My Easter and resurrection reflections have drawn my attention once again to one of the peculiarly American liberal Quaker/Christian heresies: we are prone to making an idol of “sensitivity”, taking our desire to avoid hurt feelings to an unhealthy extreme. This idol has a companion sin: we commit acts of verbal violence against people if we think they are hurting another’s feelings. We feel justified and righteous in verbal attacks even when it flies in the face of our peace testimony and our belief in “that of God’ in every person. We seem to think we shouldn’t be loving of people who have hurt another’s feelings or are intolerant. We are tolerant of everything, except intolerance.
I write this with fondness and humor, Friends, because I am, ahem, intimately acquainted with this particular heresy and sin. I could write this as a confession of the times when I have been out of balance in my own understanding of what justice required me to do. “Balance” is the key word here: I am absolutely in favor of sensitivity and clearly naming the injustices we see. Quakers are good at being sensitive and speaking truth to power, although as with most groups, there are a few injustices we ourselves commit, to which we are still blind! I’m proud of our commitment to justice, incomplete as it is in some areas, and though we take it a little bit too far in others.
We love and desire justice, and that is good. But these good things can become idolatrous and harmful when taken too far. They become demonic when they arise from an inability to accept the flaws of humans, human institutions, and the world in which we live.
And oh, what joys we miss out on when we put too much emphasis on achieving complete justice instantly! So let me write about the theological components that I believe could bring our desire for justice into balance and give us a taste of God’s own sweet consolation. I came to these conclusions reluctantly. Resisting, kicking, and screaming, to be precise. All of the following statements used to offend my sense of justice. But much as I disliked them, I have found a deeper joy, greater sense of purpose, and more energy for action in accepting them! I encourage you to meditate on each one of these statements:
1. Life is not fair. In fact, as Buddhists would say, “life is suffering”. I think we have an easier time accepting this when it comes to earthquakes and sickness and death. Unfortunately, I suspect this to be the case with human-made injustices, too. No sooner have we done away with one injustice than another arises in its wake, oftentimes as a result of an over-correction in addressing the first injustice (examples: excessive penalties placed on Germany after World War I may have led to the social conditions that laid the foundation for the rise of Hitler and World War II; the UN’s good desire to create a safe haven for Jews after WWII led to excessive demands on Palestinians, whose land and homes were taken away). God still requires us to do justice and love mercy, so acceptance of the inevitability of injustice is not an excuse for inaction. Acceptance of injustice as the way of the world merely allows us to be generous and merciful as we seek to eradicate injustice.
2. We humans are all fundamentally flawed, and God seems to be able to work with us anyway. Robert Barclay, in his Apology, challenged the theology of original sin and formulated a Quaker theology that says we aren’t sinners until we have sinned. Still, he claims that humans have “the propensity to sin” – not a one of us will avoid sinning. Knowing that God only has flawed human beings to work with is liberating! We don’t need to be perfect, nor do we need to insist that others be perfect. We know God’s work will get done with whatever raw material God has to work with. Jesus routinely despaired at the limitations of his disciples, yet they were his beloved companions and founded the church. Saul was a persecutor of Jesus’ followers – until he was blinded, turned around, and became a leader of the church! So we can be kind and merciful with a person who falls short, knowing it is only a matter of time until we ourselves fail and want to be met with kindness and forgiveness.
3. Brokenness, sin, and death can be sources of new life. When someone suffers, God finds a way to redeem the suffering and bring forth new life. I recently wrote about my daughter’s experience of injustice on the basketball courts here. Not a major injustice in the grand scheme of things, but to me a small-scale illustration of how character and compassion grow forth out of adversity. In my own life, I became deeply depressed and miserable when I learned I was pre-diabetic, but made changes in my life that ultimately made me healthier, more energetic, and more respectful and appreciative of my body than I was when I thought I was healthy. Sometimes we can even do damage if we insist on justice before the process of resurrection has come to completion.
4. We are just sojourners here on earth, visitors in a strange land. Our true home is in God. As long as we wander on earth, we should expect previews and foretastes of heaven, yes. But we cannot expect that we will see the divine order fulfilled here and now. Walter Wink has done a tremendous service in proclaiming that every human institution is 1) created for a divine purpose, 2) fallen, and 3) redeemable. Rather than berate leaders of institutions when their fallen nature is visible, we can call forth the Divine purpose for which they were created and invite them to strive for redemption. But true joy and peace lies in knowing that we can never be fully satisfied with anything or anyone here on earth, and not to place our hopes in institutions or organisations that cannot truly satisfy our deepest longing.
In all of these statements, our good desire for justice becomes idolatrous when we seek to push outside the true nature of Gods’ creation and intentions, when we want people, institutions, or the world to be something they cannot be.
Query for prayerful consideration:
How do I know when my pursuit of justice becomes idolatrous?
17 comments
Comments feed for this article
March 29, 2008 at 1:20 pm
cath
I’m surprised that you would call these “Liberal Quaker” heresies, since I think now and again most people fall into the traps you have outlined. I really don’t think these are characteristics of Liberal Quakers alone.
That said, I found your post to be very well articulated and something I hope many people read, even those who are not Liberal Quakers. 🙂
cath
March 29, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Cath,
I agree that taking things a bit too far in pursuing justice is not unique to American liberal Quakers.
What is unique, I think, is that we as a denomination so easily take things too far in response to verbal injustices. American liberal Quakers are – as a denomination – so much more aware of compassionate listening skills and the power of language to include and exclude that it becomes a basis for “righteous anger”.
The irony being, of course, that we in our righteous anger over insensitive use of language proceed to commit far worse verbal exclusions and name-calling, claiming that it is necessary in order to raise awareness, or claiming that the original offender needs a taste of their own medicine. Verbal insensitivity is, in my experience, the only offense that a liberal Quaker could commit that would get them yelled at publicly or likened to Hitler – in best compassionate listening style, of course 🙂 While also sending loving bridge-building letters to a gathering of Aryan Nation members, for instance, or starting worship groups for convicted murderers in federal prisons!
I think it is unique to the liberal group among Quakers – I don’t hear concern for exclusion or avoiding “hurt feelings” as a high priority in other branches of Quakerism. And I think it is unique to liberal Quakers in the USA. In Norway, for instance, sensitivity is not a valued cultural trait and Friends there tend to pride themselves on “calling a shovel a shovel” even if it does hurt someone.
March 29, 2008 at 5:00 pm
cath
You said: “I agree that taking things a bit too far in pursuing justice is not unique to American liberal Quakers. ”
Actually, that wan’t my point at all.
I don’t know how many Quakers of other stripes you know, so I don’t know how to react to your statements that certain heresies characterize Liberal Quakers and not other denominations (pastoral, evangelical) of our religion.
I’ve had different experiences than you have, obviously, since I’ve reached a different conclusion–about Quakers, that is.
The general point you are making about righteous anger as a two-sided coin is a very good one, and one that I’ve seen played out among a variety of faith traditions. Surely, my Mennonite Friends (Mennonite Church USA denomination) find it difficult (and wrong) to hurt feelings and they are just as passionate about peace and justice as we are and struggle just as much as we do in trying to find the best way to not hurt and yet make urging statements in support of a non-hurtful world.
You have made some very good points–things that people should (IMO) think about, but the self-reflective nature of your post gives me pause. Perhaps this is just my own personality. I would rather talk about an issue as an issue and leave out of the discussion whether or not it “belongs” with one denomination of Quakerism or not. There is already too much antipathy between our various branches as it is. It’s too easy to go down the road of division and talk about what “we” have that others don’t–even if what we have is a heresy. 🙂
I would like to stress again that your core point is an excellent one. Whether or not it is most aligned with Liberal Quakerism is perhaps something we will have to agree to disagree about.
cath
March 29, 2008 at 7:04 pm
Susanne Kromberg
Cath,
I wonder whether something is getting lost in communication here…
Part of the source of clarity about my own faith tradition – the liberal Quaker tradition – comes from spending a lot of time with evangelical Friends. In addition, most of my work as chaplain and spiritual director is with people from other Christian denominations and from other faiths. My experiences are subjective, and it doesn’t surprise me that you have a different experience. Like you, I do see this heresy in other liberal Christian groups (though not as strongly), so I’m glad you think this blog might be useful to others, too.
One of the many gifts I receive from being with evangelical Friends is that I get to see another way of understanding, living, and practising Quakerism than my own. Sometimes I feel evangelical Quakers are closer to what I see as the Quaker ideal – as in this case – evangelical Friends seem to me to be peace and justice oriented in speech and action, but without taking language sensitivities too far. I see better balance among evangelicals on this issue than I do within my own tradition.
Sometimes I think liberal Quakerism is closer to the ideal. I think the different branches of Quakerism need one another in order to be whole – none of the branches has the whole picture. Which is why I focus on differences between the groups at times.
I feel free to make my observations, lovingly and critically, about my own tradition, but I don’t feel free to do that about other faith groups. I leave it to Quakers who belong in the evangelical, orthodox, or conservative branches to address what they believe to be the joys and concerns of their own traditions. I believe that learning from other Quaker groups helps us all to be better Quakers. So when I write about differences, it is not to fan the flames of adversity but so that my group can be more authentic and faithful to the gifts it has been given.
I hope that evangelicals Quakers – I hope you are reading my blog, too – may learn things from liberal Friends that might be useful to you in being faithful to your particulars.
As we each understand the core of our own traditions, I believe we can appreciate one another more fully and learn those things that would draw each group into closer relationship with God.
March 30, 2008 at 4:03 am
cath
Thank you for your response and the explanation about your jobs/credentials. I see now from your comments that you’re intention is to speak only to Liberal Quakers so that we may reflect on our own ways of being Friends.
I would very much like to see this topic discussed in a wider frame and had hoped it might happen here, but I don’t have the right to tell you what to post on your blog.
Peace,
cath
March 30, 2008 at 4:23 am
cath
correction…..You said you were talking only *about* Liberal Friends, and not *to* Liberal Friends.
Or maybe a little of both? Anyway, you’ve also invited others to read your post, but I still am having difficulty determining if you want others to join in a discussion that would include all of us or just the Liberal of us.
At any rate, I think I’ve made the points I want to make–that the heresies you speak of are well-identified on your part, they cross faith tradition boundaries, and all of us (all spiritual people, that is) would do well to ponder them.
Looking forward to reading other comments.
Catherine
March 30, 2008 at 6:05 am
Susanne Kromberg
I welcome wide-ranging conversation on this blog, especially about areas where others are better qualified than me to speak.
Although I only feel qualified to speak ABOUT liberal Friends, I do hope that my posts will speak to the condition of a wide variety of people, and it is my hope that anyone who learns something that gives an insight about their group will share something of what they see and experience – we all benefit from that!
FYI, I have another blog where I write more broadly for a liberal Christian Christian audience, http://www.susannekromberg.wordpress.com.
March 30, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Paul L
Your second proposition reminds me of a favorite New Yorker cartoon. It depicts Satan and his assistant overlooking a vast sea of misery — hundreds of persons in pits of fire, etc. — and he smiles and says, “You know, we do pretty well when you stop to consider that people are basically good!”
Very thoughtful post, Susanne. Quakers don’t seem to think much about, or understand, idolatry these days. I think it is THE original sin (i.e., the desire to “be like God”).
April 4, 2008 at 4:04 am
Kim
Coming from an experience of liberal Quaker meetings where talk of God, let alone Jesus, is almost considered an act of incitement…all this talk of idolatry,sin and heresy among liberal friends is enough to make me fall off my chair!
April 4, 2008 at 6:21 am
Susanne Kromberg
Kim,
Yes, I am definitely going outside the norm of liberal Quaker language, and I don’t usually talk this way personally, either at home or in Meeting.
I really lament the loss of religious language in Meetings – to hear us talk sometimes, you’d think we were secular humanists or social workers! And we have this incredibly rich faith language, full of nuance and meaning, at our disposal. Seems a shame to waste it! Seems a shame to be a religious denomination and not use religious language – in ways that are compatible with our faith.
Also, this language seems necessary here. It’s the only lanaguage that seems adequate to reflect the “righteous anger” that some express. It’s the only language that highlights what we’re doing when we engage in judgment – we’re trying to be Godlike.
So let’s shake the dust off some good religious language and use it again to speak about our faith! 🙂
April 6, 2008 at 1:09 am
kim
Amen! 🙂
April 20, 2008 at 6:11 am
Allison
Hm, disbanding every 50 years… interesting. Yes, a bit too radical, but it would be nice if there were some kind of renewal process when a Meeting starts to become dull/uninspired.
Sometimes I have felt that I’d like to start a worship group that states from the very beginning that it intends to be radically inclusive and multicultural. It almost seems easier to start a new one than to bring people into a Meeting that is dominated by one class and one race.
April 27, 2008 at 3:27 am
Bill Samuel
My experience has been that much of liberal Friends is overburdened with structure. A gadzillion committees, spending lots of time in trivia in monthly meetings for business, etc. It is a reflection of the narrow demographics of liberal Friends. Most operate outside the meeting in environments somewhat similar.
IMHO, such a superstructure weighing down a body is far more dangerous that liturgy. Liturgy actually has deep meaning if taken seriously and not for granted or as a ritual for which you need to check the box. It can help bring meaning. So different than death by committee.
July 28, 2008 at 9:16 am
David Latner
Hi. I am not a Quaker, and my experience with Quaker’s is in the context of their political advocacy. I find them to be rather like any other ideologue (left or right). They seem to believe their position is true, they are self – righteous, and they either patronize or (to a greater or lesser exent) demonize, their opponents. I am not pretending that this is a statistically valid survey of Quakers, (liberal or otherwise). It is merely an observation that the ones I have seen are no different from from ideologues, so that your self-described emphasis on “listening skills” etc. may be more your perception, or your aspiration, rather than reality.
October 12, 2011 at 11:22 pm
We are prone to making an idol of âsensitivity.â We seem to think we shouldnât be loving of people who have hurt anotherâs feelings or are intolerant. We are tolerant of everything, except… - Quaker Ranter – Quaker Ranter
[…] except… Mar 29th, 2008 by Martin Kelley. // nRelate.domain = "www.quakerranter.org"; //Susanne K on liberal Quaker heresiess /**/ Share this:EmailFacebookPosted in: Tumbled. ← Thought of day: much-maligned […]
October 28, 2012 at 1:13 pm
CHAUMEIL Robert
Je ne suis pas un quaker, mais votre mouvement m’a toujours fasciné et intéressé je l’ai étudié pendant presque 30 ans, si un jour il devait disparaître, j’en serait désolé. les pense que les quakers “programmés devraient” devenir “non-programmés”
Amicalement Robert
October 29, 2012 at 1:47 pm
CHAUMEIL Robert
Friends, i’m not a Quaker , but I can’t see if it’s possible to say the word “heresy”. I’m a member of the Reformed Church of France and i’m a lot of liberal, perhaps completly Unitarian.. I feel very well in the Reformed Church of France, because nobody has authority to say you what is the “true theology..In my community Church there are “orthodox” and “liberals” togother.. So I understand very much the Quaker World., I think also, that it would be the better thing for you to have a only Quaker community:: 1° The number of quakers is little in the World and 2° If Quakers of all dénominations would practise the silently Worship Service as Fox and Penn, it would be the better thing;for the Friends to be re-united as the primitive form, and so the Quakers could be indifferently “liberal”, or “orthodox” or “conservative”
.Dear, Quakers, you are not made for Protestant form of Worship, you are not made for playing organ during the service and have professionnal Pastor,or singing hymns. After in the time some of you risk to like observing baptism or communion and another kind out of the quaker tradition
; Come back in the old time,of Fox, Barclay and Penn: be truely only and truely Quakers. You don’t need to imit a Methodist worship, and having a Protestant kind of liturgy., Why not to observe Anglican ceremonies!
Dear Quakers understand to be;;;;Friend, realy Quakers and nothing else.
You represent your own particularities. It your indentity! . , ,
Friends to forget that the silently worship is your particularity,
. Personally the best thing to observe for quakers would be silentious praying as from the begining of the Community.. So it would be the conciencious problem for everybody to know you about your personnal Theology in your very bottom of your heart.
. It would be the better to feel in your own of Methodist thought as Gurney Conservative as Wilbur. or universalist “post-chrirstian” as some Friends or only “orthodox” ans Fox ,Barclay and Penn, or almost unitarian as Elias Hicks..and si on……..
Dear Friens, don’t destroy your specificity with separated theology positions and different kinds of form for worship services Take the courage to be create a only congregation as in the begining of the first Friends.
BE yourself and nothing else!
Friendly, Robert. .