We began to ask some of the questions referred to in these posts – what is the role of the Meeting in the clearness process, what does it mean to hold couples and individuals “under our care” who have been married in our meeting in the past (even those who have moved away), and how deeply do we delve into possible issues the couple might face?

The clearness process can in the best of cases form a shared intimacy which deepens the ongoing spiritual relationship within the couple, between the couple and the members of the committee, and between the couple and the meeting as a whole. This forms an “engagement” of the couple with the meeting which is the foundation of the ongoing commitment of the meeting to the couple.

When members of a Friends Meeting engage in a clearness process with and then take a couple “under our care,” we should be making a corporate commitment to not only the spiritual connection the couple has with each other, but the spiritual connection the meeting develops and maintains with the couple. All of these relationships are based on mutuality, rather than uni-directional. Both require a two-way relationship, one that encourages the Meeting and the couple to become engaged with one another through the life of the Meeting.

Since I am single, I have only have had the privilege of serving on a few clearness committees for marriage. However, the marriages of those couples are very dear and tender to me. I would like to think that I remember their anniversaries and remember their spiritual relationship as I hold the meeting and its members in the Light, but after a number of years it is more likely that these F(f)riends’ special place in my heart can be crowded by others who have grown dear through sharing loss, raising children, meeting work, and the ongoing worship and social life of the Meeting.

We are currently thinking about what we could do to support and give ongoing sustenance to those who have been married under our meeting’s care. It sounds from these posts that other meetings likewise do not have formal, organized outreach to couples, but rely on the energy of individuals to maintain the connection. We also need to ask how the couples continue to deepen their relationship with the meeting and how these mutual efforts can continue to deepen the spiritual lives of all involved as well as the meeting. We must do this work of love together.

But what’s a clearness committee to do except to help people become clear for themselves about something. It is not a seal of approval, although it does make a decision about whether the meeting should take the relationship under its care.

And I do think that a meeting can say that it will not take a relationship under its care (for example, two Catholics who live 500 miles away but have read about the marriage practice of Friends and find it charming), but “taking under the care” is the key to me. The clearness committee is the beginning (or perhaps even a later, although early, stage) of the meeting caring for the relationship–even if it is not a “good” or functional relationship.
These are, in fact, the relationships most in need of our care and, so long as those in them remain open to that care, we should not be deciding not to be bothered because we don’t “approve.”

We do not think, at least I hope we do not, that a person with emotional problems should be excluded from membership or fellowship solely on that basis. Everyone, I have heard it said, who comes to a meeting has something for us and we have something for them–even if they do not stay. Nor do we, I believe, refuse to take a relationship under our care solely because it is actually or potentially dysfunctional.

A weighty Friend once ministered that we are like single celled organisms on the forest floor. They eat the leaves and such they find without knowing, understanding or caring that they are part of something very much larger than themselves.

We love and care for one another even though we do not, sometimes, see the sense of it, even though we, sometimes, are not really attracted to (in fact, when we are repulsed by) one another or approve (in fact, when we disapprove) of what one another are are up to. We don’t know why we should we just know that something larger than we are as individuals leads us to do that.

A clearness committee is just one form that loving takes and in the case of a marriage is the beginning of a meeting’s commitment to the relationship–a commitment that should last as long as the relationship remains committed to the meeting and to the care of the meeting for which it has asked.

Keep eating the leaves, keep eating the leaves.

I grew up in our meeting, and my parents still attend and are very active. At the time, my husband to be (who was attending an Episcopalian church) had started attending on a semi-regular basis (his daughter, who was about 8 or 9 at the time, voluntarily chose to attend meeting with me, rather than church with him, so he decided that he wanted to worship with his family), but it was not at all a slam dunk that he would continue to come to meeting, or be anymore of a Quaker than a “trailing spouse.” So when we announced our intention to marry, and asked to do it under the care of the meeting, the committee that they convened for us was very carefully thought out–it included one married couple who were active in the meeting, and two people whose spouses did not attend meeting. For some reason, they didn’t put anyone on who had had a second marriage. Our committee met with us for two full sessions, and then met with my soon-to-be stepdaughter as well. I felt they did a really thorough job, and it remains one of the highlights of my time at my meeting.

It’s been 11 years since we were married, and I confess that our meeting is only just now getting around to taking seriously the advice that it continue to be involved in the marriages that are under its care. But we are starting to do that, now, and it is very nice.

We’ve had couples come that we haven’t found clear–that is always sad when it happens, but it is usually for the right reason. We’ve also had couples that we found clear who later broke up. I don’t think we can be mind-readers–people change, lives change. We can only do what the Spirit guides us to do at a given time, and if we discern incorrectly, we go back and try again.

A few years ago, our meeting prepared a minute on covenant relationships–it was a difficult minute to pass, and did involve one quite vocal attender who was not easy with the concept of homosexuality to leave the meeting. But we did pass the minute, although it punted on the subject of “marriage”, talking instead about “all loving relationships under our care,” or some wording like that. As I recall, it was less about us not being able to come to unity, and more about the fact that since same-sex marriage wasn’t a legal option, the meeting felt inclined not to push the envelope. In hindsight, I find myself a bit disappointed that we didn’t try harder to set a more inclusive tone–maybe we were too complacent. I think there is now a small movement afoot to re-open this minute to discussion based on that wording, but I’m not sure where that stands.

Mia

The other thing was that as we marry in the care of the meeting it’s important for the meeting to check that my non-quaker husband wasn’t a quaker-hating nutjob who’d crush my involvement with the meeting, lock me in an attic and raise my children in some strange cult without my permission. Because it’s more than just using the building. You’re pretty much marrying into the society if it’s to take responsibility for heloing you to uphold your marriage.

I really only wanted to say, on clearess, that my/our experience was that the clearness committee was largely a rubber-stamping body, even though the experience itself was profitable. Martin and I were/are disappointed that the Oversight Committee for our marriage couldn’t give a hoot how we’re doing now and not a soul from either overlapping committee ever calls or emails us even though we made our expectations clear to them before our marriage. (Namely, that they’d contact us once in a blue moon to make sure our marriage was not on the rocks or anything.) Again, Bizarro. I must admit that while I don’t feel bitter about that, I do feel hurt and still a little sad about it since we’ve gone through some tough times and could’ve used some support. I think these tough times provide an ideal opportunity for marriage overseers to step up. It’s a real shame that most Quaker meetings don’t make use of these really neat opportunities for building deeper friendships and stronger communities. It’s something that’s a real strength of Quakerism but which I’ve seen totally underutilized, to say the least.

We struggled with whether to wait for the results of the committee too, whether or not to be “good little Quakers.” But we also fully realized that the very meeting who we were going through clearness with has previously cleared another individual in our meeting for multiple [bad] marriages…marriages that seemed obviously doomed from the beginning and which were very hasty. Not too surprisingly, they resulted in bitter divorces. So I don’t think either of us expected negative results, yet we wanted to be committed to the process. As Robin said, we didn’t have any obvious impediments (as in other marriage commitments, kids, etc.) anyway. I’m very interested in hearing how others treated their clearness for marriage.

My own complicated story involves a meeting that couldn’t agree on the definition of marriage, to put it mildly. Our clearness committee and the meeting came to the decision that we were free to be married and they were happy for us but that they could not take our union under their care. We were married in the manner of Friends, in the meetinghouse where we met, but we had to hire a minister to sign our paperwork. My bitterness lasted several years, and is probably still not entirely resolved.

My experience in serving on several marriage clearness committees for my current meeting is that we have seen our role, much as Martin said above, to be sure that the couple has considered the whole range of topics, to open the discussion for them if they hadn’t before, and to offer support that they are not the first couple to struggle with whatever they are struggling with.

I think the whole point of engagement is that we announce that we are considering getting married. Otherwise, we’d just get married right away and be done with it.