Comments on: James R: I Am What I Am

By: James Riemermann

James Riemermann — Fri, 10 Feb 2006 10:02:17 +0000

Chris writes: “It is a tragic and terrible thing to say, âYouâre not really a Quaker.â And âYouâre not really a Quakerâ is really what each schism is saying. Quakers could say, âWe have different leadings or understandingsâcome, letâs worship together, and thresh, and discern, and accept that we are all imperfect, and letâs cultivate our Light, and value our community, and recognize that not every difference is an imperfection.â
Yes–lovely, and true.
“I do not want to be an Atheist-Quaker. I want to be a Quaker.”
I think I understand the value of what you are saying here. I don’t want a diluted, watered down Quakerism, nor do I want to simply flirt with Quakerism. But I do want my Quakerism, which is to say my humanity, to be exactly as complicated and problematic and genuine as it has to be in a person like me, or you, or Liz, or Martin. I am an atheist, and an agnostic, and a Jew, and a Quaker, and many other things, and each of these carry some aspects of truth about me. But none of those words begin to grasp what I am, and how I am similar to and different from all of you, from all of Quakerdom, all of humanity. Likewise for the words all of us use to describe ourselves, I think. This is a strength, not a weakness.
I am dedicated to the practice and community of Quakerism I have found, but I have little interest in finding out exactly what a Quaker is supposed to be, so that I can turn myself into that at the expense of being who I am.

By: Chris Phoenix

Chris Phoenix — Thu, 09 Feb 2006 18:20:17 +0000

"I love Quakerism so much that I do not wish to see it cut in two. I would prefer to leave it whole and allow nontheist Quakers to live up to their measure of Light..." -- Liz, in a previous comment. In another post, "We are all ranters now," Martin expressed discomfort with hyphenated Quakers. You know, Buddist-Quakers, Catholic-Quakers... I only started attending last summer, so I don't yet know much about what being a Quaker means. But I am very much drawn to what I see: People seeking and cultivating the Light in themselves, nurturing it in each other, working together to form a community, working to translate their spiritual growth into real-world actions. I do not want to be an Atheist-Quaker. I want to be a Quaker. I intend to cultivate the Light in myself and to work with the Quaker communities for a variety of good purposes. As far as I can tell, that's what being a Quaker is about (though I'm sure I'll learn more aspects). For me, the Light is not a euphemism; it is a real thing, something to be cultivated, something that will improve me and show me how to improve the world. On the other hand, the word and concept of God are distractions from my practice. For me, God is a nebulous concept that does not have a tangible reality, and that does have a tangle of bad and misleading associations. I began this post by quoting Liz because she put into words something that I have been feeling strongly over the past few weeks while thinking about other schisms and potential schisms. It is a tragic and terrible thing to say, "You're not really a Quaker." And "You're not really a Quaker" is really what each schism is saying. Quakers could say, "We have different leadings or understandings--come, let's worship together, and thresh, and discern, and accept that we are all imperfect, and let's cultivate our Light, and value our community, and recognize that not every difference is an imperfection." Is there a difference between non-theists and Bible-based Quakers? Yes, of course there is. Are we both Quakers? I believe we are. Will this cause discomfort? Yes. I recently attended a meeting that began with hymns, and I found that in honesty I had to refrain from singing half of them. I would never ask that the hymns not be sung. But I would ask those who sing them to worship with me and work with me as a fellow Quaker. And I would never ask that God not be mentioned, or even invoked; my respect for Quaker tradition makes me accept and even value the invocation of God as part of the community process, even if I do not value "God" personally. Chris

By: Pam

Pam — Thu, 14 Jul 2005 12:58:11 +0000

Harold does a great job, I think of presenting what I feel (and what I heard from Brandice & James) about the difficulty of saying “if you’re loving, you are a christian”
certainly many christians hope to be loving, as do many non-christians. For “Christian” to mean anything beyond “loving person” (and if it did, Alice, I assume you could just as easily call yourself a loving atheist, and adopt James’ words, rather than asking him to adopt yours, in seeking “unity”
I disagree with Harold (and CS Lewis) that Jesus must either be the Son of God (in a way that we are not) or a lunatic, perhaps only because it makes me uncomfortable (perhaps I should take solace in the idea that many mystics walk the line of lunacy?)
Since nothing was written down at the time, and all of the Bible is the interpretation of human beings, I am willing to believe that his words when read to say that he is the ONLY WAY to God and such, are simply poorly understood metaphors or suchlike.
In any case, that he was more than human simply does not resonate with me, logically or spiritually. And therefore it is dishonest (as James says) to identify as a christian, no matter how loving I may aim to be.
I have talked to many folks (well, a few) who are now Christians due to a mystical experience. Jesus came and sat down next to them, held them, called out to them. While such an experience would surely scare the pants off me, I also feel a bit of envy, or grief, that I have not had one. But that does not change the fact that I have not.
What am I then to do?

By: Harold

Harold — Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:57:16 +0000

Hello, Brandice. I don't think most Quakers believe Jesus "had more God in him" than anybody else. There's a terrible assumption being made there--that Jesus was "just" a human. Thee has to understand that "that of God in everyone" comes from Jesus Christ. It is the indwelling Jesus Christ in our hearts and souls. That "still small voice" is Jesus Christ. Without Christ, one cannot have "that of God" because Christ is God in human form. It seems like thee is assuming that Jesus was "only" a person, like me or thee. Most Quakers I know (myself included) understand Jesus as at the very least more than a wise human being. I am reminded very much of a paragraph from C. S. Lewis in Mere Christianity. He says it far better than I could ever hope to: "I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I am ready to accept Jesus as the great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a boiled egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

By: Brandice (Quaker Monkey)

Brandice (Quaker Monkey) — Mon, 18 Apr 2005 13:00:47 +0000

In one body, He was able to transform lives so deeply that the effects are still ringing about the world today For me, I can look at this statement and say the same thing about Buddha, to an equal or possibly even greater extent. :) There are actually more Buddhists in the world than there are Christians. Your words were very well spoken and I agreed with everything thing but that one paragraph. That's where it's different for me, and that's why, while I respect and identify with a lot of Christian beliefs, I can't say that I'm Christian. :) I hope that makes sense, the reference to Buddha's influence being very similiar or even wider spread than Jesus Christ's. I hold them with equal reverence, in addition to many other spiritually enlightened teachers over the years, and I think that's what makes the difference for me.

By: Alice

Alice — Sat, 16 Apr 2005 03:14:28 +0000

Hi Brandice and everyone,
I am hearing your point about not wanting labels that don’t apply. But my experience of G‑d is that G‑d is the goodness. I’m not trying to be inclusive, I’m saying what is true for me, and it does seem scary to try to describe my experience of the Divine Power in this public forum because this is what is most precious to me. But it is also the Liberating Truth that has freed my soul, and having been trusted with this understanding which has such power and blessing for me. I owe the liberating power a witness. The presence of love, kindness, goodness in the universe is manifestly real. Love does exist, people do incredible things out of love every day. Love, G‑d’s Power, can move people beyond their limitations and frailties to manifest the Glory of Love in the world.
For me, the creative power, G‑d, is all the goodness, all the love that is in the universe, opening every flower, enticing every shoot to unfurl from the seed. G‑d is the creative, prospering power in the universe and the reason the universe exists. Like Teilhard de Chardin’s Prime Entelechy(sense 2 in this definition)? The flow of Divine love is the impetus and also the pattern and the road and the promise of the future. That real love is an infinitely merciful power.
Christ Jesus is the seed potential in every living thing. In one body, He was able to transform lives so deeply that the effects are still ringing about the world today and His risen presence, His spirit is both whatever enlightening power there is in our meetings and our hearts, and the comforter that allows us to bear the sorrow of witnessing the difficult parts of our human nature. He is the ray of light that illuminates the consciousness to see the next step forward and He is the seed that is unfolding in each of us dedicated to Divine Goodness.
I’m throwing words at this, trying to describe how I experience the world. I hope I might be communicating it, but who knows? Love and Blessings.

By: Brandice (Quaker Monkey)

Brandice (Quaker Monkey) — Fri, 15 Apr 2005 12:03:24 +0000

He just asked us to love God (goodness, mercy, justice, whatever) and our neighbor. I suspect you do that, James. By my book that makes you a Christian. You imply here that God can be *defined* in terms of goodness, mercy, justice, etc., which would imply that anyone who believes in these things would be a Christian in your book... I think a Christian definition of God is a little more than just an vague idea of goodness, mercy or justice, and that to claim that anyone who believes in concepts of basic goodness and peace and love is Christian is a little inaccurate, at least for me. I think what matters more is what each individual sees themself as, and while I appreciate what you're saying, you may run into bad feelings from a faithful Jew, Buddhist, atheist, or other persons of non-Christian faith by claiming that because they believe in good, they are actually Christian. I think it's a little more than that to most Christians, and not necessarily for wrong perceptions. There *are* distinctive beliefs that separate traditional Christians from Jewish, Buddhist, and agnostic/atheist people. While I admire self-defined Christians and their beliefs, I think it's important not to impose definitions on others' faith so that they will fit into Christianity. :) You could probably word it in a way that I would probably be considered Christian, but I wouldn't be comfortable with that, just as you might be uncomfortable with me wording agnosticism in a broad way that might include yourself, so that you would fit into my beliefs. I think it's important to allow distinctions and differences in the particulars of each faith, and in accepting that we are not all Christian but still believe in good, find further understanding of unique or different spiritual beliefs.

By: James Riemermann

James Riemermann — Thu, 14 Apr 2005 10:00:57 +0000

Larry, I appreciate the obvious good will in your comment. And I agree that "belief is over-rated". However, I am not a Christian. To equate a love of goodness with Christianity, if you think about it, is rather dismissive of the countless non-Christians in the world who love goodness, or at least try to do so. Christianity is one path among many. Or, more honestly, Christianity is many paths among many--the perspective of Christians in the world is not unified, in fact has never been unified. At its best (which is to say, infrequently) it has been a collection of diverse humans united in caring community, not in a belief system. From my reading of the Gospels, I can't accept that Jesus thought of God as just another word for "goodness, mercy, justice, whatever." He was talking about the lord of creation, whom he held to be supremely good, merciful and just, and whom he expected to radically transform the nature of creation in the very near future. He was certainly revolutionary in his attempts to erase boundaries between the clean and the unclean in his highly stratified culture, but he did have some particular and somewhat traditional beliefs about God--beliefs which I do not accept. Paul and the early Christians had another, somewhat different set of beliefs, many of which Jesus seemed to show no signs of sharing. I know we could work over the definition of God until I could be included in the circle of those who believe in God. I have no desire to do so, as it would feel dishonest. The word can mean countless things, yes, but it has always had strong associations with concepts such as the self-aware creator of the universe; the self-aware ruler of the universe; an overarching and beneficent purpose to the universe; and many other concepts which do not resonate for me. "My ultimate concern" is not singular, but even if it were that does not strike me as a historically coherent or honest description of God. If I had to pick one concern--and I am very reluctant to do so--it would be compassion for the suffering of all living creatures. I'm not sure what you mean by "the background for [my] disbelief." I don't remember ever having believed in the existence of God, though I have long found the "concept" of God, the poetic force of a personalization of the universe, deeply compelling. I often find it expressive, useful, beautiful, reflective of human yearning, but not "true" in the sense of "an accurate description of the reality outside of my mind."