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.
