The Quaker movement began like other Radical Reformation traditions, rejecting the basic Christian creeds. This wasn’t because they weren’t Christian, but because they believed that creeds created a consumptive rather than participative faith. The creeds served as a gatekeeper to a more authentic and inclusive faith. Quakers believe that creedal Christianity led to folks to professing rather than possessing authentic Christian faith. They saw this playing out in 17th century England where the church and state were in bed together, where Christianity was used to legitimize a “religion of empire,” rather than one that challenges and critiques empire.
I write this because I am wondering to what extent this saying “no” to creeds has hurt our contemporary understanding of the Quaker tradition? Let me be clear in saying that I fully accept the early Quaker critique of creeds. On the other hand, I accept the heart of what the creeds are after, which I believe is meant to put something forward, affirm something, and say “yes” rather than “no.” Maybe this is too generous a view for some and I am fine with that, but stay with me for a moment: my concern is that the Quaker tradition, at least in some sectors, has largely become a “’no’ religion.” Not only are we often defined by others by what we are against, but we ourselves use Quakerism and Quaker process as a gateway to say no.
It reminds me of the idea within improv of “blocking.” Here is something I wrote about regarding this in the past:
“In improv, if you have a group of people who are developing a storyline on the fly, without a script or master plan, and someone says “No” to an idea put forward, what happens? It stops everything. No, ends the scene. It prevents forward movement in the story line.”
In improv, they call this “blocking.” Blocking is the cardinal sin of improv acting.
Blocking comes in many forms; it is a way of trying to control the situation instead of accepting it. We block when we say no, when we have a better idea, when we change the subject, when we correct the speaker, when we fail to listen, or when we simply ignore the situation.” (Patricia Madson — The Wisdom of Improv)
I think I first stumbled upon this kind of Quaker “blocking” when I noticed that the people within Quaker meetings who receive the most resistance, push back and are generally treated with a greater amount of suspicion are the individuals who take or at least appear to be a little too decisive, a little too pushy, and take initiative. It is easy to be comfortable with the status quo and I have seen our unwillingness to respond quickly to the moment, act in ad hoc ways, and be decisive around decisions as being chalked up to “we need to honor process.” But this can easily move into blocking territory. Afterall, Quakerism is itself a lot like improv in that it is a tradition that calls for paying attention in the moment, being obedient when one is led and stresses the immediacy of the Holy Spirit.
I have heard and see people talk largely about what Quakers don’t do and don’t believe: “we don’t celebrate holidays, we don’t use titles, we don’t record people, we don’t force people to believe anything, we don’t evangelize, we don’t have preachers, we don’t use the lectionary, we didn’t keep enslaved humans, we don’t have symbols, we don’t practice communion or baptism, we don’t have people in the military in our meetings, or worse… ‘you can’t do that because it’s not Quaker.’” This is treating the Quaker tradition as a blocking tradition.
Not only are a lot of these perceptions not true they represent a certain version of the story that serves some and puts others at a disadvantage. It is hard to become an insider when everyone blocks. A religion of “no” needs gatekeepers. If this is what our faith tradition has become then this is a sad state of affairs. If all we have to offer is who we are not then we have lost the ability to create, produce, and think outside the box and be responsive to needs in the moment. We have let go of the immediacy of an authentic connection to God who very well may call us to act now.
When we adopt the Quakerism as a religion of no we are no different from those Jesus chastised in Mark 2:
“He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions.” Then he said to them, “The sabbath was made for humankind, and not humankind for the sabbath…”
Process is meant to be a guide, but it is not the end all be all of the tradition. Quakers have to think on their feet. We have to be responsive to what God is doing in the moment and when people are led to respond, we should use process to support faithfulness and obedience to the One who calls us, not shut them down. Process doesn’t always have to be front-loaded either. It can work behind the scenes and after a decision has been made. Placing all of the emphasis for process prior to a decision betrays our idolatry of “choice,” rather than trust, relationship, and community which tend to be where the weight of things lay after a decision is made. Be able to have a choice is itself a privileged position.
I would suggest instead that it’s like a line with two arrows one leading up to a decision and one delineating the process after a decision or choice has been made. We need as much help after we make a decision as we do before and sometimes we have to make decisions on in the moment, sometimes we have very little or no choice. Is there space for a supportive process after decisions are made? Is process and Quaker belief about blocking or is it about saying yes, building affirmation, trusting, and producing something good in the world. I have been in situations where I had to respond as faithfully as I knew how to do in the moment and relied on the discernment of a small community of elders to help us discern “what next?”
Yes, and…is the anecdote to blocking. In improv for instance, “Yes, and…” builds rather than blocks the scene and opens the story up to new possibilities, new pathways, and the entrance of new characters who will help carry the story forward. How often is a block made out of fear? Fear because saying “yes, and…” means things will go beyond what we can anticipate and control? Saying “yes, and…” requires courage, but it is also a lot of fun to see where that yes will take the story.
This second version to Quakerism is more participatory, more inclusive, and builds upon a contributions and collaborations of others who are often no the gatekeepers. A “yes, and…” Quakerism allows the tradition to remain an “open work” that is ultimately decentralized, networked and hackable.
I am attracted to El Salvadorian Priest Oscar Romero’s version of this “yes, and…” faith,
“I don’t want to be an anti, against anybody. I simply want to be the builder of a great affirmation: the affirmation of God,who loves us and who wants to save us.”
What do we need to do to move from a religion of “no” to a practice of saying “yes, and,” from a practice blocking to a practice of building up, working from a place of trust and generosity. One word I hear very little in Quaker circles is grace. Grace means gift, favor, blessing. I learned the American Sign Language sign for “grace” the other day at work and I have been practicing ever since, reminding myself of the gift of life and love and “yes, and…” that God showers upon us. What would it take for Friends to focus on grace and yes and allow process to be not a gateway, but a pathway towards building a great affirmation before and after we are faced with a challenging moment?
How does the word “no” and our practice of blocking impact our ability to reach out to others?
How does it impact our ability to hear and learn about racism and whiteness and other important critiques within our Quaker meetings and churches?
How does this perception impact what people think about our ability to be “team players?”
