QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Convergence Movement/ The purpose of Quaker Quaker

A few weeks ago, someone posted a question that I had not time to address. When I had time to return to it, I found that the link to it no longer worked...it had been removed. Since there was nothing offensive in the query, I could not understand why it had been removed. Perhaps only because no one had answered it.

The man stated his confusion about the site; that he had understood it to be for those interested in finding out more about the traditions of Friends, for Convergent Friends, that is. However when he got here he found that most people posting had little or no interest in the traditional ways of Friends. (I'm sorry, I cannot recall his precise words, forgive me if I have misremembered and correct me).

I would have liked to address that because I have also found it to be the case. I understood the site to be predominantly by and for Convergent Friends, promoting a serious look at older traditions that have fallen by the wayside and to rediscover the direct experience of the early Friends and that of Primitive Christianity. Perhaps I have been mistaken in my understanding of Quaker Quakers intented purpose? I primarily understood Convergent Friends to be mostly Liberal Friends who were amenable to more tradition, or newcomers brought by an interest in traditional Friends but not totally willing to leave all of modernity behind (at the other end I included Traditional Friends who were amenable to GLBT rights, but not to a sexual free-for-all, that is, they approve Gay Marraige or are leaning toward it). When I first arrived, I did find some of that here, to my great joy. Over time, however, I have also noticed it's increasing disappearance.

Some of my favourite posters have stopped posting and the some of the posters appears to be going in the other direction completely. There are not a few posters who are coming from more traditional, or perhaps even fundamentalistic backgrounds who are here looking for a more liberal expression. They have some excellent things to say, of course, and provide a good warning for what types of traditions we might wish to avoid but, given their unpleasant experiences, they tend to be fearful of any return to "tradition" This is understandable, of course, but it begs the question; with so many other websites and blogs devoted to people leaving Christianity, or fundamentalist/traditional churches, why have you chosen to post on a site mainly for people who want to explore some of those traditions and perhaps renew some of them? Why come here?

Those are a minority, of course, the majority of posters appear to be Liberal Quakers fully intent on staying Liberal on all matters. Most of those are harmless and appear to think of Quaker Quaker as simply a "thinktank" for all varieties of Quakerism. Some, however, seem intent on launching a full-scale attack on all attempts to reconsider tradition's merits. Their language is contemptuous and sarcastic, they openly mock persons who by opinion or life choices do not agree with them. They harangue more traditional posters with constant argument. Bluntly, they are quite hostile.

This proves to make posting difficult for those of more retiring and meek personalities and also for those seeking to acquire those personalities. Yes, after a lifetime in the World, encouraged by example and forced by the needs of survival, many of us have acquired personality traits we wish we did not have. We too, have learned to be cutting and sarcastic, competitive and pushy. As the World has become less civil it becomes more and more difficult to survive without the hard shell these traits give us for protection and to become the open, vulnerable, compassionate and unstriving people we would much rather be. The meek may be destined to inherit the Earth but not, it appears, the blogosphere, where a sort of social darwinism rules the day. That is actually an insult to Mr Darwin, who used the word love some thirty times more than the phrase survival of the fittest, but it is a case of survival of those persons and memes that are most aggressive, certainly. The one who can verbally bludgeon the others into submission, wins.

Yes, it is true that we who wish to un-learn those traits must un-learn them in spite of a harsh world. We cannot forever avoid it short of monasticism but we come here seeking an island of peace and simplicity amid the world, a place to practice, for even a moment, letting down our guards. It is supremely ironic that instead we often find more hostility to ourselves here than we find in the outer world! People often do stare at my old-fashioned (but not traditionally "Plain") dress but in the outer world they often smile, or point to me and say with excitement, "See! There are still Mennonites!". To them, I am a mere curiousity, but among Quakers, it seems, I am often a subtle threat to all they believe in. As a result, I often feel a sense of vague anxiety when reading posts, or worse still, considering posting anything amenable to tradition. From where will the next attack come?

I find, at times, I am reluctant to post or answer. Worse yet, as I sub-consciously steel myself, I find it hardening my heart. The barbed tips of coldness, aloofness and sarcasm rise up on my hackles as instinctively as a porcupine's quills rise on it's. I suspect from the diminishing amount of traditional posts and their increasingly being found only in the ghettos of the subgroups "conservative", "christian" and "plain" that I am not alone. "Quietism" and "withdrawl/separation from the world" are two of the traditional traits that are often a source of contempt for more Liberal and activist Quakers, so the great irony is that the behaviour of those who seek to stamp them out only makes the people interested in those ideas more convinced of the need to withdraw from the World than ever. People who were contemplating stop merely contemplating, and those who only wanted a short withdrawl to catch their breath decide never to return.

I do find it very strange that people who promote freedom and diversity should be so antagonistic to those few who use their freedom to chose not to partake of that freedom and diversity. We find ourselves accused of all manner of things....turning back the clock of progress, being fascist conformists, setting back womens rights and promoting their second class status, and worst of all, of plotting to force or at least coerce all of you into being just like us. I do not have any such wish, nor do I seek out persons to convert who have not expressed interest on their own, I can only wonder whether this is some sort of projection, since it is abundantly clear that there are some who would quite like to rid the world of us. Indeed, it has been openly stated on more than one reply that people should not be permitted to use the Plain Speech or wear Plain Dress....in the name of freedom, they would put a stop to a non-conforming minority. Freedom of speech may not end where tradition begins, but there are those busy making the road to it as pitted and bumpy as possible within legal limits. Those who defend the free speech of other groups from even the slightest censure or disapproval are mysteriously absent, or among those who can tolerate us only if we have the decency to be silent and invisible.

Again, this begs the question...you knew when you joined up that there would be people here interested in tradition, including Plain Dress and Speech, as the moderator is one of the New Plain Folk himself. Of the literally hundreds of sites and blogs devoted to Liberal Quakers, Pagan Quakers, Queer Quakers, Punk Quakers, Marxist Quakers and every other sort of Quaker in existance, what brought you here? (Those in the aforementioned categories who do have an interest in some area of tradition are not included in that question.) If you have zero interest in Primitive Christianity, or any sort of Christianity, or any sort of tradition....if indeed, you are horrified by the mere idea of even a few people rolling back the hands of time and bringing about The-End-Of-Civilization-As-We-Know-It.... then why on earth are you here?

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 14, 2011 at 4:57pm

This may be what you were looking for? Her profile settings keep much of what she says from showing up in "Latest Activity."

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 12th mo. 14, 2011 at 5:18pm

Dear Friend Joe, you were most certainly not among those I was thinking of when I wrote. Excepting the part about pointing out some of the pitfalls that tradition can get stuck in, you do not fit the profile in mind. I have always found that you valued tradition overall, and unlike me, you seem not to have had the misfortune of picking up the bad habits of modernity, like sarcasm, and are entirely civil....a benefit of a more traditional upbringin You have always appeared to be questioning certain doctrines and beliefs, not tossing out the baby with the bathwater.Most of the doctrines you question are ones I am equally ambivilant about.

Sorry, I`ve no idea how I made that text giant or how to fix it...

Joseph Stalnaker said:

Here, Here, Dear Friend...

I second this posting, and certainly would like to apologize if in any of my posts I have seemed to come across as one who does not value tradition.

Permalink Reply by Karen Mercer on 12th mo. 14, 2011 at 6:02pm

No, it was a man who posted, but not on a blog, though she seems to be on a related thought....more theological than mine. I am more along the lines of traditional behaviour, values, speech and civility than beliefs per se.

It really deserves a post of it`s own, but I am addressing a generation gap of sorts. There are many Friends (and liberal religious persons generally) who are still fighting the good fight of the 1960s and 70s, in which Tradition and Authority were some of the main targets, being viewed as propping up unjust conditions (sometimes true). Regardless of their actual age, they view a return to anything of the past, and any authority as suspect. I used to be one of those persons in many ways, though without the knee-jerk reaction to all authority.

They have overlooked or been shielded from the fact that the world of Gen X, Gen Y and even more so Generation Next, is vastly different. The things Boomers fought for we grew up with. We are fighting a very different fight. Most of those reevaluating tradition are 45 years of age or less, and the younger they are, the more there are of them, or soon will be....that growing demographic makes it crucial to develop an understanding. Some people are unwilling to do that, and instead react to the new traditionalists as if they were the old order come to life for a moment, necessitating a violent reaction.

I am almost totally indifferent to the theology or philosophy of it, except insofar as it promotes either pro-social or anti-social behaviour, or promotes or destroys community.

Forrest Curo said:

This may be what you were looking for? Her profile settings keep much of what she says from showing up in "Latest Activity."

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 14, 2011 at 9:10pm

If the person subsequently signed out of the site, anything they had posted before that would disappear. Not intentional, just a built-in feature of the software that maintains the site.

"Boomer" is one of those words I find pretty unintelligible. As with various other media constructs of one "generation" vs another.

But if you're talking about those of us caught up in various movements of the 60's-- You certainly did not "grow up with the things [we] fought for." An end to: war, militarism, unacknowledged theft of foreign labor and resources, racial conflict and injustice, economic oppression, the lies (whether overt or implied) of the propaganda system, criminogenic drug policies... and the tyranny of materialism... If you grew up with these things ended, it must have been in another country.

My disagreement with the various traditionalisms of the Quaker movement is basically: that these things are not, and can't possibly substitute for, connection with the Living God. Nor can lack of traditions.

I don't know, but strongly suspect, that much of the appetite for 'traditional practices' among us comes down to this: People who haven't gained mystical connection through an SoF dedicated to Good Causes and liberal ways-- hope to find what they've been missing by reviving lost traditions. But if those traditions could have preserved the One Needful Thing among us, we wouldn't have so many people feeling a lack.

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 14, 2011 at 9:38pm

(Sorry-- I put that first sentence badly: If the person subsequently removed himself from the site. "Signing out" means something far less drastic.)

Permalink Reply by Isabel Penraeth on 12th mo. 15, 2011 at 4:09pm

Karen--

It has been my observation, that I have not bothered to test in any valid or reliable way, that people sometimes have the most energy to post about things that challenge/annoy/anger them. There is a lot of energy to put oneself forward in anger and fear, and as thee notes, it can keep calmer people away in droves.
It has always been my habit to avoid posting anything anywhere online unless I felt the Lord strengthening me to do so . . . and if I have posted more in the past and less now, it is because the Lord has offered me fewer openings and proddings that I should put myself forward online. Nonetheless, when I do feel led to post, I confess to more anxiety now than in the early days of QuakerQuaker, knowing that, depending on what I feel led to post, there will be at least one if not more hostile responses. Or that there will be no response at all, which can also be unpleasant.

But, I would like to address something of what Forrest Curo said above . . .

I don't know, but strongly suspect, that much of the appetite for 'traditional practices' among us comes down to this: People who haven't gained mystical connection through an SoF dedicated to Good Causes and liberal ways-- hope to find what they've been missing by reviving lost traditions. But if those traditions could have preserved the One Needful Thing among us, we wouldn't have so many people feeling a lack.

Comments like this expose a "God can't work that way" mentality that feels an almost willful refusal to understand the spiritual experiences of those Friends who go plain or use other traditional practices. The suspicion, or assumption, is that the "appetite" for traditional practices isn't or can't be coming from God. Personally, I didn't pick up plain dress to revive it or because I hadn't gained mystical connection in the RSoF. I became a plain Friend because when I begged God to tell me what I was supposed to do, what he said was to become a plain, full-on outer-bonnet-wearing, Conservative, Christian Quaker. It didn't matter to me if I was the only one or one of 100,000. It was what I was supposed to do, and the fruits that have come of it have more than proven that God was right to demand it of me and I was right to be obedient.

It is easy for those without that sort of guidance to presume that picking up these outward habits are an intellectual exercise, or that even if it is some kind of spiritual exercise, it is not coming from a deep place (as a spiritual direction from God, and therefore a sign of obedience) but from a shallow place (human-centered attempts to access the Divine).

More than just guiding me to personally adopt plain-dress Quakerism, God further led me to put together a website to support others who feel led to go plain, one I honestly anticipated would be useful to me and about 10 other people . . . . but which has proven to be more useful to a broader swath of spiritual seekers than I could have imagined. So it is my belief that, for whatever reason, God didn't want plain dress to entirely die out as a spiritual practice among Friends. Certainly there are shallow ways to engage in any spiritual practice, but, believe it, plain dress *can* be a spiritual obedience, a spiritual opportunity, and a spiritual requirement.

Isabel

(Quaker Jane)

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 15, 2011 at 11:46pm

As the judge said at a trial I was starring in: "If [Forrest] felt that God wanted him to wear ruby red slippers to court... he would have to do it."

Yes, I do understand the difference between leadings and (what a recent article about Quakers called) "leanings." And didn't mean to disparage anybody else reviving a tradition because of an intuition that this was God's intention for them.

But I'm also seeing a lot of people talking about "traditions" as if traditions, in themselves, were the essential anchor holding people to God's will.

So. One more time:

Traditions, innovations-- no matter. Utterly irrelevant. God leading us to tradition, or God leading us to innovation: crucial.

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 16, 2011 at 1:22pm

Friend Karen:

Thank you for posting this. It speaks my mind and speaks to my mind. I have often felt hesitant to post and/or to respond. And I am wondering if those who wish to explore more traditional Quaker Ways might need a forum of their own. I suppose it could be a sub-forum here at QuakerQuaker. Or perhaps some other venue. I'm not sure (being basically a techno-peasant I lack the relevant knowledge).

My own ongoing interest in Quietism among Quakers, and with contemplative manuals such as 'A Guide to True Peace' connects me with the Quaker past, but at the same time seems to distance me from the Quaker present. It's odd: I feel more and more connected with the Quaker tradition, but less and less connected with how Quakers currently see things. I'm not complaining, just describing.

Part of what I think has happened is a substitution of political involvement and commitment for spiritual grounding. I mean that I see traditional Quakers as grounding their political callings/leadings in spiritual experience, informed by broad understanding of and familiarity with the Bible. Here's an example: on another forum there was a thread devoted to the opposition to war. Some strongly liberal oriented Quakers argued that this was a matter solely for individual conscience, and not a central part of the Quaker tradition. When I countered with quotes from older Rules of Discipline (which stated that support of war was grounds for disownment) it simply meant nothing to the liberal Quakers who argued, like Forest, that tradition is not binding (no one said it was). In other words, they simply substituted their own opinion and then declared their opinion to be 'Quaker'. Such a line of reasoning cannot be countered as it is based on an exaltation of the individual, an exaltation foreign to traditional Quaker Faith and Practice.

I would also like to add something about the peculiar habits that marked the traditional Quaker Faith and Practice. As a former Buddhist, I am aware that the Buddhist monastic institution has lasted for over 2500 years in a form that has remarkable continuity. It is precisely because of the distinctive habits (of dress, diet, and behavior) that this institution has been able to survive and function in an important way in the Buddhist world. Other Buddhist traditions have come and gone, but the monastic tradition retains its integrity. One could say the same for some forms of Christian monasticism.

And to bring it closer to home, and out of the monastery, the Anabaptist traditions have been able to maintain their presence in the world precisely because of their particular customs.

It is my suspicion that the loss of the modes of dress, speech, and other forms of plainness, have made it more difficult for the Quaker tradition to maintain its other commitments, that the two work together. In a sense the customs like plain speech, plain dress, etc., are like a vessel which serves to hold the other commitments.

Thanks to both Karen and Isabel for your thoughts.

Thy Friend Jim

Permalink Reply by Isabel Penraeth on 12th mo. 16, 2011 at 3:04pm

Forrest Curo:

But I'm also seeing a lot of people talking about "traditions" as if traditions, in themselves, were the essential anchor holding people to God's will.

I'm honestly not seeing a lot of (Quaker) people talking about traditions this way and I'm wondering if thee can point me to those discussions . . .

Isabel

Forrest Curo said:

As the judge said at a trial I was starring in: "If [Forrest] felt that God wanted him to wear ruby red slippers to court... he would have to do it."

Yes, I do understand the difference between leadings and (what a recent article about Quakers called) "leanings." And didn't mean to disparage anybody else reviving a tradition because of an intuition that this was God's intention for them.

But I'm also seeing a lot of people talking about "traditions" as if traditions, in themselves, were the essential anchor holding people to God's will.

So. One more time:

Traditions, innovations-- no matter. Utterly irrelevant. God leading us to tradition, or God leading us to innovation: crucial.

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 16, 2011 at 7:18pm

I'm honestly not seeing a lot of (Quaker) people talking about traditions this way and I'm wondering if thee can point me to those discussions . . .

If thou looks nearby... thou might find someone implying that attention to God wouldn't keep us to the 'peace testimony' unless we had this tradition... but where does he think that tradition came from? From Who?

Why does he talk about someone who knows neither God nor peace, and blame that person on lack of "tradition"? Why, if not for God, would anybody care?

Permalink Reply by Isabel Penraeth on 12th mo. 16, 2011 at 8:39pm

Interesting. That isn't how I interpreted what he said at all . . .

Isabel

Forrest Curo said:

>

I'm honestly not seeing a lot of (Quaker) people talking about traditions this way and I'm wondering if thee can point me to those discussions . . .

>

If thou looks nearby... thou might find someone implying that attention to God wouldn't keep us to the 'peace testimony' unless we had this tradition... but where does he think that tradition came from? From Who?

Why does he talk about someone who knows neither God nor peace, and blame that person on lack of "tradition"? Why, if not for God, would anybody care?

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 17, 2011 at 9:27am

Friend Forest:

Internet communication is kind of tricky, and I am clumsy at it. I'm sorry if you read my post as some kind of critique of liberal Quakers, because I belong to a liberal meeting and love it. I guess I would ask of you some generosity; meaning that perhaps a question or two about what I wrote would be conducive to communication, rather than drawing some kind of cynical conclusion.

My observation is that you have an ongoing hostility to the idea of tradition and I just don't get understand that perspective. We have different relationships to tradition. I see tradition as the foundation on which the Quaker tradition stands and, from what I have read, you seem to see it as something to overcome and discard.

And, incidentally, I did not say, nor do I believe, that individuals who disagree with me 'know neither God nor peace'; that isn't where I was coming from.

Best wishes,

Thy Friend Jim

‹ Previous
1
2
3
…
10
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Quakers

View All

About QuakerQuaker

QuakerQuaker is a community of Friends exploring Primitive Christianity Revived: plain witness, ministry, beliefs. Quaker blogs, photos, videos & gatherings. Learn More.

Subscribe in a reader
Get daily emails
Facebook
iTunes / Podcast
Twitter / Twitter Quaker List