1. Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it more appealing to the kind of people who get college degrees? Is there something about Quaker theology that makes it unappealing to the kind of people who don’t get college degrees? If so, why? I’m not sure I have anything to add to this beyond what has already been said about comfort with ambiguity. I think the reverse can be true, too. I grew up in meeting and would be very uncomfortable with a more authoritarian and absolutist religion. I don’t know, though, how much of that is educational and how much is just my personality. I have neighbors who are nice but have declined all invitations to visit meeting–even for not-specifically-Quaker events–because they think our style of worship is dangerous. They believe that since we do not have a preacher to lead us we are open to being deceived by Satan. Most people don’t react quite that strongly but I’ve been repeatedly surprised by how skeptical people are of silent worship and lack of clergy. I don’t know if that’s a Southern thing or what, but I have no interest in criticizing their own style of worship so I’m really not sure how to bridge that beyond continuing the friendship without discussing religion.

2. Or is it something about current liberal Quaker culture? If so, why? Probably both.

3. Or is it something to do with current liberal Quaker practice? If so, why? If you mean practice, as in, form of worship . . . I would not be inclined to tamper too much with the form of worship. A church needs to have its identity. I would not join the Jehovah’s Witnesses and then ask them to stop going door-to-door. That’s what they do. If I cannot accept it, I’m probably in the wrong church.

If you mean it in terms of outreach: Yes, probably that, too, and that is worth working to change. Like anything else, though, this needs to be approached constructively and persistently, without expectation of instant results.

This struck me: Our dress, our overwhelming liberal political leanings, our obviously well-educated vocabulary, I think, could make many people feel like outsiders with no common point from which to enter. Isn’t this true of any church (club, bowling league, Girl Scout troop . . .) when you’re new? I feel like an outsider at my friend’s dressed-up Catholic church. I don’t understand the jargon, I don’t know the songs, I am unfamiliar with the rituals, etc. Our meeting has a Quaker 101 adult FDS to help newcomers; if people are being left in the dust, it needs to be addressed, but it won’t be if nobody realizes it’s a problem! Someone who sees this happening needs to start lobbying for support for new attenders.

As for political leanings: It is not unheard of here for preachers to openly endorse political candidates to their congregations. I would not approve of hearing it during worship or FDS, but political homogeneity is definitely not a Quaker-specific “problem”. Religion and politics are so closely tied in the U.S.–inextricably, it seems, though I wish they were less so–that I would, frankly, be surprised if our political make-up were more mixed. The RSoF and the UU in Texas get the handfuls of us who are the most liberal. I do not advocate, of course, avoiding people who are more conservative, but I would not anticipate that a movement to “recruit” them would be terribly productive. There are too many other churches from which to choose.

I think Susanne is right that our tolerance for the eccentric may be off-putting to those looking for a more recognizably mainstream religion, but I don’t see this as a problem (as long as it counterculture-ness doesn’t become a “requirement”). It takes all kinds to make a world. We seem to have the full spectrum here, from Sunday best to cut-offs. I’ve never heard any comments on clothing as long as it wasn’t something really revealing (bare feet and holey jeans are fine; mega-cleavage will raise some eyebrows).

4. Or do you think it is just a coincidence? If so, why? I don’t think it’s a coincidence, exactly, but I don’t think it’s intentional on the part of the RSoF.

5. Optional: Are you a college graduate? Do/es one or more of your parents have a college degree? Parents both have graduate degrees. My father is the third generation with college or more. Mother is from a working-class family and was the first in her family to go to college. I have a B.A. Our family financial situation has, in my lifetime, gone from my father being able to feed us for only three weeks of the month to my parents being comfortable. I, personally, have a grunt job (office girl) and own nothing of significance except a cheap car (paid for myself). I rent a room in my parents’ house because I cannot afford city rent in any but the most dangerous neighborhoods. That’s a privilege, but it would be foolish of me, in terms of personal safety, not to take it. My mother has some health problems and my father is being transferred to Africa for three years so Mom wants me around to do the heavy housework, etc., that she cannot do.

While I do not dispute that the body of liberal Quakerism is made up of educated white people, I feel there is a perception that we all eat organic, drive expensive hybrid or biodiesel cars, and send our kids into the world with a list of society contacts, a bolus of cash from Mom and Dad, and a cushy job. I would say that the financial make-up of our meeting is pretty mixed. We have a lot of young families, especially, who are trying to raise kids, pay off student loans, make progress at starter jobs, etc., and don’t have a lot of time or money to spare. Yes, they are privileged compared to many other countries, but raising kids at the “average” level of subsistence found in much of the world would hardly prepare them for life in the modern U.S.

Many members of our meeting who have obligations that are not immediately obvious to the rest of the congregation (elderly or disabled family members to care for, etc.). Many have shared houses at various times with others or taken in people who needed help. I think we’ve done pretty well looking after non-relative f/Friends considering we’re scattered all over a huge metropolitan area.

I am not saying we couldn’t do better, of course; only that there are a lot of us who are in between the two extremes. I guess I’m owning-class culturally, if that’s what my educational background means, and working-class financially. I work full-time; I need to go back to school so I can support myself (no inheritance, no spouse with a second income, no high-powered job); I leave the house at 6:30 a.m. and get home at 6:00 p.m. if the traffic is good. I’m stretched thin for all the same reasons many “working-class” people are; not enough time and not enough financial wiggle-room.

* * * * * * *

re: Allison’s take on the new wave of feminism–hear, hear! I think that’s exactly what it means, or should mean.

On contercultural “weirdness” and non-shaving, tofu eaters. I wrote an essay comparing the changes in Quakerism that need to occur with 2nd v. 3rd wave feminism. 3rd wave feminists include more the experiences of women of color, and point at the differences in a theology of equality v. practice (equality only benefitting white women).

That being said, I am still probably considered counter-culture “weird” myself!

I also completely agree that we shouldn’t be asking “SHOULD we change liberal Quaker culture?” To me it’s a foregone conclusion that we need to change, and many of my posts in recent months have been precisely about the need for change. I wasn’t aware that anyone had posed or even implied THAT particular question.

I’ve already written my first introductory blog on what we can do to change things for the better, and at this point I’m guessing my suggestions will make for 4-5 blog posts, which will include some of the suggestions commenters have made. Stay tuned, and please feel free to join in with your own suggestions.

2. Yes, culture. current liberal quaker culture I would dare to say is so overlapped and intertwined with current educated wasp-heritage culture as to be almost the same thing (in practice)

3. practice, again, as it plays out, but not in its ideal form. Waiting worship should be available to all, worship full of messages that sound like college lectures, isn’t.

4. NOT a coincidence. Not intentional maybe, at least not consciously so

5. Yes, I’m a college graduate, as are both my parents (and my stepmother) but I can’t really stand big words where small ones will do.

I love Jeanne’s response to this on her blog:

“The questions really should be: What is it about liberal Quaker culture is keeping poor and working class people away? AND how do we change that culture? (Not SHOULD we)”

It seems to me that early quakers had a unifying passion about Christ that modern liberal Friends don’t. Christ as a symbol and cultural Icon was recognizable and accesable to everyone in that country at that time. As a non-christian, I can’t say that I hope we go back to finding unity in Christ, but I do think that we’ve substituted other more wordly things. As if we expect to be unified by Sierra Club membership or cultural “norms”

As a nontheist/universalist Friend I’d like to see us find that Fire again. I don’t believe it needs to be named Christ, but I think we may have lost our connection to what connects us in spirit, so that we can’t see across any cultural divides