I may have been on Mars for the past few years, but it is only very recently that I have come across the fact of people calling themselves NonTheist Friends, with their siblings the Theist Friends. Apparently, there has been conflict in some Meetings over the issue of whether one believes in God or not while acting after the manner of a Quaker.
Oh my. I hope that I am not asked whether I am a theist or non-theist Quaker.
One of the brilliant innovations in George Fox’s inspiration was that doctrine is not truth, regardless of content. I believe that he even said “stay with the experience of the life within you, and this will free you from a dependence on words.” (from Rex Ambler’s Truth of the Heart)
Yes, I understand that Fox was steeped in the theist traditions and that the vocabulary and interest of the early Quakers was rooted in Jesus and the Scriptures. But none of them defined what they meant by God, while all of them rejected the notion of a creed or a formal declaration of the content of one's belief, as far as I know.
So my experience says to me that to be or not to be Non/Theist is a matter of taste, since we have no idea what the words actually mean anyway. Since they are a description of experience, the words come later, it seems to me. If at all.
I do not aim to be divisive here, nor to be flip. I am actively concerned by Quakers who change focus from experience to conceptual doctrine.
I am neither a theist nor a non-theist Quaker, nor am I agnostic, nor atheist. I do not reject the idea of divinity - though I am also pretty sure that I cannot accept many, if not most, of the commonly used descriptions of God.
All these are just words.
What's beyond the words? Talk to me about that.
Showing posts with label Quaker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Quaker. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
Friday, August 24, 2007
Understanding Acceptance
It finally occurred to me that acceptance is not something done passively. It is an active decision to not overreact. It is the condition in which one takes the energy usually powering reactions and puts it into searching the situation for truth.
To achieve this, one has to make a decision to give up emotional attachments, and the attachment to one's unthinking exercise of emotions.
No wonder it's so rare.
And precious.
To achieve this, one has to make a decision to give up emotional attachments, and the attachment to one's unthinking exercise of emotions.
No wonder it's so rare.
And precious.
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Stewardship and Renewal
Today our Meeting held a Threshing Session to labor over the question of stewardship. It seems that we have proliferated committees of particular concern to the extent that our Stewardship Committee was seeking to understand the boundaries of their 'authority' and their purpose.
The Simplicity Testamony speaks to this amazing facility we humans have to complexify ourselves and our lives without even thinking about it. Because we don't think about it. Is this inherently narrow vision, or is it an inherent tendency to avoid thinking? In any event, it seems to be programmed into us, requiring counter measures like Quakerism.
So to the queries. The Committee asked us to consider 3 questions:(1) of what are we stewards? (2) for whom are we stewards? (3) for what purpose are we stewards?
At the announcement that we were to have this Threshing Session, I was a bit mystified...like, what's to consider? We have to take care of stuff, so what's the problem? At first the questions seemed to be, well, simplistic, and I had little hope that the session would be interesting. Maybe we would use our time better if we talked about the complicated structure we have built within the Meeting and how to Simplify, Simplify.
How wrong I can be.
The first query (of what) resulted in a range of answers from the material (House & Grounds) to the sublime (the spiritual environment in which we live). We are definitely stewards of our property and of our children (careful distinction between these was made, along with the question of how to avoid thinking of ourselves as 'owning' our children).
We are stewards of our relationships, our impact on the environment, our portion of world resources, which includes human as well as physical substance. We are stewards of the capacity to perceive the Inner Light (within ourselves), and of the actions we take in response to promptings received. Do they wither away or are they nurtured into life?
The second query (for whom) started with the Iroquois idea of considering the needs and desires of the seventh generation to come. We are stewards for ourselves, so that we are able to respond (recreating the sense of the term 'responsibility').
We are stewards for everything everywhere, in a sense, because of the integrated web that is life. We may not even know the influence of our actions, so in this sense we do not even know for whom we act.
We are stewards for Quakerism, as stewardship is a witness against expediency, against extreme capitalism, against violence that hurts the planet or its people.
It is difficult to imagine stewardship in the positive sense of the Testimonies: saying one is a Steward of Peace, Simplicity, Equality, etc. is a bit like proclaiming one's divinity. Maybe it's a version of truth, but going there involves perils to the soul which may overbalance even the humblest ego.
But we can be Stewards of our own witness in support of and for the benefit of Quakers and humanity. We in that way can be stewards of our contribution to the spiritual climate of the earth.
The third query (for what purpose) started quietly and slowly with the observation that 'less is more' and that we must be on guard, pay attention. We then traveled through the ideas that the purpose is to help each other with discernment, to learn to accept our limitations, to transform ourselves and the Meeting, avoiding stagnation. We then arrived at the realization that the entire purpose is to glorify God.
It is Love made visible.
Stewardship is how we give ourselves dignity. We are all little people with egos, annoyances, and problems with self-esteem. Quakerism offers many huge ideas, and how we take our place in that lofty sphere, along with the many giants before us, is to practise stewardship of our Quaker ideals.
Whew. Thank you, thank you Quaker Friends. A simple afternoon of simple statements made in humility before each other has moved me, readjusted my attitude, renewed my spirit.
In spite of my many years of Quaker activity, I am again surprised and delighted by the Spirit at work through our little group of Peculiar People.
You are my people and I am yours.
The Simplicity Testamony speaks to this amazing facility we humans have to complexify ourselves and our lives without even thinking about it. Because we don't think about it. Is this inherently narrow vision, or is it an inherent tendency to avoid thinking? In any event, it seems to be programmed into us, requiring counter measures like Quakerism.
So to the queries. The Committee asked us to consider 3 questions:(1) of what are we stewards? (2) for whom are we stewards? (3) for what purpose are we stewards?
At the announcement that we were to have this Threshing Session, I was a bit mystified...like, what's to consider? We have to take care of stuff, so what's the problem? At first the questions seemed to be, well, simplistic, and I had little hope that the session would be interesting. Maybe we would use our time better if we talked about the complicated structure we have built within the Meeting and how to Simplify, Simplify.
How wrong I can be.
The first query (of what) resulted in a range of answers from the material (House & Grounds) to the sublime (the spiritual environment in which we live). We are definitely stewards of our property and of our children (careful distinction between these was made, along with the question of how to avoid thinking of ourselves as 'owning' our children).
We are stewards of our relationships, our impact on the environment, our portion of world resources, which includes human as well as physical substance. We are stewards of the capacity to perceive the Inner Light (within ourselves), and of the actions we take in response to promptings received. Do they wither away or are they nurtured into life?
The second query (for whom) started with the Iroquois idea of considering the needs and desires of the seventh generation to come. We are stewards for ourselves, so that we are able to respond (recreating the sense of the term 'responsibility').
We are stewards for everything everywhere, in a sense, because of the integrated web that is life. We may not even know the influence of our actions, so in this sense we do not even know for whom we act.
We are stewards for Quakerism, as stewardship is a witness against expediency, against extreme capitalism, against violence that hurts the planet or its people.
It is difficult to imagine stewardship in the positive sense of the Testimonies: saying one is a Steward of Peace, Simplicity, Equality, etc. is a bit like proclaiming one's divinity. Maybe it's a version of truth, but going there involves perils to the soul which may overbalance even the humblest ego.
But we can be Stewards of our own witness in support of and for the benefit of Quakers and humanity. We in that way can be stewards of our contribution to the spiritual climate of the earth.
The third query (for what purpose) started quietly and slowly with the observation that 'less is more' and that we must be on guard, pay attention. We then traveled through the ideas that the purpose is to help each other with discernment, to learn to accept our limitations, to transform ourselves and the Meeting, avoiding stagnation. We then arrived at the realization that the entire purpose is to glorify God.
It is Love made visible.
Stewardship is how we give ourselves dignity. We are all little people with egos, annoyances, and problems with self-esteem. Quakerism offers many huge ideas, and how we take our place in that lofty sphere, along with the many giants before us, is to practise stewardship of our Quaker ideals.
Whew. Thank you, thank you Quaker Friends. A simple afternoon of simple statements made in humility before each other has moved me, readjusted my attitude, renewed my spirit.
In spite of my many years of Quaker activity, I am again surprised and delighted by the Spirit at work through our little group of Peculiar People.
You are my people and I am yours.
Saturday, July 14, 2007
After All This Time
Madame Blavatsky makes the statement: "You are not your body." For some reason, this simple sentence, heard in various forms many times before, set off a new line of thinking for me.
It occurred to me that vanity, attachment to one's physical traits, is discouraged in most religious traditions because it literally attaches one to the physical form, impeding spiritual development. Thus, Biblical commandments might be pure statements about direct spiritual peril.
My, oh my. I have spent my life hearing things about being a nice person, having good character, and not having vanity as, ho hum, moral statements about being a 'good person.' Never occurred to me that this rather political surface layer could be stripped away to find a fresh, direct and vital spiritual heart.
It occurred to me that vanity, attachment to one's physical traits, is discouraged in most religious traditions because it literally attaches one to the physical form, impeding spiritual development. Thus, Biblical commandments might be pure statements about direct spiritual peril.
My, oh my. I have spent my life hearing things about being a nice person, having good character, and not having vanity as, ho hum, moral statements about being a 'good person.' Never occurred to me that this rather political surface layer could be stripped away to find a fresh, direct and vital spiritual heart.
Friday, July 13, 2007
Still Small Voice
I wanted to call this blog "Still Small Voice," but of course that name has already been taken up. The pun appeals to me: even after many years as a Quaker, I feel I am still a small voice, yet the beauty and mystery of that other still, small voice which emerges unexpectedly and randomly forms the ground on which I stand.
Several years ago I came across some information about an ancestor who lived during the time of George Fox. His name was Stephen Horsey and he had emigrated to the Eastern Shore of Virginia (and later Maryland) where he had been elected to the House of Burgesses. Even before he had taken up his seat, though, he was dismissed for acting "after the manner of a Quaker."
This is also a delightful pun: I have long hoped and wished to be able to find in myself the immense quiet and wisdom of the Friends who gave me respect and dignity during my Young Friends years decades ago. You could say that I search after the manner of a Quaker.
Several years ago I came across some information about an ancestor who lived during the time of George Fox. His name was Stephen Horsey and he had emigrated to the Eastern Shore of Virginia (and later Maryland) where he had been elected to the House of Burgesses. Even before he had taken up his seat, though, he was dismissed for acting "after the manner of a Quaker."
This is also a delightful pun: I have long hoped and wished to be able to find in myself the immense quiet and wisdom of the Friends who gave me respect and dignity during my Young Friends years decades ago. You could say that I search after the manner of a Quaker.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)