Comment by James C Schultz on 9th mo. 18, 2017 at 9:00am

I want to acknowledge publicly that I misunderstood Keith's postings and have no disagreement with them as I now understand them to be.  Just took some broader understanding of them that took time.  (Not that it matters what my opinion is of anything anyone posts, but I do like to clear the record of any signs of disagreement when none actually exists)

Comment by Howard Brod on 9th mo. 27, 2017 at 7:56am

In my part of the country among liberal Friends there is indeed a healthy and organic recognition, acceptance, and appreciation of "gifts" that any Friend may exhibit. However, with that there is also a recognition that the Spirit is in control of gifts and it will choose when and where to utilize the abilities of Friends -  without the permission of any committee or body.  In this part of the country it is not the practice to record gifts (an official labeling of them and ordination of the gift within an individual) for the very reason Keith is pointing out.  Labels and recording are 'forms' that serve to appeal to the ego so that a hurdle develops for others to also recognize the operation the Light within them whenever the Spirit chooses.

The healthiest meetings are those where the community of Friends is egalitarian where a free environment exists for the Spirit to operate freely with no need for the approval of a meeting hierarchy that has been established (i.e., a controlling committee).  This is the same reason why these egalitarian meetings do not establish or emphasize recorded membership in order for any Friend to serve the spiritual community in any role needed by the community when the Spirit chooses.

Such a communal environment does work well even though the concept confounds the minds of humans.  The Light is a powerful common denominator within us all that does amazing things within each of us as we accept that it is our natural home.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 9th mo. 27, 2017 at 1:24pm

This morning I completed the keyboarding of a couple pieces by Isaac Penington. These, among others, will be included in the supplemental to William Rogers “The Christian Quaker.” I have completed keyboarding Rogers book and hope to publish the entire work, including the supplementals, in four months. I am including Peningtons pieces because Rogers quotes from Penington in “The Christian Quaker” to support his disagreement with Fox and Barclay over the nature of Church Govenerment. There are a number of essays written by Penington that suggest Rogers may have used Penington out of context. I am also keyboarding John Penington’s (Isaac’s son) direct response to Rogers quotation of his father and will include it also in the supplemental. In any case, one section of Penington’s essay entitled “Some Queries Concerning the Order and Government of the Church” is revealing and pertinent, I believe, to this thread. You can read the whole of the piece at http://www.qhpress.org/texts/penington/order.html. Another relevant Penington piece is at: http://www.qhpress.org/texts/penington/misrepresentations.html

I’ve copied the text below from the Quaker Hertiage Press site because it is keyboarded with modern spelling and does not include the original topography. Some people may find it easier to read. I do not correct spelling and change the topography in the texts included in the supplemental.

“Obj. 2. Is not the least measure of life in any vessel (if subjected to, waited on, and believed in) sufficient to instruct and build up into a perfect man in God?

Ans. The sufficiency of the grace of God, turned to, and waited upon, there is nothing in my heart either to undervalue <365> myself, or to teach others so to do. Nor when God did appoint a ministry to gather and build up his church, do I believe he did intend therein to undervalue the sufficiency of his grace: yea, I verily believe, that the grace of God, turned and hearkened to, and followed by, any soul in the darkest part of the earth, hath sufficiency in it to save, and will save that soul, though there be none outwardly to minister to it, or help it. Yet this I also believe, that as there is a sufficiency in every measure of life to the work God hath appointed for that measure; so there is a greater sufficiency in the growth and fuller proportion of life; and the lesser, the weaker, the poor, the afflicted, the babes, are to be helped by the stronger, especially in their darknesses, afflictions, temptations, &c. And so the greater and stronger in the life, Spirit, and power of the Lord, is a strength and blessing to the weaker; which the weaker making use of in the guidance of the Spirit of the Lord (in the sense and benefit of the sweet help and relief which often the Lord pleaseth to give forth thereby), will find just cause, and be often drawn, to bless the name of the Lord for.

The measure of life in the vessel teacheth to subject to the Spirit of the Lord, and his life in others; which the measure of life in any never refuseth, but still knoweth (when awake and living in the vessel) its own, and hath, at least, a secret sense of it, and unity with it. But that which pretends to set up the measure of life as a teacher, otherwise than God hath appointed, and in opposition to the teaching and ministry which he hath appointed, and to his gift in those vessels, which is as well for the building up the perfecting of the body, as for the gathering; that is another thing in that vessel that doth so, than the measure of life; another spirit, another nature, another ear, than that that first heard. And though it seem to cry up the sufficiency of the measure of life, and to plead for that (and perhaps the creature thinks it is really so); yet this is not the intent of the spirit in the vessel, but to cry up itself, and to make its voice go for the voice of the measure of life: and so such err from the faith, the truth, the Spirit, the measure of life, and are in the nature, spirit, and measure of another thing; which is indeed death, though <366> they see it not, but look upon themselves as gloriously living, and abiding in the pure doctrine and principle above others.

Now to help these a little out of the snares and deep entanglements of the enemy, if the Lord please, I would earnestly press the consideration of this upon them. Did not the apostles preach up the measure of life, the grace of God in their day, Christ within, the word of faith nigh in the mouth and heart, the anointing within, its sufficiency to teach all things, &c. And yet did they so preach it as to overthrow the ministry, or the gifts or service either towards them that were without, or them that were within? Had they not power over them in the Lord? Were they not to teach them, to instruct them, to build them up in the holy faith, and also to watch against wolves and devouring spirits, which would strive to enter the flock in sheep's clothing, and, as preachers of righteousness, to make a prey of the innocent life in the upright-hearted, if possible?”

I cherish the writings of Penington. Even when he and I do not exactly share the same conscience. To wait in our measures of the Light is the Life itself and peace.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 9th mo. 29, 2017 at 12:31am

My understanding of Quakerism is it offers plenty of challenging roles, which you could think of as theater parts, complete with job descriptions, terms of office and so on. 

That's one of the great benefits our practice offers the general public: a chance to work with others in an egalitarian yet structured environment, on the whole enterprise of running a socially beneficial and principled nonprofit, i.e. the Meeting itself.

Without even getting Biblical about it, I see from a management standpoint that Quakerism could improve someone's ability to see others' gifts through the process of Nominating. In a healthy Meeting, person X who appreciates the gifts of person Y, might pen a note to clerk of Nominating saying "wow, I bet [so and so] would really shine as [such and such]".

Likewise, to be nominated to a role is to be given an opportunity to exercise one's gifts for the benefit of others.  Isn't this what we often long for in life, exactly such opportunities?

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment, there's also the issue of someone hogging a role, precisely because they're so well fitted for it. 

When might others gain from experience then? 

For example, our Yearly Meeting would pick me on more than one occasion to represent it at AFSC corporation meetings, and I enjoyed the privilege of going to Philadelphia all those times -- but what if I'd hogged the role, just because I was good at it? [1]  Quakerism includes the discipline of stepping aside and giving others a turn.

That's where "management by rotation" comes in, very important to self-staffing-by-volunteer forms of Quakerism and baked right in to the operating manual (Faith & Practice). [2]

[1]  http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=10242042
more about my AFSC role at the Math Forum (currently NCTM but it may pull the plug soon)

[2] Another Quaker journal entry:
http://controlroom.blogspot.com/2007/12/management-by-rotation.html

Comment by Forrest Curo on 9th mo. 29, 2017 at 8:55am

Oneida was a Christian community with significant daily workload; and one of their policies was to frequently rotate people into unfamiliar tasks and into leadership roles in them. (Since some of the people you'd be 'in charge of' would have been in the same role, they'd be available to straighten out blunders at need.) After some hard times initially, they got to be quite prosperous. (Unfortunately they depended too much on the ultimate leadership of John Humphrey Noyes, who got to be a pill in his old age.)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page