Report of the ad hoc Committee on Relations with FUM
5 April 2009
The ad hoc committee has been meeting approximately every six weeks since July 2008 and gave an initial report to the November 2008 business meeting. It has seen as its charge the implementation of the minute on BYM's relationship with FUM approved at a called meeting on May 10, 2008. That minute had four main points, which are highlighted below because they provide useful context. Bethesda Friends Meeting Minute on BYM's Relationship to Friends United Meeting (FUM):After long prayerful consideration, we arrived at the following sense of the Meeting: First, since 2004 Bethesda Friends Meeting has been on record expressing its very deep concern about the discriminatory personnel policy of Friends United Meeting. We continue to oppose this policy as inconsistent with what we understand to be one of the fundamental testimonies of Friends. Because this policy is not consistent with the kind of community we aspire to be, Bethesda Friends Meeting reluctantly concludes that we (BFM) should disassociate ourselves from FUM.
Second, for these reasons, in response to the request from Baltimore Yearly Meeting, we also recommend that the Yearly Meeting terminate its membership in FUM.
Third, at the same time, we both recognize and value our shared Quaker heritage with FUM, and hope that we may continue to maintain our connections with them, even as we labor in love with them (FUM) over this issue (of the personnel policy), which we all believe goes to the core of our common identity as a Quaker community. Therefore, even as we can no longer support FUM as a member organization, we earnestly seek to sustain and broaden our own Meeting's dialogue with FUM and its constituent Meetings, Friends and attenders on this issue, and urge BYM to continue its efforts in this direction. The existing intervisitation program is one opportunity that we hope will be strengthened. We recognize we are also challenged to seek new, creative, and more fruitful ways both to sustain our historical connections with FUM as part of the wider Quaker community, and to continue our efforts to reach unity with them on this specific issue.
Fourth, we recognize that there are specific peace and social justice programs under the auspices of FUM for which we have been grateful and that we have joyfully supported over many years. We intend to continue our direct support of these projects, such as Ramallah Friends School.
As we sought to understand our Meeting's intent with its minute, we found ourselves asking more and more questions. We share those questions with the Meeting as one contribution to this report.
Our first question is to clarify BFM's intent regarding disassociation with FUM. Although the committee understands that monthly meetings were asked by BYM about their views as to association with FUM, wouldn't it be more proper to state that BFM recommends that the Yearly Meeting disassociate from FUM, since monthly meetings are only associated through their membership in BYM (which has not yet come to unity on this matter.)
The second point of the minute was implemented when BFM forwarded the minute to BYM. The Yearly Meeting asked us and its other constituent monthly meeting what it should do about its continued association with FUM, and we said that we felt it should terminate its membership in FUM. It bears noting that of the 22 responses from monthly meetings which responded (out of a total of some 40) BFM was the only one that called for termination of BYM's membership in FUM. Given this situation, does Bethesda Friends Meeting wish to take any further action to move the clearness process forward within our Yearly Meeting?
The ad hoc committee has focused most of its attention in these last months on the third point of the minute and offers a number of questions that we hope may be of value to the Meeting in carrying forward this issue.
The Minute speaks of "laboring in love" with FUM. Our Committee urges the Meeting to ask itself, as we have asked ourselves, what this means. First, we have come to understand that FUM is not a unitary body with one view. There are many people with many views within FUM, as there are in our Meeting and other Friends' organizations. Equally, or even more important, it is not at all clear that Friends in FUM wish to "labor" with us on questions sexual diversity and equality. We have asked ourselves and urge the Meeting to ask how this can be done without self righteousness.
Our committee has had limited personal communication, via email exchanges and phone conversations, with a few individuals from a few FUM monthly meetings, and one of us has worshiped with FUM Friends in Richmond, Ind. However, we must recognize that we have been mainly in touch with those who agree with us on matters of sexual orientation and equality. We have not attempted to communicate directly with the FUM General Board, the entity which approved the 1988 minute which is the basis of its discriminatory personnel policy.
The committee has felt somewhat stymied as to how we as a monthly meeting can "labor in love" with FUM. We have let distance and our modest number of contacts keep us from proceeding beyond initial inquiries not to mention the fact that we as a committee are divided as to whether we are in unity with the minute.
The following questions may be helpful to the meeting: How do we open dialogue with those with whom we disagree? Why would they want to talk to us? Would we be prepared to hear their point of view? Are we being similarly intolerant, if we won't consider that others may have a view that is different from ours? When we said in the May minute that we wanted "to continue our efforts to reach unity with them on this specific issue (of the personnel policy)," did we actually mean that we wanted to convert them to our position?
Finally, we find ourselves uncertain about the amount of energy the Meeting has for engaging on this issue, either within BYM or FUM, when so few of our members are active in either organization.
We, therefore, return the issue back to the Meeting, asking that the question of implementing the minute be reconsidered. In so doing, the meeting may also find it useful to ask:
Is BFM an open, welcoming meeting?
How do we handle those who are different or an outsider to the general culture of the meeting?
What are the limits of our tolerance?
How are differences handled in the meeting?
Are we accepting of more Christcentered or Biblicallybased messages in worship?
How and when do we discuss sexuality? In the First Day curriculum? In adult forums?
Is the FUM personnel policy the "deal breaker" for us? If so, what does this say about our meeting?
About our ability to reach out to others? About our role in BYM?
How do we keep the issues of sexual diversity and equality alive and open?
How do we remember that FUM is diverse, not monolithic?
Do we as a meeting have the energy and the interest to pursue this discussion?
We believe that at this time our ad hoc committee needs either to be laid down or reconstituted and given a new, specific charge. We also respectfully suggest that the meeting for business consider whether some of its standing committees might be the appropriate venue for addressing some of the questions we have raised here.
Submitted: Ron Akins, Ralph Bryant, Peirce Hammond, Liz Hofmeister (clerk) Susan Kaul, Gail Kohanek, and Gail Thomas. Carolyn Byerly and Eric Hensal were also named to the committee but found they could not participate.
