Showman/Shaman - Comments

C.W. Strawbridge: Maggie and Me

nospam@example.com (C.W. Strawbridge) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 19:53:13 -0700

Ben, stopped by to see what you were up to and was impressed (again) with what I found. Always appreciate the thoughts/leadings you share, even though I'm a pretty dull sounding board most of the time.

It's interesting that RobinM [robinmsf.blogspot.com] has just posted on Rufus Jones' 1941 William Penn Lecture regarding the challenge to rejuvenate Friends meetings. In his lecture he says:

"I believe that much could be accomplished by carefully planned intervisitation. There are highly gifted persons in a few meetings, who ought to circulate much more than is now the case. Their absence occasionally from their own meeting would throw the sense of responsibility on other members of it, which would have a wholesome effect, and they would bring fresh life and inspiration where they visited. It is impossible for me to overestimate the importance of the visits of Friends in the ministry to our meeting in the days of my youth. It made all things new and wonderful to the little boy who could predict almost infallibly what our own members would do and say. But a new voice, a new vision, a new personality, made all the difference and woke him up to the rich meaning of his Quaker inheritance."

Just promise not to stay away from Haverford too long. Okay?

Mark E. Dixon: Maggie and Me

nospam@example.com (Mark E. Dixon) — Thu, 01 Nov 2007 07:32:59 -0700

>>When we had established Elders in our meetings, these dialogues happened all the time.

Dialogue is important and, I think, the role of the "elder" is something that should be revisited. But the term doesn't necessarily refer to a person's age. An elder could (can) be anyone with ability.

I'm 56, which puts me between the truly elder Friends in their 70s and up and the (few) GenX and Millenial Friends coming up. In my experience, it has been the oldest Friends who have made Quaker meetings off-putting to inquirers with obsessive focus on things like bench placement and by sabotaging discussion of issues which might be divisive. (As Billy said, "No Cross, No Crown.")

erqulamrz: The Covenant Community

nospam@example.com (erqulamrz) — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 17:46:16 -0700

l53sVp ekxgymtbwtwu, [url=http://hwlutybrefem.com/]hwlutybrefem[/url], [link=http://ncszhpfsabgk.com/]ncszhpfsabgk[/link], http://cvzbkxfpcelp.com/

Mia: The Covenant Community

nospam@example.com (Mia) — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 09:13:13 -0700

This spoke to me as well. Thank you.

Kate: The Covenant Community

nospam@example.com (Kate) — Mon, 08 Oct 2007 11:48:01 -0700

This is really interesting and I thank you for your post.

My meeting, too, 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."

Well, even though we tend to pull people in to service of some kind fairly quickly compared to some meetings (in my experience), I don't think we make demands on people, least of all demands that they relinguish their individualism.

The choice of community, of covenant community: how do we better articulate what it means, to attenders, and even members? How do we get to a place where everyone is choosing community?