text:
Can you believe?
Fifth-day commentaries,
published every Thursday (mostly)
Archive Contact Links Books Tags Profile
What is really wrong with Friends United Meeting
. . . but first, what is NOT wrong!
What is not wrong with FUM as FUM is the controversial policy on hiring and personal ethics (which says that FUM personnel and volunteers should reserve sexual intimacy for heterosexual marriage). This is why: that policy is an accurate reflection of God's will as understood by the FUM board at the time the policy was adopted. Any other more "liberal" policy would have marginalized (and would still marginalize) the majority of the constituency, in favor of the preferences of Friends with arguably the least amount of love and care for FUM.
And the way some of FUM's recent critics have demonstrated casual attitudes toward history, their negative assumptions about FUM's narrowness, and the meanness of the way they have treated even FUM staff members (including non-Friends on the staff)--all that does not give the volunteer leadership of FUM much of an incentive to go back into the process of discussing those policies once again. When someone demonstrates little or no affection for an organization and its central purposes, why should that organization grant them power over its life and death?
The blunt reality: only by changing that majority will Friends succeed in changing FUM policies, and I see little likelihood that FUM's critics will invite African and Caribbean Quakers, not to mention Iowa Yearly Meeting, into a serious and costly and trustfully-conducted dialogue on sexuality and biblical ethics, with equal attention to the themes that their conversation partners also consider vitally important.
Here's the post on Quaker Pagan Reflections that set off these thoughts. I was so distracted by Peter's characterization of some attitudes toward FUM that my comments there, presented again here, did not include a proper thank-you for his gracious description of Eden Grace's presentation. Here's what I said:
I had a very hard time wrestling with these words: "We are outraged by what we feel is a narrow minded and hateful stance FUM has taken on sexual ethics, but we have never come to any unity ourselves—have never even considered—making a statement of our own about sexual ethics."
I appreciate the candor of the statement, and realize that it is a general description, not a manifesto. But I was there when the FUM personnel policy was adopted, and there was nothing at all going on remotely similar to "taking a stance," nor was the context narrow-minded or hateful.
In fact, I keep wanting to challenge the apparent idea that "FUM" as an organization is somehow a black box in which narrow-minded, hateful things go on and "stances" are taken. What actually happened was that months of consultations and study led to a General Board meeting, clerked humbly and carefully by Paul Enyart, in which a decision was made almost regretfully by a roomful of people practicing mutual submission. Many people had to give up something desired by their home constituencies, including those Friends who still felt that homosexuality was criminal or should at least be socially disadvantaged. The actual policy goes directly against those points of view, and upholds the civil rights of all people regardless of sexual orientation. I don't remember how many New England YM Friends were at that meeting, but I do remember the one who said "This is as far as God has taken us at this time." (Not an exact quotation.)
My main point is that Friends United Meeting isn't an organization that takes actions by running roughshod over its members. It IS its members. You may know that in your head, but if people keep objectifying the connection point, pretty soon newcomers and outside observers can be excused for believing that the problem lies solely in that narrow-minded, hateful connection point.
If a YM breaks the tie with FUM, it's not the relationship with an organization that they're severing (formally), it's with the other Friends in other parts of the world for whom FUM was that connection point. We can certainly have ties only with Friends who never differ with us on anything that is important to us (and perhaps it is sufficient only to have bilateral connections with just one other yearly meeting at a time) but let's admit that that's what we're doing, not breaking ties with some mean-spirited group that doesn't, in any compact sense, actually exist.
I am not at all sure that biblical faithfulness requires the policy that FUM adopted, but I can verify that FUM did the process right. Just a few years earlier, I'd seen an anti-homosexual policy pushed through Indiana Yearly Meeting in the face of substantial and visible opposition, so I knew what bad process could look like. FUM's process was nothing like that.
Most of my adult life, I believed that Friends who were radically different in theology and culture could have fruitful dialogues, and could thereby create and model effective evangelism and peacemaking for the larger world. Not that every Friend would have such dialogues as their primary mission--evangelical Friends are right to say that the world's need for the Gospel should outweigh our internal fascinations. But it would always be useful for us to challenge each other to a more complete and faithful harvesting of our own three and a half centuries of discipleship.
But now the walls of suspicion may simply be too high for such dialogues to be institutionalized in organizations such as FUM. When significant groups of Friends in the more liberal yearly meetings use the language of money (as in threatening to cut off funding) to communicate with FUM, and when individual meetings in the more evangelical yearly meetings threaten to leave their yearly meeting if it doesn't cut ties with FUM, then it's time to be honest about the alienation we're witnessing. There were once substantial centrist groups that held FUM together, groups who believed that love is a bridge that doesn't require the opposite shore to be symmetrical to theirs. I don't know how much of that constituency still exists. From the liberal side, the most pro-FUM message that I hear seems to be that by staying engaged, "we" can change FUM. What qualifies them to change FUM is not specified--by all indications it's not passionate support for FUM's central goal, which is to energize and equip Friends for evangelism.
Here are some queries for Friends:
When did our discussions of ethical ideals become subject to the veto of the most brittle or wounded or angry among us? Liberal communities sometimes don't want to discuss limitations on behavior that might affect someone in the room, or even affiliations that include the idea of limitations, because those people will object to being made invisible or disadvantaged. In some evangelical circles, there's often an almost irresistible compulsion not to say anything that might be mistaken for "liberal." In both cases, the truncated range of permissibility kills genuine dialogue, especially when people start trumping each other by comparing the pain they feel when their theology or their sexuality, or other aspects of their identity, are supposedly attacked. You mustn't compare pain, neither for therapeutic benefit nor for rhetorical advantage!
Do you believe that Christians should have boundaries on behavior, and that those boundaries should be derived from, or at least not be in conflict with, the Bible? Do you believe that those boundaries should ever actually involve the behavior of people present at your yearly meeting sessions, or should those boundaries only involve people who are at a safe distance from your deliberations? Do you believe that you should or should not have meaningful organizational connections with Friends who disagree with you on issues of behavioral boundaries?
Should FUM give up its ancient conceit of being a denomination (complete with responsibility for maintaining a denominational identity), and simply stick to being a program and resource network for evangelism? Those yearly meetings who need a wider association for identity purposes would still have Evangelical Friends International to affiliate with, and (in North America at least) Friends General Conference. And the great Quaker post office, Friends World Committee for Consultation, would remain available for worldwide communication and ... well ... consultation. Those yearly meetings whose members are simply too prickly to behave themselves in a larger context of mutual accountability would have to get used to life without the FUM scapegoat.
This proposal is different from the old realignment controversy in that FUM would not be broken apart in favor of the other associations; it would remain active, and maybe even grow stronger, but with only the participation of those who actually care about its core mission. There would still be controversies--perhaps even some of the same ones--but they would be controversies among people voluntarily connected by an overarching priority.
Do you personally believe that FUM's purpose is valid? How has your agreement or lack of agreement with FUM's purpose played a role in how you've supported, criticized, or ignored FUM? If you agree with the importance of FUM's purpose, but don't agree with the policy on hiring and personal ethics, is there another wider affiliation for your yearly meeting that would better serve this purpose of energizing and equipping Friends for evangelism?
Regardless of your beliefs about sexuality, if your yearly meeting is in FUM but does not share FUM's purpose, then why is it in FUM? Would your yearly meeting allow FUM (that is, those members of FUM who do support its purpose) to challenge your yearly meeting's understanding of Quaker priorities as strongly as your yearly meeting would like to challenge those pro-FUM Friends on FUM's policies?
Do social, cultural, or political prejudices cause some in your yearly meeting to hold FUM to higher standards than they hold their own yearly meeting or their local meeting or church?
One more list--here are some aspects of what I think is really wrong with FUM--its frustrating passivity and maintenance mentality:
Most of Friends United Meeting's long-time supporters have overvalued old-fashioned denominational loyalty, and underestimated FUM's need to earn its right to exist by virtue of creatively designed and ardently advocated programming. There's been a huge shift in the larger culture, especially in North America, away from uncritical denominational loyalty--and one evidence of this is the rapid decline in the numbers of Friends in the FUM-only yearly meetings.
In 1993, FUM adopted the present excellent purpose statement. That purpose statement should be not only the core of FUM's programming, but FUM's public voice should be consistently implementing, defending and promoting this purpose in season and out of season. As it is now, much of the North American constituency of FUM isn't even on board with the purpose statement. As for FUM's vital international work, much of it probably relates to the purpose statement but it is almost exclusively described in terms of maintenance. For example, Kenya absorbs a huge amount of FUM's attention, but Kenya is a highly evangelized country. How does FUM's work there reflect FUM's purpose? I think it does in many ways, but I can't point to evidence of this in Quaker Life or on the FUM Web site.
A related point: FUM's traditional loyalists have feared controversy. When the realignment controversy first erupted around 1990, many of them did their best to smother it, right before my very eyes. (In those years I was Midwest field staff for Friends World Committee for Consultation and attended many FUM Board meetings.) Quaker Life acted as if this life-and-death issue didn't exist. Pro-realignment dissidents operated mostly in secrecy. When they conducted a conference on realignment, FUM's entire leadership caste should have embraced the event as a vital conversation on the future of "Orthodox" Quakerism. Rather than being cynical about the motives of the conference organizers (and a certain amount of cynicism might have been justified), they should have rejoiced that long-suppressed tensions and resentments were finally being vented and could at last be addressed.
Even earlier, when Kara Newell ended her service at FUM in the mid-1980's, she challenged the board with the "lie" of the word "United" in the name "Friends United Meeting." The untruthfulness of that word has been a huge flaw in the organization--an irritant to those who believed that they were "unequally yoked" with unbelievers through the affiliation of overlap yearly meetings, and a constant incentive to smooth over the awkward truth through bland happy-talk at the leadership level. Bland happy-talk is still in fashion: earlier this year I received fundraising materials in the mail that used the tagline, "United? Yes! To Learn. To Care. To Love. To Serve." It came into my mailbox around the time of the divisive Board meeting in Kenya and the subsequent withdrawal of Southeastern Yearly Meeting. You can't just assert a claim, you have to demonstrate that the claim is (a) worth making, and (b) true. The claim of unity is simply not true.
The dead hand of fearful loyalty continues to suppress open conversations about FUM's errors and encounters with corruption. We tried to break through some of those inhibitions when (during Ben Richmond's and my stewardship of Quaker Life) we reported on (for example) the collapse of the National Friends Insurance Trust and the Productions Plus scheme, and the visa sales scam operated by some Nairobi Yearly Meeting leaders back in 1999, but by and large FUM has not operated with the kind of transparency that befits the "Children of the Light." In some cases, FUM has confronted corruption successfully but has never publicly told the story and has therefore never received the credit (along with the awkward questions that should be welcomed as evidence of an engaged constituency).
A re-engaged constituency, attracted by lively advocacy and good purposeful programming, is FUM's only chance at revival. Come to think of it, that is probably true for every one of the 19th-century and early 20th-century organizations still claiming our resources. When our whole world-wide constituency amounts to the Catholic population of Philadelphia, it doesn't become any of us to look at any of our institutions with a one-upping spirit.
Over the past year, I've written a number of posts about FUM on this weblog, and a number of related comments on others' weblogs. For those of you who have no interest at all in this area of Quaker politics or history, these comments must seem strangely gnarly and trivial in comparison to the great themes of the Christian good news and Quaker discipleship. For me, it's a matter of stewardship of a long heritage of relationships and ministry, but I know this isn't true for everyone. And I admit my ego is mixed in here, too; I poured seven years into being the head of the FUM staff, and my highest priority in that job--trying to restore trust between organization and constituency--was only very partially achieved. Anyway, if you've gotten this far, thanks for your patience!
For convenience, here's the purpose statement of FUM, dating back to 1993:
Friends United Meeting commits itself to energize and equip Friends through the power of the Holy Spirit to gather people into fellowships where Jesus Christ is known, loved and obeyed as Teacher and Lord.
And here's the FUM policy on hiring and personal ethics, as stated at the time I left the staff in 2000. (If it has changed, I hope someone will provide the revision.)
Friends United Meeting holds to the traditional Friends testimonies of peace (nonviolence), simplicity, truth speaking, community, gender and racial equality, chastity, and fidelity in marriage. It is expected that the lifestyle of all staff and volunteer appointees of Friends United Meeting will be in accordance with these testimonies.
Friends United Meeting affirms the civil rights of all people. Staff and volunteer appointments and promotions are made without regard to sex, race, national origin, age, physical disability, or sexual orientation. It is expected that intimate sexual behavior should be confined to marriage, understood to be between one man and one woman.
Righteous links:
Mark Keiley's courteous meditation, "In defense of the institutional church," is a pleasure to read. Interestingly, he doesn't himself attend an institutional church.
The convention of the Veterans of Foreign Wars, to an outsider like me, has seemed more like a conference of Veterans of False Dichotomies. Two days ago, almost-candidate Fred Thompson was reported to have said, "We know that Iraq is an important front in this war. We also know if we appear to be divided and weak in this nation, it will enable the enemy and make our country more dangerous, and therefore the world more dangerous, than ever before." So: when a democracy is genuinely divided, that's a sign of weakness? Maybe it's a sign that a bad policy has caused dissension--which is a sign of strength! The world is arguably more dangerous when a superpower lets a provably flawed leadership team do its thinking for it.
And while we're arguing flawed historical analogies, Juan Cole cites the interesting analogy of Napoleon's invasion of Egypt. Here's a scary teaser:
From the time of Bonaparte to that of Bush, the use of the rhetoric of liberty versus tyranny, of uplift versus decadence, appears to have been a constant among imperialists from republics -- and has remained domestically effective in rallying support for colonial wars. The despotism (but also the weakness) of the Mamluks and of Saddam Hussein proved sirens practically calling out for Western interventions. According to the rhetoric of liberal imperialism, tyrannical regimes are always at least potentially threats to the Republic, and so can always be fruitfully overthrown in favor of rule by a Western military. After all, that military is invariably imagined as closer to liberty since it serves an elected government. (Intervention is even easier to justify if the despots can be portrayed, however implausibly, as allied with an enemy of the republic.)
For both Bush and Bonaparte, the genteel diction of liberation, rights, and prosperity served to obscure or justify a major invasion and occupation of a Middle Eastern land, involving the unleashing of slaughter and terror against its people. Military action would leave towns destroyed, families displaced, and countless dead. Given the ongoing carnage in Iraq, President Bush's boast that, with "new tactics and precision weapons, we can achieve military objectives without directing violence against civilians," now seems not just hollow but macabre. The equation of a foreign military occupation with liberty and prosperity is, in the cold light of day, no less bizarre than the promise of war with virtually no civilian casualties.
Mark Lilla, in his otherwise useful NYT article on "The Politics of God," provokes major frustration when he says, "Reading a letter like Ahmadinejad's [letter to George Bush], we fall mute, like explorers coming upon an ancient inscription written in hieroglyphics." Give me a break; the letter was not that strange. What was strange was that Bush and his colleagues did not have the elemental courtesy, not to mention strategic sagacity, to take the letter seriously and use the occasion to reply, both to the truths and to the perceived errors in the Iranian president's letter.
Instead, our administration continues to treat Iran as a semi-pariah, criticizing them for "meddling" in the affairs of the country with whom they share a risky border (implying that we would never meddle in another country's affairs?) and lecturing our allies with public condescension when they dare say Iran is a friend of theirs: "Now if the signal [from Maliki] is that Iran is constructive, I will have to have a heart to heart with my friend the prime minister, because I don't believe they are constructive." [source]
One more item from Tom Engelhardt's site: "American on the downward slope," by Dilip Hiro. I don't welcome news of the USA's decreasing influence worldwide. The world still needs our ideals; it's our arrogance it can do without.
Just to end on a high note, Sonny Terry and Brownie McGhee reassure us that "The sun's going to shine in my back door someday."
Sonny Terry & Brownie McGhee - Sun Gonna by Suchablog
Posted by Johan Maurer at 23 August
Labels: bible, blues, fum, iran, iraq, mideast, politics, quakers, realignment
Johan, I had wanted to respond to your comments when they appeared on Peter and Cat's blog, and I'd held back only because I felt it would detract from Peter's own purpose. This seems like a much better place to respond, so I'm glad you re-posted your comments here!
You wrote that the FUM personnel policy was crafted as "a decision ... made almost regretfully by a roomful of people practicing mutual submission." That is fine as far as it goes, but "mutual submission" is only the horizontal arm of the cross, and the vertical arm — truly channeling the intentions of our loving Father — is often much harder to hold to, especially in relation to issues this debatable.
Moreover, when human society is really off kilter about something, the horizontal arm of "mutual submission" may be centered very far away from the vertical axis of God's will. And at such a time, "mutual submission" may actually become a force pulling us away, not toward, full obedience to the divine. One of the questions that is being debated here in the Quaker world has to do with precisely that question — has the horizontal arm drifted dangerously far away from the vertical pole, and if so, in which direction has it drifted?
As long as that question remains unsettled, I'm afraid that "mutual submission" will remain a principle of questionable value in the eyes of Friends on both sides.
I agree with you, dear friend, when you write that it is time to be honest about the alienation in our ranks. In fact, I'd go farther: in the spirit of the Sermon on the Mount, I would say that we should perhaps not dare to approach the altar (of meeting for worship) again until we have effected a truer reconciliation amongst ourselves. Maybe it should only be the reconciliation of an agreement to love one another and collaborate as best we can while disagreeing about the rights of homosexuals, at least until such time as we are all granted clearer understanding. But this alienation is no good for us, no good for anyone really, no good at all.
I do believe FUM's stated purpose is a good one, though I have my doubts about the rightness of FUM's behavior as a means of pursuing that purpose.
Thank you for your continued witness on this issue. As long as people don't start turning a deaf ear to what you say, I believe you are doing some good here.
Johan Maurer said...
Thank you, Marshall.
You say, "I do believe FUM's stated purpose is a good one, though I have my doubts about the rightness of FUM's behavior as a means of pursuing that purpose." What behavior? Whose exactly? I'm going to start asking people to be far more precise when naming the defects of others in public.
You also said, "'mutual submission' is only the horizontal arm of the cross, and the vertical arm — truly channeling the intentions of our loving Father — is often much harder to hold to, especially in relation to issues this debatable." Are you saying that the assembled FUM Board members were not attentive to that vertical dimension? I certainly didn't intend to say that; I was addressing the issue of FUM's supposed narrowness and hatefulness, and trying to introduce a human dimension to the whole process of deciding that policy.
I've yet to hear anyone suggest either an outcome or a process that FUM should have followed, other than "make it align with what I (or we) agree with." How?? I suggest that this is beyond the power of a constituency-driven organization. It is not beyond God's power, but God chose not to act in a plenary way during that Board meeting.
I also believe that any diverse group of people, no matter how well they combine both deep piety and capacity for nuanced thinking, may continue to disagree on important issues. It is true that they may also vary in their ability to hear and trust God. But there's no human formula that guarantees unity or allows us to diagnose exactly who is failing to hear. All we can decide for sure is our individual and communal abilities to treat each other with love and forbearance when we disagree, and continue to be in conversation about our differences and our collaborations.
Maybe it's time for those of us willing to do this to stand up and say so--with openness about our disagreements and uncertainties, but with equal openness about how much we love one another, and why we're continuing to stay friends/Friends. Maybe it is already happening. One thing is clear to me after years as a reluctant Quaker politician: we shouldn't wait for our organizations to do this for us. They're too often limited in their freedoms by the angriest or weariest among them.
I wonder what you meant when you said, "As long as people don't start turning a deaf ear to what you say, I believe you are doing some good here." Maybe I'm being a bit oversensitive. I tend to rise to FUM's defense every time I hear an unfair criticism, which is pretty often, but one thing I realize that the criticism keeps coming back because the issues are completely new to some people. They hear a partial account, and are shocked that in 2007, a Friends organization could ask unmarried people (by traditional definition) not to engage in sex, and married people (by traditional definition) not to have sex outside of marriage. (Or, from the other end of the spectrum, they're shocked that it could ever have been an issue at all!) I will admit that I'm a bit discouraged that so few FUM voices have joined me in trying to keep this discussion fertile and positive and grounded in actual facts.
In any case, I'd like to think that I can now lay down this theme, at least for a while. But not because I'm afraid of people turning a deaf ear. That's up to them, not me.
Bill Samuel said...
Thank you, Johan, for your analysis and your frankness.
I've been pushing over and over the idea that the central question should be purpose. I appreciate what you had to say about that. Friends should be willing to struggle together over very difficult issues lovingly, but it needs to be in the context of common purpose. If they are truly brothers and sisters laboring together in the vineyard, this should be possible.
I'm not aware that any of the dually affiliated YMs have wrestled with FUM's purpose statement. My sense is that they think it is enough not to directly challenge the purpose. I disagree. The apparent disagreement with FUM's purpose, which one can see from statements of Friends in other contexts, by large numbers of Friends in those YMs is a real obstacle to those YMs being true partners in FUM.
The reasons often given within those YMs seem to me to often not be good reasons. And I'm not thinking only of the reason of changing FUM into their image. I'm thinking of such reasons as that there is a minority in the YM who do identify with FUM and the historical connections (it's not coincidence that the only YM without such historical ties is the only one that quickly dropped out after the controversial Kenya Board meeting). Affiliation needs to be on the basis of current unity by the body as a whole with the larger body.
I'm not sure how your idea of moving away from being a denomination would work in practice. I don't see FGC or EFI being an alternative for those who want a denomination, since neither of them are set up as a denomination. But FUM has downsized considerably over the years, and a more in-depth, no holds barred look at how it should be organized in the future is advisable. But I think it needs to get beyond the current internal struggles for it really to be able to do that. I think YMs not wholeheartedly united with its purpose dropping out would facilitate that.
Johan,
Thank you for your continued witness and ministry in this prickly and painful arena of Friends. I am so very glad to hear someone being honest, open and educated about what has been/continues to happen regarding the FUM debate that is so present in our Society. I am grateful for a voice that is speaking so fully out of love and concern. I believe we all come to this conversations with our own history with this subject (even if that history is one of not understanding or knowing the details) - and too often among Friends does that background go unacknowledged - which leads to people's egos getting invisibly tied up with trying to find Way forward.
Having just come from a summer of initiating those dialogues about the diversity of Friends while traveling in the ministry, I have found many people open to the idea of exploring this issue gently (much like dipping one toe into cold water). At Canadian Yearly Meeting, I witnessed a lot of heartache about both the hiring policy and the reaffirmation of the Richmond Declaration, a thirst for true understanding/information about what is actually going on, and a deep, searching for Way forward with FUM. What stands out in my mind most, though, is the overwhelming response that it would not be in accordance to God's Will to sever ties with FUM - and when withholding funding was put forward as a suggestion of how their pain could be communicated, there were many in the group who felt like attempting to "discipline" FUM in this way would also be more harmful than helpful.
I believe we *are* moving forward - albeit very, very slowly towards trying to understand each other and love each other for where we stand. I believe that this is one of the hardest lessons that we are being offered - to truly see "that of God" within the "Other" and love them for the measure of Light that they carry. We are being challenged to truly become a "Religious Society of Friends." It is not an easy task, nor one that will happen quickly - no matter what our human will wants.
What an incredible ministry you continue to offer the Religious Society of Friends when you speak t(T)ruth into this confusing situation! Thank you, Friend, for being so faithful.
"If your yearly meeting is in FUM but does not share FUM's purpose, then why is it in FUM?"
Baltimore Yearly Meeting is the oldest YM in the Americas and was a founding member of Five-Years Meeting. BYM never affirmed the Richmond Declaration (even though a BYM member was on the committee that drafted the accursed document), and BYM remained in faithful relationship with FYM in spite of its doctrinal differences. We're not going to storm out now just because things are rough.
I should add that the personnel policy is not the primary reason for BYM's tension with FUM right now, although it is a concern (as FUM members from its inception, I think BYM's voice should not be sidelined on this matter; denying that relationship would demonstrate a very casual attitude toward history).
Our tension with FUM is more aptly stated thus:
"FUM's projects create environments such as schools, hospitals, orphanages, and churches where Friends from around the world come and entrust their lives. Despite the valiant efforts of the overworked, underappreciated FUM staff, the lack of funding and inadequate corporate decisions for these projects results in dangerous environments such as failed hospitals, starvation, and untimely death."
Cat C-B (and/or Peter B) said...
Hi, Johan,
I know that Peter is working on a much more complete and thorough reply, because he read me his first response (a journal entry) and we spent almost an hour reading and rereading it and your original blog post, and discussing it between us.
If you don't eventually hear from Peter, it will mean that the new school year has swallowed him whole; that can happen to us both, unfortunately. You should know, though, that your remarks have been heard and taken very seriously, and hopefully Peter's slower writing process won't lose the race to the tsunami of a fresh year of teaching!
I'll try not to speak for him, but I do want to pass along a couple of things that have come out pretty strongly for me, from the points you raise here.
The first is that the passage you quoted, from Quaker Pagan Reflections, was in fact yet another slip into us/them thinking. I recognized it as soon as you pointed it out, regret it, and am at least trying to remember that this is an us/us scenario--nobody here but us Friends. I need to remember that and speak from that place of Quakers together.
Please bear with me when I fail to be a model of that. I'm trying to do better.
You also raise a number of sets of queries. I'm going to leave most of them aside--partly because I know Peter is laboring hard to find the words to speak his heart on them, and partly because I was surprised by my own answer to one set:
"Do you personally believe that FUM's purpose is valid? How has your agreement or lack of agreement with FUM's purpose played a role in how you've supported, criticized, or ignored FUM?"
The first movement of my heretic heart (of course) was the predictable one. "Gather people into fellowships where Jesus Christ is known, loved and obeyed as Teacher and Lord?" Uh... you're kidding, right? Jesus Christ, Lord, evangelism... all words that provoke strong and painful responses in one who has never termed herself Christian, exactly as you would expect.
But, you know, Johan, I do believe that there is one fountain of Spirit at the root of the world. And I do believe that it is that Spirit that I listen for on First Days... and that it is the Spirit you are listening for, too. I'm sure as I can be that it's the Spirit I saw shining from Eden and Jim Grace's eyes at their workshop at Sessions this year, and that it the Spirit that shook me so hard during the Bible half-hours, too.
When I listen to the FUM purpose statement as, "Friends United Meeting commits itself to energize and equip Friends through the power of the Holy Spirit to gather people into fellowships where the Light is known, loved and obeyed as Teacher and Lord," and I ask myself if I believe this purpose is valid, my answer is a resounding yes, and when I ask myself if this purpose has anything to do with my current support for and criticism of FUM, I say yes again.
I see FUM doing things in the world that spread Spirit and gather people together to know and love that Spirit, and that is work I want to support. Yep.
I also see FUM not yet hearing clearly what I (and my yearly meeting) firmly believe are leadings from that Spirit regarding right relationship with GLBT Friends. And I believe it is going to be a long, hard road for us all (you see that I am including myself here) to learn to listen humbly and together for a unity, not merely in "mutual submission" to one another, but in mutual submission to that Teacher and Lord.
I don't know how to say that in a way that doesn't sound like I arrogantly believe I know a truth that others in FUM do not. I'm not fluent enough in Quaker to know how to word it in a way that isn't prickly. But I do believe that Spirit is challenging FUM to look at the place of GLBT Friends in our meetings, and work toward some changes that will come harder in some parts of the Quaker world than in others.
I also intellectually believe that there are leadings of Spirit that will challenge me, and the perhaps stereotypically liberally Eastern US Friends I spend most of my time with, to other painful changes--that there are Truths of Spirit that other Friends in FUM outside my local orbit have to share with me that I won't very much enjoy hearing. Will the regard chastity and fidelity? Maybe. Jesus Christ? Maybe. I'm putting my money on Right Sharing of Resources myself, but, hey, it's still an intellectual exercise. I don't yet know--I haven't yet felt the stirrings of Spirit on this one.
But is it arrogant to keep raising a concern that is a stirring of Spirit, simply because I don't yet feel the openings that others have and I do not? Surely the job is not for me, as a liberal member of FUM, to keep quiet about this concern, as it is to express it as led, while working hard to remain open to the leadings others have and I do not?
I'll probably slip into arrogance from time to time, because I'm one of those people who needs to be a Quaker, rather than one who was born with anything like a Quakerly nature. Sorry--I'll try not to do it too much. But perhaps, if FUM is willing to embrace me back, I am one piece of "a re-engaged constituency," and though I'm not coming in by the door I was invited through, if nobody forcibly ejects me, I will try to stay and be Gathered.
I think of John Woolman a lot--how it took the Quakers almost 100 years to figure out that slavery was simply unacceptable, but that still put Friends about 100 years ahead of everybody else. Maybe it will take us 100 years to hear what God is trying to say to us all here, though our arrogance and our certainty and our prickliness.
But, well, I don't know as I've got anything better to do in this incarnation. You?
Will T said...
I am sorry that you were distracted by Peter's characterization of some attitudes that you also missed an important piece of work that was done at NEYM and is a partial answer to your queries.
We decided to ask the quarterly and monthly meetings to consider a minute on same-sex marriage and to send back recommendations and comments with the idea of dealing with the minute at sessions next year. The significance is that, until now, NEYM has not taken a position on same-sex marriage. This means that we will be undertaking to do the work that other yearly meetings would also have to undertake for their to be a change in the personnel policy. Individual meetings have minuted a variety of positions on this subject over the past 15 years. It is not clear what will come forward next year.
The second thing we committed ourselves to do is to support the work of the working party on sexual ethics and sexuality. One of the issues involved is, of course, the question of what is the appropriate role of the meeting in establishing sexual ethics. The traditional answer is clear but the idea that the meeting might have something to say runs counter to the common cultural attitude that what a person does in the privacy of their bedroom is solely the business of them and their partner as long as they are consenting adults and no one gets hurt.
Both of these things are cases in which we have said that we need to work on the lumber in our own eyes before we start helping others with their specks.
As for your question as whether FUM's critics will invite African and Caribbean Quakers into a serious dialog, I can only say that since 1991 NEYM has been in the sister Yearly Meeting of Cuba Yearly Meeting. There has been a steady stream of intervisitation between the meetings over the intervening years. The primary goal has been to get to know each other and to build a bridge of love between the two yearly meetings. Out of respect for our Cuban Friends, we have not sent gay couples to Cuba. At the same time, we do not hide who we are from the Cubans when they come to visit us. I don't know if we are at the point where we can have a trustfully conducted dialog on sexual ethics but I do know that we are closer to being able to do that than we were 16 years ago.
It seems to me that God is at work in NEYM and in FUM and we do not yet know where we are being led. I am certainly more hopeful than I was when I came back from Kenya in February.
Will Taber
Peter Bishop said...
Johan--
A quick note is all I can manage today. Like Cat said, the upcoming school year is looming over me sort of like an advancing tidal wave. I just wanted to say that I have read your post, am continuing to read it, and am writing about it in ways that will (soon, I hope) lead to an open-hearted and spirit-led response.
Like Will Taber said, NEYM has committed itself to this dialog. As one member pointed out towards the end of sessions, if we cannot stay engaged in loving dialog on this issue amongst ourselves, then how dare we call ourselves peacemakers?
I'm very glad to read the posts of the NEYM Friends and of Erin.These are encouraging.
Shifting the tone a bit, John of BYM says--
--and I'd like to ask John what he is quoting from in his post. Who is the author? What instances of starvation is the author referring to? What untimely deaths? What failed hospitals, specifically?
I left the Catholic Church 20 years ago because they treated me like I was Satan Spawn. I had not attended any church of any sort in 20 years for the same reason. Last month I attended my first Quaker Meeting (PYM), felt loved and welcomed, and have taken to it like a fish to water. If my first experience with Quakers had been with FUM, I would have once again felt like they thought I was Satan Spawn, and would have never had anything to do with Quakers of any sort ever again. This is not theory; this is reality. There are millions of people who reject God because "Christians" tell them that God has rejected them. They feel a void in their soul and want to fill it with God, but can't because they believe they are unlovable.
Spirits that promote hate and fear are spirits of antichrist. I see the devistating effects of such policies every day. I, and millions like me, will have nothing to do with organizations that have these policies.
Greetings to all from Idaho, where I'm ending a wonderful visit to Greenleaf Friends Church. It was amazing to visit a meeting that has had such an impact on the Quaker world and the larger world, all from a home base consisting of a town of 852 people.
Anonymous: I'm trying not to interpret your rhetoric as a version of "my pain is worse than yours, therefore I'm entitled to charge organizations with being the spirit of antichrist." I know many churches and meetings within Friends United Meeting where nobody is treated as Satan Spawn. That's not to deny that those so-called churches who HAVE treated you and others this way might have a lot of explaining to do on judgment day.
Peter and Cat: Speaking for myself, it is gratifying and healing to witness the seriousness with which you treated my somewhat despondent post.
Carol and John: Absolutely, we need details of those serious charges concerning FUM-related outreach. Have those charges been made to FUM administration, with relevant details? Have they been presented at board meetings, where policies may or could have been developed to respond?
Corruption has definitely occurred in corners of the Quaker world related to FUM, but not necessarily on FUM's watch. It is important to remember that, at least in recent years, FUM hasn't supplied funding or personnel to any program where we didn't also have involvement and safeguards at the management level. FUM staff and volunteer leaders have also taken strong stands in situations where we have had moral responsibility but no management responsibility, such as the near-dictatorial leadership styles we found in some yearly meetings. One example: When we received complaints about the quality of care in the children's homes in Jamaica, we found a way to get reconnected organizationally with those homes and worked with Jamaican Friends to restore accountability to those programs.
There was a time when FUM seemed to tolerate mismanagement of programs on what used to be called the "mission field," and we also were too passive in the face of complaints about programs we had started but which were under non-FUM management. That era has long been over--or at least I thought so. Part of the maturing of the post-colonial relationships with former missions and the internationalization of FUM management has been a new spirit of direct mutual consultation and, when necessary, confrontation. I have no doubt that things will break down, but let's attend to them directly and quickly and transparently, not deploying them later as vague charges to degrade reputations.
Where have hospitals failed or where has anyone starved as a result of inadequate FUM decisions or funding? Who failed to hold FUM accountable?
Bill, Erin, Will, thanks for your encouragement and patience.
John of BYM, it is true that the report of BYM Representatives to the last annual sessions did not focus primarily on the personnel policy, but on internal issues of FUM's operations. However, wasn't the 2005 BYM decision to stop funding BYM based on objections to that policy? From my discussions with a number of BYM Friends, including FUM Representatives and Friends in the intervisitation program, and what I have read in the Interchange (the BYM NL) and MM newsletters, FUM's policies as they relate to same-sex couples has been central to the drive in BYM to de-fund and by some to disaffiliate from FUM.
I think you would find it very hard to find many Friends active in BYM at the YM level who would maintain that the YM would have cut off funding for FUM and that there would have been the same questions about continued affiliation had FUM policies and actions with regard to the same-sex issue been in line with the general sentiment in BYM.
The disgraceful BYM staff lobbying effort within BYM against FUM back 2-3 years was based on the same-sex relationships issue.
Will--I forgot to acknowledge the Bridge of Love between New England Yearly Meeting and Cuba Yearly Meeting, which I was aware of right from its inception, and worked to encourage. This relationship is an amazing blessing in many ways, but I know enough about it (though less recently) to avoid romanticizing it. I'm fascinated that some (repeat, some) Friends will endure a full-bore Christian witness from one source, in this case Cuba, while resisting the same witness from more familiar sources. That's not necessarily a bad thing--I do believe that Cuban Friends, by virtue of what they've gone through in staying faithful, may bear more credibility for some USA audiences than others closer to home, whose actual faith may be equally strong.
John, Bill, and others: I would like to know more about what was reported about FUM at the Baltimore Yearly Meeting sessions. If I understand correctly, the BYM sessions followed the FUM Board meeting last month in Plainfield, Indiana. Baltimore YM Friends were present. (I was present as well, for the pre-meeting retreat, and for the first session of the Board meeting itself.) Issues of FUM's corporate failings and consequent fatalities were not raised in my hearing. Were they raised at the FUM Board meeting after I left?
I will defend FUM when I feel it deserves defending, but I also advocate a far more open discussion about what constitutes mission, organizational capacity and ethics, and true mutual accountability, than we've had in the past. Eden Grace, who was mentioned in Peter's original post, made a contribution last year by publicizing the "On giving and receiving" statement from the Quaker Peace Network--East Africa, last year.
Nancy A said...
Thanks, Johan, for a deep and thoughtful post.
Ironically, if you have substituted "FYM" for every instance of "FUM" and tinkered with a few other words, the whole blog would have had equal validity. I wonder if we could have substituted any denomination's name. Is it just FUM Quakers, or is it everyone in Christendom?
I sometimes wonder if Quakers got the wrong name. Back in the 1600s, when the Seekers, Diggers, Ranters, Shakers, etc. were milling around trying to settle on a central identity, we ended up with the name "Quakers," when I really think we deserve something more like "Muddlers." We muddle through, rather badly on the whole. It has been this way for centuries--just read Fell's old letters.
The "denominational loyalty" you spoke of is a fierce thing. It's as if we're cheering for our home basketball team, instead of trying to bring about the Spirit-based life on earth. Instead of "my country, right or wrong" it's "my religion, right or wrong." Which is kind of like saying "my parents, stoned or straight" -- just the fact that you have this idea already means something is deeply wrong!
I sometimes call dehominational loyalty the "museum mentality" -- that the goal of religion is to keep is to keep it like a museum. Going to church or meeting is sometimes far, far too much like visiting a museum. We try to crush the present back into the past. It's a fear of change.
And yet... and yet... somehow the Spirit manages to work through us. It's as if the Spirit works not *because* of what we do, but in *spite* of what we do.
Perhaps at the next FUM meeting (or FYM or CYM meeting), we should all be required to wear clown costumes-- complete with big red nose, floppy shoes, and cauliflower hair. We need to see ourselves as we are. It might provoke some tender humility among us.
You can read the report of BYM Representatives Concerning FUM. Clearly the Representatives were disappointed by the July Board meeting. The report is much more negative than the reports each of them wrote after the Kenya Board meeting (those reports are not public, but I saw them). I have not yet talked to either Representative about this, although I do expect to talk with one of them soon.
Like NEYM & NYYM, BYM did not consider the affiliation question at its annual sessions because no proposal had time to be properly seasoned before then, and did make needed appointments to FUM. Efforts are underway to activate the BYM special committee supposed to consider the question of funding FUM, which has not met since 2005 (BYM has withheld its FUM contribution since 2005).
A member of the BYM Epistle Committee told me that there is quite a bit about the relationship to FUM in the Epistle. That Epistle is not yet available. He also told me that the BYM General Secretary, a gay man in a relationship, reported that he is well received by FUM folks and helped to tamp down some of the anti-FUM emotions in BYM which have been based on an incorrect assumption of rampant homophobia among the FUM staff and leadership.
Bill's comments are mostly consistent with my experience, although I wouldn't call our witness regarding same-sex relationships disgraceful.
The item I was quoting from was a plainspoken letter from one of our FUM representatives tendered with their report at BYM annual sessions this year.
Josh Riley said...
Very thoughtful and useful responses, all.
It's been five years since there have been any comments on this thread, but, to clarify, John Comma, the disgraceful letter Bill Samuel (hi Bill!) refers to above was a letter written by another openly gay BYM staff member and I in which we wrote about our experience with all of this.
Our response, in part, was born out of the challenging role that yearly meeting (or Friends in general) staff occupy. Johan, I suspect, would agree. We serve you, and we are also expected, to some extent, to lead you, and to be ministers. These roles are implicit, if not explicit, and yet are diminished or minimized by the structure of the institution. In many ways this is probably okay, and most of us know we're getting a healthy dose of responsibility with just a tiny side order or authority when we sign on to do this work, serving you, but it can be wearing.
When do we speak as staff vs. speak for ourselves, as members and participants in corporate work and worship? Perhaps the most appropriate thing, as staff, would be to remain silent, but we are also members of the body. How can we be silent? Navigating this is very very challenging. It felt difficult to participate in the conversation, particularly feeling hurt and angry. As staff we felt our motives would be questioned (mission accomplished!) or our contribution diminished. Writing the letter (truly) felt like the best neutral response we could make.
100 seconds to midnight; source.
32 Radio Street
Blog Archive January 2021 (2) December 2020 (5) November 2020 (4) October 2020 (5) September 2020 (4) August 2020 (4) July 2020 (5) June 2020 (4) May 2020 (4) April 2020 (5) March 2020 (4) February 2020 (4) January 2020 (5) December 2019 (4) November 2019 (4) October 2019 (5) September 2019 (4) August 2019 (5) July 2019 (4) June 2019 (4) May 2019 (5) April 2019 (4) March 2019 (4) February 2019 (4) January 2019 (5) December 2018 (4) November 2018 (5) October 2018 (4) September 2018 (4) August 2018 (5) July 2018 (4) June 2018 (4) May 2018 (5) April 2018 (4) March 2018 (5) February 2018 (4) January 2018 (4) December 2017 (5) November 2017 (4) October 2017 (4) September 2017 (4) August 2017 (5) July 2017 (4) June 2017 (5) May 2017 (4) April 2017 (4) March 2017 (5) February 2017 (4) January 2017 (4) December 2016 (5) November 2016 (4) October 2016 (4) September 2016 (5) August 2016 (4) July 2016 (4) June 2016 (5) May 2016 (4) April 2016 (4) March 2016 (5) February 2016 (4) January 2016 (4) December 2015 (5) November 2015 (4) October 2015 (5) September 2015 (4) August 2015 (4) July 2015 (5) June 2015 (5) May 2015 (4) April 2015 (5) March 2015 (4) February 2015 (4) January 2015 (5) December 2014 (5) November 2014 (4) October 2014 (5) September 2014 (4) August 2014 (4) July 2014 (5) June 2014 (4) May 2014 (5) April 2014 (5) March 2014 (6) February 2014 (4) January 2014 (5) December 2013 (4) November 2013 (4) October 2013 (5) September 2013 (4) August 2013 (5) July 2013 (4) June 2013 (4) May 2013 (5) April 2013 (4) March 2013 (4) February 2013 (4) January 2013 (5) December 2012 (4) November 2012 (5) October 2012 (5) September 2012 (4) August 2012 (5) July 2012 (4) June 2012 (4) May 2012 (5) April 2012 (4) March 2012 (5) February 2012 (4) January 2012 (4) December 2011 (5) November 2011 (4) October 2011 (4) September 2011 (5) August 2011 (4) July 2011 (4) June 2011 (5) May 2011 (4) April 2011 (4) March 2011 (5) February 2011 (4) January 2011 (4) December 2010 (5) November 2010 (4) October 2010 (4) September 2010 (5) August 2010 (4) July 2010 (5) June 2010 (4) May 2010 (4) April 2010 (5) March 2010 (4) February 2010 (4) January 2010 (4) December 2009 (5) November 2009 (4) October 2009 (5) September 2009 (4) August 2009 (4) July 2009 (5) June 2009 (4) May 2009 (5) April 2009 (5) March 2009 (4) February 2009 (4) January 2009 (5) December 2008 (4) November 2008 (5) October 2008 (5) September 2008 (4) August 2008 (4) July 2008 (5) June 2008 (4) May 2008 (5) April 2008 (5) March 2008 (5) February 2008 (5) January 2008 (5) December 2007 (4) November 2007 (5) October 2007 (4) September 2007 (7) August 2007 (6) July 2007 (5) June 2007 (6) May 2007 (5) April 2007 (7) March 2007 (5) February 2007 (4) January 2007 (4) December 2006 (4) November 2006 (5) October 2006 (5) September 2006 (4) August 2006 (5) July 2006 (6) June 2006 (6) May 2006 (4) April 2006 (5) March 2006 (7) February 2006 (5) January 2006 (6) December 2005 (5) November 2005 (6) October 2005 (5) September 2005 (6) August 2005 (5) July 2005 (7) June 2005 (5) May 2005 (5) April 2005 (4) March 2005 (4) February 2005 (4) January 2005 (4) December 2004 (5) November 2004 (3) October 2004 (4) September 2004 (5) August 2004 (3) July 2004 (4) June 2004 (4)
Earlham College, ESR, and Anna Karenina
Matt Hisrich is at far left. Source . Yesterday, I innocently opened my Facebook feed and was startled to read that the dean of Earlham Sc...
Quaker communion (partly a repost)
If there's such a thing as Quaker communion, is it more like what some of us call open worship, or more like a potluck? (For the moment,...
When fear is a gift // a guest post
Judy Maurer is this week's writer. She is a recorded minister in the Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends. The college brochur...
Political discipleship today
Not so "promptly" in my case.... The local postmark reveals that the ballot arrived at my neighborhood post office on April 19; ...
Welcome to my blog post number 902. This time it's my annual sampling from the year's posts. In a couple of cases, I've included...
Seeking to justify myself
Source . I can't count the times I've heard, read, and appreciated the story of the Good Samaritan in Luke's Gospel, in which...
Power, love, and endurance
How do tyrants begin? Last week I linked to Roger E. Olson's blog post entitled " The Untold Story of How Hitler Came to Power ...
Home, part two
A few days ago, one of our friends arrived in the USA from a period of Quaker service in another country an ocean away. As I wrote a greet...
"The devil doesn't like it but it's down in my heart."
It may be a hard and uncomfortable time to be a white Christian. But it is time for the church of Jesus Christ to sit with that discomfort–m...
Christmas Eve -- and a country in turmoil
"Happy New Year!" Elektrostal's 2020 holiday tree on Lenin Square, with Kristall ice hockey arena in background. Source . (Ele...
Selected commentaries
Annual digests: 2020, 2019, 2018, 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009
"The mere sound of his name will signal hope"
Prayer and politics, part one, part two
William Barr, Max Boot, and "the vapor trails of Christianity"
Giving thanks for small things
Malice in Wonderland
Trustworthy churches, part one, part two, part three, part four.
Good news or bad news (white evangelicals and politics), part one, part two, part three
Quakerism of the future
Our new yearly meeting stepping out of the boat
When grief just won't come
The Quaker movement's decline and persistence, part one, part two
What's so urgent about sex?
Labels: evangelical; conservative; radical; socialist.
A good Quaker is hard to find
It's hard to believe in Jesus
"On the vocal ministry"
Evangelism and enemies
Grace and mercy
The Good News and identity politics, part one, part two, part three.
Post-Christians and the Bible
Regarding, part one, part two
Thomas Kelly and Ilya Grits in conversation
Trust, the first testimony, part one, part two
Agnes Sanford
Evangelism or proselytism? (and P.S.)
Yearly meetings: myth and reality
Quakers' best-fit market
My privacy and your transparency
The ecstasy of worship is connected to pure intention
Boris Nemtsov 1959-2015
Do you want to be offended?
"Don't look for enemies! Look for friends!"
"Every knee shall bow"
"And the inquisitors sent for us..."
Not bearing false witness: a grievously neglected commandment
Love: a heavy cross
Exceptional pride: USA and Russia, including Anthony Bloom on Holy Russia
Being perfect
Straw feminists
Rostropovich: genius of the cello
Meditations on sectarianism
Pussy Riot, part one (It is impossible that no offenses should arise...), part two (Prayer and place), part three (Is Christianity under attack?)
Why conversion?
Love and truth and religion addiction
Signs, part one (road), part two (welcome), part three (and wonders), part four (revival)
"If you know what's good for you..."
Diffident no more
How to write about Russia
Open worship
Anthony Bloom on the Bible, part one, part two
Forgiveness, part one, part two
Hope and cynicism
Experimenting with prayer
Proclaiming or pandering?
Faith and certainty, part one, part two, part three, part four
Return to Buzuluk
The Quaker mass
Leading Friends United Meeting, part one; part two
Gathering to meet with God
Khrushchev and his time
Meeting Jesus halfway
Neutrality and advocacy, part one, part two
Odessa and Getting the Blues
Gordon Browne
Publishers of Truth, part one, part two, part three
Biblical realism and perpetual war
Blues in the classroom
Are Quakers Protestant?
Evangelical machismo, part one, part two
Christmas shorts, including the Orthodox superintendents' letter to the FUM clerk
Are you adequately ashamed? Part one, part two
The gift of the stranger
To see light more clearly
Redefining Friends United Meeting
"Support our troops" and other incomplete sentiments
Rolling and reading Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction
Does God hate divorce?
Clerk, please
The atheist's gift
Losses, part one, part two
David Finke writes to Illinois Yearly Meeting Young Friends
Vanity of vanities: Friends and class
December shorts: do Friends lack reverence?
The romance of war, and the moral language of M.L. King
Worship seeking understanding, part one, part two, part three, part four
Gospel order revisited
Open hearts, open hospitality
Absurdly happy, part one, part two
Quaker revival
FUM identity retreat: Tom Hamm's interpretive history; what did we accomplish?
Recording ministers, calling pastors
Ten commandments of meetings for business
Why it's hard for me to criticize Biblical literalists (including a few words on John Wimber's Quaker roots)
What differentiates Quakers from other Christians?
How not to prepare for worship, especially on Palm Sunday
Thoughts on innocence
Friends United Meeting and symbolic politics
The unbearable lightness of being Quaker
On the execution of Saddam Hussein: To the person hanging in darkness
Yearning for evidences of spiritual power
Where our hearts are, and who cares?
Why read Christian books? (including Mind the Light)
The golden age of evangelism, part one, part two (with Alan Rutherford)
Can evangelicals reproduce? (including Anthony Bloom on the reputation of Christianity)
Safety and the "nature of the world in which we live"
On being present where we are
The rhetoric of righteousness
The use and abuse of doctrine (including Anthony Bloom on the development of Orthodox doctrine)
Are Quakers marginal? part one, part two
Risk and resurrection
On giving and receiving (ethics for donors and partners)
Religious behavior part one, part two
Borrowed time (including "Why Russians don't smile")
Nancy's question: What are we so afraid of?
The poets in my grandmother's world
Plain language, part two: torture
A birthday movie: Good Night, and Good Luck
Evil and Islamo-fascism
The Quaker voice
Give a man a cliché
How the Grinch stole Hiroshima
On losing a sister to murder, part one, part two
Mississippi mellowing?
Creative discontent
Bush's legs and other notes from Russia
Leaving Quakers; also, honoring Marla Ruzicka
Piano Blues: An Eastwood film with no villain
The Return and the cult of the patient woman
The sword of the Spirit
Quiet ecstasy
Martin Luther King, Jr.: Not too late to listen
Redemption and politics
Labels (tags)
blues russia personal quakers politics spirituality discipleship books quaker USA evangelism theology bible gospel peace christianity rhetoric mideast elektrostal culture evangelical history trump prayer justice space films iraq fum orthodox jesus cpt ukraine worship mission palestine obama soul race education evangelicalism missiology perpetualwar wwii bloom environment music norway ramallah internet linux sexuality nwym feminism islam nonviolence reedwood church africa computers iran realignment torture blog blogs ellen germany israel journalism orthodoxy religion Francis afghanistan civilsoc economics japan convergence ethics philanthropy rswr humor king postmodernism protestant biography fox fwcc immigration leadership occupy putin racism war #blacklivesmatter buzuluk curmudgeon finke pandemic russian youth Catholic bush canada chicago community development emergent engelhardt lamson poetry tangaroa Bolivia abortion art christmas coronavirus europe magness moscow olympics ottawa perkins richmond rock scymf sheehan taize #ChurchToo MeToo ecumenism guns haiti judy linguistics masculinity mississippi news pentecostal rockabilly ruzicka science calvin christian crosscultural digest eliot haggard healing health kelley khrushchev mccutchen persecution spann stewardship travel tsvetaeva yerevan #MeToo SilenceIsNotSpiritual Thomas abuse architecture barclay belarus biden britain censorship conjunto crane cuba demonic evil grace holocaust india integrity jamaica jazz judaism kennan kenya liturgy media medicine medvedev mortality politkovskaya refugees roosevelt satan schmemann sexualilty stalin terrorism thatcher woolman wwi
my currently-reading shelf:
Books I've read
Johan Maurer
Recorded Friends (Quaker) minister. Member of Moscow Friends Meeting, Russia, and Eugene Friends Church (Oregon, USA). Past: denominational administrator, educator, pastor. Present: freelance writer and translator, blogger. Blogs are personal; they do not speak for any organization or other person.
(Jump to: friends & blogs; peace churches; ecumenical & evangelical;
Russia; music; blues; international; political; law; more)
Friends--Personal Sites and Weblogs
Quaker blog feed
Martin Kelley: Quaker Ranter
In the Shadow of Babylon with Adria Gulizia
Katie Lynn Comfort
Rebecca Ankeny's Reconciliation Papers
Embrace Katie Terrell
Beth Woolsey: Five Kids Is A Lot of Kids
Doug Bennett's Observatory and River View
Bill Samuel's Quakerinfo.com
Josh Brown: Are We Friends?
A Friendly Letter, The Blog
Nancy Thomas: Mil gracias
Eric Muhr's Long Story Short
Diana and John Lampen: The Hope Project
Gathering in Light
Ashley M. Wilcox, Musings and Leadings
A Musing Environment
Quaker Oats Live and Cherice Bock's ecotheology
Silly Poor Gospel
The Good Raised Up
Robin M.: What Canst Thou Say?
Chris M.: Tables, Chairs and Oaken Chests
Noli Irritare Leones
Leadership Matters, Kate Dickson on educational leadership
Kjeld Renato Lings
Annie Patterson and Peter Blood, Rise Up and Sing
...and Peter's site for Quaker resources, Inward Light
Pamela MacCarthy's Meladramas
ExecutiveSoul.com, Margaret Benefiel on spiritual transformation for leaders and organizations
Sabrina Sigal Falls
Sveta Politova
Friends and Peace Churches--congregations, ministries, networks
Evangelism and the Quaker Testimonies Google group; and its original site on Network 54
Moscow (Russia) Friends Meeting (English) (Russian)
Reedwood Friends Church, Portland, Oregon, USA
Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends
Good News Associates
Friends of Jesus--DC Metro Area, Washington, DC, USA
Friends International Center in Ramallah
Friends Theological College, Kenya
The Conservative Friend
Friends House Moscow
Barclay Press
Third Way Cafe Anabaptist Web site
Center on Conscience & War, formerly NISBCO
Quaker Heritage Press
Pontius' Puddle, the Mennonite Frog and his Friends
In Communion, the Orthodox Peace Fellowship
Right Sharing of World Resources
Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre
www.quaker.org, a comprehensive catalog of Quaker links
Christian Peacemaker Teams
Ramallah Friends Schools
Evangelical and Ecumenical
Holy Spirit Activism
Donald Miller
Robin Parry's Theological Scribbles
Rachel Held Evans
Fundamentalistas Anonimos
Soong-Chan Rah
Internetmonk's Dispatches from the post-evangelical wilderness
The Simple Way, Philadelphia
Monday Morning Insight
Q: Ideas for the common good
Frontier Ventures
Ekklesia, and commentary by Simon Barrow
p.ost, Andrew Perriman
Books & Culture: A Christian Review
24-7 Prayer: Non-Stop Prayer Across the Nations
Forum 18: Religious Freedom reports and advocacy
PraiseNet.Org
Zoecarnate: "Earth's Mightiest Alternative Christian Link Portal"
Madina Iunosova's Eurasian Adventure
Bilingual Russian poetry site, including audio files
A Good Treaty
RuNet Echo: Interpreting the Russian Internet
Russian Reference Grammar
Official site for Elektrostal
Official site for Noginsk
Портал-Credo.ru
Yakov Krotov's commentaries, library and links
Far from Moscow: New Music from Russia and Beyond
NRK All-Classical from Norway
Radio Orpheus, Moscow
Maestro Aszemar Glenn
E|Classical, Classical MP3 download shop
Lalovibe
Oslo Gospel Choir
Galbadia Hotel
National Blues Museum, St. Louis, USA
Reviews from Don and Sheryl
The Blues Foundation
The Roadhouse blues podcasts
KMHD-FM, Gresham, Oregon: Jazz, blues, and NPR news
Blues in Russia
NRK Blues Asylum
Waterfront Blues Festival, Portland,
Blues Festivals
Notodden Blues Festival, Norway
Layla Musselwhite
International and Development
World 66, travelers' reference site
Haaretz English-Language Site
Jamaica Gleaner Online
Vårt Land, Oslo
Klassekampen, Oslo
News of Norway
Lonely Planet Online
Eldis Gateway to Development Information
Google Translate with multilingual dictionaries
Civic and Political Resources
Open Democracy (Russia)
Helena Cobban, Just World News
Friends Committee on National Legislation
Program on Corporations, Law and Democracy
electoral-vote.com, aggregating political polling data and electoral results (USA)
JURIST--Paper Chase
Blog of Legal Times
The Pop Tort
American Constitution Society's blog
Georgia Civil Justice Foundation
New Humanities Institute, Elektrostal
Crane MetaMarketing Ltd.
Abuse Recovery Ministry and Services
Murder Victims Families for Reconciliation
Carleton University, and EURUS
Vera&William
beingmeta (Ken Haase)
Berry Noir
I Love Bees
Site feed (Atom)
Total Pageviews since May 2010


OK Cupid!! V-Day Gift Cards in stock!!!
Valentine's Day is right around the corner. We know you're panicking about what to get your special someone. Well, your worries are over!! We have the World's Cutest Gift Cards in stock, customizable to any dollar amount. Available in our signature fuschia and teal colors.


text:
Q: DOMException code 20, message "Error retrieving push subscription" in intranet I'm using this example code to learn Web Push.
https://github.com/Minishlink/web-push-php-example
I'm working on a web application that is hosted and used completely inhouse. The app should be able to send Web Push notifications to the users.
Security concerns prohibit to let the app send any informations to the internet.
Infrastructure roughly is like this:
The server hosting the app resides in a DMZ. Inhouse there are two subnets I and N. Clients from I have access to the internet, clients in N have not. From both subnets the clients can access the app server.
Now when I access the app from a client (Firefox) in subnet I the example code works fine. But using a client from subnet N ends with this error in the console:

Impossible to subscribe to push notification
  DOMException code 20, message "Error retrieving push subscription"

The service worker has been registered.
Code execution in Firefox seems to abort in this line of the function push_subscribe() in app.js:
.then(subscription => {

In Chrome I even can't find any error output but code execution aborts in the same line.
What can cause this error? I'm not sure how the "no internet subnet" could be the reason because of my knowledge the function push_subscribe() doesn't trigger any connection attempts anywhere until abort. At least I can't see such hints in the network tab of Firefox' Debugging Tool.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


text:
Awakening and taking a stand
I don't normally post political stuff, nor reveal my location, but the city I live in is quite unique.
Firstly, it has been a bellwether for the past umpteen years, correctly voting for the presidential candidate who won.
Vigo County, with about 107,000 people on the western edge of Indiana, long had some mysterious mix of quirky politics, demographics, geography, religion, labor and luck so that it had become America's most reliable presidential bellwether.
Since 1888, this exhibit boasts, the county voted in line with the nation in every presidential election but two. It missed in 1908 and 1952, then remained a perfect predictor of the U.S. mood, a rare place to toggle between Republicans and Democrats in harmony with America.
https://www.chicagotribune.com/midwest/ct-vigo-county-indiana-election-results-20201118-acloioedyrhtvadtl5ejdpsdb4-story.html
We have a representative and unbalanced spread of races, economic backgrounds, and cultures that are a microcosm of the entire United States. We are a mini US. Our rural to urban populations are even representative. Our population's age and metric of voters seems to be perfect for prediction. Until this year. Why? We are too white.
The largest local news station here is highly red (republican) and sadly continues to fear monger. (Recent news story on the increase in gun sales had the reporter say and I paraphrase – Though Biden has not said he will abolish the 2nd amendment – aka come for your guns – The report and video is missing from the website. )
The newspaper is only slightly less biased. I myself was interviewed for a school article and I, as a teacher, was told it was about navigating the challenges for special ed students and I sent a page long essay and spent 2 phone conversations with the reporter, only to find out it was half of the piece. The story was about how a man fired from the corporation felt that special education students were getting shafted, even though he is not even in the school system any more and has no direct knowledge at all. I'm proud to have been defending teachers, but disappointed my answers were not framed in a way to help the reporter and the article.
In light of the omission of the truth and twisting of the news to get the sensationalist titles and reads, the voters here went pro police as the sheriff they voted for posted all the drug arrests they've made on social media. The BLM protesters went unmolested as they passively marched or spoke passionately at a local park. https://www.facebook.com/102882011461103/videos/929727154140274/ (the stories are moving) It was like 'see? we are good police' Recent pro-Trump rallies were given the same apathy. The people in charge ignored all the commotion as we always have done with a 'this too shall pass" mentality that has served us well.
Or has it?
When an inmate died of Covid in the local jail, the sheriff hid behind procedure, insisting he followed the Health Department's guidelines. I'm sure he did, since this health department said the virus would not spread in schools and all you had to do was socially distance the kids and stay home if you are sick. The Health Department didn't (and still doesn't) have enough staff to contact trace all the people who got sick or exposed by November and they shut down in-person learning. I myself was quarantined 4 days after a student had attended my class who had potentially exposed us all to the virus.
We should sit back and let everything pass? Apathy has allowed those in charge to remain in control and remain rich.
Our former school superintendent, once shot at in his own home for alleged infidelity, is awaiting trial this year for alleged embezzlement. This on the heels of a money embezzlement scheme happening under his nose in the school administration building (https://www.tribstar.com/news/fennell-finished-with-his-federal-sentence-now-free/article_20a7f2d8-51bb-11ea-bfde-171194d4ccd3.html) AND a corporation settling in court to pay back 1.25 million to the school corp for overbilling for services. https://www.tribstar.com/news/vcsc-will-get-1-25-million-from-former-vendor/article_e011c974-5f88-11eb-bc42-f7af66cdc258.html
When the water/sewage treatment plant was found to be mistreating water, the head of the department supposedly committed suicide rather than go to prison. https://www.tribstar.com/news/update-subject-of-federal-probe-found-dead/article_81cbf9ce-7955-11e7-9d4a-e74241d9aa87.html It smells much better now over there. We used to be called "the armpit of America" because of the sewage treatment plant and the paper mill.
These things have been building for a long time. The rich rule. Now the rich are bringing a new Convention center and a casino here. The convention center is supposed to be paid for by a food and drink tax. https://www.tribstar.com/news/local_news/food-beverage-taxes-up-while-convention-center-on-pause/article_60547bb9-adff-539f-be4a-06b4d4b604cb.html It's not even built yet! The food and beverage tax expires Dec. 31, 2043. On the backs of the poor buying a burger on the dollar menu, this city will build an event center where the stars will come to perform with ticket prices higher than the poor can afford to pay to enjoy it.
You wonder why school enrollment is down? People can't afford to live here anymore. The mall is dying. Most jobs pay less than a living wage. https://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Terre-Haute-IN/Salary https://livingwage.mit.edu/metros/45460 Rent is double what it was in 2011. https://www.rentjungle.com/average-rent-in-terre-haute-rent-trends/
No one is going to a concert here. No one is buying mall clothes (the stores are closing anyway). Except the doctors' and lawyers' kids, of course.
Here is a well written article on the racial disparity here in my town. It talks about school districts, the local jail, and money.
https://slow-worm.com/2020/06/09/redlining-up-close-a-local-case-of-systemic-racism/?fbclid=IwAR0y_GRhLKdLf6fK20z-NrEzIf8_EBTUIuRU1EHTfqnedc-_50HAbH71hvc
There is a change, an awakening here. There are two new Facebook activist groups since the BLM reform movement, one for schools and one for the county itself. People are learning it's okay to be angry about something and it's okay to do something about it within the law. People that I went to high school with are speaking up and taking a stand. It's about time.
For me as an educator, I can't get political or I might lose my job. I see you, though. I see you advocating for me and my children as you advocate for yours. I see you awakening to the signs of the times – as am I. I see us, an underground movement, after work, in the shadows, and it is beautiful.
A Lesson in Brevity
Self-Analysis to Get Out of Your Own Way and Pursue Your Dreams

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Economic Exterminators has been providing quality pest control for the Savannah area for over 60 years. We know pests, and we know how to treat and eliminate them quickly and affordably to assure that you can get back to living pest free as soon as possible.
Here are just some of the many pests we treat. If you can't identify your pest you can always call us and have us perform a free inspection.
How Does Our Pest Control Work?
A licensed and experienced pest control technician will perform a free inspection to determine the type of pest you're dealing with. We'll talk with you regarding what may be causing your pest problem and the best cost & treatment to eliminate it.
Next, we will promptly schedule an appointment to properly treat your home and property and eliminate your pest issue in the quickest and safest method. We know that pest problems are time sensitive issues so it is also possible for your treatment to coincide with the day of inspection*.
Once treatment is finished your technician will educate you regarding prevention and whether any follow-up treatments may be needed our pest control work is fully licensed and guaranteed so you can have peace of mind knowing you're pest problem is gone.
Call us today to schedule a free inspection.


Johnstownbridge booked their place in the last four of the intermediate championship at the second time of asking as they finally saw off a Castledermot side who were none too keen on moving aside too easily, writes Ronan Flanagan.
In the first encounter Patrick Mahon's last gasp penalty saw them salvage a draw but there were no dramatic comebacks on Saturday in Newbridge, although the winners did not have an easy last quarter as the opposition tried in vain to get back into it.
It wasn't to be although Castledermot had chances to make it a bit nervier for the opposition. In the end they just couldn't claw it back as a more rounded Johnstownbridge outfit were able to turn on the style at times and make it count on the scoreboard.
Patrick Mahon got the scoring going on a great day for football but then the Bridge hit three on the trot through Eoin O'Donoghue, Ian McKeown and Niall Vaughan.
Another free from Mahon kept the scoring coming thick and fast in the opening ten minutes. Ian McKeown and Mahon exchanged frees as Johnstownbridge managed to open up the Castledermot defence.
First Cathal McNally was denied before Sean Hurley saw Paul Murphy in similar form in goals.
Minutes later his side went down the other end to score the first goal of the game. Johnstownbridge were opened up before Emmet O'Keeffe blasted home.
Johnstownbridge responded brilliantly as Sean Hurley hit a free from way out on the right sideline. Then Cathal McNally gambled, as all good corner forwards do, and benefited from a defensive mix-up. He was on the ground but managed to regain composure to finish to the net.
The same man was fouled moments later and Eoin O'Donoghue duly converted. Patrick Mahon's free ended the scoring of the first half that ended 1-6 to 1-4 in favour of the winners.
Straight from the restart Sean Hurley kicked a lovely curling effort before both sides swapped wayward efforts.
Patrick Mahon had just missed a bad free but he made up for it as he thumped over a dead ball from way out.
Then came the score of the game as Johnstownbridge worked it up from the full back line resulting in a tap-in finish from Paul Cribbin whose big brother Keith had given the final pass. It was a sweeping move of pace that deserved a goal.
Hurley tapped over a point moments later before Cathal McNally reacted to a dropped free to swing over. Midway through the half the Bridge led by seven points. Castledermot had chances to close the gap but the next point came from Johnstownbridge seeing them go eight into the lead.
This would prove to be Johnstownbridge's last score of the day as Castledermot came at them in droves. This in turn saw the men from the north of the county drop deeper and deeper.
One man who had to stand his ground was 'keeper Ian Farrell who pulled off an amazing save from Anthony Lawler. He hit his shot low and into the corner with power and must have been amazed when Farrell turned it round the post. He could do little for the remainder of the encounter as Castledermot went for points and succeeded through David Keating and Lawler.
There were some nervy moments as Johnstownbridge sat back a bit too much. Castledermot were looking to get in to work a goal but they had to settle for another point courtesy of David Keating.
Ian Farrell; Paul Mooney, Daniel Flynn, Michael Donnelly; Brian Flanagan, Wayne Leonard, James O'Connor; Barry McNally, Paul Cribbin 1-0; Niall Vaughan 0-2, Keith Cribbin, Ian McKeown 0-2 (1f); Eoin O'Donoghue 0-2 (2f), Sean Hurley 0-3 (1f), Cathal McNally 1-1. Subs: Des Holton for Mooney (55mins), Shane Flanagan for P Cribbin (57mins).
Paul Murphy; Liam Cosgrave, William Kelly, Vinnie Dowling; Damien Hendy, Pauric Murphy, Tomás Murphy; Gary Hendy, Gavin Farrell, Anthony Lawler 0-1, David Keating 0-2, Patrick Whelan; Eugene Mahon, Patrick Mahon 0-5 (4f), Emmett O'Keeffe 1-0. Subs: David Doyle for G Hendy (25mins), Dean Farrell for Whelan (40mins), Barry Nolan for Kelly (42mins), Brian Nolan for Cosgrave (54mins), Aidan Murphy for E Mahon (56mins).


In this paper we present the PUMP (Parallel Uncertainty-aware Multiobjective Planning) algorithm for addressing the stochastic kinodynamic motion planning problem, whereby we seek a low-cost, dynamically-feasible motion plan subject to a constraint on collision probability (CP). As a departure from previous methods for chance-constrained motion planning, PUMP directly considers both CP and the optimization objective at equal priority when planning through the free configuration space, achieving an unprecedented combination of cost performance, certified safety, and speed. Planning is conducted through a massively parallel multiobjective search, here implemented with a particular application focus on GPU hardware. PUMP explores the configuration space while maintaining a Pareto optimal front of motion plans, considering cost and approximate collision probability. We introduce a novel particle-based CP approximation scheme, designed for efficient GPU implementation, which accounts for dependencies over the history of a trajectory execution. Upon termination of the exploration phase, PUMP performs a search over the Pareto optimal set of solution motion plans to identify the lowest cost motion plan that is certified to satisfy the CP constraint (according to an asymptotically exact estimator). We present numerical experiments for quadrotor planning wherein PUMP identifies solutions in ~100 ms, evaluating over one hundred thousand partial plans through the course of its exploration phase. The results show that this multiobjective search achieves a lower motion plan cost, for the same collision probability constraint, compared to a safety buffer-based search heuristic and repeated RRT trials.
Rating: 2.1/5. From 21 votes.


text:
Home > Our departments > College of Social Sciences and International Studies > Politics > Current students > Undergraduate Modules at Streatham Campus in Exeter > 2016-17 > module
Theories of the Good Life: From the Agora to the American Dream
Module POC3085 for 2016/7
Aims and Learning Outcomes
Indicative Reading List
Undergraduate Module Descriptor
POC3085: Theories of the Good Life: From the Agora to the American Dream
This module descriptor refers to the 2016/7 academic year.
Please note that this module is only delivered on the Penryn Campus.
This reading list is indicative - i.e. it provides an idea of texts that may be useful to you on this module, but it is not considered to be a confirmed or compulsory reading list for this module.
Barnes, J., ed. The Complete Works of Aristotle, Volumes I and II, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984. (selected passages TBC)
Berger, F.R. (1984) Happiness, Justice and Freedom: the Moral and Political Philosophy of John Stuart Mill. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Bhikhu C Parekh (1973) Jeremy Bentham 1748-1832. Bentham's Political Thought. Croom Helm
Bok, D (2010) The Politics of Happiness Princeton: Princeton University Press
Kenny, A. (1992) Aristotle on the Perfect Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press
Nussbaum, M.C. (2004) Mill between Aristotle and Bentham. Daedalus 133:2, pp60-68
Nussbaum, M.C. (1999) Sex and Social Justice. Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Sen, A, K. (1985) Wellbeing, Agency and Freedom: The Dewey Lectures 1984. The Journal of Philosophy 82:4 pp169-221
Wollstonecraft, M. Letters Written in Sweden, Norway, and Denmark (1796)


text:
This time it's not ESPN's Fault
If you've read any of my posts, you know that I am not a big fan of the way ESPN does a lot of things. I hate the way they make it about themselves most of the time. In addition, Sports Center when it started in 1979 the most innovative thing in television sports. Now it's nothing more a monkey show anchored by morons. Having said that let's be honest. The way ESPN televises College Football and College Basketball is without peer. They are to televised sports what CNN is to political/election coverage. The games are well produced and the announcers are – with some notable exceptions like Dick Vitale whose act has worn thin – excellent. Tonight after watching the grease fire that CBS just put on the air for two hours, I'm starting to think that ESPN might be a softer landing spot for the NCAA men's basketball tournament because it's apparent that the convergence between CBS and Turner just isn't working.
To understand how the NCAA Tournament got to this point, you have to understand the back story. Prior to 1982, selected Tournament games, the Regional Finals and the Final 4 were televised by NBC. Other games were produced by the NCAA's in-house production unit and syndicated to local stations interested in those games. In addition, after opening its doors in 1979, ESPN had a few games from NCAA productions. In 1982, CBS grabbed the rights to the tournament away from NBC. The effect was that from the second round forward, the tournament belonged to the so-called "Tiffany Network". Again, selected first round games were produced by the NCAA and pitched to selected local stations. This move made the tournament more of a national event and CBS deserves credit for that. Then in 1991, CBS grabbed the rights to the entire tournament and they billed it as "tip to trophy." If their previous efforts made it more of a national event, this really did so because everyone knew where to look for the tournament broadcasts. The broadcasts were well produced – as CBS's productions still are – and their announcers were excellent and many times included bringing announcers over from ESPN like Jay Bilas to broadcast games. Only three broadcasters have ever announced the Final 4 on CBS: Gary Bender who did the first two, Brent Musburger from 1984 – 1990 when he was fired by CBS Executive Producer Ted Shaker the day before the UNLV-Duke National Championship game on April Fool's Day, and Jim Nantz who will this year broadcast his 26th Final 4, most of those with Billy Packer, later Clark Kellog, later Greg Anthony and now Bill Raferty and Grant Hill.
Of course everything in this world is driven by the economy and the economic downturn took it's toll on all of us, CBS included. The network had to pay handsomely for the rights to broadcast the tournament with a contract scheduled to run through 2013. However, what most people didn't know is that the contract included an opt-out for the NCAA in 2010 and since the organization is all about cash, the NCAA exercised that option after the 2010 tournament and put it on the open market for the highest price. Enter ESPN who has long coveted a chance to get back in. The general thought was that ESPN would pay whatever the NCAA wanted for a tournament that was going to expand to 96 teams. ESPN has shown a tendency to overpay for sports including the most expensive contract to broadcast the NFL that includes just 17 regular season Monday night games, 1 wild card playoff game, and no Super Bowls.
CBS desperately wanted to keep the tournament, but was in a position where they could not continue to take an economic bath on it. So, rather than walk away and cede the tournament to ESPN, CBS found a cable dancing partner in Turner Sports, based in Atlanta. I heard an interview with CBS President Sean McManus (the son of Legendary ABC announcer Jim McKay) who said that getting Turner was the only way CBS could stay involved. So, Turner/CBS and the NCAA signed a 14-year contract in 2011 that would put the majority of the tournament on cable television. Cable can afford larger rights fees more than traditional broadcast television as it has "dual revenue streams". Cable gets both advertising dollars and subscriber fees. Broadcast television has just advertising dollars.
At the time, I was among the people who was excited about the prospect of the Turner/CBS partnership. For one thing it mean every game would be televised where you could actually watch it across 4 networks: CBS, TBS, TNT, and TruTV, although I'm of the opinion that the only time anyone watches TruTV is during the NCAA Tournament. With CBS doing the tournament, you had a game of "local interest" assigned to your local CBS station with cut-ins to other games. To get other games you could initially get them from Direct TV's "Mega March Madness" and later on your computer or tablet with the NCAA's March Madness Live app. The Turner/CBS partnership meant some new voices on the tournament including legendary broadcaster Marv Albert who hadn't broadcast tournament games since his days at NBC. Albert, however, is no longer doing NCAA games. Apparently he told his bosses at Turner that doing 9 NCAA games in over a week has an adverse effect on his voice. But for every Marv Albert, Turner also made sure some of it's other NBA voices got time on college basketball and therein lies the problem.
Make no mistake, the problem is not in the broadcasts themselves where Turner announcers like Brian Anderson and Steve Smith have proven themselves to be among the best in the business and this year earned a well deserved promotion to broadcasting the regional finals. The problem is in the studio. Ernie Johnson, Charles Barkley, and Kenny Smith team with Shaquielle O'Neil on TNT's "Inside the NBA" Studio show. Frankly it's excellent. You'll be hard pressed to find a better studio host than Ernie Johnson and he's not the problem with Turner/CBS's NCAA coverage. He may not do college basketball all season, but he does his homework and is always prepared. In addition, he's excellent at tweaking his cohorts, especially Barkley. The problem is also not so-much Kenny Smith, but other than playing at North Carolina (a fact he's likely to remind you of at least once a broadcast window) I'm not sure he follows the college game that much. The problem is Barkley (Shaq is not part of the coverage). Barkley doesn't know college basketball, clearly doesn't follow it, doesn't know the players and coaches, and will say or do at least one thing per broadcast that has you scratching your head.
That brings us to tonight's two-hour NCAA selection show on CBS from 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. It was in a word a "disaster". First of all we had two different sets and too many voices. But, hey you have to fill two hours so I guess you need them all. On one set we had host Greg Gumbel, whose work I like, but he always looks miserable in the studio. Maybe he is. Maybe he'd rather do play-by-play like he does on the NFL, or maybe after all these years hosting this thing, he's just doing a job. Joining Gumbel was Clark Kellogg, who appears to be a genuinely nice man who knows college basketball and excels in the studio. Joining those two was Doug Gottlieb. Don't even get me started with this bozo. I've never understood CBS's fascination with this clown. He's one of these guys who thinks that the more you raise your voice, the more likely you are to be right. And he needs to save us the righteous indignation. He practically had kittens when Kentucky and Indiana were matched up in a potential second round game (as if anyone cares that they don't play anymore) and then threw a temper tantrum over Syracuse making the tournament, which apparently they did comfortably as a 10 seed saying that anyone who loses to St. John's shouldn't be in this tournament. I understand he's paid to have opinions and I have no problem with that. He's just a condescending prick while doing it. When he first joined CBS he was in the studio. They figured out that didn't work and moved him to game coverage, where he isn't much better. I honestly think CBS has figured out he has no talent but is stuck with him in a contract so since they have to pay him, they make the rest of us miserable with him.
On the second set, we had Johnson – prepared and smooth as always, CBS regular Seth Davis, Smith and Barkley. Seth Davis' job is to cover college basketball 365 days a year. He knows his stuff, but he was lost in a sea of incompetence tonight. Barkley gave us his first head scratching moment of this year when making a point about Villanova and Michigan State. He gave his opinion that Michigan State deserved to be a number one seed. That's what he's paid to do and not a bad point, but his rationale for that was saying that the tournament committee didn't want Villanova to be a number one seed. Huh? That left his set mates puzzled and the rest of us as well. I'm not sure they didn't want Villanova to be a number one seed, they just felt someone else was more deserving. But, nothing was an awkward as watching him use the touchscreen to advance the teams he thought were going to win in the tournament in a particular region. He couldn't figure it out and looked like a clown. Smith even joked with him that he should wash the lotion off his hands which prompted Barkley to say he was a "metrosexual" and gets a mani and pedi every week. First of all if that's true you should never say it on National Television and secondly thanks for that image. Somewhere in the control room a producer had to be cringing. I have an idea. When he gets back to Atlanta, he needs to go over to CNN Center and let CNN's John King show him how to use the touchscreen because that guy is a God on the touchscreen. He makes election night worth watching himself. Smith got his turn at the touchscreen and made a joke of it by just advancing North Carolina through the tournament without making other picks first. Big shock there, huh? Seth Davis was apparently so rattled by all the garbage going on in the studio, he stumbled his way through the "bubble watch" on the touch screen while talking about the teams that were sweating it out. Again, I like him and he knows his stuff, but this segment was unnecessary because they had the damn bracket with all the teams in the field at the time they were doing it.
The biggest issue is why was this damn show two hours? Remember when it used to be 30 minutes? That's all it needs to be. Two hours opened the door for the kind of foolishness we saw tonight. ESPN writer Brett McMurphy had a great line on Twitter when he said that next year CBS was going to improve ratings for this show by adding an extra hour and starting it on New Year's Eve. To no fault of CBS, the show became completely unnecessary because somehow the complete bracket was leaked and posted on Twitter before CBS had announced 3/4 of the tournament field. That opened another great line on Twitter when someone said they'd watch a two hour show to learn how the bracket was leaked to the public before CBS announced it. I literally sat here with the tournament bracket watching Gumbel go through it. CBS and Turner probably need to figure out how that happened and put a stop to it.
If CBS were still in exclusive control of the tournament we know we wouldn't have Barkley, Smith and others from Turner and probably not the monkey show we saw tonight nor the ones you are destined to see in the coming weeks with Barkley saying and doing something stupid. But, Turner is controlling the tournament broadcasts because they put up most of the money. That's why for the first time since 1982 CBS will not broadcast the National Championship Game as it will air on TBS making this the first time in the 78 year history of the NCAA Tournament that the title game will appear on Cable. That's the reality of television sports, but if we are going to take it to cable, maybe the NCAA should consider taking it to the Cable guys who do this all the time, know what they are doing and have perfected the art of a worthless two hour show.
The Granddaddy of them all
Time for some Mad-ness


If you have fallen or twisted your foot, you may have sprained your ankle. If you are aware of the importance of treating this condition early, the recovery process may be accelerated. Resting the ankle can be accomplished by not walking on it. Using crutches may be beneficial in eliminating the pressure from the affected joints. Additionally, elevating the foot may reduce any swelling that may be present. A diagnosis may be necessary in determining the severity of the sprain, and if there has been damage done to the tendons and ligaments. For severe sprains, a rehabilitation program may be needed which may be helpful in regaining total mobility of the ankle. If you have sprained your ankle, please consult with a podiatrist as quickly as possible, so the correct treatment can begin.
Ankle sprains are common but need immediate attention. If you need your feet checked, contact one of our podiatrists from Westside Podiatry Center, LLP. Our doctors can provide the care you need to keep you pain-free and on your feet.
Flatfoot is a condition many people suffer from. If you have flat feet, contact one of our podiatrists from Westside Podiatry Center, LLP. Our doctors will treat your foot and ankle needs.