QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

A Response to Madeline Schaefer from a Quaker Mystic

First, I appreciate the willingness to both name and discuss the division between the Mystics and the Activists in the Quaker Community of our day. It is an issue that is close to me, as I think of myself as a mystic and often feel, to varying degrees, alienated from the activist focus of so many Quakers individuals and Quaker organizations.

My take on this is that contemporary Quaker activism is a part of the largely political and activist focus that contemporary American religion is gripped by at this time. In other words, I see Quaker activism as the same as evangelical activism, or the activism of many Catholics, for various causes, for various legislative platforms, and for various candidates. For example, evangelicals and Catholics will urge participation in various anti-abortion demonstrations, and support of legislation and court action to further this agenda. In the same way Quaker activists urge participation in demonstrations for their causes and concerns, and support of legislation and court action to further their particular agenda. I don’t see Quaker activism as being distinctive; I think of it as simply a part of what is happening in American religion in general at this time. Both sides see activism as the ultimate goal of their religious expression; they just disagree about the particulars of the activist focus.

The greatest difficulty I have with your post is that your view is that mysticism is an adjunct to effective activism rather than an end in itself. For example, you wrote;

“To experience the Spirit is to experience a call to action and to act with the faith that the Light will be revealed—through deep listening—after each step is taken.”

You see, that is not how I experience the Spirit. I don’t experience the Spirit as a ‘call to action’. And this is the divide between the mystic and the activist. The activist views contemplation, gathered silence, dwelling in the light, as tools for a more effective activism. In this way these prayerful engagements are hijacked by the activist and are transformed into means rather than ends; they become tools for the activist in the same way that making a poster, or putting up a web-page are tools for effective activism.

What the activist does not comprehend about the mystic is that, for the mystic, interior prayer, gathered silence, is the leading, is the purpose, and is sufficient unto itself. The mystic does not view these engagements as tools, or add-ons, for a political purpose.

From the activist perspective, this is inadequate. As Howard Brinton wrote in his ‘Introduction’ to the book ‘A Guide to True Peace’, “This solution [of interior prayer] will seem too simple to intellectuals and too inadequate to activists, the two groups that dominate our age.” This is because the activist is always outward oriented and wants to see results ‘in the real world’. In contrast, the mystic finds the realm of interior silence to be as real, or more real, than what is found by focusing outward. In the inward turning the mystic finds a true home.

For the activist this is to ignore the suffering and injustices in the world. But for the mystic there is the experience, which grows over time, that the silence and stillness found by turning inward is a blessing to the whole world, a blessing which does not give rise to strife and contention. Because this blessing is not palpable or measurable in material terms, the activist tends to dismiss this. Personally, though, I have come to comprehend that the turning inward of the mystic is the most that I can do for other people. Not that I have that particular motivation for turning inward. Rather, that blessing is a consequence of the grace that such turning opens to.

In closing, again, I would like to express my gratitude for bringing up the division. It is, in large part, I feel, unaddressed in Quaker communities these days. I wonder if modern Quakers can find a place for those called to a mystic practice that does not involve activism. Is there room in the modern Quaker community for something like a Quaker Hermit, or a Quaker Recluse? I’m not sure, but it is my hope that room can be made for such a leading, for such a calling.

5 members like this

Comment by Rick Massengale on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 7:58am: Is there a thought that activists aren't mystics or spiritual???

Most activist I know would love to stop .. Their spirit ( something/someone)deep inside will not allow them to stop.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 10:17am: James: I hope you will supply a link to your article when it is published. I would like to read it.

Rick: My feeling is that a mystic can be an activist or a recluse; it depends. What I have responded to is the view that genuine mysiticism entails a 'call to action'. I don't think that is true. And I don't think that being an activist is a necessary part of being a Quaker.

It is intriguing that thee knows activists who 'would love to stop'. I have not noticed that. Perhaps there are different types of activists?

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Rick Massengale on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 10:34am: Would we consider Mother Teresa an activists ?

Comment by Jim Wilson on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 12:20pm: Greetings Rick:

I'm reluctant to get into a discussion about individuals and whether or not they were activists, or mystics, or both, and to what degree. I feel like it would not be productive. One could argue, and some have, that Woolman was a mystic; a case can be made for that.

My purpose in posting was not to argue that an activist cannot be a mystic; clearly this is possible. My purpose was to question the idea that mysticism is defined by an activist agenda. From the perspective of Schaefer's post, if you do not have an activist agenda, if you are not 'called to action', then you are not really a mystic. I question that.

On the other hand, I do think it is legitimate to ask why contemporary religion in the U.S. is so politically focused. This is true across the board, whether you are talking about evangelicals, Catholics, or liberal denominations. This wasn't always the case. A theology of separation was prominent among evangelicals until they were seduced by the real possibility of political power. I believe that Quakers during the period of Quietism also operated under a view of separation from the world. That kind of thinking has been all but lost and I think American religion is poorer for it.

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Keith Saylor on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 3:44pm: Madeline writes in her article:

“… tension between what are called the “mystics” and the “activists;" those who express their faith by doing, by acting in the world, by addressing social concerns, and those who prefer to express their faith through contemplation, conversation, and other spiritual practices.”

This is misplaced dichotomy. The tension, especially in a Quaker context, is between those whose faith and identity is anchored in and informed by the direct experience of and immediacy in the presence of Christ and those whose faith and identity is anchored in and informed by outward political and religious ideals, institutions, and activities.

The faith of those anchored in outward forms is a different faith from those anchored in the presence of Christ. These are not different expressions of the faith same. They are fundamentally different faiths. They are fundamentally different ways of being.

Those whose faith is a consciousness anchored in and a conscience informed by the presence of Christ are “doing” and “acting” in the Presence. Presence is activism.

Isaac Penington says it well:

“Now observe (ye that have understanding and true sense) the difference between the religion which God hath taught us, and led us into, and the religions of all men upon the earth besides. Our religion stands wholly out of that which all their religion stands in. Their religion stands in the comprehension, in a belief of a literal relation or description. Our religion stands in a principle which changeth the mind, wherein the Spirit of life appeareth to, and witnesseth in the conscience to and concerning the things of the kingdom; where we hear the voice, and see the express image of the Invisible One, and know things, not from an outward relation, but from their inward nature, virtue, and power. Yea, here (we must profess) we so know things, that we are fully satisfied about them, and could not doubt concerning them, though there never had been word or letter written of them; though indeed it is also a great comfort, and sweet refreshment to us, to read that testified of outwardly, which (through the tender mercy of our God) we feel and enjoy inwardly. And in this our whole religion consists; to wit, in the silence and death of the flesh, and in the quickening and flowing life of the Spirit. For he who is of the new birth, of the new creation, of the second Adam (the Lord from heaven), is as really alive to God, and as really lives to him in his Spirit, as ever he was really dead in trespasses and sins in the time of his alienation and estrangement from God.”

To many Quakers today Penington’s distinction between Quaker faith or religion and “the religions of all men upon the earth besides” is borderline heresy. Penington clearly testifies to a faith the “changest the mind [Consciousness] and “witnesseth in the conscience” [informs conscience] so that those who consciousness in anchored in and conscience is informed by the presence of Christ “know things, not from an outward relation, but from their inward nature, virtue, and power.

This faith wherein consciousness is anchored in and conscience informed by the direct and immediate witness of the presence of Christ within is a fundamentally different way of being in this world. Consciousness is no longer anchored in “literal relations” but within Presence itself and Presence informs the conscience.

Political activism that places faith in outward political and religious forms and activities is a different faith from those whose faith in centered in the presence of Christ.

There is a want amongst some Quakers to mitigate difference or distinction by equating faiths that are fundamentally different. A faith anchored in the presence of Christ has no faith in outward forms like political and religious institutions. A consciousness anchored in and a conscience informed by the presence of Christ has faith in the Presence as sufficient in itself. This is the activism of this faith.

Comment by James C Schultz on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 8:10pm: Keith: Excellent distinction. My point of view is that there are too many other venues for those "activists anchored in and informed by outward political and religious ideals, institutions and activities" for the Society of Friends to count on them for future growth. Such activists can find like minded people in specialized social action groups and unless they are spiritually motivated do not recognize that there is strength, wisdom and creativeness to be derived from spending time with the inner Christ or Light.

Comment by Rick Massengale on 4th mo. 2, 2014 at 10:24pm: Jim,

Thanks for a very informative discussion. I tend to agree ( I think Forest said there can be a call to action or inaction) I guess my first question was to determine if some felt one calling was/is inferior to the other. Personally, I don't think one is above the other.

I mentioned mother Teresa, not to debate her work or calling but as an example of an "activist who would have love to stop" being an activist. She spoke of a great "temptation" to walk away from her work.

Thanks again for a very informative discussion.

Rick

Comment by Paul Klinkman on 4th mo. 3, 2014 at 8:49pm: I think of myself as pretty activist and pretty mystic.

I see plenty of movements that didn't work out and I see a few that did work out. The successful movements were often well-grounded in experiential religion.

--George Fox was a morose meditator, not a firebrand at all when he would sit in a hollow tree alone and away from society. In time he became a man who would speak until beaten up.

--John Woolman was a sensitive soul who was able to draw up the first bill of sale for a slave, but not the second. In a world of protesters such as Anthony Benezet, Woolman was the one who sat and prayed with slaveowners, weaning the Quakers (and in turn the whole world) away from slavery.

--Jesus of Nazareth took plenty of time to pray, and then he and his followers would whip bulls to set off panics at the temple in Jerusalem. Was he being an activist?

--The modern Civil Rights movement coalesced around a conclave of ministers, people who prayed all the time. They ran the movement well.

--I point to FLGBTQC daily Meeting for Worship as a wonderful form of progress. In my opinion, the Quaker LGBTQ community has become integrated into the center of FGC far more successfully than a number of other groups, and in my opinion the Meetings for Worship helped. I recommend that a number of other groups institute daily meetings for worship.

- - - In particular, sexual and physical abuse survivors need to worship with the people that didn't know and/or didn't care. Only when rage is fully and deeply shared does it become community wisdom.

- - - The Friends of Color group would probably benefit.

- - - I sense that a serious amount of anger and related feelings is building up around the issue of climate change. I call for worship here.

And so, my advice to the AFSC is to honor mysticism as a way of being led to the best activist path. It's a common error for people to assume that they already have most or all of the activist answers and that mystics are just wasting their own time. Activism without mysticism too often leads to those activists going off into smaller and smaller in-groups, and getting next to nothing done in the end. No, it's not all about collating and stapling.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 4th mo. 4, 2014 at 10:18am: Keith: Thanks for the Pennington quote. I am not very familiar with Pennington's writings; pehaps I should take the time to track them down.

James: I think you make a thoughtful observation. And I think it applies to American religion in general at this time. Surveys reveal a decline in church attendance, along with a decline in interest in religion in general. And this has happened at precisely the time when American churches have become more and more politically involved. I would like to suggest that there is a cause and effect relationship here; that the decline is partially caused by the political focus. The thing is, if churches have become primarily political organizations, advocates for various causes, then it is not clear that churches have anything distinctive to offer that advocacy groups offer on their own.

Paul: I understand what you are saying, but I don't see it the way you do. You write that AFSC should 'honor mysticism as a way of being led to the best activist path.' From my perspective, that is not honoring mysticism; rather it is subordinating mysticism to other functions.

Thanks,

Jim

Comment by Julianna Flynn on 4th mo. 4, 2014 at 12:18pm: I would suggest that the Meeting for Worship is neither an activist incubator nor a therapy group. Worship is the point, mysticism is the means. The Holy Spirit leads, and we cannot know what that leading is unless we leave our preconceived politics and agendas outside the Meeting House door.

Comment

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

Join QuakerQuaker

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.