The
Quaker Sweat Lodge (QSL)Some Correspondence about the QSL
The
Quaker Sweat Lodge (QSL)
Some Correspondence about the QSL
[NOTE: The FGC Long Range Conference Planning Committee held its spring 2005 session at Rochester NY Monthly Meeting, with the QSL as a major item on its agenda. The following correspondence was sent out to LRCP members and others in advance:
March 2005
Email from Chuck Fager to the FGC Long Range Conference Planning Committee (LRCP) Members
Friends--
Here are some comments on the recent email document [sent by the incoming Clerk of LRCP, David Miller, entitled],
<< THE QUAKER SWEAT LODGE -- NOW WHAT?
Thoughts about our search for a way forward
Prepared for LRCP March 2005 meeting >>
The comments are by LRCP member Chuck Fager
Dave Miller wrote:
<snip>
Following the discussion at LRCP's meeting during Central Committee 2004, I
realized that we needed to achieve clarity on several issues around the QSL in
order to get beyond the very palpable pain, anger, and sense of loss that had
been so evident at the Listenings, and to work together toward a resolution of
the long-term future of QSL. God willing, we will come to such clarity on them
that they serve as a solid foundation for addressing the question of the QSL
itself. In brief, the issues are
Chuck Fager comments:
This list seems to me incomplete. I suggest three more items be added:
o What is right order for FGC/LRCP to deal fairly with accusations of racism?
o How can FGC/LRCP regain the credibility it lost by the way the QSL issue has been mishandled?
o How can FGC/LRCP restore the integrity of its committee and workshop processes, both of which have been undermined by the treatment of the QSL?
Dave Miller wrote:
They [the issues] may be framed as follows:
<< Quakerly or Not?
Some LRCP members and other Friends feel that a sweat lodge is not Quakerly. This issue clearly goes way beyond LRCP’s turf, but addressing it may be a necessary part of the search for a permanent decision regarding the QSL. If LRCP cannot assert with confidence that the QSL is legitimately within the bounds of Quakerism, how can we defend its continuation? >>
Chuck Fager comments:
I have a different view of the "legitimacy" item. The real issues here are two:
First, was the QSL a case of "flagrant racism" or not? That was the accusation made against it, and that was the accusation LRCP’s actions affirmed.
And second, did LRCP’s dealings with the QSL matter meet elementary standards of fairness and justice?
We should all be able to agree that racism and injustice are un-Quakerly. And that is as far as LRCP needs to go toward defining Quakerism in this case.
The range of spiritual beliefs and personal spiritual practice among FGC Friends is and has been very broad, and FGC has properly not tried to limit it based on belief. Attempting more would put us on a slippery slope toward creeds, witch hunts and schisms. FGC’s whole history and ethos stand against such efforts, and wisely so.
Instead, LRCP/FGC has (at its best) been careful to focus on setting limits to BEHAVIOR at its events, leaving the spirit of seeking untrammeled.
This is a much more concrete, manageable and appropriate effort. And FGC/LRCP has already set standards for what is acceptable "Quakerly" behavior under its aegis (e.g., no sexual harassment, weapons, drugs, alcohol, etc.) These existing standards have applied to the QSL just as to all other efforts.
Does a QSL require application of a NEW standard of "quakerliness"?
I for one do not believe so. To set up such an essentially doctrinal standard would be to open a Pandora’s box of troubles. Do we really want LRCP to have its agenda further loaded down with challenges to the "quakerliness" of this workshop, that program, or the other speaker?
Spare us, please! Let’s leave such inquisitions to the fundamentalists.
This returns us to the concrete charge of racism, which by policy is an unacceptable BEHAVIOR at FGC events. I affirm that policy. But was the QSL racist or not? And was this accusation dealt with in a manner that modeled justice and fairness? These are the questions that got us here.
To both questions, after extensive study and interviewing, my answer was and is NO. And for LRCP to be accepting this charge in such an arbitrary and unfair way has caused serious damage to LRCP, FGC, and Quakerism.
The main practical issue for LRCP now, in my view, is not how to define Quakerism, but: how can LRCP clean up this mess before it does even more harm?
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Cultural Appropriation
Some have asserted that the QSL is yet another shameful example of the white man’s stealing from the Native Americans. Not content with stealing their land, we also seek to make them vanish as separate peoples by stealing unique aspects of their culture. The issue is complicated by the fact that different Native American tribes feel differently on the subject. >>
Chuck Fager comments:
For me, the issue is further complicated by the fact that there is NO ACCEPTED DEFINITION of "cultural appropriation," especially where rituals rather than objects are concerned. There has been little candor about this fuzziness on the part of the accusers of the QSL; the charge was made as if "cultural appropriation" was an obvious and self-defining violation.
IT IS NOT. I quickly found ten definitions, all different, and none "official," and that was not the end of them. So if LRCP is to ban "cultural appropriation" in FGC, we will have to decide for ourselves what it includes. This will, I predict, be a very difficult task; but fairness to those tarred with the brush of "flagrant racism" by "cultural appropriation" requires it.
Dave Miller wrote:
<< We need to be clear on whether we are prepared to defend the QSL ritual either by denying it is an example of cultural appropriation and then presenting convincing (to whom?) evidence to that end or by simply saying that all religions borrow worship forms and traditions from others and thus we are no more to blame than any other organized religion. >>
Chuck Fager comments
"Convincing (to whom?)" indeed.
My answer is that LRCP/FGC is responsible for and to ITSELF (and to God), so we should be answering OUR OWN questions, and making OUR OWN decisions. We gather information and insight from others, but the buck stops with us.
It is absurd and offensive to suggest that some self-appointed outsider, who has never had formal contact with FGC, never been to any of its events, and is unlikely ever to do so, could claim or be given veto power over decisions made by FGC’s duly appointed committees following their good order.
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Either way, the next step would be either to ignore the complaint and continue our practice in spite of protest, or to find a way forward with QSL that does not disrespect those who feel violated. >>
Chuck Fager comments:
Ignoring the complaint would be as bad an idea as accepting it uncritically has been. This set of options overlooks a third course, which I believe the proper one, namely:
1. To carefully examine accusations of racism like that made against QSL;
2. Listen just as carefully to those who have been accused;
3. Gather such additional information and evidence as may be needed, and
4. Make an informed and specific response, standing in the Truth as we see it and letting the chips fall.
In the case of the accusations against the QSL, such a fair and informed process would, I believe, have shown the accusation to be wholly without merit. Perhaps I'm mistaken about that; but in any event, there was certainly no such fair and informed process.
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Is it possible that the QSL would be acceptable in the "territory" of some Yearly Meetings, and would FGC want to help enable the QSL to occur where it would be welcomed by local Native American tribes, either at Yearly Meeting sessions or at the Gathering when it occurs in QSL-welcoming territory? >>
Chuck Fager comments:
This proposal seems to me unwieldy and unwarranted.
Why unwieldy? Consider: in Massachusetts there were no less than six Native bands and nations located closer to Amherst than the group from which one person objected to the planned QSL there, a hundred miles away
Shouldn't they all have been consulted? And what if their views (assuming they wanted to express any) were mixed? The idea that a phone call to an academic here and a YM committee person there constitutes "due diligence" in this matter for the 2005 Gathering certainly does not wash. Given the number and variety of native groups, the labor of gathering and sorting out adequate "research" in such a matter would be a crushing burden to staff and LRCPers alike.
And why unwarranted? First, because FGC’s Central Committee already includes representatives from all its member groups. That is our path of accountability to member YMs, and it works.
The idea that FGC should submit decisions like the QSL to some special review by outside organizations or yearly meeting subgroups is fraught with problems: If we start with the QSL, how can we justify stopping there? What about our LGBT programs, which will offend many "outside groups" in Virginia[at the 2005 FGC Gathering]? The women’s center? Various other speakers, books, or events?
Further, YM committees do not speak for their YMs. Thus, will all "sensitive" program ideas need to be reviewed by nearby YMs in session?
Please. Speaking from my own Baltimore YM, I can report that our agendas are already quite (over) full enough, thank thee very much.
Furthermore, if such local consultation and concurrence is to be required, let me warn FGC never to return to North Carolina, where all or parts of four and a half yearly meetings are located, plus some large independent, but FGC-affiliated monthly meetings to take into account. (A similar situation obtains in Ohio.) Open that can of worms if you dare.
No, Friends, in LRCP/FGC, the buck stops with US. We can trust our established lines of accountability.
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Spiritual Growth
From George Price’s article and many of the comments at the Listening session, I was persuaded that the QSL had indeed been an opportunity for spiritual enrichment and growth, especially for Young Friends and Adult Young Friends. As such, it seems appropriate to ask what windows we can help open if, for whatever reasons, we find it necessary to close the QSL door. I understand that this issue likely will go well beyond the scope of LRCP
'ÇÖs mission and could – make that should -- involve other elements and committees of FGC. At one point in the discussion I was hoping that with the help of the QSL leaders we might succeed in identifying the essential elements of the spiritual experience and find a way to recast them in a more "Quakerly" mold. However, I was subsequently persuaded that the QSL experience was an organic whole and any attempt to dissect and reassemble it, particularly if the attempt was intellectually-based, was bound to fail. I had asked the QSL leaders to participate in this effort but am not sure they are inclined to. I now feel that LRCP needs to get clear on how far we think our responsibility in this matter should go. Does LRCP bear some responsibility for providing an alternative? If so, what steps do we need to take? If not, can we get clear that it’s OK to just walk away from the void our policy could create? >>Chuck Fager comments:
It is definitely not OK for LRCP to walk away. And I do not see a "void" here, but rather a serious wound. It is a wound inflicted especially on many young adults in FGC, some of whose deepest spiritual experiences have now been branded as "flagrant racism." It was also (self-) inflicted on LRCP and the good order of FGC.
This lapse of judgment also affects, for instance, the workshop committee and its process: how can potential leaders be sure their proposals will not be subject to ex post facto veto by some outside group even after they have been approved?
The treatment of QSL has set a very regrettable and damaging precedent in this regard.
Moreover, the notion that LRCP could or should take the QSL, scrub out all "unacceptable" elements and craft some sanitized substitute is, well, charitably described as "bound to fail."
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Summary
<< From my perspective, to decide the QSL can continue in the long run implies that we must first:
Affirm that the QSL qualifies as Quakerly, >>
Chuck Fager comments:
Again, I differ: LRCP would only have to conclude that the QSL was not a case of flagrant racism, or that such an accusation had not been proven. This is a matter of behavior, not doctrine.
Who among us, after all, really qualifies as "quakerly"? And who in FGC has been awarded the authority to make that judgment?
Not me; and I would humbly suggest, not thee either.
Friends, I implore you: let us NOT presume to start defining Quakerism or Quakerliness, for that way lies 350 more years of trouble and division.
Dave Miller wrote:
<< Dismiss the argument that our holding a QSL constitutes cultural appropriation, or agree that each year we must seek the approval of Native American tribal representatives local to the Gathering venue, and proceed only with their assent. >>
Chuck Fager comments:
My view is that by no means should we "dismiss" the accusation of flagrant racism. Rather, let it be carefully examined in a thorough, fair, and well-informed way. Then we can render a verdict in good order, on behavior rather than belief, and stand by the decision.
As for seeking annual "approval" of local Native American tribal representatives for a QSL, I can only repeat that this is a very bad precedent, which puts us in the way of innumerable other challenges. It would also create a huge burden of work for staff and committee members, and plunge us into a complex and contentious realm of Native American politics which is beyond our capacity to sort out.
Let us make our own decisions, Friends, by our own good order, in as informed and fair and Spirit-led a way as possible, and stand by them.
Dave Miller wrote:
<snip> << But whether QSL can continue or not, we need to learn from past inappropriate behavior and work to conduct the discussion in ways that reflect sound Quaker practice.
Dealing with One Another
After we deal with the issues successfully, we will have an opportunity to consider QSL as a case study in how we deal with one another. There is a need to examine this issue -- starting within LRCP but recognizing that it’s a common concern throughout FGC. The history of the QSL controversy has not been a model of sound Quaker practice. It has been marked by personal attacks on the character, motives, and integrity of various persons; by dissemination of misinformation when a little fact-checking would have sufficed to get the story straight; and by a "we/they" attitude in some instances that would have been better served by a mutual effort to problem-solve. How can we learn from this history and do better at handling controversy in a way that models the best of Quaker practice? Can we take a "lessons learned" approach, possibly with the help of a volunteer task team comprised of LRCP members and possibly other FGC committee representatives, and benefit from the effort? >>
Chuck Fager comments:
There is much insight in the above comments. The QSL matter is indeed a case study in how NOT to deal fairly with accusations of "flagrant racism." To accept them as was done here, without careful, fair and fully informed inquiry, is surely a model of bad Quaker practice.
In the QSL case, a little fact-checking would have revealed how insubstantial and misinformed the original accusations were; how difficult it is even to define the alleged "flagrant racism" that had allegedly been committed; in what a one-sided and unbalanced a manner the accusation was weighed and accepted; and a little more fact-checking would show how much damage this affair has been doing to FGC in sectors crucial to our future. We could have saved ourselves a whole lot of trouble. We still CAN save ourselves a whole lot more.
I regret that I can't be with you in Rochester. I wish you light and courage in dealing with this and the other matters before you.
Peace,
Chuck Fager
From Breeze Luetke-Stahlman, 3-10-2005:
[To LRCP]
Please share my thoughts with those in attendance. Thank you.
First, I simply want to encourage the committee to carefully consider Friend Chuck Fager's comments offered to the committee. His thoughts were straightforward, concrete and absolutely correct in laying-out the implications of the committee's decisions. Those in attendance should think carefully about their assertion that they can say what is or is not Quakerly and be ready to uphold that authority.
Additionally, I find it interesting that you are considering this issue alongside a discussion around declining Gathering attendance - I for one can speak to my condition that it is because of your hasty, deeply-hurtful, inappropriate assumed authority that I no longer attend the Gathering myself nor encourage others to attend. You can choose to disregard this fact, or address it. I feel very strongly that regardless of your decision to "welcome back" the sweat lodge into your Gathering or not, the committee owes George Price, Cullen Carns-Hilliker and myself personal apologies for the assumptions made about us the harm done to us by Friends General Conference. I also feel the committee should author a public apology to all sweat lodge participants for the assumptions and judgments made of them by Friends General Conference.
Such apologies would go a long way in recognizing serious harm was done by this organization to its members and the implications you wish to avoid in recognizing your errors.
Second, an inaccuracy in Dave's statement:
"...to meet with the QSL leaders (George Price, Breeze Luetke-Stahlman, Cullen Carns-Hilliker) to discuss their request for recognition of QSL as a Gathering program or at least a workshop whose leaders would have the same standing and support as other workshop leaders, but with an additional expectation of continuation of the QSL from year to year without the customary annual workshop approval procedure..."
TRUTH: The purpose of our meeting was to actually only to discuss the request for recognition of the sweat lodge as a Gathering program and for a Sweat Lodge Coordinator to be recognized by the FGC Gathering & provided with a work grant in return for their service. This after members of the High School Planning Committee had assumed the role for years and the sweat lodge had grown to be its own entity serving hundreds of Gathering participants (of all ages) on its own. Attached are Dave Miller's own notes from the Meeting (June 2002). I feel it is inappropriate to suggest we met with Dave Miller to request exception to the workshop approval procedures, when this is absolutely not the case. Our intentions were exactly the opposite - by offering our request we were seeking to work more within the procedures of the Gathering, opposed to outside them as we had been operating for years.
FURTHER CLARIFICATION: The sweat lodge is something that has existed at the Gathering for over a decade as something that organically occurred. It's attenders have disproportionately been members of the High School and Young Adult Friends communities, but especially in recent years more members of the adult Gathering community have included participation in the sweat lodge as part of their Gathering week.
Then, in 2001, George Price, Cullen Carns-Hilliker and I submitted a proposal for a workshop based around the sweat lodge experience at the Gathering. It was accepted and considered a remarkable experience by those who attended. There were still two sweat lodges offered in the evening during the week in which the 35 workshop participants joined tens of other Gathering attenders in one of these as part of their workshop (obviously many others attended who were not part of our workshop, but rather attended another workshop). This occurred again in 2002 and 2003. Each year workshop evaluations were completed - I encourage FGC to follow its own internal evaluation process and examine these (I think the committee is doing the process a disservice to be discussing the quality of a workshop without having examined them).
The proposal that was submitted in 2002 asking FGC to recognize a Sweat Lodge Coordinator was asking for recognition of the time, energy and work that is put into facilitating the evening sweat lodges each year (in 2003, demand required we increase from two to three nights during
the Gathering - meaning in addition to facilitating a workshop and attending events offered throughout the Gathering, we were working three nights during the week as well to facilitate this to attenders in addition to work done on every other day in preparation or follow-up from these three nights). This request was clearly made separately from the workshop proposal and acceptance process, understanding that in any given future year a workshop around the sweat lodge may not be submitted or may be submitted but not accepted by the committee, but that the sweat lodge may continue to occur in the evenings and need coordination.
I will hold the committee in the Light as you discern how to proceed.
You need it.
In the Light,
Breeze
<< Home