Catholics and Quakers

Martin Kelly has an interesting post about Quakers and Roman Catholics who "get it" about their faiths bumping heads with people who don't, especially with those who have institutional power. I'll return to his central questions another day-- Why would someone who dislikes Catholic culture and wants to dismantle it's infrastructure become a priest and a career bureaucrat? For that matter why do so many people want to call themselves Quakers when they can't stand basic Quaker theology? and So what would a spiritual community for these outsider Friends [Friends who want to build a true faith community as opposed to maintaining the current bureacracy] look like? (Martin would see the last question, I think, as the central question and the first question as an aside.)

For today, I'll focus on what he writes about the closing of his wife's Roman Catholic parish church:

The current lightening-fast closure of sixty-some churches is the first step of an ambitious plan; manufactured priest shortages and soon-to-be overcrowded churches will be used to justify even more radical changes. In about twenty years time, the 125 churches that exist today will have been sold off. What's left of a half million faithful will be herded into a dozen or so mega-churches, with theology borrowed from generic liberalism, style from feel-good evangelicalism, and organization from consultant culture.

From my encounters as a religion reporter, I agree that the Roman Catholic trend is towards organizing the faithful into mega-churches. I think this a response to the priest shortage. (I'm not sure what Martin means by a manufactured shortage, as the numbers I've seen do show a steep decline in priests. Perhaps he means manufactured in the sense of the church's refusal to ordain women or married men? Or used in this context as an excuse to rush church closings?) However, whether or not the shortage is real, one way to avoid a shortage is not to have as many parishes and hence not to need as many priests. Needing fewer priests also allows the church to be more selective in choosing its priest candidates, which must weigh heavily on the collective mind of the Catholic hierarchy after the recent scandals.

Whatever the reason, the larger point is that people in a new, huge church are likely to lose the sense of connection and community a small, historic parish church can offer. And the lay people, many of whom will be women and married men, will be tapped to perform the duties priests in small parishes once could do themselves. How likely are these people to experience resentment over restrictions that "allow" them to do plenty of hard work but not share in power?

The deeper point (as opposed to the larger point!) involves the haste Martin speaks of. Why rush this important process? I've read that haste is of the devil. Any decision that's rushed through in a blur probably had some facets that wouldn't have stood up under closer scrutiny. The most obvious example is the rush to go to war in Iraq. The more slowly a decision is made (assuming we're not in a genuinely life-threatening or otherwise emergency situation), the more likely it is to be spiritually renewing. For example, taking the time to visit and revisit the question within Baltimore Yearly Meeting of whether or not to stay affiliated with FUM brings out previously unconsidered viewpoints, gives more and more people a voice in the process and is leading to a gentling of the earlier, more inflamed sentiments of some Quakers.

Of course, working against careful, spirit-based and inclusive decision-making is the culture we live in, which is hooked on speed. I struggle constantly to get slowed down to God's pace because God's rhythm is so different from the culture's frenzy. I more and more am convinced that a true point of spiritual discipline is to form us to resist the world's pace.

I can't help but contrast the bureaucratic "efficiency" of closing small churches and streamlining Catholics into megachurches, trampling on some people's feelings and sense of community, with Mother Teresa's insight that Christianity is all about small acts done lovingly.

Jane Austen and miscellany

What's my favorite Jane Austen novel? I love Persuasion, but my favorite is Sense and Sensibility, which is not her best, I know, I know! I also love Pride and Prejudice, and have spent a lot of time struggling with Mansfield Park, so that I know it very well.

Roger is concerned that I'm losing interest in religion by blogging about Jane Austen. Nothing could be further from the case!

In fact, this morning I went with the First Day students to a three-hour service at Israel Baptist Church. It was a rousing African-American-style worship. The women wore the most beautiful hats. It was about as different from Quakerism as you can get and a treat to experience.

We continue to sort through the basement, which has the advantage of being about 30 degrees cooler than the rest of the house. We found a box of stuff we moved here 13 years ago and never opened. That will be part of the yard sale. Roger also brought a van load of stuff to the dump. As I may have said before, the overhead of keeping stuff changes when you have to move it: for example, I had about 20 spare gift boxes in the basement but there was no way I was going to move them to Barnesville, so out they went.

I am keeping the faith that we will find a renter, Sophie's situation will work out and somehow we'll arrive with our furniture in Barnesville at the appointed time. And praying that the price of crude oil doesn't inflate to $150.00 a barrel by July, as some are predicting. If so, that will make driving a moving van of furniture to Barnesville cost a small fortune. I look back with longing on the wonderful days of just a year ago, when I had no idea what the price of crude was. And as I keep saying to myself, (leaving aside the personal inconvenience to *moi!*) if spiking gas prices really do cause some changes, such as widespread use of public transportation, that would be a good thing.

I fantasize about a country in which we transport ourselves and our goods in new ways. We gently float down rivers to get from point A to point B. We travel by train. Small towns that were once fueled by train traffic are revitalized. We use the streetcar to get to work and buy our houses based on proximity to the streetcar line. This use of public transportation has the effect of bringing us together as communities, and helps the have nots and the marginalized join the larger society. The threat of global warming begins to fade. Sounds like the New Jerusalem, huh?

But as long as I'm fantasizing, I might as well get back to Jane Austen, who at least incorporated a lurking dark side into her fictions.

What is your favorite Jane Austen? And why? Maybe I'll explain my Sense and Sensibility preference in another post.

Jane Austen and Quakers

Part of my goal with for I call "my year off" (that began mid-September) was to look at what evolution would take place during this season of "life-making."

Well, I never expected to end up moving to Ohio! But certainly my being "free" has facilitated the move.

Right now, I find my cyberspace interest moving away from the Jesus Creed blog (which I will always be fond of) and toward the Janeites list serve. The Janeites are Jane Austen enthusiasts (some might call them fanatics) who love to talk about all things Austen.

I have had more than a passing interest in the great Jane, as a friend labels her, or JA, as I like to call her. My first graduate seminar in English literature was on Jane Austen and largely due to that experience I ditched my fellowship to study international relations (read: warfare) at George Washington University and made the fateful decision to throw myself into a graduate program in that lucrative field of English literature. My life has not been the same since. I hasten to add: despite a graduate degree (masters) in English, I haven't yet starved.

A part of me wants to force myself to stay with Jesus Creed. But a wiser voice says "follow your (cyberspace) passions." And so I shall. I shall continue to read JC with great interest and my heart will continue to be with those Creeders, but, for a time at least, back to the beloved Jane.

Quakerism remains a strong interest, and as fate would have it, the threads of Jane Austen and Quakerism are meeting at Olney. I read on the Olney web site that the school's name comes from a poem by a long dead Taber. I couldn't find the poem on the Web. However, out of curiosity, I googled Olney, Maryland, home of Sandy Spring Friends School, to find out the history of the town's name.

It was named, according to the site, for the poet Cowper's hometown of Olney, in England. Cowper was a great friend of the anti-slavery movement and wrote at least one poem against slavery.

The connection to JA: She was a devoted fan of Cowper's poetry.

Way cool.

Obama Wins

The newspapers --except for the Pittsburgh Gazette, which is still fixated on ice hockey -- all led with news that Barak Obama has the delegates he needs to win the Democratic nomination for president. He has, for all intents and purposes, won the nomination.

I had believed all along that Clinton win. This wasn't sentiment as much as cold-blooded calculation that she had the stuff to do it.

I read a lot of speculation today about why Clinton won't concede. Much of it swirls around some perceived flaw in her psyche: she's in denial, she doesn't live in reality, she's too much of a crazy, shrill she-witch (not that that characterization is sexist!) to let go. But nobody has brought up an obvious thought that must be on her mind: Gore in 2000. He conceded, then unconceded, making him look the weaker candidate. And as a result, he was killed off by the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court --or a vote recount--may well have killed him off anyway, but his vacillation at a crucial point didn't help.

Clinton apparently doesn't have a lot to gain by conceding now. Maybe Obama and the Democrats need to offer her a good deal. She's got to know she can deliver a big constituency that Obama needs. Why wouldn't she hold out for a deal?

Several things have bemused me about this campaign. The first is why Clinton is relentlessly attacked as "ambitious." Shouldn't it go without saying that anybody who runs for ... President ... is ambitious? President of the United States? Most powerful position in the world? Were the other candidates all shrinking violets dragged to the podium or selfless altruists in quest of marytrdom? Hhmmm. None that I can think of. Obama isn't ambitious? McCain isn't? Guiliani wasn't? Edwards? Yet why is this word always hurled at Clinton as some sort of accusation? It's hard not to see this as (unconscious) sexism, some sort of deep-seated belief that woman shouldn't dare to compete-- and that a woman who does should be taken down simply for the pure fact of having ambition.

Second, and related, is the idea that Clinton ran an opportunistic, win-at-all-costs campaign. That's what people do. Why single her out? Plus, what if she truly, at the bottom of her heart, and all through and through, believes she is the best candidate to run the country? What if it's less, to her mind, about grabbing the presidency, and more about a frustrated knowledge that she could do a good job at fixing the country's problems ... if only people would put her in the position that would give her a chance?

Third, she's attacked for not being a good team member, vis-a-vis the Democratic Party. But surely she must know that few woman have gotten anywhere by playing by the rules. In a man's world, she has to be expected to make her own way.

I will support Obama in the fall election. But I do worry about his lack of experience. And I wish he would do more to reach out to women.

Identity?

In Tim Keller's book, The Reason for God, Keller defines "sin" as anything we put ahead of God. Keller's definition is interesting, I think, especially as many Quakers equate sin with "being bad" and reject the whole idea of it. While I think none of us like the idea of being "bad," we can't help but notice that many things in our world are quite awry.

The following about Keller's book is from the Jesus Creed site:

Identity apart from God is inherently unstable. Self worth and self identity can disappear in an instant if founded on freedom, success, parenthood, work, achievement, church leadership, the esteem of others…

Worse yet – identity apart from God is socially destructive. If our highest ultimate goal is centered in the good of our family we will tend to care less for other families. If our highest goal is the good of our nation we will tend to care less for other nations, and may “defend” ours at all costs. If our highest goal is our individual happiness we will put our economic and power interests ahead of others. If our highest goal is our religion we will despise and demonize those from other religious traditions. If our highest goal is the good of our church, if our identity is centered in our church or denomination, we will defend it by denigrating other churches and denominations.

And - think about it — if our identity is centered our class, our race, our gender — classism, racism, and sexism are the unavoidable consequences.

So racism, classism, and sexism are not matters of ignorance or lack of education. Foucault and others in our time have shown that it is far harder than we think to have a self-identity that doesn’t lead to exclusion. The real culture war is taking place inside our own disordered hearts, wracked by inordinate desires for things that control us, that lead us to feel superior and exclude those without them, and that fail to satisfy us even when we get them. (p. 169)

The problem is not “human evil” - power, domination, and violence – these are merely unavoidable consequences of the problem.

What do you think of this?

Who then should decide?

The number one most stressful part about moving to Barnesville is the situation with Sophie. She will be a senior in high school this fall and wants to stay here and finish up her schooling at Wilde Lake. We'd like her to come with us to Barnesville and experience a Quaker school.

A lovely family from our meeting has offered to take Sophie for the year, as they are becoming empty nesters. We are overwhelmed, and very grateful for their generosity. We couldn't find better people to trust our child with. Others in the meeting have reached out to Sophie to offer hospitality and rides in a way that is truly kind and thoughtful.

However, we still think she'd benefit greatly from a year at Olney Friends School. So we are at an impasse. Should she come or should she stay? Who decides?

Some say that, at 17, Sophie knows Sophie best and should be allowed to make the decision. A friend argued that point-of-view vehemently to me last night at a wine bar. On the hand, old-fashioned as it might seem, I believe Roger and I have a perspective, based on years of life experience (and perhaps some suffering) such that we can see things that Sophie can not, because we're older and wiser. From that perspective, I suspect that if she goes to Olney, it will broaden her and mature her, and 10 years from now ... or 20, she will thank us for making her do it.

However, friends also say, and I think they're right, that a year away from her family, coping with life here, would also mature her. They say I am trying to make her into a person like me and not letting her be herself. Am I? I have pondered that question. I know she is a different person from me, with different strengths and interests. I also know that any parent naturally wants to share with their child what they have found to be good things in life.

When it comes to Quakerism, Sophie enjoys both our Quaker meeting and Quaker summer camp in her own right. She actively likes to come to meeting, I think because it is a wonderful, supportive community. I never have to force her to go. I think (hope) she would experience that on a day-to-day basis at Olney.

Sometimes I feel like an overbearing parent. However, I think it's not so much that I'm overbearing as that times have changed. At the Quaker writing group last night, Rosemary talked about her youth, when adolescents simply did what their parents told them to do, because that's the way it was. Now, we're much more child-centered.

So who decides? What would you do? I really would like to know. The bottom line is, I want to make the decision that's best for Sophie, not just for this year, but for years down the road. I have her interests at heart. And I find myself torn: Should we let Sophie decide, on the basis that "Sophie knows Sophie best" or should we be the ones to decide, on the basis of our greater life experience?

On Exposure

Hello everybody. I had trouble accessing this blog earlier, so here it is, 3:30.

I had hesitated to write about feeling tired the other day, but leaped out of that plane. I always question how much information is too much information in this blog! How exposed do I want to be? But this time it helped to make myself vulnerable: I found out that I should wait four hours after my sinthroid before taking vitamins! Thanks for the information!!!

The place with shrimp quesadillas (and they were very good) is on Frederick Road, on the same side of the street as Jennings Cafe, but down a bit if you are heading west. It's call Shipping or Ship's something-or-other. Anyway, it's a seafood place. I liked it. The server was very nice too.

But to get back on task. How much exposure is too much on a blog?