Comment by Kirby Urner on 1st mo. 13, 2017 at 3:33pm

Right. I think what muddies the waters when differentiating "faith" from "hearsay" or "opinion" is precisely the citing of authorities e.g. George Fox or the Bible, as to what "faith" really is. When one cites authorities, the mere fact of doing so seems to be going towards the "hearsay" practice of getting our information secondhand.

But then how is a non-English-speaking baby supposed to understand "faith" if not by listening to the adults around him or her? [1] This is where Augie comes in with his doctrine of innate understanding, which we find also in Plato. Ultimately people come to understand "faith" through their own inner sense of discernment, somewhat the basis for religions that posit direct (versus mediated) contact with "the inner teacher".
As you say though, "conscience" is a different can of worms, although as Keith Saylor and others have pointed out, the meaning of "conscience" is not fixed in how it's used either, with some Quaker journal keepers ("bloggers") blurring "conscience" with "consciousness" in meaning.

Words be slippery beasts!  Good thing we have intuition then! :-D

[1] hip-hop artists raps triumphantly about transcending babyhood, a condition of relative helplessness:
https://youtu.be/fAWvvE9w6Po

Comment by James C Schultz on 1st mo. 13, 2017 at 6:04pm

It's been years since my engineering undergraduate days and even the practice of engineering but I believe the scientific method involves taking a hypothesis such as a definition of faith and then testing it (experimenting? - I know that's not the same context that GF used it in)  I believe in the Bible because it has proved itself experientially in my life just as GF claimed that he knew Jesus experimentally/experientially in his life.  The reason we have to work on discerning is that some "innate" understanding is driven by personal desire for things other than the pure truth or even driven by a morality derived from one's culture, which includes both tribal needs and loyalties as well as historically sensitive knowledge.  When Quaker process is working correctly we can expect a group revelation that becomes apparent to all present.

Comment by Kirby Urner on 1st mo. 13, 2017 at 7:03pm

I see Quakerism itself as a bold experiment in some design *other than* all getting behind a pastor or father figure, a leader, and hoping he's a man of true faith. Such designs, closer to monarchy and feudalism are also more into scapegoating, should said man of faith end up not satisfying the flock in some way.

The alternative to patriarchal hierarchy is neither "anarchy" nor "chaos" but any number of intelligent designs whereby participants come to trust the processes, the workflows, over and above any one individual's talents or capacities.

We have our term-limited clerks, our clearness committees, archived minutes, yearly cycles of business and meeting queries.  As we say of the USG, however warped by abuse over the centuries, it's built around "checks and balances". 

Those convinced of this practice regard it as God-inspired. Our faith is less in the decisions taken than in the sensitivity of the whole process to the workings of the Holy Spirit.  In Business Meeting we get to hear many voices, and mull over what they say.  We may put over for seasoning some concern that will obviously take some time to work through.  Meetings reshape themselves in many dimensions, as a result of corporate discernment, including Meeting for Worship itself (a core practice).

Using the Gospel-inspired language of Maurice Nicoll, a Scottish Jungian but also a follower of "Dr. O" the Russian mystic, I think it fair to count on individuals to factor in tribal needs and loyalties, "need to know" and so on, in their behaviors, pretty much as a matter of habit. As creatures of habit, we're somewhat robotic (automatic) in our manner, and that's out of necessity as life comes at us fast without always the luxury to reflect right there and then.  "Intuition" or "faith" is what enters by God's Grace i.e. no thanks to our robotic nature, which is why we call it "grace" in the first place.

Comment by Cris Fugate on 1st mo. 20, 2017 at 11:48pm

Thomas replied, "Teacher, I cannot possibly say what you are like." Jesus said to Thomas, " I am not your teacher; you have drunk from and become intoxicated from the bubbling water that I poured out."

Teachings are like a raft for crossing a stream. When you cross the stream you do not need to carry the raft on your back. It is obvious that you need both teachings and awakening/revelation. Creeds are deadly because they do not allow for personal growth. That is the reason I left orthodox Christianity.

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page