Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 5th mo. 10, 2012 at 2:08pm

Hello Daniel,

Thank you for what you sharing -- your several posts -- I found your earlier post provocative and agreed with various points, though the second one seems to have lost the Spiritual center of whatever spoke to me in that earlier one and in fact I feel a longing to put a spoke in your bicycle wheel.    You seem to have vered into dangerous territory for yourself and the Society.  Please consider these thoughts and see where you are led.

Along these lines --

You 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."

and

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.

1) Friends are not asked to ever  subscribe to "not being an evangelistic non-realist."   What if the Light of God within them wants to move in ways that you don't find to be Realism?   Who are you to decide that others are not following the true Light?   and who are you to decide that "Realism" is the goal / the acceptable idol?

2) IF Realism is a tenant held that deeply by you, then in the spirit of doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, perhaps you would like to now see (imagine) yourself being legitimately asked to leave the Religious Society of Friends....Simply and good-naturedly offered because this is what you are considering proposing for others who apply their own sense of what's Realism and what's not. 

    This is not intended to be hurtful but simply as a necessary step.  If your perspective is to be tried and developed and to come to fruition you will need to have placed yourself on the receiving end of the same thing, and see what you learn from the reflection, and if still led  fine-tune it.

3) You had also commented "I’m not a glass half empty person" which, in context, seems to suggest that those who leave the BYM with the feeling that it has lost its mooring are being "glass half empty" thinkers.  This too may betray a sense that the Light is not free to decide for itself how to lead others?   and that your personal vision of this Society and those suitable for it may be "glass half full" types -- which is also not a condition that  Jesus or the Light of God requires of us, and actually one that many of the prophets of Christianity and Quakerism fail to live up to.

Without the Light of God within each of us deciding what our course will be, but decisions made by any other spiritual or external source, I think the result is the death of a society such as ours and shows that the life has gone elsewhere.

Your thoughts?    I love the Spirit that seemed to be flirting with you earlier.   Please do feel encouraged by me to keep flirting with it and see where it leads.

in peace,

Olivia

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 10, 2012 at 4:21pm

"Non-realist" in this context is supposed to mean "does not consider God real"?  (I can't see us getting into 'realist' vs 'nominalist' as a basis for purging one another...)

I don't know about Britain, but as I said, where I am, I am in the minority who would be purged if we were playing by these rules. We already had one attender whom everyone liked, who moved to a more 'Christian' group because she "didn't want to worship with a bunch of atheists." So, much as I like Richard Miller's position (in a related discussion) we are well past the time when that might apply here.

This does, by the way, raise fundamental questions. If God is as accessible as Quaker doctrine has it-- as accessible as I know He is-- Why doesn't he ignite those lukewarm folks who place themselves weekly on our Quaker altars? (The answer I'm getting, by the way, is "fear"-- people fending off that risky question: "What if you said, 'Hi God,' and something said back, 'Hi there!' ?")

We don't, in fact, need doctrinal requirements to tell people who we are-- if we are being whom we are called to be. As annoying as Paul can be (especially if used as an external Authority Over __), there is something apropos in this passage: "[1 Corinthians 14.24] But if all prophesy, and an unbeliever or outsider enters, he is convicted by all, he is called to account by all,
[25] the secrets of his heart are disclosed; and so, falling on his face, he will worship God and declare that God is really among you. "  There are, in fact, accounts throughout our history, from people who came to Friends meetings and experienced that: What they felt and heard via the people there was convincing, that God was a real presence among this group.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 10, 2012 at 6:00pm

What can happen instead [Thomas Merton's account]:

“One Sunday I went to the Quaker meeting house in Flushing, where Mother had once sat and meditated with the Friends.  I sat down there too, in a deep pew in the back near a window.  The place was about half full.  The people were mostly middle-aged or old, and there was nothing that distinguished them in any evident way from the congregation in a Methodist or a Baptist or an Episcopalian or any other Protestant church, except that they sat silent, waiting for the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  I liked that.  I liked the silence.  It was peaceful.  In it, my shyness began to die down, and I ceased to look about and criticize the people, and entered, somewhat superficially, into my own soul and some nebulous good resolutions began to take shape there.

"But it did not get very far, for presently one of the middle-aged ladies thought the Holy Ghost was after her to get up and talk.  I secretly suspected that she had come to Meeting all prepared to make a speech anyway, for she reached into her handbag, as she stood up, and cried out in a loud earnest voice:

 

"When I was in Switzerland I took this snapshot of the famous Lion of Lucerne…’ With that she pulled out a picture.  Sure enough, it was the famous Lion of Lucerne.  She held it up and tried to show it around to the Friends, at the same time explaining that she thought it was a splendid exemplification of Swiss courage and manliness and patience and all the other virtues of the watchmaking Swiss which she mentioned and which I have now forgotten.

 

"The Friends accepted it in patience, without enthusiasm or resentment.  But I went out of the meeting house saying to myself: ‘They are like all the rest.  In other churches it is the minister who hands out the commonplaces, and here it is liable to be just anybody.’” (Seven Story Mountain, Part I, Chapter 3.)"

[Quoted in a fine piece by Rich Accetta-Evans re the nature and source of Messages.]

Our responsibility to want to go deeper than this-- but only possible through letting God lead. Asking for that in confidence-- not that anything will come spoon-fed-- but that God is at work behind and within our efforts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Petter on 5th mo. 20, 2012 at 8:32am

THank you everyone for a very interesting and helpful discussion. (It seems to have ended now.) I am sorry my blog (www.sp37.info) went down for a few days. A shorter version of the essay has been published by 'The Friend' (Britian YM's excellent weekly) and I'm now waiting with some trepidation for the response. The point i try to emphasise is that we need to consider the desired stance (philosophical and theological position) of our YM as an organisation it its own right. This is a different matter from consideration of our own individual stances, though obviously they are connected.

Recently i have realised there are at least two kinds of non-theist. Many Friends who call themselves non-theistic accept that there is a Divinity but object to calling it God since this implies an authoritarian, jealous and angry, masculine God. (An idea of God which is no longer held by most main-stream intelligent Christians.)  The second are convinced there is no 'Divinity'. It seems to me that these are little different from atheists, since the majority of atheist are merely non-theists. A true a-theist works actively against God and religion. We need different terms for these two.

The strength of Quakerism is the conviction that, if one allows it, and is prepared to trust it,  one can be directly led and supported by the Divinity, which commonly goes by the name, "God". 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Nelson Seaman on 7th mo. 23, 2012 at 11:00am

It is true that science, reason and humanism are forces which can incorporate into our lives good things and many benefits, but Carl Jung had an interesting perception as to the limits to which they contribute to the richness and full flavor of "being".    Jung wrote,  "The more the critical reason dominates, the more impoverished life becomes, but the more of the unconscious, and the more of myth we are able of making conscious, the more of life we integrate.  Overvalued reason has this in common with political absolutism; under its dominion the individual is pauperized.   As far as we can discern, the sole purpose of human existence in to kindle a light in the darkness of mere being.  It may even be assumed that just as the unconscious effects us, so the increase in our consciousness affects the unconcsious."    The "kindle of light in the darkness of mere being" which illuminates the soul, cannot be achived by the science or reason, but only by that which is of God.    Nontheism seems to have missed that the essence of being is "that of light";   Jung certainly seems to have perceived it.   For all the reason and science held up by Nontheist, being and  living fully requires that "kindle of light in the darkness of being" become conscious.   Who is going to wake up the Nontheist to their full potential of being ? 
 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 7th mo. 23, 2012 at 6:52pm

Hello David,

Thank you for your thoughtful and powerful post.  However, please do note the following in Stephen Petter's comment just prior to yours:

Many Friends who call themselves non-theistic accept that there is a Divinity but object to calling it God since this implies an authoritarian, jealous and angry, masculine God. (An idea of God which is no longer held by most main-stream intelligent Christians.) 

What he says is true and is contrary to your statement that " Nontheism seems to have missed that the essence of being is "that of light"  "

peace

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 7th mo. 23, 2012 at 8:59pm

When I was much younger I was a member of a very large meeting and had an occasion to attend a meeting-wide overnight retreat. During one of the workshops I was randomly paired up with an elderly woman to take a long walk on a path in the woods. We were instructed to share with one another our spirituality. I expected to learn much from this weighty Quaker because I had always admired the quiet spirituality she possessed. During our sharing she shared with me that she was an atheist. I was really surprised because her actions in life were so Christ-like. So I asked her what she believed about the nature of "ultimate reality", since she did not believe in God. When she finished telling me her thoughts, she asked me, "Do you believe in God?" I said, "I do, and my description of God is the same as your description of ultimate reality from your atheistic point of view". I took away a valuable lesson that the Spirit that Christ possessed is not a respecter of labels. It is the experience that matters. One Friend may call it Buddha, one may call it Jesus, one may call it God, and one may call it nothing. And the silence of worship is the meeting place of a common spiritual experience no matter what prism of theology or no theology we adopt. I find theological belief; i.e., doctrine - gets in the way of a true unity in spirit. I recall that some early Quakers called doctrine "notions" because they were simply notions in the head of the person proclaiming them. The true reality is felt, experienced in silence where hearts are melted together in the All. Why do we need to insist on the same label for it?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by William F Rushby on 7th mo. 24, 2012 at 6:34am

Thanks, Forrest, for quoting the incident from Thomas Merton's memoirs.  It shows how superficial Quaker worship can be when we draw only upon our own meager resources. rather than those offered to hungry souls by the Son of God.  Stephen Grellet, the powerful 19th Century preacher and Quaker evangelist, often alluded to "the unsearchable riches of Christ".  Ephesians 3:8.  These are what we need to access in our meetings!

Forrest Curo said:

What can happen instead [Thomas Merton's account]:

“One Sunday I went to the Quaker meeting house in Flushing, where Mother had once sat and meditated with the Friends.  I sat down there too, in a deep pew in the back near a window.  The place was about half full.  The people were mostly middle-aged or old, and there was nothing that distinguished them in any evident way from the congregation in a Methodist or a Baptist or an Episcopalian or any other Protestant church, except that they sat silent, waiting for the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.  I liked that.  I liked the silence.  It was peaceful.  In it, my shyness began to die down, and I ceased to look about and criticize the people, and entered, somewhat superficially, into my own soul and some nebulous good resolutions began to take shape there.

"But it did not get very far, for presently one of the middle-aged ladies thought the Holy Ghost was after her to get up and talk.  I secretly suspected that she had come to Meeting all prepared to make a speech anyway, for she reached into her handbag, as she stood up, and cried out in a loud earnest voice:

 

"When I was in Switzerland I took this snapshot of the famous Lion of Lucerne…’ With that she pulled out a picture.  Sure enough, it was the famous Lion of Lucerne.  She held it up and tried to show it around to the Friends, at the same time explaining that she thought it was a splendid exemplification of Swiss courage and manliness and patience and all the other virtues of the watchmaking Swiss which she mentioned and which I have now forgotten.

 

"The Friends accepted it in patience, without enthusiasm or resentment.  But I went out of the meeting house saying to myself: ‘They are like all the rest.  In other churches it is the minister who hands out the commonplaces, and here it is liable to be just anybody.’” (Seven Story Mountain, Part I, Chapter 3.)"

[Quoted in a fine piece by Rich Accetta-Evans re the nature and source of Messages.]

Our responsibility to want to go deeper than this-- but only possible through letting God lead. Asking for that in confidence-- not that anything will come spoon-fed-- but that God is at work behind and within our efforts.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Olivia on 7th mo. 24, 2012 at 7:13am

Yes, it's difficult as I find that I agree with both Howard's perspective and Thomas Merton's.   We have no way to talk about ultimate Truth other than with words!   

Many times, people show by their words that they are not allowing the Ultimate to be at the Center.   Clearly this must not have been the case with Howard's elderly mentor.  I have also spoken with people who similarly model "that of God" for me and specifically "that of Christ" while their beliefs are outside of that.  But God/Christ is an Ultimate truth (in one of its incarnations). 

We don't all need to agree on the name of this Truth, but....  to the degree that we are not all seeking and submitting to ultimate Truth (a common bad habit for ALL of us), we really should be eldered by the community, brought into awareness of this.    I like that we can struggle together to define what we are talking about when we use words like "Christ" and "Buddha" and "non-theist," etc...   because we must ultimately be challenged as needed to seek and follow the Source of love, by whatever name it has given us.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Petter on 1st mo. 5, 2013 at 2:27pm

Please hold me in the Light as I attend a critical meeting of my Local Meeting tomorrow (6th 1st Month) in which we are due to consider my concern about the threat of non-theism. I seek support in asking to be invited to other Meetings simply to speak to remind them that Quakerism is a God-centred, Spirit-led religion, a denomination of Christianity. Several Attenders and even one Friend have been shocked, challenged and dismayed by this assertion. We in Britain have been very wrong to avoid making this plain, presumably in order not to deter newcomers.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David Nelson Seaman on 1st mo. 14, 2013 at 12:35pm

In the United States there is a history of Quaker thought converging with Non-Theism, although the term "Humanist" was used in its early  literature.   In 1939 a group calling itself the Humanist Society of Friends was incorporated, and seemed to have adopted the core provisions of the 1933 Humanist Manifesto.   What current non-theism seems to retain in its philosophy seems to mirror the same positions which came out of the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 ( which has been upgraded as the Humanist Manifeto III ).    I sense there is a shared terminology used by both humanist and non-theist.   Here, I think, are some of the key points of division which separate non-theism from traditonal Quaker leadings of the spirit:

 

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.  Humanist ( and I assume non-theists ) find that science is the best method for determining this knowedge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies.  We also recognize the value of new departures of thought, the arts and inner experience- each subject to analysis by critical intelligenc."

 

While there seems to be a acknowledgement of "inner experience", that of the spirit within, science and reason take precedent in the formation of our conscienceness and awareness in how live our lives, and much at the expense of our spiritual selves- something which they define as "supernaturalism".    I imagine that the cessation of the Humanist Society of Friends had much to do with it recognizing that its tenents and beliefs belonged in philosophy and not religion.   I can only surmise that current Non-Theist Friends groups share similar origins to that of the old Humanist Society of Friends.   While we cannot deny that reason and critical intelligence are important tools- and gifts- for us to use in our daily lives, removing that which is of God within us is no small trifle.    

 

   

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lawrence Cullen Jones on 1st mo. 14, 2013 at 2:44pm

I find myself drifting from classic/catholic Christianity towards  theistic universalism with a tint of Bahai.  Yet, I am strongly attracted to the practices of conservative Friends.  I do not dress "Plain," but I try to dress plainly.  I admire those who choose to live simply.  I believe in strict adherence to Quaker process.  I am put off by jovial, non-worshipful meetings for business.  In philosophic terms I lean to the orthopraxic,  but I am not orthodox.  I know there are others like me, but I am a sense of not quite fitting in traditional categories.  The search continues...

Nikolas Southwell said:

I couldnt agree more. Some people seem to want to turn the Quakers into a branch of the humanist society. Non theistic (atheistic) Quakerism is an oxymoron....and i think more of us need to take a stand on this!

 

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

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