IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute

Peggy Bonnington bonnipeg at
Tue Mar 28 23:45:58 JEST 2000

Friends, cannot we have a little silence in which to weigh our concerns?  If
we met in gathering other than virtual, a Friend by now would have so
requested, I feel certain.  The heat arising in email is disturbing in that
I feel it brings us into the approach to yearly meeting gathering already
vested in controversy.  Also, I personaly feel very uncomfortable when good
Quakers begin throwing around verbage about who's the bigger and better
Quaker, who's unQuakerly, who's "posturing" or whatever.  Perhaps that is
because I am of the smaller and not-so-model variety myself.

I value open and honest dialogue, as anyone who knows me would recognize and
verify.  But I would seek more tempering of the Spirit that prevails in this
discussion  that we may recognize the Light and Love by which we wish to be
led.  Let the words we "speak" through our emails be weighed with concern
that true principle and truth rather than reaction be our guide.

In love,
Peggy Bonnington

----- Original Message -----
From: Gerald L. Rudolph <grudolph at>
To: Larry Ingle <lingle at>; sayma <sayma at>
Cc: <afscinfo at>
Sent: Tuesday, March 28, 2000 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute

> > Unfortuately, I have received little insight into Gerald Rudolph's
> > definitions of what Quakers ought to be about.  All I have learned is
> > he does not like the Chattanooga minute on the matter--for the record, I
> had
> > nothing at all to do with that minute (its words are not mine, and I
> > that withholding funds is the best way to deal with the problems as we
> > collectively saw them)--that he support FCNL--not until now a part of
> > controversy--and that he does not favor a central authority that can
> decide
> > where meetings send money--other than AFSC's constant posturing as
> "Quaker"
> > and promoting itself as the place to send it.
> Larry,
> I made a comparison of my support for FCNL with my support of AFSC to
> explain how they both worthy to be called Quaker Organizations even though
> they were primarily humanitarian in focus, and though they address only a
> part of what is important to my faith.  Was my use of FCNL as a comparison
> not clear?  Why did you discount this comparison as simply my adding FCNL
> the controversy?
> I was responding to your request for an "essay" explaining why AFSC was
> Quakerly and not just humanitarian.  As part of that explanation, I used
> support for FCNL as a comparison, not to suggest Chattanooga or SAYMA
> drop support for them as well.  I could have used some other Quaker
> organization as a comparison, but thought the two were similar enough to
> "humanitarian" focus you found in AFSC to explain my thoughts.  Do you
> this comparison with FCNL (or any other Quaker organization)
> I dread another trip to SAYMA with this controversy being raised.  I
> last year because the previous year was so difficult and contentious.
> People then made inflammatory statements similar to your referring to AFSC
> as "posturing as Quaker".  It has been a Quaker organization for decades.
> Its board is overwhelming made up of Quakers.  Why refer to it with
> anger-filled words like "posturing"?  There is nothing being communicated
> with such words except your disdain.  If you take such a hostile approach
> SAYMA, there will be little chance of mutual understanding at any level.
> Gerald Rudolph

More information about the sayma mailing list