People articulate the importance of the building to their spiritual life frequently, sometimes with the caveat that as Quakers they know the place isn't supposed to be special, but this place is.
The building has provided some of the tension during the pandemic and illustrated the value of building over Quaker process. After a Meeting for Business decision to meet inside the fellowship hall (which has cross ventilation due to multiple opening windows and a new hvac) only due to bad weather, the first time there was bad weather the on-site folks met in the meeting house. This was distressing to a number of us, for me the, "Meeting doesn't have the right, it should be up to whomever is present" attitude, that didn't take into account the decision making someone might be making to decide to come. Nor did it reflect any sense that when a meeting decision was made it was anything more than a secular decision. Individuals communicated to me their sense that where we did the worship wasn't an important decision. (I choked on my sense of this being a decision of life or death for some people.)
Because i itched at the idea of a minuted decision that was being disregarded, i presented it as obviously not the sense of the meeting, and we changed the decision to be that we moved to inside for bad weather "at the location chosen by the onsite support." The not-in-the-meetinghouse people just didn't offer support (or atten on site) during the winter. And then this spring people met inside the meeting house during good weather. We then had a discussion about going back inside, and it was clear there wasn't unity and that the meeting inside folks weren't listening to others. The amount of me me me -- "My spiritual life is grounded inside that building" -- with no acknowledgement as to others health concerns was ... not encouraging.
The building is taken care of with little or no formal coordination: various folks just show up and do things. A large gift was given to get some landscaping done with no serious discussion in the Meeting. People serve the building.
The meeting does want to be welcoming and noncreedal but really looking into welcoming and building community isn't a first goal.
My suspicion is that the building and grounds is such a fundamental value that no one would articulate it because it's a given.
I'll admit that the springs on site were significant in my sense of returning and continuing: i can believe the place may have a supernatural quality. However, if i'm going to invest in place, it's going to be the place i am creating here at my home.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
timeasmymeasure
no subject
The building has provided some of the tension during the pandemic and illustrated the value of building over Quaker process. After a Meeting for Business decision to meet inside the fellowship hall (which has cross ventilation due to multiple opening windows and a new hvac) only due to bad weather, the first time there was bad weather the on-site folks met in the meeting house. This was distressing to a number of us, for me the, "Meeting doesn't have the right, it should be up to whomever is present" attitude, that didn't take into account the decision making someone might be making to decide to come. Nor did it reflect any sense that when a meeting decision was made it was anything more than a secular decision. Individuals communicated to me their sense that where we did the worship wasn't an important decision. (I choked on my sense of this being a decision of life or death for some people.)
Because i itched at the idea of a minuted decision that was being disregarded, i presented it as obviously not the sense of the meeting, and we changed the decision to be that we moved to inside for bad weather "at the location chosen by the onsite support." The not-in-the-meetinghouse people just didn't offer support (or atten on site) during the winter. And then this spring people met inside the meeting house during good weather. We then had a discussion about going back inside, and it was clear there wasn't unity and that the meeting inside folks weren't listening to others. The amount of me me me -- "My spiritual life is grounded inside that building" -- with no acknowledgement as to others health concerns was ... not encouraging.
The building is taken care of with little or no formal coordination: various folks just show up and do things. A large gift was given to get some landscaping done with no serious discussion in the Meeting. People serve the building.
The meeting does want to be welcoming and noncreedal but really looking into welcoming and building community isn't a first goal.
My suspicion is that the building and grounds is such a fundamental value that no one would articulate it because it's a given.
I'll admit that the springs on site were significant in my sense of returning and continuing: i can believe the place may have a supernatural quality. However, if i'm going to invest in place, it's going to be the place i am creating here at my home.