A response to the NPYM Called Meeting
Dear Friends,
Attached is a very lengthy letter I’ve written in response to our recent NPYM Called Meeting. I’ve addressed this email to the Clerks of my own Monthly Meeting and NPYM, and to several other Friends I thought might have an interest, but I do not have access to the emails of other members of clerking teams from NPYM Monthly Meetings, or concerned committees or individuals. I do not consider anything I’ve written here to be confidential and in fact would like it to reach more Friends if possible, so you are welcome to share it—in whole or in part—with anyone you think appropriate.
Warmly,
Kerry
Kerry/Kirsten Backstrom (they)
IFS-Informed Spiritual Care
Dear Friends,
This long-winded letter is in the best/worst tradition of early Friends who, when strongly called to speak, would hold the floor as long as the Spirit compelled them to hold it. I truly hope that it is Spirit and not self righteousness calling me here, and I trust that you will sift my words for Truth according to your own Light.
I am writing with serious concerns about the recent NPYM called Meeting. I am a member of Multnomah Monthly Meeting, and also a nonbinary person. My concern is primarily about the process by which our decision was reached, and secondarily about the decision itself. I have written at length here because I have been laboring at length and alone with the Light I’ve been given since the Meeting, and I believe that such Light and such labor can only be meaningful if it is collective as well as individual. Speaking out hastily (or too succinctly) can lead to misunderstanding and more harm, and so I need to err on the side of saying too much rather than saying too little. I also want Friends to know that I am not blaming anyone—it’s clear to me that all Friends who participated in the Meeting were following Spirit according to their own experience of it, but I believe we are all heavily influenced by the dangerous characteristics of our times, and can lose sight of Spirit without realizing it. In these times (and in many other historical periods) our world teaches us to privilege the majority over the minority; to insist upon expedience and efficiency over patience and listening; to prefer tidy solutions over the humble acceptance that no decision can address all needs for all people; and to seek comfortable certainty that denies the messiness of the uncertain, complex, confusing and uncomfortable nature of life itself. I believe that all of these privileges and prejudices affected our discernment process. The original Friends recognized the potential for this to occur, which is why our testimonies and worship practices are so essential to our way of conducting business.
Our decision in this called Meeting was not reached in the manner of Friends, because the Spirit-led process was curtailed under the pressure to find unity, and because the actions taken and conclusions reached by the Clerk did not fully represent the sense of the Meeting as a whole. The way that process was reported to the larger NPYM community is testament to what we all wish had been true, rather than to Truth: the gathering was not “united in Spirit” behind this decision. Perhaps unity does not require unanimity, but it at least requires that we “agree to disagree,” as is the case when a Friend or Friends agree to “step aside”—and no such agreement was reached in our called Meeting. In situations where a Friend or Friends “stand in the way” and will not “step aside,” a decision may still be reached, but that is not unity behind the decision, and it would only occur if there was unity among the other Friends that the decision itself was convincing and compelling enough to take the drastic action of essentially excommunicating the objecting Friend(s) by reaching unity without them. We had not come anywhere near this situation, and yet somehow the Meeting was represented as “united in Spirit” behind a decision when some Friends were still expressing dissent or ambivalence, no one had been asked to step aside, and very little Silence had been allowed for Friends to consider new viewpoints as they were brought forward.
I dissented from what the Clerk was calling “unity” to go to Montana because I did not feel that all concerns had been adequately heard, and because I myself was still uncertain what Spirit was saying to me, or what I had heard from others. By curtailing the discernment process arbitrarily without fully acknowledging or seasoning dissenting views, and then calling the resulting decisions “unity,” you (the Meeting) effectively assigned me (a Friend representing a minority view) to the role of one who is stubbornly standing in the way, as if I had separated myself from the rest of you by holding an intractable position which compelled you to leave me behind. You could only be united if I, for one, no longer belonged among you. It is both emotionally and spiritually painful (and, as a Queer person, familiar) that my voice and my Light were not considered relevant to the unity you celebrate, and perhaps other Friends who held minority views or uncertainty feel similarly unable to celebrate this unity with you. I know that it was no one’s intention to cast me or anyone else in such a role—so, how did this come about? I feel called now to write to you as clearly as I can, to explore what happened in a loving community of sincere, good people who are trying to achieve the exact opposite of erasure and marginalization for those in the minority.
These were extremely difficult circumstances for holding such a gathering—the virtual context, the large numbers of Friends, the urgency of the need to address the issues, and the limitations of time—but Called Meetings are always held under difficult circumstances, and that is why they are Called. Given these constraints, it is indeed wonderful that this Meeting was as true to Spirit and loving community as it obviously was from the beginning, but, toward the end especially, I believe we all lost sight of Spirit in the interests of arriving at a conclusion. The Clerk was in a near-impossible position, and I do not doubt that his efforts to be fair, to listen to Spirit while carrying out a complicated logistical role, were sincere. I’m grateful for those efforts. Of course, it would have been better for everyone if we could have arrived at unity. There are practical issues that require a decision, and no one wants to have to hold another three-hour Meeting. But Friends’ collective discernment takes time, and cannot be true to the leading of Spirit or our testimonies when that sacred discernment process is forced into our timetable. I believe that in the interests of expedience, the Clerk outran his guide and overstepped his role.
My own sense of the Meeting was that there was not enough Silence between speakers for new points of view to be seasoned in the group. The Clerk stated repeatedly that he “sensed we had unity” whenever several people in a row had voiced similar views, and he even attempted to declare this unity during our Worship Sharing time before the Discernment process had even begun. When “testing” that supposed unity, he only invited dissenting views if prompted to do so, and he finally concluded that we had reached unity when this was clearly not the case. My own dissent from the decision was based on the fact that I had many real concerns and questions that were not-yet-fully-seasoned, and because similar concerns and questions were still being raised (very tentatively) by others. As the Meeting ended, I probably would have stood aside if asked, but I was not given that opportunity, and neither was anyone else. I understand that the gathering might have arrived at a “sense of the Meeting” with the same decision even if I or other Friends were not in unity with it—but in those instances, according to good Friends’ process, this would have, and definitely should have, been minuted and reported as a decision with which some Friends were not in unity. Finally, if a sense of the Meeting is declared over the objections of any Friends, it should be a very, very clear sense of the Meeting, tested with patience, Silence for deep listening, and further opportunities for dissenting views to emerge and be heard.
As a Friend, I was baffled by this preemptory decision. We were in the midst of a meaningful, Spirit-led process of Discernment, but that process was far from complete. I felt that we were pressured to join in a majority decision that was not arrived at in the manner of Friends and was not Spirit-led. As a Queer person, I felt that there was an assumption made (by the Clerk and some other Friends) that some Queer people who were speaking for themselves personally could be taken as speaking for all Queer Friends, or even for all Queer people. It does not make me feel safe or respected in a community when I know that people like me are not being seen as individuals, with individual views and needs that deserve to be fully heard, and that cis-gender people could be listening only to those of us whose views and needs coincide with their own. I’m sure those Queer Friends who spoke for themselves, from their hearts and from Spirit, were aware of this distinction, and would have wanted other Queer Friends with differing views and needs to also be recognized. None of us are spokespersons for one another. Given enough time, I trust that this would have been clarified and the Meeting as a whole could have heard and seasoned a wide range of perspectives brought forward by both Queer and non-Queer people in a loving and respectful way. But, in hastiness, conclusions were drawn—specifically that Queer Friends wanted to go to Montana—on the basis of the personal views expressed by some, but not all, of us. There are Queer Friends who feel safe going to Montana; there are other Queer Friends, myself included, who do not—and this could mean that some Queer Friends will not be attending Annual Session this year.
My own “sense of the Meeting” differs significantly from the Clerk’s—and while I know that my personal experience of what happened among us is no more right than anyone else’s (and in fact may differ from that of the majority of Friends who were present), I am going to express it here, because dissenting points of view are meaningful among Friends; we cannot and should not come to decisions without them.
Here is what I witnessed:
The Worship Sharing process and most of the Discernment process seemed to me to be deeply Spirit-led in the best tradition of Friends. At first, most Friends seemed to be voicing their personal experiences and a general leaning toward not going to Montana for Annual Session, though there were also many who reflected on options for protest that would be possible if we did go. Then, a Queer Friend spoke, from the heart, that he would prefer to go to Montana, as the best way of being visible and protesting surrounded by this loving community of support. Other Friends, some Queer and some cis-gender, some from Montana and some from elsewhere, also voiced this view. Personally, my own inclination at the beginning (and I spoke to this) was that we should not go to Montana, but I was open to hearing otherwise and felt deeply moved by what I was hearing from these Friends. I valued the time and space of listening to see whether Spirit was leading me to change my view, and I was hearing points (both in the gathering and within myself) on both sides that carried weight. Some Friends voiced a similar open listening and similarly seemed to be considering changing their view. I was stunned when, just before the break, the Clerk stated that he was sensing unity to go to Montana, and that he wanted to test that unity. This seemed extremely premature. His way of testing the unity was to ask only the people who currently had their hands raised and were waiting to speak if any of them had any concerns about going to Montana. When none of them did, he seemed ready to proceed to declaring that we were in unity, and I raised my hand to say I had a dissenting view but since I’d already spoken I asked that he would open the question up to the group at large. He agreed to do that, apologized for his mistake, and since there wasn’t time to continue, we took our break.
After the break, the Clerk continued the process of calling on Friends who had already raised their hands. He often called Friends out-of-turn, sometimes for obvious reasons (like when Junior Friends wanted to speak and their contributions were profoundly important to all of us) and sometimes for reasons that were unclear to me. My own sense of this Discernment stage of the process was that it was continuing the slow but beautiful, Spirit-led way of Quaker proceedings, and that it was trending more and more toward going to Montana rather than staying away. Yet some Friends were still expressing that they, like myself, were were not quite clear or had reservations. The largest reservation that I heard repeatedly was that just going to Montana without making some kind of strong protest was not acceptable—and it still wasn’t clear what kind of protest would be effective, and whether or not such a protest could or would be more effective or equally effective if we did it somewhere else. A concern for the “safety” of Queer participants in Annual Session was very strong, but as a Queer person I felt that the Meeting did not have a good understanding of what safety might actually mean to us (Queer folks), and that cis Friends weren’t yet recognizing that our definitions of safety might extend beyond physical safety, or that some could feel safe while others might not.
We were all aware that our allotted time was limited, and when the Clerk repeatedly suggested or implied that we were close to unity or had already reached it, I perceived this as a pressure that encouraged people to curtail their exploratory discernment process and “choose a side.” In other words, I felt that the tone of the Meeting began to be more practical than spiritual. I felt pressure from the Clerk, and possibly from other Friends, that those of us who were uncertain, or those whose views differed from the majority, should hold our peace. This may have been my own projection, but the rapidity with which a conclusion was reached seems to validate it.
My own understanding of Friends’ process at this point would have been that the Clerk should have acknowledged the majority view being expressed (as he did), and then ask for any concerns or different views (which he did not), and then hold some Silence while Friends waited for Spirit to lead us to speak or not speak in response to those differing views. Instead, the Clerk stated that he was sensing unity and began to ask the Meeting if everyone was in unity. I sent him a chat message asking him to please invite dissenting views before deciding unity. He did so, but without allowing any Silence for Friends to consider and listen inwardly for concerns or questions that might need to be voiced. Three of us did put up our hands in the brief moment allowed, and two of us spoke our concerns. I do not know what the other Friend’s experience was, but I had spoken earlier, so felt that my speaking again was potentially unfair to some other Friends who’d been waiting to speak. I also felt that the full weight of voicing all possible concerns was now on my shoulders since no one else was going to get a voice—I was agitated, trying to express what Spirit was telling me but unable to fully discern what came from Spirit and what was just my opinion, because I hadn’t (and the Meeting as a whole hadn’t) fully processed what had already been spoken. I knew this was very important, felt that something was very wrong with the conclusions we were arriving at and that a sacred process of discernment was being rushed, and I spoke with too much intensity and sat down in tears. The Clerk made no room for Silence following my speaking. He called on a few other Friends—one of whom refuted what I’d said using an argument that was extremely problematic on many levels, but since it sounded good at face value, it served to invalidate the concern I’d tried to bring forward. Immediately after that, the Clerk asked if we were all in unity, and said, “I see a lot of nodding.” I shook my head to indicate that I was not in unity—I saw at least a few other Friends who were not nodding—and the Clerk concluded there was unity. Even then, some Friends spoke up that their unity was contingent on the protest and safety issues, but their concerns were abruptly delegated to a follow-up committee. I left the Meeting feeling that something terribly confusing and misguided had just occurred.
My own discernment process has continued since the Meeting, and new insights, new perspectives, and new possibilities have come to Light for me that would not have been possible without some seasoning. The same could be true for other Friends. If our collective discernment could have continued in a further gathering, such insights would have been deepened by one another in ways that none of us could imagine on our own. But in the absence of further collective process, I’d like to voice (write) some of what I experience as Spirit-led thoughts on the decision that was reached. At the close of the Meeting, I already had concerns and questions that made it impossible for me to find unity with the decision, but these concerns weren’t fully formed. Since then, I’ve been seasoning what other Friends shared about why they felt going to Montana was the right decision, and I’ve been taking those things into account as part of my own discernment process. I thought that this might gradually temper my dissenting views and lead me toward eventual unity with the decision. However, what happened surprised me. Not only did the concerns I’d voiced grow stronger and clearer, but more and much deeper concerns arose—concerns that do not contradict the views of others, but could throw Light on the intentions we share. Here are my two biggest concerns with the decision to go to Montana:
1) I stated in the Meeting that money is a powerful symbol of our emotional/spiritual investment in whatever we spend it on. Going to Montana means giving money—quite a lot of money—to an institution (the university) that, however reluctantly, intends to uphold an unjust and unconstitutional law. Any protest we conduct on site will have some element of hypocrisy when we ourselves are investing in that which we are protesting. As Spirit has shown me since the Meeting, there is much more at stake here than we have considered. The university is a custodian of young students—including some young, Queer students—and has a tremendous influence on their future. Enforcing that law at a university will sanction bullying, bigotry, erasure, isolation and shaming, which may literally cost some students their lives. Please consider this. We are complicit in the decision to put those students at risk if we give the university our money under the current circumstances. In our worship sharing, Queer Friends gave heartfelt testimony to how real and terrible those risks can be. This concern is, for me, a reason not to go to Montana that outweighs all possible reasons for going. I am still considering with a heavy heart, whether my own conscience compels me to resign my membership in the Religious Society of Friends (my spiritual home for over 25 years) if Annual Session is held at the University of Montana, since my membership (specifically my financial contribution) makes me personally complicit as well.
2) I am also concerned by NPYM’s repeated assertions that we will “safeguard vulnerable Friends.” First, it is extreme hubris to make this claim—no one can keep anyone else safe, you can only do your best to provide a safe environment, and this is by no means always possible. Most aggression against Queer people occurs by isolating us from our friends/allies—and being perpetually guarded is no kind of life, so we are not going to be safe at all times and in all places no matter what “safeguarding” is done. Additionally, it is a proud and pleasant thing to see oneself as a “protector,” but not much fun to be a “protectee.” What truly makes me feel unsafe is to be defined by others as “vulnerable” and in need of their protection. I have vulnerabilities, and I appreciate the support/defense/protection of others (when I need it and ask for it), but I do not want to be defined by it—and going to Montana with Friends who are seeing themselves as my protectors feels unsafe for me. Unsafety comes not only from our “enemies,” it can also come from our dear f/Friends. In fact, during the called Meeting itself, a few well-intentioned, good-hearted Friends (including the Clerk) made assumptions and comparisons that revealed an ignorance of who I am and what I need that made me feel (momentarily at least) unsafe. Queer folks experience this kind of “lesser” unsafety on a daily basis, and the degree to which it is harmful to us varies from person to person. But make no mistake, going to Montana while this law is under consideration and “in the air” in the entire state, in the local community, in the university, and even among the gathering of Friends, will create an atmosphere where this particular kind of unsafety is significantly increased. For some brave Queer folks (especially young people), such a challenging atmosphere inspires them to take the risks and resist actively (with the support of allies), and even empowers them to feel more safe in the long run. For others like myself, it has been a long, long journey of repeated, relentless small and large injuries over a lifetime, and to increase the level of that burden of unsafety even slightly by going to Montana would just be too much. For those Queer Friends who choose to go to Montana, their courage should be acknowledged and celebrated. But NPYM needs to also acknowledge that those who may choose not to go are also making a brave choice by avoiding unnecessary risks and saving their energy to survive other challenges we all may have to face ahead. It is a shame that those who don’t choose to risk their safety in Montana will be excluded from Annual Session this year. And even if all Queer Friends decided to go, why should anyone be forced to choose between exclusion from a wonderful community gathering, and the increased, unnecessary risk of attending that gathering in a charged atmosphere? You cannot keep us safe: we keep ourselves safe, to the best of our ability—and safety means different things to different people. If you hold Annual Session in Montana, you need to recognize that Queer Friends will be making more difficult choices and putting more on the line to go there than other Friends.
I am not asking for a reversal of the decision that has been made, since that is probably not realistic at this point, nor would it reflect the Light of all those who spoke in favor of going to Montana (an evident majority in the Called Meeting). I do request, that in keeping with the testimony of Truth, you correct the statement that has gone out to NPYM which states that Friends were united in the Spirit when this decision was made. I would also appreciate it if my concern about the risk to university students is brought forward for all NPYM Friends to consider. If Annual Session is held in Montana, I feel strongly that NPYM has an added responsibility to Queer students (and, in fact, all students) who will be impacted by the university’s compliance with the law; if we invest in the university by renting the campus, we must also invest in those students’ future.
I continue to weigh and test my concerns about the decision itself, and am convinced that these concerns are Spirit-led, even if the conclusion I am drawing from my leading is mistaken. I do not believe that the Light given to me contradicts the Light given to anyone else who attended—very, very few of those who spoke seemed misguided, and the vast majority seemed to be following authentic leadings of Spirit and their own consciences, even though many of them came to different conclusions than I did. However, because the process itself did not allow for that Light to be fully expressed through us all, or for us to fully season the Light that we received through each other, I do not believe that the decision itself necessarily reflects Spirit. I have to trust the strength and clarity of what I am hearing within myself, after listening to many other Friends speak, and after extensive seasoning. I am not John Woolman (decidedly not!) but I am listening and laboring with the Light I am given, even though it is leading me to swim upstream against a river of voices I respect.
If we were to gather again, and I heard more Light from other Friends, perhaps my interpretation of my own leading would change. But, without that option, I only know that my concerns are real and compelling, and now that I have heard them, I cannot unite with the decision to go to Montana. If the decision goes forward as I assume that it will, I ask that you would minute (and communicate to NPYM Friends) that although the decision to go to Montana was made, at least one Friend had serious concerns about both the process and the decision itself that compelled them to dissent.
Finally, you are under no obligation to do anything that I ask, but I am offering some queries that I hope you will consider, as I have. I believe we should ask ourselves why it is that we might be choosing to make a decision by majority instead of by unity. Is it because the Light guided the Meeting to that decision, or is it because a majority decision is expedient and seems “necessary” due to practical considerations? If it is the latter, I also ask that you will consider why the original Friends were led to adopt the decision-making process they did, what led them to believe that majority alone did not make a decision right, and why it has always been considered possible that a single Friend might stand in the way of unity and ultimately be carrying a meaningful (even if apparently contrary and uncomfortable) Light. It is not my Light that concerns me here—I raise the concern about our decision-making process because I believe that, had that process been followed according to the “best practices” of our tradition, other Friends might have had time to season and then express that same Light more in their own words and their own ways. For me, considering these queries has led me to a renewed and deepened love and respect for the Integrity of early Friends, and the brilliance of the Light that guided them. It is my heartfelt wish that you feel warmed by that love and Light as well; it was so evident in the Called Meeting (please know that I felt it, in spite of my concerns) and it is still present among us always.
In Friendship,
🐌Kerry (Kirsten) Backstrom
Multnomah Monthly Meeting