Can Friends argue? When we are at our most Quakerly best, do we never argue with one another, never present positions supported by reasons or evidence, anticipating that we may well hear alternative or counter arguments also supported by reasons or evidence?

 At times that appears to be the view of Friends, but that doesn’t seem right to me, so here’s an argument for arguments. 

 First, the case for the other side, as best I understand it. 

 “I was not aware that 'arguments,' with connotations of rhetoric and reasoning, are part of Quaker spirituality,” writes a Quaker in a comment on a blog post I wrote. He continues, “For sure there is a period of threshing when these things are given space but once aired give way to a clearness process based in waiting worship.”

 He’s saying, I take it, that there is a way we should seek the truth, and it doesn’t involve the giving and taking of arguments. Instead, it involves putting ideas on the table, perhaps in a fashion that others might call brainstorming, but then sifting through those ideas in waiting worship. And in waiting worship, we don’t ever say how we disagree with one another. Rather, listening always for the promptings of the Holy Spirit, we discern a small particle of a right idea voiced by one, next we voice a way to grow that small particle into a larger right idea, and then we continue in that fashion until a way forward has been grown together by the group into something that all can affirm in unity. 

 Yes, I say, this is how we work together in waiting worship, seeking the truth. Arguing is no part of that process that Friends hold so dear. 

 So the question for me is whether gathering in stillness in waiting worship, listening for the promptings of the Holy Spirit, is the one way, the only way, by which Friends can seek the truth. Or might there be other ways? 

 For me, that leads me to wondering whether and how Friends value reason, the extraordinary capability that humans have that other earthly living creatures do not – or that humans have to a much greater extent than other creatures.  Is there a place for reason in discerning the truth? If so, does that place for reason fall within waiting worship or is that place for reason outside of waiting worship?

 And so, for me, this opens up into a very old and very large question that Christians (also Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, etc.) have been considering for millennia: what is the relationship (if any) between spirit and intellect or between faith and reason? Are they convergent roads to the truth, or does a commitment to seeking the leadings of the Holy Spirit mean that one should lay down the use of reason?

 For me, spirit and intellect are complementary.  (It was reading Etienne Gilson’s majestic Reason and Revelation in the Middle Ages [1938] that first opened this question for me.)  Certainly there are those who reject the leadings of the spirit, and certainly there are those who reject the use of reason, but I am drawn to embrace both.  Also drawn to embrace both are those who write – or read – books of theology or Bible interpretation (etc.!).

 Of course those Friends who have founded or sustained educational institutions – schools and colleges – must believe that there is harmony to be found between intellect and spirit. 

 I often find myself leaving meeting for worship with fresh questions I want to explore or puzzles I want to think about. Sometimes I enter meeting for worship with my mind abuzz with things I’ve been thinking about that don’t quite fit together and leave with a clearer sense of things.

 Must the use of reason involve argument? There’s a pejorative sense of “argument” and a more positive one. When arguments become unceasingly negative, when it seems that vanquishing others rather than find truth is the goal, then we are surely talking of arguing in a way that should find no favor with us. 

 But arguments at their best involve the giving and taking of reasons and the mutual sifting of evidence with an eye towards finding the truth. 

 So yes, I want to say, Friends can argue with one another, constructively and productively. At the same time, not all things can be known through reason. For these others we need to wait on the Lord to show us what we can understand. 

Views: 261

Comment by John March on 10th mo. 25, 2012 at 7:58am

Thanks for this Doug.  I like how Elias Hicks thinks of reason. While useful on its own,  as one's measure of Light increases reason is more and more an aspect of the Light like charity or compassion.  It is this activity of reason as love that takes us out of argument and into expectant waiting and eventually clarity and wisdom. 

Comment by James C Schultz on 10th mo. 25, 2012 at 10:14am

I think you covered the question pretty thoroughly.  By reasoning with another you get to see all the pitfalls or aspects and ramifications of each course of action - then when the right solution appears it's a eureka moment as the missing piece of the puzzle.  I think you have to know what you are looking for in order to recognize it when you see it.  Reasoning gives us an understanding of what we are looking for.  Thanks for the post.  Thoughtfullness is always appreciated.

Comment by Chris Nugent on 10th mo. 26, 2012 at 8:55pm

Reason can be an extremely useful way to open a topic or to implement a solution, but ultimately Spirit leads.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.


You can also make a one-time donation.

Latest Activity

Keith Saylor replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Awareness of the impulse and self-evident presence of the spirit of Christ in the conscience has…"
2 minutes ago
Forrest Curo replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"If everyone were continually consciously aware of the presence of God, we wouldn't need…"
16 hours ago
Keith Saylor replied to Forrest Curo's discussion 'Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?'
"Through the power and presence of the spirit of Jesus Christ in my conscience and consciousness, it…"
yesterday
Forrest Curo posted a discussion

Scriptures: Can't do with them; can't do without them?

[This is from my reaction to a discussion re George Keith on facebook. Thoughts?]The core…See More
2nd day (Mon)
Forrest Curo commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
"As I understand it, a lot of young men -- being young men -- went off eagerly to join in a battle…"
2nd day (Mon)
Rainer Möller commented on Rainer Möller's blog post 'Quakers unto the Civil War'
"As Wikipedia tells us, Whittier wrote a book "In War Time" 1864. Has anyone here read it?…"
1st day (Sun)
Rainer Möller left a comment for William F Rushby
"Hi William, thanks for the reminder of Wikipedia. They don't tell us much, but I see that…"
1st day (Sun)
William F Rushby left a comment for Rainer Möller
"Rainer |Moller describes himself as "Not literal enough to a good Anabaptist. Not liberal…"
1st day (Sun)

© 2020   Created by QuakerQuaker.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service