Quakers, FUM and the younger generation

I just attended the intersession meeting for Baltimore Yearly Meeting. There was a subcommittee meeting in the morning of FLGBTQC, and then the meeting for business in the afternoon. A good chunk of meeting time with both meetings was spent discussing a minute to release past funds to Friends United Meeting. The brief background is that, since 2004, BYM has withheld its membership dues from FUM because of the FUM personnel policy to not hire gays and lesbians.

What was striking about the meetings, for me, was that the overwhelming majority of people in attendance are not in agreement with the policy, but there are SHARP and very emotionally-charged differences about how to proceed. BYM has dual affiliation with FUM and FGC (as does my home meeting in Illinois, through our memberships with Western Yearly Meeting and Illinois Yearly Meeting, so I am familiar with the challenges, especially since my marrage to Ladd in 1995 created a rift). There are basically two questions on the table: should past dues be paid, and should future membership with FUM continue?

Here's my own take: we should stay with FUM, and do so not with a sense of "they will come around to see things our way", but because being in relationship with people of diverse opinions and experiences is a very enriching experience. Of course, there are risks. Clearly people have been hurt by theological messages that condemn homosexuality, and even subtle messages like this (as in the form of personnel policies) can be harmful, perpetuating both hurt and prejudice. But my own experience working with evangelicals in Illinois is that there can be a softening of messages, and a deeper understanding of and appreciation for our humanity in each other - our fears, hopes, wants, loves, etc. - has opened us up for profound change. I also believe, and have seen, that we are on a positive trajectory with regards to acceptance of and rights for the glbt community. There will be struggles and resistance, but we Quakers can play a role in easing the resistances and minimizing the harm when we can be loving. I think the "under 30" generation is in a very different place with regards to glbt issues than my generation (mid-40's) and older - the younger generation is more fluid in its understanding of these issues, and how to relate to the complexity of issues in our world in a way that many of my peers were not raised to be. Perhaps technology (the ability to connect globally) is a reason for this; also, the "boxes" of diversity my generation created have less application these days as issues of race and gender are both perceived and in fact are more fluid. More and more, people are of mixed race/religion/ethnicity, and even gender is so much more than the male/female of my youth.

All of this just to say that, perhaps, we need to include and even follow the lead of the younger generation on these issues. There is a gathering of Young Adult Friends at Earlham in May; maybe they can help shed some light on this. It is a challenge - it is important to understand the hurt of people, and try to bring some healing to it, while also acknowledging that the younger glb (the "t" still has more challenges) community is experiencing a different world than 20 years ago.

The fact that like-minded people (such as those in attendance at the BYM meeting yesterday) can get into heated discussions about how to proceed is indicative of how challenging this is. It is perhaps a reminder for us to be humble as we proceed, and not be so quick to judge and withdraw from FUM. It has taken unprogrammed meetings in FGC various lengths of time to find acceptance, and there is still work to go (i.e. with the transgendered community, let alone complete acceptance of the glb community). For those of us who have gone through the coming out process, many of us were counseled that we need to be patient with our families to accept something that we often had more time to come to grips with. Maybe we can demonstrate the same patience with our fellow Quakers?

Clearness

One of the reasons I haven’t posted much in the last month is that I requested a Clearness Committee partially about the purpose of my personal Quaker blog (http://thefriendlyfunnel.quakerism.net). The meeting was yesterday. I still don’t have clearness about whether that blog should be used for ministry only or as a means of spiritual journaling, where I vent my questions and share my thoughts.

But the heart of this Clearness Committee was about my concern about the state of the Meeting with regards to gay marriage. This concern has two parts: first, I am concerned that where the Meeting is makes us not as welcoming as we should be to GLBTQ people; second, I am concerned about the damage done to the Meeting during the stage of conflict that led up to our current position and that time alone won’t adequately heal these wounds. (For the record, our position is that a gay couple can have a commitment ceremony with individual members taking that commitment under their care.)

Without going into too much detail about the inner workings of my Monthly Meeting, I discovered during the Clearness Committee meeting yesterday that even just defining what the letters GLBTQ stand for can be seen as stirring up controversy. This discovery occurred after the statement was made that I would have been treated exactly the same by the Meeting if my life partner had been a woman instead of a man; and that the Meeting has no problem welcoming GLBTQ people specifically. I asked: “How can our Meeting be truly welcoming to people when we can’t even discuss what their letter stands for?”

If we are so uncomfortable discussing sexuality that even the most general information can be seen as controversial, how can this not affect how we treat people who challenge our perceptions of “normal” sexuality and gender?

This saddens me greatly, because I had hoped that my Meeting was past this. And it saddens me to know that there must be people who don’t or won’t feel as welcome as everyone else in my Meeting community.

I went into the Clearness Committee meeting with one question first in my mind: what am I being called to do? It had become clear that my concern was not something I should lay down: because I’ve tried that in the past and it just keeps coming back. By the end of the meeting, I didn’t feel I had the clearness I’d been seeking. But it came to me last night, as I was trying to process what happened during the Clearness Committee meeting, that I do know what I’m being called to do and to say that I don’t know is just an excuse to give me the option to choose not to do it.

I am, quite simply, being called to speak. I am being called to break the silence that smothers my Meeting with regards to non-heterosexual people, loves, sexuality, and even faith. I am being called to stand up and challenge heterosexism whenever and wherever I see it.

I am being called to honor silence when used in worship, but to reject silence when it is oppressive. I am called to respect the comfort levels of other people, but only when they do not deny a part of my being.

I would prefer to keep silent. Anyone who knows my history well knows that I would rather be the one solving a conflict than stirring one up. By speaking up about an issue that will make others uncomfortable, I risk being called or thought of as an attention seeker, a troublemaker, or a drama queen. I am none of those things.

I’ve been struggling with the testimony of Integrity for a while. The only way I can truly live my life with Integrity is by speaking up when being silent would be denying part of who I am. I have to admit, though, that I am terrified.

Iran, Gays, and execution

One of the gifts of Quakerism has been the gift of bearing witness and speaking truth to power. John Woolman is perhaps the figure who best personifies this, demonstrating that this bearing witness can make a difference. Do gay rights rise to the occassion for Quakers, as abolition, civil rights, and rights for women has in the past? Below is an e-mail I sent out to some Wheaton, IL peers, most of whom are active in Evangelical churches.

"I know we've all heard of persecution of gays, but apparently, Iran, as a government policy, takes it a step further:
http://news.aol.com/story/_a/gay-iranian-teen-loses-asylum-bid/20080311192709990001

I saw last night an article that Iran, on the other hand, has very loose guidelines for sex-change operations (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/4115535.stm for more information). Apparently, many homosexuals are opting for sex-change over execution. Go figure."

What should Quakers do about this? What can we do?