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 Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 10:06pm: OK. It's not about excluding people; it's about being rightly centered. The exclusions tend to come when groups don't have a clear, agreed center. Our Friends of Jesus group is clearly and unambiguously centered on Jesus Christ. So we don't have a problem with having non-theists and other non-Christians participating, which we do. In fact, I would think we aren't doing our job if we only had deeply committed Christians participating because we are called to reach out. It's what Hugh Halter and Matt Smay (who are involved in teaching people about incarnational community) call having a "belonging before believing" approach rather than the "believing before belonging" approach of too many churches.

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 10:18pm: Forrest, I appreciate what you're saying, but I also think there's some value in cautioning against remaking Quakerism in our own image (a road that's well trod - for example, by such 20th century prominent figures as Rufus Jones and Jan de Hartog). Most of us have real problems with some aspect or another of traditional Quakerism, and this is just fine but I think we need to directly express that discomfort rather than trying to explain it away.

There's value in the contemplative way and there's value in the corporate worship way. The bulk of prominent contemplatives in the past were also involved in corporate worship (such as the monastics). Maybe I have misread Jim, but it seemed to me like he was advocating (albeit he did not express it explicitly in these terms) the inward silence as an alternative to the Quaker practice of corporate waiting expecting God to speak, often through one or more gathered, to the gathered body. I would see them as complementary not competitive, but that means they have different spheres.

Comment by Olivia on 10th mo. 15, 2013 at 10:25pm: Thank you William for the links. Thank you Jim for the book recommendations. I would LOVE to see you put together this anthology you mention with new insights and heart to let the authors speak for themselves.

Thank you William and Bill for the history -- I realize upon a re-read that Bill's earlier post said that the Progressives started as a response TO the Quietists, and not as part of the same movement.    William, your comments on the Hicksites' history and Lucretia Mott brings me through some of the areas that irk me the most (if it feels like all the great God-power without anything humbling and Divine attached...)

Jim says in the original post "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."

I have a rather unique perspective I imagine. At least I hope you will consider and share with me how this seems to speak or not speak to Quietism, Christianity, Nontheism, and just being Quaker.    Years ago I was not a Quaker but knew a little of them, not much. I was making a mess of things in my life and out of the stress of that I began daily "God-time" which consisted generally of an hour or more each day of a form of prayer I realized later is called Centering Prayer in the Catholic tradition. In my case it organically arose as focusing on only the word Christ when I found any thoughts wandering through. The discipline was either to let all thoughts go entirely, or when they rose to say only "Christ" to remind myself to keep to this center.

I found this practice excruciating but out of it, over time, strange and joyous things happened and mostly of the sort of knowing God's presence, feeling clearer on the nature of God, sensing things intuitively and in divine synchronicity, feeling energy flow through me and a longing to "lay hands on" people for healing....as well as an ability to sense the spirit of things, and receive clear divine conversation. Far too many divine things for us mere mortals to contend with and especially ones who make messes of their lives like me. I made a beeline for the Quakers....unintentionally but it happened rather emphatically nonetheless.

I was experiencing months of (years of?) feeling that this was not something I had ever learned, growing up in a faith community! No one ever told me about this! "This" being all of this divine Stuff and relationship and that it would happen in the silence, but also that it would only happen if i ever finally just stopped. While I was in that flow, others would see me as perhaps saying the right thing at the right time in some cases, or speaking occasionally with a divine strength.   Or having an "unnatural" calm or a good spirit, some uncanny knowing. I was told that I got along with EVERYONE, and this by someone I had "gone off at" (to my thinking) though the circumstance was more like I was centered and quiet until she insisted that it come out into the open and then when I gave her some truth-speaking under pressure she "broke" in what seemed a divine way... letting go of so much ego and pride that hat been hurting her in her job.   But I repeat that I fundamentally experienced all of this as Stopping.

I had stopped trying everything I ever had been trying to do. I had stopped moving on my own, caring about what I cared about, trying to handle this or that, trying to influence this or that. My role was complete STOP. I felt like an Ear, my whole purpose being to Listen. I felt that it wasn't even important what I heard but just "Listen". This was a huge, devouring and divine inner Silence.

It was in this inner rest that whatever happened happened, but I must say a third time. My only thing-to-do was to stop.   This is what moves me about what Jim sees in Quietism. But is also what moves me about Nontheist friends I have met in the last couple of years. I feel sometimes during meeting that they who call themselves nontheist are communicating with exactly what I am communicating with too.   That which I am worshiping is also with them.    I am feeling the complication of a leading....   I keep feeling most at home with Christians, no with nontheists, no with Christians.....   because I simply feel best when working for God, whatever God wants done....and my sense of God is now big enough to include the nontheists, and sometimes too big for the Christians....
and it feels like simple, restorative silence is perhaps all we ever needed.

As friend Forrest has stated elsewhere on this site multiple times in multiple ways though (and I believe in this thread as well) you can't make people connect with God in the silence, and they don't all do it.   And I never knew a thing about this until that day at about age 30 that led me to start just sitting.   Quieting everything. You can't make people connect with God in the silence, and you can't fault any of us for not understanding its potential.   But that doesn't change how really Holy and perfect that way is which requires us to silence all our clamor.

To me it seems like that was pretty much like Quietism on the inside (the only way a person practices a spiritual path, from the inside). But I can feel clear that "acting" like a Quietist -- learning and advocating Quietism as a social expectation of a group, itself an outward expression, seems to miss the point and perhaps result in the apparent "heresy" because one is not in practice being moved by the Spirit in both stillness and action.   But not a bit of it felt like action. Even the action only felt like rest. It can't be judged as rest or as action from the outside.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 16, 2013 at 12:48pm: Good Morning:

First, I was not offended by Bill's suggestion and I didn't take it as an invitation to leave. From Bill's perspective (that Quietism is a kind of heresy) his suggestion makes perfect sense. In fact it would be strange if he didn't offer that kind of suggestion. I have made similar suggestions to non-theists; so in a sense Bill and I are on the same page.

Here's where we differ -- I don't think the period of Quaker Quietism was bad, or something we need to leave behind, or somehow drained the energy out of the Quaker community. I suspect that we modern Quakers have been blocked from accessing this material on its own terms. My personal response to this period is a completely positive one; I like it much better than the current takes on the Quaker tradition. I find this period very nourishing and because I find it nourishing I am unwilling to dismiss it, or shunt its views and perspectives aside as something we need to leave behind.

I'm not exactly advocating a return to Quietism; more that I think that period has something to offer us Quakers today.

William noted that there was a serious decline in Quaker membership during the period of Quietism. He referenced the disappearance of Hicksite Meetings as an example. William, you are more learned in history than I am, but isn't it true that there was an overall decline in Quaker membership in the late 1800's. Couldn't the same be said about Conservative Meetings, as one example? In contrast, the rise of Meetings in the West, derived from Joel Bean, would indicate an upsurge in Liberal Meetings. And many Liberal Meetings practice silent, as opposed, to pastoral, gatherings. In other words, I'm not clear that the decline of membership among Hicksite Meetings is an indication of a rejection of Quietism as such; the decline seems broader and more complicated.

Olivia: You wrote that "You can't make people connect with God in silence." That is an important point. Silence is not inherently efficacious, nor does it inherently lead to holiness. What is needed is a vessel, a container, that holds the silence and gives it a holy function.

I think silence can be compared here to space. The space of a door allows me to enter and exit a room. The space of a teacup allows me to pour tea into it and drink it. But I can't use the space of a teacup to enter a room. If I dive into the teacup, I'll just break it. And I can't use the space of a door to drink tea; if I pour tea into an open door it will just spill on the ground or floor.

Similarly, the context of silent contemplation shapes its function. A prisoner in solitary confinement is silent; but that silence may be a form of oppression if the incarcerated is a political prisoner. But silence which is voluntarily undertaken resembles, I think, fasting. Someone who misses a meal because they have no food is simply hungry. Someone who misses a meal as a religious discipline may come closer to God. So, again, context shapes meaning.

In a gathered Meeting my experience has been that this context opens my heart to the Presence of the Lord. I think this is a reflection, or example, of the Lord's promise that where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name, He will be present. And it is true. Amazing!

More later,

Jim

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 16, 2013 at 3:57pm: Olivia, I connected U-U's to the Progressive movement, which at least in part was a response to Quietism. I didn't connect them to Quietism.

I would refer you to Quaker Theology at http://quest.quaker.org/ to find the articles with Chuck's research on Progressive Quakerism.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 16, 2013 at 7:59pm: I suspect that if a "progressive movement" was a 'response to Quietism' then the brand of Quietism that provoked that must have been 'dead' at the time. You have to consider that John Woolman was in important respects 'a Quietist' -- but this didn't preclude him being emphatically active in the world (though only 'as led.')

Going through the motions of Quietism wasn't enough; there had to be ongoing real connection in the faith that that connection was truly possible -- So that even their most heedless descendants would have recognized that connection at work. "Faith without works is dead" seems to be true in a very practical sense: a faith that's content to rest under a bushel just isn't going to light up very much.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 17, 2013 at 12:51pm: Good Morning Forrest:

My response to this is that the prayer of inward silence is an activity in the world. Activist Quakers create a dichotomy (a false on, in my opinion) wherein getting involved in various causes is 'activity', but sitting in silence is 'doing nothing'. I don't see it that way. Sitting in silence is doing something; it is an activity, just as much an activity as cooking, baking, and getting signatures on a petition. From the perspective of Quietism, it is the single most efficacious activity one can engage in to reform the world. Activists will find that view incomprehensible; I get that. Nevertheless, that is the Quietist view.

For example, in the 'Guide to True Peace' it states that inward silence is a perfect manifestation of evangelical precepts. For today's activity centered world, such a statement seems baffling.

In the 'Introduction' to the Guide by Howard Brinton (1949 and 1979 editions), Brinton notes that activists of all kinds will find the view of the Guide to be unsatisfactory. For today's Liberal Quakers it is a challenge to their basic assumptions. All the more reason to inquire into it.

Jim

Comment by Bill Samuel on 10th mo. 17, 2013 at 1:25pm: Jim, there is no necessary conflict between contemplation and activism. In fact, I think they are naturally complementary, and some of the best activists have been contemplatives because of the wholeness of the balance.

However, from what I have read of the way of Quietist Friends in the USA in a period bridging the 18th and 19th centuries, they often approached them as in conflict. It was treated more as a question of which avenue was faithful and effective than in a wholistic way. And Progressive Friends I think were inclined to be the mirror image of that.

A group of Christian Friends used to hold an Advent Retreat each year at an Episcopal convent. The sisters were divided so that some were in a contemplative mode and some in an active mode in a ministry to people suffering from AIDS and cancer. They rotated the sisters between those two roles. They were all involved in the same work, but in different roles at different times. I found that very interesting and creative.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 17, 2013 at 1:42pm: Jim, the problem is not with being contemplative but with being QuietIST. (And let's please stop patronizing one another, okay?) Alan Lew (not a Quietist Friend but a Buddhist Jew) has a book titled Be Still and Get Going -- which is basically what Moses had to say when Pharaoh's chariots came gallumping over the hill and everyone was wondering what to do about that.

I don't want to fight for or against 'Quietism'; I can trust God to let people know what approach is appropriate to each moment if they can only remain attentive to self, others, & those gentle swats from God.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 17, 2013 at 1:59pm: Hmm; Forrest, I am not aware of being patronizing. We don't see eye to eye; but I'm OK with that. I don't think I was talking down, just putting forth the Quietist view. I understand you don't agree with that view and you share that dislike with most Quakers today. Personally, I find the Quietist Quakers to be inspiring, nurturing, and worthy of emulation.

Bill, there is a book by Merton called 'Contemplation in a World of Action' which touches on some of these issues. Merton wasn't a Quietist (though he had a high opinion of Fenelon), but he was inclined to see that contemplative approach as worthy in itself; not as a phase or a tool for a better kind of activism or engagement. In any case, I understand where you are coming from as you write clearly and to the point. Needless to say, I have a different take.

Peace,

Jim

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
…
3
4
5
6
Next ›

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.