Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Martin Kelley on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 1:17pm

It's almost an existential question: when trying to keep an identification with a tradition going back to the 1650s, what's essential to the faith and what's needless peculiarity? Liberal Friends tend to think that weird language is what we should clean and update. Evangelical Friends tend to think it's the weird practices that are the unnecessary holdover. Conservative Friends will think both are needed together but then can appear like historical re-enactors and off-putting to outsiders.

We need to respect where everyone is on the question. We're all faithful Friends trying to live out the Good News. I think Friends are stronger for our cultural differences (I've seen where are different approaches speak to the world in different, but often-necessary, ways). One of the geniuses of Friends is that we respect personal leadings even when we don't understand them. Quirkiness is okay. Leadings can be mysterious, even to the person being led. Their purpose sometimes become clear years afterwards (if ever) and are often not about what they initially appear. 

My personal tests of language-based essentialness has two parts: 1) can the original rationale can be explained in a sentence or two without resort to a long-winded history lesson; and 2) is the reasoning universal enough that other Christians should consider adopting it?  Numbered days actually passes this test, though I tend not to use them in everyday speech.

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 3:58pm

I guess to your initial point, Martin: we all see things differently.  I think numbered days do NOT pass your two-point test.  To most modern listeners the explanation of numbered days indeed sounds like a history lesson.  And the logical expectation due to this "history lesson" would be that Quakers (and other Christians) should refuse to participate in any practice that has pagan religious origins (the list of these is quite long and exhausting).  Such a proposition would appear unreasonable and cultish to 99.9% of modern Friends, as well as other Christians. 

Why would liberal Quakers want to hang on to this one peculiar thing that is a turn-off for many that might be attracted to liberal Quakerism? 

The fact that liberal Friends do not use such speech patterns outside of the meetinghouse (even with each other) says it all, I think.
 
Martin Kelley said:

It's almost an existential question: when trying to keep an identification with a tradition going back to the 1650s, what's essential to the faith and what's needless peculiarity? Liberal Friends tend to think that weird language is what we should clean and update. Evangelical Friends tend to think it's the weird practices that are the unnecessary holdover. Conservative Friends will think both are needed together but then can appear like historical re-enactors and off-putting to outsiders.

We need to respect where everyone is on the question. We're all faithful Friends trying to live out the Good News. I think Friends are stronger for our cultural differences (I've seen where are different approaches speak to the world in different, but often-necessary, ways). One of the geniuses of Friends is that we respect personal leadings even when we don't understand them. Quirkiness is okay. Leadings can be mysterious, even to the person being led. Their purpose sometimes become clear years afterwards (if ever) and are often not about what they initially appear. 

My personal tests of language-based essentialness has two parts: 1) can the original rationale can be explained in a sentence or two without resort to a long-winded history lesson; and 2) is the reasoning universal enough that other Christians should consider adopting it?  Numbered days actually passes this test, though I tend not to use them in everyday speech.

Permalink Reply by Howard Brod on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 4:05pm

I agree Stephen that liberal Quakerism has so much to offer many who are wandering spiritually, looking for a home.  
 
Stephen James said:

I agree 100%. I believe Quakers need to focus less on having a unique, peculiar identity and more on reaching out to today's world with the teachings of Jesus. The idea of being a "peculiar people" in a far away meetinghouse tucked away in the woods only appeals to a minority of people. I think it's time that we try to become a more "mainline" denomination in other people's eyes if we want the tradition to survive. That's not to say we need to change our core spiritual beliefs, but we must make the presence of modern-day Quakers known. When people picture a Quaker in their head, they should think of today's everyday people: doctors, students, lawyers, grocery store clerks, etc., not just the people who lived 200-300 years ago. Maybe I'm digressing from your (not thy) original point a bit, but I feel that what you've written heavily supports my hopes for 21st century Friends.

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 5:05pm

There is another point to consider. Use of symbolic, traditional language can help to establish that entering meeting is entering a liminal space. 

Tradition can hinder, but it can also help to ground us. We have minimal enough reminders that we are the Religious Society of Friends and not just a secular group. 

Permalink Reply by Ron Boguszewski on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 5:49pm

How do you prepare for a Worship Service? Can you do anything to make it a meaningful experience?

Permalink Reply by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 1st mo. 22, 2014 at 6:32pm

Of course there are ways that I can and do prepare for worship. I also maintain the tradition of spending time in daily retirement.

The question for me is how might our use of language and other traditions help make new comers aware that they are leaving standard secular space when they enter meeting? How might those peculiarities engender questions to which we respond? 

Ron Boguszewski said:

How do you prepare for a Worship Service? Can you do anything to make it a meaningful experience?