Misunderstanding Quakers...
"Conduct your life in obedience to what you already know, in obedience to God; you will not be condemned for what you don't know, but only condemned for what you know and choose not to obey." -- George Fox
"For I saw that Christ had died for all men, was a sacrificial offering for all, and had enlightened all men and women with his divine and saving light; and that none could be true believers, but those that believed in the light. I saw that the grace of God, which brings salvation, had appeared to all men, and that the manifestation of the spirit of God was given to every man, with which to profit. These things I did not see by the help of man, nor by the letter, though they are written in the letter; but I saw them in the light of the Lord Jesus Christ, and by his immediate spirit and power, as did the holy men of God by whom the holy scriptures were written.Yet I had no slight esteem of the holy scriptures, they were very precious to me; for I was in that spirit by which they were issued; and what the Lord opened in me, I afterwards found was in agreement with them." --George Fox
I would like to commend the article, "Misunderstanding Quaker Faith and Practice" by Terry Wallace that appeared in the 1st Month, 2007 issue of Friends Journal (http://www.friendsjournal.org/contents/2007/0107/quaker-faith-practice.html). Although I find myself a little to the left of Terry theologically, I applaud his effort to remind Friends that our faith is not a faith that is reinvented in each generation. We have been given a table that is already set. We have a feast prepared for us and all we are asked to do is come and dine, to experience this Path that has been laid before us.
While Friends believe in continuing revelation, we must remember that "continuing" denotes building upon a Foundation that is already in place. The danger in removing Quakerism from its historic Truths, in my opinion, is that when we do, we become just another new age religion where individual truth is important and Truth that is birthed by the Gathered Community is of little or no importance.
Many Friends that I encounter repeat the same old Quaker "sayings" that may or may not be true or may be true but the historic understanding of that truth is muddied by our need not to sound offensive. I even catch myself doing this from time to time. We attempt to make the Quaker Path one that is easy. Do I really want folks I invite to Meeting to know how Truth is determined within Friends Meetings ("consensus" sounds so nice and clean)? In an age of hyper individualism, would our faith suffer if we were to talk about group discernment of Divine Will? What if they see this as "group think", quite an evil in 21st century America?
The phrase that I think is most misused in modern Friends' circles, including Conservative Friends, is "there is that of God in everyone." There is hardly a Meeting that passes that someone does not refer to this "God in everyone" idea. Yet, when we misuse the term, we rob it of its cleansing and restorative power. It becomes just another cute little idea and joins the ranks of other bumper sticker theological sayings.
You might not agree with everything Friend Terry writes, nor do I. However, I believe that what he is saying is that the misunderstandings we hold have led us to a faith other than Quakerism. I also agree that much of our misunderstandings have implications of which we have never even thought (i.e., inter religious dialogue).
Read the article, pray about it, share it, discuss it. The Spirit is moving among Friends and with this move is a return to Quakerism as a Path unto itself, without need of hyphenation. Friends, let us be faithful to our history. The Religious Society of Friends is more than just Unitarian Universalism for introverts.
posted by quakerboy @ 9:54 AM
21 comments
21 Comments:
Thank you for this post. Your last paragraph especially gives me hope. I look forward to reading the article.
Quakerboy,
Thank you for posting the article from Friends Journal. I found myself agreeing with a lot of what he said. I too don't like New-Age ultra-individualistic Quakerism. I would prefer to see us return to our foundation.
The author's comment of us being a religion of seekers instead of finders hit home with me. And I loved your comment about us being Unitarian Universalism for introverts. :-)
But I sense a new wind blowing through the Quaker world. I hear more and more Quakers talking about returning to our roots. (And I am talking about unprogrammed Friends!) No more hyphenated Friends! Let us just be Quakers.
Quakerboy and others--
You might be interested in reading another response--and related comments--from a different Friend about Terry's article.
I agree that modern Liberal and Conservative Friends may be experiencing a sort of "pendulum swing" to counter the amount of individualism and disconnection from our roots that have been creeping into our meetings. We're clearly going through growing pains!
I also take to heart, Craig, your invitation for Friends to reflect on what we have read in addition to sharing it and discussing it with others. It's not about insisting that anyone is right or wrong. It's about wrestling with our faith tradition and seeing how we are led to engage with one another, from a place of loving struggle.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
Peter, Richard and Liz,
Thanks for your comments!
May we all continue to, as Liz has written, "wrestle with our faith tradition". When we stop wrestling with our beliefs, we stop growing.
I need to remind Friends as well, that just to believe what those who have gone before us have written without an experience of those things leads to dead faith.
Friend Terry reminds us in his article that the problem early Friends had with creeds is that the words were not experienced by those who recited them.
It is the experience of faith within the confines of the Gathered Community that was the key to a return to "primitive Christianity".
Hi Craig,
I am still formulating some comments about this article, and thank you very much for posting the link. I went looking for it online before and couldn't find it. I could have just looked at the print version I have. Anyway, Liz provided a link for llw's "Wrestling With Our Faith Tradition" and I wanted to also provide a link to the Wrestling With Our Faith Tradition address on the NCYM(C) web site. llw gave this address at SAYMA several years ago. The book that Liz linked to includes this address and a number of other great essays. The year that llw gave that address was my first visit to SAYMA, and I was pretty new to Quakerism. I arrived early and when I got there, Lloyd Lee was one of the first people I saw. When I saw him in his plain dress I thought "Wow, this is going to be really different."
With love,
Mark
Hi again, Craig!
I find the article somewhat difficult to read. While I mostly agree with the actual points he was trying to make, I felt like he was trying to pick a fight. He made some really broad assumptions about people's motivations.
For example:
Yet, when one investigates each claim, one finds each is based on vague thinking, factual errors, and remarkable ignorance.
I'll give him factual errors, but when you get into "vague thinking" and "remarkable ignorance", it starts to attack the people and not the ideas.
The section on creeds is arguable. You could say that any statement of beliefs, whether required to be accepted or not, is a creed. You could also argue that "Quakers have no creed" means that you are not required to state that you believe X,Y,Z either as a requirement for membership (which isn't even true for some evangelical Friends) or that the recitation of a creed is not a part of worship.
He really went off on a tangent about "That of God". I think I would have preferred a description of what "That of God" meant in George Fox's day and how it was altered in the 20th century, rather than something like The idealism and rationality that undergirded Neoplatonic mysticism proved of little relevance in the face of the cynicism and irrationality of Nazism, Communism, and nuclear war. Add "(Prove or Disprove)" to the end and you have an essay question for a philosophy exam.
Then he says The majority of Friends in unprogrammed meetings today are biblically illiterate, theologically unlettered, and unfamiliar with Friends history and spiritual experience. Now that is certainly painting with a broad brush. The "theologically unlettered" one is particularly disturbing. Is he suggesting that Friends should be bred at Oxford or Cambridge in order to be qualified or fit to be a minister of God?
I thought the section titled What brought us to these unseemly misinterpretations? was wildly speculative and not particularly helpful.
I did enjoy the anecdote at the end, however. Liz's comment on the Palmetto Friends response to this article was great. I loved her description of how Orthodox and Reformed Jews are able to coexist and interact with each other.
With love,
Mark
Interesting insights, Mark. I agree that Liz's comment on the various branches of Judaism and how they interact could be a model of what Quakers could be.
As I said, I don't agree with Friend Terry on every point and I agree with you that he generalizes quite a bit. What I really like, however, is that the article provides food for dialogue. Yes, he seems like he is "picking a fight" at times now that I reread the article. That is hard for me to see as I tend to be blunt and overly "harsh" to make a point. Blame that on my Appalachian heritage :-).
You state, "Is he suggesting that Friends should be bred at Oxford or Cambridge in order to be qualified or fit to be a minister of God?"
Don't we already believe that to some extent? Would a "good ole' boy" from Woodland, NC who can't manipulate words to make them politically correct be welcome to minister in our Meetings? I'm not sure.
What I do know is that with the educational level in most Meetings, there is no excuse for Friends not to be thelogically and biblically literate. Friends also should be very familiar with our heritage. I know Friends who can quote the four noble truths and the eightfold path and expand upon their meaning, yet have no idea who Isaac Penington is.
There is a fine line between plain speech and sounding like one is "picking a fight". I've often said that plain speech is no excuse to be rude. However, plain speech does mandate that we say what is on our mind but we must be prepared for others to respond in kind.
The blog Liz points to, Palmetto Friends, has some amazing dialogue. I would recommend Friends check out that discussion.
See you soon, Mark!
Love and peace,
Craig
craig,
The article you mention does bring up issues we should be discussing but I think the article itself is quite unhelpful. I agree with Mark about the tone. It is sounds hostile and arrogant to me. Worse he tends to strawman liberals. And he doesn't really know the intellectual history of these matters. He thinks that universalism says that all religions are saying the same things. Well, no serious universalist says that and even the pop univeralism you hear from people who have only barely heard of the idea and kinda like the sound of it isn't that shallow. That's why I call it a strawman fallacy. He's refuting a position no real person actually holds. He shouldn't be criticizing something he doesn't understand. Serious universalists like John Hick hold that there are indeed very significant differences in the various faith traditions but explains the differences as due to the different cultural lens through which exactly one real God is being experienced by very different people. And I should add that Hick himself, who strongly identifies as a Christian, has been very much involved in serious interfaith dialogue. Another serious intellectual misrepresentation comes from his trying to trace universalism to NeoPlatonism. It's true that the first serious stirring of universalist thought can be traced back to the late 19th century when this sort of vague talk about the Absolute was common in philosophy but in the 20th century the much bigger influence was William James' book on the variety of religious experience. This book strongly rejects that sort of idealistic philosophy in favor of a hard core empiricism. Present day universalism owes nothing to Neoplatonic or Hegelian Idealism.
Over on my own blog I have been talking about the weaknesses of modern liberal Quakerism and putting them into historical context one short essay at a time. I began this series back on the first of the year. It looks like very few people are reading them but I continue to plod away.
RichardM,
Thanks for the comments. I agree with your understanding of universalism and I see what you are saying about Terry's understanding of universalism. Yet, is there really one definition of universalism that is more accurate than another definition? I tend to follow the Hosea Ballou school of universalism.
Both you and Mark pointed out the tenor of the article. I really didn't get the same feeling the first time I read it, but upon subsequent readings, I see your point.
As for your blog...Yes, a lot of us read it. I think folks tend not to comment much if they are in agreement with what you write. Also, I put your blog address out to quite a few Friendship MM members. I've heard some feedback (all good...so far :-)). Please don't stop posting! Not sucking up, but your blog is one of the best out there in the Quaker blogsphere.
Love and peace,
Craig
One more thing, Richard. Thanks for turning me on to John Hick. For those who want to know more, here is his website: http://www.johnhick.org.uk/
Craig, this comment of yours provides a lot of food for thought:
You state, "Is he suggesting that Friends should be bred at Oxford or Cambridge in order to be qualified or fit to be a minister of God?"
Don't we already believe that to some extent? Would a "good ole' boy" from Woodland, NC who can't manipulate words to make them politically correct be welcome to minister in our Meetings? I'm not sure.
First of all, you are probably right that some meetings do have a bias against people who don't speak well or can't be politically correct. I think you would agree, though, that it shouldn't be that way. I tried to use the same words that George Fox used in reference to being qualified to be a minister. In doing so, I was trying to point out that the phrase "theologically unlettered" that Terry Wallace used seemed to be against the notion of the presence of the Holy Spirit being the thing that qualifies one for ministry.
Certainly, not being good with words shouldn't discourage someone from speaking. To use a really contrived example, which of these "messages" would you rather hear?
1. While I was at FGC Central Committee last month, I learned about a new book by Hugo Frumbridge, a philosophy professor at Earlham. The book is titled "Peace has Five Letters" and contains extensive material on Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King. I thought about that book this weekend while I was at the SOA protest. There was one particular quote that really struck me, which was "Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
2. Me 'n this ol' boy got into it at Shooters on night, and we went out back. He was a biggun, but I was fixin' to tear him up anyway. I was just about to go at em when this voice inside me says "don't hit him, he's already hurtin'". I backed up for a sec, then figgered it was nothin' and just as I started in agin, the voice said "don't hit him, he's already hurtin'." So I put my hands down and said "I don't know why, but I think I'm sposed to take you inside, buy you a beer, and find out what's troublin' you." Youda thought I'da hit him. He backed up, and kinda slumped over and said "okay". Lemme tell ya, he was hurtin' big time. Since then, when I hear that voice, I try to do what it says.
I guess that was a wordier way of saying that God can speak through anyone. The words are just the wrapping on the gift, a beautiful gift might be shoddily wrapped in newspaper, but that doesn't diminish its value.
With love,
Mark
Mark,
I like both examples! However, number 2 resonates with me simply because it reflects the language and culture in which I grew up.
Steve has often said he wouldn't want to be a member of a faith community that his Uncle Buck (name changed) wouldn't feel comfortable attending. Uncle Buck has a 5th grade education, a good ole' boy from SC, big hearted and not very book smart.
When I think about Uncle Buck being welcomed and feeling comfortable at Friendship Meeting, I have to admit that I believe he would be welcomed unconditionally (heck, they welcome me for Pete's sake).
My experience is limited as to the welcome he would receive at other Meetings. I would defer to you on that as you've been around Friends for a lot longer than I.
Obviously, we both agree that the welcome mat should be put out for anyone (anyone?)to attend our Meetings.
My feeling is that even if someone doesn't understand what Quakers are all about or even if someone is say, atheist, the Inward Light of Christ can work in that person's heart to bring them to Truth. In like manner, the Inward Light is also bringing me to Truth.
One fruit of Terry's article, I think, is to make us mindful that when someone does misunderstand Quakerism, it is perhaps not that person's fault. The fault lies in the Gathered Community which fails to give opportuity to learn what Quakerism is about.
I'm one of the lucky ones. Friendship Meeting makes sure one is very clear on Quakerism before joining the Meeting. I also have lots of weighty f/Friends such as Richard and yourself who "elder" me when needed. My fear is that few Friends have these opportunities for learning.
Anyway...enough ramblings. Steve calls my blog, "vain ramblings of a madman". I think he just might be right....nah! :-)
I'm very interested in this post and in the comments posted so far. I find, though, that I am distracted by the "quotation" from George Fox that appears at the top of the post: "Conduct your life in obedience...etc."
Can someone identify the source of this quotation? It doesn't sound to my ear like the way George Fox wrote. Is it, perhaps, someone's paraphrase of an epistle? I ask - - even though the thought behind this particular quote might indeed have been Fox's - - because I have become sensitized lately to the insidiousness of failure to distinguish between quotes and paraphrases: It can lead so easily and invisibly to an unintentional rewriting the original thinker's work.
I realize that by asking this I open myself to learning that it is indeed a legitimate quotation and not a paraphrase and that it is only my ear that is "off".
Rich Accetta-Evans
(Brooklyn Quaker
Craig and Mark,
I love the example of the two samples of vocal ministry. I do agree that there are meetings where the intellectual type of vocal ministry is favored, it is not generally favored among weighty Friends in our Yearly Meeting. As a case in point perhaps one of you may even recall Sid Kitchens, current Clerk of the Yearly Meeting, relating a story about a fist-fight he almost got into. Sid's language isn't as "colorful" as Mark's second example but Sid is basically a country boy. And the weighty ministry I have heard from George Parker or Louise Wilson was never of the hypereducated variety. Both these weighty Friends were (George is gone; Louise still with us.) well educated but they did not parade their education or think it particularly relevant to spiritual matters. I can manipulate words very well but I have no gift of vocal ministry. My wife on the other hand does not handle words very well but she speaks from the heart and when she gives vocal ministry it is powerful and appreciated by those in our meetings.
As for definitions of universalism there is no defender of the position who has the same intellectual status as John Hick in my opinion. But set that aside for the moment. My point is that if you are going to criticize a position don't criticize a silly, naive exaggerated version of the position when there are more thoughtful versions out there. It rather like someone criticizing affirmative action by saying that its ridiculous to let somebody who has never been through medical school do heart surgery just because he's black. Such a criticism attacks a strawman.
Rich,
The quote is actually from Fox's Journal. Not sure of the edition or page number, but will try to find out. I gleaned the quote from one of my favorite websites: http://www.hallvworthington.com/
The people who put up the website are great folks even though I can't totally agree with the content of the site.
However, like myself, they believe that God will "save" every person, thus are by one definition, universalists.
I'll try to find the exact edition and page number of the quote.
Rich/Craig,
Here is a link to the section of GF's journal where the quote appears. The other versions of the journal on the Net are from the Rufus Jones edited/slightly-abridged version. According to the Worthingtons, their version was scanned from an 1831 edition of The Works of George Fox. I briefly compared the Rufus Jones edited work with the Worthingtons' version and I see that in this section, the RJ version omits two letters written by GF, one of which includes this quote.
With love,
Mark
Wow, what a conversation you've got going here! smile
Here are a few more of my own thoughts--
Richard M, I myself have been reading your posts and have not felt a nudge to comment recently... I feel like I'm waiting for The Big Finish, like you are leading up to something specific and I just can't connect the dots on my own. That's just me.
And about the comments I made on the Palmetto Friends' post, about the nature of Judaism and how each branch or sect seems to tolerate the others: I have to admit, I've been wondering how much of that apparent tolerance/acceptance is due to the thousands of years of history that line up behind today's Judaism...?
We can't know what Quakerism will look like one, two, or three thousand years from now. But the comparison to Judaism has helped me consider what Quakerism is today--and our faith tradition's branches are a part of that.
Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up
Liz,
My series of posts is like a bunch of dots that's not connected yet. I'm hoping that by reading all the posts, including those I haven't written yet, that a big picture will emerge in the readers mind. It's a picture, I hope, of what Convergent Quakerism is converging on. And as Mark's comments indicate God is necessary to connect the dots.
Jews have a much longer history than Quakers. This history prepares them to tolerate differences in beliefs better than Christians do. There are a couple of big reasons for this. One is that what ties Judaism together isn't just religion it is also family and ethnic ties. Whereas being a Christian is all about what you believe and the life that follows from these beliefs being a Jew is partially about being born into a Jewish family. Then there is also the Jewish history of common persecution. That also brings Jews together despite their differences. The more a people have suffered together the stronger the emotional bond.
Hi Craig,
I found another version of Fox's journal online that has the quote you referenced (search for "condemned for that you know"). As you know from our visit to the Guilford library on Saturday, some version of Fox's journal have "walk up to that you know" instead of "conduct your life", which explains why I had trouble finding the quote online.
With love,
Mark
Friends - Good discussion. I'd like to comment on the overused, "that of God in everyone." The origin of that term is a quote from Fox in which he prescribes how we should conduct ourselves. "Then" he writes, we shall come to, "walk cheerfully about the earth, answering that of God in everyone." (I'm not certain of the exact quote or it's source, sorry.)
Anyway, my point is that misuse of the concept of "that of God in everyone" stems from not understanding that as a RESULT of our following Christ, or the Light, if you prefer, we will answer that of God in everyone. In other words, according the the origin of the phrase, this is where we will ARRIVE if we are faithful, not where we BEGIN our journey.
I find this not only a better understanding of the concept of that of God in everyone, but also a Truth which has been verified in my own experience. When I walk in Christ, that of Christ in others recognizes that of Christ in me, and is "answered" by it. A Spiritual connection takes place, and a conversation about God can begin in an atmosphere of mutual trust and respect, regardless of the particular vocabulary, education or experience of the "one" in whom God dwells. Christ in me meets Christ in you and introduces us to one another.
For a thoughtful and articulate discussion of "That of God in Every One/Man, I highly recommend "That of God in Every Man"--What Did George Fox Mean by It?, by Lewis Benson.
One can purchase a copy at http://www.nffellowship.org/benson.shtml
or there have been copies posted on the web from time to time.
--llw
Post a Comment
<< Home