Common Ground

The Struggle to Find Common Ground

Quakers have wrestled with "religious liberty" and "corporate consensus" since the first meetings in the dungeons and moors of England. I see both being significant elements of a progressive view.

However, those more on the "ranter/liberty/Nayler" end of the spectrum have always felt more constrained by the "evangelical/consensus/Fox" emphasis on the group and subjection to arriving at consensus.

One of the early Friends debates was over the wearing of hats; Fox, being a "denominational man", thought all Quakers should doff the hat in prayer in a single fashion, others thought contraririly, and in this instance the denominational man carried the day.

Quakers formed "rules" about hat wearing that some left Quakerism over. This may seem an insignificant point to us today, but at the time was a serious matter, and the dissenting group vanished because they frazzled into everyone doing what seemed right in their own eyes at the time.

I get my ranterism out by being involved in "causes" on the side perhaps so that I don't have to wait around for the local Friends Meeting to catch the wave. This may seem disingenuous, but when I'm at the Meeting I mostly "wear my hat" the way the Meeting wears it, and when I'm out of Meeting I "wear my hat" however I feel led. However, my individualism is nurtured by the struggles undergone with the presumably less-progressive Meeting.

In reality Quakers have never had consensus about anything, true consensus has never existed because even when it supposedly did some merely bit their tongues or stood aside so as not to be a hindrance.

What is unique about Quakerism and I think IFCL as an entity of the former, is that most groups have by-laws which "automatically" curb autonomy and limit individual freedom. Quakers tend to let people make these choices for themselves without having to pass rules and regulations.

I think there has been and will always be an element of struggle between Fox & Nayler, and when that ceases to exist then we're dead in the water anyway. JL

A word from our lobbyist:

IFCL intends to be inclusive to all Friends in Indiana by facilitating the expression of personal views to their legislators.

IFCL encourages all Friends to contact their lawmakers on issues they feel are relevant by utilizing the State House links provided on our LINKS page.

The IFCL as a body will speak to issues as outlined in our guiding principles. IFCL will stand firmly against legislative attempts to discriminate and divide the citizens of Indiana.

My belief is that the possibility of grace or understanding between the Friends in Indiana is important, and a productive catalyst for good in Indiana.

After centuries of division and reduction of membership, can we think of using love as an active verb, finding common ground and working for positive change?

My hope is that in this facilitation process we will listen and work from our light to find that of God within others.