Comment by Doug Bennett on 6th mo. 2, 2012 at 9:41am

Perhaps to recover this understanding, it would be better to speak more of stillness than of quietism. 

Comment by Stephanie Stuckwisch on 6th mo. 2, 2012 at 10:28am

Thank you for sharing that passage from Barclay.

Quietism gets a bad rap in this day and age.  We forget that John Woolman was a product of the Quietist period. His strength was in listening and surrendering to God's will.

My meeting has been passing through a period of strife. I think we would do better to wait and listen rather than striving.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 6th mo. 2, 2012 at 1:10pm

Friend Doug:  That's a good suggestion.  It would serve well by shifting the discussion to activism vs. stillness rather than activism vs. quietism.  I don't think Barclay uses the term 'quiet' or 'quietism'.  He seems to prefer the word 'passive' which I like because it is strikingly contrary to the activist and engaged perspective of many Quakers today.

 

Friend Stephanie:  Quietism does get a bad rap these days.  I think there are several reasons.  First is simply the tenor of the times.  Inwardness is not valued.  And if it is valued it is valued is a means towards an activist, reformist, end; not as an end in itself.  It is instructive to me that I have found on the web both Protestant and Catholic sites that regard Quietism as in some way heretical or at least deviant theologically.  I have yet to find a contemporary scholar or theologian offer a positive assessment or an apology for the perspective of Quietism.

 

I am also beginning to suspect that Jones played a pivotal role in the rejection of Quaker Quietism.  I'm a great admirer of Jones, so this isn't a slam.  But Jones seems to have had a particular animus towards Quietism; his comments about it are harsh.  And Jones during his long and influential life was able to put forward that perspective.

 

In contrast, when I first discovered Quaker Quietism it was like stumbling on a refreshing stream.  The writings from this period I find inspirational and the perfect antidote to the clamor of our contemporary world.  I find in this period the most articulate teachings on why we should turn within and how to do it.  I honestly believe that modern Quakers would benefit greatly from reconnecting with this stream of Quaker Faith and Practice.

 

Thy Friend Jim

Comment by Forrest Curo on 6th mo. 2, 2012 at 4:41pm

The original "Quietists" were Catholics, forming a movement their contemporary Church authorities viewed with suspicion, as with anything that might be a counterweight to the hierarchy's claim to authority. Viewed through Protestant theologies that cast scriptures as the ultimate authority, they seemed suspect for similar reasons.

Where I find the theory of this movement unsatisfactory-- is that proponents seem to have defended their views against the charge that 'The Light' was "merely a 'natural' power" by emphasizing the idea that 'It' and 'a person's mind/heart/spirit' were entirely disjunct. The process had to be seen as "passive" and "unwilled" because people weren't seeing the personal self as included in its own cleansing; they would talk about 'inward' matters but make them sound as if it were someone else who'd wanted God to work with-&-through them.

I hope we can move in the direction of seeing our personal selves as entities which God has always intended to function individually-- and which can be harmonized/developed to serve within God's purposes. If we think of 'The Fall' as "humanity's 'terrible twos' " then growing out of that condition isn't so much 'suppressing our personal will' as setting it within its appropriate context and bounds. Children are supposed to have wills of their own, but not to be heedlessly insistent on them.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 6th mo. 3, 2012 at 9:15am

Friend Forrest:

I think you have touched on one reason why Quietism is disliked so broadly.  For Catholics and Orthodox, Quietism implies, even when it does not directly state, that sacraments are not necessary.  This, in turn, implies that priests are not necessary, and by inference the entire hierarchical structure.  For Protestants, Quietism implies that the path to God is not accomplished by hammering out a doctrine by reason; i.e. theology. 

I agree that the Quietists (Catholic, Pietist, and Quaker) did not regard the inner light as a 'natural power'.  This idea is explicitly rejected by Fox in his Journal and by Barclay in his Apology.  But that is one of the reasons why I find Quietism so attractive; because it has assisted me in understanding that the 'inner light' is not a matter of individual conscience.  Rather it is transcendental in nature.  I think of it as the presence of eternity in the ephemeral individual.

Partly what you are touching on has to do with how we view human nature.  Barclay, along with most reformation era theologians (e.g. Calvin and Arminius) viewed human nature as essentially depraved (sometimes referred to as the doctrine of Total Depravity).  To paraphrase Paul, there is not one, no, not even one, who does good.  From this perspective it is not a matter of 'growing out of' a stage in human development because human nature is essentially sinful; meaning prone to self-centeredness, deceitfulness, etc.  Barclay fully accepts this portrayal of human nature and his conclusion is that in order for a human being to genuinely reform it must be accomplished through grace alone, because human beings are not capable of doing good on their own.  As Paul so eloquently puts it, the good that I would do I do not.  Hence the necessity of a passive relationship to the light within.

This view of human nature runs counter to the prevailing cultural ethos at this time.  People are encouraged to think of themselves as wonderful and magnificent.  Bookstores are filled with self-help books promoting this point of view.  And there are countless spiritual teachers (e.g. western non-dualism) that argue that human nature is essentially divine.  The Quietists would not agree.  And I think that is one of the primary reasons why Quietism does not resonate with people at this time.  Because for it to make sense to people, one would first have to accept the sinful condition of human existence.  In my opinion, modern history, say that of the 20th century, supports the view of Quietism.  Others may not agree.

 

Thy Friend Jim

Comment by Forrest Curo on 6th mo. 3, 2012 at 4:22pm

"Everything is perfect; and some things could use a little improvement."

I think a more central Christian conception-- though it's been overlaid with a lot of theological baggage from way back (first by the notion of "depravity", then (as you say) by the notion of "wonderfulness.") -- That implicit conception would be roughly ~ 'clouded divinity', or 'immature children of God.'

No more innately 'wonderful' than an adolescent wallowing in surliness & angst, but innately created to develop further, and eventually transcend that initial state.

Not that "the inner light" is "natural" in the sense that 17th Century theologians interpreted the word -- but that the natural world, and we creatures living in it, can only exist as embodiments of God. Certainly we are limited embodiments -- That's where the two terminologies can meet, in their different ways of recognizing the fact that we are limited, less than fully as we're intended to become, ruled by a donkey living in the house while Jesus sleeps in the stable, as Rumi had it.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 6th mo. 7, 2012 at 10:02am

Friend Forest:

I just finished reading Friend Isabel's essay on the differences between the branches of Quakerism and I think it speaks to our discussion here.  I am referring to her discussion of the 'progressivist' view of humanity as opposed to the 'tragic' view.  Liberal Quakers tend to have a progressive view of history.  Conservative and Evangelical Quakers tend to have a tragic view of history.  Friend Isabel notes that there are individual exceptions within each grouping, but in general the distinction holds.

Applying this to our discussion you seem to have a progressive view of human history, that humanity as a whole advances and becomes more mature.  The Quietists don't have that point of view and I have only recently become more conscious of the fact that I do not see human history in a progressive way.  I don't see modern humans as more advanced or ethically more insightful than previous eras.  I think this difference lies behind our different understandings.  For me, human beings are fatally flawed.  For the progressivist, flaws in human beings are simply mistakes which can be corrected through reason, persuasion, and through the onward march of history.  And so our different views see a different world.

Thy Friend Jim

Comment