QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Why It Matters How We Read the Bible

“We want to clarify for everybody that this is not a homosexuality issue for us, this is an authority of scripture/interpretation of scripture/orthodoxy issue for us.” That’s what Anthem Friends Church said last week as they withdrew from Northwest Yearly Meeting.

Their exit helps clarify, for me, the stakes involved in how we read and regard the Bible.

The church letter added, “We have come to find over the years that Anthem Friends (formerly Hayden Lake Friends Church) see things very differently than the NWYM.” How so? What’s the authority of scripture issue that leads Anthem Friends to say they “see things differently?”

In their statement of faith (is this a creed?) Anthem Friends (a large church in Hayden, Idaho, with a second location in Coeur d’Alene) says “We believe the Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments are completely without error and are the supreme and final authority of God in faith and life.”

This is Northwest Yearly Meeting from which they withdrew: not an FGC Yearly Meeting, and not an FUM Yearly Meeting, but rather a yearly meeting that is part of Evangelical Friends Church International, which includes five Yearly Meetings in North America (Alaska YM, Eastern Region YM, Mid-America YM, Rocky Mountain YM, and Southwest YM), and many more around the world (140,000 members in 24 countries, says EFCI’s website).

Northwest Yearly Meeting of Friends Church (NWYM) has a banner on its website saying “it is a covenantal community of evangelical Friends churches that make Jesus Christ known by teaching and obeying the whole gospel as revealed by the Holy Spirit and recorded in Scripture.” Apparently that was not good enough for Anthem Friends.

Not good enough as assertion or not good enough in practice? I only know what Anthem says in their letter, but presumably it arises from an unfolding and unresolved controversy in NWYM. This past July, the Elders of NWYM released a letter that begins “Recognizing that our yearly meeting is unable to embrace our current diversity, and recognizing the shattering that is ensuing, with grace and charity we sorrowfully release West Hills Friends Church from NWYM membership.” The “shattering” issue was West Hills’ “affirmation of committed same sex relationships and the decision to perform those weddings.”

The Elders’ letter noted that there was an appeal process regarding their decision, and, to date, eight Meetings/Churches have filed appeals. Eight others have written letters supporting the Elders decision. You can read them all here, and my hat is off to NWYM for providing public access to all this material.

The Elders’ letter acknowledges “We recognize that as a yearly meeting, we are not in consensus over our statement on human sexuality in the Faith and Practice. We recognize that we need to do the hard work of theological reflection as Friends on the issues of revelation (including the authority of both the written and living Word of God) and human sexuality (in a broader sense than just LGBTQ issues).” The appeal letters also lift up the lack of consensus over sexuality matters, which has been manifest in NWYM for several years.

I take it, then, that Anthem Friends Church has withdrawn from NWYM not because of “a homosexuality issue” but because the Yearly Meeting couldn’t clearly and decisively affirm the [alleged] teaching in the Bible that homosexuality is a sin. Disunity, for them, was a cause for separation. (For the record, I believe the Bible is quite unclear about many matters of sexuality.)

Anthem’s posture is fundamentalist. Their creedal statement is an affirmation of Biblical inerrancy. Again, “We believe the Scriptures in the Old and New Testaments are completely without error and are the supreme and final authority of God in faith and life.”

This is the issue Friends need to confront. The issue is not whether the Bible is valuable. It is not whether the Bible provides “texture and clarity to our understanding of God's will,” as a Friend put it recently in a comment on QuakerQuaker. It certainly does. And of course there are those calling themselves Quaker who want nothing to do with the Bible. That’s their loss in my view. But their posture isn’t the one forcing crises in Yearly Meetings. It is the adherents of Biblical inerrancy who are provoking such crises.

When Indiana Yearly Meeting came apart at the seams a few years ago, the driving issue was Biblical inerrancy. Iowa Yearly Meeting (FUM) has wrestled with issues of creeds and Biblical inerrancy in recent years. Now we have crises in North Carolina Yearly Meeting (FUM) and in Northwest Yearly Meeting both driven by assertions of Biblical inerrancy as a litmus test. Both of these crises have been followed well and closely by Steve Angell and Chuck Fager in Quaker Theology and in Fager’s blog, A Friendly Letter. My hat is off to both Steve and Chuck for reporting on these crises. It is time more Friends paid attention to the challenge of Biblical inerrancy.

Close adherence to the Bible, while valuable, is unlikely to yield final and spiritually satisfying answers to all issues that may arise. Insisting on “the Bible alone” as a source of spiritual guidance will sow further schism and hard-heartedness. Seeing the Bible as “without error” and as “the supreme and final authority of God in faith and life” shouts that God stopped speaking to us a millennium and a half ago. I affirm instead that the God who speaks to me through and beyond the Bible assures me that God is still speaking. The meetings in Northwest Yearly Meeting that are wrestling with human sexuality believe, too, that God is still speaking to them.

On the Bible, I would much rather Friends take guidance (though not as a creed) from Barclay’s Apology in which he says of the Scriptures, after noting the Bible’s value:

Nevertheless, because they are only a declaration of the fountain, and not the fountain itself, therefore they are not to be esteemed the principal ground of all Truth and knowledge, nor yet the adequate primary rule of faith and manners. Yet because they give a true and faithful testimony of the first foundation, they are and may be esteemed a secondary rule, subordinate to the Spirit, from which they have all their excellency and certainty: for as by the inward testimony of the Spirit we do alone truly know them, so they testify, that the Spirit is that Guide by which the saints are led into all Truth; therefore, according to the Scriptures, the Spirit is the first and principal leader. Seeing then that we do therefore receive and believe the Scriptures because they proceeded from the Spirit, for the very same reason is the Spirit more originally and principally the rule.

Also posted on River View Friend

0 members like this

Comment by Doug Bennett on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 11:30am: Granted, William. I think this is an insight that is lost on many Friends who who work out of a posture of inerrancy, however. (BTW, I am indebted especially to George Marsden for my understanding of fundamentalism and inerrancy.)

And which version of inerrancy leads one to be comfortable condemning slavery but certain that the Bible condemns homosexuality?

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 11:41am: Doug, I don't think that Friends condemn slavery because of a view on biblical inerrancy. The Bible clearly permits slavery, but, as 1 Cor. 10:23 states, " 'All things are lawful,' but not all things are beneficial. " There is no conflict in saying, yes, the Bible says one can own slaves, but since slaveowners generally don't live up to Christian standards, in our community, we aren't going to do it because it generally will lead out of exalted living. If the Bible COMMANDED Christians to hold slaves, there would be a conflict, but that isn't the case.

Comment by William F Rushby on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 11:53am: Thanks, Adria, for bringing such clarity to the discussion!

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 12:01pm: The "go along for the sake of unity" argument leaves a monthly Meeting in this sort of situation: "You're asking us to deny and disown ___'s love for ___ -- in order to please whom?" Love for the individuals directly impacted seems more important than an abstract 'love' for people whose personal lives are not being distorted by that search for more widespread unity.

My own LiberalFriendish Meeting lost a succession of very promising attenders while we pondered whether or not we could unite behind approving or performing any gay 'marriage' -- until the day that one old member's wife [probably] told him, "I think you should stay home from Meeting today." In that case, we had considerable real personal affection for the holdout, and the measure in question was merely theoretical, so that this delay probably was what love demanded. But we failed in love to those attenders who gave up on us meanwhile.

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 12:41pm: Bill, I hope you got beyond the first line of my comment! If you did, you will have seen that my point was that biblical inerrancy (in whatever form it appears; yes, I read the Wikipedia article) may be a reaction to the humanist position they might be seeing as a threat to their faith. It was to point out that there may be some legitimate reason for their position, even though the position can't be rationally defended. It may be a reaction of fear for what has been and is being lost by a misunderstanding and ignorance of Quaker faith, as it originated and was practiced in the 17th century. I didn't intend to parse the distinctions between one kind of B.I. and another, but to point out what may be a solid, reasonable concern driving Evangelicals not altogether reasonable or defensible position. If Liberals are concerned about unity and right order, then it behooves them to see what they themselves are contributing to the problem of disunity, rather than focusing on the errors of the Evangelicals, and I'd say the same to the Evangelicals. I know the Liberal mind-set far better than I do the Evangelical. Now you can tell me not all Liberals believe the same thing, which again would be missing the point.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 1:17pm: Patricia, we've got a surface disagreement that feels to me like it doesn't quite touch a certain deep disagreement -- which exists together with some pretty strong agreements. Not a 'logical' position but very likely true all the same.

I agree that the 'inerrancy' position expresses a legitimate fear, that letting secular 'Reason' make all the decisions will [OK, Bill, here's a more conventional metaphor] lead to "throwing the baby out with the bathwater. [How is the Bible like a baby? How is the Bible like used baby-bathwater? Preciousness plus a certain amount of extraneous material?] I don't think that makes the position 'legitimate', that it's inspired by fear. Anyway, it makes it an understandable human reaction that we should approach gently (so far as we're able!)

I guess one facet of the deeper disagreement -- is my insistence that the "17th Century Quaker "faith" is either current and present _faith_,

that is, continuing confidence in the ongoing presence, power and love of God -- or it's just another clump of ideas from people who had faith, back in the 17th Century.

Verbal belief in "Christ", as you know, doesn't lead to unity any more than any other doctrine -- while experience of what that's about, however expressed, makes at least mutual sympathy (and mutual frustration, yes!) a whole lot easier.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 2:16pm: I would never suggest that anyone's love should be "denied and disowned." If you'll note, I suggested performing no marriages of any type, until unity was reached. To a heterosexual or homosexual couple, you could refer them to other meetings or churches or a civil ceremony, with the understanding that they would be welcomed into the community, but you would not contribute to feelings of exclusion or division, as it would be hard to argue that you were disowning and denying everyone's love by choosing not to perform any marriages.

Comment by Diane Benton on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 6:34pm: Every conscience that is grounded in and guided by the Light does not look outwardly for confirmation of their leadings and knowings. A conscience grounded in the Light trusts the Light's ability to make it's self heard and to bring correction if there are distortions in reception. It is heartbreaking to watch those who struggle to find or gain recognition from something other than their inward teacher.

Knowing the peace of Christ through the Light in my conscience so that I don't have to look outwardly for confirmation allows me to be at peace and in unity with those I disagree with. Those who don't know that peace and disagree with me, at best, find me puzzling and many find me infuriating.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 9:06pm: That's an interesting perspective, Diane, but I'd like to point out that it isn't the traditional Quaker view. It actually sounds like what used to be known as Ranterism. It reminded me of this quote from Martin Kelley's blog, The Quaker Ranter:

Ranters often looked and sounded like Quakers but were opposed to any imposition of group authority. They were a movement of individual spiritual seekers. Ranters thought that God spoke directly to individuals and they put no limits on what the Spirit might instruct us. Tradition had no role, institutions were for disbelievers.

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 11, 2015 at 9:41pm: It gets complicated though doesn't it, Adria. For much of the 18th century, most Quakers through group authority supported slavery and in the 19th century, most Quakers through group authority opposed the work of abolitionists such as Levi Coffin and Lucretia Mott.

While it is dangerous for one human to think he has a direct pipeline to God when it comes to ethics, it would seem historically, usually it is group authority which opposes the advance of ethical truth.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

‹ Previous
1
…
3
4
5
6
7
…
11
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.