Comments on: Who are we part one (just what pamphlet do I give the tattooed ex-con?)

By: Susanne Kromberg

Susanne Kromberg — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 21:32:58 +0000

Excellent post, Martin.
The question that arises for me is: If our message and religious culture only appeal to a narrow segment of the population, have we strayed from the message we Quakers were given? The answer is a resounding YES, as far as I’m concerned. And the solution to the problem is not to be found in the pamphlet section at the FGC bookstore, as you so humorously allude to, Martin. Instead the solution will be found deep within our hearts when we seek to reorient ourselves, remembering that the good news is for EVERYONE, not just those among us with college degrees who like our vanilla soy lattes (I actually prefer a plain non-fat latte).
If huge segments of the population feel uncomfortable among us, there is something wrong wth US!

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:51:47 +0000

Jim: Of course Christ speaks to those who don't call themselves Christian; Friends have always thought that. Beyond that we're going to have to agree to disagree. Please stop the arguing and please stop telling me I can't believe what Quakers have always believed, it's getting rude. If you have more to say you've got your own blog.

By: Jim

Jim — Mon, 07 Jan 2008 13:45:31 +0000

There should be great concern from all Quakers about a "you-can-think-this" and "I-can-think-this" spirituality, a concern which I share. There is something about Quakerism that is unique, shared and deeply spiritual. Each of us has a connection to that inner seed and what is beautiful about Quakerism is that we see that connection and that spirituality in everyone. The problem with "you-can-think-this" and "I-can-think-this" is that it involves “thinking”. Spirituality is not "thinking", which is where I believe the Universalists go astray. Quaker spirituality is something much, much, deeper and more connected. Yes thinking can be a raft that leads us to the spiritual shore and thinking can be the vessel that creates Quaker action from our spiritual core, but Quaker Spirituality is not about "thinking" it is about the mouth of that deep perpetually flowing river. It is the "thinking" that dilutes that "secret power". I believe that Christocentric Friends, if they listened long enough, would find their Christocentric spirituality and could drop their Christocentric "thinking" which requires Quakerism to be a Christian religion. If we listen with our "spiritual ear" we can hear that deep spiritual seed equally in the Christocentric Friend and the Friend that is not Christocentric. We can be equally transformed by both of them. It has been said that secularism is a recent invention. In England 350 years ago being secular or non-theist was not a real option. Now we have to "think" about that choice and worse feel we have to proclaim Quakerism to be one or the other. One only has to read about Fox and Woolman’s interactions with native-Americans (a unique place where they had that "choice" opportunity) to see that Quakerism is broader organization of spirituality than one rational framework.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 12:28:10 +0000

@Jim: After some digging I realize you're referring to that well-trodden Barclay quote, paragraph seven of his Eleventh Proposition where he's chilling out from his extended and very detailed (and very violent?) description of Friends to testify to his own convincement. As he said, he was drawn in by an awareness of the of the "secret power" of those assembled and not the right doctrine they espoused. I agree with him and with you about that. But I think he and I will disagree with you that this means gospel ministry is inherently violent. Here's a next quote a little ways down from the one you chose:

I do not so much commend and speak of silence as if we had a law in it to shut out praying or preaching, or tied ourselves thereunto; not at all: for as our worship consisteth not in words, so neither in silence, as silence; but in an holy dependence of the mind upon God, from which dependence silence necessarily follows in the first place, until words can be brought forth which are from God's Spirit...

This reminds me of the discussion recently over at a blog of a seeker recently come visiting Friends. He was given a fifty year old pamphlet upon walking in the door. It's Howard Brinton, a modern classic from the pages of Friends Journal (1955), a great pamphlet and a good introduction to Friends' worship, with copies printed by both Friends General Conference and Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Someone writing today in the "Quaker We" like Brinton would be censured by those Friends who argue that any collective statements of faith are an exercise in power (that's why we let dead Quakers do our talking for us). Brinton actually addresses this question of inward faith and outward voice more eloquently than I could at the end of the pamphlet:

In avoiding one form, Friends sometimes slipped into another. Forms and creeds are inevitable. They have important uses, especially in education, where forms are used to show what ought to be the real content, and even, sometimes, to create the content. Our Christian religion would be weak and vague without the doctrines which undergird it. Quakerism does not aim at formlessness and undiluted mysticism. It is a peculiar and unusually stubborn effort to create a kind of religion in which the outward form expresses, as nearly as possible, the inward thought and life.

It's a call for balance between the inner and outer. Unfortunately public discourse by and among Friends has become split between ultra-inner'ness and ultra-outwardness. One the one hand you have the you-can-think-this and I-can-think-this kind of "undiluted mysticism"; on the other you have a kind of "SPICE ministry" of activism that is essentially secular. I have to admit that I'm finding most meetings terribly boring and boorish these days, self-indulgent, secular and cliches of comfortable upper-middle-class lukewarm-ishness. Would a young Robert Barclay feel the secret power of these assemblies? Where's our peculiar and unusual stubbornness gone to?

By: Jim

Jim — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 16:24:46 +0000

When one attends our meeting one feels the spirituality there. That is enough. I don’t have the quote in front of me but Barclay once said, “when I am in their presence I feel the good rise up and the evil melt away.”
The spiritual path tested by our community and its legacy is our trust that the Truth resides in each of us. There are so many different understandings among present and historical Quakers about the nature of God and spirituality. Often these differences are masked because we can pretend what you mean by “God” or “The Divine” is the same as what I mean, or we do not wish to go there because at other times these differences have caused us to be at odds and to split. However, the fundamental Truth goes beyond words and we need not be trapped by those words.
I recently asked a non-theist Friend why he uses God language. He answered that it is the language of power. That is my observation also. God language is about power, you see it everywhere in the bible. Power is not spirituality. It is in the absence of power that spirituality truly rises up to transform.
Quaker spirituality is about a spirituality rising from within. It is a blooming flower, creativity itself, a fountain whose source need not be captured by name and is better not captured.
If you wish to name it for yourself I will celebrate your celebration of the fountain within, but the need to name it for us is an exercise in power, perhaps even a violent act.

By: Martin Kelley

Martin Kelley — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 07:31:32 +0000

@Jim: But your description doesn't give anyone much of a reason to visit or join your meeting. As I see it Quakerism isn't about giving people permission to find a spiritual path, it's about offering a spiritual path, one tested by a community of faith held accountable to itself and its legacy. Just because words sometimes lead astray doesn't mean we have to go mute. By taking the very legitimate liberal Quaker concern around empty words this far we've stripped ourselves of the possibility of articulating an alternative. I think we need to stop being such purists and get messy with the language again.

By: Jim

Jim — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:34:25 +0000

In our meeting we are struggling mightily with what to put in our "Welcoming Pamplet". Here is my two cents: Quakerism is about trusting people that they can know or find their own spiritual path or places. We believe that within each of us is a seed of inspiration that given time to grow in a quiet supportive place will transform us and heal us of all worldly troubles. Much more than that we have difficulty saying because there is a world of difference between the words we use concerning that transformative thing and the thing itself within. The words themselves do so often lead us astray. But if we wait and labour to know, understand, and allow ourselves to be guided by, the motives, leadings, teachings of the thing thing within we will be transformed and healed.

By: Jeanne

Jeanne — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:00:13 +0000

Martin, you are right-on here. And I’d posted a similar question tonight on my blog after reading a New York Times article about class and race. It gets to the heart of who we are, and who we want to be.
Quakerism felt really inaccessible to me when I first arrived at Meeting, and because I’d learned to hate my class background (from my mother and from society). I felt ashamed, like something was wrong with me. Others, who don’t feel shame, I think they see that unnecessarily academic stuff and turn away.
And I think it would be hypocritical to make a pamphlet to speak to your “hot-tempered Puerto Rican ex-con less than a year out of a eight-year stint in federal prison, now working two eight hour shifts at almost-minimum wage jobs and trying to stay out of trouble.”
I wish it were that easy.