Your letter’s unfriendly, I get you’re displeased
That an “old man” dared challenge the recording reprise.
Still, even if it sullies or ruins your day
I’m standing by what I said, and
What I did not say.
Yet I’ll take your advice and sit down some more — but,
Up is a thing, no,
I shall not shut.

You also throw around this claim that Wilcox’ advocacy for recording implies that she believes she has “supreme access to the divine”. This is a lie. Such a claim is not present in either the original lecture, nor can it be found in her response. That may be an issue that you feel you have encountered in other meetings, but it is not a concern that can be freely extended to all instances of advocacy for recording ministers.

This “friendly” letter also throws a veiled insult towards Wilcox through the implication that Wilcox had not thought about the reasons for the liberal tradition’s rejection of ministry, and that reading the previous mean-spirited letter would have induced that “thinking”. Putting aside that she acknowledges there are valid objections to the practice (which constitutes thinking and is right there in the transcript you yourself posted): does it only count as “thinking” when someone comes to the same conclusion you did and focuses on the same concerns you wanted them to focus on? Is Ashley Wilcox not at liberty to bracket certain questions or avoid certain digressions unless she gets Chuck Fager’s approval first? Which body invested you with that authority?

I can’t say that I know what would best serve all Friends, but since you asked, I can say one thing I know for certain: we are not served by a bevy of patronizing and catty blog posts by an old man that bear false witness about the authentic leadings and concerns of women several decades younger than him. Such conduct only encourages them to hide their light under a bushel. We know this to be true, because Wilcox’s post that you are replying to contains the words of a young woman feeling discouraged from writing about her relationship to our faith tradition due to the words you wrote in 2019 (which should have spurred you towards reflection, instead of this vindictive diatribe). Let me be very clear: if your conduct here was my first encounter with the tradition called “liberal Quakerism”, I would feel repulsed and write off the entire movement. I am grateful that, here in Baltimore, we have Friends acting as good stewards towards the younger generations.

It’s clear you’ve done much service to the Religious Society of Friends, and that you have written copiously. I can only hope that you have allowed the Light to shine out in the world in doing so. But this is not Spirit-led, and so it is time for you to sit down and be silent.

A “humane” response? Here’s mine, one old, one new: the old: living in a house halfway up on a hill, to dodge the flash floods (which “never” happen here, right??) The new: moving my web hosting & files to a company with data centers way way NORTH of Phoenix, in cooler country; that’s underway now.
Very individual, probably not personally risky or maybe high-minded enough for some. And no real guarantees, for sure . . . .