Some clarity on "unity" may also help address an apparent misunderstanding between the original author and the respondent. It may help to consider that, especially in a liberal Quaker context, "unity" is not the same thing as "conformity." The respondent appears to be offended by the inference that a quest for unity will lead to a set of standards to which all will be expected to conform. I did not read the original message to mean that at all, but that may just reflect where I'm coming from.

Augustine wrote "In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, Love." This may help unpack the distinction a bit, since it highlights that unity is not required for all things; the trick is figuring out what is essential. I suspect and hope that Quakers can agree that respect, courtesy, and Love are essentials, and perhaps even humility and forbearance.

Perhaps another stumbling block is to fixate on unity as being a question of right belief and dictums. That's the definition of orthodoxy, which is not where liberal Quakers are coming from, though presumably Orthodox Quakers are. But let me suggest that the far more important sort of unity we should all seek is of a spiritual nature, rooted in our shared experience of God's presence and Love, that transcends all words or efforts to define or describe it. George Fox wrote "...take heed of forming words, but mind the power, and know that which is eternal, which will keep you all in unity, walking in the Spirit ..." (Epistle 43). In such a unity, we all walk more closely in God's path with a clearer understanding of God's will for us. In finding greater unity in this sense, not just with each other but also more importantly with God, we find our way to a place where right action is more plain to all of us as well as more appealing. In such a unity with God, there is no place for many of the hateful things the respondent seems to fear.

Hope this helps.

Ken Stockbridge
Webservant of http://sexuality.quaker.org
Moderator of http://groups.yahoo.com/group/QuakerSexuality
Patapsco Friends Meeting
Ellicott City, Maryland, USA

Friend, I am sorry that my article upset you. I din't intend that. I doubt that you intended to upset me either, though that was my first response to reading your post.

I think there have been some misunderstandings, and I'd like to address those before speaking to the real difference which I see between our positions.

First, when I spoke of moving beyond respect and courtesy I was not suggesting discarding them. Respect and courtesy are essential. They may be all that we owe to strangers. Within community we need to be respectful and courteous, but I think we also need to offer support and accountability to one another, and we do this better when we have a common purpose. I don't see why we can't clarify our goals in a respectful and courteous manner.

Second, I am not opposed to gay and lesbian relationships; my article mentions my joy in being present at the marriage of two women under the care of my Meeting. I am concerned at the harm that can be done by casual, uncommitted sex, but this has nothing to do with sexual orientation.

Thirdly, I don't believe that sex is the only or the most important moral issue. I live and work on a Catholic Worker farm, growing food to share and trying to be a good neighbor in a low-income community. I've written about money and class issues for various Quaker publications. I wrote this article for Friends Journal's special issue on sexual ethics. I do believe that the consumer culture to which you object distorts sexuality in harmful ways as well as distorting other things. I do believe that sexuality is a vital part of our lives and, like all the other parts, requires attention to God's guidance.

I know I may be missing something, but I perceive an inconsistency in your statements about judgment. If I understand you correctly, you object to the idea of judging sexual behavior between consenting adults. However, you do make a negative moral judgment abut my inviting consenting adults to gather for discernment about sexuality and spirituality. I have trouble seeing why speech should be more subject to judgment than sex.

I believe that we are called to discern God's will for all aspects of our individual and corporate lives. This discernment often involves recognizing that some choices do harm. I am aware that harm has been done by people who claim to speak for Christianity and condemn people whose behavior offends them. I am also aware that harm is done by the consumer-culture model of sexuality. I know too many girls who became sexually active in their early teens because they felt it was expected of them, to prove that they weren't neurotic or hopelessly unattractive. (And the consumer model of sexuality contains its own judgments. I've been told by Quakers and others that my choice to remain celibate unless I marry is neurotic and unwholesome. ) I think that if we refuse to talk and pray about sexual ethics as a community we create a vacuum which is easily filled by the popular culture's messages. I think this is a great disservice to Quaker young people, or perhaps to all Quakers. I'm not sure if you disagree with me on these issues or if we have simply misunderstood one another.

Peace be with you. May we both learn to see more clearly.

Joanna

Not very Friendly of you....

"If we intend to go beyond courtesy and respect and try to reach unity as a Religious Society".

Then you'll be a very very small religious society. And if you intend to go beyond "respect" then you will lose the respect of others as well as their courtesy. We have too many Christians all-too willing to go "beyond courtesy and respect" in the name of religious unity. Frankly, it hasn't worked out very well for them either.

I question the need or appropriateness to bring this topic up under any sort of religious auspices. This line of "investigation" is impossible to engage in without judging, hurting or committing harm in some way to a great many people. Indeed, you already have. If that is what the Society of Friends is engaged in towards some pursuit for "unity" then you'll be doing it without my family's support.

Especially when vast populations of people within the United States are having horrendous injustices done to them and their families by their own government based on their affectional orientation and especially when those injustices are being done under the name of God and of Christianity. How can you even begin to go down this path when souls who love one another deeply are legally kept separate when one is dying in a hospital? Because of the actions of the religious "unity" of other Christians acting on our government. What about the effect of your judgments against closeted youth? Who know the love they feel is a natural and real thing and not something bad? Is their suicide rate an acceptable casualty in the course of discarding "respect" for unity?

Additionally, Jesus did not make this a particular area of his concern, instead He chose to focus intently on the direct harm of inequality, untreated illnesses, starvation, the affects of hatred (on both parties) the injustices of extreme wealth. Oddly, Jesus seemed to be fairly respectful, even towards people torturing him....

In many ways, it is easier to go after sexuality, sexual expression, than it is to look at the core foundations of our society and practices that may be harming the planet or the poor. Sex is sensational, exciting to discuss, easy to rally people around (whatever your beliefs) but ask uncomfortable questions about where Play Stations are made, or our banking practices, how we consume, and things get difficult quickly. How about focusing on the lives being lost through lack of medical insurance? Is there a more Christian concern than healing the poor? I seem to recall Jesus doing some of that somewhere... And believe me, if our youth don't realize they can't afford health care now, they will once they graduate. Why not generate a consensus on how we consume? On what is best for our planet and it's people? Wouldn't it be far more appropriate to engage in that dialog with the most heavily target consumer group on the planet (youth)? How about discussing how advertising targets their thinking and judgment? Our nation is still torturing people in our names, we are still at war - why are you even thinking about who other people love as a priority for "unity?"

But can't sex be harmful? Sure, but that harm comes only from the core issues discussed by Jesus. Essentially where ALL harm comes from: Lack of respect for others and treating people as if they were things. It is unnecessary, to arrive at any consensus regarding the private behavior of consenting adults. And there is simply no way to engage in this way without judging some conduct as "bad" or others as "good" and that is entirely inappropriate to do without the existence of direct harm/violence.

If we can make the stretch and presume it's our place to reach "consensus" (judgment) on sexuality then there really isn't a line that can't be crossed. And once those sorts of lines start to be crossed people, justifiably, will object to judgment and withdraw their support. If Friends are not friendly, respectful and instead demand unity then why not just merge with another faith? Many other faiths have the machinery of judgment handy and find unity an easy task. Although, they do have problems with attendance, fund-raising, using any kind of public space, major headaches with public relations, and loads of tax and discrimination lawsuits. That kind of disrespectful unity doesn't look so grand to me.

Basically, you engage in judgment of others at your own considerable organizational and moral risk. To use this organization as a platform to cloak the personal prejudices of individuals with the mantel of a religion is grossly, profoundly, blatantly out-of-line and irresponsible. When you presume to judge the legitimacy of love and how its expressed between consenting adults then you presume to fill the role of God. And when, as Friends, you decide to remove respect and courtesy in favor of doctrinaire unity you remove any reason for your existence as an alternate branch of Christianity.

I find Charlotte Kasl's book _If The Buddha Dated: A Handbook for Finding Love on a Spiritual Path_ a profoundly helpful book. Kasl is a member of Missoula Friends Meeting. Her book emphasizes a Buddhist perspective, but also discusses Quakerism. It's the closest thing I've found to Quaker advice on spirituality & sexuality. It's also one of the best books I've read on growing as a person. Kasl is a practicing psychotherapist, and she brings both a spiritual and a clinical perspective to the subject.

The fundemental questions are about how we honor the Light within ourselves and each person we encounter in a romantic context. It's also about being honest with ourselves, moving beyond our childhood patterns, and enjoying these moments together. I recommend it.

-Katie

This Friend speaks my mind.
- - Rich Accetta-Evans of Brooklyn Quaker (http://brooklynquaker.blogspot.com)

Here are some of my basic commitments of when I was younger -
- First do no harm
- Honor the other person's integrity and freedom of choice
- Love (them and me)
- Be truthful
I think I learned these commitments from my Quaker communities.

Now, a little older, I do have some regrets. What I regret is how much my fears have previously been mixed up in, not just sexuality, but all aspects of relationships. Not everyone seems to have that problem, but many do. Looking back I see that I needed to experiment a little more and worry about doing harm a little less. I don't mean that doing harm is OK of course, just that the fear of it was a problem and mostly I mean the fear of doing harm to myself. And that's the other thing I've learned: the people who I respect most are those who have given themselves the most experience. I wish I had. Such experience as I do have teaches me that pain is valuable, in fact is the greatest teacher and the doorway to love.

Now I'm not talking about serious violence, rape, incest and boundary crossing. But the rest of it - misunderstanding, eagerness, insecurity, power imbalances, klutziness, rejection, want, need, desperation . . . all the pain happens at a very intimate level and all the ways we run over people despite ourselves. What we need is not to avoid it (like I tried to), but to learn to be strong enough to handle it and aware enough to realize what we might do to another.

So here's the thing about ethics: the people who talk about it and worry about it are not the one's who really need ethics.

First of all, there are some people who want to talk about ethics because they want a set of rules to live by. Those are the people who would be better off casting their rules to the wind! Not their compassion and respect for other people - that's an entirely different energy - but the structure that keeps experience away. Or worse, judges other people's love.

I like that you come back to commitments. Which is a close cousin of queries, which ask you to look at your alignment with those commitments.

I think you are right that there are commitments inherited from the popular culture that need to be challenged.

Here are my commitments now:

- Be present in my own body and energy
- Listen, but more with my eyes and empathy. Look for things not as they are verbalized.
- Take risks -- risks of invitation and exploration
- Be willing to accept any response and let it be (that is, honor their freedom)
- Wait for myself to catch up with my circumstances, and wait for them
- But don't wait for truth; the truth is always now. The next moment will have a different truth - let it and seize the day.
- Don't settle
- Delight in love. Don't worry about making it into anything.
- Be truthful

Some of these are directly contradictory to what I learned from Quakers.

I think it's interesting that Jesus did not say much about sexuality--a little bit more about relationships (specifically marriages in a culture where a divorced wife could expect a life of precarious poverty) and a lot more about treating people right (Which is highly context-dependent.) He did not seem to be working so much to establish a new law code (although he is portrayed in a Moses-like role sometimes) as to favor the line of Torah interpretation exemplified in: "The Sabbath was made for people, not people for the Sabbath."

The urgent issues of his day were the systematic crushing of the poor under Roman commercial property-and-lending customs (and the abandonment of much of the Torah's safety-net) and the consequent revolt and brutal suppression that were to come some decades later. Raising a family could not be a high priority for anyone who read the situation that way; the important ethical considerations were mutual aid, solidarity with others in need, maintaining community cohesion--and I think the sayings we're left with tend to reflect that

We've gone through a whole sequence of shifting mores as the economic conditions first gave people a lot of slack in the 60's, then increasingly got tighter and nastier. Expectations about the future one would be bringing a child into have changed from "The whole world could be wiped out in one dumb military accident!" to "It will be a miracle if our grandchildren have a world fit to live in." Marriage is increasingly returning to its traditional role as an economic partnership. Antibiotics are on the way to becoming useless; and several years of exuberant gay promiscuity amplified the virulence of a formerly unknown sexually-transmitted virus to a horrifying extent; we've been forcibly reminded of the need to keep things sanitary. Once again, the actual mores that people come to practice are likely to change in unpredictable ways; what stays constant is the need to look out for each other.