Comments on: What’s God Got to Do, Got to Do With It?

By: James Riemermann

James Riemermann — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 15:02:04 +0000

While there were many compelling and intriguing messages on this page, Jeffrey Hipp’s message reached right into my heart.
Furthermore, to lose patience and walk alone towards the light before me is to leave others behind. And the next time I lose my way, I dont want to be alone.
I feel the same way.

By: James Riemermann

James Riemermann — Fri, 29 Apr 2005 14:52:10 +0000

First of all, while the importance of Friends and meeting for worship in my life certainly came as a great surprise to me, the experience itself has never been in the least bizarre. We sit together in silence, we offer up prayers and reflections and other messages as we are led, at the end of the hour we shake hands. Occasionally a message strikes me as bizarre, and once in a while I find myself led to offer a message that seems bizarre even to me. But the experience itself is rich, deep, peaceful, exciting, loving, heartbreaking, occasionally tedious (I'll admit it). It all depends on the week, and the personal state of those who show up. It also seems to be assumed that, because I don't believe in any traditional conception of God, and am reluctant to use the word to describe my own experiences, that I must not be experiencing that which you call God. Is this right? If so, what is the foundation for this assumption? I do believe that our actual, inner experiences are deeply various, but I certainly don't think we can distinguish an experience of God, and an experience not of God, according a Friend's willingness or reluctance to use the word God. Do you? If so, why? I haven't heard such angry denunciations of Christian language as you describe, but I certainly don't doubt that they occur, and feel they have the potential for grave harm to our worship and our community. Depending on the circumstances, I would personally be inclined to elder the deliverer of such a denunciation. (To state that one is not a Christian, or does not accept certain central Christian beliefs, I would not call a denunciation of Christian language, any more than stating faith in God or Christ is a denunciation of my beliefs.) I do have knowledge of Friends who seem afraid to express their Christian beliefs in meeting, and I support their struggles to overcome that fear and speak out. The first and most important step, however, is one they must take on their own. I have seen a fair number of Friends come and go in our meeting over the last 15 years. My sense is that most of them left when they realized the community was simply not what they were looking for. I have seen a fair number of "trolls," as you describe them, simply wander away after a few months or a year or two, along with some folks who had hoped for a more theologically exclusive environment. In some cases their needs will be better met by more traditional churches; others might find a differently flavored gathering of Friends. Some will come to terms with what we are. A few, I think, are not looking for a genuine community at all, but a captive audience, and these sort tend to get frustrated sooner than anyone as they realize that's not what we do. Some have been formally or informally eldered; probably more eventually notice on their own that we're not hanging on their every word. You wrote: "we censor our language to the point where it’s full of inoffensive double-meanings. Let’s not be afraid to talk in the language we have. We need to share the treasure we’ve been given." I could not agree more. I simply need to add, "we" includes "me," and many others of great diversity of belief. This point is not negotiable. It is simply a fact. your friend, james

By: Robin Mohr

Robin Mohr — Tue, 26 Apr 2005 01:22:51 +0000

Back in the days when I attended 15th St Meeting, there was this older Friend who sometimes described himself as a former backbencher. He used to give somewhat lengthy but powerful vocal ministry, often telling a story that ended up with a point that had not been obvious to me but always made me think for a good long while. He had a gently Christian outlook that was not my own, but it was never pushy, just frank. I loved his ministry. Chris and I asked him to give the introduction to Quaker worship at our wedding. He is probably still the same way, judging by his writing today. Thank you, Rich.
Sorry if this continues to be off topic, but here is my question of this afternoon’s meditation: Why is it that, just because there is some amazing spiritual Truth in the letters of Paul, it necessarily follows that everything that he wrote is Truth? Why is it not acceptable (in Christian orthodoxy) to think that Paul, or even Christ Jesus, had some cranky days? What is interesting to me about the “Lost Gospels” is not that perhaps they are the Truth and the New Testament is not, but that their re-appearance and their content shed further light on what human processes went into defining what is Christianity.

By: Barbara

Barbara — Mon, 25 Apr 2005 17:30:20 +0000

Hi Martin & everyone, I have a lot of reactions to these posts, and I've kept from responding mostly because it all makes me feel very weary. I've written before about the arguments --sometimes bitter-- that I've encountered on Quaker discussion lists. However (and hopefully, not to anyone's dismay), I finally feel that I can respond. I cannot even begin to express the joy and peace that Quakerism has brought me. It's been a long, long journey for me (I'm not one of the "young" Quakers. I'm in my early, mind you!!!) 50's. I finally have an experimental assurance --as Fox used the adverb experimentally-- of acceptance by a God who views me as an adult and expects me to use the spiritual and intellectual faculties he/she has given me, trusts in me as I trust in him/her, has patience with my attempts to do what I believe is right and willingly forgives my failings; and most especially, a God that doesn't demand that I be anyone's doormat in the name of humility and religion. That's quite a gift after many years of spiritual struggling and suffering. We're very fortunate right now to have Peter Blood-Patterson conducting a Quakerism 101 course over the next few weeks at our meeting. One of the things that Peter has said, and that I think is germane to this discussion, is that Quakerism is a gamble. Having come from a church with a strong locus of authority (and no hesitation to use that authority), I can see what a gamble it is for a spiritual community to trust that the Inward Light will indeed guide the words and deeds of its members. A great part of this naming/not naming of God and/or of Jesus must be understood as a consequence of that gamble, I think. We must expect that Quakerism is going to be a lot less strict in how its members believe and speak of their beliefs. As Martin says, other religions just show people the door. That said, I think that some of the discomfort could be mitigated by education. When a significant number of new attenders are seen at a meeting, perhaps a Quakerism 101 course is in order to at least remind people of the origins of Quakerism. It should at least be acknowledged that the early Quakers were Christians who probably would have had no problem with any of the tenets contained in the Nicene Creed. Does that mean that revelation doesn't continue or that those who have trouble subscribing to pretty much everything in the Creed should be "purged"? No, not at all. But I think that a proper understanding of where Quakers "came from," so to speak, could resolve some ambiguities. Anyone who wishes to worship with us should, I think, be able at least to tolerate prayers addressed to God and mention of the name of Jesus. If someone's looking for some other more New Age-type spirituality, it might be better if they understand that that's not what Quakers are all about. They probably will move on anyway, eventually. As for those who would wish that God and Jesus be more forcefully affirmed ... I guess I'd just say that I see a lot of really broken people on the doorstep of our meeting, people who perhaps have felt judgment rather than welcome at the "main line" Christian churches. I'd like to give them all the time they need, let them stay with us as long as they like, and offer them what comfort we can. I think that's what Jesus would do. Blessings to everyone. --Barbara

By: Rich Accetta-Evans

Rich Accetta-Evans — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 18:32:25 +0000

First, let me say that this is a wonderful post and a wonderful discussion. So much so that I hope I find enough time to comment on it at greater length in my own blog. For now, just a few points about the "purge" issue, about the "Christian" label, and about the "Lost Gospel" message that seems to be turning up in so many places. First, about the worry that we "Christocentric" types (not my favorite word, but I'll get to that under the second point) may get tempted to purge other Friends from the RSoF (or - more realistically - to withdraw ourselves from it and start over again with a smaller and more purely Christocentric group). This may be a natural temptation. If you want to be in a group centered on Christ, it might seem that the logical way to get there is to separate oneself from others who want a different focus. The problem with this is that it diverts attention from our center to our boundaries. It tries to make Christ central by shutting others out. I think a more direct approach is to make Christ central by making Christ central. I see my ministry in Fifteenth Street Meeting and New York Yearly Meeting as a ministry of testifying about Christ, not of arguing for him or disputing with others about other religious claims. Since Christ is Christ, I trust him to call others and make himself heard. In time, we may find that a Society of Friends where Christ is openly and freely preached is not of much interest to some whose real calling is toward Buddhism or New Age spirituality. We may also find that some who think they have no use for Christ are more drawn to Him than they expect when His followers make their lives speak (or "preach" as George Fox put it) in harmony with their words. I have a theory that one of the things that prepared the ground for the separations in the 19th century was that Friends had been so busy protecting their boundaries (their hedge) and discouraging internal dissent during the quietist years that they were no longer heirs of a living and tested faith. Their faith became dry and brittle through over protection. So when they finally had to face new questions presented in a new time they shattered into warring sects, each giving up some precious bit of original Quakerism while clinging to the rest ferociously. I hope in time to tell the story of an "opening" I received - I believe from Christ - at a yearly meeting when it was going through troubling times sparked by theological controversy. Christ told me inwardly that "I am not the leader of a faction". I took that to mean that in order to follow him I should not act like a member of a faction. Second - about the "Christian" label. I like it much better than "Christocentric". The latter seems like an artificially coined term, a piece of academic vocabulary, and possibly a tad pretentious. I understand that there are many different ways to define "Christian". Words are like that; they don't stand still. But I don't necessarily agree that most of the world's Christians wouldn't think Martin isn't one. They might think he was a bad Christian or a deluded Christian, but if he cops to being a believer in Christ (and I imagine that's implied in his word "Christocentric") then I think they'd say he was a Christian anyway. "Christian" means to me that I am or try to be a follower of Jesus - who is alive and not dead (though he once died). I don't get too caught up in defining the relationship between Christ and God the Creator or God the Holy Spirit or God the Word or God the Light (am I an Pentatarian?), nor in puzzling out how Jesus could at once be fully human and also the eternal word made flesh. As I read the New Testament it seems to me that even His earliest followers had lots of different ways of thinking about these matters. The thing is, though, that they loved Him and followed Him. I find no record that Jesus ever said you had to completely understand Him in order to be His. Third, about the idea of a "Lost Gospel". I think that the Gospel is "lost" only in the sense of being overlooked. I am not going to base my faith on a theory that the "real" gospels were hidden away for centuries by a secretive sect then brought into the open during the Renaissance or the 1960's. A lot of "gnostic" literature seems to me to be very problematic and spiritually misleading even though some of it is also enligtening and uplifting. Meanwhle, The four books known as the gospels in the New Testament give a pretty good and multi-faceted view of who Jesus was and is. The problem we have is not that the truth is hidden away in some vault, but that our eyes are blinded so that we don't see it. I agree with Fox that in order to read the gospels aright we need to come into the power and spirit that gave them forth. - - Rich Accetta-Evans

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 19:00:57 +0000

Kenneth makes a good point. Most Quakers are Christian. Most Friends in the liberal tradition have been Christian until quite recently. I've seen a few surveys that hint that most liberal Friends still identify as Christian (this doesn't jive with my experience and I know of no comprehensive survey). Hi Robin: Yes, certainly Quakerism is built on a story of a true Christianity gone bad, perverted by forces of worldly politics and lusts. The "Lost Gospels" books certainly echoes some of that basic Quaker worldview. My gut is that some of the excitement of the "Lost Gospels" is a attempt to justify our modern-day values by claiming they were the values of an original, true Church. I'm not sure I buy it, but because I haven't really studied it all that much I buried that thought in a parenthetical remark deep in a comment. Julie and I are reading _Beyond Belief_ now, maybe we'll do one of our ocassional joint reviews when we're done...

By: Robin Mohr

Robin Mohr — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 18:29:50 +0000

Dear Martin,
I agree so much with what you said in the main post and your subsequent comments that either I could gush endlessly or I can quibble about this one little tiny piece of your most recent comment:
“The definition of “Christian” was settled 1600 years ago, for better or worse.”
For me, this is like saying the definition of marriage was settled 1600 years ago. (As between one dominant male and one subservient female.) Many people think this is true, but I don’t agree. People are still talking about it, still disagreeing, and I still have hope that the Truth will be found to be more loving than the history of the last 1600 years.
It could be (and has been, by better scholars than me) argued that a more true statement is that the Christian church was powerfully co-opted by the Roman empire about 1600 years ago, and that the Christians over the first four centuries strayed from the prophetic basis of Jesus’s teachings back into the cultural norms of the society around them. A time honored tradition among the Israelites as well.
One of the things that is most amazing to me about the whole “Lost Gospels stuff” is that the more I learn about the earliest Church, the more it resembles the early Quakers: equality of men and women, traveling evangelists, covenant community, open debate of what the message of Christ is, and on the downside, prison, beatings, families torn apart, etc. Little did they know when they said “primitive Christianity revived” how right they were.

By: Joe G.

Joe G. — Wed, 20 Apr 2005 12:14:49 +0000

Lovely, post Martin. You speak both to my condition and you speak my mind.
I hope to blog about your thoughts and the issues you so nicely raise sometime soon.
Blessings on your head for following the Guide!