QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

The withdraw of affection for meaning, purpose, and identity anchored in outward political and religious forms and institutions.

Or founding Quaker Heterodoxy revealed in the words of an early disaffected Quaker, Francis Bugg

I have recently been reading the writings of Francis Bugg as part of my ongoing work to give context to William Rogers documentation (1680) of John Wilkinson's and John Story's disagreement with George Fox and the institutionalization of the early Quaker gathering.

Briefly, Francis Bugg was a member of the early Quaker gathering. He eventually left the Quakers and set about actively speaking and writing against Quakerism in general and George Fox specifically.

Bugg's book "The Pilgrim's Progress from Quakerism to Christianity" written in 1698 is an important source document giving a first person account of the nature of the Quaker experience. His accounting is significant as it is from the perspective of an individual who was devout Quaker who then became disaffected. It is often the case that reading the perspective of the disaffected reveals nuances not readily gleaned from the renderings of the devout. Bugg's writings are full of such treasures.

Bugg's main contention is that he was carried away by the "dissimulation" of Quaker "teachers" like George Fox. That is, the genuine intent of the leaders of the gathering was to use the silent meeting "to wean us off from so much as the remembrance of all external Religion, and also, to prepare us to receive the false Notions of Quakerism ..."

Bugg also writes:

"But, let it be noted, Not a Chapter in the Bible was ever read amongst us, but all exhorted to adhere to the Light within, to obey the Light within, and to follow the Teachings thereof, as a Guide sufficient to lead us to Salvation; yea above Scripture, above Fathers, above Counsels, and above Churches: This I now confess, was a Paradox; not Orthodox, but absolutely works Heterodox: For let the Scripture command Subjects to be obedient to Magistrates, Children to obey their parent, Wives to reverence their Husbands, and live in subjections to them, Servant to obey their Master, Christian to obey their Pastors, all this signified little; the Light within (our teachers taught us) was Christ, and Christ the Power of God, the higher Power to which every Soul was to be subject; yea, all Power in Heaven and Earth, was committed to the Light; (a) and that no Command in Scripture was any further binding, than as we were convinced of the Lawfulness thereof, by the Light within us. (b) So, that all our obedience to God, and his Commands, were bottomed and founded in our Conviction, by the Light within; that being the only Rule, Judge, and Guide, both superior to the Scriptures, Fathers, and Councils. For, said they to us, That what is spoken from the Spirit of Truth (c) in any is of as great Authority as the Scriptures and Chapters are, and greater."

I welcome and embrace Bugg's criticisms and warnings against Quakerism as he met it. For in his analysis, a sense of the essence of founding Quakerism is revealed. He witnessed, experienced, and testifies to the essence of the Quaker experience through Silent Meeting as a weaning "from the Articles of Christian Faith, and the Principles of Christian Religion ... to throw off all Instituted Religion, but even to a degree higher, even to throw contempt both upon the Scriptures, Ordinances, and Ministers, and all things Sacred, crying down all Forms and Constitutions, how ancient and profitable forever they were, and all under a higher Dispensation, even the Light within, &, etc.

Now, while Bugg came to speak out against the Light within as sufficient guide without regard to outward forms and persons, this witness is what attracted him to Quakerism. I suggest he was sympathetic to this testimony in and of itself even after he abandoned Quakerism. However, as many founding and early Quakers documented in their writings, something happened after about 35 to 40 years from the founding of Quakerism. They document that many of those who were “teachers” (including George Fox) in the Gathering changed their accent so to speak. They began to suggest that there was a need to re-institutionalize the gathering. To Francis Bugg and many others in the gathering at the time, this re-institutionalization of the gathering represented a betrayal of the very essence of their witness and testimony. Williams Roger, in 1680, writes that those who wished to re-institute the gathering back into an adherence to outward forms were leading the gathering back into a way of life that they had rejected. Francis Bugg goes even further and suggests the establishment forces had intended to do so from the very founding of the Gathering, but first, they had to “wean” them from the outward forms they had grown into so as to inject another set of outward forms of their creation. So, what was the "dissimulation" or hidden purpose behind this testimony of the sufficiency of the Light within?

Bugg writes the "teachers" within the gathering use the design of silent meeting "to bring us off, and wean us from the Articles of Christian Faith, and the Principles of the Christian Religion; thereby, to mould us, and square us, as fit Tools for their turn, to supplant and overthrow it. And this I know, that the more we obeyed the Doctrine of our new Teachers [George Fox, William Penn, etc.] the more we grew dead to all Instituted Religion ... these Silent Universities tends only to empty the mind of all true and solid Notions of the Christian Religion, and only to prepare them for the wild Notions of Quakerism, which hath such a sandy Foundation." According to Bugg, this weaning from outward forms was only a preparation for the implanting of another set of outward forms those "teachers" wish to institute upon the gathering. Bugg is suggesting a conscious effort of bait and switch by the Quaker "teachers."

He writes:

"For after we became dead to the Rudiments of the world, as we accounted those Christian Duties, commanded by Christ and his Apostles, and practiced by Christian Churches downwards, as Baptism, Supper, Confession of Sin, &c, and became steadfast and fixed in the Notion of Quakerism; of which I gave only a Hint as I passed through my Pilgrimage in that Particular; then our teachers began to think themselves of the necessity of a Government in our Church, as well as our Neighbors; and if a Government then a Governor; and this Government must be either inward, or Outward.: The Inward we had tried and found defective, for the Disciple pretended he was enlightened, as well as the Apostle; and he thought he had as much right to follow his Guide, i.e. his Light within, as to follow and obey the Light in his Teacher, or the Light in any Man.Upon this, the teachers met in Council at London, in the Month of May 1666, to settle this so necessary, as well as difficult Point; and many Arguments passed between the Clergy and Laity, between the Teachers and the Deputies. As last it was decided, That the Body should govern, and the Light, in particular, should submit to the Body. But still, this Body being without a Head, seemed like a Monster; so that there was a necessity to find a head to clap upon the Body. Well, this head must either be visible, or invisible,; the latter it could not be, for then the least Hearer would plead his Light, his Guide, his Judge, his Leader; as the Teachers told them in the beginning, when they decoyed them over to them. So then it was resolved, it must be George Fox, he being the first, must become our Great Apostle; who, together with the Body, was to Govern from East to West, and from North to South. Since which time, it was in vain for any single Person to plead the Sufficiency of his Light, or the Authority of it, for to the Light the Body was all Power in Heaven and Earth committed.”

With these words Bugg documents a time (he later asserts to be the first 40 years) when many Quakers lived in the sufficiency of the inward Light as literally ("particularly") their only guide and teacher. A time when, generally speaking, the inward Light itself replaced, or took the place of, all outwards form and institutions. Those in the Gathering were “weaned” from outward forms. In essence, they no longer reflected upon or looked toward outward forms (institutions, creeds, scripture, traditions, ideologies, theologies) as their guide. Rather, their meaning, purpose, direction, and identity rested in the inward Light itself in itself. Then, some teachers in the Gathering began to suggest a need for adherence to outward forms (irrespective of guidance in the Light itself) because “the Disciple pretended he was enlightened, as well as the Apostle; and he thought he had as much right to follow his Guide, i.e. his Light within, as to follow and obey the Light in his Teacher, or the Light in any Man.” There is so much going on here. The reason the teachers re-turned back again upon outward forms is that there were people who stayed true to the Light in their conscience and would not submit their Light to the Light of the teachers or any man or outward body or institution. In essence, the teachers did not have control. There were just too many people who experienced the original Quaker witness of the sufficiency of the inward Light literally and would not submit to the outward notions of the “teachers.”

Francis Bugg writes further:

“And to support this Glorious Cause, W. Penn wrote a Book ( A Brief Examination and Statement … pg.3), wherein he affirms, ‘That it is a dangerous Principle, and pernicious to True Religion; and which is worse, it is the Root of Ranterism, to assert, That nothing is a Duty incumbent upon thee, but what thou are persuaded, [or convinced] is thy Duty, &c.’ This was printed in 1681, and written by the same William Penn which in the Year 1673 wrote his book entitled, Quakerism a New Nick-Name of Old Christianity; where he then judged it so far from Ranterism, to act as they were persuaded, that, pg. 71, he saith, ‘No Command in the Scripture, is any farther Obliging upon any Man, than as he finds a Conviction upon his Conscience; otherwise Men (said Mr. Penn) should be engaged in without, if not against conviction; a thing unreasonable in a Man, &c.

Bugg then responds:
Thus it is plain, That with respect to the Commands of God recorded in the Holy Scriptures, Men are to be at liberty; they are to obey, if they be convinced or persuaded it’s their Duty so to do; if not, they may by Mr. Penn’s Doctrine, be at liberty.

Bugg is here suggesting that Penn has changed his “doctrine,” over time, about the sufficiency of the inward Light as Guide. To be fair, Penn disagreed with Bugg’ assessment. The point here is to show there were people amongst the Quaker Gathering who expressed there was a change in testimony among those who sought to institutionalize the Quaker gathering. This move toward institutionalization the Gathering represented a return to “that which they had left behind,” as William Rogers writes. Again, there were many Quakers who witnessed and experienced the sufficiency of the inward Light itself in itself as their only Guide. The movement away from this sufficiency itself in itself was a movement away from the very core of their experience and bondage to the very process of adherence to outward religious and civic forms; a process in which they no longer participated.

I appreciate Bugg’s, first person, documentation of this pivotal moment when many in the Gathering turned back again to outward forms and many did not. He documented a period (the first 40 years) when the Gathering united around the direct experience of the sufficiency of the inward Light itself as their guide; a time when, by the power and illumination of the Light within their conscious and conscience, they were weaned from reflection upon outward forms. Truly, by looking back upon the idols of outward form and thereby being hardened against the sufficiency of the inward Light, Bugg finds those teachers in betrayal of the original Quaker experience. William Rogers also expressed similar sentiments in 1680. The fact that many in the Quaker gathering at the time cried out against the establishment forces in Quakerism is a powerful testimony that a change was introduced. That change was the veiling of the sufficiency of the inward Light itself in itself by outward forms and institutions outwardly imposed upon the Quaker gathering by the establishment forces including George Fox and William Penn.

Bugg gets right down to it by quoting William Penn again in the context of those outward forms Penn thinks should be followed irrespective of conscience or conviction. In doing this, Bugg is suggesting that, while Penn takes the liberty to not follow commands recorded in Scriptures, like baptism, based upon conscience, he goes about suggesting that all Quakers should follow the outwards forms he and others have established even when they do not share the conviction of conscience. Bugg writes:

Bugg writes:

“Well, it say let us hear what Commands of the Quakers are, that whoever amongst them pleads for their Liberty, whether to obey or not to obey, as Ranters, Rebels, and what not. See his Brief Examination ...., pg. 11: ‘And this I affirm, from the Understanding I have received of God, not only that the Enemy is a work to scatter the Minds of Friends by the loose Plea; What hast thou to do with me? Leave me to my Freedom, and to the Grace of God in myself, and the like. But this Proposition and Expression, as now understood and alleged, is a deviation from, and a perversion of the Ancient Principle of Truth. For this is the plain Consequence of this Plea; if any shall say, I see no evil in Paying Tithes to Hireling Priests, in that they are not claimed by Divine Right, but by Civil Laws of the Land. I see no evil (saith another) in marrying by Priest, for he is but a Witness. I see no evil (saith a third) in declining Public Testimony in Suffering-Times, for I have Christ’s and Paul’s example. I see no evil (saith a fourth) in respecting the Persons of Men; for whatever others do, I intend a sincere notice, that I take those I know. I see no evil (saith a fifth) in keeping my Shop shut up on the World’s Holy Days [Fast Days] for I would not willingly give offense to me Neighbors, &c."

Bugg then writes:

"Reader, I have been the larger on the Quotation, because it may evidently appear, beyond all their Glossing, that like the Pharisees, their Forefathers, they make void the Commands of God, by exalting their own Traditions above them, saying, None are any further obliged to obey the Commands of God in the Holy Scriptures, than they are convinced or persuaded by the Light to obey; but their own Commands, such as not paying Tithes, not marrying with a Priest, not putting off the Hat, not shutting up their Shop-Windows on Holy-Days and Fast Days; this is highly Criminal, to plead their liberty in these Things, is Ranterism and Rebellion."

Bugg presses even further suggesting: "the Quakers have rejected the Government and Guidance of the Light in the Particular to be suﬃcient, but that the Light in the Particular must Vail to the Light in the Body, or Church."

Many Quakers, from the beginning of the Gathering's founding to this very day, testified to an experience through which they witnessed (lived) a withdraw of affection for meaning, purpose, identity, conscious, and conscience anchored in and informed by outward political and religious, intellectual constructs and institutional forms and practices. The inward Light itself in itself replaced a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by outward forms by directly and without mediation anchoring the conscious and guiding the conscience so that meaning, purpose, and identity existed without reference to outward political and religious forms.

0 members like this

Comment by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 22, 2016 at 12:42am: Howard. I don't know whether you've read the whole document. The "discussion" at the end is interesting.

The latent class analysis found that PYM Quakers can be classified into two groups in a 60-40 split based on their religious beliefs used in this survey. The groups are distinct, that is, they are not describing the two extremes of an otherwise homogenous single group. We had not expected to find just two groups. We were expecting to find three or more groups. We have named the two groups 'G' and 'S' because one is oriented toward a relationship with God, and the other toward relationships with other people in social action. We did not find evidence for two groups that might have been dubbed 'C' for Christo-centric and 'U' for Universalist, a distinction that has been widely viewed as describing distinct groups among Friends.

Statisticians sometimes joke that there are two approaches to classification-the 'lumpers' and the 'splitters'. The splitters find reasons for breaking clusters into more groups, while the lumpers look for larger more inclusive groups. For example, one might define groups of Quakers depending on their religion of origin, thus classifying Friends into 'Jewish Quakers', 'Methodist Quakers', etc. The latent class approach is more of a 'lumper' approach, treating the classes as a mixture of underlying populations, each of which has some variation around a mean. Thus, our G group represents a group of persons who seek a relationship with God, although there is some variation in how strongly they seek it. The S group represents a different group whose primary interest is in social action, not a relationship with God. While one could split these groups into additional groups using various and often ad hoc criteria, the underlying latent class theory suggests that the theology of PYM Friends falls into these two broad classes.

What is holding PYM Quakers together, especially during Meeting for Worship, given the differences in religious beliefs? We have one group who are seekers looking for a relationship with God and another which does not believe in a personal God, prays little, and is often upset with religious language, whether Christian or 'new age'. Perhaps the differences cause tensions difficult for some Friends to bear. Different rates of attendance between the two groups at Meeting for Worship suggest that worship may be less helpful or perhaps less meaningful for 'S' Friends. Perhaps the possible tensions are handled by some Friends going to like-minded meetings, so that 'G' Friends are more likely to attend 'G' meetings and similarly for 'S' Friends.

It is also possible that the differences do not cause much tension for many Friends. It may be that 'G' Friends value the contributions of'S' Friends, looking to them for leadership in finding and using opportunities for service. Similarly 'S' Friends may value the spiritual contributions of'G' Friends. That neither group feels particularly excluded is shown by the 23 per cent identical agreement of the two groups to the questionnaire statement, 'I still sometimes feel like an outsider in my Meeting' (see Table 4).

Another possibility is that while areas of difference do cause tension, other areas of agreement hold the two groups of Friends together. For example, both groups perceive Meeting for Worship as a safe place, a time for peace and quiet rest, and not the time to share personal news and feelings. Both groups have similar (and divided) feelings that personal leadings should be subject to the approval of clearness committees. Both groups disagree that the Light Within condemns those who turn their back on it. Both groups are similar in educational level and political liberalism. And finally, both groups are reluctant to convert others to Quakerism.

Our study has two key limitations. First, it was designed for another purpose obtaining information about increasing membership-so the number of attitude items was limited. Now that we have the latent classes, we can easily think of additional questions we wished we had asked, which might better differentiate the groups. For example, we would include attitude items that elicit information about involvement in social and political activities as well as more detail on attitudes toward universalism and specific social and religious testimonies.

The second limitation is the restricted sample. Worldwide, the majority of Friends are evangelical Christians living in Africa or South America who worship within a pastoral structure (Cary 1995). Our results are restricted to one liberal yearly meeting in the 'unprogrammed' tradition, and to 10 meetings out of the 100 in that Yearly Meeting. We do not know how different the results be would for other liberal unprogrammed Friends. The addition of other kinds of Friends such as Evangelical or Conservative into our sample would almost certainly reveal additional classes.

Comment by Howard Brod on 7th mo. 22, 2016 at 8:08am: Yes, from my experience there is little to no tension between these two groups in a liberal Quaker meeting due to the general atmosphere of tolerance and acceptance that abides. Also, the survey authors are correct that the two groups respect the contributions of each other to the life of the meeting. Quaker process (seeking the 'sense of the meeting') among liberal Friends is also highly respected and practiced in the whole operation of the meeting - not just Meeting for Business.

And it is true that a meeting can be comprised of more Friends from one group or the other, especially when there are multiple meetings within the same local area. However, that's not the case with the two meetings in my local area. Both likely have a good mix of Group G and Group S within them.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 22, 2016 at 11:28pm: Hello Again Howard,

I'd like to tie up a loose end in this discussion and ask you in light of the study the William shared would you change your response to my earlier query? That is:

Generally speaking, to the extent that liberal Quakers of today have withdrawn their respect for the Bible; have they done so in response to a direct experience of the inward Light as their sole guide in spiritual matters. That is, do liberal Quakers testify to a witness that their very consciousness and identity has been so infused with the inward Light that they no longer look to scripture or any outward form as their guide and anchor? This was the testimony that came out of many early and founding Quaker's witness.

Comment by Howard Brod on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 8:16am: I have trouble, Keith, providing a 'yes' or 'no' answer because of the realities of the world we live in - in this 21st century. Rather than a religious society around us in every aspect of life (as it was in the 1600's), it is a secular society with no pressure to be part of a religious experience. So, unlike the world that early Friends came from; a religious one with all that entails - Bible, church attendance, many religious outward forms, and doctrines - modern liberal Friends come from both a religious vantage point AND a non-religious one. Further, those that come from a religious vantage point, often do not view the Bible as an anchor for their faith, upon first associating with us. We do have some who come to us in an idolatrous frame of mine in regards to the Bible (such as I was when first setting foot in the meetinghouse); but, not many.

I have no doubt that an unanchored state (at least in religious forms) that these people come to liberal Friends with, is influenced primarily by an upbringing in a secular society or a religious tradition that at least does not view the Bible as literal. So, I think it is more likely that the casting off of outward forms (such as the Bible) is due to an already present infusion of the inward Light that occurred from a non-spiritual Source. Then once they associate with a liberal Quaker meeting, that infused inward Light blossoms and consumes them. I have found that many people have a measure of this inward Light active within them without having identified it as a spiritual reality. They may identify it as "morals", "ethics", "goodness", "love", "compassion", or some other quality.

Liberal Quakers are at different levels of this realization of the inward Light. They all pretty much agree it is there, but LIVE in it at different levels. And since their spiritual environment does not assume or expect one to be at a mature infusion level (either upon first associating with us or even later), a liberal Quaker community is a wonderful place for the modern seeker to be comforted spiritually due to the spiritual freedom it provides; a place where the Spirit can meet each Friend where they currently are and then bring them along that journey in the Light.

I hope this answers your question. It's hard to provide a black and white answer because the 21st century world modern Friends come to Quakerism from is so different from the 17th century world early Friends came to Quakerism from.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 10:54am: Wow, there is so much in this considered response. I'd like to press you further, sort of piece by piece. If you are willing.

When you write:

I have no doubt that an unanchored state (at least in religious forms) that these people come to liberal Friends with, is influenced primarily by an upbringing in a secular society or a religious tradition that at least does not view the Bible as literal. So, I think it is more likely that the casting off of outward forms (such as the Bible) is due to an already present infusion of the inward Light that occurred from a non-spiritual Source. Then once they associate with a liberal Quaker meeting, that infused inward Light blossoms and consumes them. I have found that many people have a measure of this inward Light active within them without having identified it as a spiritual reality. They may identify it as "morals", "ethics", "goodness", "love", "compassion", or some other quality.

What are your thoughts on the notion that what you are describing here as the "unanchored state" relative to religious forms comes out of being anchored in an outward secular humanist ideological framework? That is, are people coming to liberal Friends from mindset or outwardly infused or learned framework wherein it is assumed (consciously or otherwise) human beings are capable of moral and self-fulfillment outside of an experience of or relationship with inherent Presence itself (most often referenced as God, Christ, or Inward Light) anchoring their conscious and informing their conscience? Could this also be the case in your experience?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 11:35am: How about? -- Prompted by a secular worldview _and_ by an unrecognized inner Presence, people show up at meeting & find that that inward light is definitely shining away, dim as it may be to them at the time?

Comment by Howard Brod on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 12:14pm: From my interactions with Friends at my meeting where a high level of intimacy among us exists, I would venture that for Group S it is likely that a good portion of those Friends come to our meeting aligned with a political bent or secular concern for making the world a better place. However, this is not to discount that that desire within them does indeed come from a place of infused Light. I think that just because they don't self-identify their leanings as coming from the Light within - it doesn't mean that it is not indeed emanating from that Source. Frankly, very few of Group S in my meeting have ever indicated they were "anchored" in these secular sources. Rather, they were merely drawn to them or found interest in them because of an inward leaning. Once they found the liberal Quaker meeting, these Friends quickly and easily attribute this leaning to the Light, albeit mysterious to them. To be "anchored" in my mind is to be a card-carrying member of some organization that has an agenda. Few of Group S have come to us as so anchored in a secular ideology.

For Group G within my meeting, I think they were true seekers who were spiritually inclined and hungry for a gathered spiritual life with others, but for whatever reason, before coming to our meeting were not "anchored" in anything particular. For these, being anchored in the Light as their guide immediately resonated with them once associating with Quakers.

The mystical Presence infuses all aspects of a healthy liberal Quaker meeting. It permeates all of its operation: ever open to the Spirit, deadening the influences of the ego, seeing everything through the eyes of divine love and patience, a desire to simplify the meeting's life, and respect for individual freedom of thought. It is impossible to be part of a liberal Quaker meeting, if these spiritual characteristics do not speak to you.

We must remember that the infused Light is present within everyone just pushing to be manifested within us. It is like water that will seek any little crevice or container to flow through to become clearly evident and its power manifested. So, it is very hard for anyone (who is truly of the Light) to judge another's response to the Light. This is why Bugg and Rogers and the others were right about their assertion that any form (i.e., judgement) in regards to the Light within another is a notion and folly. In the vein of this same realization they had, a modern liberal Quaker meeting (perhaps more than any other religious body) does a good job of providing an environment where the Spirit is free to allow Light to be fully manifested within the meeting's participants during the routine activities (such as worship) of the meeting.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 1:20pm: Thank you, Howard, for indulging me a bit. I appreciate and cherish your words. Forrest, well said, I have had people share that sentiment with me many times over the years.

My experience in Quaker meetings mostly as a visitor and at certain times in my life a regular attender, I have known Friends (including myself) in evangelical, liberal, conservative, who share the testimony that they are guided and informed solely by the inshinging Light without reference to or regard for political and religious social testimonies, beliefs, practices, ecclesiastical constructs, and institutions. In general, these people attend a particular meeting because it is near where they live and because they love gathering with people in worship. There are people today who witness that inherent Presence in their lives in all circumstance and in all things as was witnessed by the founding Friends.

Personally, if there were a Meeting that had no building, no committees, under no Yearly Meeting, no set time or day for worship, but where people came together in silent worship under the direct movement of the inward Spirit, which met and worshiped, rain or shine, in the natural world, I would be home. I have set out to offer such a meeting to the people where I live. Friends I know say; "Good luck with that." And I say, "Well, it has happened before. I feel like I'm being pushed and the more I ignore it the stronger it gets." I just keep falling into and reading these books and journals of early Friends that further strengthens and validates this inward movement.

Comment by Howard Brod on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 8:17pm: Keith,

I encourage you to follow your leading. There are meetings that are not part of any Yearly Meeting. So that would not be unusual in the Quaker world. I have not heard of any meetings that have no set times for worship. But your concept of no structures (forms) whatsoever could work as word got out. All you would need is a designated place (private or public) where people could come at will to worship in silence. With the internet, you might be able to get the word out widely. There likely would need to be lots of people who wanted to participate for there to be at least a few people there at the same time ("two or three gathered together . . ." equals good advice!)

It could be a hard thing to pull off in this modern time of busyness and time-slotting of our lives. Perhaps you could start out modifying your vision a bit in order to establish an initial group of worshippers who would be committed to the concept over time. For example, advertise a meet-up for four or so hours on Sunday for worshippers to come starting at any time and leaving at any time within the four hours. Once that builds up a loyal group, add another day or lengthen the amount of hours (or both).

Have no expectations and let the Spirit through the collective leading of the initial group guide you. Have no personal ownership of the concept, less your ego investment prevents the action of the Spirit.

I have known of meetings that have used this four hour concept on special occasions - like Christmas Eve. I've even participated in it, and it was spiritually fulfilling. Friends came and left at all different times - each staying an hour or two. That meeting had a large pool of Friends to pull on.

One thought you might entertain is to use an existing Quaker meeting (preferably a large one so there is a large pool of Friends to pull from) and advertise through their meeting newsletter or email that this will occur one-time - say on a Friday evening - to see how it feels to Friends. I know my meeting would be willing to allow you to try that, and there are probably others that would as well. You might have to first establish a relationship with that meeting, so they are comfortable with your character and intentions.

I will hold your leading in the Light, my friend.

Comment by William F Rushby on 7th mo. 23, 2016 at 10:02pm: Sounds like John Perrot to me! See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Quakers, Section #3: "Other Early Controversies"

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.