Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:08pm

Hi Jim,

It is engaging observing you trying to label a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by the direct immediate experience of Presence itself. By your accounting. Not only am I merely an individualist, I am hyper (or excessive) individualist. Now, not only am I a secessionist, I am a "supersecessionist;" suggesting I apply secession in an even broader way than other secessionists.

On one level, I savor the supersecessionist label. In that it suggests an entire turning from a particular way. It suggests an essential secession right down to the very core. On that level, it is true, by the inward power of the Light inshining my conscience and conscience I am seceding from a union with the outward nature. My conscious and conscience are being established in and ruled by the Light itself and are no longer established in relation to outward rules, traditions, practices, and teachings of the outward civil and religious State to which you adhere by your own admission.

However, while you would have me known as a secessionist, you fail to acknowledge the unity of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by union with inward Presence itself. Just because I am seceding from the outward civil and religious state of the outward nature, does not mean I do not know a Union. I am entering into a different union, a different society, a different gathering, ... a different state that is not of the outward state. Inward Presence is my Union and I am gathering into that eternal State.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:16pm

Poverty was not a side issue for the people Jesus addressed; for the bulk of them it was their lives. It did not mean healthy exercise and plain fare, but shame, debilitating labor, and chronic malnutrition, adding up to diseases and injuries they did not readily recover from. Many of the Pharisees, like Jesus, considered the internal aspect of following Torah what was truly essential -- while his opponents among the dominant faction of his day were emphasizing minute observances at the expense of "the weighter matters of the Law: justice and mercy and faithfulness." The rich young man is an example of that neglect, in that what he has accumulated his neighbors were deprived of. If all Jesus had taught was the need for greater devotion and communion with God, there would have been no motive for his crucifixion, as these were as unlikely to catch on in his day as in ours -- except for those among the poor who realized their utter dependence on God's mercy and guidance for day-to-day survival.

Comment by Mackenzie on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:29pm

Since I've finally got a copy of "Elias Hicks: Quaker Liberal" and just this morning read a passage that touches on this, on page 183 it goes on about this letter to Phebe Willis (see page 49) that includes Hicks' views of scripture. The book then continues that really, this is echoing George Fox's message:

Now the Lord God hath opened to me by his invisible power how that every man was enlightened by the divine light of Christ. ... This I saw in the pure openings of the light without the help of any man neither did I then know where to find it in the Scriptures; though afterwards searching the Scriptures 1 found it. For I saw in that Light and Spirit which was before the Scriptures were given forth...that all must come to that Spirit if they would know God or Christ or the Scriptures aright which they that gave them forth were led and taught by.

(And here is where Orthodox sorts may disagree) Bliss Forbush summarizes "Elias Hicks and George Fox were one in counting the inward revelations of God's spirit as the primary authority, and the Scriptures as secondary."

Howard, I understand why you say using the Bible to test a message/leading is strange to  you. I think the feeling on the other side is that it is helpful to determining whether a given message/leading comes from God or from (as those Beachy Amish I was visiting with on Sunday put it) "the enemy" (ie, the devil). In most instances it should be easy, I think, to tell the difference, but acknowledging that "the road to Hell is paved in good intentions," there certainly are circumstances in which determining a correct course of action is difficult, where harm is done in an attempt at helping.

Comment by Keith Saylor on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 12:55pm

Patricia.  Normally, I no longer engage you because of our past. However, because you came into a thread I started, I feel at ease to address you. It was not enough for Fox to hold to his opening and the resulting meaning he gained from scripture because of that inward experience. He later came to a point wherein he moved ahead of that inward opening and set out on a course dictating outward forms to other founding Quakers who did not share his conscience. He and other founding Quakers imposed outward rule over others in the Gathering. Essentially, he took a path leading the gathering "back into that which they had been lead out of." (William Rogers). Specifically, adherence to outward forms and practices even when of a different conscious. He went so far as to tell others (in written letters that he later sought to destroy) to just follow his dictates if they did not see things the way he did because his outward rules were from God. William Rogers documents this struggle among the founding Quakers. It is my intent to publish this "historical document" in blog form here. 

Many founding Quakers were so alarmed by Fox and other founding Quakers turning again to outward forms as guide and going even further as to impose those forms on others as a requisite for membership in the Gathering that they exclaimed in the words of William Rogers:

"Wisdom is Justified of the Children; look not unto us,[do not look to outward persons, added be me.] but unto the Lord; take heed unto the Light of Christ in your own consciences; Draw water your of your own wells, let it be your own and not anothers."

"Oh Friends, let the Remembrance of this Day come before you, and consider further, what was the voice of the Eternal Power unto such, who were struck with amazement, after they believed the appearance of the Power of God; I well remember the voice was on this wise, To your own, To your own, To your own. Meaning thereby that they should turn in their minds to the Light of Christ in their consciences, which was declared to be that teacher, which could never be removed into a corner ..."

"Oh Friends! let therefore this cry pass through every heart. To our Own. To our Own. To our Own. (That is to say, to every ones own measure of Christ’s Light or Grace of God Received, which the Apostle saith is sufficient) with this secret breathing of Spirit unto the God of our lives, that all may be thereto retired." 

Comment by Howard Brod on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 1:11pm

Thanks Mackenzie!

What's strange to me is to put such faith (so much so to use it as a "test") in a book compiled by the early Catholic church, which saw fit to omit much inspirational material in order to meet their religious/political goals.  A book that we are not sure when its individual books were written, that has translation issues, and is so contradictory that there are many interpretations (that all make logical sense).  And all those interpreting it claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in those contradictory interpretations.

To put such faith in all of that, is the very definition of idolatry.  And I've been there and done that, so I know where that idolatry leads - and it is not godly love.  My most horrible life mistakes that have hurt others were made from that vantage point.

To me, a simpler and more true guide is the raw Spirit through the lens of 'Love and Light' as exemplified by Jesus when on Earth, especially when in a state of 'expectant waiting' worship.  The final test is to bring any leading to the community of Friends for community discernment on whether a course of action is loving and of the Light.

I have experienced amazing outcomes with this latter approach; outcomes filled with love, spiritual unity, compassion, forgiveness, changed lives for good, and the embodiment of the teachings of Jesus.

What I think our Orthodox and Evangelical Friends are missing is that what is perceived and experienced as 'loving' in Earthly life changes over time and cultures.  The Bible itself testifies to this fact as did Jesus when he advised things opposite of the Old Testament - because those things in the OT were no longer considered loving!  There is an eternal, spiritual, Godly love that is timeless - of course.  But the manifestation and application of that in the hearts of people on Earth changes over time and cultures.  If that were not the case, Quaker women would still not be allowed to minister vocally, slaves would still be slaves, women would not cut their hair and would keep their head covered, no one would be allowed to have debt, gay Friends would be marginalized in our meetings, on and on.

The truth about living on planet Earth in the Light is actually very simple:  Love, Love, Love. 

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 1:30pm

Dear Howard, I am glad that you find reading the Bible edifying; I do, too. I think that seeking the Love and Light of Christ is a good thing to do in the same way that following the commandments was a good thing for the rich, young man to do. And Jesus, as the verse says, loved him for it. Jesus saw him where he was--seeking to do what was right.

But as following the commandments was not enough (and Jesus let him know that), likewise seeking the Love and Light of Christ is not enough. The danger is in thinking that either one of these activities  is what's required of us: either following the commandments or seeking the Love and Light of Christ. Why is this a danger? Because both of these activities are sacrifices, i.e., accomplished by a human being through his willing, disciplined heart. What God requires of us, however, is something more than sacrifice: obedience (1 Sam. 15:22 Does the Lord desire offerings and sacrifices as he desires obedience? Obedience is better than sacrifice, and to listen to him than the fat of rams.)

 Many will say that they already obey; they hear the Light and are led. We used to have among us a large enough body of those who could truly hear Christ, our Head, speak to us from heaven and teach us and lead us as one body, his body: the Church. We don't have that body of Christ any longer in our meetings; everyone does his own thing.  In a time when spiritual emptiness is pervasive, previous generations and, of course, the Scriptures must, I think, work for us as the corporate body in Christ.

To grow in the faith has and will always require of people a recognition that we need more than human aspiration and sacrificial activity; we need heavenly deliverance. A genuine, deep sense of need is our best hope for receiving renewal in Christ. Conversely, a sense of self-sufficiency-- whether pride or notions--is the biggest stumbling-block.

Comment by Howard Brod on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 1:37pm

Thanks again Patricia for taking the time to share.

I agree that "pride or notions- is the biggest stumbling-block" no matter which side we fall in this discussion.

And perhaps for all of us the goal is the same: "receiving renewal in Christ"; and that is what is truly sufficient.

Comment by Mackenzie on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 1:38pm

 A book that we are not sure when its individual books were written, that has translation issues, and is so contradictory that there are many interpretations (that all make logical sense).  And all those interpreting it claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding them in those contradictory interpretations.

The interesting thing about Fox checking the Bible to see if his leading can be found in there is that doing so in that direction means not necessarily taking a traditional interpretation, but rather seeing if there is anything in there that can speak to the issue. Yes, there are many interpretations, but perhaps that's because in different situations, a passage may be read in a different light. This is how I've understood the idea of opening to new light. I think it is altogether different from reading the Bible and assuming the traditional interpretation is the one and only true interpretation until feeling compelled to break with tradition.

 If that were not the case, Quaker women would still not be allowed to minister vocally, slaves would still be slaves, women would not cut their hair and would keep their head covered, no one would be allowed to have debt, gay Friends would be marginalized in our meetings, on and on.

The way I see it, the Bible only says we're to cover our heads when praying and prophesying. When  the spirit speaks through us in worship, that is prophesy.  That makes a cover a symbol of women's authority to minister. And of course, when Friends felt the call to oppose slavery, they turned to the Bible and found it did, in fact, agree with that call. Plenty of Christian Friends have read the Bible and found no opposition to being gay (though of course, many others stick to traditional interpretations) along with exactly what you say about the importance of love. For all these positions Friends have taken, there is Biblical support if you look.

Though I would like the reference on not having debt (proverbs, maybe?). I am aware that usury is proscribed in the Bible and that in the jubilee year debts are to be forgiven. I understood this to be about the virtue of lending without necessarily expecting repayment (or especially interest), in the understanding that those who borrow are themselves more needful than those who lend. Of course, I wouldn't say that intentionally not paying debts while fully able to do so has any Biblical support.

Comment by Forrest Curo on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 2:12pm

When one is torn between different internal influences -- then an external guide, whether a book or a wise friend or the circumstances God sends -- can legitimately help resolve that conflict. But it's still God within whom you'll need to help you choose which outer signal will be appropriate to watch in any one present uncertainty. And it's God rather than your good intentions you have to rely on in becoming more sensitive to what is authentically connecting you to 'Him' vs your equally internal mental tics...

God within is certainly adequate to our guidance; yet God did not create us disembodied, to be Enlightened in a vacuum, but created us with physical and emotional and mental constraints, not to mention difficult people like ourselves! If there's a homeless man or family being more-or-less politely chased out of your neighborhood, maybe that too is a sign to you, as validly from God as any ineffable bliss...?

If we were all being sufficiently guided from within, we would be on the same page... not playing the same parts in the music, but better agreed on what piece we're playing and when we're supposed to come in... as well as being self-sufficient in the sense of not trying to play somebody else's part, when counterpoint is as essential as harmony to this music.

To the extent that our conclusions are predetermined by our mental habits... we aren't being open enough. "If you don't get in a rut, the Devil won't know where to find you" [John Humphrey Noyes' dictum] strikes me as an under-rated sign of anyone's spiritual condition.

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 10th mo. 22, 2015 at 2:15pm

Keith: The settling of men's and women's meetings began as early as 1653. From early on, Fox advocated women's rightful place in positions of authority within meetings, specifically regarding the right ordering of marriages. There were some "spirits appeared that could not abide admonishing and cried out against it," i.e., some who thought it wasn't appropriate for women to have that authority over men. From the introduction to Fox's sermon "The Lord is Risen," Terry Wallace writes:

...in the hostile world in which early Quakers lived, a faithful witness to the truth in word and deed was utterly necessary, both to convince the world of the presence of Truth and to blunt damaging charges that Friends could not be trusted, because they preached Truth, but their actions denied it. Thus, Quakers had to maintain general discipline in the face of persecution and those who compromised the witness under duress had to be admonished, disciplined, and if they continued to fail in faithfulness, disowned. Wilkinson and Story denied the necessity of such discipline and,in so doing, cut at one of the most powerful elements of the early Quaker witness: its ability to demonstrate the presence and ordering of Christ Jesus not only in the lives of individuals,but in the united life of the Meeting. The controversy, Fox well understood, was not about power and prestige of place in Friends Meetings, but faithfulness, obedience, to Jesus Christ and His will. [Italics are mine.]

The corporate testimony to Christ the Head ruling over his body, the Church, is one that has little or no meaning for the individualist of contemporary Quakerism. But it was an essential component of the early faith; it convinced people that there was an order to be found and practiced that was not maintained by human force or coercion or guile or corruption, but by the perfect orderer from heaven guiding his people himself, and the people responsive to him.

So these men who wanted to relegate women to second-class participants in Quaker meetings were wrong on two counts: 1) choosing cultural chauvinism (biblically speaking: they rebelled against God by being "respecters of persons" (Rom. 2:11), and 2) undermining the movement's credibility in the eyes of the larger society by denying Christ's rule bringing all into unity of his body, the Church. 

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 7
• Next ›
• Page