Saturday, January 04, 2025
Shelter
Gimme Shelter, Jeff Kisling
The blog I linked to is by a friend of mine and I will try to link to it permanently, soon.
The article is interesting and raises some interesting points, only some of which I'll hit here. He is like me in that some of his tangents are more interesting than the focus of the article itself.
The point he made that really hit home was that the small Iowa rural Quaker communities are endangered. The one he grew up in, Earlham, was home to several friends of mine, but it's not the only one: Paulina is another good example, and Clear Creek another. The older people who were the mainstays of these communities have been dying and in many cases not really adequately replaced by the younger generations. This is a recurring theme of our online Quaker meeting Cloud Quakers as we experience this problem first hand.
He also suggests an interesting solution. In a world where people can live where they want (due to being able to work digitally), why not bring back intentional Quaker villages? I have brought up this point before, I believe, but I'm still exploring ways of making it work.
One way would be to set up a school; this worked for Scattergood and West Branch, which was one Quaker community. If you have about a dozen meaningfully employed Quakers you have a community and, having lived at Scattergood, I can speak to how valuable it is to have real live Quakers amongst your neighbors.
Another way would be to have a very well-organized way of telling people who are interested where they could settle that would be a Quaker-leaning village and that would welcome them. Some plains communities have actually paid new settlers and they are especially generous to people with children as they recognize that it's the future that's important.
I believe in Quaker villages and in community. Community is the foundation of Conservative Quakerism (conservative = conserving the silent meeting format) and, in the modern world, we have to struggle with the meaning of community. Either we live near each other and have Quakers we can touch at the end of meeting, or we continue to meet online which we can all know is not quite the same. I'm for trying to keep places like Paulina, Clear Creek and Earlham alive and vibrant. I'm wondering who else is thinking like I am.
The blog I linked to is by a friend of mine and I will try to link to it permanently, soon.
The article is interesting and raises some interesting points, only some of which I'll hit here. He is like me in that some of his tangents are more interesting than the focus of the article itself.
The point he made that really hit home was that the small Iowa rural Quaker communities are endangered. The one he grew up in, Earlham, was home to several friends of mine, but it's not the only one: Paulina is another good example, and Clear Creek another. The older people who were the mainstays of these communities have been dying and in many cases not really adequately replaced by the younger generations. This is a recurring theme of our online Quaker meeting Cloud Quakers as we experience this problem first hand.
He also suggests an interesting solution. In a world where people can live where they want (due to being able to work digitally), why not bring back intentional Quaker villages? I have brought up this point before, I believe, but I'm still exploring ways of making it work.
One way would be to set up a school; this worked for Scattergood and West Branch, which was one Quaker community. If you have about a dozen meaningfully employed Quakers you have a community and, having lived at Scattergood, I can speak to how valuable it is to have real live Quakers amongst your neighbors.
Another way would be to have a very well-organized way of telling people who are interested where they could settle that would be a Quaker-leaning village and that would welcome them. Some plains communities have actually paid new settlers and they are especially generous to people with children as they recognize that it's the future that's important.
I believe in Quaker villages and in community. Community is the foundation of Conservative Quakerism (conservative = conserving the silent meeting format) and, in the modern world, we have to struggle with the meaning of community. Either we live near each other and have Quakers we can touch at the end of meeting, or we continue to meet online which we can all know is not quite the same. I'm for trying to keep places like Paulina, Clear Creek and Earlham alive and vibrant. I'm wondering who else is thinking like I am.
