ShowerThought: would Friends make a good story?

I'm not sure this is the best way to frame the question on how we talk about our experiences. In meeting this morning, we had a number of messages, and it did seem to me that not all of them stayed close to the root. Reflecting on why that was, it seemed to me that some of the speakers were attempting--as is proper when crafting a story, or even sharing an anecdote over the dinner table--to shape the messages they were giving into a more rhetorically effective form. Things like, for instance, trying to somehow wrap up the comments in some satisfying sounding way.

It seemed to me that these messages began well, but gradually lost some of the sense they gave _me_, at least, of being spirit filled, at the moment when the speaker seemed to begin working to shape the message. It's a natural impulse, to want to make a case as effectively as we can to our hearers. And I think it takes a radical trust in Spirit (and Martin, I don't at all object to _your_ saying "Christ" to describe that spirit, as you are clearly speaking from your experience... though I, at least, would not be if I used that word) to let go of that impulse. But, having watched how one message often threads with the next, and how the life seems to carry from one speaker to the next in what seems like a far more effective way than if any one of us had shaped it as individuals, I believe it really is best to speak from that close-to-the-root place, and let Spirit take charge of how it will be shaped.

To me, that's part of the payoff to taking the "what canst thou say" challenge seriously. If led to say Jesus, then by all means, say Jesus. But for those of us who are not so led, saying no more than our present Light allows us to see is (I think) an important part of faithfulness. (As is remaining open to the possiblity that that Light will someday show us new things, perhaps including things that, today, we find personally difficult. I admit, I do struggle with that one--but it is my own struggle, and I do not ask anyone to change their language to cater to my present openness or Light.)

To be sure, you seem to be speaking of outreach to non-Quakers and seekers more than speaking in meeting for worship. (But is the standard really so very different? I wonder.)

Thanks for another thought-provoking post.

Hi Cat,
You're right: many liberal Friends would be nervous trying to define the distinction between truth in vocal ministry and truth in our statements of group identity. And that's one of the existential issues facing us today: any message goes and any spirituality is fine. Anyone can speak and no one better dare tell them a topic might be inappropriate. We can't say that Friends believe anything deeper than "be nice to people." With no message we get all legalistic about process and forms.

There are many people out in the world who would respond to classic liberal Quakerism, a Quakerism that is open and inclusive but knows what it is and doesn't mute itself or pretend to be spirit-neutral. This might have some Pagans, Non-Theists, etc., but it would be clear that Paganism, Non-Theism, etc., are not Quakerism and that the basis of our community is the shared search for Christ's voice and direction. Right now, anyone looking for Penn's "primitive Christianity revived" (and I've met seekers who are) have no reason to come to visit most liberal Quaker meetings.

Imagine if you went to a Pagan gathering only to find there were barely any Pagans there. And imagine if someone kindly walked up to you and said "Cat, I don’t at all object to your saying 'Goddess' to describe that spirit, as you are clearly speaking from your experience."

Quakerism is completely rooted in Christianity, it's our language and our world view. Read the rest of that "What canst thou say" quote or just about anything written about Quakerism before 1970 and you'll see that. If we've forgotten that language and if the words seem hollow to us then that's a crying shame. Some of us really want to be Quaker, for some of us the words means something. I'd love to have a spiritual community that believes them too. And as I look around the spiritual landscape out there I see people looking for the classic Quaker message, a message that's been reduced to ambiguous bumper stickers.

Here's the distinction I'd like liberal Friends to work on: that it's possible for someone to be a Friend, i.e., a beloved member of the meeting in good standing, without them necessarily believing in or espousing Quakerism. Put another way: not everything any Friend believes needs to be Quaker.

Hi, Martin!

I don't personally regard "Spirit" or "Light" as any less specific than "Christ". They are all terms for specific things -- just different things, not synonyms.

"Spirit" refers, classically, to Ruakh, the Old Testament understanding of God as manifest in the motion of wind and the motion of breath. There are some modern rabbis who believe that the idea is present not only in the Hebrew term Ruakh but also in YHWH, the Tetragrammaton, which is onomatopoetic for the sound of wind or breath. God as Spirit/Wind/Breath is the Force behind winds, the Power we can watch with our own eyes moving the clouds around, and more broadly, the Force behind all that happens in the world, the Shaper and Creator of the World. In our bodies, He is the Force we can feel within us making us breathe, the One who breathes life into us as He breathed life into Adam, the Giver of our life-energy.

"Light" is connected to "Spirit" in the Bible, as in Proverbs 20:27: "The heave of a person's breath [neshâmâh] is the lamp of YHWH, searching all the hidden places in his gut." God, in breathing us, moving breath within us, reveals the emotions and feelings going on in us, not only to our own eyes but also to His own; He actually knows us this way better than we know ourselves. As Martin Luther once observed, He is closer to us than our own skin.

What saddens me about so many people's use of terms like "Spirit" and "Light" is that they use the terms uncomprehendingly. They don't really see God moving the world around, they don't really experience Him giving them life; "Spirit" to them is just a nifty metaphor, a handy label to slap on an abstract concept of God. Jesus referred to this sort of incomprehension as "hypocrisy", a term which in classical times meant "insufficient [hypo-] discernment [krisis]" regarding the true meaning of the words one mouths. (Bad actors in classical Greece were called "hypocrites".) You'll recall that Christ denounced the Pharisees as "hypocrites", and this is what he was getting at.

Its a double edged sword (a blunt, Quakerly one) in my life.

While on one end I want to speak my truth.....

On the other end I don't want to offend anyone and respect where the other person is coming from.

I am trying to discern how to combine the two.

You write: "Quakerism is completely rooted in Christianity, it’s our language and our world view."

You would think so, but alas not. I had a conversation with a First Day School clerk on Sunday who asked me to qualify statements I make to the 4-year olds I teach by prefacing them with "I believe . . ." (Such as, "Jesus is our great teacher.") I said I didn't feel it was necessary because "we" believe in Jesus and God.

I was then told I was disrespectful. "I'm a Quaker and I don't believe in God," he said, and it was therefore disrespectful to say otherwise.

Sigh.

Hi Paul, yes it's disrespectful to assume God in the Religious Society of Friends--what have we come to?.. There's a sort of totalitarian liberalism that demands that all faith statements be qualified and relativized. It's peculiar but sometimes understandable to join (or stay with) a religious body whose core beliefs you're in fundamental disagreement with but it becomes arrogance when you demand they adapt those beliefs to yours. That's the disrespect.

These issues aren't unique to Friends. We live in an age that has made a cult of the individual. Our culture teaches that we each have veto rights to any conception of "we." I'm convinced that the faith communities that survive will the the ones that can affirm and articulate a clear set of beliefs and be willing to weather the occasional temper-tantrum. What's a non-theist doing as a First Day School clerk? That's entirely inappropriate and actually kind of rude (why didn't they decline the nomination?). What is your meeting thinking?

Hi LL-Liz, it can be hard and sometimes impossible. You talk about these issues with as much gentleness as you can but you will nevertheless have times when you're misunderstood and pilloried, even by those who agree with you. The religious life isn't easy. The only advice I have is to try to follow the Spirit's prompting about when it is proper to elaborate on your concerns. Sometimes these arguments aren't about religion and it only hardens hearts to talk theology then.

Hi Marshall, good points, I agree with you about the whole Light/Spirit/Christ thing except we both know that's not what's going on. "Light" and "Spirit" are consciously being used in an ambiguous way that muddles the Quaker understanding of the terms. Someone like John Woolman can use half-a-dozen metaphors in a single page: that kind of density reinforces the connection between the terms while simultaneously keeping us from making too much (fetishizing) any one term or concept.

Martin -- regarding your statement, "we both know that's not what's going on": I said that what is going on is incomprehension, and if that's not what's going on, it's news to me. I wonder if maybe there's a cultural difference involved between Friends in your region and Friends in mine.

Just picking up on your title and last sentence: at Quaker Heritage Day, Brian Drayton gave a lot of attention early in the day to the need to frame a narrative about Quaker ministry. The details of how he described that are completely absent from my notes. Instead, I ended up focusing on the bits and pieces of his talk that moved me personally--perhaps falling into the great strength and weakness of Quakerism as an experiential religion.

I realize I'm coming a little late to the party, but life's been busy.

About the clerk that Paul L refers to... It brings up the difficulty for me about how to labor with our nontheist brothers and sisters who are also long-time or lifelong members of the RSoF.

Too frequently for my own comfort level, it seems, such Friends will put an end to the conversation by saying, "Well, I grew up Quaker" or "Well, I've been a Quaker for 50 years," giving the impression that "what I say goes" or "I know what I'm talking about and you don't." Ick.

I have become so troubled by my own ability to respond to these statements in the moment, that I now have written out an index card that says in big letters--

When I hear that, I feel troubled.

My hope is that if I can get even this much out from my heart to my mouth, the door might stay open for a longer conversation. If not in the moment, then perhaps during the following week.

There are important conversations to be had, and they must be had lovingly and enduringly, lest our RSoF continue to fracture...

Blessings,
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up