Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Daniel Hughes on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 11:35am

I have personally felt for some time that one of the liveliest ‘theological’ forums within Britain Yearly Meeting (BYM) is the non-theist one. I also suspect that the non-theist label is being used in an extremely broad way. I regret that many Friends who are seeking new direction ‘theologically’ are almost forced to move within a non-theist/religious humanist/'Christian' atheist direction. I can understand why they do this, in the absence of any other high profile theological discourse within BYM and the somewhat confused plethora of 'spiritual practices' within the Yearly Meeting. Spiritual practices in themselves will not address the deeper theological issues within BYM; that will require a much larger perspective, not only of our YM but the decline of modernity/post-modernity within Europe. Why have the New Atheists, Religious Fundamentalists and in a smaller way the godless-Christianity philosophers become so much in vogue? Are they not the death-pangs before the re-appropriation of a generous/authentically/contemplative/active Christianity, one that has learnt from ‘modernity’ but nevertheless turns back towards the reality of transcendence, the mystery of God? The Humanities, Science, Fundamentalism/Literalism, Psychologies and Spiritualities are slowly being shown as limited (yet helpful) perspectives. A trans-cosmic/theist, religious view is truly needed for human and cosmic harmony.

Something more subtle might also be at work with the non-theists within the Society. I can see a real connections between the language/experience of 'being' a non-theist and the insights of a contemplative/apophatic religious discipline/practise and theology. This is the 'classical' Christian theological tradition much more than the legalistic and belief orientated systems that have unfortunately dominated, especially within Protestantism. Do many Friends who intuitively sense that 'letting go' (true simplicity, humility) is the doorway to something 'new', feel drawn to non-theism because of this connection? Is that not out of a religious need that requires a REAL response rather than a non-realist absolutism/fundamentalism or a non-theism that has a limited range of sources, many of then not theological? Those who see religion as absolutely a human creation are still welcome at a Meeting for Worship for whatever reason they wish to come, those non-theist Friends who are asking many questions but have that ‘sense’ of desiring to be at Meeting for Worship are welcome. Those who seek to change the religious foundation of the Religious Society of Friends from within can legitimately be asked to leave if they are evangelistic non-realists. A fixation upon ‘non-theism’ makes little sense in relation to the classical/Orthodox experience of a trinitarian/mystical view of reality that surpasses modern western philosophical notions, Theism or Buddhism.

Retrospectively, I can see that during my time as a non-theist I was experiencing a recognised stage of spiritual growth - the death of the God belief/concept/the 'dark night', that gradually (over a decade) opened me to the G - o - d beyond God, Jesus Christ as my spiritual Master and the Reality 'needfully' expressed by overtly religious/metaphysical/multi-consciousness/Trinitarian language. It was and is a disturbing process. The danger is that our ego self can become creativity engrossed by the poetic/mythic/intellectual stimulation of 'religion as a human creation' and this successfully avoids the ego vulnerability (the Trust, Faith and 'Giving over') that is the 'narrow way' to experience something of the mystery of G - o - d. This Mystery is beyond the aspects of religion that are indeed a human creation. Yet, our religious organisations are not simply a hindrance, other people are always involved. Quakers often seem to exist in a rather small bubble; we are happy to make all kinds of connections with the wider liberal, intellectual, middle-class, 'Buddhistic' and 'scientific' culture but ignore the huge wealth of resources and insights available within the Quaker and classical Christian tradition, for example. Boundaries are necessary and actually provide the preparation for a greater creativity; a Quakerism that draws excessively upon so-called 'new light' is often a Quakerism that takes the ego from one meaningful distraction to another.

I hope that the doors of our Meeting Houses will always be open to all Seekers. I also hope that the Society of Friends may corporately see that a serious re-appropriation of Quaker spirituality as one school within the western/Christian theological spiritual tradition is the most likely way to re-establish BYM/Quakerism as a gathered church that enables transformation. I look forward to the day when a person can come to Quakerism without having to also consume ‘supplements’ from other religious traditions or that those who are drawn to another religious tradition are encouraged by Elders to ‘go for it wholeheartedly’ and told that the Meeting House door is open if they find that by leaving they arrive back, refreshed, to the place they started. No matter how helpful or comfortable our ‘personal spiritualities’ might seem, they are not places of authentic liberation or re-birth.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 11:37am

Hello Rudy!

You said: "Olivia, being the person we *should* is indeed the best way to evangelize. And we don't have to think that we are evangelizing for a movement, or a label. If we are kind, we are evangelizing for kindness (and therefore for God.)"

Wow!  I guess we are very different planes with this.  

Personally I have found these perceptions (shoulds / or trying to be "good enough") to be Evil, actually.  Sorry to invoke something so dramatic as that but I have to name it to try to fight back against this wrong that I think our societal thinking has inflicted on us.  

I disagree.  I would have agreed with you some years back, but life circumstances showed me something different.  The odd thing I found was that when i STOPPED:  stopped trying to be this or that, trying to be enough, trying to be good, do good, be actively taking on this or that....something amazing happened.  I only discovered this because my attempt to be "good enough" fell apart and there was a lot of pain involved.  

But what came of it was a weird, weird discovery that when you just STOP, something else happens outside of yourself and your own efforts.   When you "just be" and leave it at that, you turn out to be getting out of God's way, letting God do something even bigger than your trying, much bigger.  And you also find out -- but not until then -- that you ARE good.    Things happen, Spirit happens, God moves in mysterious ways all around you and orchestrates the whole thing.   And it is God doing, not you and your shoulds and trying to be a good person. 

Society tells us that we are to motivate ourselves to do this or do that but it's a way that we try to keep control over what direction God would actually give in our own lives.  When we are forced to stop "our way" and our beliefs about what we should be doing, God takes control in ways we could never have imagined.   God is more present than I was ever taught by believing as you are suggesting.

If you have not had this experience yet, I hope you do.   For me the only way was by messing up my own life but I thought that if you are open you might fare better than I.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 12:43pm

"Evangelizing for God" is "evangelizing for kindness." It should be done more kindly than I necessarily manage... but "evangelizing for kindness" as if that could exist as a separate idol-- would turn out to be a subtle, inadvertent cruelty. Not from God dipping anyone into Hell fire-- but because life imagined as separate truly is the pits.

Rudy, I wish you had experienced the reality behind my experience. Experience of the Experiencer at work is as intrinsically convincing as simple arithmetic.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nikolas Southwell on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 3:35pm

Thank you Allistair for saying what needed to be said.

Allistair Lomax said:

Hi Stephen,

I mostly resist the temptation to get involved in discussions on these kinds of issues, but I saw your posting and felt I needed to respond.

I hope you won't be offended, if I offer you the following advice. To be frank, I would advise that you give up Britain Yearly Meeting as a lost cause. It is too late to reverse the decline and the loss of the spiritual basis of that group of Friends.

The way was opened up to allow any kind of spiritual belief , (even 'stuff' that was diametrically opposed to the basic principles of the Quaker faith), at the last major revision of their book of discipline in the 1980's. I saw then,  that any restraint in what people could be believe in to become a member had been removed, and that all manner of unbelief would follow. Time has vindicated my view. The Quaker Universalist Group is largely responsible for this state of affairs, but the 'establishment' in BYM allowed this. You are reaping what has been sown.

You don't have to be a prophet to see the writing on the wall. BYM will just descend even further down into self-contradictory confusion and moral relativism. Prophetic Quakerism in BYM has been effectively silenced. My advice to you, Stephen, would be to pursue your spiritual  aims outside of Britain Yearly Meeting.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 4:46pm

I wonder if those interested in continuing the conversation specifically about evangelizing, life, and what we are called to say and do, would be interested in continuing this conversation under Forrest Curo's new blog post "Let Your Life Say What?"     Forrest shares 2 substantial passages on this topic from George Fox.   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Adria Gulizia on 5th mo. 8, 2012 at 7:10pm

Interesting that this should be your reaction - I read an article in Quaker Theology Issue #18. There was an interview with a French Friend named Jeanne-Henriette Louis. There was a photo that accompanied the interview with a poster that said (sorry in advance for the lack of accents): "Aspirez-vous a une religion laique sans dogmes ni rites? La societe des amis (Quakers) peut vous interesser."

 

Translation: Are you longing for a secular religion with neither rites nor dogmas? The Society of Friends (Quakers) might interest you.

Notice that "laique" is often much more emphatically non-religious, or even anti-religious, than "secular" AND that they took out the word "Religious." Perhaps Forrest's (and his friend's) characterization is not  so far off? 

Rudy Zalesak said:

Forrest, yours (your friend's)  language is unkind: a religion for people who don't want to be very religious? There are way easier ways to not be "religious" than to sit in silence on First Day. 

Bruce,  nontheist Friends can find their pacifism enriched through Christ's words without being Christian, as you find yours enriched through Buddha's. (Mo Tzu too, have you run across him in your reading? Same period as Lao Tzu.) All the more reason for Friends to learn Christ's words, of course!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rudy Zalesak on 5th mo. 9, 2012 at 10:05am

Olivia, in Shin Buddhism there is a distinction between "self power" and "other power", between trying to be good and just trusting in the "other power" (in that case Amidha Buddha). Maybe this is similar to what you are telling me. Trust in God; or as Paul says, love and do what you will.

I will move on over to Forrest's blog and see what's going on... 

Daniel, I'm generally with you about the apophatic and it's relation to the appeal of non-theism, and my own religious direction seems similar to yours. I'm not with you on asking people to leave if they "evangelize" for non-realism. There is not much of a boundary between self-expression and "evangelizing". I feel that it's possible to be an atheist (and not simply nontheist) Friend. 

I agree strongly though that we have a rich spiritual tradition that isn't immediately so available to Friends as "outside" spiritual traditions like Buddhism (I reached for Shin Buddhism, in part, to help me respond to Olivia's message, for example).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rudy Zalesak on 5th mo. 9, 2012 at 10:10am

Olivia and Forrest, I can't find Forrest's blog... where is it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 5th mo. 9, 2012 at 10:18am

Hi Rudy,

Forrest's blog is under Blogs on the Home page or directly at

http://www.quakerquaker.org/profiles/blogs/let-your-life-say-what

I am glad for whatever spritual approach helps us to understand one another!   I did not mean to speak at odds with your ways of understanding.    I don't know the first thing about Shin Buddhism.   If that also accounts for living in a state of rest in the Light of God (the ultimate Source), then we may be talking about the same thing.   Otherwise, it could be that our different traditions set us up to learn different spiritual truths.  

peace,

Olivia

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 9, 2012 at 10:27am

Daniel Hughes had some interesting stuff to say here; I don't agree with it all but I'm sorry it got buried.

Where I strongly have to disagree is with his idea that people should be "asked to leave" Quaker bodies for 'getting religion from' anybody whatsover! Any inspiration that inspires, in a 'famine for hearing the word of God.'

That nasty old process of "disownment", so far as I understand it, was largely a matter of letting the public know: "This person doesn't speak for us."

My only real problem with that is that I'm likely the first person it would be applied to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Rudy Zalesak on 5th mo. 9, 2012 at 7:12pm

Olivia, no, Shin isn't my tradition, it's just the first thing I thought of when I was trying to think through what you were saying. Resting in God is is a helpful way for you to put it. --- I'd say "I'll try that", but there I'd be,  back at the "self power" thing again!! :)

I will just say "rest in God" to myself, over the next few days, and see where it takes me. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Daniel Hughes on 5th mo. 10, 2012 at 12:07pm

I said: "Those who seek to change the religious foundation of the Religious Society of Friends from within can legitimately be asked to leave if they are evangelistic non-realists."

I certainly felt uncertain about saying this and it has rested on my mind since. I would not wish to hinder honest expression within any YM (at any point) and I am not speaking from (I hope) an ego that would delight in leading a new inquisition of disownments.

I suppose my comment comes from out of the BYM perspective in which we have a strong non-theist/non-realist ‘grouping’ that might be a little out of touch with the larger theological questions about the nature of Quakerism. It may well be that so-called non-theist comes to a perspective similar to the one I described earlier. My concern is that a short-term ‘theological’ school could become the dominant voice of British Quakers and the only alternative a vague ‘Quaker way’ spirituality.

I’m not a glass half empty person and would like to add that I see myself within the Liberal Quaker tradition, I’m happy to be worshiping within BYM.

Forrest Curo said:

Daniel Hughes had some interesting stuff to say here; I don't agree with it all but I'm sorry it got buried.

Where I strongly have to disagree is with his idea that people should be "asked to leave" Quaker bodies for 'getting religion from' anybody whatsover! Any inspiration that inspires, in a 'famine for hearing the word of God.'

That nasty old process of "disownment", so far as I understand it, was largely a matter of letting the public know: "This person doesn't speak for us."

My only real problem with that is that I'm likely the first person it would be applied to.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page