Someone said something really interesting to me today. She told me she had been reading the Quaker Dharma site and it's creating some interest in Quakerism for her. Then she said it was great to know that Quakerism still exists as a religion that people practice. She said she vaguely remembered hearing about it when young, but thought it was gone.
I was so glad she told me this. It reaffirms so many experiences that I have had over the past few years. Quakerism is so quiet, so under the radar, that people think it went the way of the Shakers. This is a disservice to seekers.
As the description of my site says: I believe in Universalism. I believe in many paths to God. I’m also very interested that people have the opportunity to find God in a way that speaks to them. For me, the Quaker path has really helped me. It’s a spiritual discipline that has caused me to grow in unexpected ways. The same can be said of Buddhism. There are ideas within Buddhism that have deeply benefited my daily practice and have caused me to look at the world with new eyes. I feel it is deeply important to offer ideas and practices that may help people experience God and find liberation, whatever that may be for them.
This is a topic I have written about before, but I want to revisit it. It’s time for Quakers, especially silent worship Quakers, to make some noise in the world. I’m not talking about social work or political action. I’m talking about sharing the Quaker process or practice, Quaker thought, and Quaker heritage with the world in a much more dynamic way.
This blog was an experiment. I wanted to see if people were interested in talking about Universalism, Quakerism and the Quaker movement itself. Through certain articles, I learned the answer is yes. In fact, since I started the site last November over 3,000 people have come to the site. Thanks for this.
What I would like to do is change gears and create a new site with a different format. I would like to create a site that is more traditional with links to many other sites and permanent articles that would be accessible through a navigation bar. The focus would become getting Universalist, silent worship Quakerism out into the world so that people can benefit from 350 years of practice and experience. It would not be focused on creating Quakers; in fact this might be counter-productive. Not everyone will find what he or she is looking for through Quaker practice. We should however make Quaker thought visible, accessible and transparent. It should be dynamic. It should offer ways for people to get immersed in practice so they can develop tools that get them to a fuller experience of God and the world. It should be transformative.
How do we achieve this? I don’t know. I feel strongly moved to do this, but I don’t know how it should look necessary…what it should involve. In the past, a few of you have written me that Wider Quaker Outreach and other Quaker organizations exist to do these things. I thank you for the reminder and I’m glad these people are doing this work. What I’m proposing I believe is highly complimentary to these organizations. In fact, I would be happy to explore making this a part of their organizations if that is the greatest good. In some ways, I think I’m proposing a movement within in the larger Quaker movement towards having a home, real or virtual, for people to get deep into Quaker practice through a group that is dedicated to making Quaker practice highly visible in the world as an offering to the greater good. I would also like to make it a place where younger Quaker interested people would feel empowered. It’s been said more than once to me that many people in their twenties don’t always feel welcome within Quakerism.
I could see the site have multiple editors, contributors, book reviews, links, etc.
I would like to know how all of you feel about this. What ideas do you have? Would you like to see the Quaker Dharma explore becoming something more than a blog?
Also, if you wanted it to have a different name, what would it be?
Thanks for the feedback and for reading.
Monday, June 13, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Hi Pax,
I've been kicking around similar ideas for awhile now (though I had a setback recently when I was mostly turned down by a fund supposedly dedicated to supporting Quaker youth leadership).
The queries I'm holding: what is it that makes the whole more than the sum? Would people start using a less personal voice if they were part of a larger piece? How does this differ from an aggregator such as Russ Nelson's new PlanetQuaker? How does it interact both with independent personal blogs and with the mainstream Quaker press? What kind of editorial voice should it have?
At some level, we're building something real with all of our interwoven blogs commenting and linking to each other. I like it that I can advocate for a particular vision of Quakerism while simultaneously engaging in dialogue with those who hold different visions. If someone doesn't like what they say they can hit the "back" button. If someone has a post I don't like, I don't have to comment. It's wonderful.
Anyway, keep us apprised!
Your Friend,
Martin Kelley
The Quaker Ranter
Oops, I didn't link to my proposal. It's here: A Vision for the Quaker Ranter.
Martin
Dear Martin,
Thanks so much for your comments. I'm very glad that you wish to evolve the Ranter. In fact, I think the more all of us discuss these things in a public forum the more likely it becomes that something will become clear and take shape. I also agree that all of us out here blogging is a very good thing. It provides support and perspective. Diversity of opinion, sourced in sincerity, is genuinely nurturing.
All the best,
Barry
A few comments, in the little bit of time I have right now.
1. Pax, you write: We should however make Quaker thought visible, accessible and transparent. It should be dynamic. It should offer ways for people to get immersed in practice so they can develop tools that get them to a fuller experience of God and the world. It should be transformative.
My antenna always go up when I see the word should in a piece like this. But perhaps you are giving voice to specific elements of your leading and your vision. For me, I would hope that this vehicle for conveying and explaining Quakerism would do all those things you say it "should."
(2) Honestly, I am put off by any title that attaches the word "Quaker" with a word that is clearly of another tradition—unless the purpose of the group or website or what-have-you is to lift up a blended version of one or both traditions.
If in fact this thingamabob would be a place for Friends and those new to Friends to seek-and-find-and-learn about Quakerism, then I would say, Draw on as much Quaker process and tradition and practice as much as possible to follow the leadings of the Spirit!
Gather those around you for some worship and worship sharing around the question of what to call this thing-to-be-created; lift up the themes that emerge; see if there is a name that rises from the themes.
And then test the name as Way opens.
If the process is not steeped in Quakerism, the product will likely not be reflective of Quakerism either.
(3) Like my involvement with blogs, I personally am unlikely to be a front-runner with you and, say, Martin. I would watch from the cyber-sidelines for a while—with the possible exception if I were invited in; then I'd have more discernment to do!
Pray for guidance; mind the Light; focus simply on the next step that is directly in front of you.
Blessings,
Liz, The Good Raised Up
Hi Liz:
I really appreciate you weighing in with your thoughts, feelings, and guidance. You helped bring me back to a more focused place.
First, I understand your concerns about the name of the site: the Quaker Dharma. I know others have had similar concerns that I have used a term from another tradition. At the time of starting the blog it was, of course, very intentional. Because I wished to underline that I believe there are many paths to God, I wanted to use a term foreign to Quakerism to underscore the connectedness of many traditions. This is especially true of traditions that have a mystical bent. We use different terms to describe a similar process. As Jessamyn West wrote in the Introduction to The Quaker Reader, “nine-tenths of what is said by and about Zen Buddhists could be said by and about Quakers…” Use of the term was also a personal word of thanks to the Buddhist tradition for teachings that have enriched my understanding of the world and have helped me know “the burning experience of God” that I have known from time to time. I do agree, however, that if this new site is to reach out to new comers, it should be Quaker centered. It should have a new name. I hope through prayer, discussion and unity it will emerge.
I also thank you for bringing up my use of the word “should.” I’m an impatient person when it comes to spiritual matters and it sometimes shows. Thank you for holding a mirror up to me. Having guidance in the process is primarily, but I am often impatient to let it unfold. I will explain why I am impatient, however (thought it doesn’t excuse it either). Two years ago I received very strong guidance to “End War.” What emerged from this was that war is inside of us. When there is no war inside of us, there will be no war among us. Along with this, I received guidance that “Quakerism is a doorway through which many will walk.” I did, of course, submit myself to a Clearness Committee of very trusted and wonderful members of my Meeting. Their tough questions, skepticism, love and guidance to let the spirit unfold and try to walk this path has been invaluable. Our process unfolded over a period of months. The difficulty I have had is that I know the goal and have known for two years, but I do not know the process. I have faith it will reveal itself, but I feel it will reveal itself through many of us coming together to share and practice. I do feel very strongly, through guidance, that Quakerism is to enter a much more dynamic period. A period where humanitarian service is but a part of the message. In effect, we must discuss the path, the practice with others so that it becomes replicable. This is why I used the word transparent. I want to walk a very public path and I hope others will join me. Quakerism is a process, a process that I too am still trying to learn and adhere to, but one that must be shared much more dynamically in the world. What dynamic means, is unclear to me. I have ideas, which I have shared in earlier blogs, but I do not have true clearness on how. I hope the how will emerge through guidance and unity, a transformative unity that breathes life into the world.
Thanks again Liz for your insights, timely reminders and encouragement. I hope you will continue to participate, even if you do wish to watch from the cyber sidelines for a while.
Sincerely,
Barry
All this talk of tradition and process and names. What is it you stand for and what is it you are trying to achieve? Lofty words and references to authors few people know of or care about. What of God and what (He) would have you say? Do you have something to say?
How the quagmire grows and stifles the message.
Say what you have to say and stop legislating the irrelevant.
Well, I don't have any problem with the name "Quaker Dharma." On the contrary, I think thee has already chosen terms that refer to two great spiritual threads in human history. The novel thing thee has done is to combine them.
This is a pretty lofty choice -- but there's no harm in that. Now thee is called to live up to thy own choice. Go for it, Friend. Stretch thy voice a little by daring to honestly tackle the concrete -- the truly beautiful and the truly ugly -- in life. Avoid too staring deeply into thy own emotional navel... there is plenty of that to be found elsewhere. It doesn't sustain.
Now, if after that, thee still feels a need to host community voices, perhaps the way to do it is to thoughtfully formulate a query that really lends itself to provocative engagement. You should be the first to speak to the query, in a worthy fashion. Then share the query with others. Perhaps this will lead thee forward...?
(And hey, excuse the plain speech, but I enjoy it.)
-- Mitchell Santine Gould
Post a Comment