Comments on: Same as it ever was

By: Timothy Travis

Timothy Travis — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 17:58:00 +0000

Just a little side note to tesmith...I, too, don't find "Quakerism" a useful label for all this. It makes it sound, to me, like an ideology (socialism, libertarianism), a rationalistic kind of value system. I don't care if anyone else wants to use it, of course, but when someone else expresses the desire to find another term I always suggest "the faith and practice of Friends."

By: Robin Mohr

Robin Mohr — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 05:03:00 +0000

Same as it ever was. Letting the days flow by, water flowing underground. That’s a good description of trusting in God.

By: In the manner of Fox

In the manner of Fox — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 01:50:00 +0000

What worked in the past will work now, next year, through out eternity because it does not and will not change. Because He’s the same, as long as you have the faith of a little child you can preach, teach, and heal. The problem is the gospil has been changed into a lie. Professing themselves wise, they have become fools; having a form of godliness that denies the power. If you get with the right ones they will demonstrate it to you.

By: Tom

Tom — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:18:00 +0000

Martin said: “I have a working theory that a movement of “Convergence” will feel suspiciously liberal in evangelical circles, suspiciously evangelical in liberal circles, and suspiciously worldly in Quaker conservative circles”

I had to chuckle here, and add “and for the mystic, perhaps not radical enough!”

Great post and comments -
Ive been looking much at this notion of convergence in the past several weeks on everyones blogs and webpages … Im in the midst of my own personal convergence with Quakerism itself, and its fun, and invigorating, fascinating, and as all worthwhile things should be, humbling… to see the very struggles and questions and pains played out on the field of the blogpost, also here in my relationship with a brand new (to me) group of long-gathered Friends — but this is to be so for any newcomer to any group that has found security in its history of meeting…

Its so clear — just so clear — the MEETING is the convergence… this convergence that is being discussed, is played out in every soul on the planet, for all that matter — whereas every meeting with another is a meeting with God… converge with THAT! — this is the demand from God in every moment, to converge — to come together — to meet… to reexamine what “history” means and what books and quotes and sayings Ive packed up at home, and brought to the meeting with me… that needs to be re-spected, in the truest sense of the word — to “look again” … converge with that!… this is the demand on me, from God, if- if- if- I want to come to meeting with Him…

By: Wess

Wess — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 05:05:00 +0000

Thanks Martin — I agree with your point that convergence will never please everyone, a position I’m personally happy to hold.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 12:22:00 +0000

In reply to tesmith. Hi Tom: After I posted this article I had an unsettled feeling that perhaps I've once again strayed into "Quakerism" define mode. It's not wrong, just somewhat pointless and a distraction from outreach. So I like the idea that maybe the point is to simply converge toward that primitive Christianity ideal.

By: tesmith

tesmith — Thu, 09 Oct 2008 11:44:00 +0000

I wonder if convergent is more of a description of many Friends' journeys to Quakerism (I am uncomfortable with the "ism" part, but can't seem to find a better single word or very short phrase). For many years I have felt that many Quakers are "coming together" FROM something rather than TO something. If there is an aspect of their religious affiliation that no longer seems to fit, then they have found some place where "anything" seems to fit. Inevitably, using a color analogy, this leads to either a muddled gray (actually usually a brownish color but in deference to tradition-grey (I know I used both spellings for both sides oft he Atlantic) or clashing colors. I personally suspect that Quaker Institution and Quaker "religion" are both oxymorons, at least from my understanding of institution as an established place for maintaining a given situation and of religion as a giving of allegiance to a defined set of beliefs. I would hope that rather, than a muddled gray of spiritual confusion, we could become more of a beautiful tapestry that has very unique distinct colors (colours) but which when seen as a whole become a beautiful whole. I think the distinctive colors are critical in that each is clearly defined and does not try to claim to be the "true" color or the only color that "fits." I also recognize that individual threads tend to get "lost" in a larger picture and that it is a collection of same color threads that provide greater impact. My suspicions are that one of the difficulties that many, including myself, see in the Quaker "divisions " is that each seems to claim they are the "true" Quakers. It might be better if we could somehow agree that "we" are actually widely divergent groups which claim to be derived from a 350 (2000?) year old tradition. I would hope that Convergent tends to be more of a convergence with "primitive Christianity." This primitive Christianity revived might actually take the core of the message of Jesus as interpreted by varying sources, but which relies on "Love the Lord your God" and "Love your neighbor as yourself." God in this context does NOT seem to be the god of the Jews, Samaritans, Pharisees, Sadducees, Romans, Greeks, etc. just as neighbor also includes "our worst enemies," (i.e. Samaritans)