the gospel without charge.'"

And yet, in the late 19th century many Quaker adopted what Fox would have seen as a hireling ministry -- the pastoral system.

Now I am not going to rant against the pastoral system per se. I find it it gauche to bite the hand that fed me, so to speak. Nor do I think that the Quaker paid ministry is necessarily a bad thing -- as an idea.

The way that it is practiced today, by and large, though, I think is not helpful to a revitalization of the Quaker message in the United States.

These are just my thoughts, but the issue is something I've wrestled with for a long time (since before I was recorded in 1980) -- how does my role differ from the Presbyterian pastor next door -- and how, or can, the idea of Quaker pastor be reconciled with the Friendly testimony against hireling ministers?

This is a pretty involved topic, though I do think it's high time, especially given the number of seminaries preparing women and men for Friends pastoral work, that someone write a relevant guidebook or apology (or both) for the nature and work of the Quaker paid ministry.

Having said all that -- here goes (again these are my thoughts! I'm very open to disagreements or rebuttals):Elton Trueblood asserts that men in the clerical profession in the times of the early Friends were considered “hirelings’ because “they seemed to make the ministry more of a job than a calling.”

This whole idea of calling and following a leading is central to the nature of Friends pastoral work. It has to be a call, not just to general service, but to particular places of service at particular times. I see this differing from many other, especially mainline traditions, where women and men prepare for the ministry in general and that it becomes their career path.

I saw this most clearly in the semester I studied at a Lutheran seminary and various folks talked about their path into ministry. I was one of very few who used the concept of call as I delineated it above.

A concern about Quaker pastoral ministry has always been that it will evolve into "profession."

Richard John Neuhaus (certainly no left leaning type), in Freedom for Ministry: A Critical Affirmation of the Church and Its Mission, points to the increasing consideration of the pastoral ministry as a “profession”.

This sounds to me a lot like what is going on at times among Friends in pastoral ministry. This move toward profession, Neuhaus says, “is a poignant confession of vocational bankruptcy.”

Sounds like he and Fox and some other early Friends might agree.

Another difference (besides calling) is, I think, the question of authority. Many pastors in many denominations have authority by virtue of their ordination. A Catholic priest and Presbyterian pastor are both, in effect, the c.e.o's of their congregation. That is not true for the Quaker paid minister (no matter how some might wish it was).

The Clerk is the authority in our Meetings. That's a significant difference that we need to ensure is not blurred.

I do think there are a number of Biblical models for a Quaker paid ministry.

One is Ephesians 4:11&12 “It was he [Jesus] who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God's people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up…”

My understanding of what the Friendly model should be is reflective of the passage in Ephesians. Throughout the history of Friends, we have had folks in these various services. Evangelists – the Valiant Sixty, John Camm and John Audland to Bristol. Pastors – “Second Day Morning Meeting” which supervised the “nourishing of various flocks” (Elton Trueblood) and supporting various ministerial/pastoral types (not with salaries, but in support of their families).

Robert Barclay says, “We do believe and affirm that some are more particularly called to the work of the ministry ….”

The paradox for Quaker paid ministry today is to find a third way where the paid minister is not the c.e.o. of the local Meeting nor slave. The role of the Quaker paid minister must be to prepare God’s people for works of service. I see the Quaker paid minister as a fellow spiritual pilgrim -- moving toward God with the rest of the congregation, set apart only because he or she was called to serve the members (even -- or maybe even especially -- the annoying ones).

If authority or weight is granted, it comes not from the title, but because the congregation recognizes the spiritual depth of the paid minister in the same way it recognizes other weighty Friends. For Friends today, I believe that involves both the specialized ministry of a trained and called pastor and the universal ministry of a called and equipped congregation.

To facilitate that, Lorton Huesel says four things are essential

• The meeting for worship must be free from rigidity which prevents the workings of the Spirit


• Preaching in our meetings for worship must be under the leadership of the Spirit.


• We must adhere to Friends’ business methods and never let power and authority be centralized in the pastor.


• Paid ministers and the other members of the meeting must be trained in the art of silence.

Seth Hinshaw, in The Spoken Ministry Among Friends, said, “The pastor’s role in a Friend’s meeting is exacting and difficult. The pastor is not hired to preach, but liberated to serve.” The italics are mine. We need to recover, I think, that sense that the Quaker paid ministry is an exacting and difficult liberation to serve.

Notice that I have quit using the phrase Quaker pastor and moved to Quaker paid minister. I did that because I am concerned about the use of the title "pastor" and its implications. One of which is that the Quaker "pastor" functions exactly the same as a pastor in any other faith group.

When I served as pastor of Friends Memorial Church in Muncie, I had sign on my door that said, “His Eminence’s Study.” Everyone knew it was a joke, because we Quaker pastoral types don’t use titles.

Or do we?

I’ve noticed, to my dismay, a creeping “title-ism,” lately. Like in a few of the newsletters I read from when the pastor signs her name “Pastor Betty Joy” or some such thing. I even read a piece by a Quaker pastor type who signed it "The Reverend Doctor." This bothers me, even if these are folks whose ministry and friendship I respect and cherish.

It bothers me because I worry that by doing so we blur one of the distinguishing differences between being a Friends pastor and one in any other denomination.

Scott Russell Sanders, an unprogrammed Friend from Bloomington, Indiana and professor at Indiana University, writes in Falling Toward Grace: Images of Religion and Culture in the Heartland, about how in the 19 century many Friends congregations began hiring ministers. The result, he says, is that they began behaving “for all the world like other low-temperature Protestant churches.”

That may sound harsh, but Elton Trueblood, in the 1960 Quaker Lecture at Indiana Yearly Meeting (and later in Quaker Religious Thought) said something similar when he noted that “our pastoral system in … some areas…of Friends is merely a poor reflection of … stronger Christian bodies.”

“The mistake,” Elton says, “was that a fundamentally alien system was taken over, almost intact, from other Christian bodies.”

One of the ways he said he knew that to be true was the preponderance of Friends pastors who allowed themselves to be referred to as Rev. So and So at community and other gatherings.

Scott and Elton, though poles apart on other issues, are in agreement on this one. And I’m with them. The role of the paid minister among Friends is like that in no other denomination. To be sure, there are similarities. But we need to keep the distinctives in mind, too.

We need to remember that we are neither CEO nor doormat. We are called to be co-laborers with Christ and congregation. That understanding of the unique relationship between the one called to pastor and the other Friends who are members of the Meeting begins to erode the moment I begin referring to myself as Pastor Brent or Rev. Bill.

I read this piece the other day and wondered: Does this describe us?

At the core of this dilemma is the role of the Pastor as a spiritual leader. The late Erich Fromm noted that most people fear freedom, and seek to escape it by turning to a leader who can relieve them of any responsibility for their identity, character, and future. Many people treat their pastors as such shields against accountability. But that is not the Quaker way. Ultimately, a pastor who agrees to serve in that capacity is an accomplice in stunting someone’s spiritual maturation, depriving them (and God) of the distinct rewards of an adult faith.


Rather than imposing a dictatorial control on the seeker or believer, the pastor is, above all, a teacher. ... Teaching happens only in an environment of freedom and curiosity, of commitment freely entered and community voluntarily joined. ... Robots are not told to “choose life that you may live,” nor are computers informed of the consequences of their choices. But the people called Quakers are, because God cherishes our voluntary service and our obedience freely offered.

In that journey, no Quaker is under the compulsion of another. We have not given up an Egyptian Pharaoh to take on a pastoral one. Instead, God has liberated us from the very model of despotism, of ever abdicating our souls to another human being.

Pastors traditionally do not seek to deaden the mind or to stifle the heart. We provide authoritative information about what the Bible teaches and what the Lord requires of us. We embody (or seek to) the best of what Quaker living and Quaker values can attain. As teachers and as role models, pastors are essential to Quaker survival. But when acting as vicarious Quakers (living a Quaker life and thinking Quaker thoughts so the rest of us don’t have to) or as externalized authorities (making all the tough choices), some pastors and their followers subvert the very tradition they claim to love.

Instead, as partners, by meeting our congregants and students in the sea of the Bible, we navigate together those ancient words and powerful insights. Pastors ... offer the shimmering wares of faith. But the Quaker, each Quaker, must decide for him or herself: do I buy it? Do I cherish it? Do I care for it so I can transmit it to my children?

Actually that's a piece by Rabbi Bradley Shavit Artson about the role of the Rabbi. I just cut out Rabbi and inserted Pastor (and Bible for Torah, Jew for Quaker, etc). Those who serve as paid ministers among Friends live in a dynamic tension of serving as spiritual guides while remaining fellow spiritual travelers of a local congregation. It's very much like the role -- not of other Christian pastors -- but of a rabbi.

I am not proposing that we paid ministers in the Society of Friends begin to call ourselves rabbis. Instead, the sixth part of my modest proposal is to drop the term pastor in favor of a new name that I think gets back to the original intent of the pastoral system among Friends (and indeed, back to ministry among Friends). The new name and how I see it working will be in the next post -- Part 6B For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States.

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: Part 5 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

From our beginnings, we Friends have held that one place is not more sacred than another -- all places are fit for the worship of God. And early on we established a sort of generic Meetinghouse look -- free from the ornamentation and classic cross arrangement of most Christian churches.

This architecture stayed consistent among Friends (regardless of persuasion) until the rise of the pastoral movement. Then the buildings of Friends churches (primarily) began to resemble other church buildings of the time they were constructed. For example, I've been in Friends churches constructed in the late 19th and early 20th century and they look a lot like the Methodist, Lutheran, Presbyterian, et al churches built in that era -- often following the Akron plan (the name came from the First Methodist Episcopal Church of Akron, Ohio) which was based on increasing Sunday school attendance. Some even have a modified bell tower -- sans the bell, of course!

This trend continued. The congregation I grew up in (Highland Avenue Friends) moved from a building that was a modified Akron plan building into a modern, straight lined building with Sunday school wings growing off each side of the sanctuary. Yes, we used the the word sanctuary. About the only thing that differentiated the Westgate Friends Church building from the Lutheran, Wesleyan, Nazarene, Evangelical United Brethren and other church buildings of the 50s and 60s was the lack of a cross hanging in the front above the pulpit.

Even old Friends buildings were modified to fit the pastoral system. Benches were removed and pews brought in. Organs and pianos and pulpits were installed on a raised platform at one end. So now many, if not most, Friends church buildings (speaking primarily of programmed meetings) look something like this:



Which is fine, I think, for most preaching-centric or rite-centric faith groups. If the proclamation of the Word is the primary purpose of a faith group, then naturally the congregation should face the place where that Word is going to be preached. Also, if the acts of taking communion or baptism were central expressions of the faith, then it makes sense to be looking at the altar where the Host was consecrated or the font or pool where baptisms would take place.

But it really doesn't fit what Quaker worship should be about -- welcoming the presence of Christ in our midst. The very nature of this seating arrangement puts the focus on people and performance -- not on God. We, who worship in such a setting, then look through our fellow worshippers (or the back of their heads) to a preacher, a worship leader, a choir to take us through the parts of worship in the same we we would sit in an auditorium to watch a play. We, except for congregational singing, mostly observe. We participate mostly in singing -- which is preplanned. But mostly we sit and watch others.

So part five of my modest proposal is that we scrap this seating arrangement in favor of something like this --



There are three reasons for doing this. One is so that our view changes from looking at a particular place where ministry will come from to one where our view is that ministry could come from anywhere in the room. Which would also imply "from anyone" in the room. It moves us from an expectation that others will do worship while we watch to watching for where the Spirit is moving (both externally -- in the room -- and internally -- in our souls).

The second reason is that it acoustically makes sense for Quakers. Sitting in pews that all face one direction does not make it easy to hear vocal ministry that arises from the people seated in those pews. Yes, some congregations have ushers who rush a microphone to a person who stands to minister, but that seems to me to be almost an act of sabotage to the holiness of that moment. It breaks the holy stillness to have someone hurrying to bring a microphone to the speaker. Sitting facing each other means we can hear each other. We will not be scattered all around the room looking away from each other.

The third reason is that we actually will behold our fellow worshippers and not just gaze at the backs of their heads. We will see the faces of those God has gathered that day. We will see the joy, the sorrow, the expectation, and all the other emotions that are writ large on our visages. As we see the gathered community we can be moved to pray for them, care for them, love them.

As with ditching bulletins and programming, this part of my modest proposal is fraught with difficulty, I suppose. We have huge investments, emotionally and financially, in our buildings. Our parents were married there or our grandfather was on the trustees who bought the pews or it would just be too expensive to move everything.

Maybe.

But maybe, if we want to revitalize the Quaker message for this time, it is worth the investment emotionally and financially. For some congregations it may mean, like the video above, rearranging the pews in the sanctuary and making it a Meetingroom. (I would advise speaking with an architect about that and not just unscrewing the benches and moving them around -- but that's my congregational consultant side kicking in).

For other congregations it could mean moving out of the Meetingroom to some other location in the building. Leave the Meetingroom configured as it is for things such as weddings or public events and use another space for worship. It would be no difficult task to put chairs in a circle or square. Indeed, setting up just a few more chairs that the number of folks who usually comes to worship can help us feel as if we are "full" rather than worshipping in a big mostly empty space. And have chairs ready to add if the Spirit moves new people to join.

So that's part five of my modest proposal. Obviously, it applies mostly to programmed Friends. I think unprogrammed Friends have their own architecture issues -- among which could be replacing the benches that have been there since 1766 to something a week bit more comfortable. But unprogrammed Quakers have largely kept to the original Quaker architectural ethos.

Let's rearrange our worship space so that we look to Jesus and look at each other.

-- Brent

Two resources I recommend are:
Quaker Aesthetics: Reflections on a Quaker Ethic in American Design and Consumption, 1720-1920 by Emma Jones Lapsansky and Anne A. Verplanck
Holy Places: Matching Sacred Space with Mission and Message by Nancy DeMott, Tim Shapiro, and J. Brent Bill

A Modest Proposal: Part 4 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

"'Have you anything to declare?' is a vital challenge to which every one of us is personally called to respond and is also a challenge that every meeting should consider of primary importance. it should lead us to define, with such clarity as we can reach, precisely what it is the Friends of this generation have to say that is not, as we believe, being said effectively by others. What, indeed, have we to declare to this generation that is of sufficient importance to justify our separate existence as part of the Christian fellowship?" -- Edgar Dunstan

"What, indeed, have we to declare...?"

I believe that what we have to declare begins with worship. Indeed, as Britain Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice says, "Worship is at the heart of Quaker experience. For God is met in the gathered meeting and through the Spirit leads us into ways of life and understandings of truth ..." -- (Quaker faith & practice: The book of Christian discipline of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain)

Okay, so far you may be thinking, all Christian groups say that worship is central. So what's different enough to justify our separate existence (in Dunstan's words)?

Hmmm. Perhaps it's not what is different enough just now -- but what should be.

I think Quakerism has one of the most winsome invitations ever to offer to people. The heart of Quaker worship is gathering to meet God. The distinctive of the Quaker message of worship is that we are not inviting you to come hear a specialist speak about God, another person read a book about God, others sing some songs about God, but rather to come and experience God. We come to meet God. To encounter the Divine. Not just to be told about the Divine through story, sermon, song, and silence, but to actually gaze into the face of our loving God and listen for God's words to our souls. Could there be a better invitation than that?

At least, in my opinion, that's what worship should be -- about participatory listening to/for God. That would be distinctive from the Catholic tradition or the Methodists or the mega-church.

Instead, I fear(and confess to having participated in), we are maintaining a Quaker worship pattern among programmed traditions (I will speak about unprogrammed later)that leads to a worship service (I use that word intentionally) that is a pale imitation of other Protestant traditions. The service is outlined in a bulletin and is centered, like a Protestant service, primarily on the sermon -- the proclamation of the Word.

Now this is fine, I suppose, but is it enough, in Dunstan's words to "...justify our separate existence..."? Drop the name Friends from the front of the building and maybe it is.

But I don't think so. I think all this bulletin making and worship planning takes us away from the central call of Friends to invite others to come and hear that Voice that will say to them "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition..." When they hear that, their hearts and souls will leap for joy.

So, part four of my modest proposal, is to scrap the bulletin and the worship planning. Ditch them completely. And trust the Spirit to lead worship. If George Fox was right (and all us various branches of the Quaker tree claim him) then Christ is our present teacher. Let's let Him teach. "Let us let go and let God" as my Evangelical Friends pastor J. Earl Geil often said in many of the sermons I heard as a teen (about the only thing I remember specifically, him saying).

Let Jesus lead worship.

Dare we?

Now, for the programmed folk who (like me often) enjoy singing, hearing a choir, a sermon, etc, I have not said to scrap those things. Necessarily. I am saying scrap the programming part. Instead of fitting holy silence in, use it as the basis for worship. Then trust God to lead the choir to stand and share musically. And move the pastor to give a prepared sermon. And for someone (even a kid!) to suggest singing a hymn. And for a time of prayer for those in need. And times of vocal ministry from the various folks whom God has gathered that particular day.

Have hymn or song books in the pews/benches -- along with Bibles. And, instead of a bulletin with an outlined program, have one that contains a brief description of what Quaker worship is and how it will be planned by God, which may make it look unplanned to us. Until the Spirit brings it together.

That would be the kind of Meeting for Worship that would justify our separate existence! It would be experiential, spiritually experimental, and Spirit-led.

That would mean we would serve as a place where we can invite people encounter God and other like-hearted people. People searching for the sacred. Some having found more than others, some of us just learning the way or beginning to think about the Divine seriously.

I say like-hearted, notice, and not like-minded. We don't all have to think alike -- which is a good thing, since few of us do. Sometimes I'm of two minds about things all on my own!

That is the fourth part of my modest proposal -- as it relates to programmed and semi-programmed Friends. Quit planning a worship service and eliminate the play-by-play bulletin. Trust God

To unprogrammed Friends, I would say, "Don't gloat." Yes, you may not have to discard some of the obvious trappings that we programmed folks do, but there are some that, while perhaps more subtle, can be just as inhibiting.

One thing that can be inhibiting is the idea that the silence is sacrosanct to the point where we worship silence not worship in the silence. Unprogrammed Friends need to create a sense of hospitality in the silence and a feeling that "anything, God willing, can happen." Including -- gasp -- congregational singing in worship. Yes, that's theoretically possible, but how often does it happen? And are there items there to encourage it -- songbooks on the benches instead of a table in the corner? Bibles on the benches? Encouragement from the clerk that all -- young and old -- are invited to speak the words God brings to them.

Indeed, I would maintain, based on my experience of unprogrammed worship (which is not a slim as some folks might think for a fellow who grew up a "pastorized" Friend) is that it can be, in its worst form, as rigidly programmed as a programmed meeting. The order of service is just implied and/or understood by the insiders. And any outsiders or visitors keep to their benches because they are afraid of making any kind of Friendly faux pas -- like kneeling or standing at the wrong time in a Catholic mass.

Friend Thomas Green said, "Worship is essentially an act of adoration, adoration of the one true God in whom we live and move and have our being. Forgetting our little selves, our petty ambitions, our puny triumphs, our foolish cares and fretful anxieties, we reach out towards the beauty and majesty of God. The religious life is not a dull, grim drive towards moral virtues, but a response to a vision of greatness."

Our worship must facilitate this response to a vision of greatness and invite people into experiencing the presence of God. So, humbly (and I mean that sincerely) let's let go and let God lead worship. Bye-bye bulletin. So long planned worship service. Hello fresh movements of the Spirit.

That's part four of my "Modest Proposal for the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States."

Tomorrow, part five.

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: Part 3 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

This is the last of the research oriented pieces of my "modest proposal." Tomorrow I will move into my proposed action steps related directly to the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States. But first, a bit more from the various congregational studies -- both to inform and dispel a few more myths.

One of the things I hear posited as "conventional wisdom" is that only Evangelical and theologically conservative churches are growing. So what role does theology play in numerical growth?

• There is very little relationship between growth and theological orientation
• Highest growth is predominantly conservative congregations (38%) and liberal congregations (39%)
• Among Evangelical denominations it is the less conservative churches that are most likely to grow (30%)
• Growth is lowest among congregations in the middle (27%)
  
  

That's not to say theology is irrelevant. Of course, it's not. But a congregation's theology does not seem to be the prime indicator of whether it will grow or not. So if theology (conservative vs liberal vs whatever) isn't the factor, what is? The answer is -- a clear sense of mission.

• More important than theological orientation is the religious character of the congregation and clarity of mission and purpose
• Growing congregations are clear about why they exist
• They grow because they understand their reason for being and they make sure they do the things that are essential to their life as a religious organization

That last point leads to an obvious further question -- what is essential? The research says:

• Essential to the mission is to create a community where people encounter God
• Congregations that involved children in worship were more likely to experience significant growth -- congregations that did not were much more likely to experience decline

There is a strong relationship between growth and the sense that the congregation is “spiritually vital and alive. And that it is welcoming and hospitable.

Congregations that grow do more than say they are welcoming and hospitable. They live those things out in very intentional ways.

• They engage in a variety of recruitment-related activities (special events, community gatherings, bring a friend Sundays, etc)
• Attendees tell others about their congregation
• They make themselves more visible through various forms of advertising
  

There is one programmatic activity that is most strongly related to growth -- establishing or maintaining a web site for the congregation Congregations that have started or maintained a web site in the past year are most likely to grow.

This last piece, and moving beyond it into using social networking, is crucial. It is not a fad (or only for the young -- the fastest growing segment on facebook is 55-65 year old females).




So the third part of this modest proposal is to learn to be more mission-centric and people oriented. Why are we here and how do we let know others that we'd be happy to have them join with us? In a word, we need to think like a missional church.




Below is a list of some of the resources I've used in helping me prepare these thoughts. And some sites about the missional church movement.

Tomorrow is the first of my Friendly specifics.

-- Brent

Resources

• The ARDA
• U.S. Congregations
• Insights into Religion
• Synagogue3000
• Shapevine
• Leadership Network
• Roxburgh
  
  
  

A Modest Proposal: Part 2 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

While it may seem that I am being a bit research heavy in these early posts, it does all have point. The point is to make decisions and/or proposals from a basis more solid than hunches or impressions. It does seem, to me, to be statistically significant to see what 350,000 congregation members (Christian and n0n-Christian) have to say about their congregations' strengths and weaknesses (US Congregations). And that's just one example.

The research shows that vital congregations share (across denominational/faith lines) certain characteristics.

• Vital congregations help people grow spiritually. - -They focus on the long-term development of the ministry of the entire congregation (spiritual development and providing ministry opportunities).
• Vital congregations encourage participation. -- They move people into meaningful ministry roles. They ask attendees what they feel passionate about and what they see as their ministry. They identify what types of new people the congregation attracts (e.g., returnees, switchers). They ask new people what made the congregation attractive to them. They create small group experiences, such as prayer or study groups.
• Vital congregations offer meaningful worship experiences. -- They evaluate current worship service for vitality and involvement (by all age groups).
• Vital congregations welcome new people. -- They increase the visibility of the congregation in the community (e.g., Web site, Twitter, paid newspaper and telephone book ads, good outdoor signage, participation in community events). They encourage members to invite others and give them the tools to invite effectively (e.g. Bring a Friend Sundays, special events). They identify and make personal and telephone follow-up contact with all visitors, especially first time worship visitors. They offer a group for new attendees.
• Vital congregations commit to a positive future. --They identify congregational strengths and ask how the congregation can optimize and leverage these strengths? They evaluate current congregation organization and committee structure and then minimize the number of maintenance committees. They create ministry teams (worship, education, outreach) instead of standing committees.

The second part of my modest proposal is for our congregations to look at these characteristics and actions and ask "Which of these is an accurate representation of our congregation?" "Are we doing things that commit to a positive future, provide meaningful worship for all ages, welcome new people, etc?

Or do we behave more like the people in this video parable?

So again some congregational queries, as part of Part 2 of a modest proposal.

• Who are we?
• Why do we exist -- what's our mission?
• What is God calling us to be and do?
• Do we welcome others?
• How do we relate to our community?
• How do we adapt to change?

These are queries the entire congregation should work on -- not just a committee or some named congregational leaders (i.e., a pastor. And please note, I think this is the first time I've used the word/role in any of my posts on this topic). There are a variety of ways that you can do this. I recommend "World Cafe'" -- it is very participational and fits well with Friends.

-- Brent