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

A Modest Proposal: Part 1 For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United States

Religious life in America is in decline. That's a statement I've heard over and over. And yet research seems to tell another tale. According to the Association of Religion Data Archives, in the past 20 years

• there are 32,000+ new congregations dotting the US landscape
• there are almost 29 million new worship attendees
• identified affliation with a recognized religious body or faith group is up 26+%

These statistics do not, so far as I can tell, take into account the emergent church plants, house churches, or the new monastic communities.

Then there are the Quakers. In the past 20 years:

• we've added 311 new congregations
• 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
• Friends General Conference has grown 1,000 members
  

Hmmm. All of this at a time when there is renewed interest in Quaker life and spirituality. This is shown by the number of Quaker titles on amazon.com and their strong sales and through other things, such as Beliefnet.com's "Belief-O-Matic." 30 thousand people a day try Belief-O-Matic. An issue of Newsweek magazine reported that a "disproportionate number" of respondents to the quiz identified themselves as 'liberal Quakers.'" The article notes that the page on the BeliefNet web site devoted to Quakers has become one of Beliefnet's top 50 links!

So why aren't our Meetinghouses bursting with newcomers?

One reason, in my opinion, is that many Quaker congregations (especially pastoral ones) have bought into what U.S. Congregations (Friends congregations were a part of this amazing study) researchers call "10 Myths" --

1. “Nothing ever changes here” is an accurate statement about congregational life
2. Congregations grow by attracting new people who are not attending religious services anywhere
3. Worshipers who regularly attend are almost always members of the congregation
4. Because worshipers are highly involved in their congregations, they spend little time being involved in their community
5. A typical worshiper is over 65 years of age and retired
6. Worship is boring.
7. Most worshipers attend services in small congregations
8. Congregations have difficulty adapting to the changing world around them because the majority of worshipers are not open to change
9. People under 30 do not participate in religious activities
10. All of today's worshipers prefer traditional hymns
    (you can find out more about these myths by going to the US Congregations website or reading their "A Field Guide to U.S. Congregations: Who's Going Where and Why")

Living these myths leads to a reality of lack (instead of abundance ) and scrambling to "fix" what's wrong and to find "best practices" to remedy the the deficiencies identified by the myths. Our congregations fail to see the obvious lacks (the need for hospitality, vital worship, appealling buildings, signage, community outreach) and accept the myths and then wonder why nobody "likes us." Just like the congregation below.

Instead, the first part of my modest proposal is that our congregations need to look at what flourishing congregations nationally are doing well and see where their strengths converge. The research (US Congregations, National Congregations Study, Faith Communities Today, and more) tell us that congregations that are growing (and not just numerically -- that is just one measurement) have certain characteristics. A flourishing congregation:

• Provides a sense of community
• Seeks to educate attendees about the faith
• Shares their faith with others
• Serves others (outside the congregation)
• Conveys the sense that life has meaning
  

These all may seem obvious. But we (as Friends) often do not do any sort of self-examination that looks at what we're doing well. One of the things to notice about these signs of vitality is that they have very little to do with specific "programs." They are about attitudes and how faith is lived out. They move a congregation from saying (or doing) such things as "If we just had someone to minister to youth and bring them in" or "Let's make worship more contemporary" to asking which of these strengths do we already have and how can we build on them? To make them queries for study.

• How can we provide a deeper sense of community?
• How can we educate attendees (no matter their age) about Quaker faith and life?
• How can we share faith with those who do not currently attend but are looking for what we have to offer?
• How can we serve others (i.e., our community) in addition to ourselves and Friends institutions?
• How do we show that life and faith have intertwined meaning?

I would also propose that our Meetings stop and take time to answer the following query:

What is God calling us to do with these people in this place at this time?

• These People!
• This place!
• This time!

That's the first part of my modest proposal.

-- Brent

A Modest Proposal: For the Revitalization of the Quaker Message in the United Staes

The only things that this post (and many of the ones that follow over the next few days or weeks) and Swift's book share are the title and the satire behind the title. The thoughts that follow are not satirical ala' Swift. The title certainly is satirical as what I am going to propose is far from modest.

I have been thinking about this topic for many years, beginning with when I was a 20-something college student who reengaged with the Religious Society of Friends after having grown up up among Quakers and then sojourning away from them for a brief period.

The most recent impetus to address this topic came, though, not from years of thought, but from my being asked to participate in Friends United Meeting's "Transforming Lives: A Conference for Emerging Leaders" held September 17-19 in Richmond, Indiana. The topic assigned to me was "Ministry in North America."

Toward the end of my presentation, I admitted that I had some interest in the future of the Friends message in North America. Particularly, I said, I was not so much interested in the institutional survival of the Religious Society of Friends (and it's various structures) as I was a recapturing of the vitality of the Quaker understanding of the Gospel -- a Good News that combines the story and work of Christ Jesus with the amazing power of the testimonies as an understanding of how the Gospel is to be lived. I then showed some statistics that appear to indicate there is widespread interest in the general public in the Quaker understanding of the Gospel and yet we, as the Friends "church," are failing to reach out to people who seek places to connect with this message.

One of the workshop participants, Stephen Dotson, engaged me with several questions. And I admitted that while I have had lots of thoughts on this issue, I have kept them mostly to myself, trying to stay out of the way of the primarily Young Adult Friends and others in the Convergent Friends movement who are working in very practical ways, I my opinion, on just this issue. I also admitted that I was a geezer (I will be 60 next year and wonder how I became one of the oldsters instead of one of young Turks of my college/seminary days) and so may be a bit out of touch.

Still, I make my living as a congregational consultant and a fair amount of research and information about American religious life passes over my desk and computer. And I do have a heart for the Quaker message -- a message that I would like to see more broadly lived out. I do not have the desire to have it lived out, as I said, because of any desire to keep institutions alive (indeed I think most Quaker institutions have to change radically or they will become increasingly anachronistic -- more about that later), but rather because I think it is a life/soul changing message that can bring hope and life to many who are hungering for it.

At the workshop, Stephen, while playfully agreeing with me that I was a geezer, asked how he and his compatriots in the emerging leader (or whatever you want to call it) movement could tap the wisdom of geezers such as me. I admit to having had no answer that day. I'm not sure I have a very complete one now. But that challenge has stayed with me and so, I have decided, that for my part, the best way for me to share any wisdom/ideas/hopes was through doing this series of blog posts that I'm calling "A Modest Proposal."

In it, I am going to share some of the presentation I made to the workshop the other day -- based on research I've read and things I've learned in working with congregations -- and thoughts about how the revitalization of the Quaker message in the United States might be achieved. I'm going to try to do this in short, narrowly focused posts that hopefully will build on each other and may just engender some thinking or discussion.

I have no illusion that anybody will read this. Nor do I have any particular desire that "my program" be adopted by anybody. I just feel led to share it and hope that it might be of some benefit to those who are thinking about the Quaker message and life in the 21st century.
I have often found a challenge -- and an inspiration -- in the words of Friend Edgar G. Dunstan -
-

The early Friends were fully assured that they had a message for all men -- not merely that one or other of their testimonies was specially relevant to their own time, but that message in its totality, in its wholeness, was god's good news for all sorts and conditions of men .... "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 existences as part of the Christian fellowship? If we regard the Society of Friends merely as an ethical society we have no message for a world that is bursting with sin and sorrow and suffering. It is insufficient to merely offer palliatives to physical suffering, important and necessary as they are. there are those whose needs are on a different level and we should covet to have these others at least an equal concern. Have we "good news" for them?

Indeed, I believe, we do. Hence my starting this "Modest Proposal."

-- Brent

"Salt and Light" Comes to Indiana

Over the next two years, Friends, globally, will be connected through exploring a common theme: ‘Being Salt and Light,’ in preparation for the 2012 Sixth World Conference of Friends. You are invited to be part of this conversation. “Being Salt and Light: Friends living the kingdom of God in a broken world” will be held November 5-7 at Indianapolis First Friends Meeting (3030 Kessler Blvd East Dr.).

The speakers for the event are Anne Bennett of Britain Yearly Meeting and Rachel Stacy of Baltimore. Anne is an author, peacemaker and former staff at Quaker House Belfast. She has supported peace making efforts in Africa, Europe and the Middle East during times of civil war. Rachel was a planner of the 2005 World Gathering of Young Friends and is coordinator of Pendle Hill’s Young Adult Leadership Development Program. She is a graduate student at Earlham School of Religion.

The event will have

• Keynote Presentations
• Worship & singing
• Small group discussion
• Fellowship
• Meals Together
  

It costs $65 for the weekend ($45 Saturday only). Financial assistance is available. Preregistration is requested. Register online at www.fwccamericas.org or contact Beth Henricks at henricksbeth2@gmail.com or 317-335-2701

“Salt and Light” is sponsored by Friends World Committee for Consultation. “Answering God's call to universal love, FWCC brings Friends of varying traditions and cultural experiences together in worship, communications and consultation, to express our common heritage and our Quaker message to the world.” Learn more about the 2012 Sixth World Conference of Friends at http://saltandlight2012.org

Skull-duggery Afoot

It started innocently enough. I posted the Hip-Hop version of my Quaker classic Holy Silence along with a picture of my rap persona (Rapmaster Johnnie B-Squared -- beaded hair and all).

Then, what I feared would happen happened. Some men, led by Jeff Wolfe, began to emulate my hairstyle, even posting it on their Facebook pages. As Jeff said, "Too cool! The beaded dreadlocks are a nice touch that I definitely think you should include in your overall look when you drop your lyrical bombs ... Based on the obvious quality of your rhymes, I foresee a whole new career blossoming in your future, Brent--er, um Johnnie."

And then Jeff posted a picture of the back of my head as his profile pic.

That's when the skull-duggery began. A female back-of-the-head-lash. From Jeff's wife Tonda. She sends poor Jeff a post demanding, yes demanding!!!, him to "Change your profile pic. ... Brent Bill's bald skull is coming between us."

What's up with that?

I cannot deny that the un-haired pate of a late 50ish gospel writing Hip Hop star is ... well... sexy. I'm a solar-paneled sentence machine. And younger men naturally want to tap into this raw sensuality. Jeff admits, "I desperately want the 'BrentBill Reverse Beaded Mohawk (TM)"..."

But he admits that he "lack[s] the dexterity to bead my own hair." He further goes on to lament that "Something tells me I won't be able to convince my wife to help me with it upon next seeing her. "

Tonda, Tonda, Tonda. Have you not read the Bible -- where it urges you to "Stand by your Man"? (Wynette 3:16). As a young woman going studying to be in a helping profession, I find your cold-heartedness just ... well... cold-hearted.

So, as I head off to Meeting this morning, I carry a concern in my heart. That the obvious tension my bald head has brought to Tonda and Jeff's relationship be eased, that their relationship be fully restored, and that she help him bead his hair.

-- Brent

A Website I Highly Recommend

I get notices of new web sites all the time and while many are interesting, most are just ... um... not. And even many of those that are interesting are not that helpful or useful.

But today I was alerted to one that is amazing and which I think is indispensable. It is True Knowledge dot com.

This site is freak-y amazing. You can ask it anything -- and it knows the answer!!! Like, I asked "What is J. Brent Bill's middle name?" (Yes, that was a bit vain, I suppose, but...).

A nano-second later, up popped the answer -- "Brent"! How did it know that?

So I asked, "What is J. Brent Bill's last name?" Ding! Up popped "Bill." Amazing.

I started asking harder questions --" What is the square root of 4.5749181?" (2.1389058184 ) , "What's the biggest animal in the world?" (Blue Whale), etc. It knows ALL THE ANSWERS.

So then I asked "What is the meaning of life?"

Once again, after a few seconds of computerized cogitating, up popped the answer --

The term 'life' has many distinct uses: 1: the organic phenomenon that distinguishes living organisms from nonliving ones; 2: a living person; 3: the period from the present until death; 4: living things collectively; 5: a characteristic state or mode of living; 6: an account of the series of events making up a person's life; 7: animation and energy in action or expression; 8: the period during which something is functional (as between birth and death); 9: the condition of living or the state of being alive; 10: a prison term lasting as long as the prisoner lives; 11: the course of existence of an individual; the actions and events that occur in living; 12: a motive for living; 13: the experience of being alive; the course of human events and activities; 14: the period between birth and the present time

WOW! I'm hooked. It's now bookmarked on my computer and I have a feeling I'll use it constantly. No more research or deep thinking for me. Thanks "True Knowledge" for saving me from false knowledge.

Now I think I'll ask it how to end this post.

-- Brent

"They Call Him the Rapper" -- the Jaggerz, 1970

Yesterday I tweeted that Carrie Newcomer and I (along with some other folks) were going to be presenting at Earlham School of Religion's annual Ministry of Writing colloquium. It's a great event and I hope folks will take advantage of it. The chance to see and hear Carrie alone is worth the price of admission.

After posting on my facebook profile page that I promised not to sing, my friend Jeff Wolfe asked, "How about a little spoken word/rapping, Brent?"

Well, I had planned on doing a reading (in addition to leading my workshop), but in honor of Jeff's request, I am hereby unveiling (a little ahead of schedule) the Hip-Hop version of my book Holy Silence.

Yo, be quiet. Yo, yo, be quiet.

God is in da howse. Yahweh's in da howse.

He's in u soul. He's in u bonze.

Don't that just make u jonze, jonze, jonze?

Yo, be quiet...

******

Ah, thank u.

Rapmaster Johnnie B-Squared

"So What I Said Was..." -- Obama and The Mosque

I got this email from one of my sisters today.

"Obama slammed, praised for backing NYC mosque. Barack Obama was compared to America's first president and castigated as "insensitive and uncaring," after defending plans for a mosque near New York's ground zero."

"Brent, I was wondering how you feel about this? I am trying to understand his rationale, and hosting an iftar dinner when he would not host the National Day of Prayer recently."

For some reason, her question struck a chord in me -- mostly because it's a good question. How do I feel about that?

Here's what I said (leaving out all our names and endearments and other personal stuff and adding a clarifying remark or two) --

I have mixed emotions about this whole scenario -- especially the mosque. As a matter of religious rights in our country, I agree with his statement that Muslims, like any other religion, have the right to build houses of worship where ever they want to (so long as they obey all the building laws).

I also agree with that he was not saying that the Muslims building a mosque there was a "smart" decision -- “I was not commenting and I will not comment on the wisdom of making the decision to put a mosque there. I was commenting very specifically on the right people have that dates back to our founding."

I think the Muslim group is being politically/socially insensitive to build a mosque there (given that feelings -- right or wrongly run high about that ground)... but that they do have the right to (so long as they obey all the zoning laws, get the permits, etc).

I'm not sure how I feel about the National Day of Prayer thing. The National Day of Prayer is not a holy day/month observed by a specific religion -- like Ramadan, or Passover, or Easter or whatever. President George W Bush was the only one to hold observances at the White House -- even President Reagan who got it going (President Truman signed it into law in 1952, but it was largely ignored until the 80s) didn't have anything at the White House.

It is an interfaith day of prayer supposedly, so I don't see what the harm would be in having a ceremony at the White House. Reportedly, Thomas Jefferson was the first to host an iftar dinner and it is a custom of modern White House dinners -- as they do host seder dinners, Christmas dinners, and other religious dinners. Personally, I don't think any "religious" dinners -- regardless of the religion -- should be held at the White House as a public event. Separation of church and state and all that. If the president wants an Easter dinner, for example, he should have one in the private quarters as private meal for his family and friends.

If he or she (whoever the president is in the future) wants to attend an iftar or seder, it seems to me it should be at a mosque or synagogue -- a religious place for a religious ceremony. The same would be true of National Day of Prayer event -- go to the National Cathedral or neutral ground like Nationals Park (the baseball field) or some such place.

Perhaps I'm just a cranky old Quaker (okay, so I am a cranky old Quaker), but state involvement in religion has long been bothersome to me. Almost 400 years ago, the state (both England and some colonial governments) had no problem locking up, exiling, and even hanging people for being Quakers. They said where we could meet and where Meetinghouses could (or could not) be located. I had hoped we had moved past that... but evidently Bob Dylan was wrong. The times, they are not a-changin.'

-- Brent

The Mouse and the Deere

The heat and humidity has been brutal here in Indiana for the better part of ... well, all summer! At the start of last weekend though, there was a bit of a break and so I refilled all the fuel cans, put diesel in the John Deere, fired him up and headed out to mow.

It had a been a few weeks since I had used Deere John and, frankly, I had put him away dirty after mowing hillsides. I was low on fuel and my biggest concern was not cleanliness but fuel-ishness -- I wanted to make sure I got back to the barn. So I decided to hose the various seeds and schtuff stuck in the grill so John could breathe well before heading to the lower field.

I thought I had detected some scurrying sounds in close to the tractor when I mounted up and when I stopped by the water hydrant, out of the engine compartment scampered a cute little field mouse. I watched him head through the grass to safety under the fence close by the hydrant.

He had evidently taken up residence next to John's engine. I opened the hood and there was a nice little mousie nest there -- but it was awfully close to the fan blade and various pulleys and belts.

I wondered why he built there? Maybe because it a tight little place and Ebony the cat, who likes little mice in a way much different than I do, can not get there. But poor mousie's house was not nearly as safe as he thought, as he found out when the diesel clattered to life.

For some reason the Jesus' story of the foolish man who built his house upon the sand came to mind. I thought about that man. Did the sand look safe? Far from the river ... perhaps some sandstone? Then the floods came and his house crashed down.

Of course, Jesus goes on to talk about the wise man who built upon the rock. How'd he know it was a good rock? How'd he know it wasn't sandstone that could crumble or slate that could split? The mouse thought Deere John was a rock. It had been there awhile. Wasn't moving. Was solid. Safe. Well, at lease to all rodent appearances. But he was wrong.

And I thought of times that I had built upon "rocks" that looked solid -- friendships, business plans, and the like -- which turned out to be. So I am a man (from a Bible story) or a mouse?

Mostly a mouse, I guess. But trying to learn to be a man of faith -- and to be able to tell the Rock from rocks.

-- Brent

"So, What I Said Was..."

The following is one of the sermons I delivered recently. Someone suggested that I occasionally post them, so here's what I said at Mooresville (IN) Friends this morning...

How Good Is Good Enough?
Galatians 5:1-15

“There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area we call “The Twilight Zone.’”
We present for your consideration that a man dies and wakes up a moment later at the end of a long line. At the front of the line he sees two doors — one marked heaven, the other marked hell. There’s an usher present and he keeps saying, ‘Move along, keep the line moving. Choose either door, heaven or hell, and walk in.’


The man approaches the usher and asks, ‘What happened to the Last Judgment? Where are my deeds weighed and measured? Where am I told if I am a good person or a bad person?’ The usher replies, ‘You know, I don’t where that story ever got started. We don’t do that here. We’ve never done it. We don’t have the staff to do that here. I mean, look, ten thousand people arrive every minute. I’m supposed to sit down with every one and go over his whole life? We’d never get anywhere. Now, choose either door. Choose heaven or hell, and go in. I don’t want to see you again.’

The man then shrugs and walks through the door marked hell.


This old television drama points out one of humankind’s greatest dilemmas. How do we know when we’re being good enough? What’s the standard by which we are judged – by ourselves or by God? Certainly the man on TV decided he hadn’t been good enough. That’s why he chose the door he did. And while, for a moment, we may be amazed at his selection, when we thing about it longer I have a feeling that many of us would make the same choice. When we judge ourselves against society’s standards, or those of business colleagues or acquaintances, we may feel do okay. We may even feel pretty good. We don’t lie or cheat or steal from our bosses. We don’t do things that border on the unethical, even if they are not unlawful. But when we look at the end of our lives, we’re left wondering if we were good enough. And that’s because we know our own hearts and minds. We know in our innermost selves that we often miss the mark – even if we question exactly what that mark is.

Are we good enough? There is certainly ample evidence to say that we aren’t. A quick reading of the Bible seems to say it’s pretty hard to be good enough. We especially find the Old Testament full of laws and behavioral proscriptions. The books of Leviticus and Dueteronomy are studies in how rigid the standards for daily life for the people of God were. In these books we find laws about sin offerings, guilt offerings, war, duty to a brother’s widow, chastity, jealousy, feasts and more – and these are on top of the famous 10 Commandments. In addition to the law written in the Old Testament, Israelites had codified laws about the Law. For example, in Jesus day there were over 400 proscriptions for the keeping and breaking of the Sabbath – all in explanation of that one law.


In the New Testament, Jesus calls us to an even higher standard. He tells us even our thoughts subject us to possible judgment. And then he gives us the “blesseds” and the rest of the Sermon on the Mount. How in heaven’s name can we ever live up to all this?

That is both the dilemma and the way out. Because, truth be told, I think most of us want to live up to all that. We know that there is something in the very deepest part of our being that calls us toward God and lives of positive goodness. We want to live moral lives that are positive examples of faith. We try to live as such. But we, like the apostle Paul, find ourselves doing things we don’t want to do and not doing the things we know are right. For most of us, the question of how good is good enough is serious one. It’s not one to try and get us off the hook, as in “how much can I get away with?” No, for those of us who want to be considered the friends of Jesus, the question is “what must I do to find favor in the eyes of the Lord? How good must I be to hear those words ‘Well done, thou good and faithful servant?’”


We submit for your consideration another story. The tale is about a man in high authority. He’s the chief executive of his country. One day he spies a beautiful woman and desires her. He makes arrangements for her to come to him. She becomes pregnant. To try to cover his act, he calls her husband home from the country’s war and grants him leave. But the husband feels guilty for leaving his comrades who are locked in combat and so doesn’t sleep with his wife. The leader of the country then sends him to the thickest part of the battle, hoping he will be killed. His wish is granted, the husband is killed, his sin covered and nobody is the wiser. At least that’s what he thinks.

Then a man comes and tells him a story of rich man who steals poor man’s much loved pet and uses it for his own selfish gain. The ruler is incensed and says the rich man deserves to be punished because he had no pity on the poor man. And the visitor replies “You are that man.”
This, unlike our first account, is no Twilight Zone story. It’s from the Bible, II Samuel to be exact. It’s the story of David. And by the Bible’s own standards, which David accepted, David is not good enough. When he hears the words “You are that man,” David answers back “I have sinned against the Lord.” He knows he is guilty – and he has pronounced judgment upon himself. But the prophet Nathan says, “The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die.”
Why? If David, the spiritual and temporal ruler of Israel, broke many commandments in his quest for Bathsheba and to cover his guilt, is judged not guilty, why? Surely he was not good enough. What made him good enough?


Well, for one thing, we read that the Lord loved him and called David a man after his own heart.

What makes the difference?


What justified David in God’s eyes was his attitude toward God. He sincerely wanted to follow God. He longed for God in depths of his heart. But his mind and desires, and not just for Bathsheba, frequently got in the way. His psalms, praises and devotion to God were counterbalanced by lying and duplicity and outright lust for life and power. Does this make him a hypocrite? I think not. Rather, it makes him human. One who struggles with the spiritual while living in the temporal. David is man who, like us all, is deeply flawed. David also deeply loved the Lord. And he was willing to acknowledge God and repent when he finally saw his actions for what they were.

That’s the good part about the question “How in heaven’s name can we ever live up to all this?” It is exactly in heaven’s name that we become good enough. The bad news is we can never be good enough – not on our own, anyway. The good news is, that in heaven’s name, we don’t have to be.


In our scripture lesson, Paul is telling the church at Galatia to watch out for those who use fulfillment of the Law as a mark of true faith. The people Paul is warning the church about want the followers of Jesus to obey the Law as a way of determining behaviour and a seal of Christianity. Paul tells the church, and us today, that it is though faith we are made righteous. Christ working in us in love is what justifies us in God’s eyes.

In theological terms, this is known as the doctrine of grace. In reality, it is hard for us to grasp. After all, it does seem to imply that we get something for nothing. That’s not the American way! Many of us act as if the saying “God helps them who helps themselves” is in the Bible. So the concept of grace is a tad bit unbelievable.


That’s true. It is unbelievable – but available. It is free, but it is not easy. What made God’s grace available to David, the early church and us today is a willing and contrite heart – an attitude that admits that we all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we are honest, like the man in the television sketch, that is easy enough to own up to.

Grace lets us off the hook as far as ever being good enough. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try. The early Quakers held that Christ’s will could be known and obeyed. We call ourselves Friends after the verse in John 15, “You are my friends.” The verse doesn’t end there, though. We are the friends of Jesus, according the rest of that verse “if you do what I command you.” Grace then, as a guide for practical living, allows us to try to live lives that model as closely as possible the teachings of Jesus and while realizing that we will inevitably miss that high mark, we still find favor in the eyes of the Lord. We cannot, on our own power, ever be good enough.

David wasn’t. We will not. We don’t have to be.

What does the Lord require? A contrite heart and a willingness to follow him. We need to love God and be as good as we can. With God’s help we can be better than we think. And ultimately, if we learn to rest in God’s grace, that will be good enough.


And that’s no Twilight Zone story. And news I need to hear.

-- Brent

Cult Alert -- From Rural Indiana

Since I have been asked about this a number of times over the past few weeks, I thought I would say "Yes" the worship group that gathers at our farm continues to meet. Nancy's kids (all adults) call it the "Cult" -- as in, "Is 'The Cult' meeting this Sunday evening or can we come over?"

While our summer schedule has been a little erratic (due to vacations and Yearly Meetings and other things), we do have two gatherings planned for August -- the 8th and the 29th.

The group has been meeting for a few years now. It started (and continues to be) based on Spirit-led Quaker worship. No agenda except that which arises from God's moving within those who gather. We have agreed on a principle of theological hospitality, too -- which means that all are welcome regardless of their theological leanings and are encouraged to speak in their language (Evangelical, liberal, whatever) about their spiritual experience.

We never know how many will be there -- three or twenty. The only thing I know is it seems that God has been at work bringing together the people that need/should be there on that particular evening.

Likewise with what happens there. There is no set format. Our unprogrammed stuff is not even slightly programmed ... there is no pattern. Sometimes there's lots of silence. Sometimes there's lots of talk. One time we watched a movie ("Lord Save Us from Your Followers"). The last time we met, the sharing focused on forgiveness -- our role in forgiving, the other's role in seeking forgiveness, the cost of forgiveness, and more.

We also never know what religious traditions will be there -- what variety of Quakers and others. Pastoral? Unprogrammed? Christocentric? God-centered? Not everyone who gathers is Quaker, either. We have a few Methodists and others who are regulars.

One of the questions, in addition to is the group still meeting, I've been asked, too, is "Can anyone come?" One time, I said, "No. It is just for people I like." The person who asked the question said, "Oh..." and acted disappointed. I had to laugh. What kind of theologically hospitality could be extended if we had a closed group? So, "Yes! Anyone can come." If you feel led, make your way out to 6960 E. Hendricks County Rd, Mooresville, IN at 6:30 p.m. on the 8th or 29th. There are no guarantees about what worship will be like that night. But then, isn't that the way of the Spirit?

-- Brent

Quakers in the News

My Google alerts (the same service that told me about the invasion of Russian Quaker hordes) recently sent me notice of these headlines, both of which I found a bit troubling.

Blue Quakers I have 2 quakers ready now and two more coming up..They are tame and loving and looking for their forever homes..They are also banded ..contact.[deleted]

Well, I have been around some Quakers lately and they I wish they had been tame and loving. Well, at least loving. I doubt that Quakers are ever tame -- is not the nature of our spiritual experience. And I wonder if they are blue because they are "banded." We Quakers don't tend to like being banded, smacks too much of credalism.

*************

male &female baby quakersI need to rehome 2 baby quakers I live in jersey and they are ileagel here and I did not know this when I got them if you are interested please contact me ...contact [delete]

It's a wonder these Quakers are not blue. Banned in New Jersey! In this day and age. Yes, we Quakers were hung in Massachusetts, but had been holding Meeting for Worship in New Jersey since the 1680s. How terrible that baby Quakers are now illegal. What brought this around? At least I have learned a new word -- "re-home." Guess it is like re-gifting, except more extreme. Well, send those little Quaker kids to Indiana. Lots of wide open space here -- and we're more tolerant (never thought I'd said that!), too! Of course, it is the Midwest so we will have to keep the male and female Quakers apart. As the rules at Quaker camp used to say -- "no dancing" and "no mixed bathing." (Like I wanted to take a bath with a girl as a kid at elementary school camp anyhow!).

-- Brent

Indiana State Fair -- And the Jury Says...

For those of you who have been wondering (like I have) how my photographs fared (shouldn't that be "faired") at the 2010 Indiana State Fair -- well, they fared fairly well. Of the three I submitted, two won honorable mentions.

"Letters, I Get Letters..."

That song was a feature on the old "Perry Como Show"... Okay, I really just dated myself. But it stuck in my head and was running through my mind today as I was running to the plumbing shop and under the sink fixing a faucet.

I got a letter today. An email, actually. And it was of a particular variety.

Now as a semi-public person, because of my writing and workshops, I get letters or emails fairly often. I try to answer them all. Even the ones of a "particular variety." And I have received a fair number of those over the years. By "particular variety" I mean the ones that start something like, "Dear Mr. Bill, I just [read your book, blog, essay, article] [heard you on the radio] or [saw you on television] or [heard you preach] and you are going to Hell. In Christian love, XX"

One of my favorites went one for eight pages in this vein. My absolute favorite said, "Mr Bill, I just heered you on the radio and you is ignorant."

Well, no argument there. And, like I said, if the letter comes with a return address and name, I'll answer. Not to argue, just to say thanks for at least reading, hearing, seeing, or whatever me and I pray God's blessings on them.

But I won't be able to answer today's. More about why in a minute. First, I will share what it said.

"From time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered with the blood of tyrants and patriots." Those who beat their swords into plowshares will be ruled by those who didn't. Liberalism, hypocrisy, and political correctness are killing the country that many have bled for. GET OVER YOURSELF YOU ARE INDEED THE WORST OF THEM! DICK

My first thought was, Why are there soo many Dicks in this world? But that seemed unkind, so instead I reread the letter to see if there was anything there that might be helpful or instructive.

There wasn't. At least to my thinking. That "Those who beat their swords into plowshares will be ruled by those who didn't" may be true (or may not), but I don't care. Do I prefer to live in a democracy? Sure. But most of all I care to follow Jesus and beating swords into plowshares is a Biblical injunction. I'd rather be on God's side in this "fight" than of "patriots."

I put "patriots" in quotation marks, because I think it's a false assumption that the only patriots are those who fight for their country. What about those who die for their beliefs? I seem to recall that at least a few peace-loving Quakers died in the cause of religious freedom -- killed by the Puritans whose blood was spilt killing off those who disagreed with them (including one or two or hundreds of Native Americans). And because of those Quaker deaths (at the hands of their fellow colonists), we have religious freedom today. And because of others who were imprisoned for their beliefs, we have trial by jury. And...

But I have a feeling Dick has long stopped reading by now. In fact, I'm not sure he's ever read anything by me, other than my website which refers to me living on Ploughshares Farm.

Am I a liberal? Politically, I guess I am. And proud of it. Liberals have done a lot in our nation's history to make it a better place -- worked against slavery, for women's rights, for equal rights for minorities, for... Have they screwed up? Doh! Sure. But they aren't the ruination of this country anymore than Richard M. Nixon's imperial White House years were. Talk about almost killing the country!

Am I a liberal? Religiously, not so much. I'm pretty conservative actually -- I read the Bible (and believe it), am a Trinitarian (which is not a word that appears in the Bible), believe that Jesus is the son of God, believe that Jesus died for our sins (though I'm not sure exactly which method of atonement was at work there), that miracles happened and still happen, and so on.

But Dick claims that I am "indeed the worst of them."

Okay. I probably am. Though St Paul thought he was -- he even called himself "the chief of sinners." I'm probably giving him a run for his money. But that means that Jesus came for me, too. As Paul writes in 1 Timothy 1:15, "This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief ."

Works for me!

So why won't I answer Dick directly? Well, partly because I suspect Dick is not his real name. He sent his letter anonymously through the automated email link on my website. I don't think his email address really is liberals@suck.com (clever, eh?) or that his phone number is 555-555-5555 (I suspect he's watched too many movies and picked that number up from them).

As far as his urging me to "get over" myself, well, Dick, that's good advice. You are not the first to have given it to me. And it is something I've been trying to do for decades now -- to get over myself and get more into living in the way of Jesus. So thanks for that reminder.

-- Brent

Indiana State Fair -- Photo Entry #3

Nikon D80 Lens: Nikon DX AF-S 18-135 (66mm)
1/40 second; f 5.3;ISO 200
Location: Chimayo, New Mexico
This Coke machine sits just outside El Santuario de Chimayo,
which has been nicknamed the Lourdes of America. People
travel from all over the United States and Mexico in hopes of a
cure from illnesses – and this lonely soda machine in need of healing
sits next to the venerable “Vigil Store” which advertises “Santos, Woodcarvings, and Popsicles

Indiana State Fair -- Photo Entry #2

Shaker Barn -- by J. Brent Bill
2010 Indiana State Fair Entry -- Photography
Nikon D80 Lens: Nikon DX AF-S 18-135 (70mm)
1/400 second; f 5.6;ISO 1600
Location: Shaker Village of Pleasant Hill, Pleasant Hill, KY

Tobacco barn in mid afternoon.

Indiana State Fair -- Photo Entry #1

Zinnia -- by J. Brent Bill

2010 Indiana State Fair Entry -- Photography

Location: Ploughshares Farm, Mooresville, IN

Nikon D80 w/ Nikkor DX AF-S 18-135 lens

Zoom set at 122 mm

1/320 of a second

f 5.0

ISO 200

Quaker Wisdom for Today

“God stirs up our comfortable nests, and pushes us over the edge of them, and we are forced to use our wings to save ourselves from fatal falling. Read your trials in this light, and see if your wings are being developed.”

-- Hannah Whitall Smith

Quaker Wisdom for Today

I reverence old time faith and men,
But God is near us now as then;
His force of love is still unspent,
His hate of sin as imminent;
And still the measure of our needs,
Outgrows the cramping bounds of creeds;
The manna gathered yesterday
Already savors of decay;
Doubts to the world's child-heart unknown
Question us now from star and stone;
Too little or too much we know
And sight is swift and faith is slow;
The power is lost to self-deceive
With shallow forms of make-believe.
We walk at high noon, and the bells
Call to a thousand oracles,
But the sound deafens, and the light
Is stronger than our dazzled sight;
The letters of the sacred Book
Glimmer and swim beneath our look;
Still struggles in the Age's breast
With deepening agony of quest
The old entreaty: 'Art thou He,
Or look we to the Christ to be?'

"God should be most where man is least:
So, where is neither church nor priest,
And never rag nor form of creed
To clothe the nakedness of need,

I lay the critic's glass aside,
I tread upon my lettered pride,
And, lowest-seated, testify
To the oneness of humanity;
Confess the universal want,
And share whatever Heaven may grant.

-- John Greenleaf Whittier (excerpts from The Meeting)

For Kristyn...

... who wanted to know when I was going to update the blog -- "Here's the update."

-- Brent