I posted the following on a public forum today, but thought it would be an interesting start to a post here on my blog. As someone who is fairly new to Quakerism, but not new at all to the Emergent Church movement and other such “religious” endeavors….I am amazed at the huge divide that exists within Quakerism. The divide seems to exist on either side of the liberal/conservative lines. I’m going to come right out as someone from the conservative camp before I go on.
However, I think that my particular background, specifically coming from strong ties in Orthodox Judaism (and also Messianic Judaism) has given me a different perspective on this divide. Here is my reply, loosely in response to a post about how Christian Quakers and non-Christian Quakers could view one another to gain better mutual understanding. (I think mutual understanding is good…what I don’t understand is why there is an argument AT ALL within Quaker circles about the role of Christianity…Quakerism at its outset was a Christian movement…more on that later.) This blog post is NOT in response to what I read on that forum…this is just a spin-off of what it made me think about.
“Primitive Christianity was Judaism, folks….:)
The disciples came out of the synagogues, however, and went into homes and streets to share with people who would be otherwise unknowing of the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph…the great love of G-d through the Messiah Yeshua (Jesus). The great spirit of “primitive” Christianity was that it became revealed that ALL people have that Light Within, the Inner Teacher! All have a calling to Messiah, and He came to teach ALL OF US of H-mself. Primitive Christianity opens the doors to all, and seeks to identify for them…..”you hear that still small voice inside of yourself? You see the beauty of this Creation, do you feel the pull of something larger than yourself????….THAT’S G-d, and here is Who He Is….”
Just as in pre-Christian times, when the altar to the “Unnamed G-d” was identified in NAME by Jewish people who had a covenental relationship with H-m…so I see our role as Convergent QUakers (as such)….I never doubt that someone of another faith is actually hearing from G-d. However, I do take it to the “next level”, and think that this G-d, of all faiths, does have an identity, rooted in history and Truth. This will come to everyone at some point…even if after death (yes, I am Orthodox in this way). That doesn’t mean that I don’t have sensitivity to others, or that I can’t relate to what they are saying.
The questions are interesting, and helpful in that they help people evaluate their own “trigger words”, where they hear something with a Christian or non-Christian designation, and immediatley shut down any openness to the speaker of such words. This creates division where there need be none….but there will always be lines that are unable to be broken when you hold to an Orthodox belief as I do. That doesn’t mean I have to shut down to people, or think there is something wrong with them…but I can peacefully choose to disagree! 
“
So, the way I see it is that “Primitive Christianity” was Judaism as renewed through the arrival of Messiah. Subsequently….as man began to tag on their own forms and aesthetics to Christianity, Quakerism (among other movements) was formed in response to this “Christianity” that seemed to be far removed from the simplicity of our Great Messiah’s original Message. In George Fox’s day, it was a given that the G-d of the Jewish Torah and the Christian New Testament was the One True G-d. The question existed in how it is we are called to follow and worship H-m. The original intention of these pioneering Quakers was that everything shoud be stripped away so that all that was left was G-d, and Jesus Christ as revealed in the scriptures, and experienced in every person’s heart as our Inner Teacher. George Fox would be rolling in his grave to know that not only has everything been stripped away, but Christianity ITSELF has been stripped away and demolished. Then, erected on this demolition site are some flimsy altars to political and social activism, and some “practices” that look no less like Zen Buddhism.
I am not bashing Buddhism or activism…I am merely saying, that at least to these new Quaker eyes, that the originial intent of Quakerism has been replaced in many circles with things that are their own cultural reality that just bear the name “Quaker”.
In this day and age, we can’t take it as a given that the G-d of the Bible is True…because this is the minority belief of late. However, I also find it strange that within Quakerism there would be time spent on wondering or debating if Christianity, in either liberal or orthodox form, is a central part of Quakerism.
At what point does Quakerism become NOT Quaker? If Quaker identity is all “up for grabs”, and we can pick and choose as we like as to “what this means to me”, what makes it Quaker? Is it the silent worship? Well, I find that in many other traditions. Is it the pacifism? The Amish, Mennonites, and Buddhists among others all take the pacifist route. Is it the testimony of Plain Living? Again…not exclusively Quaker. Is it the idea that G-d is in all of us? Again, not only Quaker. Is it the “government” of the religion…the ways of discernment, etc… What drew me to Quakerism was the writings of the pioneers of this great faith and Way, and the combination of ALL these things that were part of the first inclinations of this movement. I have no desire to stand in a cafeteria line to form my faith, but I want to cling strongly to a community and a Way, and then pass that heritage on to my children. I think there is room within that, as a thinking and open person, to allow sources from all faiths to “speak to my condition”….but just because that source “speaks to my condition” and I happen to be a Quaker doesn’t make it a Quaker source.
I am sure that this will induce ire in many who read this (if any read this….)…but please read my tone not as argumentative. I am genuinely asking these questions, and I am trying to be as honest as I can in describing a real confusion I have about this Way that my family and I have been called to follow. I don’t invalidate anyone’s beliefs, nor would I ever think that someone is “not Quaker” because they don’t see things as I do. I am commenting on the movement as a whole, and my personal confusions about it.
44 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 29, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Martin Kelley
I’m posting this up to the main QuakerQuaker feed so yes, it will be seen
These are the same issues I’m looking with. It seems if a “Quaker” identity means anything, it has to mean a dialogue with our tradition. That tradition is obviously Christian (more rooted in Christianity than most liberal Friends even realize).
I’ve been reading C.S. Lewis’ “Mere Christianity.” He talks about the drift of the meaning of “Christian.” In the not-too-distant past, it was a descriptive phrase, a name for someone who held a fairly defined set of beliefs. It didn’t necessarily imply that they were good Christian, i.e., that they lived out values, only that they had those values as an ideal. Conversely calling someone a non-Christian didn’t mean they weren’t living a good life, only that they didn’t hold those beliefs. At the time he wrote this, “Christian” was becoming a judgment, a subjective statement about someone’s lifestyle that was open to interpretation and opinion. It was becoming useless as an actual word.
I think we’re at the same point with “Quaker.” Does it just mean someone with good values? Someone who is a member of a certain social network? It has meant someone who ascribed to a debated but still somewhat defined set of beliefs, someone whose spirituality was deeply informed by the Quaker tradition.
Timothy T. talked on his blog today about how his liberal yearly meeting has embraced “radical inclusiveness” as it’s organizing statement, which as I understand means that the Quaker tradition is officially on par with any other tradition a member brings with them. What does “Quaker” mean in that context? I can be a bit of a word snob and I admit my concern is as much about the deterioration of language and meaning.
July 29, 2009 at 10:38 pm
weedragon
Yes, I seem to remember that’s the origin of your site’s name….Quaker Quaker!
I love Mere Christianity, I will have to revisit.
I often think about how language in this day and age has largely become a collection of “trigger words”….say “Christian” to someone, and immediately the mind forms a solid and impenetrable lock on what that “means”. I don’t understand a faith where “all truths are True”…it’s a bit like doublethink to me. And the funny thing is…the only thing that is not allowed to be “true”, but instead must be challenged is an orthodox belief in the G-d of the Bible.
I’ve been revisiting 1984 and Brave New World lately…amazing pictures of a population culturally asleep…and largely because language has become a form of programming and identification as opposed to a form of expression. I have a bit of a utopian/dystopian literature obsession…
July 29, 2009 at 10:59 pm
Zach
The issues you raise are too big to really be answered with in a blog comment, or blog post – really what we need is a book-length treatment of Quakerism that shows the internal logic and connections of where we are now, and makes non-Christian, nontheistic Quakerism more understandable to the perplexed.
But for now, one thing you said really jumped out at me:
“George Fox would be rolling in his grave to know that not only has everything been stripped away, but Christianity ITSELF has been stripped away and demolished.”
What would make him equally roll in his grave, along with the other early Quakers worth their salt, is to know that 350 years later Quakers were beginning sentences with the phrase “George Fox would be rolling in his grave…”
And I think Martin is right that to be Quaker means to be in dialogue with the tradition, but that doesn’t mean thinking the tradition is correct on every point.
July 29, 2009 at 11:01 pm
Zach
(I meant to say “connections between the tradition and where we are now”)
July 29, 2009 at 11:07 pm
weedragon
I hope that you read my whole post, and not just the blurb on QUaker Quaker?
“Rolling in His Grave”, yes a modern phrase to express my thoughts that I imagine he never intended for his movement to go in non-CHristian, nontheistic ways. I just don’t know what QUakerism is without it, and I trust you that I would need to read volumes to understand it better. I hope to read those volumes. I am sure that my confusion comes from that I came at Quakerism from an already Christian perspective. I saw/see Quakerism as an antidote to an overly materialistic faith in Christ.
July 30, 2009 at 4:26 am
Zach
I did read the whole thing, but that was the only comment I felt I could respond to in brief. And I’m not sure you get my point – it’s not about the particular phrase, it’s about looking to Fox as an outward guide, when his whole point was to turn people away from outward guides. A Muslim can look to Mohammed as an authority, or a Calvinist to Calvin, but there is something self-contradictory about a Quaker looking to Fox as an authority.
(And towards the inward Christ, as you may point out, but as you’ve recognized elsewhere on this thread, from a classical Quaker perspective one doesn’t need to recognize the outward Jesus to be following the inward Christ.)
July 30, 2009 at 1:28 am
Tom Smith
I am truly confused by the questions and statements about “Christianity.” I firmly believe that Quakers are integrally related to Christ, but I firmly believe that many of the references to Christianity do not refer to the Christ “that has come to teach his people himself.” I understand some Christian Quakers saying that only the knowledge of JESUS CHRIST as limited to the knowledge and acceptance of the Biblical Jesus counts as Christianity. My understanding is that the still small voice can be and has been heard by many who know nothing of “Jesus.” The belief that there is one way, one truth, and one life can be applied to any who tend to that Christ that has come to teach his people himself regardless of the name given but who follow the commandments and leadings of the Light, Word, and Spirit.
July 30, 2009 at 1:59 am
weedragon
Yes, I also believe that the still small voice can be heard by people who have never heard of “Jesus”…I am sorry if I did not make that clear. I do not hold to that more Evangelical “born-again” sort of belief that only people who have said a sinner’s prayer or literally believe in CHrist can hear H-s voice. I believe that everyone has that Light Within, and I do not claim exclusivity in being able to access it because I believe in a literal Christ. I do, however, believe that even if you don’t know the name “Jesus”…it is still Jesus that is speaking.
My question lies more in what does it mean to be a QUaker? WHere are the parameters for identification…it sounds more like universalism when we speak of basically no theological parameters at all.
I don’t know why you have never heard this idea that Christ has come to teach people H-mself…I heard this all the time in Christianity…but again, I came from an Evangelical world, then Messianic Judaism. It has to do with the incarnation, that He came as Messiah, or G-d H-mself…coming to us Fully Man so that He could teach us about The Father (ie, H-mself). Maybe I misunderstood your point about that.
July 30, 2009 at 3:49 am
Hystery
Here’s what I think</a/ although perhaps, my opinion counts for little since I'm so unabashedly heterodox and leftist.
I want desperately to cite historical evidence…to indicate that the story being woven here is missing some important threads. But I won't. No one likes a smarty pants. The kids who shot worms in my hair at school taught me that. I'll just say this: listen to each other. Let the Silence of our worship be Silence and not just a convenient space to make your next argument. Really listen. Listen to where the words come from. Who has come to be a convinced Friend with no intention to toward love? I cannot bring myself to make that accusation of any. Listen past the words and the notions and the noises that mark our differences. I'm not saying that 'whatever floats your boat" should be the Quaker motto. I'm not saying that all spiritual perspectives are equally groovy. What I am saying is this: "Whoever does the will of God is my brother and sister and mother." Friends have traditionally cared a good deal less about defining "God" and getting down to the business of obedience.
"The good person out of the good treasure of the heart produces good, and the evil person out of the evil treasure produces evil; for it is out of the abundance of the heart that the mouth speaks." (Luke 6.45)
July 30, 2009 at 4:56 am
Charley Earp
I am going to try and boil down in simple steps the evolution from classic Quakerism to modern pluralistic Quakerism. I am really an arrogant fool for trying this.
1) John Woolman: He decided that abolishing a practice – slavery – that had been tolerated among Quakers from the beginning was his holy mission. No one had tried that before him. It set up a fissure that would grow into…
2) The Hicksite Schism: Hicks preached an inward Christ that needed no outward Christ. He denied that the blood of Jesus could save. He may have been orthodox strictly speaking, but he widened the fissure to the breaking point.
3) Lucretia Mott: a birthright Quaker openly sympathetic to Unitarianism and actively joined in the abolitionist cause. Several “Progressive Friends” were expelled from the Hicksites, and they tried to expel Lucretia, but couldn’t. She was birthright, so the idea that “liberalism” came from outside Quakerism is wrong.
4) Progressive Friends: Officially Lucretia never joined these expelled Quakers, but she was known to be sympathetic. They were all abolitionists and harbored unorthodoxies, such as Unitarianism and Spiritualism.
5) Friends General Conference: founded from a union of Hicksite Yearly meetings in 1900, and carrying a large Progressive contingent. The expelled were now becoming mainstream. Jesse Holmes was both clerk of Progressive Friends and FGC. Holmes was probably a humanist.
6) The Sixties: The rise of pacifist movements, such as Dr. King’s work, opposition to Vietnam, and anti-nukes, produced a groundswell of new souls that needed a community that could resist the dominant paradigm of society. Quakers fit the bill for many. Lots more strange ideas began to come in, like Buddhism and New Age.
7) Universalism: In 1979, the Quaker Universalist Group was formed in England, and a parallel group here in the US soon after. The rise of unorthodox, post-Christian Quakerism was complete.
Liberal Quakerism today is one of the paths Quakerism has taken. Conservative and Evangelical are two others. Renewing Christian Quakerism is a good idea if it makes Liberal Quakerism more appealing to mainstream Christians, but I hope that we can remain pluralist at the same time.
Peace! Charley
July 30, 2009 at 11:34 am
weedragon
Thank you CHarley, that was very succinct!
So, the QUaker pluralism that I am talking about came from the “Hicksite” movement/idea/etc…of the Inner Christ needing no Outer Christ. Got it.
Are the Conservative Friends and Evangelical Friends descended in tradition from the step before the Hicksites? For example, can a conservative Friends also trace a line of history and tradition that just branched in another direction, or are conservative and Evangelical Friends a more recent incarnation….a sort of “returning” to the non-pluralist beginnings?
August 1, 2009 at 1:51 pm
George Amoss Jr.
Hey, Charlie! I’m again serving on the steering committee and as a publications editor for the Quaker Universalist Fellowship, and I’m having increasing difficulty because of the conflict between my (postmodern) understanding of Quakerism as a radical Christian movement and the (modern) “liberal-Liberal” (Pink Dandelion’s term – see my post at http://postmodernquaker.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/214/) non-Christian view of Quakerism that seems to be what “universalism” is taken to mean. (I see it more as Woolman did, as the conviction that the Quaker experience of being radically transformed by love is a universal one.) I keep hoping that we liberals can correct course and recover the original Quaker insights and spirit, and I do see some grounds for hope, but it feels like a steep hill to climb.
August 1, 2009 at 7:14 pm
George Amoss Jr.
Sorry about the bad link: I guess the parenthesis wrecked it. Trying again:
http://postmodernquaker.wordpress.com/2009/07/16/214/
July 30, 2009 at 11:38 am
weedragon
Hey Zach, you are right…I didn’t understand what you meant, but thank you for clarifying.
I do not see George Fox as an authority as such, but it was his writings that spoke to my condition and lead to me QUakerism. He was coming from a perspective that assumed and Outer as well as Inner Christ, so I also related to this very deeply. It was his writings that opened my eyes to even consider QUakerism….so then when I started getting involved, it seems that I missed all these “in between” changes that happened….so I kept looking for the Quakerism of George Fox…not as authority, but in description.
August 1, 2009 at 2:17 pm
George Amoss Jr.
I think that Fox thought of himself as an authority, as one authorized by God to define and set the terms of “restored” Christianity. We accept his authority when we accept his dicta that human beings need redemption from selfishness, that human teachers can’t get us there, that redeeming Truth is the enlightening and transforming power of the light of Christ within, that worship in spirit and in truth is silent waiting upon “the promptings of love and truth in our hearts” (as it’s phrased in the old advice that Zach are I are fond of): I could go on, of course, to include our form of ministry, decision-making process, structure, testimonies, etc. Quakers all across the spectrum appeal to Fox to justify their beliefs and practices — not because he is our spiritual authority, but because he is our principal Quaker authority: we necessarily accept that he originally defined what Quakerism was to be. The implicit expectation, of course, is that the current model of the tradition should at least be able to demonstrate an organic development (reminds me of John Henry Newman!) from Fox’s principles to our own.
July 30, 2009 at 1:10 pm
Tom Smith
I regret the (mis)understanding about “Christ has come to teach his people himself.” Certainly I have heard and read the phrase many times. I was a fairly close friend of Lewis Benson and spoke with him often for a number of years. My point was that most Christians and even many Quakers do not seem to recognize or understand this concept. I am often tempted to resist the leading to WRITE out my thoughts since they often seem to be “vague,” “tangential,” “abstract,” just to mention a few of the adjectives used to describe my communication.
July 30, 2009 at 3:04 pm
nemo
Interesting the Martin should bring up Mere Christianity. C.S. Lewis acknowledged the term as coming from Richard Baxter, a contemporary (1616-1691) of Fox’ who, as a clergyman, suffered much for his refusal to align his congregation with the Church of England. Lewis also refers often to “Christianity-and-water”. Are we “liberal Friends” guilty of “Quakerity-and-water”?
July 30, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Martin Kelley
Quaker history is generally an intellectual exercise in proving how the speaker is following the true spirit of early Friends. Many of the histories leave out so many details that they’re better classified as fairy tales or propaganda, but I long ago found out it’s not even worth trying to correct the wackier histories. It’s fascinating and instructive to see how someone plots themselves in the tradition, but early Friends would be completely befuddled why there are all these people running around calling themselves “Friends.”
If you want a good history, get Thomas Hamm’s “Quakers in America” and if you want to get very geeky, get his “Transformation of American Quakerism” that focuses on the Orthodox side (Conservatives & Evangelicals). He’s one of the few historians out there that’s actually fair to everyone and to the history.
What you’ll see is that there are many threads of Quaker history. How things evolved in one place was often different in other places. There’s no one simple path for any of the current branches and none of the current branches are monolithic. Oftentimes the theological makeup of a yearly meeting is more accidental than anything, reflecting the personalities and specific histories that helped form it. Certain impulses come up again and again in the histories: trying to reclaim the early Friends’ message is one; trying to give an accessible message tailored to the times is another.
What seems like a breath of fresh air in one generation often becomes the oppression in the next when it’s taken as the absolute rule. Back in the 1950s a round of Eastern U.S. yearly meeting reunifications were accomplished by a kind of don’t-ask-don’t-tell policy around issues of faith, membership and corporate identity. Liberal Friends today are engaged in a debate whether that was a useful corrective or whether it’s our new guiding principle. As that gets answered, we’ll see members decamping for other branches or denominations, often different ones depending on their locale.
July 30, 2009 at 5:42 pm
Brad Laird
The discussion about the role of Jesus in Quakerism is interesting. I need to be careful about putting much emphasis on “tradition.” Early Quakers were about ridding itself of the external accruals of tradition over the experience of the inner Christ.
I am pretty sure (though I could be wrong) that were Christ to be sent today, few would recognize her (him, it, them). It has been at times a useful query (What would Christ be doing today) for me to ask the question and spend time in stillness upon this. Of course, there are many answers, including that she (them, it, he) is here now already for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.
July 30, 2009 at 9:48 pm
nate Swift
This subject has been much discussed, not always without acrimony, and I have been goiving it a deal of thought. How to approach the question is not easy, but let’s start with your comment that “primitive Christianity” was Judaism. I would like to suggest that it was not, but that Judaism was the framework or structure within which the followers of the Way Jesus taught lived out those new perceptions. Certainly many of the disciples thought that Judaism and its forms were essential to the faith, and that was the reason for the first council of the Church at Jerusalem in which it was decided that those who came to the Way from outside Judaism were not required to convert to that form of religion. We are now engaged in a similar council, or at least discussion within the Quaker body.
You noted quite correctly that Quakers have always stood against some elements of traditional Christianity having to do with form and requirements of orthodoxy. I would suggest that there are two threads of conflict that are endemic to religion in society: the tendency to resort to form over content and the requirement that all elements of a society conform to stated requirements of the system under consideration. The latter element of institutional Christianity came to its worst expression when “Christianity” became state religion and has continued its influence to the present, even though there is far less of an element of state religion to deal with. The mindset involved, sort of a crushing competitiveness, is something to be wary of. I think that any acrimony that has shown up has been an upwelling of that “enforcer” attitude.
The first element is what we have been talking about, and that is where we seriously need to come to an understanding. Just exactly what elements constitute “The Way?” I believe that that tendency to formalize a religious system has been present from the beginning and is exemplified by Peter’s proposal to build monuments to the people the disciples witnessed in the transfiguration, an idea short-circuited by a call to action rather than form. For those of us who are Christian, the Way is embodied in the person and ministry of Jesus, but that Way or Word existed prior to the life of Jesus and is shown in some degree to those who are open to the Light without havig heard the name of Jesus.
The Question before us is whether people who do not profess Jesus can live in the Light and share the Way with those who do, just as the question before the council at Jerusalem was whether the gentiles could be followers of the Way though they were not Jews. My point, as Peter and Paul before me pointed to the operation of the Spirit in non-Jews, is that I have seen the operation of the Light in the words and works of those who do not profess Jesus for whatever reeason. For that reason I do not count it necessary to be Christian to be a member of the Society that professes to follow the Way that Jesus embodied. I think it behooves all Christians to reflect on whether there is not an element of chauvenism that is held over in our attitudes from the long history of such things in institutional Christianity.
July 30, 2009 at 9:54 pm
weedragon
Very interesting post, thank you.
Coming from Messianic Judaism, I was thinking about “primitive” CHristianity in that all of the disciples were Jewish, and that the “Way” of Jesus makes no sense if not seen in the Jewish roots that it comes from. If you don’t understand “covenant” from the Jewish context it comes from…then what does “new covenant” mean? (for example)
July 31, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Cam
I have searched long and hard for a fellowship of Christians who tread a middle way between the extremisms of dogma and rampant liberalism, and I have been naturally drawn to both the Unitarians and Quakers. But I am put off but these Christian vs Non-Christian conflicts that exist within both. Where do people like us go instead? The emergent churches?
July 31, 2009 at 9:50 pm
weedragon
I think anywhere there are humans, there will be conflict and some us vs. them….personally I would ask “how does this community as a whole deal with these conflicts, and are they still committed to one another despite their differences?” Part of who we are as searching, spiritual beings is seeing who we are, where the boundaries exist, what does “truth” mean, what does it mean to follow G-d…. I know that in the Evangelical world I never felt safe to delve into these questions, have disagreements with people, etc… I have found that even though there is much disagreement among Friends, I still see a great pull towards unity, and a commitment towards one another as Friends. I see it like a family….a dysfuntional one would shun and shame a member who has a disagreement, whereas a functional one will “have it out”, and keep coming back to the table in love to come to greater understanding.
Otherwise…I think the emergent churches can have some of what you are talking about….depends on the church (or home group, etc…).
August 1, 2009 at 6:22 am
Angela
I appreciated your thoughts, as a Quaker, on the subject. I said before, I am not a Quaker, but have parents who come from a strong Quaker background, and I am baffled by the number of people I interact with here on the West Coast who define themselves as “Quaker”, but that definition has absolutely nothing to do with seeking God.
The divide you speak of is the same one I see in Presbyterian circles as well. There are many who define themselves as “Presbyterian” but would never say that “the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever.” I struggle to see how we are connected.
Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful post.
August 1, 2009 at 1:57 pm
Hystery
What is the definition of a Friend? What makes one qualified and who is responsible for determining qualifications and entrance into the community? How much of the identification is personal and how much is corporate? If one meeting determines that a person is unquestionably a member but another meeting would reject that person (as a liberal meeting might embrace a Pagan while an evangelical meeting might reject them) is the liberal meeting or the evangelical meeting in error? How can one determine who is seeking God and who is not? Unless you have engaged in true, patient, and loving communion with another Friend, how do you know their calling and membership is not a result of their search for God? Is any of us so well-acquainted with God that we are qualified to make that determination? Is there a reliable way to determine the worth and truth of another human soul’s spiritual journey?
August 1, 2009 at 3:11 pm
George Amoss Jr.
Hystery, do you answer your initial question with the implicit definition that a Friend is one who is seeking God? Do we all agree with that criterion? Do we even agree about what “seeking God” means in the context of defining what a Quaker is? It could mean looking for a not-yet-found God, for example, or it could mean waiting upon the presently-experienced God for guidance. If it means the former, then a number of Friends would not accept it as a criterion for membership.
Regarding making the determination about a person’s search: I think that our tradition insists that we must be sufficiently well-acquainted with God to make that determination. Originally, Quakerism also insisted that yes, there is “reliable way to determine the worth and truth of another human soul’s spiritual journey”: it is whether that person’s journey is guided directly by Love such that the fruits of the Spirit are evident in her life’s orientation and practice. Such discernment can be a heavy burden, but I know of no other way of helping someone discern whether she is a Quaker at heart — which is where it matters.
August 1, 2009 at 8:25 pm
nate Swift
I think I should point out that “God” as used by both you and Hystery could equally well apply to a non-theist who is seeking a basis for community with fellow humans, and therefore one who has determined that the operative principle must be concern for the well-being of all members of the community. Some of us call that love.
August 1, 2009 at 9:09 pm
George Amoss Jr.
Nate, I am a nontheist Quaker who is working to frame Quakerism in a way that speaks to theists and nontheists, so I especially appreciate your comment.
(Sorry of this is out of sequence; I’m having trouble navigating.)
August 1, 2009 at 9:24 pm
weedragon
Hystery, your questions are very thought provoking.
I hope that a Pagan would not be “rejected” by an evangelical Meeting…but the Evangelical Meeting does hold that besides the Inner Teacher, there is the Outer Teacher, and the truth of said Teacher can be found as literally described in the Jewish and Christian scriptures. So, their theological beliefs may be “rejected” as held up to what they believe is Truth (capital T)…but I certainly hope that the person would not be kicked out, told they are bad, etc…but instead embraced in love. In fact, as much as someone would want to disagree….if an Evangelical told that Pagan that they were “wrong” in their theological beliefs, it should be considered that this is done precisely out of love. If you truly believe that it is in the following of both the Literal Jesus and also H-s life inside of you that brings an authentic and real relationship with G-d (and that it also affects eternal destination)…then you would be unloving not to share that with someone. I am not saying that I hold to these specific beliefs with such rigidity..but I have in the past….and I remember so much wanting people to know about this Messiah of the scriptures because I cared for their souls. It was an act of love to tell them, and try to show them what I viewed as Truth…not subjective and personal, but universal and unchanging.
Differing theological beliefs can be the source of many feelings of “rejections” on either side. We stopped going to a liberal Meeting (where we knew we were the only conservative believers in a literal Christ as He is revealed in the scriptures) because while attending a Quakerism 101 class, we were told that conservatives were “non-intellectual” “non-thinking” “mostly blue-collar” (I don’t think this is something bad, but it was being given as a derogatory description) and basically live in the “red states”….and that the only reason the liberal Meeting still has loose connections with them is so that they can teach the children of those conservative meetings that you don’t have to believe in G-d or live by any particular moral code (I am paraphrasing) to be a Quaker. Well, needless to say….we felt “rejected” in a sense…but mostly….we just saw that this was not the place for us to raise our children..where they would told that the thing that their family is is somehow wrong or inadequate. So, the liberal Meeting has also taken a stand on “Truth” by saying it does not exist, and that those who hold to such a thing are non-thinking and sub-par in some way. The Pagan at that Meeting would be considered somehow more authentic in practice and faith and Quaker-ly endeavor, and the Evangelical in their midst would be considered misguided and closed minded.
I do want to say, however, that at no point did I ever feel personally “rejected” as a person. I was still loved, and I know that we would be welcomed back at any time…at the very least as a quaint oddity. I hope that the Evangelical Meeting would be the same towards the Pagan…still loving and welcoming as a whole despite the great chasm in theological belief. I would like to think that they would.
August 1, 2009 at 7:30 pm
Tom Smith
I really am beginning to see the wisdom of “Early Friends” by NOT having membership lists for several generations. Being a Quaker and being a member of a Friends Meeting may well have two different definitions???
Very early Friends seemed to be willing to disagree as long as the discussion was kept open and to admit frailties and misunderstandings as well as forgiveness and acceptance.
August 1, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Jim
Dear Dragon:
I’ve hesitated responding to your blog about what it means to be a Quaker; mostly because it is a complex subject that, I suspect, is not amenable to online clarity. But as long as you brought up Zen, I thought it might be appropriate to point out a similar division in the Zen Community that mimics the divide you perceive among Quakers.
As Zen has come to the West there are those who comprehend Zen as essentially, and necessarily, embedded in the Mahayana Buddhist tradition. That is to say that Zen is Zen BUDDHISM. (This would have been taken for granted by all the early Chinese Chan/Zen Masters.) The view of this group is that it is not enough simply to engage in the particular form of Zen meditation; there are also the ethical precepts of Zen, inherited from a general Mahayana Buddhist context, and source texts, Sutras, that are also a part of that general tradition (e.g. the Diamond Sutra, the Lotus Sutra, etc.). Other Zen practitioners in the West comprehend Zen as primarily a technique of meditation which can be extracted from its historical context of Mahayana Buddhism and used effectively in entirely different contexts. Out of this view have arisen Zen teachers who are simultaneously affiliated with Christian or Jewish traditions, practicing Zen meditation in, for example, an Anglican, Catholic, Unitarian or Jewish context.
What I think is going on with Liberal Quakerism is that Quaker practices are comprehended as specific techniques that can be extracted from their original context and placed efficaciously in other contexts. The question for both the Zen and Quaker traditions is how significant is the context out of which the particular techniques arose? (A similar analysis applies to a tradition like Yoga.)
There are parallels one can use to flesh out this kind of process. For example, when is a sonnet not a sonnet? Originally, the sonnet was an Italian form of poetry which was rooted in an Italian song form (Sonneto means “little song”, I understand). The sonnet moved from that original source culture to other cultures and in the process changed (e.g. different rhyme schemes). The sonnet has continued to change and there are today “sonnets” which lack any regularity of line length or any rhyme scheme; they are basically free verse. Are they sonnets?
I want to close with a tangential observation. The cultural context of Quaker origins, while in some ways radical, was in other ways restricted. In 17th century England there was only Christianity, there did not exist any other form of religion. There was not even a Jewish community in England at that time. The world most Quakers live in currently is different with a wide range of religious traditions criss-crossing each other across the globe. I love the early Quaker literature, but I also think that in some ways it does not speak to the present situation very well because its assumption is that everyone is a Christian and that there is no articulate alternative available. I think that one of the great strengths of the Liberal Quaker tradition is that it has developed methods for speaking to this variety of traditions present in the world today that those traditions find meaningful.
Best wishes
Jim
August 1, 2009 at 10:33 pm
weedragon
Thank you so much for this Jim…when you take it out of a Christian context (one that I am personally tied into) and put it into the Zen comparison, I see it more clearly.
I agree…I think that Christian belief was an assumption during the early days of Quakerism, whereas today it is not.
The way you present it, I can definitely see the “roots” of the non-CHristian Quaker movement and see more clearly where it came from. However, from these Christian eyes, it’s hard to see the Christianity of the early days as somehow not as relevant today in a universal way as it was in those times. This also assumes a situation that the “present situation” is not a Christian one, but a pluralistic one. I would say that my present condition is of a Christian living in a pluralistic society, but that doesn’t personally make me pluralistic within myself.
I am understanding what you are talking about in looking at the form of Quakerism, in its practices, which can then be placed in others religious (or non-religious) contexts. I guess that also as a Messianic Jew, who still practices a lot of the forms of Judaism in the home…and also derives a lot of spiritual guidance from non-CHristian sources….and then applies Quaker practice as a unifier of sorts….I can really see this.
August 1, 2009 at 11:25 pm
nate Swift
Your situation reminds me that some time ago I had occasion to quote a letter from one of the early “church fathers” in reply to a request for orthodoxy and orthopraxy concerning Easter/Passover practices. Some day I’m going to have to see if I can find that reply again. Basically what the “father” said was that there were within his congregation people who practiced the full Jewish observance, some who celebrated the day of resurrection, some who observed three days, and some who held no special observation at all, and all members supported the others in their choice. He cited that as a strength rather than a wekness the Roman bishop urged in heterodoxy. I think the point here is that each person should be free to observe and express perceptions with the support of the other members of the community, who would see the lesson to them, though related to their own frame of reference. I see the point not as diversity as an organizing principle, but based on commitment to a community working out how to relate in love under widely different circumstances.
August 2, 2009 at 11:57 pm
Jim Wilson
Dear Dragon:
I want to flesh out a little about what I meant when I said that early Quaker writing doesn’t speak to the situation that most Quakers find themselves in today. If one wants to get an idea of what I am suggesting I would reference Paul, and early Christian writers such as Justin Martyr and Clement. When these early Christians write of the Christian way they do not make the assumption that their audience is Christian; in fact, at times they assume the opposite. Their appeals tend to be simple, direct, and meaningful to their audience in concrete ways. I am thinking that the world we live in today more closely resembles the world of these very early Christians than it does the world of the early Quakers.
The importance of having a living and present counter-narrative is, I think, overlooked. An example would be Abelard’s “Dialogue Between a Christian, a Jew, and a Philosopher”, a really amazing work. Abelard was in Paris which had a vibrant Jewish community involved in original Talmudic exegesis (I believe Rashi was a near contemporary). This kind of interaction sharpens one’s focus and keeps certain issues alive that otherwise would not be looked at. Maybe what we need now is a “Dialogue Between a Quaker, a Buddhist, and a Pagan”.
Jim
P.S. I love early Quaker literature. I don’t want to be misunderstood on this point.
August 3, 2009 at 12:26 am
weedragon
I would love to read that!
I always pull out my Rashi to get “thinking” about scripture and law, etc…. and I love the Talmudic style of exegesis that is centered in questions…not statements….and the High Religious act of “fleshing them out” with others. I miss a lot of the screaming, yelling and debating of Chabad talmud and torah classes…where everyone would passionately present their case, then come to the table together afterwards.
August 1, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Tom Smith
Although there may have been a small Jewish and essentially no Muslim impact in England, Fox was still led to say that “There is that of the God in the Jew and the Turk.” (sic: Muslim) This does seem quite different than most “modern” Evangelical Friends position. However, there are many Evangelical Friends who would agree with the statement but I do not see them as in the majority. Fox’s statement does seem fairly modern in that it addresses the three “major” “western religions.”
August 1, 2009 at 10:38 pm
weedragon
I think also because of the clear historical deliniation….in that Jews, Muslims and Christians all worship the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. Although with much disagreement and avarice between each other…they would all agree that they all historically descend from The G-d of Israel…Noah to Abraham, etc… A common history.
August 2, 2009 at 9:28 am
K
I find it interesting that this question seems to be about either/or rather than both/and.
I left the Anglican church because it deadened my sense of Jesus. As a teenager, I felt that it was disrespectful to him to remain in a religious structure that seemed not to grasp the power I instinctively felt he embodied, of peace and radical compassion and the overwhelming power of love. I began identifying as Pagan – “a Pagan with a deep respect for Jesus”, as I always said.
In my 20+ years as an active Pagan, I have found myself coming closer and closer to a personal relationship with Jesus, and with the “eternal Christ” or Light which I understand early Quakers insisted was found and recognised within all of us, including those who’d never heard of Jesus. It’s my Paganism, rooted in the idea that the Living Universe made manifest in all things and beings, that has deepened and made more insistent my relationship with Jesus and with Christ.
For me, being a polytheist and pantheist frees me to find the Divine/Light/Spirit/Living Universe in various places. It means that I worship the Living Universe and the path exemplified by Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Christ with Quakers, as well as finding connection with it alongside other Pagans through other forms of devotion (which are now very much influenced by Quaker thought and practice). So, for me, being a Christian doesn’t mean a rejection of Paganism at all – for my personal purposes, I am a Christian because I venerate Jesus and/as the Christ AS WELL AS my household gods, my ancestors, and the Earth as part of my veneration of the Living Universe.
And I have a strong sense that non-theists and theists, monotheists and others are venerating the same thing/stuff but using different words to conceptualise and connect to it. That doesn’t mean we’re all seeing it the same way or understanding it the same way, or that there are never problems with the way we or others understand and express our belief systems, but that both/and has been a really helpful way of seeing things for me.
I wish I was more able to clearly articulate my thoughts and feelings on this. This is the best I can do right now.
August 2, 2009 at 1:40 pm
weedragon
Your thoughts were very well articulated, thank you.
I will accept that maybe I don’t know much about Paganism if it is so integral to your growing relationship with Jesus. You are right, I do see such practices as antithetical to Christian belief and practice…and you are the first person to describe to me otherwise. I am interested in hearing more.
I am just wondering if in order to have a relationship with Jesus this way, that we have to remove him from his scriptural context in a lot of ways? If we are looking at H-m as the Jewish Messiah as fulfilled in the New Testament, then don’t we also have to take the Old Testament view of Who G-s is foundationally? Yes, Jesus came and fulfilled so much of the Law, in particular the Oral Law as was being taught by the Pharisees at that time….but ultimately, He came to teach us of the Father, who is the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph. This is the same G-d of the 10 Commandments, which told us that He is the L-rd our G-d , that we are not to make idols, and that we are to have no other G-ds before H-m. Jesus came and “condensed” them into….’You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 22:36) It seems that in order to define “who G-d is” to be able to follow Jesus’s commandment, one would have to search out an extra-biblical definition of H-m to decide that He is a G-d who approves of us giving worship to “other” G-ds.
As I said in my original post…I truly believe that people who are truly seeking G-d, and not naming H-m “HaShem” (The Name…or how we say the Name of the G-d of the Torah in conversation), are doing so to worship this One True G-d. I guess the either/or comes in that I would actually say that they are worshipping this G-d without knowledge of Who He Truly is. As a believer in the Bible, in an Orthodox way, I do believe that to worship any other is wrong and a form of idolatry. I stop short of the Evangelical answer in that that means the worshipper is going to spend an eternity in torment. I think that G-d wants everyone to know Who He is in Name, which is why He equipped each of us with this Inner Light…or the part of us that can actively seek H-m and commune with H-m.
If you read my essay about leaving Evangelicalism, you will see that I don’t think this relationship exists only in a one-time held belief or prayer. It is a journey, and whether on this side of eternity or not, I believe everyone will know H-m as the G-d of the Bible and Jesus as literal Messiah. That doesn’t mean I’m “further ahead” because I believe this, or that I am a better person or anything (I just feel like I have to say that….) but that we are all on different journeys towards H-m that will go on for eternity. There are plenty of things that G-d needs to work on in me that I am sure will continue after death that many people who have never held the name “Jesus” on their lips have already shed from themselves… And this is why I remain open to learning from EVERYONE, and am able to relate, even if I disagree on points of theology and designation of the divine name.
I am so amazed at the response this post has received. I love that there has been no hostility or throwing of “you are totally wrong and going to a terrible eternal destination” type comments, which would have been prevelant in the more fundamental circles I used to run in. Again…another example of why I am called towards Quakerism. A mystical understanding of the Divine leaves so much more room for a personal interaction with It, and so therefore you see such variety in the people who seek H-m!
August 2, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Hystery
George,
you ask if I would answer my first question with the implicit criterion that we are all seeking God. I would not. I see “God” as one possible metaphor for that which we are seeking. I have described myself as one living in very happy spiritual paradox. I’m a non-theistic Neo-Pagan believer in the spiritual influence of the concept of the inner Christ and the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth (as recorded by his followers). I refer to myself as non-theistic, despite my very spiritual personality and thought-process, because I believe that it is important not to mistake signs and symbols for the things and ideas themselves. I see “God”, “Goddess” and gods as part of metaphorical language and believe humans are way over their head when they attempt to equate notions of Truth with truth itself. (And what is Truth? A whole ‘nother potentially fruitful discussion! I’m not completely wed to that idea either.)
Additionally, I believe that spiritual language and belief systems are beautiful, powerful, life-altering and beloved– but they are not necessary for all people. Our language and belief systems are culturally driven and contextual. I see too much evidence that rational philosophy, intellectual process, and simple human decency leads many through a process toward right relationship with humanity, the Earth, and their own consciousness/soul/spirit/wisdom/Self. Many have no need at all of spiritual belief to end up in a place that to me seems very clearly “enlightened”.
Whether the Source of this drive toward agape is Cosmic or personal is of far less concern to me than obedience to it. I am attracted to Friends for their obedience to the fulfillment of Love and to their emphasis on praxis and process over creed and dogma.
August 2, 2009 at 8:40 pm
weedragon
Whether the Source of this drive toward agape is Cosmic or personal is of far less concern to me than obedience to it. I am attracted to Friends for their obedience to the fulfillment of Love and to their emphasis on praxis and process over creed and dogma.
I love this.
August 4, 2009 at 4:16 am
George Amoss Jr.
Thanks, Hystery. We seem to have much in common.
August 3, 2009 at 1:35 pm
Jim
Dear Dragon:
I can’t resist — I’m having a fantasy of Quaker Sages getting together and really getting into Barclay’s “Apology”; debating, yelling, scoring points, refuting and affirming. I think it would be so cool.
Jim
August 3, 2009 at 5:17 pm
weedragon
Oh how I would love it…..
and so very un-Quaker-ly in so many ways…..;)
Maybe there is an equivalent to “QUaker Clapping” in debating, yelling and fleshing through theology. I don’t know….maybe if it was done in the form of beat poetry or allegorical story telling?