A Friend After 50 Years

A record of one journey into a peculiar type of Quaker Christianity, and a bit of silliness to boot.

Location: Arkansas

Tuesday, June 30, 2015

A thought at lunch:

Its all about the ego and how it really isn’t a thing.  All the unpleasantness is about how we think it is. What’s left is what we religious types call “God,” but what you call it isn’t the main thing.  The main thing, if we're interested, is how the idea of an “I” causes problems for us.  I find when I focus on this, the rest will sort itself out.  

Well, six years on, here's another post.  Before I get to what I wanted to say today, I'll mention that I miss this old-fashioned technology, the Blog.  I have been seduced by Facebook and spend a certain amount of time in Quaker groups there.  But FB just isn't conducive to thoughtful reflection; it has a certain circus-like atmosphere.  Its conducive to "memes" and political articles with slanted titles ("Congressman says teddy bears don't deserve to be loved!!!") It offers a lot of perspective and access to information that I wouldn't find otherwise.  Its a place where I'm "accessible" to friends and family of all political persuasions.  I'm not much given to argument (or would at least like to be less so!) and so restrict my posts there to mainly innocuous things.  And so I return to the "old Faithful" blog.  Since my last post I have moved and am now attending a meeting in a larger city.   When last I posted here, I was a grandparent of a nearly-newborn; now there are four!  And so on....

Thursday, March 19, 2009

Spiritual v. Religious

The following is my response to Rich Accetta-Evans' invitation on Facebook to elucidate what difference, if any, one might ascribe to the terms "religious" as opposed to "spiritual."

I use the word "religion" to connote the means of union with God. "Spirituality" for me connotes actually experiencing that union. These are not actually separate phenomena, but can be conceptually distinguished. So this is why I think some people claim to be "spiritual" but not "religious." They have encountered a purported "means" that doesn't help them have the experience, and in all too many cases, does the opposite or is even harmful in some way. But almost everyone harkens to the "still small voice" within, so they can still identify with the experience. None of us, however, are without the "means," even if that's only cooking a meal or sitting under a tree. Thus, in my taxonomy, there is no such thing as "spiritual but not religious," though this way of looking at it helps me to understand what people mean by that phrase.

Saturday, December 13, 2008

Societal Standards & Gospel Order

This is in reply to an inquiry posed by a Friend on my Meetings listserv, "I'm wondering what are we doing now to 'be good'? Is the idea of "being good" in itself, trying to conform to some societal standard, ever viable?"

I'm not sure whether that's a rhetorical question. I get a sense that the implied answer is "no, not viable." In a sense I'd agree, because I think what the question may be really asking is something like, "can standards that are externally imposed and enforced without regard to the condition of the person upon whom theyare imposed and without that person's understanding or consent ever be viable?" Generally speaking, its easy to answer such a question in the negative, though of course there might be exceptions for children, people who are for whatever reason a danger to themselves or others, and so forth. Even in the latter cases, hopefully any "enforced" standard would not be arbitarily applied, but would take into account the needs, abilities, and awareness level of the person involved. I once read that even inthe Army, they discovered that they would get more cooperation from the soldiers if the GIs understood an order than if they didn't.

But must a "societal standard" always be interpreted according to my draconian rephrasing of the original question? I don't think so.

First of all, not all "societal standards" are monolithic. We live ina pluralistic society, with the blending of different cultures, and along with the relative freedom we have to debate, disagree, form our own conclusions, etc., there may be a wide variety of "standards"found in different communities and subcultures.

Next, that very pluralism and relative freedom militates against the ability of any supposed societal overseers to freely impose theirstandards upon us. Granted, there are forces in our "system" with great resources at their disposal -- dictatorial fiat in our culturehas largely been replaced with persuasion through advertising (with notable exceptions arising occasionally, present administration noted). And the advertising media may have been more brutally effective in shaping our behavior than any historical dictatorial fiat. Certainly other engines of force and fraud are employed, largley behind the scenes domestically, more nakedly abroad.
Nevertheless, we have the freedom to complain about such things. I'm confident I won't be arrested for what I've just written (knock on wood!), whereas such confidence would not be warranted everywhere inthe world.

But given the diversity of "societal standards," and my freedom to ignore at least a good portion of them, how useful is that terminologyat all? Should I decide whether or not to run a red light, give aidto the homeless, or pawn my neighbor's lawnmower based on my perception of whether such actions involve "societal standards?" If Idetermine that they do, then what have I learned about the wisdom of performing any one of those actions?

This gets partly to the reason, I think, for the original question. Should we act or refrain from acting solely because a behavior is somehow denominated "a standard" by some "societal" presence hovering over us? But that question can be dismissed fairly easily; in mostcases, if the answer to the question, "why do it?" is merely, "because society says so," that answer will fail to satisfy.

So obviously, we want more of an explanation. And sometimes an explanation will satisfy. "Don't run the red light because...." will be more convincing if avoiding a collision is the rationale rather than a mere, "because its the law" or "that's what the deciderdecided."

But there's more to all of this than giving rational explanations, though they certainly aren't to be avoided. In authoritarian, "power over" relationships, the humanity and spiritual qualities are simply left out. There is an attempt to "mechanize" the relationship, an order is given, and one is expected to obey. This is "efficient" in that the one in charge can get things done with aminimum of discussion or involvement with those receiving the orders.

Primitive Christianity (which Quakerism claims to revive) took a careful look at all of this. Jesus and Paul clearly taught that mere"rule-following" wasn't going to cut it. Nevertheless, neither did Jesus reject law -- "I came to fulfill" it, he said.

This, of course is a weighty topic, and I'm running long here already. But I think it boils down (partly) to this -- there is both an inner and an outer aspect to the question of law, norms, and standards, and how we are to apply and follow them. The classic Quaker take wasthat there was a Light within each of us that is to be our principal guide. Scripture -- the written word ("standards" if you will), was not the primary rule, but was consulted as evidence of the Spirit'sleadings. Friends believed that their own leadings would be consistent with scripture, as God would not command one thing one day and its opposite another. Leaving aside some difficulties in taking that literally, in broad strokes scripture still provides just such a check. Killing my neighbor (perhaps in order to pawn that lawnmower) or oppressing the poor cannot be justified by any internal "revelation" I may receive. In addition, Friends traditionally tested their leadings with another as a further check on misinterpreting a personal desire as a divine calling.

Back to "societal standards," though. They are a mixed bag, and therefore perhaps not such a useful source of guidance. Many of them, however, do have a spiritual lineage and even a spiritual utility today. There are standards in the forms of "laws" that remind employers not to fire their employees for taking family medical leave or because their employees have disabilities. Other standards may be harder to define or identify, but even having a discussion about our differences without raising our voices may be considered a societal norm that would hold us in good stead and promote the gospel order.

Monday, December 01, 2008

Books Advice for a New Friend

At QuakerQuaker, a new Friend seeks book advice:


My response, lightly edited below, probably says more about me than about what a new Friend ought to read. I'd humbly submit, however, that one couldn't go hopelessly wrong with the following reading list:

I found Friends for 300 Years by Howard Brinton wonderful. The latest version is updated to "350 Years", though I found the rather add-on not so helpful. A new attender at our meeting really liked Exploring Quakerism, see http://www.quakerbooks.org/MarshaHolliday.

Early on in my Friendly sojourn "21st Century Penn" by Paul Buckley made quite an impression on me. Its a little tough slogging - very argumentative (as was the style of religious discourse at the time) but gives a good and clear overview of how Friends viewed their faith at the beginning of the movement. Whether you feel drawn to their approach or not (and I do), its always good to know where we started, at least to have a point of comparison to what you will see happening among Friends in the present. My testimony: reading Penn (and Fox, and Penington, et al) had a tremendous and direct influence upon my spiritual life.

Truth of the Heart by Rex Ambler is also one of my favorites. Its a sort of distillation of Fox's spiritual teachings on various topics, with translations into modern English.

I agree with Martin Kelly's recommendation of the Thomas] Hamm book, Quakers in America. Its a little like reading a book on entomology (these little bugs believe this, those little bugs believe that, and these other little bugs ...), however, its a good cure for any notions one might develop about all Quakers being just like "us" -- whichever "us" that might be.

Another more contemporary recommendation would be A Living Faith, An Historical and Comparative Study of Quaker Beliefs, by Wilmer Cooper.

Finally, I'd recommend getting ahold of your Yearly Meeting's Faith and Practice if you haven't already done so. This can give you an orientation to "what's happening now" among Friends in your neck of the woods, along with some practical insight into how things are actually done, meeting structure and governance, etc.

Hope that helps and is not too overwhelming! Take your time, read contemplatively, and pause now and then to listen to your Teacher within (a reminder to myself as much as anything!)

In Friendship,

David Carl

Tuesday, November 25, 2008

faux folksy wisdom

Its not the racoon who knocks over the trash can who gets the cheezits.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

Some Pertinent Queries

The following queries are taken from the FAQ page of QuakerParrots.com. All Friends Everywhere might do well to consider them:

II What do Quakers look like?
III How long do they live? Are they prone to any health problems?
IV How much do they cost?
V What is their personality? Are they good pets?
VI Are Quakers noisy? Are they talented talkers?
VII What are their requirements for housing and diet?
VIII Is it true that they build nests?
IX What about breeding?
X Is it true that Quakers are illegal in some states? Why?
XI Where can I find more info about Quakers?
XII About this Document

Friday, September 19, 2008

Let's Talk

Friend Johan Maurer asks how we know or mark our entry into the
spiritual community of Friends.


I had a distinct sense of "baptism" myself during MfW about 6 months
ago, but being the diffident sort, didn't say much about it to Friends
at large, though I've mentioned it a few times. This experience was
very "internal" and thus may not have been amenable to any sort of
public recognition. On the other hand, it makes me aware that there
are probably all sorts of interesting things going on with Friends
spiritually that we don't share with one another. Partly this may be
owing to our not having a shared spiritual "language" -- some
Friends in my meeting are uncomfortable with traditional Christian terms
used by early Friends, while the various terms from other traditions are not familiar to us,
at least not collectively. On the other hand, the opportunities I've
had to "speak my condition" to other Friends and to hear of theirs
has been most rewarding.

Another factor may be fear -- these sorts of changes within oneself
seem very intimate and personal -- will others understand or scoff, be
supportive or dismissive?

What if we encouraged each other to talk about our spiritual mileposts
as they occur? Sometimes this might occur more easily in smaller
groups, where a sense of trust and openness may facilitate such
exchanges. How do your meetings address this?


'What can I do?' - SiCKO