Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 3, 2016 at 12:59pm

Kirby, this is an interesting post for me because I have been thinking a lot about how traditional Quaker Faith and Practice worked before modernity severed the Quaker distinctives from Quakers.  During the period of Quietism to be a Quaker was to be publicly a Quaker.  This could not be avoided because Quakers practiced plain dress and plain speech, along with other customs which made them stand out in public contexts.  You could spot a Quaker walking down the street due to their distinctive clothing.  You could hear that a person was a Quaker due to their distinctive speaking.  In other words, it was not possible to hide one's identity and affiliation as a Quaker.  In some ways I think that was a good thing in the sense that it made the commitment to the Quaker Way a more considered decision.  Modern Quakers are indistinguishable in appearance and in speech from the surrounding culture and I believe that has led to Quakers being indistinguishable from the surrounding culture in many other respects; for example what I consider to be an overemphasis on the political.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 3rd mo. 7, 2016 at 8:32pm

Isn't it ironic that in their effort to be "plain" the early Quakers drew attention to themselves?  But in a stratified class-oriented society such as England's in those times, where dress was so much an indicator of social station, what Quakers were really trying to do is liberate themselves from all that typecasting.  

They wanted to be equals to one another, not as Lord to Servant or Boss to Minion.  Quakers have a hard time being good sycophants.  That's also a reason many schools introduce uniforms:  to level the playing field, dress-wise.  

Fast forward and Quakers got a lot of what they prayed for:  a world in which dress and speech are somewhat less indicative of differences in social rank or privilege.  Human rights are less based on caste (England and India had a lot in common as highly stratified societies, whereas in the New World we hoped to make a fresh start).

We still have a long way to go though, in terms of treating one another as equals.  

In the video at the end of this blog post (link), a homeless gentlemen speaks of how differently he's treated depending on how he dresses:  http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2016/02/stranger-than-fiction-movie...   (video at the end of the movie review).

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 8, 2016 at 9:34am

Good Morning Kirby:

The tendency of modern Quakers is to interpret everything about our history in political terms.  I think that is a misreading of what Quakers were trying to accomplish.  My feeling is that the motivation for Quaker distinctives was not primarily political; it was primarily religious/spiritual.  

This tendency to evaluate our past through a modern ideological lens can be seen in the way modern activists use John Woolman.  Woolman's anti-slavery activity was not based on an ideology or a theory of rights.  It was Woolman's view that slavery was contrary to Christianity and that was why Woolman opposed it.

In a similar way, Quaker distinctives were not primarily ideological commitments, nor did they emerge from some kind of sociological analysis.  The distinctives were rooted in their understanding of what it means to live a Christian life, and then insisting on following through on that no matter what the cost.

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Kirby Urner on 3rd mo. 8, 2016 at 11:40am

Good morning Jim --

I think you're quite correct in the sense that in the 1640s, academia as we know it was a far different place.  The notion that religious movements could be seen through the lens of "religious studies" such as my friend Lindsey is studying at Oregon State (scholarship from Rotary Club), or "sociology" is quite modern. 

Many Friends today are professors of what-not, have a different mental makeup vs. Christians of the distant past.  It's not easy, may be impossible, for them to think themselves into the George Fox or John Woolman mindset.  I don't claim to be doing that either.  I'm a product of my own time or maybe the near future.

Indeed, at Princeton I took a course called History of Mentalities looking at this whole question of mindsets and whether it was possible for contemporary scholars to really get into them. 

Anthropologists ask themselves the same question (I took courses in that too). 

In the case of shamanistic cultures there may be a kool-aid [tm] of some kind, i.e. pharmaceuticals, such that getting into the target mindset might require taking drugs (e.g. peyote).  A lot of good professors understandably take a pass, many concluding it wouldn't have helped anyway, as the target culture (the one under study) is just too alien, drugs or no drugs.

What say thee about early Quakers?  Is it possible to think as they did about the world?

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 3rd mo. 8, 2016 at 12:38pm

If one's identity is a function of the surrounding culture, it won't be "possible to think as they did about the world." This statement would have been as true for the seventeenth-century English as it is for twenty-first-century Americans. Reason being this: what the first Friends were about was not a culturally derived belief system; it was instead existential and had a direct effect upon their individual souls: it was the kind of occurrence that cultures, even civilizations, are built upon. Yes, Christianity is functionally cultural in most places and times and has been off-and-on since its beginning. But when the seventeenth-century Quakers started to preach, when the first-century apostles started to preach, these primitive Christian movements were not cultural. Yet they both had the same foundation, and because of that, Fox and the others could grasp the meaning of the apostles and Jesus's words, though first-century culture was further removed from their seventeenth-century culture than is their culture removed from our own. Yes, we may participate in their understanding of the world, for one who has the key to that understanding is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Eternal, outside of time and how it passes.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 3rd mo. 8, 2016 at 6:39pm

Yes, Patricia, and I think many great religions would make similar claims, as to their ability to transcend any cultural matrix owing to having Eternal Truths at their core.  Certainly mathematicians like to think their Platonic Polyhedrons transcend any specific Greek tradition with which Plato the historical figure might have been involved, i.e. no "cult" (not even Pythagoreans) own this Set of Five (or is it six -- depends if the Tetrahedron is counted twice as self-dual).

Some would say returning to primitive Jesus (however spelled in Aramaic) means relinquishing Christianity as Jesus himself never laid claim to founding a new religion.  He was putting finishing touches on what he grew up with and Christianity per se did not start in earnest until quite a bit later.  So if a radical Quaker group were to say "we're not Christian" yet embrace Jesus as their savior, I'd be understanding.  However as recently as Descartes' day saying as much would be deemed heresy.  Those committed to branding as "Christians" have been known to overreact in the face of harmless observations (such as that Jesus was not a Christian).

Comment by Jim Wilson on 3rd mo. 9, 2016 at 12:53pm

Friend Patricia speaks my mind

Kirby, one of the difficulties faced by us modern today is the rejection of the transcendental -- that is almost the definition of what it means to be secular.  The early Quakers thought of the inner light as descending from a transcendental source.  Later Quakers redefined the inner light as 'individual conscience'.  (For a history of this transformation see Chuck Fager's books on the progressive Quakers.)  This shift from the transcendent to the individual effectively cut Quakers off from the source which gave rise to the Quaker tradition in the first place.  And it has had significant effects on Faith and Practice.  My favorite example is how the Peace Testimony has been redefined from a communal commitment to an individual leading, thereby undermining the commitment to Peace as a whole. 

Can we recover the transcendental ground which is the foundation of Quaker Faith and Practice?  I don't know; but I place my trust in the infinite love of that source.  In other words, through the grace of the inner light I do think it is possible; not by my own doing, but by surrendering to its guidance.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 3rd mo. 9, 2016 at 3:08pm

Greetings Jim. 

I was unaware of Chuck Fager's cogent distinction, between "transcendentalist Quakers" and a more modern conscience-based sort. 

That's convenient for me, as I count myself a transcendentalist in the literary sense, as in "New England transcendentalist" lineage, with representative writers Emerson and Thoreau (among others -- Dial Magazine an early vector for their writings, Margaret Fuller the editor). 

However, in my thinking "transcendentalist" is not in opposition to "secularist" which I'd claim to be also. 

To me, "secularism" involves giving priority to no one religion within the justice system, and keeping the space open for new religions to arise.  "The best religions are yet to come" is one of my advertising taglines. 

Secularism also entails upholding the right of others to engage in negative advertising vis-a-vis my religion, or against religion in general.  I defend the right of the general public to spoof, mock, disparage religions, cults, belief systems of whatever nature.  Dissent is permitted and protected as "free speech".

For example:  I recall doing a survey of Youtubes on Quakers for NPYM some ten years ago and encountering a number of damning ones; they were saying quite literally that Quakers were either going to hell or of the devil or both. 

As a secularist, I defend the rights of groups and individuals to make such offensive-to-Quakers videos (I was more amused than offended -- an ostensibly pro-Quaker Youtube could be far more offensive to my tastes).  I've embedded the compilation I came up with at that time:

Comment by Forrest Curo on 3rd mo. 10, 2016 at 12:32am

So far as 'individual consciences' are attuned to something which is actually transcendent, actually independent-of and beyond their individuality -- then they aren't "merely individual consciences" even when they seem, on the surface, to be embodying that transcendent foundation in diverse ways.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 3rd mo. 10, 2016 at 2:03am

I would agree, and also point out many Friends are easy with the notion of a shared transcendent collective unconscious in the Jungian sense.

http://www.southerncrossreview.org/19/yungblut.htm

That a mindset or bias transcends the individual is not proof of its Godliness, as wars start this same way, as a collective surge, a mob psychology, oft amplified by politicians. 

However, deep listening to a small voice within, practiced discernment, will help a Friend stay grounded in the transcendent Ocean of Light, rather than lost to an Ocean of Darkness.  '

Quakerism teaches about "expectant waiting" and not suckering for all the latest, apparently most fashionable, belief systems.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page