IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute
lingle at bellsouth.net
Thu Mar 30 05:29:11 JEST 2000
I'm not sure that I wish to carry on this conversation, for it is clear to
me at least that we are not getting anywhere. Instead of speaking plainly,
which, I remind readers, he pled for up front, Gerald Rudolph wants to
quibble over language and process: do I have problems with talking about
FCNl (no, if that's the topic, which it wasn't and isn't), why do I talk
about AFSC "posturing as a Quaker organization" (because that's what it is;
how else can I speak plainly without speaking plainly?)?
The fact is that for many Quakers, be they Evangelical, Conservative,
FUM-ers, and increasingly "liberal" ones, AFSC is simply off the radar
scope, doing little but trying to mount "1000 meetings in 100 days" and
failing even at that. No wonder it gets most of its funding and its staff
When Gerald Rudolph presents some relevant points, plainly spoken as per his
own request, and some specific examples, then we'll continue.
>From: "Gerald L. Rudolph" <grudolph at clarity-dev.com>
>To: "Larry Ingle" <lingle at bellsouth.net>, "sayma" <sayma at kitenet.net>
>Subject: Re: IMP^o^051 Chatt AFSC Minute
>Date: Tue, Mar 28, 2000, 9:05 PM
>> Unfortuately, I have received little insight into Gerald Rudolph's
>> definitions of what Quakers ought to be about. All I have learned is that
>> he does not like the Chattanooga minute on the matter--for the record, I
>> nothing at all to do with that minute (its words are not mine, and I doubt
>> 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 the
>> controversy--and that he does not favor a central authority that can
>> where meetings send money--other than AFSC's constant posturing as
>> and promoting itself as the place to send it.
> 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 to
> 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 my
> support for FCNL as a comparison, not to suggest Chattanooga or SAYMA should
> 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 the
> "humanitarian" focus you found in AFSC to explain my thoughts. Do you find
> this comparison with FCNL (or any other Quaker organization) objectionable?
> I dread another trip to SAYMA with this controversy being raised. I skipped
> 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 at
> SAYMA, there will be little chance of mutual understanding at any level.
> Gerald Rudolph
More information about the sayma