The Trouble With "Ministers" --continued -- 3
With a better understanding of the actual history of the recorded ministry, and the reasons for its abolition, we would be better able to make sound judgments about how we want to relate to the ideas for its revival. Thus far I have heard little mention of this broader history, or the reasons for the elimination of these offices, in the discussion of the program. In the New England Friend, Brian Drayton, one of the most vocal advocates of its return, entirely neglects the aspects of its history elucidate here. For me such elisions set off loud danger signals.
Once examined, I believe most liberal Quaker groups would have little difficulty deciding they want no part of efforts to revive a two-tier Society of Friends. In that case, we could become more intentional and articulate about discussing ways to develop and recognize gifts among members in ways which will keep them from being used, intentionally or not, to that end. Such more informed discussion work would, I believe, be very reassuring to the many who have lingering doubts.
A Better Way
After all, there has long been a program alternative to two-tier revival efforts. It was formulated by a group of leading Friends in England and the U.S. at the turn of the twentieth century, and led to the foundation of Woodbrooke and Pendle Hill, among other projects.
This program emerged from a struggle against an entrenched and deadening ministerial establishment, and its goal was the exact opposite of such elitism: to develop a wide range of varied "ministries," built on a broad base of knowledge, spiritual deepening, and Spirit-led activity among Friends of all walks of life. It focused on identifying and developing their diverse gifts and callings, and aimed to reach as many Friends as possible.
My sense is that at its best, some of the thinking behind the calls for revival of recording partakes of this tradition. And to the extent that the recognition of gifts among us could articulate and maintain such an equalitarian and universalist focus, I could support it.
But that is not all I have heard in behalf of the revival of recording. Between the lines, behind the scenes, in other forums, I hear echoes of the Second Day Meeting in 1722. For instance, the equalitarian impulse in FGC Quakerism has been recently ridiculed as the fuzzy-minded notion that, "If someone is sincere, we should accept whatever they happen to think, say, or do as equally valid and acceptable with everyone else’s thoughts, words, and actions." I believe the advocates of recording could ease some concerns by clarifying its focus and rationale, to put a definite, visible distance between it and such talk.
One step toward this clarity would be to make some specific qualifications to its operations, perhaps as follows:
1. The advocates could make explicit an udnerstanding of how a nbew version of recording would be reconciled with, and indeed reinforce, a commitment to an equalitarian, inclusive basis for Quakerism and ministry.
2. They could make clear that their version of "recording" will not confer or "recognize" any special status for those receiving it.
3. Similarly, they could make absolutely clear that there would be no return to the system of "select meetings" which ruled the Society from above for so long. No mere verbal commitment would suffice for me; I want to see structural safeguards.
4. One step in this direction would be to have definite time limits on such recording. Such "term limits," were in fact the first limitation placed on ministers in the process that led to abolition, as part of the work of dismantling the two-tier Society.
5. The advocates could be vocal and intentional about looking beyond the traditional forms of "ministry" (preaching, disciplinary oversight), to cultivate the widest possible range of Spirit-led callings.
A Concluding Query
Can a revival of recording be made a step in the direction of further developing the inclusive alternative to ministerial establishmentarianism?
I hope so, though quite frankly I still have deep doubts. But if it is to be so, I believe this direction could be made more explicit. The character of the discussion thus far shows an inadequate level of historical and theological awareness, and the drawbacks of this ignorance could be grave. If the advocates do not lift up and develop a focus on how it will support this unprogrammed, equalitarian tradition of the ministry of all, the idea has little future. I am also convinced that if it drifts into becoming a stalking horse for a project of reviving the two-tier Society, both it and the groups dabbling in it are headed for serious trouble.
This is a road we have traveled before, Friends, and it leads not to a dead end, but worse: to quicksand and crackup.
<<< Back to Theological Resources Page
QUEST, P.O. Box 82, Bellefonte PA 16823
E-mail: quest@quaker.org