Comment by Martin Kelley on 2nd mo. 18, 2011 at 8:51pm

Before this conversation begins, let us remember that this is just a website and not a line-drawer. These sorts of boundaries are drawn by yearly meetings, sometimes explicitly but sometimes just implicitly by their internal culture. Every yearly meeting will have different lines and there is not likely to ever be a "Quaker" answer.

Comment by Isabel Penraeth on 2nd mo. 18, 2011 at 9:17pm

Nikolas--

Thee may be able to find like-minded fellowship at the UK branch of the New Foundation Fellowship.

Isabel

Comment by Nikolas Southwell on 2nd mo. 19, 2011 at 9:26am

Thank you Isabel

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 19, 2011 at 12:27pm

I think that God had led us to let these people in; and they've proven to be utterly good people (as if that were the point, as they imagine!)

 

God, as Jesus described Him, does not draw lines in deciding who to help. Whether admitting an untheist to the Society of Friends will help him all that much I can't say, and the influence on the Society is dubious... but we do as best we can.

 

What draws a "nontheist" to join a Meeting?-- I can't imagine. Few human beings are utterly consistent, least of all in their religious beliefs!

Comment by Geoffrey Gilmore on 2nd mo. 19, 2011 at 10:14pm

Drawing lines and saying that anyone should not be a member of the Society of Friends now seems to be a foreign concept to many, but it was not always so.  At one time, we shared common beliefs and discipline, and one who was not in unity with the society could be disowned.  While reading several old books of discipline, I several times have come across the following explanation for this (here quoting the 1802 London discipline):

 

"...such as continue to despise and reject the convictions of truth, and the counsel of their brethren, and refuse to be reclaimed, may be made sensible that they themselves are the sole cause of their separation from our religious fellowship and communion.  For when any by their inconsistent and disorderly conduct, or by imbibing and adopting principles and practices contrary to the doctrine which we have received, have first openly manifested their disunity with the society, it is but just and requisite that, after endeavouring and waiting to restore them without effect, the body should testify its disunity with such erring and refractory members; at the same time earnestly desiring that they may be convinced of the error of their ways, and that through unfeigned repentance, and a consistent, orderly conduct in future, they may be reunited to the body.  This being the utmost extent of our discipline respecting offenders, it is very evident, that from the right exercise thereof no degree of persecution or imposition can be justly inferred; for the imposition rests entirely on the part of those who insist on being retained as members, whilst at open variance with the body either in principle or practice."

 

Certainly atheism would be at variance with the principles of Friends, as would many other things which are openly practiced and believed in the "Society of Friends" today.  If it were possible to reclaim the society of Friends to its own beliefs and practices, then we should try to do so, but I fear that

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 2nd mo. 20, 2011 at 5:26pm

I've spent almost 24 hours trying to discern if or how I should respond to this thread. With some trepidation, I think I'm ready to try.

I need to state  from the beginning that I share Nikolas Southwell's confusion as to why nontheists and atheists would want to attend or join the Religious Society of Friends. This does not mean that I would try to ban them.

However, it seems that there is an elephant in the room and, in the tradition of liberal Friends, we're doing our best to avoid it.

There is a inherent contradiction in rejecting the concept of God and wanting to be part of a religious community rooted in a practice that seeks an unmediated experience of the Divine. There are many positions and reactions to this, but no true dialog that seeks clarity for all parties.

I understand that many are drawn to the promise of community with like minded people who share core ethics. Is that enough?

What is the fundamental identity of the Friends? Have we begun to make idols of our testimonies while ignoring the roots they spring from - Christ (or whatever name/word you prefer to insert) as the inward teacher, the unmediated experience of the Divine and prophetic witness?

As we welcome nontheists into meetings, will respect and acceptance be reciprocal? When I hear nonthiests uses phrases such as "we have evolved to the point where we no longer need God talk", "we are the ones who embrace science" and "those of us who are not drawn to the supernatural", I wonder how they view those of us whose experience is very different. I find the implications hurtful and intolerant of  my core spirituality. When I am asked not to use the words God and Christ in meeting (and yes, this has happened to me), then I am not allowed to speak from my experience. Is that Quakerism?

Can both sides show openness and acceptance?

 

Comment by Forrest Curo on 2nd mo. 20, 2011 at 10:46pm

It is difficult to respect beliefs that are simply mistaken (and equally so with beliefs someone simply believes to be mistaken) and I'm not sure I could make a good case for doing so.

 

What is needed, I think, is the attempt to avoid insulting the intelligence of people with wrong beliefs-- I resent it when "nontheists" do it to me, and I try to avoid doing it to them. They've got convincing reasons to see things as they do.

 

They don't believe that I understand their reasons-- although I myself accepted those reasons up through about age 17-- or that they are misinterpreting what I know as "God", misinterpreting what I say about the life that led to me receiving 'a clue' as to the nature and presence of God, missing the implication of our universal human experience of experiencing anything whatsoever.

 

They tend to deny that there is anything spiritual to be known, any means of knowing it, any value in the effort.

 

So what do we have to share? The elephant is not only in the room; it is crowding out anything that isn't equally gray & pushy!

Comment by Rosemary Gould on 2nd mo. 21, 2011 at 11:07am

I am very fortunate in belonging to a liberal meeting that has been completely accepting of Christian ministry from me, so I don't know that I can answer your question, Nicholas, about meetings where there is a majority that doesn't accept it. I don't know why they want to be that way. But as far as having a line drawn, I can only say I feel very grateful for just about every person who attends my meeting, whatever they believe. As the years go on, I am blessed with more and more affection and understanding of each of them. In spite of periods of tension or misunderstanding, I don't want them to leave. They belong to the meeting because they find something there, as Forrest said. I believe we are there not only to be in relationship with God, but also with each other. You never know how anyone's contribution is working in someone else.

I think the burden is on those of us who do know God within us to speak from the heart in the words we're given regardless of whether we expect to be rejected or not (if we are led to ministry). Even though no one has ever tried to silence me, I have often felt embarrassed after speaking--embarrassed by my emotions and vulnerability, embarrassed to be always talking about God's love. My ego speaks up inside with warnings about how sentimental, childish, and maybe even a little crazy I probably sound to many Friends. My ego also really wants to carefully craft mini-sermons that demonstrate my knowledge of Biblical scholarship, my engagement with social justice advocacy, etc. I am consistently not allowed to practice this kind of ministry (which is very common in my meeting, and which I did indulge in before I recognized that I shouldn't) by my guide. My experience has been that in a meeting where "love and unity are maintained among us," it is possible to see the subtle workings of the Holy Spirit all the time. There may only be one inspired message du

Comment by Rosemary Gould on 2nd mo. 21, 2011 at 11:08am

There may only be one inspired message during a particular worship hour and many messages where Friends respond to what is said and felt (or so it seems to me). But I am sometimes led to spend time in silence reflecting on the past and noticing how that one meeting for worship planted a seed which may still be bearing fruit years later in the meeting community.

I have this idea about Jesus's metaphors about himself. He compared himself to many things: a good shepherd, the only son of a landlord, living water, a vine, a door. Each of the churches I've attended have seemed to me to have some of the qualities of one of these metaphors. Naturally, Catholic churches make me think of bread and wine. Evangelical churches are like a wild grapevine. Liberal Friends are like a door. It's a bare old door, a little run down perhaps, and there's nothing written on it (except maybe a peace sign!). It doesn't shut very easily. To many it just seems like an empty space where there's no nourishment. Yet there's a steady trickle of strange folks who see that door and think, “that's the one for me.”

It's not that meetings can't go wrong. Of course, we go wrong all the time. It's not that we don't benefit from winds of renewal and passion; from young people, for instance, demanding more of us. We have lots of areas that cry out for improvement, but for me that improvement doesn't involve shutting the door or asking anyone to leave because of what they believe. I think this inclusiveness is integral to what God wants from Liberal Friends.

Comment by Paula Deming on 2nd mo. 21, 2011 at 1:56pm

Dear Friends,

The question is, "where do we draw the line?" I have my idea of where it should be drawn, but I wish to say how glad I am that the line was not drawn for me at "a-theism/non-theism/agnostic." I was raised agnostic, and was terrified of the spiritual feelings I was having. Our Society gave me a safe place to explore my feelings. And over time, my understanding of the Divine has come to a point that I can now call myself deeply religious.

It was tolerance and love that helped me.

And it is tolerance and love that we must remember as we greet others into our midst. Continually.

And we draw the line at intolerance from anyone, including those who would demand we stop using religious words that they don't like. We overcome intolerance in our midst with love.

What's very challenging is encountering a meeting where the vast majority of members are intolerant of God. Then, is my love through God enough to allow me into community?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page