Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Progressive Christian
Society of Friends Mystery Worship: The Holy Conference Experienced

Society of Friends Mystery Worship: The Holy Conference Experienced

Last updated on: May 24, 2017 at 3:52 pm by Christy Thomas

Society of Friends Mystery Worship: The Holy Conference Experienced 2017-05-24T15:52:33-05:00 Christy Thomas

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

As we learned more about the Society of Friends, I began to see why it had been so influential in the formation of the culture of the United States.

A bench by a window in the worship space in the Philadelphia Quaker Church, Photo by Christy Thomas

In 1693 William Penn gave the property, now in the prime section of downtown Philadelphia, to the Society of Friends, known as Quakers. The meeting house was built later. Betsy Ross, that intrepid upholsterer who performed the renegade act of creating the first American flag, worshiped here. And I worshiped in that same meeting house Sunday, Nov. 9, 2014.

We crossed the flag-stoned, high-walled courtyard and burial ground to reach the simple red brick building, its worn white door opening by an old-fashioned hinge lock. The greeter explained where the worship would take place and welcomed us into a large parlor where coffee, tea and other refreshments sat freely available. About 15 people stood or sat in quiet conversation.

We wandered around, looking at artifacts and literature. A gentleman approached us saying, “I know you are visiting today. May I show you an historical part of the building before worship begins?”

Readily agreeing, we followed him to a large, wooden double door. We walked down a few stairs, and entered the original 1804 worship space. The large rectangular room could hold over 1000 if packed in tightly.

A balcony surrounded three sides. Our guide explained that the youth sat there, chaperoned by adults holding long poles which would be used to tap inattentive or talkative youth on the heads.

At the front of the room were a set of “facing benches,” i.e., benches slightly elevated from the rest of the room. Generally, those designated as elders and ministers sat there although there are no formal set-apart clergy among the Quakers. In this particular room, a curved panel extended over the facing bench–an early sound board that permitted those speaking to be better heard.

It was at the facing bench where young people who were choosing to commit themselves to each other in marriage would go to exchange their vows. Although this would be done without the help of any ordained clergy, it was a time happily celebrated by the Society of Friends.

We also learned that a Quaker worship house is not built to last forever. It and the furniture are built to be used, and then to be reused or destroyed.

At 10:30, we walked into the room that serves now as their worship center, for the congregation can no longer fill that large room. Aged wooden and cushioned benches lined all four sides of the unadorned room. Nothing on the walls, windows uncurtained. Worn industrial carpeting covered the floors.

No elevated benches here; people sat where they wished. Quaker worship begins when the first person enters that room. All others then enter in silence and take their seats.

About 60 people joined us in time. For 25 minutes, we sat in silence with one another. Most people had their eyes closed, focusing on centering themselves on the inner light. A few slept lightly. Peacefulness permeated.

Anyone may speak at any time. However, they are to ask themselves if the message that they are receiving is for the public or just for themselves. When someone does speak, it is expected that there will be silence in the room afterwards. The message is never answered by someone else. There is no argument, no discussion. It simply stands as it is.

Periodically, the entire time of worship will be spent in silence. On this particular day, four people had a message, each one speaking five minutes or less. It was explained to us before we went in that we would know when worship was over when two people stood up and shook hands. After approximately an hour, exactly that happened. Just before that moment, I was aware that something had changed in the room. The deep and quiet peace that permeated the space had changed to something that was now open to conversation.

Several announcements followed and then those who were visiting or anyone else who wished to were invited to introduce themselves. We did so, and then the meeting was dismissed. Several people came up to talk to us and we had opportunity to learn more about the history of Quakerism.

As we learned more about the Society of Friends, I began to see why it had been so influential in the formation of the culture of the United States.

Some of the main principles they stand for:

What is right; not what is expedient.
Courage and conviction not to seek submission to incipient evil.
Peace and brotherhood among nations; not war and preparations for war.
Good taste and simplicity; not dead conformity and display.
Fair and honest dealings; not injustice and avarice.
Broad cultured minds; not selfish intellectualism and coldness.
Wise aid to those in need; not demoralizing charity.
Inward revelation of truth; not dogmatic theology.

Our summary comment, “I felt as though I had just taken a refreshing dip in a cool spring on a warm day.”

Additional Thoughts: An Issue of Trust

A primary principle of worship in the Society of Friends: when someone has a message, the rest of the community receives that message as true to that person. It is just to be heard, not argued with or even answered. It may not be true for anyone else in the worship service, but it is to be trusted as a revelation given by God to a person formed by the spiritual disciplines integrated into the lives of those who have committed themselves to the Society of Friends.

Because they are not doctrinal in orientation (i.e.,one can be Buddhist or Jewish or Christian AND be a member of the Society of Friends), those kinds of boundaries don’t define what is true or not. But other boundaries do, and I’ve listed some of them above. They are a deeply ethical people and their guidelines insist on much personal maturity and self-responsibility for thoughts and actions.

Essentially, they trust one another to hear the voice of God, EVEN if the revelations of others are different from one’s own personal beliefs and revelations. That is why the speakers are just received, not greeted with a list of those who would speak for or against what was just said. Again, it is trust, deep, profound trust.

Now, to those who are United Methodists who read this blog: consider with me the difference between this and what we have seen in recent years that passes for “holy conferencing.”

In the UMC, those who are like-minded in various disputed issues meet behind closed doors, create statements that are often anonymous in authorship, float them through various media outlets, wait for the inevitable backlash and then seek to discredit or expel their opponents.

Proposals are carefully crafted to come before the various committees at General Conference, fought over, and narrowed and honed in those committees. Some actually reach the floor of the General Conference. Opponents to the various proposals have their arguments prepared, and hope, with those logical arguments, to destroy the basis for their opponents’ proposals.

Our “holy conferencing” is almost totally adversarial in nature, unless one is with those who only agree with the issue on the table.

Listening, trusting, and believing that God is speaking to all of us are not components of our conferencing. We are out to win–and when one side wins, they seek to defeat thoroughly, even to the point of expelling from our covenant connection, those with whom we are in opposition.

And we have the temerity to call this ultimately destructive process “holy.”

What if we actually trusted one another WHEN, not if, we differ?

What if we could trust that God is working in and among us, we who have worked hard to bring our minds, souls, bodies and spirits into the mold of Christ-likeness, DESPITE our differences?

What if we could trust one another in our differences as we work to define the nature and grace of God, salvation, sanctification and social principles within our distinctively United Methodist ways that are as consistent as possible with our Articles of Religion and Wesley’s Sermon’s and Explanatory Notes? I write “as consistent as possible” because, again, each of us will define “consistency” different. That is the glory of our humanness–we have individual minds, creative processes, experiences and educations, making doctrinal differences not just possible but inevitable.

What if we could see the power in those differences, so that they enrich us, rather than impoverish us?

What if we could just trust?

What if we did not feel the need to immediately form a counter-argument to each proposition with which we differ, but could trust that is it right for that one, again under the general umbrella of the UM world?

What if we could simply let statements stand, and be held together because we do believe that God is indeed working in us, rather than condemning to eternal separation those with whom we differ?

Yes, This Is Complicated

I know this is a complicated thing to do. Distrust comes much easier than trust. Our litigious nation, built on taking apart the jot and tittle of every law, every proposition, every ordinance, has produced the opposite of a culture of trust.

But we are the church–we are supposed to be operating on a different level.

We, as United Methodists, are formed by the means of grace, which includes the holy conference. Such conferencing is NOT debate, it is not “Three arguments for and three arguments against” followed by a vote with its inevitable winners and losers.

We are called to be one people, held together as we become the mind of Christ for the people of our worlds.

This has never been an easy process. It never will be. I’ve been doing a great deal of reading recently about the formation of the Nicene Creed and the challenges of agreement facing the Church Fathers–who made sure that the Church Mothers were unheard in that discussion. Things have not changed in that regard. But we can and should be doing it better than we are right now.

Here is a reasonably complete list of the various proposals to reform/split the UMC and their possibilities of actually passing. I appreciate all the work that has gone into trying to re-thinks and re-create the structure of the UMC. None will actually work, however, until we learn to honor and trust one another on a far deeper level we do now. Only then can we find unity that does not demand unanimity–and which opens the doors to real grace.

Previous Post

November 11, 2014

The Separation of Sex and Procreation: What Can Separate Us from the Love of God?

Next Post

November 19, 2014 Sick Day Mystery Worship: Sunday Morning Religious Programs

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category " obedience abortion accommodation accountability administration adolescence Advent advice an ordinary death anxiety apology apportionments Ash Wednesday ask thoughtfulpastor baptism betrayal Bible bondage calling certainty change character charity children Christianity Christmas church church as garden clergy clergy credentials closure comfort compassion competition compromise Confirmation conservation conservative conspiracy theories consumer conversion coronavirua corruption courage covenant cultural context death Deconstruction discipleship discord divorce doctrine doing good drugs dysfunctional Easter Easter; Resurrection education election entertainment envy escape evaluation evil exclusive church exercise faith faithfulness family fasting fear feast featured film review finances first world problem food forgiveness fundamentalist garden gay marriage General Conference generosity giving thanks GLBT glory good government grace guilt habit happy harmony hateful acts healing health health care heaven hell hello/goodbye heresy hidden agenda holiness homelessness homosexuality humility hymn hypocrisy Imago Dei In training inclusive church indulgence injustice innocents insurance intolerance itinerancy joy Justice kindness Kingdom of Heave kingdom of heaven language laughter laundry lawsuit leadership Lent LGBTQ liberal life Little Things Matter longform meandering thoughts memories mercy metaphor metrics miracle misfortunes morality Mormon Muslim mystery worship natural disasters New Category Name nutrients older adults oppression pain Paleo paperwork partnered pastor peace pension pharmaceutical placebo politics poverty prayer privilege public schools questions quiet racism rain reason reconciliation religion repentance requirements rescue respect rest resurrection retirement Sabbath sacrament sacred salvation same-sex marriage sanctuary schism schooling science SCOTUS secrecy separation of church and state sexism sexuality short cuts silence sin sleep soil spiritual journey stillness suffering surgery sustainable church teacher technology thank you theology therapy thinking tolerance TOS trust truth Uncategorized welcome Why Easter? wisdom women worship

Select a Month October 2026 September 2026 August 2026 July 2026 June 2026 May 2026 April 2026 March 2026 February 2026 December 2025 October 2025 September 2025 July 2025 June 2025 March 2025 February 2025 December 2024 November 2024 August 2024 July 2024 June 2024 April 2024 March 2024 January 2024 December 2023 August 2023 July 2023 June 2023 May 2023 March 2023 February 2023 January 2023 December 2022 October 2022 September 2022 July 2022 March 2022 February 2022 January 2022 October 2021 July 2021 June 2021 April 2021 March 2021 February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 January 2020 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 July 2007 March 2007

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz