Welcome back to the Fourth Wave podcast. In this episode, I had the opportunity to talk with Jake Lindsey a little more about the Friends or the Quakers. Building on the previous episode, this discussion helped me to get a much better grasp not only of the Quaker beliefs, but also how those beliefs helped to challenge some of the blind spots that I've grown accustomed to as a Protestant of Puritan descent. I think the biggest moment I had in this discussion was towards the end when we talked about what Quakers do if they need to make an immediate decision. Jake's answer there was a revelation to me, and it's going to be one which I know we'll come back to in our season on government slated to come out at the beginning of twenty twenty two.

In fact, I'm doing an interview next week on the very topic that Jake brings up in the section on decision making. So anyway, I'll shut up now so you can learn some more about Quakers and their influence. Because we're in a season on nonviolent action right now, which is what kind of got me interested in Quakers. They come up all the time. I mean, in history, like you said, they're at the right moments.

So, want to kind of tie some of the information that you said more into a bigger ideas and real world applications and see if can kind of unwrap like what's at play in these things. So, first, like I said, abolition, Japanese internment camps, civil rights, helping the Jews in France when we're talking about Nazi Germany on the rise. It's like Quakers, Quakers were everywhere. What gives Quakers the prophetic vision or the ability to see what most other Christians aren't seeing at that time. And I understand, I've come to understand that it's not Quakers as a whole, right?

Benjamin Lay was an outlier. But they're able to produce those big names. And like you said, they do come around more quickly as well. What tools do you have that gives your community that prophetic vision?

So it's a really good question. Like the questions you sent me had, I had to think a lot about them because it is an interesting thing to think of. And I think what a lot of it comes down to is the way meeting is structured and the I think it's the way that meeting is structured in the way that individual action is kind of emphasized. So there's something, well, conservatives call it harmony. I think consensus is sort of the more modern way of describing it.

I think other meetings describe it more as consensus. But it's that decision making is very, very slow in meeting. And so using the kind of collective power of the meeting to do something is sometimes very slow and very difficult. But if you feel that Christ is pushing something very important on you, that is giving you sort of a, you know, a fire in your gut or whatever to move forward independently. And I think that's kind of that structure, I think, really encourages people to move forward.

Then other people, they can also gather people in the meeting that also feel that way and kind of move forward. And I think that's one reason why things like this actually get going. Whereas in the traditional sort of hierarchical structure of a Christian church, there's a tendency for things to get pushed up and then tabled. Whereas I think that there's probably tons of Baptists and Catholics and all that sort of stuff that were opposed to slavery at the same time as many Quakers, I think that Quakers, because of the way that the meeting is structured, took individual action more quickly. And then that individual action impressed upon the hearts of other people.

And when you're sitting quietly for a long time and somebody's telling you, you know, you're supposed to see Christ in all other human beings and you're beating your slave. Kind of, I think, will tend to work on your conscience when you're quietly thinking about it for several hours a week. And I think that might be one reason why this sort of stuff moves forward Quakerism a little bit faster. And as far as it being like giving them prophetic vision, I think it's also because you're sitting quietly listening for Christ. That's the whole point of our worship is that you're trying to hear God.

The still small voice is what it is. Christ is not necessarily in all of these big, rambunctious things. It's that sitting quietly and expecting that he is going to talk to you kind of opens you up to hearing these things. That's sort of how interpret. I took a couple of notes on that question, actually.

One thing I wanted to point out, I always feel bad about this, is that kind of to reemphasize that it wasn't all friends. Do you know the journal of I think it's John Woolman.

I know John Woolman. I don't know the journal.

Okay. So he wrote a journal, and it's just basically things that he was doing during his life. And he was an abolitionist in the seventeen fifties, I think seventeen sixties, some somewhere around then. And, you know, a lot of walking around in in the colonies and stuff like that and, joining other meetings and stuff. He just goes through a lot of this is that a lot of Quakers own slaves.

And but some of them were not didn't sit easy with them. But he was very much against it and, he would prepare people's wills and things like that. He would convince them during the preparation of their will to get to free their slaves. So things like that. So he had an impression from God telling him, Let help this community stop doing this.

It's a bad it's a poor reflection of Christ's action in the world. He also has some really interesting things that are also way ahead of its time, I think, which is like tax resistance, because there was a war going on at the time. The French Indian War, I think, is what he's referring to. I may have the dates wrong or something, but this is something they talked about where they're like, Well, you know, we're paying taxes and these taxes are going to fund this war. And this doesn't sit easy with us that like we're funding people killing each other.

Like, what do we do about that? One of the solutions was to live very modestly and reduce the amount of luxuries and stuff like that that you had, because then you would have you would be if you're generating less income or if buying less luxuries and that's what the taxes are on, then you are not funding it as much. So I think it's a very long way of answering this. I think that individuals do have prophetic foresight, and I think this is true amongst all believers. But I think that the way that the Quaker community is structured gives early action, I think, because it takes individuals and also because we have sort of a narrative theology.

And so we're reading a lot about what other people are doing. That also kind of impacts our view of what's going on, I guess. So you read about other Quakers doing, you know, freeing slaves, for example, then you're going to start going like, Why are they doing this? Oh, yeah, maybe this is not the right thing for me to do. Or you read about other Quakers doing tax resistance or protesting Vietnam or going and helping, you know, starving mothers in Germany after the war or, you know, protesting the blockade in World War One, like that sort of thing.

When you read about these things, that sort of makes you think a little bit more about, your journey, I think, with Christ is, is that it's something to contemplate, especially when you're sitting quietly for a long time. That's something that could be like. So we have these things also called queries, where they're basically questions that you can ask yourself during silence to sort of maybe if you need some sort of guidance, sometimes it's hard to just be there quietly. Your mind wanders and stuff like that. You have different things to think about.

I think these are types of things that become the queries is like, what are we doing to stop World War Two or whatever, or the violence that's associated with that, or like these mass killings and things like that. So I think that's kind of what it is. It's the structure, I think it just gives rise to early action.

Yeah. And so there are a number of things. I mean, everything you said was good. And I think biographies and seeing how other people are doing things and then applying that is good. But another one that stood out was just when you said, What can we do about these mass killings?

I'm thinking, you actually have the presumption that you can do something in the world. Like for my group, by and large, it'd be like, man, what can I do about these mass killings? I mean, there's nothing I can do until three more years when I can vote for the president again. Because we invest everything into politics and everything is structural and hierarchical and it's out of my control. Like we don't view for as individualistic as we are, we don't think that individuals really do anything.

I think that's impressive.

Well, I mean, think this is, at least for me, you're acting in the world with the light of Christ. So this is the creative force of the universe or whatever is expressed through the individual. So you do have the ability to change things. Even if it's a small amount, you can still impact the homeless guy on the street or something like that. Like there's there are things that you can do.

You know, one of the things that I work in a lot, which is not really Quaker associated, is the libertarian anarchist community, I guess. And it is it's it is community building. This is a this is something that I think our world is missing is is community. And so it's a sickness in our society is that people don't have people that they can rely on. And so this is where I think I can make an impact.

And where it may be a small impact is one of these people that kind of comes in and can help form a community with me. Maybe one of them can impact stopping these mass killings. As far as like voting every couple of years or whatever, not all Quakers agree with this, but, democracy is going to leave people unhappy. Doesn't work. That's why we use we use harmony in meeting is that we don't vote on stuff.

We just we come to we come to an agreement that everybody can, move forward with inspired by Christ. Because if you just vote on everything, there's always going to be the minority vote that is not happy with the situation. A compromise in democracy is some people don't get what don't get anything and some people get what they want. That's, that's, that's how that's how compromise works. That sort of, I think that's maybe another thing is that, even if you can't get collective action on something, you could still take individual action.

Individual action does impact stuff. I mean, there's albeit could be small, but if you're trying to save one life, you have one life and you can maybe save one to one. Mass killings is a hard way to think about it because you're thinking you're in this mass group of people, and you're trying to stop this mass group of people, but maybe you can save one. If Christ is calling you to do that, then do that. So I think that's maybe, I guess, a different way of thinking about it is the voting thing.

I mean, I don't think voting matters at all. I mean, to me, it's I also this is more of a personal opinion. You know, and Quakers actually did take, they had a lot of political power in the late 1700s, especially in like Pennsylvania and Maryland and places like that, in North Carolina. And this is another one where they sort of collectively made an early decision to not hold political power, because it's the it's ultimately backed up by violence. And I think a lot of modern Quakers don't believe in that.

And I think that a lot of past Quakers didn't, but they did sort of en masse resign from political seats in colonies right prior to The United States becoming The United States. And it was a kind of a collective realization that ultimately all action by the government is backed up by the sword and that if you are wielding that power, you're violent. And if you're voting for somebody to wield that power, you're putting them in the position to live a life of sin and wield that power and hurt others and that sort of stuff. So there's a I don't know, I don't know how I got off on this other tangent, but it's just sort of a weird like, this is more of my personal thing. I don't think there's a huge amount of Quakers that necessarily believe in this.

But there are a lot of tax resistors because funding the police or funding jails or funding wars is antithetical to the testimonies. There are there are plenty of anarchists. Usually, they're left anarchists that are in Quaker than I would probably call myself a right anarchist. But, you know, the end result, I mean, getting rid of a violent state is kind of the goal. We just have kind of different views on what that would mean.

But there are are these forces active in the Quaker community, but they're, I would say my norm, I think probably most conservative Quakers would actually probably be Democrats and be pushing for those sort of Democratic policies that contain that perspective of social justice and things like that. That is, you know, again, the kind of a point of contention with some people is that the political side does tend to be very left leaning as far as, the American political structure left. I'd say liberal and conservative in the Quaker sense don't mean liberal and conservative in the political, the American political sense. It's more about Christianity, I think it's more, it's more like conservative and traditional. Conservative would be more traditional Quakers, and liberals would be a little bit more modern in their, I guess, theology is, like, non Christ centered is the only way I can think about it.

And then, again, evangelicals are more Christ centered, but they're more like other Protestants where they have programmed structure. But don't know how I got off on this whole tangent. Yeah, that's kind of what I'm saying. Yeah, there's definitely a reinforced belief that you can take action and you can make a difference. Whether the size is not relevant.

It's that, yes, Christ is compelling you to do this. You do this. I can't remember her name, but there was a friend, a woman who got kicked out of the Massachusetts colony. And but she felt that Christ was still calling her back. They told her, If you come back, we'll kill you.

And she felt like she was supposed to come back, and she did, and they did end up killing her. So like, but and that's very tragic and stuff like that. But it made an impact on the theological narrative, I guess of she I mean, this is the same as to me as being a martyr back in just right after Christ was resurrected is it's sort of the same thing is that you are here to tell a group of people that they need to change their ways. And so she died, but she made a huge impact because we still read about her today. We still still have a better understanding of, you know, the truth of Christ in this world based on those actions in the past.

So even if you don't feel like you're making an impact, you can make an impact. It's just May not be immediately apparent.

Yeah, one of the other things that you talked about, and we talked about it a bunch here is the silence. It sort of, it struck me. I remember when I was talking for the last episode, and it was said that, you know, well, of the silence is we reflect on what other people have said, but also we are inviting God to speak to us. And this shows you just how messed up I am. And that I was like, Oh, yeah, I guess you would want to hear from God.

But the way that a lot of evangelicalism is, and I understand that we talk about prayer. But a lot of times when I think of a decision, when I'm making a decision like in a meeting, I'm not thinking of inviting God, like to really, really listen to God. I might pray about it and kind of have the sentiment that, yeah, I care what God thinks. But a lot of times, think it's more of what I know what God thinks he thinks like me. And because I want I want this thing, and I would only want it if that's what God wanted.

So this is this must be what God wants. Taking that time to pause, and really, really reflect and let God speak. I was like, Oh, that really does make a lot of sense. I think in evangelicalism, of our things, and it's probably different in the charismatic community, but we're kind of averse, like we believe in the Holy Spirit, but we really don't like him very much. We don't.

It's uncomfortable because I'm learning, reading a lot on this recently, but learning that I think a lot of modern day evangelicalism is really just rationalistic empiricist types of things, a response to the, you know, late nineteenth century. And we don't think we're like them. But we really, really are. Like, we're very rationalistic. And I think this is just one example of where that does us a disservice in being able to make decisions as a community and try to listen to God and assume that God might not have the same desires and conclusions that we do.

Yeah, and I think that's, mean, it's not easy either. I mean, it's it takes a long time to make decisions in harmony with the rest of the meeting. It's not easy. Kind of the way that it works in conservative business meeting is you have the people that participate in business meeting, which is anybody who's convinced and is part of that meeting. And you'll have some sort of decision to make.

And there's usually somebody who it rotates who it is, but there's somebody usually who's kind of in charge of the meeting. And they'll basically people make their statements or whatever, and then they'll call for silence. And then we'll try to kind of discuss it some more and see what's going on. One of the things that I think is really nice about doing it this way is that not everybody has all of the knowledge, so everybody else may have different bits of knowledge and stuff like that. You could have something very simple like installing an air conditioner.

This is something that happened in my meeting. Installing an air conditioning at the So we lived in Virginia. It's very hot. There's no air conditioning in our meeting house. We just had fans, but the fans worked pretty well.

But some people wanted an air conditioning installed, and that would have used meeting money. And then that money so you can only use money for one thing at a time, right? So you could buy an air conditioning or you could complete landscaping or you could help the poor at the beach. You know, and there was a lot of homeless people at the beach. That was one thing that we did outreach for it.

So there's a lot of different things you can do. Then there's and then it further complicates is that where does the air conditioning come from? Was child labor used to build this air conditioning? Was it voluntary child labor or was it slave labor? Or were the rare earth metals in the air conditioning?

Did they come from child mines in Africa where these kids are basically slaves? So there's a lot of more complicated things to think about when talking about just buying an air conditioning or what color to paint the meeting or what carpet to use. There are other things that are involved in that. And so that's why these things sort of take a long time, because what's important to you, You may be able to get that thing that is important to you, but there are other implications involved that you may not think about. And so taking time to go in silence and have Christ And Christ does act differently in different people.

So have Christ touched the hearts of different people who are involved in the meeting to bring up points that you may not have thought about, or to bring up a point that like, maybe you shouldn't be getting an air conditioning. Maybe it's fine the way it is. I mean, the meeting has been there since the 1800s, and nobody ever had an air conditioning. Fans were relatively new. So you just don't necessarily need that and there may be a higher priority for the meeting's money.

Additionally, there may be somebody in the meeting who is perfectly willing to volunteer to just buy an air conditioning and install it. And they take individual action on that and install it. And then you've got air conditioning because that's what they wanted in the meeting. It makes the meeting more comfortable for them. And it makes it more welcoming to people who are maybe not believers, because it's cool and gets up in the nineties and it's humid and it's Virginia.

So there's a lot of things that kind of go in to that. And so trying to achieve harmony, not just harmony with the meeting, but harmony with Christ to make a decision. It takes work. It's not easy. It's like being married.

Married is not always the easiest thing in the world. It is an effort on a daily basis to make sure that you are moving together as a couple to, you know, some sort of single vision or something. But and it's sort of the same thing with a meeting is that, you know, Christ uses these analogies in the Bible all the time about the groom and the brides and stuff like that is that that's what the church is. It's a marriage and marriage is work. And we're preparing the world for Christ to come into the world.

So it's an effort. But I think it's a noble effort. And I think that it's it does. And I think this is what kind of leads back to that. Why do why are Quakers sort of ahead of their time?

Although it does seem like it takes a long time for action, those actions, those collective actions do tend to be, I think, a better reflection of Christ's action in the world. Sometimes they're not. Mean, you know, there have been plenty of Quakers that probably did not do the right things and plenty of meetings who made wrong decisions and stuff like that. But because people's egos, just people. But I think that's sort of what it sort of condenses it and lends itself to.

And that's why you see a lot of this very, very small peculiar group of people making very large impacts in the world.

And I guess once if it takes a while for Quakers to make a decision, but once they do make a decision, because they it has the full force of the community behind it. Yeah, they do it with conviction and, a certainty of sorts.

Yeah. And like your example that you did, I think two episodes ago, Benjamin Lay, he was not popular. It took a long time after his death even before really the entire community joined him. There declarations. The Quakers and the Mennonites got along really well early on in the American colonies.

There were declarations with the Mennonites and the Quakers to abolish slavery. The famous one was in Germantown. I think it was in the late sixteen hundreds even, where they were saying, we're not doing slavery anymore. So there were people actively working on it, but it took almost one hundred years before the more holistic sort of total group said, we're not doing this anymore. We're freeing our slaves and we're moving forward to be abolitionists as a group.

It does take a long time. But when they, it was still, although it was one hundred years after they were still, they were kind of pushing this, but I mean, like George Fox, who's kind of the founder, he was against slavery. So even, I mean, from the 1650s until the late 1700s, there were people actively changing the community and getting them to kind of coalesce around this abolitionist sentiment. And they did achieve it a hundred years prior to the civil war, but it still took a long time. So that's kind of I don't like to pooh pooh them being, I guess, advanced as far as morality.

It's not like it's like a magic switch or anything like that. It takes a long time for people's hearts and minds to be changed. But it's done in harmony. Like you said, once that's done in harmony, and people are convinced, they can move forward as a force together. In the meantime, people take individual action.

And I mean, they do it right, too, or at least it's you can poo poo this But it like, I look at my community right now, and we're facing so much pushback trying to do like racial reconciliation stuff or talking about race, like they just, they don't want hear it. We're done with that. I think about the Quakers, it's like, well, when we did when they did realize that there was a major problem, they did say, you know what, slaves are human, they are image bearers of God. Not only did they release their slaves, but they advocated compensating them and restore it, restoration, repentance. I think about my group, my denomination that I'm in right now, like they really only put out a an apology at the like, higher level about turning away blacks in the 60s.

They only released that like a couple years ago. Yeah, a decade ago, maybe. And so and we're still so averse to it. We don't want to look at our sin or the consequences of that. Whereas it seems like, you know, when the Quakers make a decision, they're like, they're all in, it might take them one hundred years to do it.

But yeah, and they're behind it.

Yeah, I mean, it does. I think it's because it's, like I said, it's it is something that you, you're given a lot of time to contemplate, and it's and you're given a lot of time to open your heart to Christ. So I one of the things that when I when I early when I became an early convinced friend that I used to always really promote about it, I really think people receive too many messages. Like your phone is always buzzing. Just here in this conversation, I'm getting messages from work.

Like, I receive messages all day long. The radio is on. I have podcasts, the television. When I was in the evangelical community, then on Sunday, I go to church. I receive a message from the priest or the preacher.

So it's just like you're always receiving these messages. Your mind is, I think, cluttered by a lot of these external sources of information, which are good. I mean, you should be receiving that as well. And then when you're praying, a lot of times you're asking for things. You're not receptive to receiving information.

So your entire life, you're receiving all this external stuff. And then in rare moments where you're quiet and praying, you're asking for stuff. So you're giving the message. There's very little time for you to just quietly listen for God. I think aside from the religious point, I think that it's just really good for people to be quiet for a little while.

You know, for thousands and thousands of years, people were often sitting there quietly with nothing going on around them, washing their sheep or chopping trees or whatever the heck they're doing. And now we just have so much of this stuff going on that taking a break and intentionally waiting for Christ to minister to you or even if you're not open for that at that moment, thinking about the things that are going on in the world or in your life or whatever, quietly for a little while without somebody else telling you what to think about it.

So this is probably going to be a really stupid question, but how, so I know you talk about community helping you discern the voice of Christ, but it seems so to an evangelical Westerner, it seems so subjective and just, so I just, I'm just quiet and like, don't think of anything. Like, how do I know that the voice that comes to me isn't my voice? How do I know that it's the voice of God? I like, how do you do it? And how do you discern?

It is a little bit kind of like mystical, I guess, in it. It does feel different. I'm sure you know people who are really into meditation and stuff like that. I think it's similar to that is that you may not be ready or open to hearing Christ, but you could be, I guess, influenced in just sort of like dissecting the things that happened in your life. So conscience, I think, is an expression of the spirit.

So if you are sitting in a meeting, and maybe all week long, you haven't thought about this at all, but you were mean to somebody. You said something mean to them or whatever. And then that kind of like pops into your head like, Oh, yeah, you know, I was really rude to this cashier or something like that. I think that that like that conscience or feeling bad about it or just it coming up in your head is sort of is the types of things that would be like very simple things to hear about. But also, though, you're all sitting in community together, and so somebody may be inspired by the spirit or they will feel like they're inspired by the spirit to bring something up.

And sometimes it's kind of weird. Like, sometimes they'll like, I remember this one time, and I don't know what the message was, but maybe it was for somebody else. This guy stood up in a meeting and he was like, We were walking. My wife and I were walking, and we passed by these bushes and they usually bloom in April, but it's February and they were blooming. I just thought it's not time for them to bloom.

And that was all he said. It was weird. I was like, I don't know what that means, but maybe that meant something to somebody there. Maybe it meant something to him. So it's those types of things that we're open to receiving God.

Then if you feel especially convicted, then that is something you would either bring up or that you would discuss with other people in the meeting afterward, because we do usually fellowship afterward. And that's sort of how you use, I guess, the community. But it is a little bit hard to describe. The easiest way, the most reliable way I can think of describing it is conscience is that you will have something that doesn't seem internal to you that impacts your conscience. I would say that's the closest thing as I can think of to describe the spirit is that things are going to be happening in your life and you may not you may push them aside and not think about them.

Then you have this, couple of hour period to sort of clear your mind and think. Then the things that come up and things that you feel impacted by are going to be the things that are Christ speaking to you. But it's also sometimes you go for an entire meeting, it's very difficult to clear your mind. Maybe you get like a couple of seconds or something and and there's minor clarity because I mean, like a lot of times I'll sit there and I'll be thinking about programming or I'll be thinking about, you know, what I'm going prepare for the podcast or a TV show or whatever, like other things pop in your mind. But it's a practice.

It's something that people who meditate will kind of have a very similar a very thing where it's like it takes time. It's something that you need to be ready for and that you're practicing to be receptive to this. So I don't know if that answers your question at all. Yeah, is a little bit mystical. Yeah.

Yeah. And, you know, don't think that the mystical is a bad thing. It's something that is harder for me and my group to understand. I think value as legitimate when think most of the time, groups tend to go to extremes. And so I think our group definitely needs more mystical and maybe I don't know, maybe your group needs more empirical or something.

I don't know. But I know that my group needs more mystical.

Yeah, I mean, the nature of God is supernatural. So it's like, you know, there is so and these are different impressions of stuff that I get in my community. Do come from, I think that more kind of legalistic tradition and stuff. There was a lot of stuff like that, that this was just so hippie to me, When I first got into it, it was kind of a turnoff, but there was something about it.

And you said you're a programmer?

Yeah, I'm a software engineer.

Okay. So yeah, I would not have associated that. Was thinking like hippie type stuff too.

Oh, yeah. No, no, I'm a software engineer. But when I first went there, it sort of an opportune time because things were not going great for me. Well, I would say objectively, were going pretty well for me in my life, but spiritually and emotionally, they were not. And, you know, my my dad's actually in the military, so, he got stationed somewhere else.

And, and so I have four sisters, they all moved to this other place, and I was still in Virginia alone for the first time in a long time being from a big family. And like just a lot of things like that were going on where I was just like, it was kind of a confusing time. I was also, you know, reading Tolstoy. I was also starting to get into the anarchist stuff. And the, like, I felt very impacted by the way that our church was promoting war, to me at least is, you know, you go in, there's the pulpit, and you have a big old American flag, the Christian flag on the same level, and then below those, the cross and like, there was just, to me, there was just this kind of like, symbolism of the state and then the amount of God bless George Bush and all of these types of things where I was just like, there's something wrong about this.

The Iraq War by that time had been going on forever. I was starting to also, you know, I was into both of those things as a young person going like, Oh, yeah, this is great. This is what America is supposed to do. And also associated that with the religion. This is us bringing democracy to the world, and that's going to promote them from being heathens and coming over to Christ and all sorts of stuff.

Those things were starting to kind of change in my mind. And then so I went to the Quaker meeting and it was full of hippies, like just a bunch of weirdos, a bunch of Buddhists and atheists and like all sorts of people that I would not associate with it. And so like, I didn't feel good about it. But going in and sitting quietly for a while and being able to think about something, there was something to that. And then over time, I was less uncomfortable with like the weird hippie stuff.

I understood then why there were Buddhists there. I understood why atheists were there. And I felt a lot less adversarial to I felt much less like these different people that didn't believe what I believe were my enemies, and that they were more people that were just at a different stage of spiritual development. And they may be more advanced in spiritual development in some areas and less in other areas. But that was the point of the meeting was to make a space for everybody to come to Christ.

And so that was sort of like an interesting transformation. And I think the the the main thing that was that transformed was being able to be quiet and not be not have all of these external messages and stuff like that going for. And it's just good for you, I think, general is to sit quietly and not have your phone buzzing or people messaging you on teams or whatever. So I just think there is a need for that in the world. It's sometimes hard to sitting quietly and sitting still is hard.

Especially nowadays, I think. But I think some I think people need it. Yeah.

Quick question for you. How much how much time do you have? Because I want to make sure that I get to some of these questions. And I don't want to I

got I got I got plenty of time. I got work to do, but I can do it later.

Okay, perfect. So yeah, then I won't worry about it. Okay. Okay, one of the questions that I want to get to next, because some of the things that you're talking about, like just sitting in silence and you, don't do music? No.

Preaching? No. Yeah.

I wouldn't say there's no preaching, but we believe that all believers are ministers. And so if you're compelled by Christ to speak, can.

Okay, so I want to tie this to one of the things that probably the major tipping point for me to come to nonviolence was looking at the early church. I'm like, Oh, man, they look very, very different than we do. And the early church, just like the Quakers, it's not like, you know, everything the early church did was perfect and wonderful. And it's this panacea for all of my Christian woes. When you see something, when you see them univocal on certain issues or practices, it should make you think twice, I think.

So, could you help me understand what is the Quaker relation to the early church? Because in my mind, it seems like some of the Quaker practices are and ideas are way better than my groups, like their adherence to non violence, their orthopraxy, not just trying to caring about what they do, not just what they think. I think they get that right, better than my group tends to do. But some of these practical aspects of, you know, not preaching, well, it seems like Paul and others like it seems like there was preaching or it seems like there were prophecies in the church people speaking, it seems like there were, there were songs and hymns. And so could you kind of talk about where you think Quakerism lines up with the early church, where it diverges?

You Yeah.

Well, so I think that early on, mean, Quakerism is a product of the time that it came out of. And so there was these people called seekers in England. This is during the English Civil War when Cromwell took over. And they were all trying to figure out what God wanted. Got a lot of different denominations that came out of this.

So I think a lot of the stuff that is traditional with Quakers is sort of a product of that time. But they were trying to trying to go back to their understanding of what the early church was. This much more flat, communal sort of structure. So just we don't have we don't have priests or preachers, but it's not because well, that's not the right way to say it. We do have them, but everybody is that.

People do feel but I guess this is the other aspect of that is that it's like a solemn responsibility to get up and speak in meetings. So you should be sure that the message that you're bringing is Christ inspiring you to speak. So people do stand up and sometimes people stand up and sing. That happens once in a while, too. They feel like this song is pouring out of them and that they need to stand up and sing.

Then they do. And then they sit down and the meeting continues until people shake hands. Then at some point, somebody will feel like the meeting is done and shake hands and then that spreads and then people leave. But you're also welcome to just continue to sit there. So the music aspect of that is actually kind of interesting because there was a sort of a little fight about that at some point.

I don't remember exactly the deal with it. So the way that our meeting in Virginia dealt with it is that if you really wanted to like, I really like Christmas music a lot. I grew up in the Church. I like singing the Christmas hymns. I like listening to those.

If you felt like that was something that you wanted and that was missing, we didn't do it at our meeting. But there was a nearby there was, I think was an Episcopal Church and they did those. And so we would just, as a group, go there and fellowship with other Christians that have a different practice. We would participate in their hymns because we liked them. And some that didn't work for them.

So they didn't. They just didn't participate. And that was fine. So as far as like, I think it's to some degree a little bit difficult to know exactly what the early church was doing. But I think a lot of this is designed to try to mimic this sort of small community harmony in the community and individual action.

We do have preachers. I mean, George Fox, the founder, preached. I mean, like he went around and told people, this is what I believe. You know, we should be listening for Christ. John Woolman walked around and a lot of it is lot of it's more instead of like somebody up high preaching down, it's more conversational.

So I think that's kind of a little bit of the difference. And we also do still do epistles. So writing to other meetings. So like my meeting in Virginia Beach was Virginia Beach Friends meeting. It was part of North Carolina yearly meeting.

So this is also a little bit different for conservatives. Conservatives don't have like convention. So like Friends General Meeting is think it's liberal. And then there's like the Evangelical Friends Conference. I think there's a couple of those as well.

So conservatives are organized slightly differently. They have the weekly meetings and then the monthly meetings. And then the monthly meetings are part of the yearly meetings. And there's three main yearly meetings in United States. I think it's Iowa, Ohio.

I think Ohio is the biggest. And then North Carolina, which is the one that I was part And so they're not really a hierarchical structure exactly. But those are the yearly meetings they get together. They try to write out the queries and epistles to the other meetings and things for other Christians to think about or other friends to think about and things like that. There is sort of that aspect that is sort of preaching, but a lot of it's done in conversation and a lot of it's done more in writing, if that makes sense.

Yeah. Yeah. And the music thing, that's sort of like a I the music thing is more of a product of the Protestant Reformation, because a lot of the Protestants at that time were not allowing any music at all. And they were stripping down a lot of the stuff that the Catholic church, the ornate stuff that the Catholic church did and doing very plain style everything. And I think a lot of that is carried over into like modern Protestantism.

And the music aspect just kind of stuck with conservative friends. There's just no music. It's just part of it.

Yeah, I know certain very conservative aspects, groups in our denomination, like they'll only sing the Psalms or something. So they don't do no singing, but they Yeah. They're very limited. Yeah.

I mean, it was in the meeting in Virginia. And we actually the meeting here that I go to once in a while in Fort Worth, it's in a church. So there are instruments and stuff like that. It's a I don't know what the denomination of the church is. But there are instruments and in our meeting, we had an organ, like a small, a small electric organ.

I had never seen it played, so I'm not really sure why it was there. But it was there. So I would imagine that somebody used it at some point. And people, like I said, in meetings, some people will be filled with Christ and they'll feel like they need to sing and so they do. It's not common, but it does happen.

Okay. Another question about the meeting and that kind of the way that you do things. Talked a bit about consensus making in the last episode. So I don't think we really need to kind of go into details unless there's anything you'd want to fill in. But one of the questions that I had was, so let's say I'm on my church's diaconate, and we're helping somebody who comes in with a need, financial need, whatever, keep the lights on, stay in their apartment, whatever.

And the need is pretty immediate. Know, one of the critiques that I think that you probably get about decision making is, what if you just have to make a decision? And I think most of the time, decisions don't actually have to be made with immediacy, when people think that they do. In most of the mercy needs that I've that's occurred, part of the reason people come with this, the story of immediacy, is because they know that it puts you on edge and it makes you make your decision fast. Know, gives it makes their decision more weighty.

Let's just assume there really is a decision has to be done immediately. How do you work through that?

Well, I mean, the meeting, usually it just takes too long for the meeting to do it. Somebody will need to somebody or a group of somebody's will take immediate action. So like one example of this was when Obamacare got passed. This is something that was controversial, I guess, with our members. And a lot of the members wanted to go help people sign up for this at different places.

And that and that is sort of an immediate thing because there is a time limit to when you can enter the marketplace and all that sort of stuff and get insurance. And others said, No, we shouldn't participate in this because this is force. And that would be the side that I was kind of on. And, but, so instead of trying to figure this out for months and months, and then the deadline passes, a group of people got together and they said, Okay, you know what, we're just going to take time out of our lives and volunteer and go do this. And so the same thing is if like somebody, know, needed to keep the lights on or whatever, and there was some sort of immediate need for that, you would, you could take up a collection that was separate from the meetings money.

You could, if somebody had like a burst pipe or something, maybe we have a plumber or somebody who's a handyman in the in the meeting and they can go help free of charge or something like that. You can take individual action. It's just that the that corporately, it takes a long time for action to re terminate. So it's just it encourages you know, one of the things I also I bring this up a lot is that when I was a kid, this this used to happen all the time in our in our church is that my mom was very involved in the youth ministry, for like little kids. And time and time again, she would not volunteer for something, and everybody would just assume that she was going to do it.

So the and and that was just that that was sort of the church consensus that they just that the leadership of the church was just like, well, Marta will do it. And I think that that was incorrect, and it was not fair, I don't think, my mom. It wasn't really fair to our family either. She's got a bunch of kids of her own. She always felt like she needed to do that.

Whereas I think in Quaker meeting, because sort of hierarchical action of the church, there's not really that structure to take action. Harmony reaching takes a long time. And so it gives people more of a free space to say yes or no on an individual level. Like there is youth ministry that we didn't have very many kids at our meeting because, you know, the average age of the meeting was like 70. But there were some kids.

And so the people who were who would make sure to do that, like they either took action on their own to say, yes, I'm going to do this or no, I'm not going to do this. There was a lot less assumptions that so and so member was going to do this or it was more of a people felt much more comfortable saying yes or no or saying, I'm going to do this. Does anybody want to help me? Because there's that kind of there's that sort of like you have no ability to defer this to some leadership structure. It's all going to come down to basically you doing it or not doing it.

So I think that's kind of the I hope that answers your question.

No, it's brilliant. Because next week, actually, I'm talking with somebody about the diffusion of responsibility. Going use the tool story as well. And, you know, the diffusion of responsibility in the sense of there are a number of ways that that happens. One way is that, you know, you can diffuse it negatively, like where the government says, well, we have the right to kill people, but the police officer arrests the attorney, the prosecutor convicts, the judge condemns.

And so you kind of diffuse it that way. But then the other way is like voting. Now, I voted, I kind of did my part, I gave the government my responsibility. Now I don't have any.

Yeah, yeah.

Even though I recognize that, until you brought that up, was like, Oh, yeah, I guess as a deacon, if our church can come to a conclusion, I could have done something for the person on my own. But because I'm so invested in hierarchy and structure and that sort of thinking, it's a secondary thought. It wasn't even a secondary thought.

Yeah. And this came up for me a lot at the beginning, too, when I first became convinced was it's kind of difficult to wrap your head around a very flat structure when just nothing else in your life is like that. There's one of the very first things that somebody said was sort of a a there's a lot of curmudgeons in the meeting or whatever. And somebody said, like yelled across the room. So I was talking to him about like, Christianity and stuff and Jesus.

He yelled across the room at this other lady and he said, Hey, Jesus loves you. And her response was, says who? Which I just thought was kind of interesting and funny. But also, it's kind of like, Oh, this is sort of a To me, this was more like an invitation to discuss rather than a curmudgeonly brushing it off kind of thing is that like there is sort of this you don't really have a pastor to go to to ask if something's wrong or right. Have to discern that for yourself.

You can't corporately decide a lot of that stuff and talk to people in the meeting and they can help you arrive at a conclusion. And then also, since there's no there's no expectation that the deacons and the pastor are going to handle some situation, it's it's just so much more up to you to make sure that things that you are convicted to make sure happen, happen. Like you don't. It's up to you. You have to do it.

And then what's I think is good about that, too, is that because everybody has this expectation and then it's much easier to form smaller groups to go and do something that you all feel that this is a good thing together. So it doesn't end up getting deferred to like one person. Like my mom's not running Vacation Bible School every single year for ten years. It's it's now a group of people are getting together and going, Oh, well, this is something we can offer the community. It's something that we care about.

And then also, it also gives room for the person to say, I did handle this last year, but I just don't have time to do it this year, or I feel compelled by Christ to do something else. And then somebody else can step up. It kind of gives that it sort of gives the the negative expectation as well as the positive expectation. You can you can feel more comfortable saying no, and you can feel more comfortable saying yes, I guess, is the best way I can describe it.

No, that's extremely helpful. And it's something that I think I can see it when you say it, but I think for most people in my group would require a paradigm shift because I've been saturated like with examples and I've heard bits and pieces. So it makes sense. But I understand why it doesn't make sense to people in my view, because I still think that way.

Well, I do too, lot of times is it's, I mean, any sort of, I mean, everything pretty much in our lives is structured in this sort of like pyramid fashion. And when you're looking at something that's a lot more flat, it does take a bit of a mind change to understand how that's going to work. It is it's different. It's just it. Once and it can be very disorienting or very upsetting, I guess, where you're just like, Oh, nobody's going to do this.

Eventually you realize, Oh, this is important to me. I need to do this. It's just a different way of thinking, kind of.

Yeah. Yeah. And that's, I've been going down the anarchist route as well, kind of drawing out conclusions that you've drawn out here on hierarchies, but also violence, I mean, being inherent in the state. So it's, and that's something that I struggled with as I looked at the Quakers, because they are, they do seem to be by and large politically involved today. And so that was going be one of my questions, but you've kind of answered that about, how do you deal with hierarchies in the government and other sorts of things.

I know your answer pretty much, so we're talking

about. Yeah.

Okay, I think this is the last question I have. Sure. Kind of written down and maybe some more will come from it. But one of the themes that comes out to me with the Quakers is over and over again is sacrifice. So whether it's lay being willing to sacrifice you know, or whatever, like, being willing to count the cost for the initiatives that they do, the things that they're convicted about.

But then even beyond, and other Quakers being persecuted for not paying taxes or for not joining the army back in the day, or for being friends with Indians, Native Americans. So there's a cost that comes from persecution. But something that for I don't want to say that I'd be able to be persecuted and stand. I think I would, I hope I would. But the thing that's almost actually more inspiring and convicting and difficult is the way that so many Quakers like Benjamin Lay again, because he's one of my few Quaker references.

Like he lived in a cave, he saved up his money, he didn't buy sugar. I think, I'm against child labor. I bet a lot of the products in my house have been touched by child labor. I'm for the environment, but I waste a lot. We use paper plates or plastic plates sometimes.

Just the willingness to personally sacrifice is inspiring. And I almost don't want to look at the Quakers because it's like, my life just feels so gross. So I'd love for you to talk about on those two levels, maybe the persecution level, maybe you have some things from history you can pull out, or even modernity, but also the personal sacrifice level. What role does sacrifice play in the Quaker community? And how does that influence the great things that they have done and as well as their daily lives?

Yeah, I think that. So sacrifice, a lot of times is a perspective. So there's especially with conservatives, there is a large group of what are called plain Quakers, and they're often mistaken for Amish or Mennonites. They live extremely simple lives. They make their own clothes.

They they have a lot of times they receive or they're eligible to receive government benefits. But they do this because they don't want to basically feed into the war machine or other. There's other reasons as well. They want the simplicity so that they can concentrate concentrate on the message from Christ and things like that. So but I think that if you spoke to a lot of them, they would say, Well, yeah, I guess I guess giving up a lot of these modern conveniences and stuff like that is sacrifice.

But it's it's really it's a perspective. It's that for them, this is what they want to do. And in a lot of ways, it's a privilege to live that way. So I think that's that's sort of part of it is that, personal sacrifice is I mean, you can see like my house, I'm speaking at a microphone, I got computers and stuff like that. Like there's, if you feel convicted to give up a lot of these things, then you would.

You would. Even like John Woolman, for example, like he talks about this in his journal a lot where he gives up a lot of conveniences and luxuries because the same thing is he doesn't want to fund slavery and he doesn't want to fund war. So he lives a very, very simple life. But what's what I always find very inspiring about his journal is that he keeps doing these things to give up wealth or conveniences and stuff like that. And he keeps getting blessed with good business decisions.

So every time he gives up some money, he receives more money. So it's like a weird prosperity gospel kind of thing, I guess. It's a very strange kind of situation. You see this a lot Quakers in history is a lot of them did give up stuff and then became extremely wealthy business people and things like that because they adhered to what they believe were the teachings of God and God rewards living, you know, in his light. And so like, I'm the Cadbury Creme Egg or the Cadbury Company, the chocolate company.

That's a Quaker company, or they were back a long time ago. And the, one of the first patents issued in The United States was for straw hats, like a machine that made these straw hats. This was a woman. She she invented this. She became extremely wealthy from that.

She was a Quaker. So it's like these different like things that when you live in the light of Christ, a lot of times you're rewarded and it may not be just financially rewarded, it may just be peace of spirit. And I think that a lot of plain Quakers, that's sort of how they express their experience of God is that although it does seem like a large personal sacrifice to live in a very, very plain manner, it's also it's sort of like the monastic movement, like going off into the desert and living that way. Like that is a privilege as well, to some degree, although you may not be comfortable physically, spiritually, you are satisfied and full. So I guess that's kind of the trade off.

And then as far as like being persecuted throughout history, I'm sure it was not pleasant at all, at all in history, but it's fun to read about. It's very interesting to read about. One of the one of the stories that is always one of my favorites is that when Cromwell took over England, there was a law that you had to go to church and Quakers don't go to church, they go to meeting. And so Cromwell was all or it wasn't Cromwell specifically, but the Puritans that were in charge were all angry about this, that Quakers kept not going. And so their favorite way to punish them was to strip them naked and march them around the town.

Right? As like a way to embarrass them. And so the Quaker response to this was, Well, if you really want us to go to church and you really want us naked, we'll just go to church naked. And so they would just show up in church with no clothes on. And like, what do you do about that?

Like, it's things like that where they a lot of times find a very clever way or a sort of a joyful way to resist, even if it's not not physically pleasant or or there is a lot of pain and physical discomfort and stuff like that. But there is spiritual comfort and there is there's, there's a reward for, there is a, like a psychological spiritual reward for doing what's right, even if it's not a, Even if it's not a comfortable physical situation, I guess would be the difference. I can't really think of it. Another way to describe it is there is sacrifice, but the when you sacrifice, the reward for sacrificing spiritually is better. Oftentimes you'll be blessed with physical comforts as well.

I mean, the Cadbury people were, I'm sure, very comfortable. Same thing with the lady. I can't remember her name. She's written essays and stuff. It's pretty interesting.

But, you know, she made quite a bit of money for the machine that makes straw hats. You know, there's just there's a lot of really interesting things like that where you can point and say that these people were like John Woolman is a good example. Physically, like, materially poor, but spiritually wealthy and wealthy in friendships and wealthy in his experience. He was he was, you know, it wasn't super common back then that you were able to just kind of go around to all the colonies and stuff like that. Was able to meet lots of different people.

He was able to interact with Indians. And he was he was able to free slaves and change the the material conditions of many, many people, which is its own. It's rewarding in a different way. Whereas so yes, his physical comfort was, I guess, a sacrifice, but it's made up in another way. Think that's the way I guess I'll answer the question.

Yeah, yeah. And that just brings in another thing for me, which is you know, Cromwell, right, the Puritans, persecuting the Quakers. You said in Boston, was it where that lady came back and they hung her?

Yeah, it was Massachusetts. Don't know if it was specifically Boston. Yeah,

yeah, you know, Puritans executing Quakers who don't do anything to anybody. And it, you know, group has this narrative that Oh, the poor Puritans escaping persecution. Really what it amounts to a lot of times in my mind, least maybe this is too far the other way. It's basically, well, you're escaping the powerlessness that you had, because had you had the power, you would have been persecuting the other people. Yeah, you're mad.

Can be persecuting people.

Yeah, mean, they're very interesting people, especially the American Puritans were kind of like the Puritans that the Puritans didn't like. And so they kicked him out to America. Well, first to Holland, then to the colonies. But yeah, it is. It was a it's a really interesting time.

I mean, even Cromwell, there's a lot of interaction between George Fox and Cromwell. Cromwell would visit him in jail a lot of times and he would Lee and one of the quotes that George Fox used to say, like he'd say, like, I implore you to leave your crown at God's feet. Basically, give up the power. Stop doing what you're doing. And he would leave the meetings crying and and, you know, touched by the touched by George Fox's words, but would ultimately just go back to doing what he was doing.

So it was a really interesting time. And this is, you know, George Fox was you talk about sacrifice. You know, George Fox was a fairly wealthy middle class man, was convicted by Christ to start a sort of a peaceful revolution in the midst of inter Christian faith fighting. And then even when they got rid of the Catholics, then none of the Protestants could get along. And they were all fighting and killing each other and stuff like that.

And there was a time actually where there were more Quakers in prison in England than Quakers out of prison in England. And so like there it was there was, again this sort of sacrifice. But like in the Bible, a lot of times they would go to prison and they would convert people. They're prisoners, and those prisoners would be convicted to release them. Like they would this was like one of those things that governments have a hard time with is when you have somebody who's really convicted in the faith.

It's kind of hard to resist that charisma, I guess. When you can see the spirit pouring out of someone, it's difficult to not be convinced by that. And so George Fox, he keeps going to prison. He keeps converting people. He keeps causing all these problems for the Puritans.

So they send him to Barbados. He starts converting people in Barbados. Send then he ends up like walking up, I think, to South Carolina and then walks all the way to Massachusetts, converting people along the way. And so although, yes, he did have a lot of physical pain and a lot of discomfort materially. He did make a huge impact in the world and he had a peace in Christ.

This is what this was kind of what the what Christ what he heard when he first had like a meditative worship or whatever was, he heard the spirit say, None can speak to thy condition except for God. So that's kind of how he had this realization that like, you know, we are we don't just believe like we don't just say that we believe that God is here. He is here. And he'll and he'll speak to us. And so I wouldn't say that like the physical pain, stuff like that, it doesn't matter.

But there's a trade off and the trade off is spiritual fulfillment.

Yeah, yeah. And I know that that's another problem that that I and my group has is, you know, we're, we're not Gnostics, but functionally, we are where just kind of, I guess, reverse Gnostics, where the material really is good, and the spiritual is kind of off to the side and secondary.

So this is something that the Puritans really influenced Protestantism about was that, and I think this is kind of where a lot of prosperity gospel and stuff like that comes from, is that the Puritans believed that if you were very wealthy, that was God blessing you. And so like these people that were rich were seen as being very holy people because they were materially blessed. And I don't think that that's exactly true. I don't think it's a I don't think it's a crime to be rich, and I don't think it's a crime necessarily to be poor. But you but the way that you use your material position in the world, it should be a force for good.

So if you're a very wealthy person and you're using your position in the world. So so Cadbury is another good example. The reason that Cadbury became as successful as it is, it used to be that people would like grind up bricks and they would mix the brick dust with the chocolate. So I may be mixing up two stories here, but that's one of the things that they did. But so what Cadbury, one of his things was he said this was a violation of the integrity testimony because you're lying.

You're not actually giving people chocolate and it's not good for them to eat brick dust. And then also the so he made pure chocolate. And then the other thing was that poor children couldn't afford most chocolate. A middle class treat or a middle class and wealthy person's treat. And so he felt that this was something that should be brought to everybody.

And so he invented a way to basically get the mix, the chocolate with milk and make milk chocolate so that it would be cheaper, But it also still be a kind of a pure thing not mixed with brick dust so that poor kids could still either have a mixed chocolate drink or they could have small chocolates and still experience this physical joy from candy. And this made him extremely wealthy. But it a risk, a business risk. You know, he had a business and he had a family to take care of. And this is not what other people were doing.

This is going against the grain of the chocolate industry in England at the time. And he was ultimately rewarded. I mean, we still eat Cadbury today. That's a very different company today, but he was rewarded by being an extremely successful chocolatier or whatever in England. So things if you are acting in the right, they may not it may not always be very clear and apparent immediately that you're being rewarded for this.

But doing what's right is I don't want to say it's its own reward because that sort of diminishes people's like physical pain and suffering and stuff like that. But doing what's right and doing what you're convicted to do is noble, honorable. It's a reward. It's a trade off. It's that you are doing what's right and this will give you peace of conscience, peace of spirit.

Even if it's costly financially or costly physically, the trade off is worth it. The only way I could describe it, it's the right thing to do. You should be doing what's right and just.

Yeah. And I think that gets into I think a lot of times we and me, I focus on trying to maybe change my behavior or to just focus on, okay, well just endure the sacrifice, just make it a sacrifice. Whereas a lot of what I'm reading in regard to like virtue ethics is something that I've come to realize is very powerful and more of the idea that your desires change. So you're talking about like, well, the plain Quakers, they don't really desire those things. Yeah.

And so, in a sense, not so much a sacrifice. And so, the question isn't how do I make myself sacrifice? It's how do I make myself desire? And desires are fostered through disciplines and practices. And I think that's probably why I struggle so much because disciplines take discipline.

And that takes a lot of effort. As a good American, I like the get rich quick schemes and the weight loss pills and all that kind of stuff.

Yeah, yeah. And it's hard. Mean, like a discipline is a discipline. It's not always easy, but the rewards are great. I mean, and we read this a lot in the Bible and stuff like that, that like, even when people a lot of times were told to like, give up wealth and stuff like that in the Bible, they went often, they would go away full in the spirit.

So there's, I would say, maybe an equilibrium. It's like you are trading off one thing, but sometimes those things that you think are what you want and what you desire are actually not making you happy and they're not benefiting your community at large. And it does take a shift in perspective. And it's hard. Like one of the things that I always struggle with with like nonviolence is I'm married.

Like, what would I do if somebody you know, this is our things I think about, like, would I do if somebody broke and was threatening us with violence? So like there's things like that where, like, when you're single, when you're a single young man with no really responsibilities or anything like that, it's very easy to go like, well, you know, just, you know, I'll jump out the window or, you know, I'll try to talk him out of it or whatever, just, you know, whatever. But like, when you add on the responsibility of like a spouse or the dogs or whatever, don't have any kids yet, but eventually adding on that responsibility of children, stuff like that. Like those those are things that are kind of are complicated. They're hard to think about.

They're hard to deal with. But, you know, it's just it's part of the it's part of the path. It's part of it's part of the discipline. It's part of your experience of Christ on this earth. So I don't know.

That's all I can say. I don't know if it's I don't know if that's clear or poignant.

The older I get, mean, the less clear things become. The more I learn, but the less clear things become. So I wasn't expecting perfect clarity. Just, Yeah, more more to chew on.

Yeah,

I think those are all the questions and more that I had. And if there's anything you can think of that you'd like to add?

No, I can't. Mean, I'd love to have another conversation if you think of anything else. But that's all I had in my notes.

I do want to plug your stuff?

I host a podcast called Tasting Anarchy. You can go to TastingAnarchy.com and it's mostly about wine and the government involvement in the alcohol industry. We do talk about other stuff, too. My co host Mason is interesting guy. We've been in the Liberty community for a long time together for twelve or thirteen years.

So he was actually my friend before I became a convinced friend and he's still my friend. And he was when I first met him a Buddhist, and now he doesn't really care about that at all. So so kind of an interesting, interesting journey with him. And he's a very interesting guy. We do talk about that kind of stuff once in a while.

Mostly it's about the alcohol industry and how the government manipulates prices and stuff like that in that realm or changes people's decisions and things like that. I also do a show called California in Exile, which I guess I would be the California in Exile. Live in Texas, but I'm a Californian. And that show is mostly about intentional communities. So that's kind of one of my focuses is trying to get separating from the sort of the whole war machine and violence of the state and stuff like that and move into intentional communities.

There's a there's a really good Quaker community in North Carolina that has done that called Silo. So we talk about that once in a while. It's pretty interesting. Also, I do a liberty event here in Central Texas every year called Childerberg. So you can go to chillerberg.com and find out more information about that.

You want to just come out and hang out with us and enjoy other nonviolent liberty lovers, then hit us up and we'll give you more details.

Alright. Well, thank you very much.

Yeah. Thank you.

That's all for now. So peace, and because I'm a pacifist, when I say it, I mean it. This podcast is a part of the Kingdom Outpost Network. Please check out the links below to find other great podcasts and content related to non violence and Kingdom Living.