Showman/Shaman

This from the "life imitates art" file. Some of you know my book The Actor's Way deals with the connection between a younger, would-be Quaker actor and and elderly Quaker woman, his former teacher. Below is an exchange between me and Maggie Davis, who at 82 seems to be something of a Quaker dynamo in Florida. While the comparison is not exact, I have been struck again and again by how important these intergenerational dialogues are in the Quaker community. I have been deeply affected by older Quakers in my Yearly Meeting. When we had established Elders in our meetings, these dialogues happened all the time. They were, in fact, the way our Society perpetuated itself. I am moved to ask again: how long until we put our Elders back in their rightful place of leadership, honor and stewardship within our meetings?

What follows, with her permission, is an edited email exchange between Maggie and me. She refers to a pamphlet I wrote for Pendle Hill Publishing called Turnaround: Growing a 21st Century Religious Society of Friends.

**

Dear Ben -
 
As you know, I read your Pendle Hill publication "Turnaround" recently with great interest, especially the ending, in which you offer possible solutions for the problems being encountered by Friends and Quaker meetings today.
 
I hope you'll let me make a few comments, beginning with the ending of "Turnaround"  .
 
I'm glad you found a happy prospect in the numbers and activities of "young Friends" (apparently a 20-30 age group), who use text messaging and cell phones among other things to bond and generally stay in touch with each other in the Friendly spirit. 
 
I'm hopeful, too, that these young Friends are our future Quaker leaders and that the electronic age is going to be friendly to us (Quakers).  As you point out in "Turnaround," our numbers are diminishing and with them much of the spirit and sense of Quakerism.  Historically our numbers have always been small, but our achievements have been great . . . .

In his book "Beyond Majority Rule" Jesuit Michael Sheehan, writing  on Quaker decision-making, emphasizes how vital it is for Friends to base their thinking on respect and care for the group, which he considers essential and in some ways unique to Quakers.  He feels the focus on the importance of the Quaker decision-making process may be in danger, influenced by today's individualistic culture.
 
Certainly the shift, which Sheehan describes as "from communitarian to atomic" has been taking place in my meeting for some time.  Recently a committee member invited other committee members via e-mail to join him in a discussion of items of the committee's business before they met at the next committee meeting . . . .

[My] Meeting is mainly composed of two groups: the elderly (over 65), and a group in their thirties and forties.  Many in both groups attend for worship and some socialization, and are not involved in Meeting responsibilities. The Meeting has a chronic problem enlisting volunteers, and resorts to some paid positions such as "childcare," although there is currently not much need for this item, as we seldom see any small children.  Responsibility for the business of the Meeting is left to a handful of members and attenders who function as the Meeting "doers." . . . .

The Meeting, since building the new meeting house, has experienced a surge in attendance.  As with other meetings, many older, experienced Friends are no longer with us and the absence of their Quakerly guidance is felt.  A portion of our congregation appears to have become interested in Quakerism only relatively recently, and this group seems to lack knowledge and in some cases even curiosity of what Quakerism is about. As a result the Meeting sometimes seems to invent it's own "Quakerism" - often based on ideas from those "shrill voices" you refer to in your book "Turnaround."  This leads so some fairly odd interpretations of Quaker practice.  . . . .

The world needs to know about Quakers and what we stand for.  As you say in your [pamphlet], many of us feel bitter, defeated and disillusioned as our country has embraced policies at diametric opposition to our beloved testimonies. We ned to show ourselves.
 
But, I'd like to add, we also need to have recognition among Quakers, too.  The Religious Society of Friends In Truth exploded in the sixteen hundreds with thousands of preaching ministries, many of them women, that continued well into the eighteenth century.  Theirs was an ecstatic preaching of the Gospel that might more resemble that of modern day evangelicals, but the traveling Quakers were also carrying the message of Friends in many aspects  to other Quakers.  In the United States traveling, ministering Friends of the 1700's were a great unifying force for the movement, going up and down the east coast and visiting and speaking out in Meeting to other Quakers, and those interested, in the fashion of George Fox.  They penetrated parts even of the great American wilderness, visiting isolated Quaker families.
 
Since, as you say in "Turnaround," the majority of Quakers in this century will be convinced Friends, I believe we are in need of a revival of traveling recorded ministers speaking out to meetings.  Traveling Friends have never gone out of existence, but at least as far as my meeting is concerned they have been scarce in recent years. . . . .

There' s such a need and such a great message to be taken to people attending Quaker meetings today!  I hope you agree with me..  I am glad I could forward my support and ideas to you as my age, 82, prevents me from taking much of an active part in matters these days.
 
But I'd like to hear your thoughts in return.
 
Maggie Davis

**

Dear Maggie, 

Wow! That's the longest email I've ever received . . . I think!

We are indeed of the same mind about many things. I too have urged my meeting to hold latecomers in our forum room until the children leave, and met the same resistance. So we still have to sit through 15 - 20 minutes of doors opening and closing, etc. and our "hour" of focused worship really shrinks to about 45 minutes. 

And I agree about the source of this resistance: our cultural attachment to individualism. Much to my surprise, my Yearly Meeting asked me to speak at our Residential gathering in New Jersey last summer. My speech was called "Building Bridges" and a great deal of it was spent looking at our individualistic nature in the R S of F; at how there are aspects of the R S of F which draw such individualists; and how our future depends upon transforming our individualistic "transfer students" into members of a covenant community, in which our collective well-being comes first. That speech is wandering through the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting publishing process. When (if) it's published I will be sure to send you a copy. There's a portion of it on my blog

Your email reminded me of Howard Brinton's observation, in Friends for 350 Years, that in Quaker communities, the freedom of the individual must be balanced against the freedom of the group. I feel that there is a relationship between our nearly anarchic behavior sometimes, and the absence of meaningful authority in our meetings. We used to have such authority of course: they were called Elders, and they were charged with protecting the meeting and nurturing future leaders. I feel that we need to restore our Elders (who need not be "old", by the way) to a place our loving authority in our meetings. They might be people we could go to and say, help us have a quiet hour in which to worship each week. There are two good pamphlets on Eldering available through Pendle Hill, one called "Tall Poppies" and a recent one by Marjorie Larrabee [not yet available on line] . . . .

I am glad we have made this connection. My book The Actor's Way is about a young NYC actor who re-connects with his elderly Quaker grade school theatre teacher. So these inter-generational relationships resonate for me. Indeed, I believe they represent the future of our Society.

Yours in the Light, 

Ben

PS: Could I post some of our exchange on my blog? It's okay if not - but I have recently discovered that there is a great nation-wide Quaker conversation going on electronically. Check out www.quakerquaker.org

I sat crying in the Ursinus College parking lot to day. I had just listened to a pod-cast of an episode of my favorite public radio show, This American Life. This episode is called "Act V" and is about the work of the Prison Performing Arts project and the extraordinary Agnes Wilcox.

Agnes believes theatre can change people's lives. Not only those who see it, but also and especially those who make it. So - after racking up an impressive career directing professional regional theatre - she began working with inmates. That's right, the incarcerated. "Act V" describes Agnes's production of Hamlet in one of Missouri's maximum security prisons. Because prisoners are not allowed to congregate for any reason longer than one hour, Agnes decided to do one act every two months or so. She cast four Hamlets and had a full supporting cast. She could only meet with the prisoners for brief times, and each prisoner had to be strip-searched before coming into rehearsal and when leaving. Jack Hitt, the TAL writer presenting the show, was given a "screamer": he carried in his pocket a small black box with a string to pull if he was attacked, whereupon guards would descend from all directions.

She was rehearsing Hamlet with murderers, child molesters and rapists. Or was she?

One of the most compelling aspects of "Act V" is that it asks the question: are we forever defined by one act we commit, no matter how hideous? And do we actually believe that human beings can change for the better after committing such an act? And if we think someone has been deeply and profoundly changed, then what? And these men were deeply changed as a result of their work with Agnes. Acting changed them. Shakespeare changed them. And they changed themselves.

What is prison for?

If you listen to "Act V" I hope you will be convinced, as I am, that the ultimate purpose of prison must be rehabilitation. Another affecting part of the story is hearing the inmates talk about working on Hamlet, and with Agnes. Many of the comments are along the lines of "she made me feel human again". Even more astonishing is how this most high-brow of high-brow plays is illuminated by actors who have actually experienced violence, the giving and the receiving of it. The discussions they have with Jack about Hamlet, about character motivation, about the meaning of lines (an encounter with fog is "scarfed in my sea-cloak") are as deep as any I've had with students in my 15 years of teaching in higher education.

Many of us struggle with how to bring more meaning to our lives in the theatre. This was Agnes's solution. It might be mine too.

Covenant: a law or agreement between God and a community.

We gathered a Swarthmore Friends Meeting Saturday October 6th to examine how we could transform our meetings into "covenant communities." Present in this examination was the sense that our meetings are generally not covenant communities. Friend Tom Gates led us into this examination with a talk he gave in the morning there. One of the distinctions of a covenant community, he said, is that it is a place in which the central question asked is not, what can this community offer me, but rather, how can I best serve this community? Again, we were led to see all the ways in which our tendency towards individualism impedes the emergence of covenant communities, and yet we acknowledged that P.Y.M. Quakerism is especially attractive to individualists, who are free to attend our meetings for worship for as long as they wish without many demands being made on them, doctrinally or otherwise.

I am such an individualist, and I remember well all the ways my ego fretted as I moved closer and closer to convincement. "But they'll change you!" my ego cried, "You'll become one of them! You won't be the unique and amazingly sexy and compelling you anymore!" But in one of the many paradoxes of a life lived in the Spirit, I soon realized that God wanted me to be more authentically me, and that joining the Friends and working towards a covenant community was a path to my own power; a power meant to be shared in the service of something greater than my own desire. I still tell dirty jokes. I own a cell phone and text people madly. I put good and meaningful work aside to watch baseball games. I dress in women's clothing and entertain people . . . if I am so cast. And, I am a 21st century Quaker, who tries to live in the Light of the Inner Christ, and wants to spread the good news that such a life is available to any who want it.

At Swarthmore, I was also aware that there is much which is joyful and useful in the simple act of assembling together as Friends. Simple in the event, not the planning and execution. In this age of multi-tasking and simultaneous schedules, getting the numbers we wanted for the conference was daunting and we fell short of our goal. Still, I experienced the feeling I have had a Residential Yearly Meeting: of meeting Friends from other meetings and delighting in our common values, experiences, joys and frustrations. I think this is why early Friends put such a premium on traveling ministry. Each meeting, each "outpost in the kingdom of God" (as Arlene Kelly called us) needed reminders that they were not alone, that they in fact were part of something much larger than the sometimes overwhelming demands of their own little outpost. Tom reminded us of Paul's letter in Corinthians, in which the covenant community is described as a body with many different parts (Cor. 12:12). Paul is saying, by each being our individual selves - the parts of the body we are created to be - we will be serving the whole body (Christ) best. I have written this before in theatrical contexts, but here it is in a Biblical context: I am best when I am most true to myself, when I am most "Ben" - the elbow I was born to be. And, this is when I am most useful to God. Trying to be someone else makes me false, inauthentic, and God wants truthful people. But it's deeper than that. I think Paul is also suggesting that we cannot experience love unless we are both deeply ourselves and deeply in the service of Something greater than ourselves.

Surely it was God speaking to me, or underlining something essential, as I had only just read those words the day before in Patricia Loring's book Listening Spirituality Volume II. That night I was astonished to find that that Paul's letter continues to the famous passage about love, the one often read at weddings:

13:4 Love is patient and is kind; love doesn’t envy. Love doesn’t brag, is not proud, 13:5 doesn’t behave itself inappropriately, doesn’t seek its own way, is not provoked, takes no account of evil; 13:6 doesn’t rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; 13:7 bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. 13:8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will be done away with. Where there are various languages, they will cease. Where there is knowledge, it will be done away with. 13:9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part; 13:10 but when that which is complete has come, then that which is partial will be done away with. 13:11 When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I felt as a child, I thought as a child. Now that I have become a man, I have put away childish things. 13:12 For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I will know fully, even as I was also fully known. 13:13 But now faith, hope, and love remain—these three. The greatest of these is love.

Perhaps there is a connection to be made here too: that when we are authentic - truthful and genuine, the "body part" we are meant to be - we are more available to love.

I was conjoined to a different kind of community Friday night, the night before the conference. Me and about 20,000 others felt the Spirit rush through us on the amplified wings of the music of Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band. The Boss seemed more pissed than I've seen him before, not at us but at what's up in the country his so loves. "I love being in Philly," he said, "birthplace of some of the greatest things in America, like cheese steaks, and the Bill of Rights". The songs he played, and the sequence he played them in, all seemed to be saying - wake up, don't believe what hear or see, and even though you're being deceived there is still virtue and hope, but you have to make it happen. Click here for a great opinion piece by my friend David Bradley about the Boss's message last weekend.

As I sat in worship this morning images of 20,000 souls pumping fists and singing in unison drifted through my mind. And I was moved to speak to my Friends about what we sacrifice when we stay too attached to our individualism, and the enormous power we have when act together.