Unchurched: Six Months On

It's been about six months since I laid down my membership in my Quaker meeting. I haven't been to worship on a Sunday since, not in a Quaker meeting or anyplace else. I miss it. I really enjoyed the Vespers service at the Festival of Faith & Writing for giving me a chance to worship, and I'm looking forward to next Saturday's bat mitzvah for the same reason. But I'm not feeling led to go to weekly worship, despite missing it. I thought I would. I left my Quaker meeting with an optimistic sense that I was going to find a new religious community, and imagined myself visiting around on Sunday mornings for awhile until something clicked.

And then I didn't do that.

"I'm just not ready to date yet," I said. And this feels true. It's a big commitment to join a community, and there's a lot of work to be done. Getting to know people, learning the norms, taking the risk that you'll invest your time and energy and it won't work out. Once in a conversation with some friends, I said that if my relationship with Raider ended, I'd probably just choose to be single. I love my relationship with Raider, it's the foundation for everything else in my life, but let's not kid ourselves: it has taken a lot of work. I sometimes doubt I'd be willing to take on that work again.

Maybe I'm not willing to take on the work of joining a religious community, either, even though I know that the payoff can make it worthwhile.

Also, I'm still a Quaker. This felt very clear to me when I was at the FLGBTQC midwinter gathering. So, it's not that I'm completely uncommitted and ready to be snapped up by any attractive faith that comes along. I'm a Quaker without a monthly meeting, and that feels different. It has held me back from visiting congregations that I might like but never feel I could commit fully to.

I've also been lukewarm about the obvious churches I might visit, the Unitarian Universalists and the United Church of Christ. One of my points of friction with my monthly meeting was our tendency to be talky, self-satisfied, affluent liberals, and I can't see the UU or the UCC improving much on that.

At the Festival of Faith & Writing, I had the opportunity to get to know a friend-of-a-friend, and listening to her talk about her church, I got excited for the first time. She is part of a United Methodist congregation in Brighton, Michigan (about 40 minutes from where I live) that decided to be a "missional" church. Their mission statement is "transformed by God to transform the world," and they try to do this by taking concrete action in their community and in the world. They feed the homeless in Detroit and house them in Brighton; they support a local dental clinic for low-income people, and a hospital in Haiti. They do work projects locally, in Appalachia, in North Dakota, and sometimes in the Czech Republic, where they also financially support a sister church. They throw a birthday party every month at a long-term care facility. Look at this list!

Quakers think of ourselves as activists, but in my experience our activism tends toward writing letters, writing "minutes" that we send to legislators and organizations, and demonstrating. It's not that I think a faithful witness like maintaining a weekly vigil for peace for over a decade of war is something to be derided. But I have often longed to be able to do something more concrete. I have always admired the Baby Pantry my friend Julie's church maintains, for instance. I hoped that when my monthly meeting built a meetinghouse, we'd be able to do something like that, something that would let us, on a regular basis, do something concrete and good for a real person standing in front of us.

But the meetinghouse we built doesn't have enough storage space to do that kind of thing (I was, for years, a big booster of the building project. But I remember the moment that changed for me, when I came to feel that we were spending too much money to build a building that would be too small for our needs as soon as we moved in. I know that many people love that meetinghouse, and it is a beautiful little building to worship in. But some of the doors that I hoped would open once we stopped renting space weren't able to open because of space constraints).

Anyway, I found myself seriously attracted to Suzy's church. It felt restful to imagine a church where, perhaps, I wouldn't be asked to do a lot of thinking and talking so much as I would be invited to show up to make sandwiches, to celebrate a birthday, to hammer a nail, to get some diapers or a new crib to a foster family. Perhaps part of what I was attracted to was Suzy's undiluted enthusiasm for the projects her church does. Sure, you'd expect that of her--she's the Director of Missions and Outreach. And she seems like a pretty enthusiastic person in general. I expect that many other people who meet her like her as much as I did. But it also made me aware of one reason I haven't gone church-shopping. After 20 years of practicing the Quakerly endurance test of sitting still, I am strongly drawn to the idea of specific action.

Hmmm. This isn't what I meant to talk about. I was going to talk about the many secular, familial, personal, and professional opportunities that have opened up. Laying down my membership cleared my calendar and settled my mind. But I will save that for another day.

What We Look For, and What We Get

Kirk Cowell over at A Soul in Training is looking for a new church to attend, and while he is explicitly Christian in a way I'm not, and most Quakers I know aren't (even the Christocentric ones, I think), his thinking about what he and his family need from a church resonates with me. I've been musing off and on in recent months about how people come to Quakerism, and what they look for once they're there.

I know some people in my meeting come and stay because they find support and recognition for their political activism, a community that sees that work as important and spirit-led. Some come, I think, because we're a group of nice, welcoming people. Although some people in our meeting have known each other for twenty years or more, we're not insular. I think we do a pretty good job of making newcomers feel welcome but not overwhelmed. We can be accepting in good ways--one single mom who started attending a few years ago told me she appreciated the lack of judgment about her status as a single mom and about the way she dressed, after spending some time at a church where she felt scrutinized.

Some of us come to Quakerism because we're not comfortable with liturgical worship, or because we've been hurt by the Christian churches of our upbringing. This was my path; I wasn't raised in a church, but as a young radical lesbian feminist with vague spiritual yearnings, I couldn't see myself listening to a sermon about God the Father or singing hymns about Jesus. I tried joining some of the local lesbians in their pagan celebrations, but it didn't seem to me that anybody there really believed in what they were doing (I could have been wrong about this). And I wasn't comfortable with the Native American Lite spirituality of many white lesbians. So I tried the local Quaker meeting, and liked it well enough to stay.

The thing is, we come there for all kinds of different reasons. This can create tensions--as at a recent Meeting for Business I've talked about before, in which I had been seriously thinking, "If we approve this wording about what it means to be a Quaker, I'm going home and writing my letter withdrawing my membership," only a few minutes before a very beloved Friend said something like, "When we do this kind of word-smithing, I think we're getting awfully close to defining a creed, and I have to tell you if we start spending very much time on this kind of thing, I'm out of here." Despite the distress I was feeling, I couldn't help grinning inwardly and thinking of Mr. Bennett telling Elizabeth, "An unhappy alternative is before you, Elizabeth. From this day you must be a stranger to one of your parents. Your mother will never see you again if you do not marry Mr. Collins, and I will never see you again if you do." I think people in the meeting that day would be aghast to think they'd come to the brink of losing one or the other of us.

But I think overall we--my meeting, at least--do a pretty good job of being together in all our unlikely unity. I have a mystical relationship with a personal God I know experimentally, and Paul is an avowed atheist, but not only does the meeting want (and need?) both of us there, but Paul and I really care for and about each other. It seems to me that we bump up against our differences as we go about our Quakering--half the meeting loves so-and-so's vocal ministry, and the other half wishes he'd shut up already; one person needs to name God and another is pained to hear the word--but when we take time, in retreats or in business meeting, to listen to each other, we do it well, and it unites us.

What was my point?

Oh, I was going to say that we come to Quakerism for a reason. We're looking for a place where we will be comfortable and accepted, or where some of our questions can be answered. Does anybody walk through the door hoping to have all her most treasured beliefs challenged, to be transformed by faith, to be converted? Somehow I doubt it. And yet, to me, that's the best part of being a person of faith (also the scariest): the completely unexpected things that can happen to you when you let yourself be open. I joke that I am a person of faith today because when people told me that Quaker worship was a bunch of people sitting around waiting on God, I naively believed them, and after I waited long enough, God started showing up. And the thing is, once God shows up, crazy unexpected things start happening. Your whole like can change.

The balance seems tricky to me: we don't want to frighten people off, but if we think our purpose is to make them comfortable, we're never going to do God's work or help them find their piece of it. And yet, if we're honest with people, we would have to tell them that they're taking big risks by trying to listen to God, even if they don't call what they're listening for by that name. Mary Karr, author of The Liars Club and Lit, converted to Catholicism right in the middle of the pedophile priest scandal. She totally gets why people think she's a complete moron, and yet her conversion felt inevitable to her, and it was central to helping her become sober--conversion saved her life. But it also wrecked her life. Does anybody come to meeting for worship hoping to have their life wrecked? Should we warn them?

I went looking for a Flannery O'Connor quote I remember from 20 years ago, something about most people coming to church by means the church does not allow, and I couldn't find it. I found this one, though: "All human nature vigorously resists grace because grace changes us and the change is painful."

I preached in worship on Sunday (I just can't say "offered vocal ministry" right now, sorry) on the subject of conversion. At least, I think that's what I was trying to talk about, with God's help. I was hoping, I think, to encourage people to be open to the way their faith and their practice can change them, though I also ended up talking about why people resist that. Why I do, even after having been through it before. It's because your faith and your practice can change you in ways that seem intolerable from where you're sitting now.

When I first came to Quaker meeting, I came to "Quaker meeting." It was years before I could say "worship," or anything else that sounded religious. Now I have an affinity for the religious aspect of our society (I am the one who, if I didn't rein myself in, would be prissily correcting people who talk about "The Society of Friends" instead of The Religious Society of Friends) and even for religious language from outside our tradition: convicted, preach, grace, mitzvah. And yet, having gotten comfortable here, I don't really want to be changed any more. It's not that I have thrown down all the walls and am ready to follow God wherever God leads; it's more like I moved the walls. This far, and no farther.

I talk about me here, and I talked about me some in worship on Sunday, not only because I like to talk about me but because I want people to know that when I invite them to be open not only to the comfort that Spirit and spiritual community provide but also to the ways that Spirit and their spiritual community can change them, push them in uncomfortable ways, I am not speaking as someone who has solved this problem for herself. It's more like I'm looking for company in a prickly and frightening place.

I am woefully ignorant about the Bible (I recently asked my friend Julie, a Lutheran pastor, to clarify for me: Peter and Simon Peter: one person, or two? Julie is very patient). But in the few bits I do know, it seems like Jesus is always asking people to give up all they have to follow him. And nobody can blame the ones who answer, "You have got to be kidding me," and go back to their vineyards and mansions and piles of gold coins. And even the ones who say yes sometimes get what seem like paltry returns. There are a couple of people in my meeting who can speak eloquently on the subject of following a leading right into a brick wall at 60 miles an hour.

Hmm, I don't think Ministry & Outreach is going to be asking me to write the new outreach pamphlet anytime soon. All this talk about life-wrecking. But there you have it. You come into a silent room for a little peace and quiet, with maybe some coffee after with nice people who seem to like you. And then a bomb goes off.

Maybe we need to remember that irritants are the progenitor of pearls

My Monthly Meeting's April business meeting was a big one for me. I came out with so much to think about. There's a whole big thing I'll need to write about how we describe ourselves and why, what unites us as Quakers, belief versus action, and big stuff like that. But today I get to write about something a little smaller.

Anybody who knows me in real life or reads my blog knows I've been struggling with my place in my meeting for awhile, and have been on hiatus since last May, though I have attended business meetings because I have continued as meeting treasurer.

Our meeting begins business meeting with worship sharing, during which we explore a query. Usually they're the queries from Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's Faith & Practice, and in April we took on #4: Care for the Meeting Community, which includes questions like, "Do I recognize and face disagreements and other situations that put me in conflict with others?" and "Are avenues for exploring differences kept open? To what extent does our meeting ignore differences in order to avoid possible conflicts?"

One of our members spoke to the query. She started out by describing herself as a "combative" person; I would not have used that word about her, but I recognized in her description my own perception of her as very direct and not afraid of conflict (I know a few people like this, two in particular in my meeting. I admire them, even though they intimidate me a little). But she went on to say that she thinks sometimes we fall into a mistaken belief that every little disagreement is something that has to be addressed and solved, but we might be better off recognizing that these little disconnects and differing perspectives are something we can just accept and live with.

"Hmmm," I said to myself. I have Big Religious Reasons for my hiatus from my Friends meeting; I also have Petty Little Personal Reasons, and, honestly, it is the petty little personal stuff that makes being there hardest, that blindsides me when I've been happily chugging along through the social hour, that leaves me uncertain how to proceed: do I need to bring this up with this person? Or is it best to let it be? If I don't bring it up, am I being accepting and peaceful, or cowardly? If I speak to it, am I bringing Truth or fomenting discord?

So this Friend's words spoke directly to questions I've been wrestling with.

A few days later, I went to the Festival of Faith & Writing. The festival opened with a talk by Scott Cairns, which I found a bit rambly and hard-to-follow, maybe because I was tired. But he said a few things that seemed like they were speaking right to me.

One was that he talked about alienation from church as "an ongoing failure." He sees isolated spirituality as lacking in an essential collective quality, as being unsupported and, in need, unsupportive. "Faith cannot be both solitary and healthy," he said. "Somehow or other, these beloveds must find their way home."

I know he said these things, in these words, because they spoke so directly to me that I wrote them down.

He then went on to talk about God as being an essential witness in conflict. God's witness, he said, has freed him from the need to make every offender aware of their offense. Practicing the awareness of the presence of God, and trusting in God as a loving witness, led, he says, to forgiveness being an almost-automatic process for him. He found that he was no longer an angry person who needed every person to be called to task for every transgression, no matter how small.

I was not challenged by this at all because I could see it had nothing to do with me, and my problems in my Quaker meeting. Thank goodness! Because I really want to cling to the belief that the problem is not with me, but with my meeting, and the other people in it, and that the solution is for me to find a way to speak Truth to them and change them. So many times in the past, the solution to a conflict, whether between me and David, me and one of my kids, me and a friend, me and my mother, or me and people in my Meeting, has turned out to be a change in my own attitudes and behavior. That's not gonna happen this time! No matter how much my Friend's comments in worship-sharing began to move me, or how convicted I felt by Cairns.

Am I convincing you? Because I'm trying really hard to convince myself.

The cherry on top of this sundae: the other day, on the way home from taking the kids to the park, I passed a church that had this message on its letter board (actually, this isn't the exact message. In my memory, it's got this profanity, but I'm sure there was actually a different word outside the church):

Stop bitching about your church. If it were perfect, they wouldn't let you in.

It's so true. I know for a fact that other people in my meeting are made uncomfortable by others' actions and opinions, too--and that I am one of those others. For instance, a year or two ago, one member spoke in worship-sharing about how troubled she is by how many families in our meeting homeschool. She has a concern that families that choose to homeschool are abandoning school systems in which they would be an asset, and improve the quality of the school for other children. She feels this so deeply that she was near tears talking about it.

Now, one reaction I have to this is that I've heard this argument before, many times, and rejected it. I have all kinds of reasons why I think this is a weak anti-homeschooling argument. And it would be kind of fun to run through those again.

But that's not the point. The point is, this woman feels a concern for disadvantaged kids and their educations, and she worries that parents pulling their kids out of public schools leaves behind the most vulnerable children and makes their learning environment worse. She may be right or wrong about whether my family's, or any other homeschooling family's, involvement would be an asset for a public school. But what she feels cannot be denied. And the number of families homeschooling in our meeting reminds her of her concerns, and that is distressing to her.

I've also heard one mom in our meeting say, half-jokingly, that she wishes there weren't so many of us in the meeting homeschooling, because she thinks her kids would be better off homeschooled and it's just not an option for them, and we homeschooling families are a constant reminder.

My point is, if there are choices people in my meeting make that remind me of my own concerns and fears, or are very different from my own carefully-considered choices, and are therefore painful or irritating to me, well, I'm performing that same service for others in the meeting. I am also a source of discomfort. Probably I am a source of discomfort in ways I don't know about, because people have not chosen to make me aware of my every transgression.

I tried for a neat little conclusion here, but I don't have one. So I'm just going to toss this all out there. It's what I've been thinking about. It feels like movement. God only knows where it will lead.

The Answer isn't Always What You Expect; Neither Are the Questions

Many of you know that I have been on hiatus from my Quaker meeting since late last May, when someone gave vocal ministry that described a Quakerism I didn't recognize at all, and in response, God whispered in my ear, "You don't need to be here for awhile." I'd have gotten up and left at that moment, except that the kids were getting their annual gift of books from the meeting, and I stayed to collect my kids' books.

I've still been acting as treasurer, but many months I have gone to business meeting just long enough to give my report. This was partly because of health problems that required me to carefully decide how to use my energy--I had, for about a year and half, not even enough spoons to stay awake and out of bed for a whole day, and sitting through business meeting was just too costly. But it was also because I found it hard to be with that group of people.

The reasons I took my hiatus feel complicated and, in some cases, petty. It has been hard to talk about (though I do talk about it an awful lot!) and it has often left me confused. Certain irritations had been growing on me for a long time, and a big handful of painfully offensive conversations I'd had with specific members have stayed with me, unresolved. For a long time, I was cheerfully able to accept that people come to Quaker meeting for different reasons, and that if some people were there to get something different from what I was looking for, that didn't mean I couldn't also find what I needed. But I began to feel that the Quakerism I was looking for was being crowded out by, for instance, liberal politics and a small but vocal number of Friends who were openly hostile to the idea of talking about God.

I've had a very hard time sorting out what things have to do with individuals, and what have to do with the meeting. For instance, one reason I've been uncomfortable with the meeting is the sense that, overall, we are affluent and highly educated, and not especially willing to be aware of our privilege, or think about what it means. And I still think that's true. But when I think back over things people have said that seemed absolutely clueless or hostile or offensive on class issues, it is primarily one person. So, is this a problem with the meeting, or a problem I have with this one person?

Similarly, we have an awful lot of college professors, lawyers, and doctors in our meeting. On the one hand, this creates a certain meeting culture that I wish we were more aware of: for instance, when a grad student comments in Joys and Sorrows that she's taking comps this week, the collective groan of sympathy that passes through the room really says something about who we are. We also tend to use language that goes beyond merely middle-class to--having trouble with words here, a little short on spoons today--erudite, academic, almost jargony. If we want to be a diverse and welcoming meeting, it would be good to be aware that when someone makes a joke about capital gains tax in business meeting and most of us laugh, or someone says about a recent trip to Europe, "I just can't relax unless I'm on another continent, that's just how far away I have to get," and a non-zero number of listeners chuckle in recognition of the sentiment, we are sending powerful signals about who we are. And believe me visitors for whom capital gains tax and trips to Europe are not on their list of active concerns will pick up on those signals. (Full disclosure: I was the one who made the joke about capital gains tax. And then immediately wished it back. But this is why I say "us, us, us," and not, "them, them, them," when talking about social class and my monthly meeting.)

None of that makes us bad people. It makes us who we are, and I only wish that, as a group, we were willing to think more about that. But it's mixed up in my mind with hurtful interactions I've had with specific people: for instance, only two people in my whole life have ever patronized or condescended to me because I am a housewife. Both of those people are college professors who are members of my meeting. I cannot always tell where the line is between "some people in my meeting are like this," and "my meeting is like this."

I don't want to slip into my Litany of Complaint here. The short version is that I often find myself not sharing specific values that seem to be taken for granted by many in the meeting; that I am interested in pursuing a possible call to a ministry that is not supported in liberal Quakerism; that I want a more religious religion than many Red Cedar Friends seem comfortable with; that I am troubled and discouraged by vocal ministry that draws on NPR and The New York Times for inspiration, or is what the British call "daffodil ministry" ("I saw daffodils blooming on the way to the meetinghouse this morning..."). The specific vocal ministry that inspired God to let me take a break from my struggles was so different from my own understanding of Quakerism's historical roots and influences that either the person offering it was sadly misinformed, or I need a refresher course.

The problem is that not attending meeting didn't end my struggle. It just gave me a short break from it. After some months, all the questions started rising up for me again, but my thinking is no clearer--I rehearse the same old complaints, questions, and doubts, but don't find movement. I took God's message very seriously--that "for awhile" implied to me that I would be back at Red Cedar someday. But the months passed and I was not led to return. Last month, inspired by the Lenten reflections of my friend Pastor Julie, I decided to try going back as a Lenten discipline. I went twice. It was horrible both times. The second time I found myself so wounded and angered by something that happened during the social hour that I cried in the car on the way home.

Now, I find myself considering the possibility that I may never go back. My term as treasurer ends in May, and I am supposed to serve on the Adult Religious Education committee. This seems like a good fit for me, something I should be excited about. The meeting is going to experiment with regular ARE activities twice a month, now that we're in our own meetinghouse. I love leading study and discussion groups, and book groups. I spent the first few months of my hiatus reading deeply and widely on religious subjects, and have many ideas for materials that might be of interest to the meeting. I have been bitching for years about the Gospel of The New York Times; this is a chance for me to put my money where my mouth is and join with other members of my meeting in religious reading and discussion.

But, right this minute, my heart is just not in it. I was actually considering last week whether I ought to let the meeting know they should find someone else to fill my spot. And then, yesterday I got a nice e-mail from the Worship and Pastoral Care committee telling me that they would be providing Connecting Kids to Quakers money for my children to attend FGC Gathering: a total of $720 for my three kids. I found that I wasn't sure I felt comfortable accepting the money; David says I should, he says it's premature to think of myself as no longer part of the meeting or undeserving of the services it provides. But I feel a pang, and think it's possible I accepted David's argument so readily not because I feel he's right, but because without that money, the kids and I can't go to Gathering, and I want to go. The fact that my reaction to the message was to feel uncomfortable about the money tells me something important, I think, about my relationship to my meeting and where it might be going.

God said eight words to me, and I thought I understood them perfectly well: You get to take a break, and then you come back. But what if I'm wrong? I've been waiting for way to open, and for that way to be a door back into Red Cedar. I thought it would look like one of those internal shifts where you find yourself able to transcend the pettiness, accept things as they are, open your heart so wide that people who used to hurt and disappoint you are objects of sympathy and affection. Or maybe, I thought, God would give me a word to speak, a clear leading about how to be different in my meeting, a ministry that could be heard there; God might transform me from a whining, self-pitying, over-sensitive complainer into someone with something meaningful to offer, an agent of grace.

But what if God is cutting me loose? Can it really be true that God no longer wants or needs me to be a Quaker in a monthly meeting? Is there someplace else I'm needed? How would I know? I thought I'd have answers by now, but all I have is a new set of questions I never thought I'd be asking.

Well (she said briskly, dusting her hands) they don't have to be answered this minute. This minute, there's a Yehva-related mess in the kitchen that needs to be cleaned up, a shower to be taken, a worryingly sick cat to be taken to the vet, a grocery list to be written, bills to be paid.