By Amy Dennis

I grew up in Indiana Yearly Meeting. As a child I learned of the great things Quakers accomplished in the past through their personal faith in Christ Jesus. Early on I was taught to read and memorize scripture and to apply it to my life. I experienced great times of worship, heard the gospel and, at Quaker Haven Camp, made the decision to give my own life to Christ. With pride I heard stories of the work at White’s Residential and the Kickapoo mission. Yet, even in my youth there was often a shadow cast as the sessions of Indiana Yearly Meeting were discussed. It seemed that tension and fighting existed.

As an adult I witnessed this tension first-hand. It has been my blessing to know so many wonderful people in IYM, people of diverse backgrounds whose lives are devoted to God. But in the sessions there wasn’t always unity, and this led to frustrations. Through my experiences at Indiana Yearly Meeting, I came to realize that deep differences in worldviews were at work, creating discord and lack of unity.

As I reflect, I am reminded of a Christian singer/songwriter who spoke about his “bullet theology.” As a missionary taking Bibles to China, he and his team came to know which of their beliefs were worth taking a bullet for and which of their beliefs were not. Two of my “bullet theologies” are salvation coming only through Jesus Christ and the Divine inspiration of Scripture. In a Christian organization there is tension and an absence of unity when various bullet theologies differ even a little. As a member of the program committee and the Earlham task force of Indiana Yearly Meeting, I not only saw this lack of unity; I felt its pain.

I have been told that tension had been building in IYM for a very long time. Some have said it has been building for nearly 75 years. The lack of resolution with the minute brought forth by West Richmond Meeting made it clear that the time had come for the yearly meeting to decide what it is, its common values and beliefs and how to be more effective in spreading the Gospel of Jesus. It seemed IYM was spending too much time, energy and frustration dealing with internal problems, thus leaving little time and energy for discerning how to minister to a hurting world.

A task force had been formed to delve into the issue. What was found after much discussion, debate and prayer, wasn’t surprising. The task force found that the issue of the West Richmond “Welcoming Minute” is the catalyst that made those in IYM acknowledge that deep differences were non-negotiable for individuals and meetings. This insight ignited a desire to take action.

The task force presented several choices hoping to help the yearly meeting move past the differences. One choice was to attempt to keep unity by allowing a group or Meeting the freedom to express and act upon whatever was in its heart, even if at odds with previous IYM minutes of Faith and Practice. Another choice was to discipline West Richmond Meeting. After considering all options, the task force recommended that IYM reconfigure into two groups. Our differences seemed insurmountable and likely to continue to cause problems and frustration. We could not all honor our various consciences or how we felt the Lord leading. Our attempts at accountability were ineffective because our bullet theologies weren’t in unity.

Over the last year there have been many conversations, some painful, often marked with anger, frustration and sadness. For example, IYM has a Facebook page for its announcement on which, throughout the process, there have been conversations concerning homosexuality, the Bible, Quaker history, our faith and reconfiguration. Many times the conversation was extremely troubling to read. But, if nothing else, this page highlighted the real issue we were facing: that our deep differences have denied us unity.

Some in IYM called for more time to try to reconcile; others felt that 20 more years would not change a thing. Some felt the leadership of IYM was using authority to violate others’ liberties of conscience, while others felt that the IYM leadership was holding meetings accountable to scripture. Yearly Meeting Representative Councils, Annual Sessions and special called meetings were civil and respectful, but a clear divide was felt.

On November 11, 2012, IYM approved the recommendation of the task force to reconfigure. For many, it was a moment of relief. Instead of debating the same issues over and over, the yearly meeting was doing something to honor our consciences. For others, it was an acknowledgement that these problems would only get worse and that reconciliation was not going to happen. Reconfiguration was undesirable, but necessary to set all free. For still others, it was something they did not want, but they realized that they needed to stand aside for the benefit of all.

The task force assigned to reconfiguration had researched, discussed, debated, talked with Friends, lost sleep and prayed through this issue, as had many others. Unity in appreciating its work was reached, although for some with difficulty, for their recommendation was to reconfigure Indiana Yearly Meeting.

This process was bathed in prayer by Friends in and out of IYM. I wish I knew how many hours were spent with the Lord on this issue, praying for His will and listening to His leading. It isn’t always easy to follow where the Lord leads, but I am one who feels that God has led us through this process. The prayer for all the meetings involved in this process does not stop now. Now those who will stay in Indiana Yearly Meeting and those who are starting something new must diligently seek the different ways that God wants to use us for his glory. We find unity in this desire: to serve Him.

Amy Dennis lives on Quaker Haven Camp where she is “the woman behind the man,” supporting her husband in ministry and creating a home for their family of three children. They are members of Dewart Lake Community Friends Church where she serves in children’s ministry.

Continue the conversation! Share your comments here.

By Michael D. Sherman

Raysville is an interesting place. In many ways it is a prototypical small Friends meeting, aging, struggling with issues of viability and sustainability. I have been their pastor for almost nine years, now. They hired me deliberately as a young man to reach out to a younger demographic, at that point the meeting’s foundation rested in seven couples who had all been married at least 50 years and they like many meetings wanted to get younger. These are people who have made commitments and stuck with those commitments through a lot of thick and thin. They know how to deal with conflict. They know how to compromise. Another interesting thing about the people at Raysville, myself included, is, with only a couple exceptions, have all come to Raysville after experiencing deep and divisive conflict in other local Friends meetings. They know what it’s like to be hurt and sometimes rejected by their local meeting. They know what it’s like to be excluded. They also know how to stick together in times of trouble. So, in their time at Raysville, they have found a meeting and fellowship which they love and where they feel comfortable and safe being honest internally with themselves and externally with each other.

However old Indiana Yearly Meeting is it has had a contentious existence. This current argument is one in a long list of seemingly increasingly contentious argument within the yearly meeting. Meetings were asked to respond to West Richmond’s welcoming minute. I and we have approached this conversation with questions about health rather than comfort. In considering where we stood on the issues of body living we responded with the following statement, holding tightly to be responsible and accountable to that which Christ has called us heavenward. This minute grows out of the meeting’s identity as refugees. Knowing the hurt and pain of rejection coupled with the joy and grace of commitment drives this group away from divisiveness.

We believe there is that of God in everyone. All bear the image of God Almighty Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. God promises whosoever believeth in Him (Christ Jesus) shall not perish, but have everlasting life. We also believe the expression of that promise was shown while we were yet sinners, demonstrating a love amazing both in its immensity and our own individual unworthiness, Christ died on the cross for each of our sins. Do we afford others the same grace we have received?

Because of this we, out of a sense of humility, knowing our own depravity, do not have the authority to exclude, recognizing our ways are not God’s ways and our thoughts are not God’s thoughts. We also understand our responsibility in this world as defined by Christ: The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is no other commandment greater than these (Mark 12:29-31). Understanding this to mean we are called to love our neighbor in the way we wish to be loved, the way God has loved us.

We believe this discussion may have begun upon a specific issue, and have seen it labeled beyond the issue, but it is our contention the issue at hand is not the authority of

Scripture, but rather an issue of trust. If we trust God what do we have to fear? All of us are insecure in the law. For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God Romans 3:23. Because Jesus is the way, the truth and the life, because Christ lays out for us the life worth living, because in Christ the curtain is torn we have assurance to boldly approach the thrown, there is no fear and no insecurity.

We ask ourselves…Do I trust God? Do I trust in the life, death and resurrection of Christ Jesus? Do I trust a God bigger than my own understanding? Am I freed to love unconditionally in that trust? Or… Do I trust what I know of God? Do I trust in the religious practice of my local meeting? Do I only love those whose experiences mirror my own?

One Sunday morning I was preaching on perspective, using the phrase: “Different isn’t necessarily wrong it is just different.” I had been reading How (Not) to Speak of God by Peter Rollins. He uses dual pictures, like the combination young woman and old lady and specifically the duck/rabbit picture, to illustrate how something can represent two distinct truths. One person in the back row spoke up saying she couldn’t see the rabbit. She knew the duck was there and when I pointed out the rabbit she gasped. That moment was a turning point for ministry at Raysville. It signaled a willingness to listen, an openness to engage the other rather than reject, patronize or assimilate. Potentially the perspective of their young, often ornery pastor might be true, too, so it could no longer be ignored.

For us this process has been a process of spiritual growth. This position is not a position with which everyone is entirely comfortable. It has been frustrating and agonizing, often taking time away from much needed worship and fellowship together as we discussed positions, possibilities and perspectives. Raysville’s story plays a part in its response. They are used to living with people who disagree with them and they are aware of what it feels like to be rejected. There’s a lot for which they have been forgiven.

So far Raysville has not chosen A or B because we feel neither A or B offer Raysville a home where we feel the Spirit of God will be the primary voice of a healthy life-giving future. We know choosing to remain in Indiana Yearly Meeting will not kill us. It may be a painful reminder, but not death. We look, at this point, to the possibilities which lie ahead for the as of yet unformed group of IYM refugees. Can this group be the healthy, life-giving future? As some have said, “Right now, all the possibilities for catastrophic failure stand intermingled with all the possibilities for beauty, grace and success.”

Raysville as a body knows what we have “always” done is not working. If something doesn’t change then Raysville, in the very near future, will cease to exist. Right now our hope is for a larger fellowship in which its member meetings and individuals can be comfortable and safe being honest internally with themselves and externally with each other.

Bio: Michael Sherman, husband and father of four has been the pastor of Raysville Friends since
2004.

Michael D. Sherman is married and the father of four. He is the pastor of Raysville Friends Meeting in Knightstown, Indiana.

Continue the conversation! Share your comments here.

By Linda Daniel

I have been asked to describe the process by which Friends Memorial Church in Muncie came to unity on how we regard non-heterosexual relationships. I’m struggling to find a starting point.

The monthly business meeting at Friends Memorial Church did not actively participate in the early discussions of whether or not to affirm gay/lesbian relationships. To most members in our meeting, it is unclear when that discussion started, as we were not actively involved in IYM committee meetings. Until we began discussing the four models of realignment/reconfiguration in September 2011, there had been no mention of West Richmond Friends or their website at our monthly business meetings. So, I suppose the reason I struggle to find a starting point is that Muncie missed the starting point.

When we joined the discussion in 2011, many older members saw the West Richmond controversy and IYM reconfiguration discussion as the latest “hot button” issue in a long history of differences. Several thought the discussion would end with IYM predictably intact, agreeing to disagree. For some, it was not fully clear if the issue was one of hierarchy or homosexuality. For other members at Friends Memorial, the discussion of reconfiguration was simply not a priority, and life went on as usual at the meeting.

To fully understand how our monthly meeting was able to agree to disagree on an issue that eventually divided the yearly meeting, it is necessary to explain the social context of our meeting. The culture of our meeting is a bit idiosyncratic, but it is this culture that serves as the backdrop for how we live out our Quaker beliefs.

Our monthly meeting is a well-oiled machine when it comes to working together. Our annual rummage sale, annual Simple Gifts Bazaar and monthly food pantry are the best examples of this meeting characteristic. In fact, we are at our best when we are working together toward a specific outcome. Our Centennial Celebration in 2008 was a sight to behold. Our preference is to be task-oriented and to work toward a common goal, rather than sit and discern a divinely-inspired plan. You see, we usually already have a plan.

OK, I wrote that with tongue firmly planted in cheek. We do a fair amount of silent waiting as well. In all honesty, though, the first cultural characteristic that defines our meeting is that we work well together when there is a clearly defined purpose.

Another unique aspect of our meeting’s culture is our high percentage of educators that teach a wide assortment of learners -— from kindergarten through graduate school -— some retired and others still working. In addition to the organizational skills that are essential to teaching, educators in public settings tend to have relatively high tolerance of differences.

Acceptance of individual differences among all students is important in an educational setting. With some of the older, retired teachers in our meeting, there is a practice of that old adage, “If you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything.” When I first joined Friends Memorial, I attended a Sunday School class that was composed mostly of 80 and 90 year old women. Every Sunday after meeting, I played cards with three of those dear, elderly women, all retired school teachers. I never once heard them gossip or say an unkind word about anyone.

These qualities -— working well together, acceptance of individual differences, and for the most part, tender manners with one another -— provide the context in which we can safely explore even the most controversial subjects. This closely parallels reasons we are all Quakers: we believe that there is “that of God” in all people; we adhere to the practice of equality in relationships; we promote peace and even when we disagree with one another; we speak with respect toward one another as we try to discern the will of God. This was most apparent in the first discernment meeting when we openly discussed private beliefs and feelings about non-heterosexual relationships.

During that initial meeting, several members felt led to speak. Some members stated clear beliefs that marriage should be restricted to heterosexual couples. It was suggested that marriage should be held as a sacred trust between one man and one woman. One member expressed concern that we would definitely lose at least one college-age member by taking a formal position against homosexuality. Others suggested that with an anti-homosexual stance we would not be able to attract young seekers. It was noted that the issue of homosexuality is a non-issue in contemporary youth culture. A couple of high school-age sisters quoted Lady Gaga, “I was born this way.” Others noted that Jesus was silent on the issue of homosexuality. He condemned divorce but not gay/lesbian relationships. Queries were asked. “What would Jesus do?” Suddenly, that wristband question had new meaning when asked by an octogenarian who lost her homosexual son to AIDS several years ago. Further queries were asked. “Would Jesus use a homosexual male rather than a Samaritan in his parable of the good neighbor?” Some were silent. Throughout our discernment meetings it became very clear that we have a diversity of thought in our monthly meeting. Also, because of the respect we demonstrated toward each other, it was also clear that we love each other. We are Christians and we are Quakers.

This is not to say that we do not have hurt feelings at times in our meeting. There are heated moments in committee meetings, and occasionally tense moments occur in our monthly business meetings. We don’t always resolve the hurt in spiritual or healthy ways. There are times when our meeting functions like a dysfunctional family. But the key word is family. In fact, our motto is: “We are more than Friends, We are a family serving God.” And about that motto -— like any good Quaker meeting, we argued endlessly, but respectfully, about the correct placement of the comma, replacing the comma with a semicolon and the use of capitalization in the middle of a sentence. We are not above “jot and tittle” feuds.

In the end, perhaps the family-like quality of Muncie Monthly Meeting is what helped us to agree to disagree about non-heterosexual relationships. We could not define ourselves according to Category A or Category B as encouraged by the Reconfiguration Task Force. Choosing either category would have forced us to judge our family members in a hurtful way. We weren’t willing to hurt one another in order to fit into a category defined by others. We did not discern the dichotomy forced upon us as spirit-led. We stood together as a meeting, promoting spiritual truth and God’s will as we understand it. We agreed to abide by Jesus’ command to love one another and we agreed to leave judgment to God.

Linda Daniel has been the Clerk of Muncie Monthly Meeting of Friends Memorial Church since January 1, 2013. She has been a life-long Christian and a convinced Quaker since October 2005. Recently, she spent an entire $100 Amazon gift card on books written by Elton Trueblood.

Continue the conversation! Share your comments here.

By Michael D. Levi

What is important about community? When does corporate action become a testimony? What is the prophetic duty of a monthly meeting to the Reli­gious Society of Friends? These questions absorb me as I contemplate the past year and a half, during which I shared clerking responsibilities for a process that ultimately concluded in the writing and distribution of an epistle on the loving inclusion of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender persons in the life of Adelphi Monthly Meeting.

I don’t think there is anything as powerful as the conviction that the Lord speaks directly to our condition. The communities we create must have a comparable responsibility to minister to the condition of all our members. Like the Society of Friends at large, Adelphi Monthly Meeting is a diverse assembly of women and men, adults and children, families and individuals, the currently able-bodied and those less so, all from a variety of races and ethnicities. We strive to be inclusive, welcoming and supportive to everyone who desires to share our spiritual and corporate life.
Adelphi Monthly Meeting approved a minute affirming same-sex marriage in 1991. The first same-sex marriage under the care of the meeting was celebrated in 2006. In 2009 our meeting supported a Friend and her family through her gender transition as she claimed her wholeness as a woman. These are events that stand out because they are special.

The true meaning and joy of community, however, lies in the mundane. We take the safety and comfort of our meeting for granted. All of us, straight, lesbian, gay and transgender, worship together and carry out the committee work of our meeting. We raise our children and minister to one another in the wide variety of ways that the Spirit leads us. We share our joys and our sorrows. We squabble and we reconcile. Our children grow into open, accepting, loving adults. It is the very ordinariness of our lives together that is the greatest gift. Twenty years of experience with these issues confirm that the Light shines equally brightly in us all.

In the spring of 2011, Adelphi’s Meeting for Worship for the Conduct of Business charged an ad-hoc committee to explore how we could best express our tender concern for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Friends in the wider Quaker world. As the committee labored to discern and articulate the Divine will, we gradually understood that we were being led to an affirmative witness, to testify before all Friends that when we embrace that of God in everyone, including the full spectrum of sexual orientations and gender identities in our meeting, our worship deepens and our community is enriched.

In retrospect it seems obvious that the core of our witness must be two decades lived together in everyday community. I suppose that once a way opens, the clarity of revelation often appears self-evident. But the committee struggled for a long time. The adrenaline of hurt, anger, frustration and impatience often overwhelmed us. Personality conflicts and other tensions burst out at unexpected times and in unanticipated forms. It was patient prayer and expectant silence that carried us through. Our faith in the Spirit and our conviction that humbly waiting upon the Lord would be rewarded allowed us to gradually lay down the passions that were standing in our way and instead follow the still, small voice that was our guide.

This was the most profoundly Spirit-led committee work I have ever experienced. God’s unconditional love was tangibly present among us as our witness to an inclusive community gradually crystallized.

Once the committee had drafted an epistle, we began a broader process of discernment. The document was distributed and discussed broadly within the meeting, including in First Day school classrooms. In addition, the committee met with the presiding clerk and the general secretary of our yearly meeting and shared the text with other trusted Friends who have traveled widely in the ministry. Most agreed that the urgency of our leading must be our compass, but several also cautioned that the topic was tender among many Friends and that our message might be a cause for further disturbance and divisiveness.

Again, we prayed and listened for the Spirit to guide us. We did our best to prune the remaining expressions of anger and hurt from the text without losing the clarity of our mes­sage. Finally, with conviction, but also with trepidation, we posted the epistle to our website and mailed copies to every monthly meeting in the United States for whom we could find an address, and several meetings abroad.

Over the last nine months we have received a variety of responses. Most meetings voiced support. Others told us that our epistle had stimulated thought and discussion. Some meetings rejected the message.

Sending a letter is merely the first step. Words on paper can be cold and may not convey the richness or nuance felt inside. The warmth and understanding of communication — of communion — come from being together in person, speaking from the heart and listening attentively. Already the epistle has provided opportunity for conversation; we hope to carry such conversation forward.

Many of the queries from the 40 Days of Prayer for the Future of Friends continue to challenge me as I reflect upon Adelphi’s epistle. One to which I keep coming back is, “Am I working for the unity of Friends as part of the body of Christ? Am I doing anything to drive Friends apart?” I hope our epistle has not deepened rifts. If receipt of our letter caused other Friends distress, they have not communicated this to us. Nonetheless, it was a risk we took knowingly, convinced that a message of love is never amiss. I trust Joshua Brown’s commentary accompanying Day 24: “. . . if we are faithful, if we are honest and if we refuse to deny each other, God can lead us together.”

Ultimately, I believe Adelphi proceeded in good gospel order. I know in my soul that the epistle speaks truth. I know that Adelphi’s experience of an inclusive community is a bless­ing. I know our message came from the Spirit, though we may have expressed it imperfectly. I know we were called to bear witness. And I know that my meeting, straight, lesbian, gay and transgender together, is being faithful to the scripture that commands:

Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments. — Matthew 22:36-37

Adelphi Monthly Meeting’s 2012 Epistle on Inclusion can be found at http://adelphifriends.org/info/epistle-inclusion.htm.
Adelphi’s 1991 Minute on Lesbian and Gay Relationships (including a chronology of the process that led to its approval) can be found at http://adelphifriends.org/info/lesbian-gay.htm.
Adelphi’s epistle committee can be reached at inclusion@adelphi friends.org.

Continue the conversation! Share your comments here.