Primitive Christianity Revived, Again
Note: I originally posted this as a comment to Mike Shell’s stimulating blog, “Seeing Beyond the Projections” (which I recommend you also read). I offer it here as a separate blog to invite comments just on it.
_____________________________
It is unfortunate that many of our Quaker meetings/churches have brought into the meetinghouse the divisiveness that is so prevalent in the world at large. One of the great charges of Jesus is that God provides for and loves all - even those we might individually consider wrong, misguided, and so forth. Lao-tzu in the Tao Te Ching says the same thing. Further, Jesus stated that we each should love all in this same perfect manner. If this isn't "universalism", then I don't know what is. Yet, you cannot love someone of a different perspective, if you don't take the first action of welcoming them into your spiritual community.
I will speak here from the liberal Quaker perspective - but my questions could easily apply also to pastoral and evangelical Friends. If our meetings do not appeal to the varying shades of Christianity and general spirituality, the whole political spectrum, the rainbow of ethnic origins, varied economic backgrounds, and intellectual capacities - then we just might not be loving (as a community) others, as Jesus suggests we should. It is one thing to say we accept all; but the 'proof in the pudding' is how comfortable are the 'all' being among us.
Again, let's just take liberal Quakers as an example (an easy one to point to for me because I am part of a liberal Quaker meeting). The form of worship utilized by liberal Quakers could be an inviting environment for all - no pastor, no sermon, no anything but the living Spirit to minister among us. However, many of our meetings don't come off as inviting to Republicans, Evangelical Christians, etc. Our dedication to the movement of the Spirit among us should be uniting us in love - period. Yet, we often act as the world does by sending subtle messages that we don't respect, accept, or value these "others".
We must ask ourselves direct questions as a meeting in order to reform ourselves into the community the Spirit wants us to be. Such as, "Do we emphasize our SPICES testimonies (Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, Stewardship) without also emphasizing what political action Friends should take? Does our Peace and Social Concerns committee stick to these testimonies - or do they direct Friends on how they should vote or what they should support in order to "be good Quakers"? Example: My yearly meeting's Peace committee recently sent out a directive that Friends should contact their legislators about supporting the Iran Nuclear Treaty. This was done in a directive manner without first arriving at a sense of the yearly meeting that we ALL wanted to do this? Yet, we have some politically conservative Friends among us who sincerely believe that this treaty will lead to war, violating our Peace testimony. Surely, it must be obvious to any objective person that our common support for our testimonies does not mean we all support the same political actions in order to manifest them.
Our meetings/churches would do well to embrace some humility before we make assumptions about those among us. While we all embrace love and light, it is unlikely that we all embrace the same application of these in daily earthly life. And unless we have come to a common understanding through our Quaker process that we are unified in particular secular action, we must concentrate on spiritual unity above all else. This is the only way we will ever be able to demonstrate that we actively love all. The Bible itself says “God is Love”, and so it makes perfect sense that Jesus consistently advocated for Love above all else. What better basis for our spiritual unity could we have than this?
This simple change in attitude within our meetings/churches could make a distinguishing difference and a witness to the world we live in.
- I had an experience of participating in our meeting's "Finance and Stewardship Committee" that might relate to this discussion.
As I started out on that committee I was trying to learn the ropes but I kind of quickly started to get frustrated and express some cynicism/sarcasm/snarkiness about the lack of Stewardship awareness committee members were having at that time.
I came to realize, though, that they didn't want my snarkiness and sarcasm, but might actually want me to bring that stuff that I saw was missing. So bringing a greater Stewardship awareness to our activities sort of became my job for a while.
Friends on the committee allowed me to have a spot on the monthly agenda to talk in an expansive and spiritual way about our Stewardship -- we set out to gather some facts about what makes people feel inspired and want to be generous, we read about congregational generosity, we watched some moments captured on youtube in which someone was noticeably inspired and moved by another person and immediately wanted to suppot them, lend aid, get involved, or whatever.
I encouraged them to go deep in noticing and seeking a deeper sense of what is happening in that moment in which a person is moved noticeably by the Spirit in response to another person (or the Spirit OF another person), moved to be more giving....moved to spontaneously contribute energy, time, their own creativity, money, etc. It was important that we be introspective about what inspires people organically, and what causes their own innate generosity to flood out. It was good to look at people as good and to spend this time seeing the Light in others and see what it has to teach us and how we can extrapolate its message in what financial decisions we make that day in the committee meeting.
Then we would talk about other financial matters but we had placed those in a spiritual context, of sorts. This was a group of liberal Quakers so we didn't focus on Christ-centered teachings or make Bible-based assumptions about the value of giving but just tried to all have our own experience of these fundamental things, together. I felt that even a non-Christ-centered meeting, very action oriented and not into going as deep as I want in worship, was still very glad to have this type of spiritually-present exploration of our values. They could then take that and have it in mind and heart as we went on to talk about accounts and balance sheets.
Could we do something similar with our other SPICES? Include them in committee names, and let that aspect go dormant until someone has a leading to help shed light on that particular one, and then let them go again?
Nice to have you back, Olivia! So much insight to ponder in your comment. Thank you so much!
Thanks, Howard. Your kind comments are so kind they are mortifying, as usual! ha ha
Howard and Jim
Howard wrote: "So, I don't see an either/or here. A liberal Quaker meeting at its best is a place where all can minister to each other with what the Spirit has witnessed to them. And anyone there is free to accept or reject what they are provided by all among them."
Jim wrote: "Your view strikes me as an example of the hyper-individualism which is so corrosive of community."
Jim, we have discussed your misapplication of "hyper-individualism" in a other places on this website. The message and experience of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the immediacy of inward Presence is, by its very nature and essence, the opposite of "hyper-individualism" in that the self-conscious ego is no longer anchored in and the conscience is no longer informed its own selfish constructs and the desire the overlay them on the whole of the world. The self-conscious ego is reborn into a Being/being larger than the self centered ego. You are correct, however, in your assessment that a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the immediacy of Presence itself is an existential threat to outward established religious and secular forms and the communities they structure.
I own this existential threat. This Life in Presence itself is literally a fundamental and principled change in the very way people are gathered and governed a new way of being human. When Presence itself is anchor and guide, and I mean when Presence is anchor and guide ... literally, outward religious and secular forms become valueless. They just are not important any longer because the governance, community, and rule, of Presence itself literally replaces the old form of outward governance, community, and rule. When the immediacy of Presence itself becomes THE only Rule, Principle, Teacher, Governor, Community, Institution, Practice, Law, Guide, and on and on, human being is transformed and lives free of outward governance, tradition, and practice.
It is no wonder both the religious and political institutions of their time persecuted those founding Quakers, the dwellers in the Light. And, while over time, many founding Quakers re-turned to that which they were lead out of by establishing outward forms to rule over those gathered in the immediacy of the Light itself, many other founding Dwellers in the Light held to their conscious and conscience within and did not follow those children of the Light who re-established themselves in outward forms. All this was documented by William Rogers in 1680 in his book "The Christian-Quaker Distinguished from the Apostate and Innovator in Five Parts, Wherein Religious Differences Amongst the People Termed in Derision Quakers, are Treated On."
It the relevant to note that even those early founders who were once lead out of the impulse toward the outward forms and re-turned to it, persecuted those other founders who would not re-turn to a middling faith in outward forms. So they did the same to their own that outward secular and religious institutions were doing to them.
Howard, I use my discussion with Jim as a lead in to your comment quoted above. I do see an either/or. When the Life itself is known literally in all things and in all circumstances, outward forms and practices of worship become meaningless. When Presence itself gathers and communes people together in the very act of living their daily live,s outward forms are artificial and contrived because we just do not have go somewhere at some time and place to know the immediacy of Presence ... Presence is in all things and therefore living life is our worship.
Part of the message of life, when lived literally, in the immediacy of Presence itself is the impulse toward adherence to outward forms is, in itself, the overshadowing, hindrance, and damning of the experience of a conscious anchored in the immediacy of the inward Light itself by setting aside the experience itself in a container of a particular time, place, ideology, institution, practice, tradition, etc. As one among those of us dwellers in the Light, it is mine to encourage and admonish everyone to literally step into their heavenly heritage and adhere to the Light itself in all things and circumstances in their daily lives, throw away the clutches of outward forms and trust in the Presence itself alone which is to know heaven on earth.
Keith,
I certainly grasp what you are saying, experiencing, and witnessing. But why can't that Presence also be in a place of worship - as well as everywhere else? Especially when that place welcomes testimonies from the Spirit such as a liberal Quaker hour of worship does - where the Spirit Presence in you is free to witness that it IS. I think most liberal Quakers would agree that a living Presence everywhere is the real spiritual Presence that was modeled by Jesus when on Earth. Yet, he did go in that reality and experience, among others (even in worship) to witness that Truth.
This is what I mean by "it is not an either/or".
I would think that like Jesus, you would welcome opportunities to witness among those with hearing ears; in an environment that is totally open to the witness from that Presence. I invite your further comments.
I thought I would take a moment to expand on what I mean by 'hyper-individualism' since several posters have remarked on it and it is not obvious what I mean. Basically what I mean is the displacement of communal commitments which are replaced by individual expression. The best example I can think of in Quaker history is the replacement of the Peace Witness as a Communal Commitment with the individual conscience of members. Whereas in the past members of the Quaker Meetings could be 'written out of the Meeting' for violating the Peace Witness, or living a life that was felt to be contrary to that witness, today that Witness is left up to each individual to interpret to their own satisfaction. The history of this transformation is related in Chuck Fager's two works on the Progressive Quakers published in 2014.
Hyper-individualism isn't peculiar to Quakers. It is such a part of our culture at this time that most people are unaware of how it shapes our interactions and sense of (or lack of a sense of) community. I bring it up in a Quaker context because I tentatively think that for reasons that are unclear traditional Quakers were unable to resist the enticements of hyper-individualism, whereas other small religious communities were able to do so.
Because hyper-individualism is so pervasive it is difficult for people to even see it and its corrosive effects. I believe an analogy might help in understanding how it works. If I were playing chess with someone and I noticed that they moved the castle diagonally I would explain that the castle does not move that way. Now suppose this chess player responded by saying that he didn't like the old rules, that he found them too confining, that his 'feeling' is that the castle 'should' be able to move in ways not previously done, and who am I to lay down the law in such an arbitrary manner. So what if previous generations played by those rules. Why should his freedom be constrained by the past?
This would be an example of an hyper-individualistic chess player. It sounds comic, and it is; and once you see how hyper-individualism works it often looks comic even though people tend to be very serious about it. There's nothing to be done about it, except to point it out, since it is so basic to our culture at this time.
The Quaker tradition has lost its sense of Communal Commitments; and this is true of both Liberal and Evangelical Quakers. I think it is a loss, but it is what has happened. From this individualistic perspective the purpose of a Church, or Quaker Meeting, is to support my individual needs and projects, rather than the purpose being for the individual to be transformed by the Communal Commitments of the Society.
Well, those are just a few observations; I could say more, but I hope this illustrates a little of what I mean when I use that term.
Thank you, Jim. I enjoyed reading this.
So, Jim, regarding your observation:
"From this individualistic perspective the purpose of a Church, or Quaker Meeting, is to support my individual needs and projects, rather than the purpose being for the individual to be transformed by the Communal Commitments of the Society."
I would venture that liberal Quakerism - with its total lack of conforming doctrines, eroding historical Quaker traditions, and voluntary application of the Quaker testimonies - might be in a good position to serve as a "gathering place" (if you will) for the Spirit to witness and minister to all who are present about the Light that truly transforms one so he or she is more able to love, forgive, and have compassion. And it is doing this among us without forms. Could we simply accept this spiritual trend and embrace it as the will of God? Can we welcome the use of our modern liberal meeting as the great 'melting pot' for the action of the Spirit to move each worshipper closer to the state Keith has witnessed about; the state of the living Christ, being consumed with its Presense?
The reality is, anyway, that we are each at different places; and therefore, have different needs to arrive where the Spirit would have the whole world be. Conformity has never really been 'real' anyway. It is an outward appearance of 'righteousness', when what we truly need is the inward Tutor to guide us from where we individually are to where He would have us be.
I tend to be a person who accepts how the Spirit is using us now; rather than one who attempts to hang on to how it was. Just as the Spirit has the power to transform each of us, could it also transform the purpose of our Quaker meetings? The internet, social media, 24 hour news, an openness to the opinions of others, on and on - would support the witness Keith is making, where the Spirit is inviting us to make the whole world our community. Perhaps the modern liberal Quaker meeting is in a good position to help support that transformation.
Olivia,
Thanks very much for your story about your "Finance and Stewardship Committee" experience. This speaks directly to the challenge for Friends of witnessing tenderly and patiently to each other.
Blessings,
Mike
Accepting "hyper-individualism" as a term, thank you Jim Wilson, I'd agree that it's rampant among liberals, partly owing to their libertarian reflexes against authority. "Don't tell me the rules of chess, I'll move my rook like a bishop if I want to!" Quakers' testimony on equality before God, i.e. "no hat doffing" shines through, a kind of primitive defiance reminiscent of Zealots versus the Roman Empire (later British). Endearing.
But then so do we see the after-effects of the standard middle class upbringing: you don't get chess masters, just spoiled brats, dime a dozen. Infuriating. People of privilege take so much for granted, don't they? They think dropping core committee structures is OK with those granting them non-profit status. "Morph all you want, Uncle Sam doesn't care". Are you so sure?
I'd offer that engineers and engineering -- part of our Quakernomic heritage -- have some insights into that "hyper-individualism" syndrome and realize as much as any one that "if we each 'do our own thing' then nothing will get done." You may think of these as working class, more likely under the car fixing it, or chauffeuring, than owning and lording over. Classist English would understand. Engineers get their hands dirty; it's not a white gloved business.
Put another way, engineers understand the necessity of standards, and with standards comes openness (in the sense of transparency) as in: how are people going to "follow the rules" if the rules themselves are hidden under mountains of obfuscation?
Against a backdrop of diplomacy failing and wars like wild fires, uncontained, engineers have worked cross-culturally to bring us such gifts as Unicode, a relatively happy story. No, we can't get around the Tower of Babel teaching (eternal), but nor must we endure rule by only monkey-brained politicos (how engineers sometimes see their liberal arts major counterparts, the reverse of the latter's known snootiness towards their spiritual inferiors (if you've been in Anglo academia, you know what I'm talking about)).
Liberal Quakers, being self-administering, i.e. not under a cast of supervising hirelings (paid managers), have evolved various bookkeeping and stats making habits, not forgetting minuted business meetings, that make community / corporate self-government a real possibility. The skill of clerking has admirably spread to the laity, even if confused oft with "pastoring" on occasion ("facilitating" is closer).
Accurate stats, caring about details, has become a hallmark of liberal Friends, kept up and passed on even with all that turnover in "high" places.
That's a trend to continue, in part to offset the more playful disregard of Standard Chess noted and somewhat accepted by Howard (I'm seeing lots of freakish Quakerisms on the horizon, some likely to have short half-lives, which doesn't mean they're not valuable, as experiments, and no I'm not talking either cannibalism nor animal sacrifice, liberal though I be).
As the NPYM Technology Clerk, I make sure those aforementioned engineers feel welcome to grace our doors. "I'm one of you" I assure them, "and yes, we want a Neo4j graph database to help us track who's on Oversight and what any given Friend's resume might be, vis-a-vis a Monthly Meeting."
NoSQL is a goldmine of new Meeting-relevant technologies, and at NPYM we're rolling up our sleeves to do experiments ("knowing experimentally" is Quaker jargon we still use). We already have a couple LAMP stacks going, and if you don't know what that means, maybe bone up on your Quakerism 101, and the work of our holy-man Richard Stallman (doesn't matter if he's Quaker -- Walt Whitman never said he was either).
And yes, we need to write these things ourselves, and open source them, as a manifestation of our building a working community together. "Open Source, not Out Source, is the way to go" (a Quaker mantra). The wheels are turning. We've got our listserv (npym-it-discuss).
But you can't do any of this without version control and tight patterns of working together such as geeks have devised. As Quakerism becomes more infused with these state-of-the-art Agile best practices, we'll start to regain our penchant for serious business.
It'll be like the 1790s again! OK, not really, but lets welcome the "steam punk" nostalgia, as symptomatic of our age (and a good niche for Anglophiles). We'll be that unicorn (Silicon Valley talk for "exciting startup") once again!
Kirby
© 2023 Created by QuakerQuaker. Powered by
You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!
Join QuakerQuaker