QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

The Heresy Of Silence

The Heresy of Silence

Recently I was looking at a Protestant website because it had some articles on the Bible Version Issue that I am interested in. I noticed that the site also has articles on other topics. One of the articles was about the heresy of silent prayer. The site referred to silent prayer as a ‘Roman Catholic’ practice that good Protestants should not indulge in.

I found this interesting because silent prayer, or more accurately the prayer of inward silence, has often been labeled a heresy by the Catholic Church and has been the subject of investigation by the Inquisition during several periods of its history. Both the Alumbrados in the 1500’s and the Quietists in the 1600’s were condemned by the Catholic Church and the advocates of those movements pursued by the Inquisition. One of the charges leveled against advocates of inward silence by the Inquisition is that they were actually crypto-Protestants. Nor is this simply an historical relic. Quietism is still an official heresy for the Catholic Church.

From the Catholic perspective the issue is that the prayer of inward silence bypasses the necessity for a sacrament-based worship. In addition, the prayer of inward silence bypasses the need for intermediaries such as priests and saints. The idea here is that inward silence draws us to God, or makes us aware of God’s presence, and that therefore we do not need to engage in outward ceremonies in order to practice the presence of God.

From the Protestant perspective, the prayer of inward silence bypasses the strong emphasis the Protestant movement has placed on rationalistic theology. The prayer of inward silence is explicitly non-conceptual. Furthermore, one does not need to be an Arminian or Calvinist or a Lutheran or etc., in order to practice inward silence. For those Protestant traditions that place a high value on theological correctness the prayer of inward silence would appear to be an heretical approach.

I suspect also that the prayer of inward silence is viewed as subversive to the teaching of sola scriptura, only scripture, which is such a significant part of a Bible-based approach to Christianity. In the Quaker tradition the experience of the inward light, found in the practice of Silent Worship, is the foundation upon which scripture is interpreted. This was also true for the Quietist Madam Guyon, whose commentaries on scripture are grounded in the experience of interior silence. In a sense, those who practice the prayer of interior silence view scripture as a vast and extended metaphor or allegory for the experience of inward silence. This contrasts with a rationalistic approach to scripture, which is non-metaphorical, and views allegory as a kind of betrayal of scriptural truth as allegory and metaphor undermine the necessity for a literal interpretation of scripture.

In both the Catholic and Protestant traditions outward forms take precedence over the experience of inward silence. In the Catholic tradition the outward forms are a system of sacramental ceremonies whose efficacy rests upon intermediaries to the divine. In the Protestant tradition the outward forms are systems of creedal beliefs deduced from scriptural study. Both approaches seek Christ in the world of sensory and/or mental experience.

As a Quaker I see the application of the prayer of inward silence in the Quaker tradition, and why it marks the Quaker tradition as distinct. Just as Catholics would predict, the Quaker tradition has minimized, or done away with, outward, or ceremonial, sacraments. Even such broadly agreed upon ceremonies as baptism and the Lord’s Supper have been removed in the Quaker tradition, displaced by the centrality of inward prayer. And from the perspective of Protestant theology, the Quaker tradition’s offerings are meager. There is such a thing as Quaker theology, but in comparison to the vast and meticulous systems of thought found in Calvin, Luther, or Arminius, Quaker theology is pale. In the history of Quaker thought, Barclay’s ‘Apology for the True Christian Divinity’ still remains the singular work of what is recognizably systematic.

Quaker writing is not weighted to the theological. Quakers write a lot, but the writing tends to be Journals, occasional essays, and letters. These are records of the life experiences of Quakers rather than chains of deductive reasoning. In the Journals I have read there are, at times, theological insights; but I rarely find the kind of tightly reasoned syllogistically based networks of abstract thought upon which systematic theology relies.

So in a sense I can understand both the traditional Catholic and the traditional Protestant view that the prayer of inward silence is heretical. If one defines orthodoxy in terms of outward ceremonial forms, then the prayer of inward silence, a formless land from which all forms spring, will not support such an approach. And if one defines orthodoxy as agreement with and adherence to a system of beliefs and deduced consequences, then the prayer of inward silence, a silence that is beyond all affirmations and negations, will not support such an approach.

On the other hand, if one wishes to enter the heart at the void of the world, to dwell in the presence of eternity, to journey into the kingdom of God that is found within, a kingdom which is not of this world, then the prayer of inward silence will show the way.

Jim

0 members like this

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 1:00pm: Olivia wrote: "This is the first time I have heard of UU-inclined people being connected to Quietism and opposing activism. I do feel that they tend to want to hear the PC, non-Christian version of one's faith story / have their knee-jerk reactions."

I think that you are conflating two divergent groups of liberal Friends into one category, which then doesn't make sense to you. During the 19th Century, "classical Hicksites" tended toward Quietism. They valued silence in worship so much that nurturing spoken ministry was often neglected. Meetings sometimes went for months or years with no preaching. Their meetings declined, and young people found the lack of spiritual vitality particularly discouraging.

When spoken ministry was particularly desired, as when outsiders were present at funerals, they tended to call in John J. Cornell, Sunderland P. Gardner, Benjamin Hallowell, John J. Janney or other acknowledged ministers to cover this weakness in their spiritual life.

It was this group, including none other than Elias Hicks himself, who looked askance at fraternizing with non-Quaker political reformers, whom they regarded as worldly. For the most part, this group did not subscribe to orthodox Christology, but they were by no means U-Us!

Lucretia Mott and others like her became influential in the latter half of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century. They were secularists in their religiosity, downplaying or eliminating altogether God, Christ (but not "the blessed [human] Jesus"). These Hicksites tended to reject a recognized ministry. They were frequently elitists: college professors, or at least highly educated. Social reform was their primary agenda. Having diminished the role of the sacred in their religious life, they found it reappearing among Hicksites in the form of Spiritualism!! Seances! Trance states! Communications from the dead!! You name it!

These folks usually allied with the Progressive Friends, but many also maintained their ties with traditional Hicksite meetings and institutions. Eventually, the Hicksites became so thoroughly "progressive" that the Progressive Friends were reabsorbed into the Hicksite fold, although the Progressives had originally been a schism. This faction of Hicksites identified very closely with U-Us.

For Chuck Fager on Lucretia Mott, see http://quest.quaker.org/issue-10-mott-CEF-01.htm For Chuck Fager on the Progessive Friends, see http://quest.quaker.org/issue3-4.html

Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 1:36pm: William: Quaker history sure gets complicated!! Thanks for the clarification about Elias Hicks. I have become more and more fond of Hicks, even of his eccentricities.

I want to note briefly the way you comment on silent meetings. You put it that 'nurturing spoken ministry was neglected.' This, to my mind, is one way that modern Quakers negatively evaluate Quaker Quietism. If, instead, you think of these Meetings as cultivating inward silence and opening themselves up to the dimensions of that inward silence and stillness, then one sees this in a different light.

I remember running across an online Evangelical, Quaker, brief history of Quakerism. The history had a very negative view of Quietism. Hugh Turford was specifically mentioned as an example of the low level to which the Quaker tradition had sunk because (and this is relevant to your point) Turford noted that his Meeting had gone for 26 weeks with no vocal ministry. Now, the thing is, Turford didn't see that as negative or as a lack. And neither do I.

Of course if vocal ministry is central to one's views, then these silent Meetings would be looked at as lacking something. If, instead, one views accessing the silent presence of eternity, of God, as central, then the absence of vocal ministry is not distressing.

My point isn't that you are wrong and I am right; but that we project onto the period of Quietism our own understandings of what is most important in Quaker Faith and Practice. I am attempting to access this period in a way that allows the Quietists to speak for themselves so that I can hear what they have to say. For example, what did Quietists have to say about silent Meetings and how did they respond to criticisms of them? I want to hear their own voice on these matters instead of what modern Quaker historians have to say.

Thanks,

Jim

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 2:49pm: Quaker worship is distinctly different from contemplative silence. The lengthy periods without any vocal ministry may be indicative that these meetings had become contemplative meetings, rather than practicing traditional Quaker waiting worship.

Contemplative silence is the inward way. It is an I-Thou relationship, and doing it in corporate settings is for mutual encouragement. Quaker waiting worship has a distinctive we-Thou character, and has quite a different feel. I am in the situation of being a member of both an unaffiliated church which encourages contemplative silence, and a Quaker group which practices waiting worship, so I am keenly aware of the difference.

Contemplative silence is valuable. However, it is not Quaker worship. I would suggest you look for a contemplative group near you, rather than trying to remake Quakerism in a contemplative image.

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 2:51pm: Hello, Jim! The demographics of Hicksite Quakerism are more telling than my own preferences/prejudices. The Hicksites, under the influence of Quietism, were a failing religious movement. Several yearly meetings disappeared during the quietist period, and there was a very low level of morale among the young people.

To cite a case in point, in southeastern Ohio, the Hicksite Ohio Yearly Meeting became extinct. One old meetinghouse remains, but the others have disappeared or been repackaged for other purposes. Even the Conservative Friends have done better than that! There is simply no way to argue that meetings with little or no ministry prospered spiritually!

When Elwood Conrad of eastern PA appeared in the ministry, he was recognized at a young age. The young people in Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Hicksite) loved his ministry. Elwood was very orthodox in theology, however, and was "frozen out" of the Hicksite yearly meeting. He became a Philadelphia Orthodox Friend, and then a conservative. See http://www.quaker-chronicle.info/members.php?memberID=444

The *Friends Intelligencer* from the first decade of the 1900s published several laments from Hicksite Friends in Indiana about the lack of spoken ministry in their meetings. They definitely felt that something was lacking!

It is one thing to let the quietists speak for themselves. It's another to look at the statistics and at what contemporaries feel about the spiritual state of their meetings.

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 3:14pm: Bill Samuel wrote: "I would suggest you look for a contemplative group near you, rather than trying to remake Quakerism in a contemplative image."

Now wait a minute! I am not ready to urge Jim Miller out the door anytime soon. All we are doing here is dialoging, not passing judgment on anyone's suitability for further involvement.

Having said all of that, I do think Bill Samuel's characterization of Quaker worship is valid.

Comment by Olivia on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 3:31pm: Of Bill's comment which I thought for a moment was pointed at me, but am more shocked to find pointed at Jim....

Yes, I'm of the perspective that if God wills me to find ways to work with the Quakers and where they are going and be a part of their magic -- then great! We will all affect one another. If on the other hand, I need something different than where the Quakers are going and God has not given me the ability to create the change I need within this group and I have already left because of that (Bill is that your situation?).... it seems a lack of recognition of God's greater will, humbling us, to suggest that those who remain are on the wrong path. It seems more likely that God-within-that-group (God who is the Divine power behind everything) is continuing to speak but in ways that I have grown unable to appreciate.

I do believe that those of the Christian persuasion have quite a lot of growing up to do in today's world. The Divine / God has decided to bring in folks who show us (if we will let them) that in sheer silence God can move even through them who we could not move with words! The Divine / God has decided to bring in folks to the Quakers who will show us that God's self is present to us as gay people -- gay people who aren't just tolerated or loved-as-sinners but who are perfectly in God's image just as they are. The Divine / God has decided to bring into the Quaker fold people who are very clear that they are non-theists but whom frequently seem more spiritual than the theists I know.

What a privilege to be in this place, at this Divine "cutting edge" able to learn something new!

I say this as someone who could feel more located in the heart of Christ (if intentions count for anything, which they don't, but mercy prevails)....but who recognizes in the midst of these nontheists that there is a powerful lot of Divine stuff already at work. I am continuously humbled by the possibilities that I feel unequipt for, and depth of God-within-them which speaks out so strongly though frequently outside the "boxes" I have wanted to fit God in.

I am aware that if I can't cut it here with Liberal Friends in their current incarnation, it is I who is out of touch with the Divine reality already at work. I think the only good I can do them is if I continue to recognize that they are already filled with this Divine. Bill, did it become to hard to do that here? If you were lead elsewhere for good sustenance you needed, that is very fair and I'm glad you have gotten it.

Comment by Olivia on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 3:39pm: By the way, a typo -- and it was a stupid sentence to try and state anyway but to say it correctly "I say this as someone who couldN'T feel more located in the heart of Christ (if intentions count for anything, which they don't, but mercy prevails)....but who recognizes in the midst of these nontheists that there is a powerful lot of Divine stuff already at work.

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 6:28pm: I didn't urge Jim out the door. I did suggest he not try to reframe Quakerism as a meditation group, and that he might seek out a contemplative group. These usually do not meet Sunday mornings, so they aren't competitive with attending a Quaker meeting.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 8:27pm: Woooooof! Rather than trying to define 'what is Quaker and what is not', a problem which seems to have long ago escape definition -- would it make more sense to concentrate on 'what works better (for "what"?) and what is less effective'?

My own experience with a group of Silent Unitarians is that 1) God must have gathered them for a purpose and must be accomplishing it but that 2) the 'psychic atmosphere' of a group of people with nothing to say about God or their own connection to God (or no language in which to try to convey it) is kind of stifling to me.

I have also observed that we get a fair number of visitors but not many people who return frequently or at all. "He who doesn't join with me scatters"? This is definitely a 'bring your own' party and my feeling is that it's gotten way too sober.

Comment by Olivia on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 9:07pm: Thanks for the clarification, Bill. You unintentionally gave me the opportunity to grapple again with an uncomfortable leading I feel following me around. It usually shows up as fighting for Christ among nontheists and fighting for nontheists among Christians. Am still working on what to do with it. Your comments brought out my mothering-the-nontheists instinct. Thank you for not urging Jim out the door.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.