Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
Why do you think so?
Did you have something else in mind? Or were you thinking we should be given more to do? Aside from making better-than-nothing facemasks for local hospitals (which some of us have done)?
Forrest: I am puzzled by the lack of comments! MennoNet, in contrast, is bursting with discussion of the crisis. It isn't that I need more to read; it's more a matter of trying to understand what makes Friends tick, an abiding interest and concern of this sociologist.
Consider what makes you tick; and you'll probably be close?
Quakers seem to be split by theological loyalties; but much of the divergence seems to be more in words than attitude. The major split is probably political; and even there I'd say the bulk of "Liberal" Friends are dismayingly "conservative." [I say "conservative", because to really conserve what needs saving, we'd need to change a great deal of what we tend to cling to instead.]
What works to kill off a discussion site? The sort of discussion this site has been dominated by for the last (?) months?
There's a lot of discussion going on in various Meetings' email lists.
Forrest Curo said:
"Consider what makes you tick; and you'll probably be close?" Actually, I am very much on the fringes of the Society of Friends. The "center of theological gravity" for Friends is quite liberal, and I am conservative, so an analysis of my mindset wouldn't even be close to representative of Friends!
" The major split is probably political" Could you explicate this for me?
"What works to kill off a discussion site? The sort of discussion this site has been dominated by for the last (?) months?" I have only returned to active participation in QQ since January or so, and that because the site didn't seem to generate much dialogue. So I wonder what "sort of discussion" you are referring to.
I also feel very much on the fringes of the Society of Friends. It's not that theologies can be 'liberal' or otherwise; but there are correlations. There's a tendency to theological vagueness on the political left and to verbal rigidity on the political right; while copping to some direct knowledge of God can offend both the secular and the conventionally pious.
But being on one fringe or another of this bunch of outliers is almost a traditional Quaker role, yes?
The tacit common religion of this age is politics. (Even, and particularly so, when people imagine themselves to be neutral or "apolitical.") People don't trust God to give us the government we deserve (as, alas, He does.) They imagine they can somehow figure out the levers of power and work them towards a desired result; but the actual results of such strategies tend to be dreadful or short-lived. People typically "believe" or "don't believe" one theological idea or another; but it's the political issues they seem to find most important.
The site hasn't been generating much dialogue because, um -- There's this poem by LoVerne Brown that describes the sort of interaction that I think has set the tone: https://lovernebrown.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/talk-with-that-man/ -- -- Maybe I'm wrong about that. But an awful lot of interesting people have drifted off, for some reason.