QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Prophetic faith or philosophical idealism

The writing that follows was initially intended to be posted on Keith Saylor's comment wall but ended up too long for that, and so it's going up as a blog post instead. Readers may want to trace down Keith's full comment (I quote only part of it in this post), which also contains the original statement that prompted his response. Sorry for the round-about way this thread is presented, but I thought that the Benson ideas that I've quoted in this post are highly relevant not only for this particular exchange but also pertinent to the larger drift of doctrine in the modern Religious Society of Friends, at least within the Liberal meetings.

Keith, I was likewise seized by the statement that you worked through and came to realize that "In the Light their is no reflection upon or identity with and through the outward ideologies or principles. There is pure action in the freedom of the unrefracted light within." The statement that prompted your inquiry brought to my mind Lewis Benson's first published work, which is titled "Prophetic Quakerism." Written in 1943, it diagnoses a deviation from the original prophetic faith into a philosophical idealism, which has so beleaguered our Society in the past century. In an excerpt from "Prophetic Quakerism," Benson describes the difference between the two doctrines of the Inner Light: prophetic and philosophical (italics mine):

"First, the philosophical interpretation understands the Inner Light to be that innate capacity of human beings to comprehend rational and ethical truth....This view tends to make the concept of 'spirit' in man identical with the concept of 'mind.' The 'mind' or 'soul' of man is the seat of the divine element in man and the essentially divine reality is not external to the soul....This view affirms the inherent spirituality of the human psyche due to the presence of a native rational and ethical principle which is divine....

Secondly, the prophetic doctrine of the Inner Light understands that man may become completely spiritualized, that is to say, brought into perfect harmony with the will of the Creator God who is spirit. But the agency for this spiritualization is not to be found by an inventory of man's native capacities. Man is made spiritual and godly by a power which operates in man but which is nevertheless not of man. It is always the working of a sovereign will distinct from one's own. Thus there is accessible to man a light which illuminates his moral life, but this life is not present in man as his own psychological possession. It is imparted to man and man has received the promise that it will never be withheld. The condition of the operation of this light within man is his willingness to submit both conscience and reason to this objective and superhuman light. The conception of the Inner Light does not displace human reason, but says Joseph Phipps, it does caution 'against...the setting up human reason above its due place in religion, making it the leader instead of the follower, the teacher instead of the learner, and esteeming it vested with a kind of self-sufficiency, independent of the direction and help of God's Holy Spirit.' Likewise conscience or the 'sense of ought' is a quality of human life but it should not be regarded as autonomous and it cannot lead to the ultimate principles of righteousness unless informed by a higher authority. (The Truth is Christ, "Prophetic Quakerism," pp. 14-15)

The doctrines of "that of God in every one" and "the power of love and good will to overcome war and hate" are derived from the idealism that originates with the philosophical interpretation of the Inner Light. This doctrine is a tribute to human capacity and thus differs from the prophetic doctrine, which places man in total dependency on the power of God to inform his understanding of right and wrong, and to gather, govern, and preserve a people who have Christ as their head: "whose dominion and strength is over all, against whom," says Penington,"the gates of hell cannot prevail."

Benson's piece, written in the middle of the Second World War, when civilization hung precariously in the balance, recognizes the limits of human ability and power to order and preserve the world and the necessity of coming into the knowledge of and obedience to the Will of God, as did the first Friends.

2 members like this

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 9, 2014 at 4:35pm: Daniel Wilcox wrote: "What I meant to say is that Friends in the Jones-Brinton-etc. tradition of Quakers tended to emphasize the academics, while Fox railed against academics. This can be seen in Jones' focus on his emphasis on the study of history of mystics and religion than on emphasizing living out Fox's sort of prophecy, claim of miracles,etc."

Modern unprogrammed Friends are overwhelmingly middle class and college-educated (I think). Most of them probably still buy into Rufus Jones's interpretation of Quakerism as mysticism. By and large, many of them do not seem to be theologically-engaged, meaning that they do not approach their Quaker faith from an intellectual point of view. They may think intellectually about "peace issues" and social problems, but don't usually examine their own faith-tradition in this way.

When I was young (Middle Ages or later!!), I found Quaker sociologists very frustrating because they focused on "peace, conflict, war, what have you", but hardly ever on Quakerism). In contrast, Mennonites zeroed in on trying to examine their own history and church issues.

Most study of Quaker history in modern times has been done by professional historians, usually affiliated with the Society of Friends or employed by a Quaker academic institution. Rufus Jones and Howard Brinton fall into this category. Lewis Benson was atypically in that he had very limited formal education, although he was highly educated through personal study. He approached Quaker history without the biases and "blinders" that come with the usual academic education received by Quaker scholars. This is not to say that Lewis had no biases; he certainly did, but they were not the usual ones associated with academic Quaker scholarship.;

The Society of Friends in George Fox's day was a very different group. The early Friends were mostly outsiders, often with limited education. This included George Fox himself. There were some well-educated Friends: Robert Barclay, Thomas Ellwood (secretary to John Milton), William Penn and several more, but they were a minority.

George Fox might have railed against learned churchmen and other educated folks, but he was not talking about the likes of the Earlham School of Religion!! We can't automatically transfer Fox's charges against educated churchmen to a modern setting. One could write a novel in which Fox shows up in 2014 in disguise in Richmond IN or at Pendle Hill, and asks to be considered for a teaching post. I suspect that modern Friends would find such a volume very offensive!!

California Yearly Meeting is a very different case. Someone should do a serious study of John Wimber's career as a CYM Friend. I think it would be very revealing. If I lived in southern California, I think I would try it. John Wimber might have gotten along well with Fox and associates!

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 12th mo. 10, 2014 at 2:32pm: William thanks for the additional comments. Good points.

As for CYM and John Wimber--yes, that would make a fine historical study. My wife and I came into CYM shortly after Wimber left, because of his charismatic views not sitting well with his monthly meeting of Friends. At the time there was a strong reaction against any "gifts of the Spirit" in CYM, which as I mentioned earlier is highly ironic given the nature of early Friends including Fox who experienced various such "gifts."

A good study on the history of California Yearly Meeting versus Pacific Yearly Meeting is David C. LeShana's Quakers in California. It shows both the strengths and weaknesses of both yearly meetings.

I wonder how different CYM would have been if it had embraced aspects of the charismatic movement (such as Wimber emphasized) and continued to witness to the way of peace, etc.

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 12th mo. 10, 2014 at 2:34pm: I should add I've been a member of both CYM and PYM, very different experiences both positive and negative. (No doubt they're both glad to be rid of such as gadfly activist as myself;-)

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
2
3
4
Next ›

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.