Comment by Jim Wilson on 8th mo. 15, 2014 at 11:09am

Friend Tom:

I agree with thy observation that a Quaker Monastery might find it difficult to fit into a Quaker context.  In my imagination I think of a Quaker Monastery as a type of Monthly Meeting that would be part of a Yearly Meeting.  However, if the Yearly Meeting were a liberal yearly meeting, I suspect that the liberal yearly meeting would regard a monastery with suspicion; and the more secular among the liberal might regard a monastery as a step backwards.  If the yearly meeting were evangelical then the problem would be that, in general, evangelicals have a heritage of opposition to monasticism, which is a holdover from the reformation.  These would be considerable barriers to allowing for a monastic calling within a Quaker context. 

Even so, I think it might be worth the effort to see if a Quaker Yearly Meeting could be flexible enough to allow for such a form.  I don't see a Quaker Monastery as a large institution.  Saint Francis of Assisi wrote a rule for a Franciscan Hermitage that involved only 3 or 4 people; six at the most.  A Quaker Monaster could be modeled along those lines. 

I also have found the Philokalia to be a rich source of spiritual understanding and practice.  In general I find the Orthodox to be closer to Quaker understandings than other Christian traditions.  On the service they are very different.  Orthodoxy is very committed to ritual and 'outer sacraments'.  But at another level Orthodoxy has an understanding of the inner light of Christ that I find surprisingly congruent with what early Quakers have to say.

Thanks for taking the time to comment,

Jim

Comment by Jim Wilson on 8th mo. 15, 2014 at 11:42am

Wow, I just reread my post and the typo-demon got the upper hand.

The last sentence of the second paragraph should read 'A Quaker Monastery . . .'

In the last paragraph the third sentence should read, 'On the surface . . .'

Jim

Comment by Tom E on 8th mo. 15, 2014 at 11:50am

Good evening Jim,

Thank you for your response. The Shakers, of course, brought monasticism into Quakerism, if one regards Mother Ann Lee as a 'Quaker' (I think she started life that way), but that is probably not the model you had in mind. I believe this has already been commented on, but Shakerism does seem to be a natural outcome of the blend between monasticism and Quakerism. Not a very likely revival, though, perhaps!

I quite agree with you that of all the Christian traditions, Orthodoxy (though not the theological or liturgical aspects, as you say) comes closest to traditional Quakerism in its distinctive spiritual approach. A few others have also noticed the similarities. Actually, my own interest in Quakerism came from a previous knowledge of Orthodoxy. It was a fruitful discovery for me, though I try to avoid thinking the two are identical!

Best wishes,

Tom

Comment by Clem Gerdelmann on 8th mo. 16, 2014 at 5:51am

And so, we are back at the beginning(of the comments) with the added help of that final quote from Hesychius for Friend Wilson's "In my imagination I think of a Quaker Monastery as a type of Monthly Meeting...".

Comment by Sophia Shapira on 8th mo. 17, 2014 at 10:16pm

Quaker political activism is not a new thing - nor in my opinion is it a capitulation to society-at-large. Let's not forget all the abolitionists and suffragettes - many of whom were Quakers. Were they capitulating to the world-at-large? I think not. When you see something abhorrent going on and you just sit by idly and say nothing, you become complicit.

But I don't think this is the real incompatibility between Quakerism and traditional Monasticism. Yes, when you see something wrong, being silent is an act of complicity --- but that doesn't mean we have to be out on the streets 24/7 carrying signs and bullhorns. We can lead a withdrawn sign, and simply speak-up against the evils of the world in whatever occasions we have to come in contact with it.

I would say that the real incompatibility between Quakerism and traditional Monasticism (that is, Monasticism as understood by Saint Benedict of Nursia and others like him) is an incompatibility of obedience. If you are Quaker, your #1 obedience is to the Holy Spirit as expressed through the Inner Light which shines in each of us. So what if the Abbot tells you to do something that is contradictory to what your conscience says to do?

Many Benedictines today (at least in theory) suggest that "obeying" your superior meant listening to the word of God as expressed through that Superior --- and doing what your superior says because of seeing God's will expressed through your superior's words ----- but that you are still required to do what your conscience says is the right thing to do even when it goes against what the abbot says to do. My only concerns with this approach are (a) do they follow this definition in "obedience" in practice the same way they define it as such when discussing theory and (b) is the evidence in favor of the conclusion that this is indeed what Saint Benedict meant (as opposed to a retcon)?

As for concern -a- --- last time I heard, the nuns of the United States were under fire from the Vatican for doing exactly that ---- and Pope Francis wasn't planning on granting them any relief from that fire. (That was the last I heard before I stopped paying so much attention to Roman Catholic going-ons.) As for concern -b-, from what *I* have read of the Rule of Saint Benedict, by "obey" he meant do whatever your abbot says --- and if your opinion is different, repent of your rebellious opinion. He really didn't seem to take seriously the possibility of the Abbot insisting on telling you to do something contrary to your conscience as occurring in the same occasion in which your differing conscience was right and legitimate.

Then again --- all this is just my understanding ----- I could be way off.

Comment by Sophia Shapira on 8th mo. 17, 2014 at 10:22pm

Hmm ---- here's one thing one could try doing ---- going through the Rule of Saint Benedict ---- each day's lesson, read it --- try to understand it ---- and then put together a set of queries inspired by that day's reading? Next reading cycle (I believe they go through the Rule three times a year) the queries written during the previous cycle can be refined -- and so-forth. How might this idea be received?

Comment by Jim Wilson on 8th mo. 18, 2014 at 8:19am

Good Morning Sophia:

Thanks for the observations and comments. Naturally, I have a different take. A few responses:

Regarding the political commitments of the abolitionists, etc.; my feeling is that their activism differed from the kind of activism found among Friends today. Woolman is a good example of what I mean. Woolman never talks about rights; in fact the word 'rights' isn't even in the index of the edition of his Journal that I have. Woolman's motivation is that slavery contradicted the Christian religion. In other words, Woolman saw his commitments in completely religious terms, not political terms. The activism I observe among Friends today is presented from a completely secular point of view and that is what I mean when I say it is a surrender to the larger culture. I don't think it actually offers any alternative to the political activism I observe in a non-Quaker context.

The other aspect I would highlight is what I referred to in my post as 'pure activism', by which I mean that all other aspects of Quaker Faith and Practice are subordinated to political purposes. Thus silent worship becomes a means for clarifying one's political goals rather than approaching the Light and Presence of God. That is why you suggest that silence equals complicity, because, from a political perspective, what else could it mean? If everything is comprehended through a poitical lens, then silence is not viewed as a genuine alternative that has its own integrity. Hence the chasm that has opened between Quaker activists and Quaker mystics.

Thy observation about obedience is,I think, a good one. Tentatively, my answer would be to lean on the Franciscan tradition as a possible solution. In the Rule for Hermits that Francis wrote, the position of leadership is rotated, not fixed for life. It seems possible to integrate that kind of structure with the kind of structure that Quakers are used to when naming Clerks for their Meetings. Perhaps I'm being naieve here, but I suggest it is a possibility worth exploring.

I like the idea of coming up with queries based on the Rule of Benedict. That seems like a fruitful suggestion.

Jim

Comment by Sophia Shapira on 8th mo. 18, 2014 at 3:01pm

Good afternoon, Jim.

For starters, I would like to thank thee for bringing to my attention that I was unclear in something that I said. By "silence" I was not referring to the Silence of Worship. Though thou art correct, I was failing to question a vocabulary handed down to me from the World-at-large. The correct term for me to have used would have been "avoidance". What I was referring to is when one does not speak-up on a subject that one's duty to God *requires* one to speak up on. But you art right - that is not silence, that is avoidance.

The Silence of Worship for me is not about clarifying any activist agenda. Rather, it is about shutting up and listening to God. When most people speak about prayer - they talk about praise, petition, and thanksgiving. While all those things are good things (even petition, if done appropriately, as it is an acknowledgement of our dependence on God) they forget that these things all involve talking *to* God --- so I ask, when does God get a chance to speak in the conversation?

Their answer, of course, involves reading the Bible. While I agree that it is important to study the record of God's revelation to our ancestors -- that is not going to be enough if we shut ourselves off to what God is telling us *now*. This, for me, is what the Silence of Worship is for. Using the term "silence" to refer to the act of not speaking out against an evil one sees is a linguistic tendency I have inherited from the World-at-large, and until today failed to question. I thank thee for helping me realize that "avoidance" is the correct term.

As for the Franciscans - my understanding of them is that they differ from Benedictines in that they spend a bit less time in the abbey cloistered up and a bit more time out in the World, preaching -- but they still have the very authoritarian structure characteristic of Roman Catholic institutions - and from what I gather, the concept of obedience in the Rule of Saint Francis is even *more* explicitly associated with a human-being deemed "superior" than in the Rule of Saint Benedict.

That said - why try to copy Roman Catholic (or even Eastern Orthodox) Monasticism? How about simply reading their works and then reflectively gleaning whatever wisdom in them is applicable to Friends -- perhaps as part of the same process by which the queries I suggested could be formed?

But why keep the aspects that are characteristic of Roman Catholicism (and by extension, Anglicanism) that George Fox and the early Friends were trying to get *away* from? Instead of an Abbot, why not an Abbey Clerk, who not only (unlike an Abbot) stays in office for a limited term --- but also *during* that term, has a very different kind of authority given. An Abbot listens to what members of the Monastery suggest - but then, the Abbot hands-down the decision in a singular manner --- the belief being that since God ordained that that person would be the Abbot, that therefore it is the will of God speaking *through* the Abbot. A clerk, on the other hand, does not hand-down decisions --- but instead is trained to facilitate the process by which the *community* discerns God's will on what the decision should be.

Also --- how did traditional Monasticism form? It formed at first with individual hermits, living alone, practicing a contemplative lifestyle by themselves --- and then they got together to form *communities* of these hermits - which became the first Monasteries. Maybe someone who is interested in Quaker monasticism should try living as a Quaker hermit. By that I don't mean living in isolation not being in contact with anyone else --- but I mean just finding Quaker ways to make one's live more contemplative --- that is, finding ways to more appreciate God's company in your life. Then, if the Spirit moves a few such people to move in together and start a Daily Meeting (yes, I imagine just as we have monthly meetings, quarterly meetings, and yearly meetings -- a Quaker monastery would probably be organized as a Daily Meeting) if the Spirit moves a few such people to move in together and start a Daily Meeting, then so-be-it.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 8th mo. 18, 2014 at 10:19pm

Thanks for the response.  Very clear and insightful.  It's easy to misunderstand each other on online forums; sorry about my jumping to conclusions.  I particularly enjoyed your last insight referring to how monasticism began.  It feels intuitive right to me: rather than imitating prior forms of monsticism, if there is to be such a thing among Quakers it could grow organically, just as the early monasticism grew organically out of the desert hermits.  That strikes me as insightful and optimistic at the same time.  It resonates with me and it also has the feeling of being more relaxed than trying to replicate a pre-existing model. 

Thanks,

Jim

Comment by Sophia Shapira on 8th mo. 20, 2014 at 9:18pm

One more thing, Jim -- I wanted to explain why this discussion crossed my mind -- but it turned out to discuss that would be too much for me to easily put into words. Much I would like to discuss how I have tried to use the Divine Office so as to be more aware and cognizant of God's constant companionship, to keep *company* with God -- especially in times of feeling all alone ---- but how I never was able to *continue* with the Divine Office because though it succeeded in helping me feel comfort in God's constant company, it also brought into my life the toxicity that I had fled from in the Catholic Church ----- and how just this past First Day I was inquiring about how to find a more Quaker way to do this. And so many other things I would wish to discuss but do not know how to discuss at the present time.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page