Redefining Quaker Simplicity: The FCNL Building

Feb 15, 2007

by Margery Post Abbott and Carl Abbott


In 2005, the Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL) completed a $3.7 million remodel and expansion of its office building designed to make it the first Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certified building on Capitol Hill (silver level certification).¹ Portions of the 10,000-square-foot building date originally from the Civil War era and it retains its National Register standing as a contributing building after completion of renovation. This architecturally and technically complex project was undertaken as an expression of Quaker spirituality, particularly the testimony of simplicity.

The FCNL building offers an opportunity to explore the meanings of architectural simplicity as one way that contemporary Quakers express their faith. Simplicity has remained a central Friends tenet and practice for 350 years, even as its theological basis has changed to accommodate ideas of environmental stewardship as well as individual spirituality.

Plainness and Simplicity

The Religious Society of Friends originated in England in the middle of the 1600s, in a time of great social upheaval and religious ferment. It was one of many radical movements that sought to recover the essence of New Testament Christianity. The most notable leader was the powerful preacher George Fox. His message emphasized that everyone had the ability to experience the love and leadership of God directly, through the Light of Christ in the human heart, without the intermediaries of church hierarchy. It was an approach that took the Protestant Reformation doctrine of the priesthood of all believers to its logical extreme.

“Let Your Aye Be Aye and Your Nay Be Nay”

From their origins, Quakers emphasized simplicity and integrity as “testimonies”that served as a witness of their faith.² Plainness was both a theological and social concept. One lived and acted to remove anything that fostered pride or might distract from the relationship between oneself and God, be it wealth, striving after success, or fashionable dress. As Emma Lapsansky has phrased it, the imperative was to ‘dampen the noise of everyday life’ in order to be open to the voice of the Inward Christ.³ One also eschewed outward distinctions of class status because of the belief that God can speak directly to individuals through the Inward Christ. Expressions included plain dress, plain speech, and denying “hat honor” (the expectation that one doffed one’s hat to a social superior).

This approach to faith had specific implications for religious practice. Early Friends scorned a paid clergy as an active impediment to connection with God. Meeting places were not to be ornamented with crosses, stained glass windows, or adornments that might substitute aesthetic pleasure for religious experience. Friends saw church ritual as a distraction and money spent on “steeple houses” as irrelevant to their spiritual journeys. Meeting places were to have no spaces set aside for baptism, communion, or other church sacraments because Friends believed these transformative experiences were only real if experienced inwardly rather than through the outward practice.

Through the closing decades of the 17^th century and the course of the 18^th century, these theological beliefs were codified as a doctrine of plainness. To choose always “plain and sober” dress and food, said Quaker theological writer Robert Barclay, was to battle vanity.⁴ Plainness thus became a path of personal virtue. In the form of specific admonitions about clothing and other possessions, it evolved into a tool of discipline and group cohesion. By the early 19^th century, the theologically radical plainness of early Quakerism had become a social tool for preserving the group by maintaining a distinct outward identity.

The Seeds of War

If plainness was a social tool for institutional Quakerism, some of the most important Quaker thinkers were simultaneously deepening its implications for social life. As early as 1669, William Penn noted that “what aggravates the evil [of adherence to fashion] is that the pride of one might comfortably supply the needs of ten.”⁵ He later argued for plain living by asserting that the production of luxury goods impoverished the realm by making wealth more unequal.⁶

The 18^th century American Quaker John Woolman augmented Penn’s ideas about the political and social dimension of plainness. A dedicated anti-slavery activist in the mid-1700s, Woolman authored one of the earliest analyses of the structural roots of poverty in his pamphlet A Plea for the Poor (written in 1763 and published in 1793). He argued that the accumulation of wealth was itself a form of violence and advocated what we might today call “right sharing” of economic resources in the interest of social justice: "May we look upon our treasures, and the furniture of our houses, and [our] garments, and try whether the seeds of war have any nourishment in these our possessions."⁷

Simplicity and Stewardship

Over the course of the 20^th century, plainness as a requirement of personal behavior gave way to a broader concept of "simplicity" as an outward-looking testimony. Rather than something–plain style–that was peculiar, sectarian and enforced, 20^th century Friends increasingly valued simplicity as an approach to life that was natural, unaffected, and uncluttered.⁸ There were practical reasons for the shift as Friends found their numbers dwindling in competition with holiness and evangelical churches and cast off self-isolating practices. There was also a positive dimension as Friends began to attend to, or appreciate more, the imminence of God in the natural world and in the artistic creations of human beings.

The "new simplicity" took on corporate or community aspects. Plainness had been an individual choice, made in order to come closer to God. In contrast, individuals, meetings, or an entire society could choose to live simply -- meaning to apply just enough means to achieve a desired and proper result. Richard B. Gregg, writing in the 1930s, tells us that

voluntary simplicity involves both inner and outer condition. It means singleness of purpose, sincerity and honesty within, as well as avoidance of exterior clutter, of many possessions irrelevant to the chief purpose of life. It means an ordering and guiding of our energy and our desires, a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure greater abundance of life in other directions.⁹

Moreover, to practice simplicity as a community may require more than a sum of personal choices. It may require institutional change and political action on behalf of socially equitable and environmentally sustainable goals. Contemporary Quaker simplicity, in other words, may be rooted in historical Quaker beliefs, but it has much in common in secular concerns of social justice.

The new simplicity is environmental as well as social. It extends John Woolman’s insights to look at the full range of inequitable impacts of high per capita consumption, including impacts on the natural environment as well as social relations. “Stewardship” is a concept that can link all Friends, for the word and concept are used by both theologically liberal and by evangelical Quakers. For example, the Faith and Practice of Northwest Yearly Meeting, which is part of Evangelical Friends International, for example, asks the reader: "As a Christian steward, do you treat the earth with respect and with a sense of God’s splendor in creation, guarding it against abuse by greed, misapplied technology, or your own carelessness?"¹⁰

Thus modern Friends have added environmental sensitivity as another dimension of the ethical implications of simplicity. There is a strong desire to live "in harmony with nature" by reducing one’s ecological impact. This may involve simple consumption choices (wear Birkenstocks) or lifestyle choices (no television). It may also slide into self-conscious identification with Nature as the manifestation as well as the creation of the Divine. In effect, simplicity is not only a way to allow God closer to the individual by paring away unnecessary material trappings but also a way for the individual to come into more direct contact with God as present in the world.

Quaker Meeting Houses and Simplicity

Early Quakers built meetinghouses far more than they talked about them. They used up much ink over the goals and strictures of plainness in personal lives, monitoring both their own behavior in spiritual diaries and journals and the behavior of others through meeting committees. In contrast, early Quaker documents say relatively little about architectural choices, although Catherine Lavoie has found an early admonition from Philadelphia Yearly Meeting against "all superfluity & excess in buildings."¹¹ Nevertheless, commonly shared architectural choices created a meetinghouse style that marked Quakers as distinctive in a manner parallel to plain dress and plain speech.

Quaker Architecture and Quaker Belief

From the start, Quaker architecture was a statement of belief. Friends have always understood the church to be the gathered people, not buildings or institutions. They have never consecrated structures and often speak of "meetinghouses" rather than ‘churches.’ Throughout much of the 17^th century Friends met in whatever building was available: a home, a barn, or even the open air. George Fox wrote a treatise, Concerning Meeting in Houses, Ships, Streets, Mountains, By-Ways, citing how Jesus and the disciples preached in the open.¹² He also suggested that barns were the most suitable places for sheltered meetings because their size could accommodate what he hoped would be large crowds.

The initial indifference to meeting places developed into the belief that the most simple and plain place of worship created the fewest barriers to welcoming the Inward Teacher. The common architectural manifestation in Britain and America became plain, rectangular meeting rooms and meetinghouses with dominant horizontal lines. Because Quaker worship had no liturgical program, interiors needed no decoration or specialized subareas. Catherine Lavoie claims that these early "meetinghouses were created in harmony with the local built and natural environments,"
¹³ an approach that would appeal to ecologically concerned Friends today. They were certainly built with locally available materials and vernacular skills, but the most straightforward explanation is that Friends sought to build as quickly and cheaply as possible. A more direct connection with contemporary practice is that meetinghouse design was a community process through which members of a meeting congregation came to unity on site and design, sometimes taking many years to reach decision.

Simplicity in Contemporary Architecture

In contemporary Quaker architecture, the interaction of the ethic of simplicity and stewardship with this architectural heritage can create competing aesthetic choices. Reaching back to Quaker origins is the belief that any place will do. At present, Friends may gather for worship in recycled factories, converted houses, community centers, and surplus school rooms as well as purpose-built structures. Such options very clearly reflect the long history of plainness in their lack of anything superfluous to basic functions. In contrast, many Friends now place great value on the classic meeting houses of the 18^th and 19^th centuries, whose spare rectilinear plan, unadorned interiors, and time-mellowed materials of clapboard and fieldstone are now seen as balanced, restful, venerable . . . spiritual.¹⁴

What links these superficially opposing values is the idea of simplicity as a political as well as spiritual choice. To use a pre-existing space is to free resources for other purposes. To worship in a venerable structure is to conserve the built environment while appreciating a clean, spare meeting room. When Friends remodel or build new meetinghouses, they may utilize new materials but often choose to recapitulate the spare forms, horizontal lines, light interior colors, and quality craftsmanship of older buildings. In addition there is a strong emphasis on abundant natural light. Indeed, bright natural light has become a guiding principle of many newer meetinghouses. Natural light represents stewardship of resources, it substitutes the play of sunbeam and shadow for manufactured decoration, and it metaphorically reenacts the inward light of Christ.¹⁵

University Meeting in Seattle, for example, is located amid apartment houses and commercial buildings near the University of Washington. The dominant feature of its meeting room is a floor-to-ceiling window wall facing south toward Mount Rainier, bringing in natural light and inviting nature into the worship. The design of the 1962 building was inspired by Japanese temple architecture at the encouragement of member Floyd Schmoe, who had been active in rebuilding Hiroshima and also designed the Meeting’s garden space. The use of natural light is also evident in the clerestory window which circles the room just below the juncture of walls and ceiling, as well as an in opaque skylight.

Multnomah Monthly Meeting in Portland, Oregon, incorporates qualities of both plainness and simplicity. It is plain in being converted from a factory building–the original 1912 original knitting mill for Jantzen swimwear. A membership with lots of families but little wealth has skimped on interior surfaces and furnishing. But the meeting room itself is centered on a large skylight whose original purpose was to light the factory floor but that now seems to represent the transcendent experience of worship (as well as reducing the need for electricity).

The most spectacular example of natural light as the centerpiece of design is Houston’s Live Oak Meeting, opened in 2001. Designed by artist and writer James Turrell, a practicing Quaker, in cooperation with architect Leslie Elkins, this is a consciously aestheticized building. The main meeting room is a square with plain plaster walls, tall windows, and high vaulted ceiling. At the center is a "skyspace" that can be opened to the sun or stars, most regularly for evening meeting for worship.¹⁶ Financing of the building drew on contributions from the general public and the Houston arts community excited by its possibilities as architectural innovation. Turrell’s version of simplicity sees Quakers as seeking a “straightforward, strict presentation of the sublime.” He also comments “George Fox talked about the light, both in a literal and figurative sense . . . talking about this idea of light, particularly the light not seen with the eyes, was very important. . . . This idea, to go inside to find that light within, literally, as well as figuratively, was something that really propelled me at the time."¹⁷

The FCNL Building

In this context, FCNL decided that it could please its constituents (who span the full Quaker range from evangelical Christians to New Agers) and express the current testimony of simplicity by creating a green building.¹⁸

FCNL was found in 1943 in the midst of World War II when Friends throughout the United States felt a strong need for a Quaker presence on Capitol Hill to bring perspectives of peacemaking to bear on wartime problems.¹⁹ FCNL attempted from the start to represent as many Friends as possible from across the country and among the various branches of Friends. Its current membership represents 26 out of the 33 yearly meetings (regional groupings of congregations) in the United States.

The goals of FCNL are summarized in four "we seek" statements: "We seek a world free of war and the threat of war. We seek a society with equity and justice for all. We seek a community where every person’s potential may be fulfilled. We seek an earth restored." Its approach to lobbying depends heavily on building trust with constituents and members of Congress and on a reputation for integrity. The Friends who established FCNL were explicit that the Committee "is not expected to engage in lobbying of the pressure-group character. Its purpose is rather to work by methods of quiet influence through personal contacts and persuasion to win the assent of reasonable minds and enlist sympathies with the objective sought."²⁰

FCNL offices have been located on Capitol Hill since 1952. When its row house on C Street, N.E. was demolished in 1958 to make space for parking for senators, FCNL acquired two Civil War-era townhouses at 245 Second Street, N.E., which had previously been converted into storefront businesses. The location has not only given FCNL staff and constituents ready access Congress, but has it also meant that Congressional staff and, occasionally, senators and representatives have been willing to come to the building for informational or strategy meetings. The central location has made the facility a place for lobby-training, press conferences, strategy sessions and other work with a wide variety of organizations with which FCNL works in coalition.²¹

By the 1990s, the structural deficiencies of the 150-year-old buildings had made it obvious that major renovation was essential, despite two previous upgrades since its purchase. Foundations that deteriorated in some places and were absent in other places, outmoded wiring, fire safety concerns, and the need for new heating systems were among the catalogue of ills needing correction. In addition, the juncture of two buildings from another era proved to be impossible to adapt to the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) provisions, a law that FCNL constituents had worked hard to pass.²²

The Decision Process

Prior to deciding to rebuild on site, FCNL explored options for alternative space. The high demand for properties on Capitol Hill meant that a different building near Congress was prohibitively expensive.²³ Affordable space would be too far from the Capitol to serve as a central meeting place or to provide adequate support to constituents and to like-minded organizations that rely on FCNL for temporary Capitol Hill work and meeting space. In addition, analysis showed that in the long run costs to lease a facility would be greater than rebuilding at the current location.²⁴ An architectural feasibility study showed that adding significant green features would be both experimental and outside the financial capacity of the organization. As a result, the FCNL Executive Committee felt that it would not be feasible to incorporate many green features despite a desire to do so.

FCNL’s governing body, the General Committee, made the decision to proceed with construction at its annual meeting in 1999.²⁵ The movement toward a commitment to a green building built in steps. The General Committee deliberated at length before agreeing that it was right to move ahead despite serious concerns about the ability to raise the needed funds. Committee members also felt that creating a green building was an important witness to FCNL’s goal ‘"We seek and earth restored." The decision was the subject of intense scrutiny and the process took three years from initial studies to the decision to proceed, but it meant that a wide representation of Friends nationwide were convinced of the need for the new building, believed it was being renovated in accord with Quaker principles, and were committed to aid in fundraising.

The Executive Committee and staff responded to the General Committee’s direction by creating a Building Renovation Advisory Group (BRAG) consisting of architects and engineers as well as other Friends with relevant professional skills engaged in the process.²⁶ BRAG realized that green technology was rapidly evolving and that key to the process was selecting an architectural firm with experience in this field. FCNL also told each firm being considered that they hoped a young architect committed to green architecture, and preferably a woman, would be part of the team. Burt Hill Kosar Rittelmann Associates met all the criteria and Gina Baker became part of the team along with Harry Gordon.

The age of the structure and its location in the Capitol Hill historic district meant that portions of the building, in particular the exterior walls, would have to be retained. The architectural feasibility study showed that by demolishing much of the building and creating a substantially new structure, they could increase usable floor space from 3,890 to 4,891 square feet, create much more coherent work and meeting spaces, make the building ADA compliant, and still meet all the requirements of the various review agencies.

Because of the building's location, FCNL had to work with an unusual variety of entities in order to gain permission to renovate it. Involvement of the Historic Preservation Review Board of the District of Columbia, the Board of Zoning Authority, the Architect of the Capitol, the Capitol Hill Restoration Society, and the Stanton Park Neighborhood Association made for a lengthy approval process. By the time construction began in 2003, security measures on Capitol Hill were on high alert following the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center in September 2001, making construction more complicated. New barriers in front of the Hart Office Building across the street impeded access. Concrete trucks had to be x-rayed before being allowed into the Capitol Hill security zone. Previously approved plans for sewer and water connections were vetoed by the Architect of the Capitol because they would have interlinked with Senate Office Building utilities, forcing an expensive retrofit.

The Complexity of Simplicity ²⁷

The structure itself is technically complex, as are most LEED buildings, in its effort to achieve goals of simplicity. The methods of green architecture draw on a number of principles: reducing the energy demand of the structure and its users; use of recycled or renewable materials; and use of locally available materials. Information about the building is available on FCNL’s website with suggestions for ways to apply these principles elsewhere. FCNL staff are also glad to give tours of the building.

The reduced need for energy is evident literally from the roof to the basement. The roof is covered with sedum plants that absorb heat. While a conventional roof can easily reach 150 degrees on one of Washington’s sultry summer days, the green roof stays at ambient temperature and reduces the load on the cooling system. The plants also absorb rainwater, limiting the amount of runoff and filtering it from the building.

The building has energy-efficient, openable windows coated to reduce glare and moderate the transmission of energy. The Ecospace elevator does not use hydraulic fluid and thus is more energy efficient than conventional elevators and does not use toxic fluids. The stairs in the building are welcoming and invite use by those who can easily climb steps.

"Buy local" applies to the basic heating system. Ten 300-foot deep bore holes accommodate a “closed system loop” in the geothermal system which cycles a fluid mix that is 80 percent water and 20 percent glycol through the building, then back under the earth to make use of the constant 55-degree temperature of the Earth’s crust for geothermal heating and cooling system. A network of pipes, with multiple zones, spread the constant temperature fluid throughout the building.

To return to the hallmark of contemporary Quaker design, the predominant impression inside the building is light. But even this required careful thought and creative use of materials such as the glass blocks used in the flooring underneath the light scoop, allowing natural light to filter through the core of the building to all three stories. Light-toned and light reflecting materials (e.g., bamboo floors) enhance the effect, and 90 percent of regularly occupied spaces offer outdoor views.

For its 2005 Christmas holiday card to supporters, FCNL chose a watercolor of the building entitled "Scooping Light" that highlights the window wall of the new section of the building.²⁸ The card's text draws on the multiple physical and spiritual meanings of “light." It quotes Matthew 5:16: "Let your light shine before others, so that they may see your good works and give glory to God in heaven." It adds that ‘"light shines through our new building and through FCNL’s Quaker witness on Capitol Hill."

Impacts

The FCNL building models environmental best practices across the street from the Hart Senate Office Building and in August 2007 received the first LEED certification of any building on Capitol Hill. Certification is expected in early 2007. It has received a Presidential Citation for sustainable building design from the DC chapter of the American Institute of Architects as "a building with a conscience." The proximity of the Hart Office Building has raised awareness of green building among U.S. senators. The green roof of the FCNL building, in particular, is quite visible from the upper floors of the Hart Building. Members of Congress, energy and environmental committee staff, staff from the Architect of the Capitol, and leaders of faith organizations have toured the FCNL offices and learned more about green architecture.

In 2006, Senator James Jeffords of Vermont introduced the High-Performance Green Buildings Act (S. 3591) to make federal buildings more energy efficient. This legislation also provides environmental grants for schools, and promotes new building technologies with less negative impact on the natural environment, and stimulates the building of "green" structures. Prior to introducing that bill, the senator brought his staff to tour the FCNL building and to talk with FCNL staff about their experience with the building's green design, construction, and operation.

Conclusions

Can an office building be a spiritual structure? Can it support spiritual values and spiritual journeys in ways that parallel the spiritual work of cathedrals and temples? The leadership of FCNL certainly believes that the building is "a manifestation of the practice of faith," both by its location and functionality and its expression of belief in the unity of Creation. The first–political–idea draws on the Quaker tradition of "speaking truth to power" and working to right social injustice. The second–ecological–idea is becoming more and more central to the way that modern Friends understand their faith.

Once the building opened, it received a strong positive response from members of the General Committee, neighbors, and others who walked through the space. The use of light, clean lines and minimal decor linked the structure to Friends’ meeting houses. The energy-saving features demonstrated the growing belief among Friends of the importance of limiting our impact on the environment. The way the building functions – its conduciveness to cooperative decision-making, its very location on Capitol Hill and the availability of space designed to welcome people into the legislative process – is integral to the mission of FCNL. Joe Volk, executive secretary of FCNL, described the importance of the building: "We believe that humankind must respect the ecological integrity and sacredness of the natural world. A headquarters that has a low environmental impact and creates a healthy environment for our staff is a tangible expression of what we believe."²⁹

At the same time, it is important to note that the particular choices made in building design and construction are firmly embedded in the society and culture of the 21st century United States. Throughout their history, Quakers have focused on different material practices as ways to express simplicity and plainness. In the first generations, when the richness and style of dress was one of the primary markers of social hierarchy, Quakers emphasized plain clothing. In the contemporary United States, real estate plays a much more prominent role as social and cultural marker while decades of concern about energy shortages and global warming have highlighted the importance of personal and organizational choices with low environmental impacts. The FCNL building, in other words, expresses both general values and specific historically conditioned understandings of these values

The fundraising campaign for the FCNL building used the slogan ‘"A Place Just Right," taken from the popular Shaker hymn ‘"Simple Gifts.’" The phrase had a triple meaning: The project would be as simple as possible given the needs of the organization; the location on Capitol Hill is a great place for a lobbying organization; and the building itself was to be done "right" in terms of design choices that combined aesthetic appeal and greenness. Ten or 15 years from now, most FCNL staff and supporters would hope that green buildings will be the norm on Capitol Hill and in other places where basic social and political choices are debated, and that the FCNL building will not stand out like a green thumb. What will not change, however, is the way the building embodies not only a specific social and economic choice but also a theology of stewardship and simplicity.


NOTE: An extended version of this article will be published in Quaker Studies Journal in 2008.

Authors: Margery Post Abbott is the author or editor of several books and numerous articles about the history, beliefs, and practice of the Religious Society of Friends. She teaches widely about Quakers in the U.S. and Britain. She was appointed to a two-year term as Clerk of the Executive Committee and General Committee of Friends Committee on National Legislation in 2005. Carl Abbott teaches urban studies and planning at Portland State University. He is the author of numerous books and articles about the history of cities and city planning in the United States.

Endnotes:

1. ‘The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System™ is the nationally accepted benchmark for the design, construction, and operation of high performance green buildings. LEED gives building owners and operators the tools they need to have an immediate and measurable impact on their buildings performance. LEED promotes a whole-building approach to sustainability by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality.’ U.S. Green Building Council Website, 2007. Silver level certification is the third of five levels of sustainability features.



2. For a discussion of the testimonies of integrity, equality, simplicity and peace, see Barclay, R., ‘Proposition 15: Vain and Empty Customs,’ in Barclay’s Apology in Modern English, Freiday, D., ed., Manasquan, NJ, 1967, pp. 389-437; Copper, W. A., A Living Faith: an historical study of Quaker beliefs (Richmond, IN: Friends United Press, 1990, pp. 99-112; and Barbour and Frost, The Quakers , pp. 41-46.



3. Lapsansky, E. J., ‘Past Plainness to Present Simplicity: A Search for Quaker Identity,’ in Lapsansky, E. J. and Anne A. Verplanck, A. A., (eds), Quaker Aesthetics: reflections on a Quaker ethic in American design and consumption, Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania Press, 2003, p. 4.



4. Frost, J. W., ‘From Plainness to Simplicity: Changing Quaker Ideals for Material Culture,’ Lapsansky and Verplanck, Quaker Aesthetics, p. 39.



5. Penn, W., No Cross, No Crown, Selleck, R. (ed.), Richmond, IN: Friends United Press, 1981, p. 85.



6. Tolles, F., and Alderfer, E. G., (eds), The Witness of William Penn, New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. 175.



7. John Woolman, ‘A Plea for the Poor’, in Philips P. Moulton, (ed.), The Journal and Major Essays of John Woolman, PUB DATA 1971, p. 255.



8. Frost, ‘From Plainness to Simplicity,’ p. 305, n. 3.



9. Richard B. Gregg, R. B., The Value of Voluntary Simplicity, Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill Publications, 1936, p.4.



10. Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church, Faith and Practice: A Book of Christian Discipline, Newberg, OR: The Barclay Press, 1987, p. 17.



11. Lavoie, C. C., ‘Quaker Beliefs and Practices and the Eighteenth-Century Development of the Friends Meeting House in the Delaware Valley,’ in Lapansky and Verplanck, Quaker Aesthetics, p. 173.



12. Lavoie, ‘Quaker Beliefs and Practices,’ p. 158.



13. Lavoie, ‘Quaker Beliefs and Practices,’ p. 157.



14. There is an entire set of “old meeting house” books that describe the origins, construction, and modification of older meeting places and accompany the historical details with loving illustrations (often of the buildings without people present).



15. This aesthetic stands in full contrast to the Gothic cathedral and its nineteenth and twentieth century imitations, with their complex forms, verticality, high spaces, colored light, and ambient darkness.



16. http://www.friendshouston.org/building.html. Accessed 12/15/2006.



17. James Turrell, 'Live Oak Friends Meeting House’ interview in ‘Art:21: Art in the twenty-first Century.’ and http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/turrell/index.html. Accessed 12/15/2006.



18. FCNL Education Fund, ‘FCNL On Capitol Hill: A Legacy For the Future’, fund-raising materials (2000), and ‘Questions and Answers’, fund-raising materials (November 2001).



19. Wilson, E. R., Uphill for Peace: Quaker Impact on Congress, Richmond, IN, Friends United Press, 1975, pp. 8-17; Snyder, E. F., Cooper, W. A., Klineberg, S. L., Volk, J., and Reeves, D., Witness in Washington: Fifty Years of Friendly Persuasion, Richmond, IN: Friends United Press, 1994, pp. 16-19.



20. Cooper, W. A., (ed.), The FCNL Story, Washington: Friends Committee on National Legislation, 1958, p. 7.



21. For a few examples: Disarmament Clearinghouse, Native American Working Group, U. S. Campaign Against Land Mines, Mexican Human Rights Group, American Association of University Professors, American Association of University Women lobbying group, U.S. Campaign for People Centered Development.



22. Snyder, Cooper, Klineberg, Volk, and Reeves, Witness in Washington, p. 152.



23. This description of the decision-making process draws on conversations with FCNL staff and on participant observation. The fund-raising materials published by the FCNL Education Fund ‘Questions and Answers’ 2001 also describes the eventual conclusions reached as part of the decision-making process.



24. Hummon, M. R., ‘Building Renovation Project Clerk’s Interim Report #1', May 27, 1999. Weinstein Associates Architects, Phase II Feasibility Study, September 14, 1998.



25. Two-thirds of its 250 members are appointed by their yearly meeting (regional groupings of congregations) or Quaker organizations. The others are at-large members appointed directly by the General Committee. This body meets annually in Washington to approve the budget, nominations, and policies of the organization using Friends’ business process.



26. FCNL Education Fund Building Renovation Advisory Group (BRAG), fund-raising campaign materials, May 19, 2000.



27. For building descriptions see FCNL’s Renovated Capitol Hill Building Features and Gina Baker, “Web + Digital Exclusive: Witness to Sustainability", posted Oct. 1, 2006.



28. The artist is Barbara Treasure, a Friend from Baltimore Monthly Meeting of Friends, Stony Run Meeting, Maryland.



29. Baker, “Witness to Sustainability.”