Though held, to some extent or Quaker "measure", by persons, as Heraclitus, before the Christian Era and others, as John Locke, before the U.S. Bill of Rights, just try finding this appellation in an abridged/collegiate dictionary. When I Google-searched, 5 out of the first 12 listings were musical references. Like matters of the heart, a sacred trust is better sung of than defined.

That's what's so peculiar about this anomaly for the peculiar people known as Quakers.

Not only is the "Light Within" as close to a doctrine as Friends have, but it is believed to be universally applicable. In other words, peoples and nations answering not to an organization, as U.N., or to an arrangement, as détente, but to "that of God in everyone" as a sacred trust.

Still, the concept is better appreciated graphically or, as those of us over 50 years of age would say, by way of a painted picture. The one of which I'm thinking has one uncreated hand, with extended fingers, reaching out to touch another, albeit created, hand that seems lethargic or, as youngsters might say, lame. This masterly, anthropomorphic depiction of the creation of man is ridiculous, however, to prominently wealthy patrons of a sensible management of inheritance, as the Quaker mercantile aristocracy of the 18th century.

To such, worth needed to be proven and investment, though often risky, went only to the industrious. Often opted for, then, was the secular doctrine of "held in trust". Alas, the choice of which doctrine-like reality to embrace is still being made via lethargic hopes for humanity's redemption/salvation, as "held in trust" by God. Others dare to look to the unconditional love that reaches to the very heart of humanity. Given to us already as "a sacred trust", it is life, if not world, transforming.

Which do/will you choose, dear Friends.