'Outside my window, as I type, there is a mature elm tree. Elms survive in Brighton.'
Going Green: Abigail Maxwell finds a party
‘For me, it is personal.’
I am delighted that there will be an election. For me, it is personal. The Conservatives claim that Theresa May’s 2017 proposal for gender recognition was a danger to women and children, and propose to ban schools from teaching the simple truth that some people are trans. They claim women’s safety requires that I be excluded from women’s hospital wards. They seem to harness fear. And, for me, Labour does too little to assuage such fears.
Many Quakers will feel deeply involved in this election, and may, like me, spend time campaigning for one candidate or another. There is a constant stream of news, often designed to provoke feelings of anger, triumph or derision. How can I stay connected to the light, not only when sitting in silent contemplation, but in keeping myself informed and in action?
Outside my window, as I type, there is a mature elm tree. Elms survive in Brighton. I am getting to know them by their leaves, their bark, and the shapes they form. Looking at that tree calms me. I sense my body, the gut feelings and movement in the heart, how my back tenses and relaxes, and give these feelings attention and acceptance. This is something I was not taught in childhood, and have had to learn in the last three years: I practise accessing the animal sensations of my body.
What can I do with my anger? Anger is beautiful. It is energy for action. ‘Be angry and do not sin’ says Ephesians 4:26. The writer accepts the feeling, says there is a choice of action, and urges the best action: the word for sin here is hamartia, meaning missing the target. If I accept the anger as a feeling, I do not waste energy in trying to suppress it from other people’s awareness, or even my own, as I learned in childhood. That does not work.
After Meeting for Worship, we were agreeing about our dislike of a certain politician, and I felt uncomfortable. Agreement can be a delight. When we agree about the weather, we feel the same way, my feelings are validated and I feel closer to my friend. Agreeing about a politician is damaging: we come together, but distance ourselves from the people she speaks for. I want to be open to those people, not necessarily to agree with them but not to dismiss them. Can we find anything worthwhile in that politician? If not, what vision do we support instead?
I want Friends to be able to disagree well, and hear where each other’s words have come from. In the past, I have been too attached to an opinion, and changing it has freed me. This may happen again.
If we are agreeing, we are not progressing. I want my words in a conversation to be a springboard for another’s new thought, or to hear something I have not heard before: when I am trying to get a word in edgeways, speaking may do little good.
The Green Party was founded by Quakers, and begins its meetings with silence, which is called ‘attunement’. I will work for the Greens. Canvassing, I will hear people’s obsessions, whether climate change or small boats. I pray for an open heart and will wear comfortable shoes.
Comments
I am intrigued by Abigail’s assertion that the Green Party was founded by Quakers.
Could Abigail provide some evidence of this? I have been a Quaker attender and an enthusiastic Ecology Party supporter since the mid 70s but I recall no formal confluence of these two streams.
By Ol Rappaport on 14th June 2024 - 15:58
As I understand it The Green Party to which I belong (although suspended currently by the zealots who have gained control of the most important top positions) grew out of the Ecology party. That was stimulated to happen by the newly started Ecologist magazine founded by a child of millionaire named Goldsmith. Zac Goldsmith is either his son or grandson. I don’t think Quakers were at all involved. At that time there was one Quaker MP. Sir Richard Body, a rather eccentric Tory!
By ERIC WALKER on 17th June 2024 - 16:05
Abigail Maxwell is a copious correspondent and will post comments with minutes of contentious material appearing in the Friend. She has even commented on one of her own article on the day of publication.
So I take it as significant that Abigail has not yet provided evidence of her assertion.
Is Abigail being ‘dishonest in little things’?
By Ol Rappaport on 21st June 2024 - 15:13
Please login to add a comment
