Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 12, 2010 at 2:39pm

"Somebody has to stay home so there'll be someplace, different from other places, for people to travel to."

I think that Fox's objection was to religions that fail to connect people to God, sometimes even serve as obstacles to that. If he'd seen different religions as different means for connecting people-- made by God for that purpose, and tending to supplement each other when examined in God's light-- he might have felt otherwise.

But any mode of worship that fails to connect people to God-- even sitting quietly for one hour/week in folding chairs-- he would surely have denounced!

Comment by Tom Smith on 10th mo. 12, 2010 at 3:02pm

I suspect that what Fox might have meant, which seems to fit with other proclamations, that "religions" were/are reflections of the culture within which they exist. The "WORLD's" religions rather than God's "religion."

Comment by Rosemary Gould on 10th mo. 12, 2010 at 3:47pm

Fox pointed us to an inward religion, a worship which doesn't settle for anything less than the presence of God. At the same time, he didn't seem to recognize that it was possible to find that experience anywhere other than in the form he practiced. But it's not the mode of religion that determines whether grace is present or not. So I agree with you. If a Quaker like Fox had come to my Catholic church and thundered at us all that we had the form of religion but that all our ritual was empty and vain, I would simply have felt offended and ignored his advice. I knew it wasn't true, you see. And yet Fox's challenge to seek a deeper communion is a living challenge for all of us all the time, nevertheless.

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 10th mo. 12, 2010 at 4:24pm

I am afraid it is not entirely accurate, and really an unkindness, to say that George Fox did not recognize that "it was possible to find that experience anywhere other than in the form he practiced." The excerpts below are from George Fox's Journal.

"The Governor, with his wife, received us lovingly; but a doctor there would needs dispute with us. And truly his opposing us was of good service, giving occasion for the opening of many things to the people concerning the Light and Spirit of God, which he denied to be in everyone; and affirmed that it was not in the Indians."

"Whereupon I called an Indian to us, and asked him whether when he lied, or did wrong to any one, there was not something in him that reproved him for it. He said there was such a thing in him, that did so reprove him; and he was ashamed when he had done wrong, or spoken wrong. So we shamed the doctor before the Governor and the people; insomuch that the poor man ran out so far that at length he would not own the Scriptures."

And specifically, George Fox could speak to the Truth in people of other denominations, even Catholics, Papists as he called them, without them being so completely offended that they ignored him:

"Some Papists were at this meeting, one of whom, before he came, threatened to dispute with me; but he was reached and could not oppose. Blessed be the Lord, the Truth reached into the hearts of people beyond words, and it is of a good savour amongst them!"

Comment by Chronicler on 10th mo. 13, 2010 at 4:26pm

I have been struggling with this posting for two days, because I feel that it creates a dichotomy that need not exist. I don't know Kevin, and I don't want to hurt him, so I have tried to find the right words with this response.

In the northeastern USA, a new element has emerged in the accepted mythology about George Fox. I first heard it about two years ago during a presentation about early Friends. The presenter said that Fox created a religion based on his own quirkiness that would regulate the lives of other people in perpetuity. Since attending the lecture, I have heard this idea repeated over and over in the area where I live. Kevin did not specifically repeat it, but his posting suggests that he has heard it, too.

George Fox did not create a religion to regulate the lives of other people. In several letters published after his death in his eight volumes of writings, he responded to requests for direction about local Quaker squabbles. In these letters, he could have said (as the eastern mythology suggests) "Do as I do and be as I am." Instead, he said over and over that Friends should direct their attention to their daily, inward Teacher who would give them the Light and guidance they need. Also in at least two of Fox's letters, he said that he was glad when monthly meetings began to emerge so that Friends would meet under Christ's guidance rather than sending him letters asking for him to dictate what they should do. Fox said on many occasions that his role in life was to bring people to the foot of the Cross and to leave them there. For we preach not ourselves but Christ Jesus the Lord, and ourselves your servants for His sake.

In terms of Quaker folkways, little of what "traditional" Friends do today existed in Fox's day. The two most common types of vocal participation in worship of the 17th century are rarely heard in worship these days, mostly in pockets where the more "traditional" Friends live - the type of autobiographical speaking during worship that most Friends experience today is mostly a 20th century phenomenon. Today's "plain Friends" wear clothing that is closer to the standard Quaker clothing of 1850 than 1650, with a few minor exceptions (particularly the type of gray men's hats that predominate today, which come from the 1725-1750 time frame). Few Friends today wear the clothes that Fox wore; few speak with his accent; few have read any substantial portion of his extant writings. I am not aware of any Friends with a concern to live with the technology that Fox knew, to limit themselves to reading the materials that Fox read (remember that Fox preferred the Geneva Bible!), or to only travel in the ways that Fox travelled.

Fox had a clear understanding of the role of religion in one's life. During his day, most denominations believed in a marriage of church and state. The turmoil of the century preceding Fox was mostly a struggle among the Catholics, Anglicans, Presbyterians, and Congregationalists for control of the ecclesiastical apparatus that was recognized by Parliament. The three leading groups that sought freedom from political control over religion were the Quakers, Baptists, and the Independents. Thee may recall that in 1659 Fox was offered the post of leader of the English government (the equivalent of the Prime Minister today) but turned it down. We are Christ's friends if we do what He tells us to do, not what the government or someone else tells us to do. True spirituality is not emulation but rather thy responding to the Lord's promptings.

If thee wants to be like George Fox, thee needs to allow the Light of Christ to be thy ever-present Teacher, rejuvenating thy life and directing thee along the path to new life. This is what Fox preached.

Comment by Tom Smith on 10th mo. 13, 2010 at 6:28pm

It does seem apparent the early Friends did not intend to "regulate" every one. One of the most eloquent early Friends, Isaac Pennington, wrote in 1659:

"Oh how sweet and pleasant it is to the truly spiritual eye to see several sorts of believers, several forms of Christians in the school of Christ, everyone learning their own lesson, performing their own peculiar service, and knowing, owning, and loving one another in their several places and different performances to their Master, to whom they are to give an account, and not to quarrel with one another about their different practices. For this is the true ground of love and unity, not that such a man walks and does just as I do, but because I feel the same Spirit and life in him, and this is far more pleasing to me than if he walked just in that track wherein I walk."

Comment by Rosemary Gould on 10th mo. 13, 2010 at 6:50pm

Thank you all for these messages. They are very humbling and helpful to me.

Comment by Rickey D. Whetstone on 10th mo. 15, 2010 at 12:49am

Kevin

I agree with you. We should be striving to be more like our creator . . . than living after a man .. . and holding on to human traditions.

One would think . . . after all these years of spending time with our creator . . . the Quaker movement would be spiritually . . . light years ahead of other religions.

I wonder how many Quakers . . . including George Fox . . . would have followed Jesus . . . right after the sermon on the mount message . . . about loving our enemies . . . and bless those who curse you. This message clearly points to a loving God . . . not the angry God that George Fox imagined and preached.

Jesus was driven by love. George was driven by fear of an angry God.

I would hope that everyone can see the vast difference in the two lifestyles.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 15, 2010 at 8:35pm

Rickey, it's good that thee knows God better than thee knows George Fox.

But it wouldn't hurt to know and understand GF better!

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 10th mo. 15, 2010 at 10:05pm

William Penn gives a beautiful Testimony about the life of George Fox, but some highlights:

"He was of an innocent life, no busy-body, nor self-seeker, neither touchy nor critical: what fell from him was very inoffensive, if not very edifying. So meek, contented, modest, easy, steady, tender, it was a pleasure to be in his company. He exercised no authority but over evil, and that everywhere and in all; but with love, compassion, and long-suffering. A most merciful man, as ready to forgive as unapt to take or give offense. Thousands can truly say, he was of an excellent spirit and savour among them, and because thereof the most excellent spirits loved him with an unfeigned and unfading love."

and also

"In all these occasions, though there was no person the discontented struck so sharply at as this good man, he bore all their weakness and prejudice, and returned not reflection for reflection; but forgave them their weak and bitter speeches, praying for them that they might have a sense of their hurt, and see the subtlety of the enemy to rend and divide, and return into their first love that thought no ill."

"And truly, I must say, that though God had visibly cloathed him with a divine preference and authority, and indeed his very presence expressed a religious majesty, yet he never abused it, but held his place in the church of God with great meekness, and a most engaging humility and moderation. For upon all occasions like his blessed Master, he was a servant to all, holding and exercising his eldership in the invisible power that had gathered them, with reverence to the head and care over the body, and was received only in that spirit and power of Christ, as the first and chief elder in this age; who as he was therefore worthy of double honour, so for the same reason it was given by the faithful of this day; because his authority was inward and not outward, and that he got it and kept it by the love of God and power of an endless life. I write my knowledge and not report, and my witness is true, having been with him for weeks and months together on diverse occasions, and those of the nearest and most exercising nature, and that by night and by day, by sea and by land, in this and in foreign countries: and I can say I never saw him out of his place, or not a match for every service or occasion."

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page