Comment by Forrest Curo on 12th mo. 28, 2012 at 1:26pm

There are many possible legitimate criticisms of modern liberal Friends -- and particularly legitimate criticism of Liberal Friendism as a belief system.

Denying that early Friends used the Bible in religious debates would be as silly as denying that they debated in English. At the time, this was the most universally-acknowledged source of confirmation available.

And their use was not critical, since (unlike modern Friends) they didn't know that archeological evidence of (for example) a group of Jews leaving Egypt and arriving in Palestine, along the routes described, in anything resembling the numbers given in Biblical accounts of the Exodus -- evidence which should have still been there -- simply doesn't exist.

But they didn't imagine that the text alone, without the aid of God in interpreting it, possessed authority. The need for that aid for proper interpretation was a commonplace theological insight of the time.

Comment by Clem Gerdelmann on 1st mo. 1, 2013 at 8:36am

Friend Nichols, the Braithwaite reference, and perhaps your concern, are put in perspective by Howard Brinton in his classic work, "Friends for 300 years", when he writes, "The public Friend, in addressing those of his hearers who were waiting on him and not on the Lord, could not appeal to an experience which they had not achieved. He could, however, appeal to the Scriptures which they for the most part accepted as supreme authority in matters of religion."

Let's not be too eager to evangelize what was merely, albeit primitive, Christianity.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 1st mo. 1, 2013 at 9:23am

Clem Gerdelmann said: "Let's not be too eager to evangelize what was merely, albeit primitive, Christianity."

Why should we not be eager to evangelize Christianity? Early Friends were eager to do so. They shared their experience and beliefs, not merely as consistent with scripture (in the way that much of the Qur'an is consistent with the Bible), but as the embodiment and fulfillment of the Gospel message. There are at least two reasons they might have done so: (1) as a sophistic tool of marketing to get people to stop persecuting them and join their new movement or (2) because they actually believed it and were themselves strong Christians who wanted to follow Christ Jesus as king, priest and prophet in order to enact the Kingdom of God on earth.

Reading the writings of Friends of all persuasions through the early 20th century, option 2 seems more likely. So given that Friends were, especially at the beginning, eager to evangelize Christianity, why should we be any less eager to do so?

Comment by Lee Nichols on 1st mo. 1, 2013 at 12:13pm

Friend Forrest regarding your comment on archeological evidence, am I right in thinking that this argument from silence was first proposed in the 1800s along with similar arguments such as no evidence of a sophisticated law code, no evidence of an evolved concept of religion or writing at the time of Moses, no evidence of a Hittite Empire at the time of Abraham and that finding evidence that suggests the Exodus occurred would be welcomed by you.  

You mentioned the need for the aid of God in interpreting scripture.  Why do you limit that need to scripture?  Don’t we need the aid of God in interpreting our personal, social, culture and material world as well.  Saying that we need the aid of God in interpreting scripture is as silly as denying the early Friends used the Bible in religious debates.  

On authority of the Bible and early Quaker, if a person has the right to settle an argument and decide who is right and who is wrong, would you say that they are acting as a Judge or King with authority over the disputants and would you also say that early Quakers taught that the scriptures should be used to judge the true leading of the Spirit when difference between spiritual openings or leadings occur?  Was it not true that the early Quakers invited everyone to use the scripture to test their teaching?  If this is so then would you agree that the early Quakers placed the scripture in a place of authority?

Friend Gerdelmann reminds us that we can be too eager to evangelize.  I hadn’t noticed the blog had yet gone beyond looking at what the early Quakers believed.  If the warning about evangelizing is really a warning about following the early Quakers too closely that should be separated from my position about evangelizing.  I still see a stronger concern from those who wish to evangelize by convincing us that their personal view on the activity of the spirit is correct than from any others evangelizing on this site.

 I do feel that Friend Gulizia’s comment is correct in that Quakers go beyond saying “You should believe us since you believe these scriptures” to saying “it is the truth we find in scripture that we use to shape our beliefs and to empower our holy living.”  It would be against the Quaker testimonies to subtly mislead their audience about this.   

There is a point Forrest introduced earlier about the spirit without an external reference point bringing the Quaker movement into existence and therefore leading us today into our truth.  How should this teaching lead us as we on this blog appear to have differences about truth?  Friend Forrest mentions archeological evidence and Friend Clem appeals to Howard Brinton.  Are these authorities?  Must we decide that some of us are just not open to the spirit since we all do not seem to end up at the same place?

Comment by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 1, 2013 at 4:04pm

It's called an "argument from facts." When an honest archeologist takes a look at an area that preserves marks & debris for a very long time -- and the signs of passage aren't there -- he says "They didn't come this way."

There is Biblical evidence that this story was written down a long time after the alleged events, probably after the places mentioned in it had been built. There's other evidence in the Bible (names) that a leading Israelite (Levites) tribe did have Egyptian ancestry; and it seems likely to have been their story, adopted by the group called "Israel" that eventually solidified under their religious leadership. They believed that God had miraculously rescued them from slavery, and that part, I do agree, was true, an intentional act of God. But the final, elaborated story was written down later, by people with other axes to grind (and this illustrates another important feature of human religious writing that God can teach us to recognize via these writings.)

You don't need to "settle" an argument with me; you need to arrive at the best truth you can be led to recognize as you are.

So far as you let God continue to renew your mind, you may eventually see some things differently, even differently from what you (or I) think a certain book is saying. If past experience is any guide, the same is likely for me. The objective reality is not that book, but What/Whom that book is about.

Comment by Zaley Warkentin on 1st mo. 3, 2013 at 7:27pm

I've always felt the point of the scriptures was the underlying moral messages and lessons they contain. Not whether or not the stories are factual. In my own humble opinion; it is quite a mistake to take the Bible as a historical document, as arguing over whether or not something is fact, based on fact, or completely fabricated (in terms of historical accuracy), is missing the aim...

Comment by Forrest Curo on 1st mo. 3, 2013 at 11:23pm

Human beings have a sense of 'should'; "moral messages and lessons" are available in a great many flavors -- and indeed we don't need "a Bible" to know good from bad... The Bible even implies that there's something a little off about what people think we know about such matters.

So far as there is an ethical message in the Bible, it's subtle, ironic, "double-edged" like the sword of Jesus' word in the Book of Revelation. The Good Guys keep finding themselves mistaken about what they assume to be 'The Only Good, Right, Proper Way' for things to be; while God keeps throwing them unexpected perspectives -- The Messiah they've been praying for, their ideal King in accord with God's heart, refuses to rule as 'a real king' should, either according to The Way of The World or their own ideas of what God demands -- So they turn this King over to their enemies, believing it's the only pious and practical thing they can do -- and then his death turns out to violate everything people "know" about death...

This is saying something radical about the nature of God and the Creation... Any moral messages and lessons need to find their context and proper application from that!

Factuality does matter, in the sense that this stuff is about the way the world truly is!

It's not necessary that the authors get all the details right; but there's a significant difference between a world of accident and a world ruled by unlimited love & wisdom.

Comment by Adria Gulizia on 1st mo. 4, 2013 at 2:56pm

Forrest, I agree that facts matter, but I think that Zaley may be saying something slightly different: that being factually accurate isn't what makes something true.

For example, Jesus often spoke in parables. He used made-up stories to illustrate divine truths. We don't ask, "Was there really a stingy businessman who gave his three servants money and then was steamed when one of them didn't invest?" We know that the story was invented, but it still tells us something important about the nature of God.

Of course, the factual accuracy of a given story matters when the detail in question would significantly alter the meaning of the story and you are relying on that detail for something big- that is to say, the details matter when you are relying on the authority of the written words alone. But, as you point out, early Friends didn't do that; they read scripture under the guidance of the Holy Spirit so that they could properly interpret the words.

I don't think  know that Zaley or Lee would disagree with that.

Comment by Zaley Warkentin on 1st mo. 4, 2013 at 6:46pm

Yes Adria, that was exactly what I was trying to say, thanks! :)

Comment by Timothy on 1st mo. 4, 2013 at 7:02pm

I agree with friend Zaley, in her first response, she made a powerful point clear! She basically took the things I wished to contribute out of my own mouth! I reverberate her first comment and add: Amen! <3:):)

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page