Bethesda Friends Meeting Considers BYM's Relationship to Friends United Meeting (FUM)

Sunday, 20 January 2008, 9:30-11am:
Forty of the BFM community explored the history and facts behind the stresses between many Quakers and FUM, which include differences over gay civil and employment rights, doctrine and FUM's management of foreign missions, including the Ramallah Friends School, which BFM supports significantly. Background readings were made available; see the list below. Please read the minutes of this session (PDF).

Sunday, 27 January 2008, 9:30-11am:
Using a worship-sharing format attended by 40 of the BFM community, attendees aired their views, without comment or debate, so that our shared knowledge included the views of others. Neither a recording nor minutes were made of this session, although it was summarized within the 3 Feb report to meeting for business (below).

Sunday, 3 February 2008:
At BFM's meeting for business, ARE reported our progress thus far. Meeting suggested an additional listening session. Read the section of the business meeting minutes concerning what was shared.

Sunday, 24 February 2008, 9:30-11am:
Forty of the BFM community met to offer suggestions for a draft letter to Baltimore Yearly Meeting. We then began to examine the extent to which BFM welcomes people seen as different, especially in sexual orientation. Read the minutes of this session.  

Sunday, 2 March 2008, 9:30-11am:
ARE presented and BFM meeting for business approved text of a letter it recommended be sent from BFM to BYM in response to their request for input from monthly meetings. See portion of business meeting minutes concerning this discussion, including recommendations for next steps.

Sunday, 17 March 2008, 9:30-11am:
ARE facilitated a discussion (attended by about 28 people) aimed to educate our meeting community FUM activities and policies concerning their work in Africa. Joining us was John Smallwood, BYM's representative to FUM; David Zarembka (BFM member) and Gladys Kamonya reside in Kenya and work with the African Great Lakes Initiative. Read the minutes from this meeting.

Sunday, 6 April 2008, 9:30-11am:
ARE delivered a report on the current status and "sense of meeting" to meeting for business and intended next (and closing) steps. Advancement & Outreach reported on their committee's recommended action. Liz Hofmeister reported on (and meeting for business approved) Peace and Social Justice committees own efforts to communicate the Meeting's support of same-sex marriage legislation. [We will add the business meeting minutes soon.]

Sunday, 13 April 2008, 9:30-11am:
This final ARE-sponsored discussion of BYM-FUM relations sought to educate the BFM community about the experience of LGBT individuals within and outside of our immediate community. Read the minutes from this meeting.

Before June, 2008, BFM co-clerks will organize a "called meeting" (a specially-scheduled meeting where ALL BFM members and attenders are encouraged to attend) to discern the current sense of meeting on the topic of BYM-FUM relations. In preparation for this, f/Friends may want to read a compilation of minutes from other BYM-related monthly meetings on this topic.

Background Reading.
The following materials provide background and context about this issue. This is followed by links to resources for additional reading. You can read these individually, or download a zipped file of all of them.

• Introduction. Why BFM is holding this set of meetings and a guide to the reading packet.
• A “Brief” Chronology of the Recent History of Baltimore Yearly Meeting and Friends United Meeting
• Friends United Meeting and Its Identity: An Interpretative History by Thomas D. Hamm, Earlham College and Indiana Yearly Meeting
• A Short History of BYM
• Report on FUM General Board Meeting 12-13 October 2007 from Rich Liversidge and John Smallwood, BYM Representatives
• Report on Friends United Meeting from the New York Yearly Meeting Representatives to FUM, April 2007
• October 20, 2007 letter from Howard Fullerton, Clerk of BYM, to Monthly Meetings requesting response by 1 April 2008. Contains additional materials (some of which are included individually here) including:
• 10/7/2007 letter from Howard Fullerton, Clerk of BYM, to Brent McKinney, Presiding Clerk, FUM
• August 2007 report to BYM from John Smallword & Rachel Stacy, BYM reprsentatives to FUM
• Annual Report of BYM from Riley RObinson
• Thomas Hamm's Interpretive History
• FUM Mission Statement
• 8/1/2007 query suggested by Riley Robinson, BYM General Secretary at the Annual Session
• Report to BYM Concerning FUM, by John Smallwood & Rachel Stacy, BYM Reps to FUM, August 2007
• BFM's FUM Policy Concern Minute of 18 July 2004
• 30 July 2004 BYM Letter to Friends Everywhere
• Quakerism and Homosexuality from Wikipedia
• Guidelines for Worship Sharing from Pat Loring
• Additional resources

Additional reading (not in ZIP file above)

• Pastoral Letter from Friends Church (Quakers), Kenya
• Letter to Barbadoes attributed to George Fox and other Quakers, 1671
• The Richmond Declaration

BYM seeks our counsel by April 1 on its future relationship with Friends United Meeting. In support of this, ARE arranged two meetings: On January 20 about 40 people explored the history and facts causing concern about the BYM-FUM relationship. On January 27 about 40 people par-ticipated in a worship sharing in which many aired their opinions and feelings, without discussion or debate. In addition, ARE compiled and distributed a collection of relevant documents. These are a-vailable in print and online at bethesdafriends.org

While the differences between BYM and FUM are many, nearly all of our Meeting’s comments related in some way to FUM policies that discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or behavior. Our meeting’s current position is stated in a July 18, 2004, minute of concern to BYM. It states:

“Bethesda Friends Meeting has learned of the FUM personnel policy which discriminates against applicants for staff and volunteer positions on the basis of sexual orientation or behavior. Our Meeting strongly disagrees with this policy be-cause it fails to recognize the varieties of respon-sible, loving, spiritually enriching relationships that exist in our meetings and communities, and is counter to our belief that there is that of God in every person. We recognize that this policy does reflect beliefs strongly held by many in FUM leadership positions. We support the initiatives being taken by BYM to open a dialogue and labor with others in FUM and on the General Board of FUM to seek together a way to transcend this conflict and to find a new way to respond to the concerns of all about this important issue.”

The meetings and materials served us well, but we are humbled by the task of summing up where we stand now and how we might go for-ward. In truth, while all labored with good heart against the pressure of time, we all labored. Some relief from time’s pressure might help us to move forward. As it is, we feel incomplete - that, as a meeting, we have had insufficient opportunity to air the issues and thereby ‘offer our best judgments” to BYM. We recommend further meet-ings to make us more discerning and unified.

As it is, the divergent views expressed in the second worship-sharing session made it clear that today we have no “collective” voice. For example, one Friend came away convinced that as a group we had alignment around BYM staying connected with FUM. Another Friend came away certain that BYM would and should sever our ties. The following recollections of the worship sharing further illustrate this divergence.

Many voices expressed concern that we not jump into a break-up with FUM. BYM had clearly made the choice to affiliate with both FGC and FUM with intention and purpose. Any decision to split deserves as much intention and purpose.

We were also reminded that conflict resolu- tion takes time, and several friends expressed a desire to find common ground for working to-gether. One Friend noted that it took Quakers more than a century to come into alignment around the issue of slavery - and even then the outcome was not a one-size-fits-all approach. Many voices called for more time and openness to what a resolution might look like.

Others said we should connect to FUM with wholer hearts, turn over to it BYM money now in escrow, and, our hand strengthened by our friendship, continue to engage - albeit more force-fully - in pressing for what is important to us. If we want to see change in FUM, we must more active-ly pursue such change with FUM, these voices said.

Others called for separating financially and administratively, but continuing to support - not through FUM but directly - those projects, such as Ramallah Friends Schools, about which BFM cares deeply. One Friend wondered, however, whether FUM’s policies affect what is taught at Ramallah, and asked whether FUM’s mission hospitals serve equally patients who are gay.

Equally passionate voices pointed out a misalignment between FUM’s values and BFM’s: There is little that we see as “Quaker” in the Richmond Declaration and in FUM’s personnel policies. Where is “that of God in everyone”? Where is recognition of Jesus’ own daily example of reaching out to and even involving those who lived beyond the traditional frame of the Jews? For these Friends, some FUM practices are anathema. When it comes to biases based on sexual orientation, these Friends consider FUM practices based on sexual orientation to be exclusionary, abusive, and, in effect, violent. These Friends favor BYM’s complete withdrawal from FUM now.

A few Friends encouraged us to focus on what the recent airing of concerns about FUM has meant for us individually and together. What type of meeting do we want to be? What kind of Qua-kers do we want to be? What kind of community do we want to be? What kind of social activists do we want to be? This conversation may say more about us, they noted, than about FUM.

We are, now, so far from unity that the choices we see for BYM lie in a spectrum. At one extreme, we would sever all ties with FUM and redirect our funds directly to projects - FUM or other - about which we care deeply. At the other extreme, we would continue our relationship FUM, pay up $35,000 now in escrow, and continue to try to influence FUM’s policies.

Whatever our choice, we are finding this experience wrenching, and we are fearful that it will wrench from us members whom we love. We pray for light and understanding.

Baltimore Yearly Meeting (BYM) Relationship with Friends United Meeting (FUM). Frank Greve presented two documents -- one a collection of excerpted recommendations from the reading packet, and one a report on where the Adult Religious Education Committee (ARE) thinks the Meeting stands currently on the issue of BYM and FUM after the two ARE sessions. 

Michael Morfitt assured the Meeting that this will not be the only time to discuss this important issue. Frank read the ARE report (please see the document above). ARE did not hear a sense of unity in the Meeting during its two sessions; in fact, the Meeting seems deeply divided about whether or not to sever ties with FUM. The committee recommends that more time is needed to reach unity. 

The Meeting raised some questions for moving forward:

1. Should we separate?
2. Can we both separate and support FUM?
3. How do we foster relationship with those who feel differently from us?
4. How do we help FUM open its heart?
5. What do we do with the money [that BYM holds] in escrow?
6. How do we care for each other in this community?
7. How do we listen and appreciate the experience of gays and lesbians in a hostile environment?
8. Do we fully recognize that we, BFM, are FUM and that we are also gay and lesbian, as are other FUM monthly meetings?
9. Will FUM change in the next 50 or 100 years over fundamental beliefs about which we feel so differently?
10. Would we hesitate in our decision if FUM were discriminating against African-Americans?
11. How would BYM provide a home for our centrist Orthodox Friends if we separated from FUM?
12. Are other FUM monthly meetings undergoing a similar process of education and change as we have done since affirming our support of same-sex unions in 1994?
13. To what degree are we concerned about the other set of FUM issues, such as financial management, the Richmond Declaration, questionable Quaker decision-making practices, and the challenges of cohesion in the international FUM community?
14. Can we act separately from BYM?