If there is hope for a future for Friends marked by anything other than the same divisions and resentments we have nurtured in the past, we have to find a non-confrontational way of being with one…
"It strikes me that Quakerism has over-reacted against the dangers of institutional Christianity. It has got rid of priests, dogmas, rules – and whoops! – there goes a rather important baby along with all that bathwater. If Quakerism could somehow be re-rooted in reference to Jesus Christ, and be the minimalist, anti-authoritarian form of this particular religion, I think it might be for me."
Over in the Guardian (left), a post by a Theo Hobson sure to elicit many comments: If Quakers were more Christian.
My response in the comments:
Hi Theo: your article made it up to QuakerQuaker.org and I see that regulars over there are starting to pop up here. I started the site and the tag line is currently “primitive Christianity Revived again.” There are many of us who think that the original Quaker message is still relevant. There are Friends meetings and churches that are rooted a bit more in the Quaker understanding of gospel but they can be hard to find. If you visit one of these, you’ll certainly hear the Lord’s name and Christian ministry.
At this point “Friends” and “Quakers” mean so many different things depending where you go (and you just experienced one end of the spectrum) that the name is not really descriptive of anything anymore. I written about these sorts of things a lot on my blog, the Quaker Ranter, but here’s one article where I hope liberal Friends don’t simply become a least-common-denominator faith.
Thanks for sharing your observations and stirring the pot a bit. God bless.
From Lizopp, talk about Lloyd Lee Wilson’s notion of “the Quaker gestalt”:
I would say in my earlier days among Friends, I yanked the “Quakerism is a part of Christianity” thread pretty hard, insisting that Quakerism could exist just fine without it being Christian. In hindsight, that was my way of saying I felt I belonged and was accepted by my local Quaker community, and it therefore followed that a belief Jesus didn’t have to be a requirement for being Quaker. Nowadays, as a more mature Friend, others have held my feet to the fire, saying that to be Quaker, I have to at least be willing to wrestle with the faith’s Christian roots. And I do.
My comment: I always thought LLW’s use of “gestalt” was a odd word choice but a very useful concept.
I end up at Catholic mass a lot these days. I’m in no danger of converting but I do appreciate a certain unity between the theology and form (not necessarily the actual practice) and I find myself get agitated when I see someone do something that shows disregard for the symbolism in the Catholic gestalt.
When we find another religious path interesting, or talk about a “golden age” in our own tradition’s past, I think we’re talking about a moment when the faith and outward practiced balanced in a complementary way—at least from our perspectiv.
I’m reading John Wilbur these days. Interesting to see him describe the problems with nascent Gurneyism. A lot of the worries he’s cataloging aren’t really all that serious, things like speakers that are a bit too charismatic, meetinghouses a bit too grand, too much or little emphasis on particular Quaker teachings. But I think he’s saw them as an imbalance of the Quaker gestalt that would quickly bring along major changes. When you think of faith and practice as a balance you can peer into the future sometimes.
Universalist Christian minister Scott Wells has been having an interesting series on his new blog this week: the “Or-Else” church, where he looks at the challenges of liberal church planting.
The reason for this exercise is obvious. Unitarian Universalists (and other liberals) aren’t good at gathering churches, even though successive generations of new churches are necessary for a healthy ecosystem and are the best way of attracting newcomers. We treat them as the sort of thing we just have… or which spontaneously arise from groups of well-cultivated laypersons.
But that begs the question of why bother identifying as anything at all. I mean, if it’s just between me and Jesus, what’s the point? The point is evangelism. (Did I just write that?) The point is letting people know that Jesus is the reason that I do my best to live with integrity, obedience and intentionality.
Nathan Schneider writes in the NYTimes:
Modern arguments and evangelists and New Atheists have duped us into thinking that the interesting question is whether God exists; no, what mattered for Anselm was how we think about God and about one another.
The answer I found in his proof is no answer at all, no truly abstract, autonomous assurance that I can have all to myself. I have to stitch it out of memories, hopes and loved ones, as he did. It is no self-thinking thought; it’s a pleasure built out of language and sharing.
From Philcooke.com:
The Wall Street Journal reports today on some massive new media buys for advertising causes from the Christian left. As it reports, “The religious left has a long tradition of activism on social issues, including the civil-rights movement.” Left-leaning Christian groups also have started to attract funding from secular donors who share their political goals — and who see Biblical appeals as a promising way to broaden public support.
Martin’s commentary:
Money trumps mission statements. If salaries and status is being paid for by secular donors then sooner or sooner-still the organization will do what it takes to keep them happy. I know plenty of pseduo-spiritual political organizations, both liberal and conservative, that randomly toss out Bible quote to “religiousfy” what’s really just a secular political message.
I’m not against lefty big media or religious media but it’s important to remember they’re rarely the same. Jesus wasn’t a Democrat or Republican and he never made a big media buy.
Via @emergentvillage
How do we make such people welcome and address their fears whilst at the same time not tolerating hatred of Christ or people who follow him? It’s not a loving favour to indulge the spiritually wounded. Our indulgence of each other is spiritually dangerous and I believe I have seen it pretty much kill the spirit of a Meeting. How do we challenge wounded people to heal?
Quote: Eleven years ago, six white kids, fresh out of college, took a vow: They would shack up; they would share. They would live either in monogamous married couples or be celibate. They would work only part-time, valuing one another and their community over wealth. They would stand against injustice where they saw it, and bring about justice where they could.Via Jayahome
Quote:
Lately spending time with other Christians has made me wonder why Pentecost doesn’t hold a greater significance for Friends. After all Pentecost is one of the most important events in Christian tradition and as a denomination that focuses so much on revelation by the Spirit, one would think Pentecost should be particularly revered by Friends.
QUOTE: “I see many parallels between Pentecost and Quaker worship. We gather and wait in a house for the Holy Spirit to come upon us, and we speak as the Spirit prompts us. We may not literally see tongues of fire above each others’ heads, but we do believe that there is the Light of God in every person. I sometimes think that Quakers are too comfortable in our silence, that we are not paying attention the call of the Spirit in our lives.”
Photo: Ashley at the 2009 Convergent Gathering at Ben Lomond California, Reclaiming the Power of Primitive Quakerism.
A similar degree of liberalism was at the gathering. While issues, policy positions, and ideology are quite different on both side, one similarity is the constantinianism,this idea that if we change the government in certain ways, if we get the right person elected, if we pass certain laws, if we renew the promise of america, things will be better.
