Comment by Diane Benton on 10th mo. 25, 2015 at 12:12pm

On first reading, nothing jumped out at me.  As I do future readings, I'll let you know if I see anything that seems amiss.

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 25, 2015 at 9:31pm

This discussion of forms/tradition and the felt presence of God seems off base to me.  I don't think the alleged incompatibility of God's presence and the human forms/rituals of one's faith tradition is valid.

Modern unprogrammed Quakerism has largely eliminated the traditional forms and patterns of Friends' worship.  Instead of enhancing the felt presence of Christ, this reductionism has stripped worship of context for experiencing God's presence and the rituals which help to define the meaning of His presence.  Spiritual experience is not self-defining; it acquires meaning when we interpret it in terms of some frame of reference.  And that frame of reference comes from the Bible and other sacred texts, and our traditions and social conventions.

This argument is made rather forcefully by the Catholic scholar Ronald Rolheiser in *The Shattered Lantern: Rediscovering a Felt Presence of God*  http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0824522753?qid=1445820238&ref_...

My own experience is that I have felt God's presence most intensely among those Friends who adhere to the old traditions of Quaker worship, now mostly unknown among unprogrammed Friends .  "Flattening" the forms of Quaker worship tends to  strip the experience of God's presence of meaning.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 10th mo. 25, 2015 at 11:30pm

Thanks, William.  Thee speaks my mind.  Historically I would say that this is a kind of Gnosticism.  Plotinus criticized gnosticism on exactly these grounds; lamenting that they separated the divine from the material world.  Plotinus is interesting on this point because he had a strong ascetic streak and we normally associated asceticism with this kind of dualism.  But the view of Plotinus is that the world of form can function as a gateway to the divine and should not, therefore, be dismissed as beyond redemption (see his essay 'On Beauty').

From a Christian perspective creation, that is to say form, exists because of God's grace and love.  To act as if forms were inherently obstacles to comprehending God's presence means to create a barrier to the realization of that Presence.  It is an inherently elitist position, centered on the idea that only those with a kind of intuitive gnosis have access to the divine.  In contrast, the Christian teaching is that the Presence of God is accessible to all precisely because God became form in Christ.

Thanks again.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 12:24am

William. As I have written over and over, the immediate experience of inward Presence is, for many of us, our form, our guide, our teacher, etc. We do not look to outward forms to anchor our conscious and inform our conscience. I understand that you and many others adhere to outward forms as an anchor for your conscious and the informer of your conscience. Our way if different than your way. Your characterization of our faith and experience in inspired Presence itself as stripping "the experience of God's presence of meaning" is not the nature of our experience and mis-represents it. In our experience, the inward Light of Christ filling our conscious and informing our conscience without regard to outward form is being in God's Presence in every moment and every circumstance in our daily lives. Truly, the falling away of outward forms, traditions, teachings, ideologies, and institutions, is when we experience the very essence of our meaning, consciousness, being, etc. 

I understand that for you such a stripping of outward forms is, as you admit, to experience no meaning, no direction, no Presence.  We, and many of the founding Quakers themselves, share a different experience than that of yours. We actually experience meaning and consciousness in a different way.

It is clear that this message is exasperating and troubling to many, so much so that they feel the need to counter it by searching for misleading labels to deride the experience and overshadow the testimony. We will continue to share the message of the mystery of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the immediate experience of the inward Light. 

Yes, Jim, the inward Light illuminates ever person as a result of the life of the historic Jesus Christ, the Golgotha event, and the coming of the Comforter right down into and re-forming our conscious and conscience to rule and guide us inwardly. 

 

Comment by Howard Brod on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 7:34am

Just for the record and to offer a counter-observation, it is not a shared opinion that modern unprogrammed worship is not meaningful as a spiritual experience.  For those of us who seek the living Presence in all of life without a dependence (idolization) on form, these special times of communing for a group experience of the Presence in helpful and meaningful.  We do not need to all have the same mental form to experience the fullness of that Presence among us during these times.

And, yes, I know that perhaps this is the ultimate form that Friends are using for spiritual realization.  However, the unadulterated silence has been recommended for ages by mystics and saints (from all religious traditions) as the ultimate vehicle to be reminded of the Spirit within in an inclusive way that unites all in that great Reality.

Comment by Mackenzie on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 9:27am

William said:

Modern unprogrammed Quakerism has largely eliminated the traditional forms and patterns of Friends' worship. 

I'm curious: what "traditional forms and patterns of Friends' worship" have been eliminated?  Are you referring to the Quietism that set in hundreds of years ago, shifting from being a rather rambunctious and charismatic lot to very staid? That it is now infrequent for a message to include Bible references? If not, what change am I missing?

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 10:31am

Hello, Mackenzie!  Thanks for the good question.  I'll try to give a coherent answer later today.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 11:54am

William Rushbys words are profound to me in so many ways. Profound not in the sense that he would wish, but profound. 

After reading his words, I kept going to the words of a founding Quaker, William Rogers. His treatise is the subject of  this thread. Specifically, Rogers shares that, when the Quaker gathering was just begun, people (Church Leaders of the time and presumably others), whose faith was in outward orders and faiths to guide them, came to the Quakers and expressed (calling Quakers confused) their exasperation that the gathering of Quakers did not set down creeds so that people may know what they must believe to be a part of the Quaker gathering and so others may assess Quaker articles of faith. The founding Quakers replied by saying that the inward Light itself is sufficient and that they did not hold to any marks or signs by which they would be under the pale of a Church. They also did not establish articles to which all members must adhere. 

Even right from the beginning there were those both inside the gathering and later within the gathering who just would have nothing of this group of people who did not hold to outward marks, signs, doctrines, creeds, etc. establishing them under the pale of an outward church. These people experienced the inward Light and Life as sufficient in itself to guide and instruct them and shared that experience with others. 

Some 320 years later. William Rushby writes "I don't think the alleged incompatibility of God's presence and the human forms/rituals of one's faith tradition is valid." And then he uses a Catholic scholar to support his contention. The Catholic Church was one of the institutions that early Quaker experience of the inward Light had lead then out from under the pale of, including Protestantism.  It is profound in its significance that William Rushby uses a teacher from an outward Church that many people, both 320 years ago and today,  are no longer under the pale of, to support being and meaning that is under the pale of an outward Church. There are those of us who today share the experience (opened in Rogers historical document but not limited to it) of the sufficiency of the inward Light to enlighten our conscious and to inform our conscience and who do not adhere to outward marks, signs, and creeds, establishing us under the pale of the outward Church and its similitudes.

Here is what Rogers shared in his own words:

'Tis well known, that it pleased the Lord, to reach unto many of our Consciences at the beginning of this latter Day, that hath dawned amongst us; whereby we came to Believe in the Everlasting Light of the Lord; and as others held forth the Visible Orders, and Written Faiths of a Visible Church to be as a lantern to their Paths, and as a Ground of their Faith, so this Light of Christ was preached up as Lantern to our Paths, and as the Ground of our Faith, and then (as our Understandings came to be more and more opened) we clearly saw, that as other Churches had outward Marks and Tokens, whereby a man might manifest himself to be a Member of their Church, when received into Society with their Church, so we (who had Believed in the Light of our Lord Jesus Christ, and had the Evidence in our selves, that we were of the true Brotherhood, and Members of Christ's Body) were at a loss infallibly to manifest unto others, by any Outward Marks or Tokens, that we were in Reality Members of the true Church: Because this Light (in which we had Believed) did reveal unto us, that those who were but in the Gentile Nature, and had come no further than the Outward Court (that was given to the Gentiles) might have all the Outward Marks and signs of a Member of their Churches, and yet know very little of the washing by the Water of Regeneration, and Sanctification through the Spirit, which every Member of the true Church, that's built on the Rock Christ, comes to be Witness of.

And therefore, when our Opposers (who professed not the Truth) would reflect upon us on this wise; You are a confused People; you gather not into Church fellowships; you have no certain Way to know one another to be Members of the Church, as we have. And why do you not put forth your Creed, that so we may know what and how many of the Articles of your Faith are, and what you stand for, and what you stand against? The best Answer, that ever (as we could understand) we were capable to give in Truth unto such, was this:

The True Church is in God, who is the Author and Finisher of our Faith; we have believed in the Sufficiency of His Grace, unto which if we are obedient (according to the respective measures thereof given of God, and Received by us) we then  have the Witness of God in our Consciences, giving evidence, that we are of the True Brotherhood, and of the Church of the First Born, whose Names are written in Heaven, though we do not allege any outward Marks and Signs ...

The more of the text can be read by clicking here.

There is a different way of being, consciousness, meaning, and purpose, than the way of those who gathered under outward marks, signs, ideologies, creeds, and practices. In that different way, the conscious and conscience of human beings is anchored in and informed by the direct experience of the inward Light itself from within their conscious and conscience. 

Comment by William F Rushby on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 12:02pm

Hello, Keith!  You wrote that my words are "profound", but not for the reasons I would wish.  Thanks for the back-handed compliment!  Of course, I would like to offer profundities, but would never claim such for myself.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 26, 2015 at 12:26pm

That's fair William. I appreciate your comment and will learn from it. What about the rest of the content. Anything?

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• Next ›
• Page