Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by John Michael Wine on 9th mo. 1, 2010 at 6:35pm

Thanks, Elizabeth, for your thoughts! You seem to get at the essence of liberal Quakerism (and it is a very good essence!), at least from my perspective. Individual experience of the Spirit of God and a strong sense of Friends' process together as a meeting, a body. Mike

Permalink Reply by John Michael Wine on 11th mo. 29, 2010 at 8:26am

Good Morning, CQ! I found your post very thought provoking. It sounds as if the similarities are greater than the differences between BYM and FGC Friends. Since we're a couple hundred miles from home this week visiting our daughters and families in Columbia, Missouri, I enjoyed Meeting for Worship with the Columbia Friends, who are "liberal, unprogrammed Friends" in Illiniois Yearly Meeting. During the Meeting, I noticed that a couple of folks were reading their Bibles quietly while quietly waiting/worshipping. And, during the meeting, we listened to a message concerning the fire burning in the fireplace vs. the intensity of the fire burning in our lives with several Biblical allusions. The final message was loosely based on the Grinch stealing Christmas and whether Quakers would notice. So, it was a somewhat uneven, but still uplifting time of worship. But, it may be that, in mid-America at least, we are somewhat more "traditional" liberals? I loved hearing about the "growing appetite" to address the lack of spirituality in some of the Meetings there. One other personal difference in our experiences: when my wife and I finally requested a Clearness Committee to explore membership in our Sunrise Meeting, it felt like a pretty rigorous process! Over several months, we wrote letters and listened together to questions about the Spirit's leading, etc. I did notice that there were really no questions, however, about what might traditionally be called "doctrinal" beliefs. This was a stark contrast to the evangelical Anabaptist background that we came from. At this point in my life, I'm learning to be able to firmly adhere to understandngs of God and Life and Truth, without needing to condemn someone else who differs. Sounds so elementary! But... Thanks again for your post! Mike

Permalink Reply by Steven Davison on 11th mo. 29, 2010 at 8:30am

CQ, I agree with you that liberal Quakerism has been characterized, if not defined, by its "rejection of beliefs, creeds and dogmas in favor of values and principles." I see this especially in how we approach first day school, and in fact, Quaker education in general. We have a lot of Quaker schools here in the Philadelphia area; only two have religion faculty; only one actually teaches a course on Quakerism, and that course is, apparently, largely about Thomas Berry's new cosmology, which isn't Quakerism at all. Their religion curriculum is very good on comparative religion, though; and they do an excellent job of teaching Quaker values. So also with our conference centers, which tend to emphasize (rightly, I think) an experiential pedagogy and programs for spiritual nurture and expression over transmission of our tradition. In my experience, adult religious education programs often amount to comparative religion programs, also, and tend to emphasize values and testimonies over content.

But I want to say again that I don't think this is a good thing. For one thing, it's too either/or. Both faith and practice matter. I think we all agree about creeds and dogmas—fie on them. But suppose for "beliefs" we say "content"? By "content" I mean, what do we have to say? to inquirers about Quakerism? to our children? to new members? How do we explain our practices, our values and principles—why we adhere to them, where they came from, what we are trying to attain when we do them? A religion without content, without something coherent to say, is in danger of losing its identity altogether. And so we are, I think.

Many liberal Friends are nervous about "beliefs" because "beliefs" seem to engender strife, because they may have been wounded in the name of belief in some other community, and because they want to be free to believe what they will and still share in religious community. So they don't want the community to define itself too strongly in terms of belief. But we still need to be able to say something about our path.

I have a simple formula for what we can say that you can unpack to talk about virtually all aspects of Quaker belief, practice and experience. I say that Quakerism has four legs, a body and a heart.

The four legs: First, we believe (and have experienced) that we each have (or can have) a direct, unmediated relationship with G*d (meaning the Mystery Reality behind our religious/spiritual experience, whatever that experience is). Second, we believe/experience that the meeting—the community—also has (can have) a direct, unmediated relationship with the Divine. Third, we believe/experience continuing revelation: this direct connection with Spirit is always present, guiding us, healing us, correcting us, inspiring us. And fourth, we believe that we should live our lives as outward expressions of our inner experience of G*d, of the measure of truth we've been given, of the revelation we have received, and so we have testimonies.

The heart of Quakerism is the commandments of love: to love each other as we love ourselves, to love G*d as deeply as we can.

And the body is our experience, as both individuals and as a community—what canst we say? We believe that we should build our religious lives on what we ourselves have experienced, rather than on some inherited legacy or set of abstract notions, though that legacy of faith and practice is to be known and respected as the faithful testimony to the experience of Friends who have gone before us.

Does this work for thee?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page