Nurturing the quality and depth of
vocal ministry is one of the recurrent challenges of unprogrammed Quakerism.
In an article entitled “The Divine Source of Vocal Ministry” (Friends
Journal, December 2004) Benjamin Lloyd describes the anguish that he and
other Friends feel when messages seem too frequent (the so-called “popcorn
meeting” effect) or too intellectual. He calls for more emotionally authentic
messages and decries the fact that Friends no longer “elder” those whose vocal
ministry seems uninspiring or inappropriate.
“Inappropriate” is of course a
subjective term. Every meeting has its own sense of what constitutes an apt
message. Individual members also have their idiosyncratic tastes and needs.
Most Friends would agree that messages should not be “too long,” “too
personal,” “too preachy,” or “too
intellectual,” etc. The question arises:
who decides when these epithets apply to someone’s vocal ministry? And how does
the Meeting communicate its concern to a person whose message did not speak to
its condition?
A few years ago an incident occurred that caused me to take these questions seriously. A newcomer to our Meeting—a
woman who moved into our area from the East Coast and has been a Friend for 30 years—gave a message that
seemed too long and too intellectual for the tastes of some Friends present.
Angered by the length of the message, a Friend stood up in protest, and so did
two other Friends.
After meeting, I
talked with the newcomer, who was quite upset. Understandably, she felt that
she had been publicly humiliated. The Friend who stood up to elder the newcomer
came to her at the rise of meeting and said that her message seemed like a mere
“performance” since it talked about Quaker history and referred to a personal
event that occurred 15 years ago rather than to an immediate felt
experience.
I then spoke to the
Friend who eldered the newcomer. She is a person whom I know, respect and love
dearly. A person of strong convictions, she told me that she felt that she had
clearly done the right thing because Friends had been complaining about
"inappropriate" and insufficiently spiritual messages during meeting
for worship for some time. Some had even left our meeting because of the
unsatisfactory quality of vocal ministry.
These concerns are quite valid. There has been
a marked increase in the quantity of spoken contributions in our Meeting, and
unsuitable things have occasionally been said (particularly relating to
political issues). I listened
sympathetically and patiently to my Friend’s concerns.
When she asked for
my thoughts, I told her that while I feel it is important to let Friends know
when their vocal ministry seems inappropriate, standing up to protest a message
has, in my experience, been an extreme measure, usually undertaken only when a
person has spoken for an inordinate length of time (say, 10 minutes or more) or
has said something totally un-Quakerly in tone or content. When a message is "slightly off,"
it is the usual practice to wait until rise of meeting, take the person aside
very tenderly, ask questions about where the message is coming from, and gently
explain that the message seemed a little too long or a little too intellectual
or whatever for the tastes or the culture of our meeting.
I explained that this in fact had happened to
me this very morning. A Friend in our meeting was not comfortable with a
message that I gave several weeks before. He called and left a message on my
answering machine, and I asked him about his call. He told me that he felt that
my telling two stories during vocal ministry was too much, and that I
went on a bit too long and it was not helpful to him spiritually. I thanked him
for being frank and genuinely appreciated his feedback. I told him that in
future I would try to be briefer.
Not
every Friend would agree with him that I went on too long, however. Several had
thanked me for my message—one even wanted me to write it up!—but clearly others
(or at least one other) felt differently and I needed to hear and respect this
concern.
If someone had stood up in meeting to protest
my message, I would have felt humiliated. I appreciated his sensitivity in
bringing up his feelings with me privately. What he did corresponded with what
I have been taught about the Quaker eldering process.
Upon hearing my response, my Friend thanked me
and even gave me a hug. She then went to speak to the newcomer and had a
heart-to-heart talk. It helped, but the newcomer will carry the pain of this
incident with her for a long time.
While such extreme “eldering” is uncommon
among liberal Friends, annoyance and
anger with inappropriate messages are not infrequent. Some Friends feel very
strongly that messages which do not arise from the depths of the Spirit
desecrate the silence and should be discouraged by whatever means necessary.
One Friend even said it was “courageous”
for these three Friends to stand up in
protest of our newcomer’s message.
The vitality of Meeting for Worship depends on
having a healthy balance between deep, silent worship and vital Spirit-led
vocal ministry. When Meetings insist too
much on enforcing silence, they may stifle authentic and needed ministry. When
messages become too frequent, too personal, or too intellectual, the depth and
quality of worship may suffer. What’s to
be done?
Judging
vocal ministry
We need to remember
that even the best of Friends may give vocal ministry that is not to everyone’s
taste. Rufus Jones, a Haverford professor and one of the spiritual giants of
twentieth century Quakerism, was sometimes chided for giving messages that
seemed too long or too high-flown. At rise of meeting, one woman is reported to
have said, “Friend Rufus, our Lord told us to feed his sheep, not his
giraffes.” In a documentary about Rufus Jones, Steve Carey said that Rufus gave
messages so frequently and predictably that young Friends would take bets on
the precise minute when he would rise and speak. When Rufus arose, these young
Friends would look at their watch to see who won the bet!
When I first became
a Friend in Princeton, NJ, I loved the deep, worshipful silence,
but was not terribly impressed with the quality of vocal ministry in our
meeting. Those who live in this highly charged academic community tend to have
high standards. Some of us who were new
to Quakerism, but felt we understood it quite well, would gather after meeting
and critique the messages, just as we would critique papers at an academic
forum.
A
wise old Friend named Rose helped us to understand the way that seasoned
Friends evaluate messages.
“Some messages may
not be meant for you,” she said. “They are for someone else in the Meeting who
really needs to hear this message. If you hear a message that doesn’t speak to
your condition, don’t worry about it. Let it go. Trust that it will reach the
person that it was intended for.”
Rose also helped us
to appreciate messages that seemed “too personal.”
“Sometimes when a
Friend is sharing something painful or personal, I hold that person in the
Light and pray for healing. At the rise of Meeting, I am sometimes led to
minister to that person, or I see someone else doing it, and I am very
grateful.”
Similar
views are expressed by George Gorman in his pamphlet The Amazing Fact of
Quaker Worship. Gorman writes with great sensitivity about vocal ministry that jars the
sensibilities of some listeners:
...A spoken contribution may disrupt the
silence and jar upon the ears of the listeners. One's immediate and natural
reaction will be a strong sense of irritation, if not outright annoyance, that
the tranquility of the stillness has been broken. This may be a quite justified
reaction, but equally it may be a misleading one. The Society of Friends has
long advised those who worship after the manner of Friends to listen sympathetically
to anything said in meeting, and to try to wrest from the words their inner
meaning and real significance.
...If you are unable to find anything of
value, and the speaker's unabated flow of words smothers the silence for you,
then you may find it helpful to ask yourself why is message is not reaching
you, or is causing such a negative reaction. Questioning yourself in this way
may well spark off something that is creative in you. In fact, you will
possibly come to see that the words you have been hearing with irritation do,
after all, have something for you. Meetings are not always tranquil through.
What is said may rightly challenge and disturb.
I
have myself had negative reactions to certain “spoken contributions.” Many
years ago, during meeting for worship in a certain Eastern city that will go
nameless, I heard a couple of messages
that seemed so rambling and incoherent that I couldn’t help feeling judgmental.
As I sat seething with annoyance, I heard a voice—I never actually saw the
speaker—who said simply and with great feeling:
“Please forgive me,
O God. I have been sitting here judging Friends and their messages.”
There was a long
silence after that message, which I have never forgotten. The words seemed to
come directly from God and seared my heart, like Jesus words, “Judge not, lest
ye be judged.”
Over the
years, I have tried to put into practice
these lessons. Whenever I find
judgmentalism rising up in me during meeting for worship, I try to remember
that not every message is intended for me. Some messages are cries for help
(sometimes carefully disguised) from God
and from Friends. Other messages are
meant to disturb and to arouse me from my complacency. During meeting for
worship, my job is not to judge, but to hold Friends and their messages in the
Light of God’s love.
How
to improve the depth and quality of vocal ministry
We cannot simply
sit passively by, however, if messages during Meeting distract us or other
Friends from the experience of the Divine Presence. In fact, we have an
obligation to do our best to nurture the vocal ministry and ensure that it is
Spirit-inspired, as our [Pacific Yearly Meeting] Faith and Practice
advises:
[Members of the Worship and Ministry
Committee] should encourage those who show promising gifts and lovingly guide
those who speak unacceptably, too often or for too long. They should endeavor
to open the way for those who are timid and inexperienced in vocal ministry and
should encourage all Friends to listen with tenderness. In trying to be
helpful, they should not assume superior wisdom, trusting instead that all are
sharing in the search for guidance.
While this advice
is useful, it does not spell out specifically what can be done to improve the
quality and depth of Meeting for Worship.
Nor does our Faith and Explain how we can “loving guide those who speak unacceptably.”
I have found that
one of the best ways to “elder” a Friend is to create a space for the Spirit to
do the eldering. Let me cite another example.
About
a week after the incident described earlier, I called one of the Friends who
stood up in protest. Before calling her, I reminded myself that this Friend is
a highly intelligent, compassionate and spiritual person. My job wasn’t to
judge, but to listen to her. After we had talked briefly of other matters, I
asked her about what happened on the previous Sunday.
“I think I
overreacted a bit,” she replied. “I was very angry at the time. We have had so
many messages that I felt I had to do something, so I stood up. Others joined
me. But I think what I did was hurtful. And it’s probably not good practice to
stand unless a message is really off base, which this one wasn’t. “
She went on in this
vein for some time as I listened sympathetically. I didn’t have to say anything
critical. Her Inner Elder had figured out what went wrong, and together we came
up with ideas about how we could deal better with such situations in the future
(this article is partly a result of our conversation). After my Friend had
“eldered herself,” she thanked me. And I thanked her. It is of course the
Spirit who deserves the thanks. When we are guided by Love which is greater
than we can imagine, we feel humble and grateful, not angry and superior.
One of the most
famous cases of “self-eldering” can be found in John Woolman’s Journal. Woolman writes of a time when his vocal
ministry went on too long:
One day being under a strong exercise
of spirit, I stood up and said some
words in a meeting; but not keeping close to the Divine opening, I said more
than was required of me. Being soon sensible of my error, I was afflicted in
mind some weeks, without any light or comfort, even to that degree that I could
not take satisfaction in anything. I remembered God, and was troubled, and in
the depth of my distress he had pity upon me, and sent the Comforter. I then
felt forgiveness for my offence; my mind because calm and quiet, and I was
truly thankful to my gracious Redeemer for his mercies.
Everyone is not as
spiritually sensitive as John Woolman, but the same Inner Guide that pricked
Woolman’s conscience resides in all of us. What most of us need from time to
time is gentle reminder to pay more attention to our Guide. Asking questions in kind, non-judgmental tone
of voice is often the best way to help us get back in touch with this Inner
Elder.
Over the past
thirty or so years that I have been a Friend, I have observed other ways that
Meetings have improved the depth and quality of vocal ministry:
1) When messages
become too frequent (the so-called “popcorn meeting”), it is helpful for
Ministry and Council to educate the Meeting about how to prepare both to give
and receive a message. Ministry and
Council can work with Adult Education to set up opportunities for discussion
and reflection about vocal ministry. The library committee can recommend books
and pamphlets. This educational process
needs to be ongoing since a healthy and vital meeting will always have
newcomers who need to be educated about the ways of Friends. Even the most
seasoned Friends need reminders and refresher courses! In the face of the great responsibility that
comes with vocal ministry, we must all be humble and “teachable.”
2) After meeting
for worship, some Meetings set aside time for reflections that “did not rise to
the level of vocal ministry.” This post-worship sharing time helps Friends to
appreciate that the silence of worship is sacred and should not be “broken”
lightly. It also allows Friends a needed opportunity to share significant
thoughts and to make prayer requests. This
time of sharing can be done with the Meeting as a whole (if time permits) or in
small groups.
3) If too many
messages have been given, or if the messages seem too long, a Friend may feel
led to rise and remind the group that we need more silence in which to reflect
upon and appreciate what has been shared.
Such reminders, if given lovingly, can help to center the Meeting.
4) If a Friend
gives a message that another Friend feels is inappropriate, it is usually best
to bring the matter up with a member of the worship and ministry committee
rather than confront directly the person who gave the message. The more strongly we feel about the
inappropriateness of the message, the more important it is to seek the guidance
and wisdom of others rather than to rely on one’s own feelings. When we are caught up in the grip of our
emotions, it is easy for the ego to ride roughshod over the Spirit and to hurt
others who, like us, are seeking the Light.
5) It can be helpful for Ministry and Council to
hold special meetings for those who give vocal ministry more than once or twice
a year, as well as for those who have concerns about the quality of vocal
ministry. In the early days, elders and those called to be “recorded ministers”
held regular meetings in which to foster more effective vocal ministry. Marty
Grundy has called for a revival of that old Quaker tradition. Although I am not
aware of any Meetings that are doing so, the concept seems sound and worth
experimenting with.
6) Workshop and
training sessions for those called to give vocal ministry are also highly
desirable. I was happy to read that Benjamin Lloyd feels called to lead such
workshops. I hope that others follow this example!
A final word needs
to be said about extreme cases. I have been present at Meetings in which a
person who has psychological problems, or who doesn’t understand what silent
worship is all about, has done serious damage with inappropriate messages and
behavior. Dealing with such a disturbed and disturbing individual can become a long
term spiritual “project” that challenges the spiritual and emotional resources
of Meeting. For those having such a problem, I recommend “The Wounded Meeting:
Dealing with Difficult Behavior in Meeting for Worship” (Friends General
Conference, 1993).
Unprogrammed
meeting for worship has been aptly been described as “open worship.” When we leave ourselves and our meeting open
to the Spirit, we are taking a risk. Being open means that dead leaves, old
newspapers, and strange critters will occasionally find their way into the
Meetinghouse along with the healing winds of the Spirit. Such is the nature of
our Quaker worship. Friends feel it is a small price to pay for experiencing
the miraculous and unpredictable Spirit of the Living God in our midst.
Thoughts
and Reflections on Vocal Ministry and Silent Worship
“A Friends’ meeting for worship finds no room for debate
or for answering (still less for contradicting) one another; if this is
desirable, it will be left for another occasion. And if anything should seem to
be spoken amiss, the spiritually minded worshipper will have the wit to get at
the heart of the message, overlooking crudity and lack of skill in
presentation, and so far from giving way to irritation at what seems
unprofitable, he will be deeply concerned for his own share in creating the
right atmosphere in which the harm fades out and the good grows. Many a meeting
has known this power, transforming what might have been hurtful into a means of
grace….”—A. Neave Brayshaws, 1921
(quoted in Renfer’s Daily Readings, p. 105).
“There are some
persons who attend a Friends’ meeting for worship with the hope that there will
be no vocal ministry at all. They prefer the silence, and resent messages of
vocal ministry as intrusions. I suppose that in a certain sense all of have
these moments when we would rather not be disturbed. But the actual truth of
the matter is that meetings that have turned completely silent almost
invariably wither away. Something is missing in the corporate
relationship.”—Douglas Steere, On Speaking Out of the Silence, Pendle
Hill Pamphlet 182
In writing about
using silence as a “medium through which we become aware of the divine
presence,” Christopher Holdsworth notes that such silence must be inward
and quotes this passage from the Desert Fathers: “Aba Poemen, for example, once
said,
‘There is one sort
of person who seems to be silent, but inwardly criticizes other people. Such a
person is really talking all the time. Another may talk from morning to night,
but says only what is meaningful, and so keeps silence.’
“What is their aim
in seeking silence? They wanted to find it so that they could hear, to attend
to the voice of God which normally they were too busy, too disturbed, too
bathed in noise to hear. In this sense becoming quiet was a crucial part of
that form of exploration of inner space which is called prayer.”—from Renfer,
p. 258.
“I know that, in
Friends’ meetings as elsewhere, one must be prepared to meet with much human
weakness and imperfection; many things may be heard in them which are trying to
the flesh—yes, and perhaps to the spirit also. Certainly many things may be
heard which are open to criticism from an intellectual and literary point of
view. Let no one go to Friends’ meetings with the expectation of finding
everything to his taste. But criticism fades away abashed in the presence of
what is felt to be a real, however faltering, endeavour to open actual
communication with the Father of spirits, and with each other as in His
presence and His name.”—Caroline Stephen, 1890, quoted in Refer, p. 217.
Postscript
thoughts
The question
arises: are there messages that are “wrong” or should never be given? I am
reminded of a cartoon in which a teacher tells a high school student:
“I told you that
this is an essay exam and there are no ‘wrong’ answers, but if there were a
wrong answer, yours would be it.”
Some messages clearly fall into that category.
Messages are un-Quakerly if they take a stand on partisan politics or
criticizes others either by name or by implication. Caustic wit and sarcasm are
also inappropriate.
Authentic vocal
ministry may address the deep, burning political questions of the day, as long
as the message is grounded in the Eternal Spirit, not in the daily
editorial. “Weighty” Friends have been
known to use gentle humor during their vocal ministry. Simplicity, brevity and
sincerity are what characterize the most useful, meaningful, and moving
messages.
Some questions
Eldering, in the
sense of questioning a person’s vocal ministry, has fallen out of fashion among
liberal Friends. Some bemoan the “anything goes” quality of vocal ministry that
has arisen as a result. I quote one weighty Friend whom I contacted:
Contemporary
liberal Quakerism is, as you know, quite vulnerable to misunderstanding and
abuse, because we have relatively little hierarchy and few recognized authority
figures. There is often a strong presumption in favor of a simplistic
egalitarianism, which I like to see as a throw-back to 17th-century Ranters:
"If I decide that I'm moved to speak, no one has the right to tell me I'm
out of line." When this presumption gains currency in a Meeting, an
extra burden rests upon M&C/O to correct it. Without
formally-recognized elders and ministers to communicate and maintain good
order, the spiritual liberty of Friends' worship can easily degenerate into a
"lowest common denominator" of impulsive speech, masquerading as
ministry. The "Ranter" interpretation can be partially corrected by
reminding ourselves that Friends place spiritual authority not in individuals,
but in the Meeting as a whole, and in the larger body of the Religious Society
of Friends itself.
These points are
well taken, but what exactly should members of M & O do to “correct” this
situation? What concrete steps should be
taken to “remind” Friends where the spiritual authority lies? The devil, as
they say, lies in the specifics. Eldering, if done insensitively, can be as
harmful to the life of the Meeting as inept vocal ministry.
At our upcoming adult
ed session on “Eldering,” I would appreciate it if someone from M & O would
give specific answers to the following questions:
- How does
one determine what is an inappropriate topic, style, or length for a
message at Santa Monica Meeting? If Friends need to be eldered because of
the content, style, or length of their messages, will M & O develop
some clear, specific guidelines so Friends will know what is okay and what
may require eldering at our Meeting?
- Who is
authorized to elder a Friend who has given vocal ministry? Should any
Friend feel it is okay to go to someone who has given a message and tell
them that his or her message is inappropriate, or should eldering be done
only by members of M & O? How does M & O decide how and when to
elder someone?
- When is
it appropriate to stand in protest of a message? How does one determine
that a message is so inappropriate that it is okay to stand in protest and
perhaps cause someone to feel hurt and humiliated?
- Does M and O feel it is important to
encourage open-hearted, compassionate listening, as recommended in our Faith
and Practice (see below)? If so, how will this be done?
“Those who are led to speak have
different backgrounds, verbal skills and interpretive power. Friends try to
listen more than they speak, keep an open heart, seek the Spirit behind the
words and hold the speaker in love. Listeners may find it helpful to pray that
the messenger is faithful to the call, and that God’s word will emerge through
the medium of human speech. A message that does not speak to one person’s needs
may be helpful to another. After a message has been given, it is important to
allow time to ponder its meaning, letting the Spirit move through the assembly
of Friends before another ministers.” –Pacific Yearly Meeting Faith and
Practice
