Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 11th mo. 18, 2012 at 9:11am

I found this writing insightful and informative. In a fair-minded way, you've assessed the spiritual dynamics of the contemporary scene and integrated the present period into our history, which you've also described well--all in a clear style that was enjoyable to read. Thank you, Forrest! I'm curious about the response you received from the Episcopalians.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 18, 2012 at 4:41pm

This was a particularly good bunch to talk with; as I'd said, they'd invited me back for an unexpected third week. It includes several clergyfolks of different denominations & the comparative religions prof who'd been my main customer when I'd had that short-lived spiritual bookstore. So of course it went well! (And I was relieved & grateful!)

They're still going to church; and I'm still going to Meeting, and that's good.

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 22, 2012 at 9:58pm

I too enjoyed this information Forrest.  One statement you made at the beginning has me puzzled though:

"Many 'Liberal', 'unprogrammed' Meetings, such as my own, have been overwhelmingly secular-humanist for a very long time; it is only in recent years that we've acquired people and organizations proudly proclaiming themselves 'Nontheist Friends.'"

From my observation and experience, I would term many liberal unprogrammed meetings as overwhelmingly "spiritual rather than religious" instead of the terminology you chose of "secular-humanist".  Maybe I'm not understanding what you mean by your choice of words.  Or, maybe its just my experience versus yours.  In any meeting for worship I've ever attended at any liberal Quaker meeting, I've felt a spiritual depth that I've never felt at most churches I've attended over the years.  I've not sensed religiousity at Quaker meeting like I have at various church worship services, which is what attracted me to liberal Quakers. 

At any rate, I would be interested in your elaboration if you are willing to do that, for my own edification (and perhaps that of others, as well).  Thanks again for sharing this extremely informative material with all of us!

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 23, 2012 at 11:41am

The implied question that remains a continuing barrier: "What's so important about that G-word?" -- will probably take more than another post. But answering just what you've asked:

"Spiritual" and "religious" are two slippery words with overlapping ranges of meaning. People seem to have some specific distinction in mind when they say "spiritual rather than religious" -- But I'm not sure what that is, not even sure that they always mean the same thing by it, other than: "not like that [bad] thing called 'religion'!"

"Secular humanist", however...

1) holding to a narrowly-conceived, restricted cosmology, in which everything that happens is determined by the motion of matter and physical energies.

2) believing that our efforts should be directly applied to the physical/emotional well-being of human beings, conceived as living within a universe as described in (1)

3) believing that the only legitimate function of religious practice is to help people feel better and treat each other nice -- that there's no objective truth to be encountered through religious acts -- or if there is, it a) isn't that important or b) will have no quarrel with us provided we're 'good' in this sense.

----------------------

"Spiritual" can mean "directly concerned with the larger-than-physical reality that religion claims to describe." Contrasted, then, with "religious" meaning "concerned with religious doctrines claiming to define and describe the Spirit and its workings."

It would be difficult for a secular humanist to be "spiritual" in that sense, because his religious doctrines deny the possibility. [Human beings, of course, are seldom consistent enough for this to be entirely 'impossible.']

"Religious," on another hand, can also mean 'recognition that certain things are sacred and deserve reverence and loyalty.' My father the atheist, I would say, was quite religious in that sense. He would not, for example, swear in court any more than I would.

------

Maybe you're using "spiritual" as though this were a quality of certain individual human beings. This is analogous to "enthusiasm" being taken to mean "showing emotionally intensity" instead of "being full of God".

Comment by Howard Brod on 11th mo. 23, 2012 at 5:25pm

Maybe the distinctions are just academic or in the eye of the beholder.

I associate "spiritual" with "seeking" in that the seeker has no certainty about what ultimate reality is all about. He/she is in a state of wonderment and awe, with openness thrown in. This is the state that provides answers and guidance during silent-waiting worship even if we can not describe definitively where these come from.

Whereas I associate "religious" with a sense of knowing because of a prescribed belief.

Perhaps it also depends on the meetings one has frequented. My experience has been what I describe as "spiritual", with not much of number (1) of the secular-humanist sentiment you describe.

Thanks for your further insight, Forrest. I'll certainly keep open to your thoughts on this going forward.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 23, 2012 at 6:57pm

That 'element 1' of my description is so much the typical background assumption of everyone since the 17th century that people don't usually notice it.

Fox caught himself falling into it; and to him it seemed odd enough that he was able to reject it:

"One morning, as I was sitting by the fire, a great cloud came over me, and a temptation beset me; and I sat still. It was said, 'All things come by nature'; and the elements and stars came over me, so that I was in a manner quite clouded with it. But as I sat still and said nothing, the people of the house perceived nothing. And as I sat still under it and let it alone, a living hope and a true voice arose in me, which said, 'There is a living God who made all things.' Immediately the cloud and temptation vanished away, and life rose over it all; my heart was glad, and I praised the living God."

What sort of "seeking" can these exemplary people be doing? -- if they're clinging to such assumptions as: 'There's nothing to seek, I couldn't possibly know it, and no one should believe me if I do?'

Where is there room for "knowing because of encountering and interacting with the solid foundation of all existence"? If you turn to it, as early Friends said, you will find it teaching you. So far as people can't even credit the possibility, they crawl where they were Intended to fly... There may be perfectly wonderful people crawling along that way, but they wouldn't be caught dead off the ground! And that's a shame!

Comment