Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 4th mo. 25, 2010 at 4:45pm

Specific doctrines. Read Barclay for the details; it comes out of the Puritan notion that the Fall messed people up so badly that anything "natural" in them must be corrupt: in the case of a newborn baby, not actually "sinful" yet but so inclined that it could be expected to do something wicked soon enough.

The dream that John Woolman-- certainly as "active" a Quaker as anyone could expect-- had toward the end of his life, in which he overheard angels saying that "John Woolman is dead," which he took to be converying the welcome news that his own [presumed corrupt] "will" had died.

I'm not as familiar with Hicks, but expect he too was adhering to the Light, not as "an experience" to be devoted to, but as the Guide to seek about any action he might feel called to.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 5th mo. 1, 2010 at 10:10am

Thanks, Forrest, for responding. Catholic condemnation of quietism has to do with the understanding that quietism undermines the necessity for the sacraments. Quietists such as Molinos were accused of advocating an approach to God in which sacraments did not play a causal role. Molinos can be read that way and Christian mysticism in general seems to offer an approach to the divine outside of a sacramental context (I'm thinking of "Mystical Theology" by Dionysius the Areopagite).

The Quaker tradition as a whole minimized exterior sacraments and I think that this is where one finds the connection between Catholic Quietism and Quaker Quietism. Is that the kind of doctrinal position that you are referring to?

Thanks again,

Jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 1, 2010 at 11:13am

The direct connection was that the Catholic quietists were very popular reading among Friends. But the belief that natural humanity is so corrupt as to be only redeemable by something akin to Divine Possession was a big part of the attraction...

"All that is not God will be found to be vanity and falsehood, and consequently we find both of these in ourselves. What is so vain as our own heart? With what delusions do we not deceive ourselves? Happy is he who is thoroughly undeceived, but our heart is as vain and false as the outer world; we must not despise that without despising ourselves. We are even worse than the world, because we have received greater things from God. Let us bear patiently if the world, with a hidden retribution, fails or misuses us, as we have so often failed or mistreated God, doing despite to His Spirit of grace. The more the world disgusts us, the more it is furthering God's work, and while seeking to harm us, it will help us." (Fenelon)

Certainly the Catholic quietists were disapproved by religious professionals for the same sort of reasons that Quakers were; they undermined the notion that sacraments were limited to the specific sacraments the professionals recognized and sought to monopolize...

The Unprogrammed Friend sacrament is Sitting Around Without Talking For About A Hour Once A Week. It seems to be as useless-- or as good-- as crackers blessed by a priest. That is, someone who intends to tune himself closer to God by means of it can probably do so.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 1, 2010 at 11:52am

An even better example of Fenelon: "Let all mankind prove themselves to be mere men-- that is to say, nought save falsehood and sin. Let them be carried away by the torrent of iniquity. Still God's truth will not be weakened, and the world will but show itself as more hateful than ever in having corrupted those who were seeking after virtue."

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric H-L on 5th mo. 6, 2010 at 8:29pm

Jim,
Let me preface my remarks by a disclaimer. I am not very familiar with Quakerism or Christianity or Quietism. I just started attending Meeting a few months ago. That said, I have finished reading the new Buckley edition of The Journal of Elias Hicks. I had trouble figuring out which of his beliefs made him a Quietist. Here is my best shot (and I prepare to stand corrected by those who really know.) Hicks centered his life on listening to what God wanted him to do...in the big decisions and the small, and tried to faithfully follow these instructions. He believed that Friends qualified to minister should speak to "those not of our profession" but that Quakers should also not become so chummy with their neighbors that they start to act like them or be afraid to live their testimony for fear of offending them. He also seemed to oppose most (although not all) political activity.

Like you, I was struck by how frequently Hicks offered vocal ministry, often at length, both in Friends Meetings and appointed meetings with non-Quakers. However often he rose to speak, Hicks's journal makes clear he never appointed a meeting or spoke unless he was called to by God. I tried to keep track of how often he sat a Friends Meeting silently. Not very often...and more common in his home meeting between travels. (Interestingly, I can't remember one instance of him sitting an appointed meeting in total silence. However, he does caution ministering Friends not to feel forced to offer vocal ministry when a group unacustomed to Quaker ways feels uncomfortable with the silence.) He must have had an amazing gift of ministry!

The introduction makes the point (and the journal confirms) that although Hicks felt strongly that Friends should not use any products produced by slave labor and should work as individuals against slavery, he was against Friends "mixing with the world's people" by joining abolition societies.

Hicks may have believed that the inner light was the central way that humans learned what God wants, however, the introduction and the footnotes throughout the journal make it clear that he was formidably familiar with the bible and alluded to it constantly.

Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 5th mo. 7, 2010 at 10:43am

Eric,

I am also new to the Quaker tradition. I have a Buddhist background, so, like you, I come to the Quaker tradition as a newly convinced Friend.

It is also unclear to me just what Hicks believed that gets him labelled as a quietist. I'm beginning to think, more like speculate, that the term 'quietist' was used by Evangelicals as a way to dismiss those they opposed. In other words, it seems to not have much actual content or specific points that one can reference. I think it means something like 'people who don't sing or place a strong enough emphasis on externals such as rituals and sacraments'. Beyond that I can't figure out what people specifically mean by it.

On the other hand, I find the literature of quietism deeply attractive. I really love "A Guide to True Peace" and have read it repeatedly. What I like about quietist works is the directness, the simplicity, and the clarity of the method. All elaborations are put aside and the central point of Worship is focused on. It is a practical, practice-centered mysticism. I find this inspiring.

Best wishes,

Jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric H-L on 5th mo. 7, 2010 at 4:19pm

OK Jim,
You got my interest. Can you reccomend a Quietist writer? I can't say I have a Bhuddist backround, but I have been deeply influenced and inspired by reading Joko Beck. After I started attending I found that her editor is a Friend!
Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 7, 2010 at 4:36pm

a quote from Friends for 300 Years found in a post at
http://lightandsilence.org/quietism/

"In the technical meaning of the term, Quakers of the first period were also quietists, and all the usual phrases which signify Quietism, such as reference to the Light as "that which is pure" (or free from human contamination), can be found in their writings."
----
The underlying beliefs are largely straight from 17th Century English Puritan controversies, except for George Fox & others' interpretations tending towards a more spiritual & mystical emphasis, with a couple of doctrines common to the contemporary Quietist Catholics, disapproved by both the Puritans and the Church: that people could directly know God in themselves without external sacraments, and that people could surrender their wills to the Spirit within and thereby become utterly sinless. (Consider the analogy to Buddha Nature, and to Buddhist concepts of Enlightenment!) The practice changed as the Quakers' worldly position shifted, from being one of several variously Puritan sects competing for followers under a Puritan government, to being just another suspect group of dissenters under a Royalist regime, maintaining the testimonies that had subjected them to persecution even under the Puritans, but no longer expecting to convert the world anytime soon.

Meanwhile they continued to lean heavily on divine guidance in deciding when and how to speak, act, travel as ministers, take public stands on issues-- which the Evangelicals ("Orthodox", "Guerneyites") would have de-emphasized as Quaker 'peculiarities', ie as distractions from the doctrinal positions they held in common with Evangelicals of other denominations (whom they felt more kinship with), as not necessarily implying what they considered the utterly essential belief in those doctrines.

Traditional Quakers were Quietists, in the sense of trying to subjugate themselves entirely to divine promptings, suppressing 'the Old Adam' as innately corrupt (except through divine influence) -- but the same would have been true of many of the Orthodox, except that these would naturally include many who'd found a doctrinal emphasis more nourishing... and would be tending to order their lives relatively more from written commands than internal ones.

I'm not sure when the term was first applied to Quakers of the period between "Early Friends" and the schisms... but since they'd been avidly reading the Catholic Quietists, and liking them quite as much as you do, it seems natural.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric H-L on 5th mo. 8, 2010 at 6:10am

Jim,
Oops, Now that I have read this whole discussion and your other discussion I see you and others have made many suggestions for Quietist authors. Does the Pendle Hill pamphlet have an author?
...By the way, in the introduction to the new Elias Hicks Journal, Buckley (the editor) refers to Hicks as a Quietist in a non-judgemental way . My take on it is Buckley is sympathetic to Hicks and quietism... not bashing him with a pejorative label.
Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jim Wilson on 5th mo. 8, 2010 at 10:13am

Hi Eric,

"A Guide to True Peace" is available, I think, from FGC books. I purchased a used copy; I think they are available on Amazon. It is printed by Pendle Hill Publications, the ISBN is 0875749054. No author is mentioned, rather the subtitle reads, "Compiled ciefly from the writings of Fenelon, Mme. Guyon, and Molinos". It was printed in 1979. I don't know of Pendle Hill still offers it. There is an online version here:

http://www.hallvworthington.com/guidetruepeace.html

The introduction says the compilation was put together anonymously, then goes on to name William Backhouse and James Janson as the compilers. I think that means it was published anonymously but these two Quakers were the source. It went through twelve editions from 1813 to 1877.

I agree that Buckley is sympathetic to Hicks and quietism. In your reading of the journal did you come across Hicks using the term? I am interested in when the term frist became general currency. It appears to me to have been first applied oppositionally, but then became a term that was generally accepted both by both sides.

I look forward to discussions of The Guide.

Best wishes,

Jim

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Eric H-L on 5th mo. 10, 2010 at 8:37pm

Jim,
First in answer to your question: In my reading of the journal, Hicks never referred to himself as a Quietist. He was just a Friend. Please let me know if your research finds when the term was first applied and by whom. I do like The Guide to True Peace pamplet, although I wish I knew which parts were written by Guyon, and which by Fenelon or Molinos. I plan to download and read the writings the pamphlet was based on to sort out who said what. My uninformed impression is most of this pamphlet would be agreeable to Hicks ( or other early Friends?) What I liked best was the practical, psychologically sophisticated, advice for waiting worship, especially found in part five. I found one paragraph that closely parrallels something Hicks wrote.

It will at first be difficult, from the habit the mind will have acquired of being always from home, roving here and there, and from subject to subject, to restrain it, and free it from those wanderings which are an impediment to prayer. Indeed those wanderings of the imagination, with which beginners are for some time tried, are permitted in order to prove their faith, exercise their patience, and to show them how little they can perform of themselves; as well as to teach them to depend upon an Almighty Power alone for strength to overcome all their difficulties; “for by (his own) strength shall no man prevail…

Compare with journal of Elias Hicks:

Fifth Day: Attended our meeting as usual when at home. Was much cumbered in the forepart of the meeting with unprofitable thoughts, such as relate to our temporal concerns, which produce poverty of spirit in religious meetings and ought to be strove against in order to obtain a release from them. And although it is what we cannot do in our own time and strength, yet as we continue to strive and do not give over the struggle, but persevere in faith and patience to obtain the blessing-as Jacob did when he wrestled with the angel-we shall witness an overcoming in the Lord’s time and strength, and know our light to arise out of obscurity, and our darkness to be as noonday.

I am struggling with the some of the language and imagery associated with original sin and denial, submission, annihilation, killing and even crucifixion of the self. I am trying to keep an openess to this language, even if it is uncomfortable, and listen for God’s message for me.
My tentative thinking is that the “ self” that the early Quietist wanted to deny, the self will that is opposed to God’s will, is the isolated self separate from God, separate from community and nature. “We are here to awaken from the illusion of our separateness” Thich Nhat Hanh.
Eric

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Forrest Curo on 5th mo. 11, 2010 at 2:34pm

"My tentative thinking is that the “ self” that the early Quietist wanted to deny, the self will that is opposed to God’s will, is the isolated self separate from God, separate from community and nature."

Yes! Or it might rather be put as "the self imagining itself to be separate from God." Anyway, that seems to be a tough illusion to break, and the key cause of human misery.

God & me are still fitting ourself into place; I mean this self still tends to imagine itself separate, and worries about possibly getting the short end of the nasty physical conditions 'flesh' is traditionally subject to. But I don't think God is hostile to "me" as an "imagining-myself-separate" entity, just working towards a more correct relation... which is not, I so far believe, meant to be annihilation of this character God keeps creating as "me".

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page