Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 19, 2015 at 2:42pm

Mike, thanks for thy response.  I found it clear and it makes sense to me.  In fact, I find it inspiring.

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 10th mo. 19, 2015 at 4:29pm

Hello Mike. A verse that came to mind while reading your ideas about reducing identity to "a few culturally identifiable markers" was Gal. 3:28: "There is no such thing as Jew and Greek, slave and freeman, male and female; for you are all one person in Christ Jesus." This verse denies the validity of using cultural, political, or sexual markers to identify ourselves or others. The apostle does, however, uphold one distinction: whether or not one is "in Christ Jesus."

Paul goes on to discuss the difference between the two states of being:  in Christ, or not. He uses metaphors: on the one hand being slaves to elements of the natural world;  minors who haven't received their inheritance; and subjects of the law, on the one hand. On the other hand, being in Christ is having become sons of God; having received our inheritance; and having been freed from under the law. Paul ends the passage delineating the difference between "in Christ" and not in Christ by cautioning against returning to cultural observance. Being in Christ is not a cultural function; it is existential.

Paul distinguishes cultural identity from spiritual identity. Cultural, racial, sexual, national, cultural religion all create useless, superficial categories, which should be cast aside. But the one category that Paul upholds as actual and relevant is whether or not the human being has come into his completion: that is whether or not he is "in Christ."

I appreciate your awareness of the difficulty of claiming to be a Christian when you believe that others will think that you blindly accept doctrine and/or approve of abusive use of power by deceitful, corrupt people who claimed the title of Christian. I feel that it is essential to my faith and person to speak the truth that I've been given, regardless of how others perceive it. Some may be convinced; many will not. Some will use the horrors that were perpetrated in the past to reject what one says; some will hide under that cover while perhaps not even to themselves admitting the real reason for their rejection of the message of Quaker Christianity (As Jesus said, "men preferred darkness to light because their deeds were evil" [Jn.3:19].

We are "to shine as lights, holding fast the word of life, and this should be every true christian's duty and practice" (Works: ii, 106). If more people did this, there would soon be less concern about the demise of Quaker faith, and the emptiness that accompanies it. 

 

Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 19, 2015 at 5:18pm

Hello Mike,

Would I be mis-representing you if I were to say you do not have an issue with the process of identity, meaning, purpose, etc. anchored in religious and secular beliefs, ideologies, practices, and institutions in itself. It is merely that you take issue when people use are so identified with outward constructs that they exclude other people. Furthermore, would I be incorrect in suggesting that that you identify with a principle or rule of inclusiveness? If so, why is it okay for you to "want" others to not set up identity boundaries exclusiveness when you yourself set up the identity boundary of inclusiveness? Is it not possible that imposing the outward principle of inclusiveness is exclusive?

Comment by Mike Shell on 10th mo. 23, 2015 at 8:18am

Keith:

Is it not possible that imposing the outward principle of inclusiveness is exclusive?

LOL [no offense meant].

I'm not advocating a "principle" of inclusiveness. I'm simply saying that the whole of reality is the whole.  There is nothing which is not part of it.

Thanks,

Mike

Comment by Mike Shell on 10th mo. 23, 2015 at 8:20am

Jim Wilson:

Mike, thanks for thy response.  I found it clear and it makes sense to me.  In fact, I find it inspiring.

Thank you, in turn, Jim, for helping me to clarify what I'm struggling to articulate.

Mike

Comment by Mike Shell on 10th mo. 24, 2015 at 10:54pm

Thank you, Patricia. You write:

Being in Christ is not a cultural function; it is existential.

Yes. It is not about assertion of a belief system—or, as Fox would call it, "profession." It is about opening one's heart to the real nature of Creation.

In his latest book, How to Read the Bible and Still Be a Christian, John Dominic Crossan writes in reference to the Wisdom tradition in the Old Testament:

Wisdom reveals to us our created destiny, discloses for us our created identity, with its rights and responsibilities. To reject Wisdom is not to break an external law and bring about divine punishments, but to destroy our internal character and bring about human consequences. (126)

Being "in Christ" means being willing to let oneself become ever more open to that inward identity to which we are created, in the "likeness of God," an innate awareness of the justice and compassion with which Creation is infused.

Blessings,
Mike

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 10th mo. 25, 2015 at 2:01pm

Hello Mike: I agree fully with your statement that "it is not about assertion of a belief system--or, as Fox would call it, 'profession.' "And Crossan's words about "our created identity, with its rights and responsibilities" jumped off the page with significance! I would also add that Wisdom discloses not only the rights and responsibilities of personhood, but also its limitations, and it's there that I begin to feel a difference in our understanding.

Quakerism has been affected by Greek humanism, which is different in its conception of Man from what we find in primitive Christianity and its revival in 17th century Quaker faith. It's a complex topic, and I've found Emil Brunner does a good job of explaining the difference between the two conception of Man. If you care to read his lecture "Man in the Universe," you can find it here: http://www.giffordlectures.org/books/christianity-and-civilization-....

I think that the Liberal Quakers' misrepresentation of Fox's words "that of God in every one" can be laid at the door of Friends having adopted the Greek conception of Man. For the Greeks, Man rises above the animal to Nous or the Logos, whereas in the Biblical conception of Man, he is a creature, a product of God's will. God is Man's Lord and Creator, and through Him only is Man restored from total, utter alienation--not, as the Greeks would have it, by a gradated rising of awareness accompanied by virtues. 

Here's one paragraph from that Brunner lecture: 

In Biblical revelation the continuum of primitive mind is disrupted in an entirely different manner. A three-fold barrier is erected here: the barrier between God and the world between God and man and between man and nature. God is no more the immanent principle of the world but its Lord and Creator. He the Lord-creator alone is divine. Everything which is not Himself is creature product of His will. Therefore He is opposite the world; His essence, His divine being is other-than-world; He is the Holy One.1 That is why He does not allow Himself to be depicted in any form: “ Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image nor any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above or that is in the earth beneath or that is in the water under the earth”. But now—and this is the second barrier—it is not merely the nature-image of godhead which is forbidden to man but equally the man-image. By that same character of holiness by which God is distinguished from nature, He is also distinguished from and placed opposite to man. Man in spite of every thing he has and is with all his spiritual as well as natural powers is not divine. He is a creature. The barrier which separates God and the world also separates God and man.

Comment