What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Integrative Summary

I imagine that the purpose of this summary is to tie together the conversation I have been having with this question over the last few weeks.  After reading the previous eight essays, I am back to the beginning, at the personal response.  There I ended with the statement that “We are all trying to come to terms with our common human inability, so far, to help God create heaven on earth - though we keep trying.”  That about sums it up for me.

In the last essay, I came upon the idea that Quakerism is Quixotic.  I like this.  It is.  We are optimistic about our origins, seeing our being-ness as basically good.  Given the collective state of humankind, this seems an irrational stance.  Fully one half of the world population lives in desparate poverty.  Twenty-two thousand children die every day from causes due to poverty.  It must be madness to think that humans are basically good, since we humans surely have the power and resources to fix these problems, yet we fail to do so.

The dissonance of these views comes from the fact that we unprogrammed Quakers are also in the elite of the world.  We are part of the twenty percent that earns seventy-five percent of world income.  We can afford the luxury of spiritual questing.

Most of the time, most of the unprogrammed Quakers that I know are mindful of our privileged status.  Our Meeting has one of the highest proportions of ex-Peace Corp Volunteers of any group I know.  We have underpaid lawyers who work on behalf of undocumented aliens and death row prisoners, teachers in alternative schools, home-schoolers, and underpaid professionals of all kinds, in fact, in service to others in some way.  A grand life style for us is to own a house free and clear (as I do).  

The point is that, while we happen to be part of the so-called First World, we recognize ourselves as world citizens primarily, I believe.  Our Meeting staffs and pays for part of a medical clinic for internal refugees in Bogota, Colombia.  We aid undocumented aliens and refugees seeking asylum in the U.S.A., and work on behalf of death row inmates, many of whom are from poor or immigrant families.  The Meeting conscientiously seeks to break down prejudices, in ourselves and others.

We could not do these things, and face these facts, without our basically optimistic stance.  Our Meeting is only about one hundred fifty people.  We have children, lives, jobs, and bills that need attention.  Thus, we seek to use our privilege for the benefit of others as much as for ourselves, and we try to instill these ideals in our children.  We don’t have time for arguments over doctrine, which we view as distractions.  We choose to accept people as they are, as much as possible, without forcing theologically defined behaviors beyond basic human kindness and respect.

We could not do these things without love and belief in the power of love.  As complicated as our lives are, our desires are simple.  We want a saner world, one where people have a fair chance.  We seek balance.  We do what we can, and, for the rest, we pray for guidance, mercy, love, grace, and understanding.  All That Is Holy help us.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Supervised Ministry Response

If I have to answer in a different way from my answer in the denominational essay, then I fear I have little to say.  My ministry setting is my room in Cadbury House, where I write a book about theology, Christianity, and Quakerism.  I am trying to write in such a way that those who have been alienated by Christian thought might find some healing.  I am trying to move people deeper into Quakerism so that they can relate better to non-Quakers, to their former religions (if they joined us from other religions), and to themselves.  In some ways, what I am trying to do is to add the liberal end of the dialogue to Brian McLaren’s reframing of the evangelical side of Christianity.  I am not certain that I will be successful.

For me, unprogrammed Quakerism is a way of life and a theory of evolution, if you will.  Can we evolve away from our genetic inheritance, in which physical and psychological dominance determines who survives, procreates, and defines the cultural surroundings, toward a life defined by love, peace, and equality?  I am optimistic enough to say, why not?  At least most of the time.  I am also realistic enough to doubt the sanity of this optimism at times - which is also fine, because I like Quixotic quests.

For whatever reason, I believe that I receive guidance at times, guidance that appears not to have a rational, physical basis.  I attribute this guidance to the Spirit, the inner light, the workings of God.  Of course, this experience may be the result of a complex physiology, but I don’t think so.  Very occasionally it is a shared experience, and I have received confirmation from other people of their similar experience.  This, for me, confirms the foundations of Quakerism experimentally, as George Fox would say.

So, from my ministry setting, unprogrammed Quakerism is a group of people who choose to explore some of their existential questions together, whether directly, in conversation, or indirectly, through worship.  It is also where we practice love.  My love drives me to try to articulate answers to hard questions, and to learn how to help us all blunder through life’s dissonances with the least possible damage.

My basic stance in life is that a benevolence has caused us to alive, that death cannot be a tragedy since it is part of life, and that, while I may never know very much, I sure do love being alive most of the time.  I am fortunate to have natural curiosity that makes many things interesting to me, and I have been blessed with basically good health for most of my life.  So, while many of the circumstances of my life have been less fortunate, I cannot complain.  On the overall, I bounce back to a basically happy position, given very minimal encouragement.  How could those givens have been created by something not benevolent?

It is my experience that many unprogrammed Quakers share this basic stance, at least in outline.  We see our mission as incarnating love.  If that sounds naive or simple-minded, well, it’s good enough for me.  It’s also a courageous act, and I like that too.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Writing Emphasis Response

Unprogrammed Quakers are underrepresented in the world of letters.  Thus, those few that we claim, we treasure.  Rufus Jones we consider a hero.  Thomas R. Kelly’s Testament of Devotion is almost required reading among us, as is everything by Howard Brinton.  Beyond these, we are subjected to reading “in translation.”

Many Quakers seek reading with the Buddhists (Tibetan, Zen, Classical Dharmapada, Western a la Suzuki), the Hindus (Gandhi, Deepak Chopra, The Bhagavad-Gita), New Agers and the like, Sufism, and mystical Christians.

We view our religion as akin to scientific study (as Howard Brinton describes in Friends For 300 Years).  We seek “experimentally,” to find guidance from the Spirit (or from God, Christ, Buddha nature, whatever is holy).  Thus, reading and writing are valued for what we learn, not just passively, but in the action.  While reading, I learn not just what the words convey, but also, in my reactions to those thoughts, I learn where my fracture lines are, what I might know that is similar or different from the content of the reading, or I might gain an insight unrelated to it.  In other words, reading is one way to slow down my internal processes enough to examine them, and to hear messages I would not ordinarily notice.

The act of writing, like the act of teaching, informs us of what we think.  For me, the act of writing is a voyage of discovery.  I truly do not know what to say until, somehow, I write it.  This is a religious practice, then, for me.  My tiny conscious mind is only aware of part of a subject.  What floats into consciousness as I am writing is amazing, leaving me speechless, ironically.  I continue doing it, trying to understand where insight originates.  Because I surely do not know.

Quakers also have written, and continue to write, memoir.  Spiritual autobiography was one of the ways that early Quakers traded insights with each other.  Because of the close association between spirituality and psychology, these memoirs were therapy as well as education to others, as is all autobiography, I imagine.  Many Quakers find journaling helpful.  My own practice in journaling is spotty - sometimes prolific and then long periods of silence.

The Quaker blogosphere has become one place where unprogrammed Quakers are active.  Because our interests are counter-cultural and often chided, we find little outlet in the mainstream press or in large publication houses.  In the general climate of reactionary politics, the web is one place where liberal thought can flourish, along with everything else.

In conclusion, I would posit that our reliance on silence, our sense that ministry is primarily doing social action, our reluctance to proselytize, and the private nature of much of our spirituality, few unprogrammed Quakers turn to writing to express their religious views.  I am doing so because (1) I have to write, and (2) someone has to.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Cultural Response

Unprogrammed Quakers are arguably a counter-cultural phenomenon.  This has been true since its inception in the 1650s.  George Fox and the early Quakers found themselves in the middle of social chaos, after three armed rebellions, now called the English Civil War, the beheading of King Charles I, and the exile of King Charles II.  The Scottish Church split from the English Church, breaking the Anglican hegemony over religion in England.

Into this social unrest, various religious people started their own forms of worship, among them George Fox and the early Quakers.  This was a rather ragged affair, with groups and people traveling around the country to gather support, to learn what was happening, and, possibly, just to see what was there.  The early Quakers formed what, to them, was a sane response to unjust uses of power.  Thus, one of the firm convictions that they held to was equality between all people.  England’s caste system segregated people, on the basis of birth, into rigid economic classes.  Until this time, social mobility was limited to minor changes in trade and to the fortunes, whims, or generosity of one’s Lord - he who owned the land in the region.  Thus, the Quaker stance of equality was countercultural and radical at the time.

Modern unprogrammed Quakers continue this tradition.  Social mobility is less an issue now (though not entirely a non-issue).  Modern Quakers focus more on peace and other matters of justice.  War is seen as a symptom of unjust dealings leading to the greater injustice of “collateral damage.”  The roots of war are greed, most generally, and Quakers protest the use of power for economic ends, as they protest the basic unfairness in taking advantage of conflict of interest.

Indeed, many unprogrammed Quakers see their mission as voicing counter-cultural ideals.  Whether this involves interrupting abuse of power (e.g. the death penalty with its problematic assumptions, its blatant bias towards punishing those already economically disadvantaged) or disenfranchisement due to social prejudice, unprogrammed Quakers seek ways to create equality and tolerance of difference, values not held in high esteem in most modern cultures.

For these reasons, unprogrammed Quakers are politically liberal, socially progressive, and, some would say, somewhat difficult to silence.  Nonviolent communication and action form the basis of many of their programs - AVP (the Alternatives To Violence program); NVC (nonviolent communication program); vigils for peace, against the death penalty; interfaith dialogue; medical missions to places that modern medicine ignores; education programs which seek to equalize opportunity; immigration rights programs; legislative lobbying; feeding programs in times of war or economic dislocation.  

Many unprogrammed Quakers refuse to pay “war taxes,” the portion of income tax that supports military budgets, or to own cars, in order to decrease their carbon footprint.  Most attempt to apply the values of peace, simplicity, equality, integrity, and forthright speech in their daily lives.  This action alone, sadly, is also highly counter-cultural.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Denominational Response

Our Meeting settles into the definition of our worship together as “in the manner of Friends.”  Anyone who wishes to join us are welcomed if they agree to worship in the manner of Quakers.  By this is meant that we will be largely silent and still, hoping to receive messages from the Spirit which will inform our lives or the lives of others.  

We invite any who do receive messages, and who discern that these messages are meant for the good of all present, to stand and share them during our worship services.  There is no restriction on who may speak, though persons who abuse this privilege, who “outrun their guide,”  or who are disruptive may be asked to leave the meeting room to speak with Worship And Ministry outside.

For us, Quakerism forms a deep association within, an identity, that is committed to peace, peaceful means, fairness, and truth.  Of course, most religions provide a kind of identity to members.  Ours is not unique in this regard.  We regard ourselves unique solely in the means through which we do this, which includes non-hierarchical organizing principles, absence of conflict of interest with regard to both spiritual and material matters, and heavy reliance on conscience in matters of discernment.

Because we depend on what the early Quakers called the “Inward Light” for guidance and inspiration, ours might be called a mystical religion, in the tradition of Christian mystics since the Desert Fathers and Mothers.  Personal accountability, restraint, moderation, and capacity for diversity are important to us, as is a capacity for ambiguity.  Paradox is often a subject in vocal ministry, along with Love, Peace, and Light.

On the more practical side, unprogrammed Quakers devote themselves to Quaker principles which are similar to the Buddhist formulation of the Eightfold Noble Path: right understanding, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.  These embody the ideas of wisdom, ethical conduct, and mental discipline which can also be seen in the Quaker testimonies of peace, simplicity, equality, integrity, and honesty/forthright speech.  For us, it is less important to use “correct” or canonic or strictly Quaker words to describe these ideas than to use the formulations which will bring about these results.  Thus, we have unprogrammed Quakers who define themselves as Buddhist-Quaker, Sufi-Quaker, Christian-Quaker, Jewish-Quaker, or just plain Quaker.  We have those who prefer a NonTheist outlook in their devotions, wishing to break strong associations with patriarchy and militancy often associated with Theist formulations.

Because we are tolerant of diversity and because we do not require specific belief statements, some, even some others who call themselves Quakers, regard our religious stance to be inadequate, a “weak” theology, and our very nature to be “relativist” (John Punchon) or less than fully faithful (Wilmer Cooper).  I find this amusing most of the time, due to the very high requirements we place on ourselves for ethical conduct and honest speech, and to the way that we hold ourselves accountable to each other.  

At other times, I am deeply saddened that modern religion itself, especially conservative forms in Christianity, seems to foster unfair comparison, political sloganism, and intolerance that leads people who would be devout into militant, self-contradictory, even sinful, positions.  We unprogrammed Quakers find ourselves off the mark quite often, but rarely do we need to disparage others in this way.  I do it here to make the point that I have never read or heard unprogrammed Quakers making statements like this about or against anyone, but have had to endure many directed against us during my seminary work.

Our theology and our capacity for devotion are equal to any.  Our tolerance for others is high, but we are intolerant of intolerance between people.  We will confront it, speak it, witness before it.  That is part of our mission as Friends.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Theological Response

Most religious bodies define themselves by their theologies.  That is, they propose and accept a set of concepts for what they consider to be divine, construct verbal statements about those concepts, and then may form various kinds of ritual, song, or other communal activity using those verbal statements.  Generally, to become a member of one of these organizations, one conforms to the statements and activities that the group has constructed.   In this regard, unprogrammed Quakers are like other religious bodies.  

Our statements, however, are open-ended in nature.  Instead of defining or bounding a sense of divinity, we choose not to speak, encouraging each member to do that within themselves.  Instead of declaring a way of salvation, we ask members to struggle with Spirit.  

The statement that we do make is that people have “that of God” within, and that all have the capacity to access some form of divine guidance directly, given humility and stillness.  Beyond these simple concepts, stated in many different wordings, we do not require any other statement of belief.   We do not define the word “God,” so that “that of God” may mean different things to different people.  This is consistent with the writing and practice of early Quakers, and we believe that it is an honest appraisal of what we can know about the source of life.

We do not even require that one use the word “God” in their personal theological formulation.  “That of []” is fine with us, though it does require some more words to be intelligible to others.  Now, many of us do read and study the Bible, Christianity, and Judaism in order to understand early Quaker writings thoroughly.  We teach these to Young Friends, though not always consistently, in order that they be able to make their own choices, when the time comes, and, in order that they understand the majority society in which we live.

The Quaker testimonies (peace, simplicity, integrity, equality, honesty/plain speaking) embody our minimal theology.  They are a way to live in the world that recognizes the worth of all peoples, and they can be used as a path to God, for those so inclined.  We use questions, called queries, for the sake of historical continuity, to prod ourselves to consider where we may be missing the mark spiritually.  These are posed monthly to the Meeting as a whole, not as a form of coercion, but offered for each person’s consideration.  Members are free to take them to heart, or not, at the time, as their lives allow.

I believe that most unprogrammed Quakers would say that the “mission” of Quakerism is love.  This is not a quishy, fluffy “being nice” kind of love.  It is a radical love of fellow beings, the kind that causes internal struggle, even dislocation at times.  Most of us have not attained the security and balance required to actually see our fellow beings, much less to love them for themselves.  We do not know how to replenish our internal spiritual springs well enough, fast enough, easily enough to meet the great need in our external world and in others.  One way that we practice learning how to do this is in service to others.  Thus, we have active concerns in which we work outside the Meeting, for justice, for peace, for equality, learning how to do each.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Church History Response

The Society of Friends emerged from 17^th Century English Civil War time.  It is arguably another step in the centuries long Reformation of the Catholic Church, or Christianity, that is still taking place today.  In another sense it is the result of centuries of mystical practice, outside of the Catholic Church, now taking a public place in the worlds of Christianity and, arguably, Islam.

Martin Luther’s challenge to church authority in the early 1500s led to the first Christian body not of the Catholic Church.  Soon many alternative churches had formed.  In England, which had been Catholic until the 1530s, King Henry VIII sought to reform the church, the monasteries, and the relationship between Pope and King.  When the Vatican refused his terms, he broke with the Catholic Church, forming the Church of England.  His daughter, Queen Mary, reinstated Catholicism in England, and her successor, Queen Elizabeth I, made England Protestant again.  

By the time of the English Civil War, in 1642, religious struggle was part of the English experience of life.  The beheading of King Charles led to the breakdown of many British institutions, including the Church of England.  Civil disorder spread through the country, and many small religious groups formed.  Out of this chaos, Quakerism emerged under the leadership of George Fox, James Naylor, and Margaret Fell, though Fox became the most influential spokesperson.  He set up the structure Quakers use today - Monthly, Quarterly, and Yearly Meetings.  

Fox articulated the Quaker mission as one of freedom of conscience and freedom from the tyranny of tithing, church mediated life events (infant baptism, funerals, marriages), and rituals that were not done from the spirit of Christ.  He advocated spiritual equality between the genders and among all economic classes of all peoples, regardless of their native religion.  Many of his followers traveled to Muslim, Jewish, and native populations to speak of this equality and freedom before God.  (NOTE: They were not attempting to convert these populations, for the most part.  Once they delivered their message, they left in peace to return to England or the American colonies.)  

A second theory of the lineage of Quakerism follows the thread of mysticism from the Desert Fathers through the medieval mystics to the religious seekers of Fox’s time.  Some have said that Marguerite Porete, who was executed by the Inquisition in 1310, was one of the first to articulate ideas similar to George Fox.  Her ideas were read, assimilated, and published by Meister Eckhardt after her death.  Her book, The Annihilation of Simple Souls, has been read for 700 years (unattributed until 1947, when an Italian scholar uncovered her authorship), and influenced people of all classes, including the Beguines and Beghards, many solitary mystics, and many monastics.  The Catholic mystical traditions were affected by Islamic scholarship in southern Spain, and spilled over into the restless ferment during John Wycliffe's time, through to the Bohemian protests of John Hus and others, all of which influenced the religious movements of 17th Century England.

A modern understanding of unprogrammed Quakerism includes the mission of religious witness in the world without religious or other coercion, as part of the Peace, Equality, and Integrity testimonies.  Thus, unprogrammed Quakers generally do not "preach what they practice,"  relying instead on social action and witness.

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Biblical Response

The early Quakers based their thinking, speech, and worship on Biblical themes.  They sought to return to what they thought was the original form of Christianity, the life and words of Jesus.  Of especial interest was the gospel of John, which spiritualizes much of the Christian message.  

All Biblical books were cited, including the First Testament.  A fellow classmate, Rob Pierson, wrote a study of the Quaker use of Jeremiah in which he tabulated Biblical references from fourteen collections of early Quaker writings.  Twenty-nine percent of the references were to the First Testament, seventy-one percent to the Second Testament.  George Fox often cited multiple Bible verses within one sentence.  (If you haven’t read Fox, you are missing something.  His letters and sermons are thrilling.)

Unprogrammed Quakerism is based on the idea that Christ speaks to each of us today, if we will listen for it.  Thus, worship consists of expectant silence during which one waits for the “still small voice” within.  This voice is perceived to be the spirit promised by Jesus: “the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything, and remind you of all that I have said to you.” (John 14:25)

Thus, unprogrammed Quakers’ original mission in the world was to try to live according to the words and actions of Jesus, without priests and without church hierarchies.  Various testimonies developed which were thought to be distillations of these words and actions - peace, simplicity, integrity, egalitarianism, forthright speech.  

Modern unprogrammed Quakers continue to hold these testimonies, though they have also allowed much of the Christianity behind them to fall away.  This is largely due to the perception that much in Christianity appeared to negate these values - especially simplicity, peace, and egalitarianism - in their continuing evolution through time.  Thus, we are Christian or not, but we firmly hold to what we perceive as Jesus’ message to us.

The testimonies are a sly device.  They work on individuals, leading them to question personal decisions and actions, encouraging humility by the fact of our ineptness.  They work corporately as we struggle to understand how to confront the modern world sanely, which often feels like an oxymoron.  

The peace testimony leads us to oppose war-making or seeking employment in positions that support war efforts.  The testimony of equality leads us to seek justice for those who are denied it on the basis of gender preference, economics, skin color, ethnic background, nationality, education, or other arbitrary personal characteristics.  We seek to increase our capacity for diversity, for accepting those who are not like us.  This takes place personally and corporately.  

What is Quakerism and what is its mission today? Personal Response

Unprogrammed Quakerism is a tradition that grew from the work of George Fox, James Naylor, Margaret Fell, and others (the Valiant Sixty) during 17^th Century England.  This work described a worship process, and a way of life, that removes barriers between individuals and God, and that emphasizes one’s personal responsibility in creating a life free from conflict of interest, though it is not generally stated in these words.

My personal relationship to unprogrammed Meetings is longstanding and deep.  As a Young Friend, I framed my identity around Quakers, even as I knew that I could not live up to their ideals.  They offered me refuge, sanity, and recognition as a child of God equal to them, which changed my life.  This Meeting was deeply spiritual and reflective, Christocentric but allowing of skepticism.  To me, it is the best example of Quakerism, and I have struggled to find another like it.  

As I traveled through schools, jobs, and life, I found that there is a large range in unprogrammed Meetings.  That is, each Meeting has its own ethic and sense of mission.  All of them that I have experienced are socially progressive, open and affirming to alternative lifestyles, interested in environmental work, committed to witness for peace, and self-questioning.  The ways that they express these are eccentric to each Meeting - some are very active in their communities, some are more internally focused.  All of them are attractive to me personally, in their desire to be inclusive and to celebrate diversity.  They also drive me bonkers.

What I have missed is a sense of a spiritual path, a method or a teaching that binds the testimonies together and makes them into compelling personal challenges.  Witness is very often outward directed, without the inward development that would ground their work in personal experience - the excruciating personal experience of transformation...that which they are often asking others to do.  Yes, everyone follows things like the Peace Testimony to the limits of their consciences.  But not everyone looks at how they fail to give up petty angers or at how they each can transform their personal use of power to create greater peace among themselves.  I find little “tenderness” within present day Meetings.

For some time, I did not attend Meeting, going instead on Hindu retreats and practicing Vipassana meditation.  Meetings felt too “social” or too chatty.  I did not appreciate most of the vocal ministry, feeling it more to be folksy stories than compelling spirituality.  I wanted insight.  I wanted to feel the Spirit directly, and did not find this in Meeting.  Thus, it became clear that my belief is that part of unprogrammed Quakerism’s mission is to encourage personal transformation, in order to ground social witness on secure spiritual values.  To me, for example, it makes no sense to “march for peace,”  if militancy itself is the problem.

One of the strengths of unprogrammed Quakerism is that neither I nor anyone else can define what its purpose is, beyond the central Quaker tenents.  We must struggle with each other to find it.  My opinions add to the mix.  We are all trying to come to terms with our common human inability, so far, to help God create heaven on earth - though we keep trying.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Integrative Summary

Taken as a whole, it seems that we were all in agreement that “the Church” does not entirely live up to its charter as a teacher of Jesus’ ways.  We had, on the overall, similar concerns with how the Church is seen, what it represents in contemporary America, and how its practice diverges from its ideals.  What I realized during this process is that, even though Christians refer to “the Church” as if there were a central Christian body of Christian affairs, there actually is no such thing.  

Maybe it’s just me, but I have had this fantasy, based on how the term is used, that “the Church” actually refers to something non-mythical.  Maybe I thought that the national councils of churches indicated a sincere siblinghood of believers.  Or something.  But no, Christians have clutched this construct around them since the time of the medieval Catholic Church - all of them,  trying to steal it for themselves, even as they have run as fast as possible away from each other.  

Wow.  I wrote in another paper that the Reformation continues today, that, in spite of our hyper-modern ultra-coolness, in some crucial areas we still think about the same as people did in medieval times.  And here is an actual artifact! a true relic, if you will, still alive today!

In truth, it is time for this to change.  Christians profess to a false unity, unfairly fluffing up their numbers, maybe for advantage in an increasingly multicultural world, maybe just because they really feel the need to look important.  But they do it with mendacity, if the way that they treat each other is included in the assessment.  

Secondly, I suspect that most Christians chauvinistically assume that “the Church” is their particular church.  This is a kind of naivete generally associated with unsophisticated tribal groups who call themselves “the people”  or “the real people.”    If faith groups want to have high credibility with the general public, then this sloppy self-reference needs to be addressed.  That, or actual unity needs to be felt and achieved.

In conclusion, since the term “the Church” refers to a prop being used to comfort people in religiously dangerous illusions, I will no longer use the term to refer to the set of Christianities that would claim it as their own.  That is, I will now talk about “Christian expressions of faith,” in the plural.  I will talk about how it is my opinion, based on study of the gospels, that Jesus never sought to start a church.  That is, Jesus is not represented by any church, much less owned by one.  And that any body that seeks to worship him needs first of all to honor his words, his instructions to us:  love God, end wars, love each other, seek justice for all.  This means, most of all, that

CHRISTIANITY IS NOT ABOUT PERSONAL SALVATION.

It’s something more like working tirelessly for our neighbors’ benefit.  God help us.  And me.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Ministry Project Response

My ministry setting is the upstairs, front room in Cadbury House where I live.  My project is to write A Primer of Christianity For Unprogrammed Quakers, a short book that talks about what Christianity is and what it is not.  I envision this as a similar message to Brian McLaren’s (A New Kind Of Christianity, The Justice Project, Naked Christianity, others).  I am speaking from the liberal end of the spectrum, while he began in the evangelical wing.  I believe that we meet in the middle, which is a huge comfort to me.  The mainstream church, however, objects to Brian’s work.  He is getting a lot of static for his recent books.  They would hate mine, no doubt, because I am even more universalist than he is, and because I really, really don’t care if one professes a recognizably Christian belief system or not.  I do care about justice, aligning with God, and inclusiveness - to me all of these are different ways of saying the same thing.

In my project, I am trying to explain to liberal Quakers that Christianity actually does not exist, not as a monolithic whole, that there are many Christian expressions of faith and many kinds of Christian practice, but that no organization owns the patent, defines the terms, or limits the scope of how one can view the life and impact of the historical person known as Jesus.  This is what I most object to in most Christian talk: people seem to feel entitled to be proprietary about Jesus, to feel that they alone get to define his life and message.  Is this really what the church was meant to do?  How does this reflect Jesus or the Spirit of Christ?  It seems to me that following Jesus, as he asked us to do, is a matter of finding one’s way to him, not to someone else’s picture of him.

From my ministry setting, then, I view the church’s mission to be one of inclusiveness.  The aim of Christianity is not personal salvation.  It is justice.  It is not about winning a place in heaven.  It is about creating ‘on earth as it is in heaven.’  Thus, my work is to explode the barriers that people have erected in their minds around what it means to “church” - to help to heal the wounds that many members of my Meeting feel in the wake of their former conservative Christian sects (many are “refugees” from other denominations) - so that all of us stand a chance of coming closer together, so that our witness in the world will be loving, open, and just.  

I also hope to educate those of my Meeting who, in their liberal Quaker upbringing, did not learn much about what Christianity actually is.  It would be a blessing if we could get to a place in our Meeting where Christian language would not feel foreign or oppressive, coercive or demeaning.  Today, all of these things are unfortunately connected in members’ minds.  This, I feel, is a result of “the church” not quite living up to its vision, and to our (liberal Quakers) not educating ourselves adequately in all aspects of our tradition.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Writing Emphasis Response

Our writing emphasis has been designed as a ministry, using that term broadly.  In Writing As Ministry, Susan Yanos defined ministry as:  “if you’re working on (writing about) your life, it is a ministry.” (sic)  Another way to say this is: bringing meaning out of chaos is God work, assuming that that meaning is positive, life-enhancing, or somehow affirming rather than nihilistic.  

If I apply this filter to answer “what is the Church?”  I would say that the Church’s intention is to minister, to be a ministry.  Where I differ with mainstream Christian churches is in the breadth of meaning that is created.  That is, I believe that church members often bring meaning out of chaos, thus doing God work, but that very often this meaning is only relevant to themselves, to those within the church, which limits the God that is at work there.

There are four themes of writing, according to Susan.  These are (1) the calling to be creative, (2) the craft of writing, (3) commitment to see it through, (4) doing the cost-accounting.  All of these are important to making writing a ministry.  I believe that the Church accomplishes the first three of these, but that, in the fourth, they only do partial work of it.  Cost counting involves bringing out one’s inner darkness, examining one’s relationship to self and to others, and enduring the pain of tearing down old ways of thinking, acting, and doing things.  This involves a certain amount of inner chaos, in service of the work.  Now, I believe that some of the contemplatives do this kind of church work.  But, I believe that most churches avoid it, big time, especially the inner darkness part.  Thus, this darkness gets attributed to those outside the church, or, even worse, to those who are the object of their ministry (overseas missions).

One of my main peeves with how churches present themselves and their vision is with “religious works” produced as writing, film, or artwork, which are, for the most part, created with predefined messages, solely using technique or craft.  They present faith without doubt.  They present uncomplicated vignettes of social situations or vapid pictures of unearthly scenes.  A writer who is ministering to others religiously owes them more than this.  Without doubt, faith is tautology: God is good, God is love, God loves me because I am.  

Thus, from my ministry emphasis, I would say that the mission of the church in our time is to engage hard questions about the kind of society we live in, how we depend on inequality for our comfortable lives, how we basically do not care about the lives of those outside our sphere.  Only from this will come the God that we read about in our sacred texts.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Cultural Response

Sheesh, American culture.  I am not sure that I know what that means any more.  In many ways, I do not recognize the country that surrounds me today.  Gone are some less just or democratic ideas - like the apartheid I lived with as a child or the assumption that date rape was manly that I encountered as a young adult - but also gone are some features of public life that I thought were our strengths - like journalistic effort toward seeing a big picture, public service as actual service, statesmanship as an art rather than a game.

I believe that our culture is not now formed by the preferences of the people but by the extreme form of capitalism that has developed over the past fifty years under the guise of “free market” ideology.  Thus, the church, as well as everything from school systems to health care to the press to entertainment, operates now in a “winner take all” mentality of competition and, thus, inequality.  So, as long as we fail to place monetary value on the stuff of living - water, air, soil - and, as long as we spend the largest percentage of our energy budget on transportation, we will live in a distorted environment, socially and ecologically.  The church participates in this distortion, as do we all.

Thus, the church is one entity that currently survives in the milieu of an American capitalism that overrules all other cultural values.  It is not clear to me how long or how comfortable that survival will be.

The church’s mission is thus to speak truth to power.  Instead of allowing powerful interests to distract us with divisive causes, the church’s place is to remain centered in its proclamation of love towards others and self.  Instead of encouraging cultural degradation in the form of polarizing rhetoric, it’s time to be simple and direct and unmoving in the service of love towards others and self.   

Yes, issues like abortion, gay rights, immigration, and gun control are important.  What, however, are the central issues of our cultural dilemma right now?  Civil behavior.  Courage.  Refusing to support hate.  Multiculturalism.  Economic justice.  These are religious, not secular, values.  This is where the discussion needs to be.  As long as the church allows itself to be caught up in silly, outmoded, undisciplined, ‘liberal’ versus ‘conservative’ ideological divisions, it will remain irrelevant to daily life and it will continue to be manipulated by cynical financial (need I say secular) power.

If the church truly wants to confront creeping secularism, it will live, embrace, embody its core message: love towards others and self.  Love demands greater income equality, not less.  Love demands universal access to health care, no?  Care for those unable to care for themselves, no?  Justice is not optional.  But the church seems to view these issues as secular concerns, at least in their public face.  If it continues to step away from religious values like speaking truth and social responsibility, it will remain as many tidy social clubs of well-meaning, nice people who assume that the actual practice of God’s message of love is, uh, too secular.  As I said, sheesh.  Give us some hope.  Champion the underdog.  Give up dreams of political domination.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Denominational Response

From an unprogrammed Quaker standpoint, we were formed to dissolve the Church.  The early Friends felt that Christianity was not being well served by the Church, whether in its Catholic or its Protestant forms.  Thus, Friends sought a “third way.”  This was through taking refuge in the Word or the Holy Spirit, relying on Jesus’ promise that we would be given the Spirit after his death, on his statements that “where two or three are gathered, he would be with us,” and other forms of Biblical inspiration.  George Fox wrote that this “inward Light,” as he called it, was Jesus’ Second Coming - Jesus come back to teach us, directly and immediately to us as particular people.  Fox called on us to discover this “experimentally,” for ourselves, without the intercession of others though possibly with the help of others of like mind.  Because of these beliefs, Friends sought to disrupt Christian Churches with their hierarchies, vestments, ritual, paid clergy, and centrally defined theology.  Unprogrammed Friends seek to rid ourselves of the assumptions that lead to these religious trappings.

As such, unprogrammed Friends originally saw the church as having no mission, other than to disband their then current practices.  In our times, I believe that many unprogrammed Meetings view the church in similar ways.  We often have to deal with “refugees” from other Christian denominations, who report to us that they have been damaged by their former churches and who come to us for healing.  We also struggle with internal power games, how to achieve non-hierarchical community, what it means to worship, how to educate without coercion - all of the things that confront churches; we try to do this without relying on what we view as social crutches, like central authority, doctrinal control of religious language, and a set-apart clergy.

At the same time, Meetings engage with Christian churches, as well as with other faith communities, in social action.  We support domestic and overseas missions of direct relief, medical care, hunger prevention, disaster relief, education, resistance to war-making, political action, and other forms of social programs that promote justice and well-being.

*

As a side note, I will say that I can only speak about the unprogrammed branch of Quakerism.  I do not understand how the term “Friends Church” makes sense, and I do not get why one would want to have paid clergy, as a professional status, within a Quaker setting, along with preaching and other Protestant forms of worship.  But I celebrate that others find these helpful.  In all, I am totally happy with the challenges presented via unprogrammed Quakerism, and find that to be fully enough to study and contemplate.  So, please, there is no need to convince me otherwise.

I do ask for a higher level of respect from alternate forms of Quakerism toward our form of liberal, socially progressive,  non-doctrinal, non-hierarchical religion.  I have been disappointed in this many times, often enduring casual verbal slurs, “jokes,” and even occasional outright anger when I persist in my beliefs (yes, right here in seminary).  I have to consider this to be an unacceptable side-effect or what I see as contamination by “the Church.”  Please prove me wrong.  End the culture wars.  [In any event, though, I will continue happily in my liberal world.]

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Theological Response

Theologically, “the Church” is often considered to be a synonym for “the body of Christ.”    That is, all believers, taken together, are seen to define and maintain the church by the fact of their participation in the mystery (eucharist) of Christ or in Christ consciousness.  In one sense, this is a tribal identification.  In another sense, it is a statement of mystical communion.

I believe that there are at least three theological problems with this formulation.  The body of Christ was Paul’s analogy in which different parts of the “body” perform different functions while all parts were essential to the life of the body.  This is a nice thought, but it also invites some rather distasteful implications in how we view each other - after all, there are parts of the body that few would volunteer to embody.  This creates the situation where all members consider themselves to be the ‘better’ parts, while relegating some undifferentiated others to the less desirable parts.  Even if this is not a conscious function, I believe that it sets up a lack of humility that is implicit and very difficult to discern.

The development of the Western church was intertwined with social and political control.  Thus, for seventeen or eighteen hundred years, church and state were combined into the same bodies.  Hierarchy was built into the church to such an extent that it is difficult for modern people to conceive of a non-hierarchical church structure.  This creates a theological dilemma within the group:  all are equal before God, but some are “more equal,” or “more Godly,” due to their political position within the church.  This contradiction is almost impossible to overcome in practice.

The third problem I find with the theological formulation of the Church is that it cannot be universal to all humans, by definition.  We have the picture that all humans are God’s children, but formulating the Church as the body of Christ or as those who participate somehow in Jesus’ life means that, unless we convince or coerce all humans to accept Jesus, then we cannot create God’s kingdom, as defined by the Church.  So, the very structure of the Church’s theology implies that wars and war-making will never end or will end only after massive oppression of non-Christians.

The church’s mission in our times seems to me to be honesty.  If church members can honestly assess the theological implications of their belief structures, they will have to look at the Other differently.  It is not just a function of viewing non-Christians as brothers.  It is a matter of accepting that no belief structure can encompass all of God’s creation, that the divinity of Jesus somehow does not preclude other paths to God, that all of us participate in oppressing others in some ways.  This means that (1) syncretism is a good thing when it allows individuals to move closer to God, (2) love of God implies loosening our proprietary hold on what “love of God” means, (3) acknowledgement that we are completely dependent on God at every moment of every day.  

What I am saying here is that, as long as the Church defines salvation as a Church function, I believe that it contradicts Jesus' own basic tenets: to love God with all one’s heart, mind, strength, and soul, and to love one’s neighbor as oneself.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Church History response

According to church history, "the Church" is the result of the tradition that began with the Catholic Church that was formed at the time of Constantine.  Before then, Christians worshipped in synagogues and in house assemblies.  At about the time of the author of Matthew (85-95 C.E.), the Christian community was separating from the Jewish community and it appears that they then began building their own synagogues (Matt. 12 mentions “their synagogue” and Matt. 23 talks to the Pharisees about “your synagogue”).  At the time of the Christianization of Rome, the power of the empire was used to enforce consistency across the lands surrounding the Mediterranean Sea, and I believe that this is when the Western or more modern idea of “the Church” came into being.

Thus, the Church was defined as the Catholic Church in Roman times.  It split into  Eastern and Western forms after the death of Constantine, when the empire was politically divided between his sons.  For some time, the Eastern and Western forms of Catholicism drifted apart, over differences in theology and in how the “Pope” (Bishop of the capitol city) related to the Emperor.  In the East, the imperial leaders maintained control over church leaders, and the Eastern empire continued several centuries beyond that of Rome.  In the West, Rome was sacked in 410, and a power vacuum resulted into which the Roman Pope moved, taking control of state and church himself.  

Western medieval Christianity then proceeded through various controversies (for example, Arianism is a heresy, and then, oops, Arianism is orthodoxy now that we have a new Pope).  Since the Pope had state military forces under his control, enforcement of doctrine became militarized.  This was unfortunate, in my opinion, and was not reversed until the Reformation allowed the formation of the first alternative church in Germany.  This led to further schisms and proliferations of church bodies which continues today.

I have to admit that I do not know what the mission of “the Church” is in our times.  It appears to me that the various flavors of Christianity compete for attention, influence, and power, in a continuing argument over empire, as if the Roman dream were still with us.  Thus, missionary work continues in ambivalently imperial mode to this day, though postcolonials are beginning to make their voices heard.

It was not until the American Revolution that Western minds could conceive a separation between religion and state.     This separation is still being contested today.  Though I believe that the days of theocracy are finally over, until churches fully assimilate the idea and practice of diversity they will not be capable of emotionally embracing it.  That is maybe the task (mission) for modern churches, though they themselves may or may not see it this way: learn to see the Other as neighbor and learn what love actually requires.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Biblical response

Even though the Gospel of Matthew quotes Jesus as saying that Peter would be the rock upon which the church would be built, I do not believe that Jesus sought to found a church.  I believe that later redactors added the ideas of church building, church planting, and church hierarchy into the scriptures.  Thus, my opinion is that the “church” came about more due to the needs of the Roman Empire than to the preferences of the Jesus movements of the early church.  

Without the political pressures that the empire imposed at the time, I wonder how many Christian churches would have been formed – at least two to begin with, in my opinion, in Alexandria and in Antioch, and others in Carthage, Lyons, and Rome at the least.  It is difficult to say what might have happened in Jerusalem without the violence and disruption that Roman rule caused; James and Stephen might have formed a lasting Jewish sect of Jesus people.

The Bible that we know was built into canon also largely in response to imperial pressures for conformity once Rome became Christian.  Without the coercion of the empire, I believe that Gnosticism would have continued as a major movement, monasticism may have split off in their own directions, and the Christological and other arguments over the trinity, the nature of Jesus’ divinity and person, the nature of the eucharist would have led to several different churches.  The papacy may never have developed as we know it today.  In any event, the Bible might have become several different sets of scriptures used by several different “churches” instead of the four canonic collections of books (Jewish, Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Protestant) that we have now.

Thus, I do not find substantial support within the Bible for the formation of the church as we know it or for its hierarchy.  I think it likely that ‘Jesus people’ would have persisted as movements, though it is unlikely that they would have tried to centralize.

Matthew’s gospel could be said to be a “missional” document.  That is, it appears to have been written to energize and strengthen the newly forming Christian community to undertake the mission of spreading the good news of Jesus.  (idea from Dan Ulrich’s paper on the missional nature of Matthew).  It could also be said to be the work of a man who regretted that his Jewish colleagues did not agree with him on the importance of the life and death of Jesus, and that this regret still contained the hope that there would be reconciliation with some part of Jewish tradition.  

The exploration and empire building that Spain and Portugal began in the Sixteenth Century, and which England and France continued thereafter, used the Church as one of the tools of their expansion.  This mixture of economics and religion initiated the modern sense of the word “mission.”  Thus, I believe that the idea of  “mission” is one that developed well after the formation of the Catholic church; “mission” is more of a Reformation than a Biblical idea, at least in the sense we know in the Twenty-First Century.  Missionaries and evangelicals are more the product of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries than the First Century, and the practical support (funding) or energy that set these in motion was, in my opinion, more economic/political than spiritual.  There were markets to build and resources to acquire.  Churches were conscripted in this effort, or conspired with this worldview, and willingly went off to spread their influence.

What is the Church and what is its mission today? Personal Response

My context is one in which the word “church” is not used.  In fact, we witness that Jesus said that the Spirit would be with us, not because of being a member of a specific group, not because we confess specific articles of belief, not because we break bread in a certain way, but because we hold ourselves accountable to the Great Commandment, we strive to witness for justice, and we gather in holy prayer and thanksgiving for the bounty of our lives.

In our time, “the Church” has done a lot of damage in our society.  Whether about abortion, gay rights, women’s dignity, respect for other religions (especially Islam), halting environmental degradation, other important issues, various churches have acted to divide us, to encourage hateful behavior, to allow some to think that they personally will be “saved” while their fellow humans will be condemned to eternal misery.  I cannot agree that Jesus would sanction these actions (regardless of what is alleged as his words about judgment in the Gospels).

I also know that various churches have done much good in our time.  My mother was cared for and included in a lovely way by her Methodist Church until she needed to go into a nursing home.  They went beyond the call of duty for her, for which I will always be grateful.

On balance, however, I believe that Christian churches have not yet lived up to the Christian message.  Thus, I see that they have only one mission: learn to live in peace and in love with others.  Missions other than that – i.e. spreading the Christian message – should not be undertaken until or unless the first is well in hand.  If we cannot love each other at home, what are we doing telling others about it?  

I believe that the church’s mission is to stop using God to hurt others.      [This wording came from Karen Roberts’ talk on her Master’s Thesis, 26 jan 2011.]

As humans, our mission is to actualize, or incarnate, the Spirit on earth as we are so led, praying for guidance of the Spirit, and seeking direction from our collective consciences, scriptures, minds, and hearts.  We must witness to misuse of God’s gifts, recognizing that we are operating from ignorance ourselves.  God help us.

Conversations on "the Church" and Quakerism

During my last year in seminary, I took what is called Comprehensive Seminar, which was designed as a place where each of us answers two questions from eight perspectives.  We were asked to write a one page paper from each perspective on each question, using what we had integrated from the previous three years of study.  These were not meant to be research papers; rather we were to speak from where we stood.  I have been asked to share these papers, and so am posting them here, as this is a convenient way to do so.

The first question we were to consider was given to us by the seminary, and the second question we were to devise ourselves.  The eight perspectives were:  personal response, Biblical reflection, church history response, theological response, denominational response, cultural response, area of emphasis response, and ministry setting response.  The last two spoke to our selected areas of concentration while in seminary.  My emphasis was Writing As Ministry, and my supervised ministry project was a writing project - a book on theology for the bewildered, for those who are interested in religious questions but not attached to specific theologies proposed by established churches.  At the end of these eight essays, we were asked to write an additional integrative summary for each question.

The question given to us by the seminary was : What is the Church and what is its mission today?  As you will see, this question challenged my Quaker principles, in that "church" is not a concept that works well for us.  Thus, I asked that my second question be : What is (unprogrammed) Quakerism and what is its mission today?  The following eighteen posts are my responses to these questions from these perspectives.