http://www.friendshouston.org/

A young adult can definitely join and participate in Quakerism. The age range of my particular Quaker group is from early 20s to 80s+. But that doesn’t mean the Meeting in Houston will have the same make-up.

Quakerism as a whole isn’t in unity about non-straight sexualities. But there are Meetings that are in unity about it and are accepting. I can’t encourage you enough to give it a try.

Have you done any reading about the way (liberal) Quakers worship? It’s a bit unique. The Quaker Meeting I linked to earlier has a pretty good explanation on their site: http://www.friendshouston.org/info.html .

And feel free to email me with any questions. There’s also an online magazine about LGBTQ Christians called Whosoever: http://whosoever.org/index.shtml .

Wishing you wholeness, friend.

Nonetheless, we all have blind spots, and the nature of a blind spot is that you don’t know you have it. When we work on a concern, the meeting might not be ready to hear us, but there might also be something important that we are not hearing, that is getting in the way of our work. An example is the earlier comment that seemed to equate–mistakenly–bisexuality with polyamory. Maybe someone doesn’t understand that many–I suspect most–bisexual people are also happily monogamous. I have heard this confusion in my own meeting at least once. This is not prejudice but misunderstanding, and we need to be able to tell the difference.

Or maybe a Friend working on a concern assumes another Friend doesn’t care about their concern, but really they’ve just got enough on their plate and can’t be active everywhere at once. All of us need to make choices where to put our energies.

Or maybe there is some truth on each side in an apparent conflict. The issue of theological diversity, in contrast to sexual or racial or class diversity, comes to mind. I am deeply committed to a broad and radical theological diversity among Friends, and I often bump heads with people who seem to feel that theological diversity among Friends has gone too far. I suspect there are important things I am not seeing here, though I am trying. And I suspect there are people on the other side of the conflict who are missing important things, too.

Mia

I may have been in touch with you privately already, but seeing these comments, I want to add to the conversation.

In connection to your post and related to Martin’s caution that “the right message at the wrong time is the wrong message,” I want to recommend taking a look at Marshall Massey’s comment on a recent post about written ministry (aka, epistles).

In particular, tucked away in his remarks is the caution to discern “what the person or group one is addressing is ready and able to hear.”

I know in my own recent history of speaking out of the concern I carry, I have been focused on lifting up what I myself was ready to say, without the discipline of slowing myself down to consider what the body was ready and able to receive. Typically when I take that extra step, I am in fact able to get a sense of where the body is in relation to opening itself to the concern, to receive ministry from others about it, etc.

…On the other hand, you’ve got to move when the Spirit says move.

It’s tricky indeed.

Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

John K, two comments: first, I didn’t say explicitly that I embrace monogamy. But I don’t think that’s your point.

In regards to whether bisexuals can be monogamous, yes, we can be. Just like when heterosexuals get married, they can still be attracted to other people and choose not to act on it; so can bisexuals get married, be attracted to other people, and choose not to act on it.

There are some, myself included, for whom the attractions to different sexes are noticeably different. Being in love with a man has a different texture and tone than being in love with a woman. Honestly, ideally I’d like one of both, because I do in a sense feel there is something missing from my life now. However, not all bisexuals feel the same way. I also feel there is a difference between having one life partner from each sex one is attracted to (which is, when you think about it, what heterosexuals do when they’re monogamous) and being polygamous which seems to be about having more than one partner (life or otherwise) from each sex one is attracted to.

I guess what I’m pointing out is that monosexual people (those attracted to only one sex) have defined monogamous and polygamous to fit their particular attractions. If bisexuals had defined them first, I think we might have said monogamous is having one of each sex, polygamous having more than one of each.

But again, I do not speak for all bisexuals, but only for myself. For the record, Rob and I are monogamous, but open to the idea of other possibilities.

Speaking up is not easy but I think it’s a big part of the work we need to do. Just remember to keep it all in prayer. Sometimes we aren’t called to speak up, sometimes it’s just our role to observe and only the immediate guidance of the Holy Spirit can clue us in on the difference. My shorthand for this is “the right message at the wrong time is the wrong message.” I’m not implying that you’ve ever spoken out of turn, just that it’s easy for those of us with a concern and a sensitivity to issues of diversity to want to change it all now and forget that this has to be on God’s time and that a period of suffering (our own or those we advocate for) might be part of the process that is needed to move the whole body forward on the concern.

Thanks for sharing this all with us, it’s good for us all to hear one another’s struggles and concerns!

Martin @ Quaker Ranter