Notes on Vocal Ministry and Eldering

and

Eldering and Vocal Ministry: Guidelines for the Perplexed

By Anthony Manousos

During a recent trip to Philadelphia, the “Mecca of Quakerism,” I tried to find out as much as I could about eldering and vocal ministry because adult ed at my meeting in Santa Monica is doing a study of this topic and I am also in the process of writing article on the subject (a draft of which I have included at the end of these notes). But I also feel something deeper tugging at me as I look into this topic. I am not quite sure but I suspect that it has sometime to do with the fact that I have felt led at times to give vocal ministry and I want to understand a little more clearly how to give (and receive) vocal ministry as a Friend.

I searched for material on vocal ministry and eldering at Swarthmore, Pendle Hill, Haverford, and Philadelphia YM library. What follows are my notes and observations. For those who are unwilling to take the time to read these extensive notes, let me offer this summary:

1. Most Friends agree that it is very hard for individuals to discern the difference between appropriate and inappropriate ministry. Even weighty, seasoned Friends have differences of opinion on these matters. Hence the sage advice of Ruth Pitman: A speaker “is judged only after many messages over a long period of time, and then never by one person alone. [He or she] is never praised or condemned for his message, for the message was God's, not [his or hers]. A word of thanks from a person who has been helped or of gratitude for the faithfulness of the minister is the most that is in order, and this will be brief, without elaboration or discussion. To say more would be to tempt [him/her] to vanity.”

2. Eldering is primarily the responsibility of Ministry and Counsel. Their job is to discern collectively whether an individual’s vocal ministry is helpful or not to the Meeting as a whole. This process requires spiritual discernment and coming to unity. M & C as a whole decides what action should be taken either to encourage or question the vocal ministry of a Friend.

3. If an individual Friend has a strong negative reaction to a message, it is usually best for that individual to go to M & C and let them handle the situation.

4. If an individual gives a long, disruptive message, it may be appropriate for Friends to rise in response. Most Friends agree, however, that we should wait and discern if there is some grain of truth in the message of even someone who seems mentally disturbed.

5. Eldering should always be done tenderly and lovingly. “Treat others as you wish to be treated,” is how one Friend summed it up.

6. Humor can help to defuse some of the tension caused by vocal ministry that seems annoying or inappropriate. The wisest Friends often have the funniest story about inappropriate messages.

7. It is a good idea for Meetings to have general discussions, led by M & C or adult ed, to help Friends understand what is appropriate or inappropriate vocal ministry for that particular meeting. Standards and expectation can vary from Meeting to Meeting, and also from time to time within the same Meeting. Seasoned Friends as well as newcomers can benefit from such discussions.

8. Listening with an open heart, and praying for those who give vocal ministry, is recommended to all members of Meeting by our Faith and Practice and by seasoned, weighty Friends. These Friends also remind us that if we maintain a regular practice of daily devotion, we are apt to be less judgmental and to hear “that of God” even in “imperfect” messages.

*****

By far the most useful library for this research was the one at Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. The Quaker collections at Swarthmore and Haverford are superb for scholars, but the PYM library is best for those who are doing practical research about matters that are important to Quakers trying to figure out how to practice (and not simply study) Quakerism.  Rita Farley, the PYM librarian, is a treasure. She has put together lists of books on eldering, vocal ministry, etc. that I found incredibly useful. I even decided to pay $50 to become a member of the PYM lending library.

To learn more about vocal ministry eldering, I also consulted with various “weighty Friends,” including Gene Hillman, the clerk of Religious Education at Philadelphia Yearly Meeting and Shirley Dodson,  who heads the communications department at Pendle Hill and supervises the Pendle Hill pamphlet series, among other duties.

The questions that I asked were as follows:

Let me begin with how Shirley responded to these questions. A graduate of Earlham School of Religion, Shirley has worked for Friends organizations for over twenty years. She used to be peace field secretary for Chester and Western Quarterly Meeting (i.e. the Western part of greater Philadelphia area) and was also the director of PYM’s adult religious education program. She developed curriculum for Quaker studies that included a section on worship. I have also conveyed some of my reactions and responses to Shirley.

I began my conversation with Shirley by telling her what happened at our meeting when several Friends rose up in protest at the vocal ministry of a visitor. I told her that a woman from Cambridge Meeting who had been a respected Friend for over thirty years had given a message that lasted a bit long, maybe 4 or 5 minutes, and was too intellectual, in the judgment of several Friends. One of them became quite angry and rose in protest. Two others joined her. The woman who gave the message was quite hurt. This was not the way she was accustomed to being treated, especially by Friends.

 “This isn’t the way we Friends should do things,” Shirley said emphatically. 

When I asked Shirley when and how it is appropriate to stand in Meeting in response to a message, she gave me the example of a person who used to make the rounds of Meetings in PYM and give ranting messages that included references to Eisenhower (who may have been President when his mental illness began). Shirley was traveling among Meetings at that time as peace field secretary.  Many Meetings had labored long and lovingly about this disruptive person and at least one Meeting decided to pay for psychiatric treatment. When he persisted in giving inappropriate ministry, the M & C of some Meetings met and decided how best to deal with him and united on what to do and who was supposed to do it. Shirley was aware of this and when she went to Meetings that were not prepared for this difficult visitor, she was able to help by standing next to him while he gave a message. She would then sit him down and would sometimes lead him out of a Meeting.

“The bottom line message is that you have to feel led to do eldering. This was a corporate decision,” Shirley explained. “Eldering is not something that an individual ought to do without the guidance of M and O, which should come to unity to discern how to handle such a matter.”

“When a Friend gives a message,” said Shirley. “The appropriate response is simply to say, ‘Thank you, Friend, That message spoke to my condition,’ or to say nothing.”

She also mentioned that she has seen times when Friends have stood in protest when a message seemed inappropriate. Usually, it was a long, political message or a message from someone with psychological problems that was disruptive to Meeting.

When considering whether to elder someone, Shirley felt that the key question to ask is: “Is God speaking through this person?” She elaborated: “How do we know that God is speaking through another person? How do we know that God is NOT speaking through another person? On what basis are you telling that person to sit down?”

She admitted that this isn’t easy sometimes. She told of a time when she found a message so deeply affecting that she was moved to tears. Another Friend dismissed the same message as superficial. This is an experience that many Friends have had. I told her that I once gave a message that a Friend found so powerful that she wanted me to write it down. A week later another Friend “eldered” me by saying that my message didn’t speak to his condition and was too long. I later learned that both Friends were from Ministry and Council!

I told Shirley that problem I have with her criterion is epistemological and psychological. How can we presume to know how God is or isn’t working in another person?  Those who are humble are likely to give speakers the benefit of the doubt. But those who are prideful and judgmental are likely to say, “Of course, I KNOW when a person is speaking for God. That’s why I get infuriated when I hear messages that aren’t to my liking!” To encourage humility, I would add a second criterion, one that is mentioned in our Faith and Practice, “Am I listening to this message with an open mind and a loving heart?”

Shirley agreed that it is important to listen compassionately and non-judgmentally when someone gives a message.

We also discussed the need to discern the profound difference between eldering (which is a corporate decision) and “critiquing a message” (an individual decision). Shirley made it clear that Friends generally do not critique another person’s message, especially right after Meeting in a public setting. According to Shirley, eldering should be done privately, at a time and place that is comfortable for all concerned.

What Shirley said corresponds to other weighty Friends have told me about eldering. Based on these criteria, what has been happening in Santa Monica Meeting is not “eldering” but “critiquing” of messages based on personal criteria rather than corporate discernment. This kind of behavior is something that seasoned Friends generally do not do or approve.

I told Shirley about an analogy about vocal ministry that came to me recently. Since she and others have found it helpful, I am passing it on for your consideration:

When someone gives authentic vocal ministry, he or she is like a mail carrier delivering a letter. The mail carrier doesn’t take credit for the letter if the recipient appreciates its content, nor is the mail carrier bothered when recipients don’t like its content. All that mail carriers care about is being faithful in delivering what they have been given.

Mail carriers are human beings and do have feelings, however. They are happy to receive some acknowledgement for being faithful. They also feel hurt if someone slams the door or complains when they delivered a letter.

Prophets have feelings just like those of mail carriers. We read in Scripture that prophets felt hurt when they were scorned, and were frightened when threatened (e.g. Elija, who was fleeing from an angry king when he heard the “still, small voice” of God). They are very human and honest in this respect. But their personal feelings did not prevent them from doing the job that God required of them. Those of us who feel led to give messages are like the prophets: we must not be deterred from giving a message because it might offend someone, or cause us to be unpopular.

If we are led repeatedly to give messages that challenge the Meeting and stir up controversy, it is wise to seek discernment from a clearness committee, and ultimately from M & O, to be sure that our messages are truly coming from the Spirit, and not from our own ego.

A Personal Confession

It is also important to look within and to be honest with oneself, and to remember that “we all fall short of the glory of God.” As I talked with Shirley and reflected on our conversation during meeting for worship, I remembered something painfully embarrassing that I did at Pendle Hill sixteen years ago. At the time I was in my late thirties, going a turbulent transitional period in my life, and had come to Pendle Hill as a student. A Pendle Hill staff member named George (not his real name) had treated me in a way that I found disrespectful, and I was extremely angry with him. During meeting for worship, when the General Board was meeting (ironically, I now serve on that Board), George got up to give a message. As I sat listening, I felt increasingly annoyed. It was absolutely clear to me that George was speaking mainly to impress the Board. The message seemed to me flowery, contrived, and far too long.  I was utterly convinced that he was a hypocrite and had no business giving such a spiritual message. I rose up indignantly and walked out of meeting for worship. I was wearing cowboy boots and the floor of the meetinghouse is hard wood so my storming out of the meetinghouse was quite noticeable.

Afterwards, my spiritual advisor, Bill Durland, came to me and we had a heart-to-heart talk (which I see now was a form of “eldering”). We decided that a clearness committee might help to defuse some of the tension between George and myself. George agreed, and eventually we met with a clearness committee and came to an understanding. I won’t say that we became best of friends, but at least we were on polite terms when I finally left Pendle Hill.

Thirteen years later, I encountered George when he started working for Friends Committee on Legislation of California.  Because of my job as editor of Friends Bulletin, I felt that I needed to have lunch and talk business with him. I am sure that we were both a little nervous about meeting. I know I was. When we finally met for lunch, it was as if nothing unpleasant had ever occurred. We enjoyed each other’s company so much, and had so much in common, that our lunch meeting lasted a half hour later than we anticipated. From that point on, we were f/Friends.

I’m not sure why this happened, but I am sure that what really matters in life is friendship. We all make mistakes and “fall short of the glory of God.” But if we can learn to forgive, to appreciate and to love each other, in spite of quirks, mistakes, and shortcomings, then all shall be well. Of course, it isn’t easy to set aside our judgmentalism and accept others as they are. We need all the help we can get, from our Inner Guide, from our reading and study, and from f/Friends. It is important to remember that the goal of authentic eldering is not to “correct mistakes,” but to help us to become more loving and authentic Friends.

Case Study

During my stay in Philadelphia, I attending meeting for worship at Central Philadelphia MM, where I was once a member in 1986-89. About ten or fifteen minutes into our worship time, a man came into the meetinghouse somewhat agitated. He said down for a few minutes, then stood and began to speak. He began by telling us that he had just been  thrown out of Arch Street Meeting. This did not seem a promising way to begin a message.

His voice was soft, and it was hard to hear him even though I was only six feet away. I was aware, however, that this gentleman was not giving a coherent message. He sang a song, he talked about “saving the children,” he implored our help for some cause, and then he started telling us about Friends he knew in high places, including some in Cambridge Meeting.

At this point, a woman arose and said, “Friend, we are interested in what you have to say, but this is a time of prayer, and it would be better if you went outside with some of us and we could listen to your concern.”

The speaker paid no attention but went right on. The woman sat down. At this point, two other very elderly men stood up, went to the speaker and quietly urged him to leave. He continued speaking, and another elderly, and very weighty Friend named George Willoughbie walked over. He was joined by the woman. The four Friends escorted the speaker out of the meetinghouse.

I observed this carefully and paid close attention to the messages that were later given. Two of them had nothing to do with the event. Three others did. A woman in her 30s was very agitated by what happened. She rose and said that she had never given a message before and was not in touch with her Inner Guide; she felt confused by what happened and was seeking guidance.

A little while later, an elderly man arose and said the following brief sentence with great gravity: “How Friends deal with disruptive speakers is a litmus test for our Meeting’s spiritual life.”

Arthur Larrabee, the clerk of Meeting, gave a poetic message from the Sufi poet Rumi. I can’t remember the exact words, but it had something to do with being open to the stranger.

When the meeting concluded and guests were introducing themselves, I rose and said that I was doing a study of eldering and asked Friends to tell him how and why they responded to what had happened.

I talked to the clerk of Care and Counsel (the committee responsible for the quality of meeting for worship) and she told me that this kind of thing happens from time to time in large urban meetings (at least once a year) and the committee had discussed what to do and decided that the best thing was for the clerk to hold the meeting in prayer. If a member of Care and Counsel felt that the message had gone on too long, he or she was supposed to take whatever action seemed appropriate.

I spoke to the woman who first rose and spoke. It turns out that she was not a member of Central Philadelphia Meeting, but rather of Cambridge Meeting. She was an elder of that meeting and had been involved with Ministry and Counsel for at least nine years and had quite a bit of experience dealing with situations like these. She said she rose because the speaker didn’t seem to have a point to his message and because he had mentioned being involved with Cambridge Meeting, which she knew to be untrue. She felt a leading of the Spirit. I also sensed a loving spirit, which she confirmed. She said that it was important to wait and listen to speakers, even if they had mental problems, because there might be some glimmer of light in their message that we need to hear.

One of the elderly Friends who arose said that he had responded to a leading of the Spirit. He had never done anything like this before. The other elderly Friend told me that he was a member of the Care and Counsel committee. He didn’t remember any discussions about what to do in situations like this. He just did what he felt was appropriate and necessary.

I also spoke to the clerk of Meeting who told me that he felt it was his responsible to intervene in situations like this only if the Care and Counsel committee did nothing. Eldering was their responsibility.

This was confirmed by my conversation with Gene Hillman, clerk of PYM’s religious education committee. Eldering is not something that individuals should do, he said. Eldering should be done by members of Ministry and Counsel, preferably when they have met together and consider their actions prayerfully.

He also spoke of the need to be tender to those who have mental problems and to listen for the truth that they might have before eldering them. He also cited the case of a  Friend in his meeting who gave messages every week that most people found unhelpful and annoying. Ministry and Counsel met and decided to elder him by asking him to refrain from giving messages, but their words had little or no effect. The meeting finally just let him ramble on at the end of meeting.

As I talked with Gene and other Philadelphia Friends, I realized that all had stories of those who had disrupted meeting for worship. These stories often had a humorous twist. Humor seems to be one way that Friends deal with annoyances that cannot be avoided, such an inappropriate messages.

Friends also spoke of the need for tenderness in dealing with those who are disruptive.

Marjorie Larrabee has led workshops on eldering ministry and eldering but I have not had a chance to contact her yet. I also need to check out back issues of Friends Journal. According to Bob Dockhorn, senior editor, Friends Journal has published quite a lot on this topic.

I hope that you find these reflections useful. If you have thoughts or experiences that might help me to understand better understand vocal ministry and eldering, I’d be very happy to hear them.

Resources:

Tall Poppies by Marty Grundy. Pendle Hill Pamphlet. This was one of the works most commonly recommended, though it is quite controversial. Grundy comes from an unprogrammed Friends’ tradition, but doesn’t accept the widespread belief that all are equally called to give vocal ministry. She feels that the “elders” of Meeting should work with those called to frequent vocal ministry and help them to discern their spiritual calling. She believes that one of the failings of unprogrammed Quakerism is the widespread belief that since anyone can give vocal ministry, everyone is equally qualified and called to do so. She believes that certain Friends have a special gift that needs nurturing, not stifling (hence the title). She even calls for vocal ministers to be given financial support, when appropriate!

Samuel Bownas (1676-1753), A Description of the Qualifications Necessary to a Gospel Minister: Advice to Ministers and Elders Among the People Called Quakers. PH Pub and Tract Assoc of Friends. Philadelphia. Orig. published in 1750 and reprinted in 1989.

Although the language is archaic, many of Bownas’ insights are very relevant and timely and have been taken seriously by contemporary Friends who are serious about vocal ministry. Among other things, Bownas points out that often those who are convinced Friends, who are “like brands plucked from the burning,” are apt to become overzealous preachers in Meeting, not out of ego but love. They don’t need to be stifled, but “treated with great charity and meekness, and the good design in them encouraged; and the overforwardness in them rather shown to them than reproved. And when they see it, they will not need to be told of it, for shame will come fast enough upon them (if they are true ministers) and may lie heavy; which may hinder some tender spirits from improving their gifts….” (p. 13).

British Friend Richard Allen in Silence and Speech provides a good introduction to the topic of vocal ministry. He explains what it means to “speak out of the silence” and also provides some useful info about the subject matter of ministry. There is a caution about theological speculation, references to God or Jesus. “Some of those present may have had other people’s religious ideas imposed on them in the past. They now rejoice in the acceptance of diversity in Quaker meetings; but they can still be upset when something is asserted—especially if it is in a confident or dogmatic tone—from a view point which they have been led, often with distress, to abandon because they found it was not ‘right’ for them. It is well to remind ourselves now and again that however strongly we maybe convinced of the validity of what we are moved to say, the ‘crystal truth hath many aspects’, and we can never be quite sure that we have perfectly seen the aspect presented to us.’

“Political themes, too, require special care. Anyone who minds at all about other human beings is bound to feel strongly about war, hunger, homelessness, poverty, damage to the environment and many other issues with political implications. But natural emotions are not enough; a complete transformation of human nature is needed—beginning with ourselves. Ministry on overly political themes is helpful only if it brings those present to a deeper understanding of the human condition and strengthens them int playing their part in trying to better it.” (pp. 8-9)

No mention is made of eldering.

Richard Bauman, “Speaking in the Light: The Dilemma of the Quaker Minister,” March 1978, does an anthropological study of Friends in the 17^th century. He explores the ambivalence of Friends towards speaking.

Brenda Clifft Heals and Chris Cook, Images and Silence, Swarthmore Lecture 1992. “Silence carrier,” nice image for those who have entered into and “carry” Silence as a healing experience in worship and in other situations.

Jan Hoffman wrote a very interesting article in which she discusses “the Experiences of the Relationships of Ministers and Elders at New York Yearly Meeting Sessions 1991.” She writes in detail and depth about how she prepared to give her talks—how she felt led to give two messages, one of which she was comfortable with (“God loves every single one of them”) and one of which she resisted (“Tell them to repent”). She talks meeting and praying with elders, and how she gave the first message easily, but balked and burst into tears at the second, and consulted with her elders, Fred and Bill, who helped her to open up and give the message on repentance she felt led to give. She talks about her inner  voice giving her advice (“Don’t go onto the stage alone. Find people to sit up there with you to ground you and hold you in prayer.”)

Recording Gifts in Ministry. NY Yearly Meeting, 1992. NYYM records ministers and provides guidelines for helping local meetings to decide how to do this.

Check out Brinton’s Prophetic Ministry, PH Pamphlet #54 (1950).

Howard Comfort, a clerk of PYM, wrote a brief guide in 1960. Some of his caveats seem dated today and remind us how tastes change. “When a theme has been enunciated in Meeting, whether by Scriptural text or in other terms, its development should be intellectually sound. This, of course, is where the antique Friends’ ministry so often failed the text. Without presuming to the merits of a classroom lecture, one should at least no mar one’s message by false analogies from the physical universe, misstatements of common knowledge and other intellectual imperfections.”

Comfort seems to feel that a message should “go with the program” and if it isn’t related to the theme, it should be saved for another time. It doesn’t matter whether a message is long or short, but there should be ample silence between messages and  ministryshould be “well paced.”

Friends Consultation on Eldering, Quaker Hill Conference Center, Richmond, Indiana, Dec 9-12, 1982, sponsored by the Earlham School of Religion. An excellent resource, with lots of historical background as well as “role plays” to help Friends to deepen their understanding and sharpen their skills as elders.

On the Vocal Ministry

 

By Ruth M. Pitman


 

There is no Meeting so open, so tender, so free, so stable, as the Meeting that is united in faith in the prophetic ministry, in the belief that God speaks to man, calls him to action and leads him through it. While this belief is characteristic of certain "unprogrammed" portions of the Society, whose worship is rooted in it, it is known to Friends with programmed meetings as well, for the faith that God reveals Himself to man in time is a basic tenet of Friends in general, and is found throughout Christendom, though its practice differs from group to group.

It is understood in such a Meeting that any messages that are spoken strive to be God's word for these people at this time; that is, no one will speak unless he has prayerfully considered two questions: whether the message is God's or his own, and whether it should be given to these people now, or is for the individual alone.

To be sure, sometimes "the water tastes of the pipes". Our experiences, including what we have read and what we have memorized, are all a part of us; God can use what we are. On the other hand, we can be mistaken; some parts of our "pipes" dissolve all too readily into any passing fluid.

Because the Meeting knows the Source of true messages and knows that the speakers will "test themselves in the Light" before speaking, the hearers will listen with the deepest sort of sensitivity, even to a message with which they would normally disagree. No one dare think, "Oh, that's Tom riding his hobby-horse again."

Not every message is for you. Perhaps it will never be for you, but perhaps also it is something you will someday grow into. Rejoice if it rings true, but if it does not speak to your condition do not discuss it or dissect it.
The Meeting which is united upon this principle of the ministry can accept the messages of the child, the fool, the disturbed person, and the stranger worshipfully, as a natural thing, without any trace of condescension, for God can speak through these people too, even if they do not fully understand the basis of the ministry. Such a Meeting can absorb quantities of disturbance, because each worshipper lays what he hears reverently before the Lord with the unspoken prayer, "Show me how this is for me."

It is well for the speaker to stand. He should not be ashamed, and if he stands he is heard better and may be less inclined to ramble on. His identity is no secret, but at the same time it is unimportant; he will not be analyzed for what he says. The spoken message is not necessarily a key to the speaker's normal attitutde or state of being. A depressed person can suddenly be filled with praise, and a hate-filled person can be granted a vision of love. It is not to be assumed that the former lives in constant awareness of God's presence or that the latter is a hypocrite. People do not crane their necks to see the speaker or make excited inquires about who he is. He is judged only after many messages over a long period of time, and then never by one person alone. He is never praised or condemned for his message, for the message was God's, not his. A word of thanks from a person who has been helped or of gratitude for the faithfulness of the minister is the most that is in order, and this will be brief, without elaboration or discussion. To say more would be to tempt him to vanity.

Because the speaker knows he will not be questioned, or condemned, or tempted by praise to dizzy heights of self-importance, he is freed from most of his self-interest and self-concern. The testing of his message requires that he discipline himself strictly, but this should not kill the vocal ministry, for the hearers neither accept nor reject the message without weighing it very carefully in the same Light. This also gives the speaker freedom. Because of this freedom and reverence there is variety in the ministry. Two types of speaking we seldom hear assume their place beside and above the type of message we often hear. One may be called the testimonial, the "story" that praises God for His workings within the life of the individual. The other is vocal prayer, that delicate flower of worship, which is so near the limit of words that reference to it later is almost surely out of place.

Such a Meeting never turns into a debate. The word "debate" belongs to an entirely different level of life, one of reasoning and rationalizing, of self-assertiveness and self-defensiveness. Though the messages may point in the same direction, it would be as wrong to measure the Meeting by this as to judge a cake by its color or the weight of a board by its thickness. There may be wide diversity, even contradictions, in the messages, but they will be differences that enlarge our comprehension of Truth. See how the Eighth Psalm contrasts man's insignificance and his greatness within a firm framework of God's majesty and mercy: "When I look at thy heavens, the work of they fingers, ... what is man that thou art mindful of him ... ? Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.... Oh Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth!"

 

1979; reprinted 1997

The substance of this piece was originally published in The Canadian Friend.

On the Vocal Ministry - Copy number 134

Published by the

TRACT ASSOCIATION OF FRIENDS
1515 Cherry Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102

Founded 1816

www.tractassociation.org
Text only Home
Home

Eldering and Vocal Ministry:

Guidelines for the Vexed and the Perplexed

By Anthony Manousos

Nurturing the quality and depth of vocal ministry is one of the recurrent of 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 recent incident inspired 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 twenty 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:

1. 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?
2. 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?
3. 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?
4.  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

E-mail: friendsbulletin@aol.com