A Friend After 50 Years

Spiritual v. Religious

2009-03-19T15:37:00.000-07:00

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.

Societal Standards & Gospel Order

2008-12-13T10:09:00.000-08:00

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.

Books Advice for a New Friend

2008-12-01T08:47:00.000-08:00

At QuakerQuaker, a new Friend seeks book advice:

http://www.quakerquaker.org/forum/topics/booksadvice-for-a-new-friend

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

faux folksy wisdom

2008-11-25T13:05:00.001-08:00

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

Some Pertinent Queries

2008-11-13T11:03:00.000-08:00

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

Let's Talk

2008-09-19T13:06:00.000-07:00

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

http://johanpdx.blogspot.com/2008/09/baptism.html

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?

A Quaker and a Christian

2008-06-30T16:19:00.000-07:00

[The following is a response to a query on our meeting listserv, "what is the spiritual glue that holds us together in the absence of a creed?" Much of what I have written here is unoriginal, and I acknowledge my debt to Quaker bloggers whose writings I have absorbed over the past few years. My time, energy and memory do not permit me to give proper attribution or links. Hopefully it will suffice to simply express my unflagging appreciation].

In response to the query, I would answer:

1) The principle that God's presence and guidance is experienced
directly as the Christ within through worship and is available to
everyone at all times
2) Our practice of making decisions by seeking unity in the Spirit.

Understanding that some Friends are not comfortable with the words "God" and "Christ" and although that is an ahistorical approach to Quakerism, I would note that I use the terms in a descriptive, rather than prescriptive sense. Several Friends (myself included) have come to "believe in God" through Quaker worship, although that phrase may not mean to them what it would have prior to convincement.

[The inquirer's] question about Christian identity implicates the "refugee"
problem: that a number of seekers have been so beat up in the "Christian" tradition of their past, that references to God, the Bible, and Jesus are painful to them. While this a plight that is deserving of care and tenderness, refugees sometimes go further and demand or expect meeting to function as "Christianity-free" in order
to protect them. After decades of sensitivity to such seekers,Christian Quakers may sometimes find themselves being treated with contempt and anger. This leads to a further reluctance to express oneself in Christian terms, leading more weight to the impression that Quakerism is obligated to provide a "comfort zone" for those who wish
to avoid any reminder of their painful histories.

This problem is compounded by another one: that those Christians new to Quakerism will understandably be tempted to simply overlay much of their preexisting understanding of Christianity onto their Quakerism. Much of that understanding may well contain elements that other Friends found painful in the first place.

So it seems to me that the question of our Christian identity is a delicate one. We (both Christians and non-) need to be mature about this. I think we need to understand and accept that Quakerism is a form of Christianity. That was nquestioned by Quakers themselves for over 300 years. If that gives you the jitters, then it would be well to examine exactly why that is. If, for example, it is because you believe that Christianity is oppressive to women, you might reflect on the Quaker-Christian arguments for equality of the sexes. If you are wounded over having been taught Christianity as a top-down hierarchically imposed theology, you might reflect on the experiential nature of Quaker worship, which encourages us to each listen for the still small voice within. If you can't believe that a loving God would require his son to suffer and die to pay for our sins, then you might ask yourself who, exactly, at your Quaker meeting told you that you must believe that in order to worship here. (Remember that no-creed thing. I have some book references for anyone who'd like to explore that topic further, BTW).

Perhaps I will be asked, can that still be Christianity? I say yes. The "Christian" tent is a much wider one than is often portrayed by both its adherents and detractors. Quakers right from the start were accused of being unchristian and stoutly defended themselves against that charge. They knew they were taking a much different tack from the status quo, and so can we.

On the other hand, Friends who identify as Christian do need to be tender with those Friends who have suffered in other churches. We don't need to impose "groupthink." I believe Jesus would understand the suffering of those who have been wounded by what has gone on in his name. As the bumper sticker says, "Jesus called. He wants his religion back." I believe Friends are in a position to respond to that call.

A common reaction to hearing that "Quakers is Christians" is fear of exclusion. "I'm not a Christian, so they'll throw me out!" I went through this stage myself (albeit through online discussions -- I'm more likely to get thrown out of my meeting for entirely different reasons!) For me, however, being a Quaker Christian by definition means NOT excluding anyone because of where they are on
their spiritual path. I believe God works with people through Quaker worship in God's own time and manner. Trying to force belief on anyone through pressure or coercive tactics, even subtly, is not the way of Christ.

Postscript: Marshall Massey sent me a note on facebook about this post. Although he seemed mostly in accord with its tenor, he asked that I disclaim that conservative and pastoral Friends have the sorts of issues discussed here. I personally have little experience with those groups, though I am happy to convey his thoughts and have little reason to doubt their accuracy. Moreover, I am planning a trip to the Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative)session coming up shortly, so perhaps I'll soon see for myself.

Not Without Reason

2008-02-27T08:11:00.000-08:00

A Friend e-mailed that she was about to embark on some spiritual exercises including fasting. She said she expected that her fast, undertaken in the spirit of Christ, would have a different quality from a fast previously undertaken in connection with another religious tradition. She questioned the rationality of this expectation, and I replied that perhaps whe was being "suprarational." She asked what this meant, so I went to Merriam Webster's online and found this definition:

"transcending the rational : based on or involving factors not to be comprehended by reason alone "

This definition was very close to what I was trying to express (I love it when that happens): it implies something that isn't without rationality, but that draws on other faculties such as intuition, "leadings of the spirit," etc. Thus I try to be careful about words like "irrational" -- just as "All God's critters have a place in the choir," and all Friends in Meeting for Worship with Attention to Business will be heard, so all inner "phenomena" (as the Buddha put it) get their hearing in the presence of the attentive and affectionate Christ within. This does not imply that every inner "nudge" will lead to action or expression, or even ultimate acceptance, but it will get (on my better days at least) an opportunity to be examined "in the light" where the wheat may be discerned from the chaff.

Experience God Through Meditation

2008-02-21T07:44:00.000-08:00

I found this interview very interesting. What I like about it is that a lot of things many of us have ventured off to other traditions and teachings to find is actually at the heart of our own "western"/middle-eastern derived tradition as well. I like that. I like the feeling that we are not strangers to these truths who have to go on exotic jaunts to find them. I do feel blessed to have had access to other traditions and do not wish to close myself off to their wisdom, -- I don't experience religion as a competitive sport -- but it feels like a homecoming to me to find the seeds of truth in my own heritage.

Experiencing God Through Meditation
Former Trappist monk James Finley talks about the spiritual benefits of contemplative practice for Christians.

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/150/story_15042_1.html

From my Guide

2008-02-15T08:10:00.000-08:00

If you accept all that I bring into your life,
whether it seems pleasing to you or not
and even if you do not agree with it,
but are willing to accept its reality
and to be with and simply experience that reality
for a period of time
then I will show you how what I have brought you
contains the seeds of growth and change
and I will give you the wisdom and the power
to live into my reign of heaven
on this earth through you.

Virtual Bumper Sticker

2008-02-14T08:38:00.000-08:00

Jesus was earthy!

Wednesday Worship Musings

2008-02-14T08:06:00.000-08:00

Endlessly deep
Endlessly wide
Endlessly high
God without end

Endlessly deep
Endlessly wide
Endlessly high
Christ without end

Endlessly deep
Endlessly wide
Endlessly high
Spirit without end,
Love without end

What Canst Thou Sing?

2008-02-13T14:44:00.000-08:00

Robin M discusses how music fits into unprogrammed quaker worship on her blog, What Canst Thou Say.

As much as I treasure the whole concept of unprogrammed worship,
the expectation of spirit-led spontaneity doesn't necessarily fit with the realities of musical performance.

In my Unitarian days, I performed in Church regularly. I knew when I was going to play, and it motivated me to learn a new tune, practice it, come up with interesting guitar parts, perhaps rehearse with a musical partner, etc. But other than that I'm not a regular performer. So I don't have a "stock" of songs just ready to "spontaneously" burst into when led by the spirit. If I were going to pick up my guitar and sing or play something, it would have to have been pretty intentionally planned and prepared before hand.

I suppose one solution to that dilemma is to prepare (but is that even kosher?) and then see if the spirit leads me to actually follow through. But the cards would be pretty stacked by that time, I think. "If the flesh is ready, the spirit will be willing?"

Innies and Outies

2007-12-19T10:06:00.000-08:00

Our meeting held an "open dialog" Sunday. I referred to the following quote of Wm. Penn, particularly the first line:

"They were changed men themselves before they went about to change others. Their hearts were rent as well as their garments, and they knew the power and work of God upon them...And as they freely received what they had to say from the Lord, so they freely administered it to others. The bent and stress of their ministry was conversion to God, regeneration and holiness, not schemes of doctrines and verbal creeds or new forms of worship, but a leaving off in religion the superfluous and reducing the ceremonious and formal part, and pressing earnestly the substantial, the necessary and profitable part, as all upon a serious reflection must and do acknowledge."

Preface to Fox's Journal (1694), As quoted in London Yearly Meeting Faith and Practice

Another Friend referred to a divide over activism versus quietism (my words). I did not intend to set up a dichotomy between the two. Neither would Penn, who also said:

"True religion does not draw men out of the world but enables them to live better in it and excites their endeavors to mend it." No Cross, No Crown.

So if I have a critique, it would not be of "action" per se. But I would ask, echoing the old song, "There's a Hole in the Bucket," "with what shall we do it?" Can we notice when we are rushing into heady conversations that we are merely "getting something done" without drawing on our spiritual source? Might we not then pause and ask ourselves, how is the Light guiding us with respect to the action proposed?

Resist Not

2007-11-21T08:02:00.000-08:00

A Friend on the meeting listserv responds to a post on "prayer without ceasing." She wonders how we will know when this becomes a product of the ego or neuroticism. She wants to "be simple" but finds it difficult.

"Being simple" is probably impossible if it arises as an expectation. Reality always circumvents such concepts. Its like asking the ocean to fit in a bucket. We are as we are. We notice all sorts of phenomena arising within us, and we can give them names like "ego" and "neurotic." These phenomena are not isolated from the whole of life, and thus they cannot be avoided. Our labeling, (in itself not a "bad" thing) gives them the appearance of disconnected problems, and our evaluation function, which is also a part of all this, says "I don't like it." This is all fine so far as it goes. The trouble starts when we reject the thing we don't want. "Resist not evil" Jesus said. Resistance treats the problem as an enemy that can be defeated, and we know how Jesus told us to treat our enemies! So if we find ourselves noticing that we are in the "don't like it" stage, the next thing is to be grateful for the opportunity. Here's something to listen to with affection, to be present with, to find a new path to connection to the divine realm within. This brings the inward "gospel order," a necessary predicate to achieving gospel order "out there."

Karen Armstrong Interview on NPR

2007-11-19T09:22:00.000-08:00

I listened to this interview with Karen Armstrong after a Friend sent me the link. Armstrong has what seems to me a mature and enlightened approach toward scripture that I found most encouraging -- a way to engage with a view to how it speaks to us, accepting that there is much to struggle with (she points out that "Israel" means "one who wrestles with God" ). I appreciate how this approach neither forces us to accept meaningless formulations nor requires us to flush our tradition wholesale (a reaction I encounter among some of my beloved Friends!) because we find parts of it difficult or no longer edifying.

Oliver Who?

2007-11-13T14:15:00.000-08:00

I'm reading a book on early Quakerism and the religious and social ferment leading up to it. It covers a lot of English history very rapidly -- too much so for my comprehension. After reading this and Geo. Fox's Journal, my curiosity was piqued: so who was Cromwell and what was all the fighting about?

I found this link by the BBC that gives a short summation in several video clips that helped to answer some of those questions.

http://www.open2.net/civilwar/

To Do or Not to Do

2007-11-02T13:04:00.000-07:00

The following is a response to a message on our meeting listerv. The original question was about how we prepare for worship. Mary replied that its not necessarily so much about "doing" anything....

Interesting, I was thinking about the "not-doing" aspect of much of spiritual practice yesterday. For example, Mary says in essence that she "does" meditate, but meditation or Quaker worship are imbued with less of "our doing" and, as M says, being open to spirit.

I've read that some seekers in the 17th century thought Quakers were going too far in setting up organized times to meet for worship. After all, if the spirit is in charge, why should there be a set time or place? Some Advaita teachers recommend no spiritual practice at all, as they claim that will only enhance the practitioner's ego ( e.g., "I'm becoming ever more spiritual!")

Both Advaita (non-duality) and Christian teaching come to a similar conclusion: understand that, while "doing" occurs, the "doership" is not ours. Advaita and Buddhism would say there is no separate "doer" while Christianity traditionally (in its European-derived configurations at least) maintains the duality between humans and God but holds that we should submit to God. Advaita teacher Ramesh Balsekar urges us to understand that we are not separate from God but if we think we are, then take the "thy will, not mine" approach. As for meditation, he says, "don't do it unless you happen to fall into it." Similarly for speaking: "don't speak unless speaking happens."

So how to prepare for worship? Whatever you fall into! After all, the very unique set of causes and conditions that lead up to the occurence of "Elizabeth" (e.g.), are undoubtedly too unique and complex to be susceptible to a list of instructions!

Of course, many if not all of the possibilities have been assayed by Richard Foster in A Celebration of Discipline and are also set forth in the Renovare Bible. These include such things as fasting, solitude, prayer, celebration, study, etc. Foster's sidekick, Dallas Willard, writes in "The Great Omission" that we should not undertake these things mechanically, but only as the spirit moves us.

They don't mention playing the drums, by the way, though I'll put that under "celebration!" In the end perhaps its not the "what" that matters as much as the "how." Do it all for God, or for our non-G-word Friends, for all-that-is, the "Not Merely Me in which I Am Included."

Giraffes & Testimonies

2007-08-31T08:48:00.000-07:00

In response to some messages about interpersonal communication and Quaker testimonies on our meeting's discussion list:

In Nonviolent Communication they don't approach what they are teaching as the "right" or "better" way, rather they look at whether certain language is going to serve life or not. Marshall (Rosenberg's) strongest admonition is that, if you speak "Jackal," you are going to "pay" for it in some manner. He himself actually loves to speak Jackal, although usually in a humorous vein. He is from Detroit, and refers to foul language as "Detroit poetry." (For those unfamiliar with NVC, "jackal" is basically critical, judgmental language, distinguished form "giraffe," the language of the animal with the largest heart and the ability to see the farthest).

I have spent a great deal of time delving into NVC, and have found that most people I have met, many of whom have had greater exposure than I have, ultimately have trouble "pulling it off." However, I still believe its a worthwhile thing to study more for the underlying philosophy and understanding of the dynamics of human relationships. I am not very accomplished at actually using it, though -- old dog, new tricks and all that. I'd also add that there have been a very few occasions when it has worked wonders in my "difficult conversations," and from Marshall's accounts, at least, it has been very effective in some highly confrontational situtations.

And the idea of speaking from what you're experiencing does, I think, correspond to the Quaker approach of "testimonies." I think its also important, however, not to confuse ideas like "testimony" and "continuing revelation" with unbridled personal desire or will, and I think that may be where approaches like NVC can fall short. The "center of concern" is largely "my feelings" and "my needs." In fairness, there is also an emphasis on listening to "your feelings/needs," but this still seems to atomize us into organisms seeking nothing more than "getting our needs met." This may be unfair, but there is a certain level of discomfort there for me around that.

Friends, on the other hand, traditionally have seen the value in checking their presumptive leadings with other Friends and against scripture, not to make sure that other Friends are "getting their needs met" or that "everybody's happy" but to see whether there is a possibility of transcending personal cravings and compulsions -- in traditional parlance, seeking "God's will." Today, some Friends are speaking of this as "accountability." I'm lukewarm about that terminology, but it points to something that I think we need. Now, can I put that in "I" language, state what I am observing, what I need and how I feel about it, and then pose a clear request? Probably more than I can manage at the moment. But if you're willing to put your "giraffe ears" on, maybe you'll be able to hear me saying, "please" rather than hearing this as a "demand."

Worship Works

2007-08-22T16:16:00.000-07:00

On our meeting discussion list, I posted the following as part of a larger discussion:

"If we spent more time worshipping and less time using our limited-capacity brains to cook up the same-ol' same-ol' solutions, we could tap into a power that makes a real difference."

This led a Friend to ask, "Just what exactly is the nature of the worship that taps into the power that makes a difference?" My response follows:

You know, I've asked Jesus-centered Friends that question (in the blogosphere) -"just exactly what are you talking about?" and never really received an intellectually satisfying answer. No surprise there, but I don't believe its simply a matter of believing superstitious nonsense that can't be rationally explained. Now you are asking me a similar question, and I can see how that's rather tough to answer. I know more that worship does work to change our orientation from agitation and self-concern to a much more pacific and loving state than how it works. The old Quakers just said "Christ is teaching his people himself!" I suppose scientists who hook up electrodes or take brain scans of meditators, for example, could explain it in physical or chemical terms, at least to some extent. I know there's a lot of research going on in that area right now.

But my take is that being quiet for extended periods, without necessarily trying to accomplish anything (or prevent anything on the other hand) allows us to notice the very act of noticing, and to start sensing that what we are noticing within ourselves in the way of thought and the emotions it produces are not what we are. If we can see (or sense in any way) an object then that object is not the essence of what we are. The only unchanging thing about us that we can know for sure is that we are conscious. Consciousness itself is not bothered by anything, and understands its essential unity. Thus it does not "believe" that there is a separate entity that must be defended or advanced as against "others." So lately my "practice," although rather spontaneous, is to look at stuff going on in my mind and body and to think, "but that's not me, I am what's conscious of that." Sometimes I think of this consciousness as the "light" or "Christ" within, I suppose just to have some linkage with our Quaker-Christian heritage. But the analogy of an "inner teacher" seems like a good one too. So maybe the way it works is that when we are quiet, we can hear the teaching, although its more experiential than verbal.

I think George Fox was touching on this when he wrote,

"This is the word of the Lord God unto you all; what the Light doth make manifest and discover, as temptations, distractions, confusions, do not look at these temptations, confusions, corruptions, but at the Light which discovers them and makes them manifest; and with the same Light you may feel over them, to receive power to stand against them." I don't quite resonate with the "standing against," as I see "them" sort of just dissipating in the Light, but the rest of his statement holds true in my experience.

And my experience is also that in the case of silent worship, the sometimes dubious adage, "if a little is good, then a lot is better" holds true. Just going to twice a week made a tremendous difference for me. Not claiming that I'm "all that" spiritually, but you should have seen me before! (Plus I'm a lawyer, so you have to give me a handicap there!)

In Friendship,

David

A Clerking Retrospective

2007-08-17T12:21:00.001-07:00

My wife has decided that she doesn't want me to re-up as clerk of our meeting in January. I'm a little hazy on why she feels this way, though we have a meeting for clearness on this with a few Friends coming up. It sort of feels like a breath of fresh air, actually. Clerking has been rewarding, and not for me the burden I've heard of in other meetings. Nevertheless, its been uncomfortable in some respects, and my agreement to continue was based in some measure on the prospect that no one else would be interested. My insistence (not always so graceful) on coming to a sense of the meeting (and at a meeting for business, of all places!) hasn't always set well with the former more free-wheeling way of doing things and that has caused some tension. On the whole, though, its been an honor (and I mean that in the least trite or egoic sense I can manage). On the other hand, I feel that somewhere I've failed, that I've stressed process over substance, somehow. I've actually felt self-conscious about pausing for silence during MfB, like I was trying to pull a fast one. Its not the norm here. One of my goals was to have more spirit-led meetings, yet they still feel like a modified form of secular business to me. It feels like there is a discontinuity between meeting for worship and everything else. I have a yearning for the opposite, where everything we do feels as though it is coming from a place of worship. God willing.

Expensive perfume

2007-07-25T11:21:00.000-07:00

Here's my comment on yesterday's passage at Friendly Skripture Study, Mark 14.3-11, in which a woman pours some very expensive perfume or oil on Jesus's head and is criticized by his followers for wasting expensive oil that could be sold for money that could be given to the poor. Jesus comes to her defense, upbraiding his followers for their critcism.

I get a sense of Jesus perhaps warning his followers not to get too hung up on only one aspect of his teaching. That its important to help the poor does not mean there can never be some "extravagance" for example. One might take this as a lesson not to go too far overboard on one aspect of spiritual life to the neglect of others. We often seek a sense of security in spiritual things, "Eureka! I've got it!" A good spiritual teacher might often find him or herself saying to such aspirants, "Eureka, you don't!" In that sense, Margaret Fell's declaration that a proscription against wearing red was "a silly, poor gospel" could be related. Another possibility is the suggestion that, far from being an extravagance, he was about to die and "deserved" some TLC beforehand, or at least, that this was an appropriate act given the circumstances. Or perhaps Jesus simply saw in the woman a generous, unselfish and compassionate spirit, which, in greater supply would redound to everyone's benefit, the poor included.

Back in the Bloggle

2007-07-24T13:20:00.000-07:00

Its been awhile since I've posted here. Even shut it down for awhile. I was a bit chagrined when I read another Friend's blog in which she announced she was shutting it down, because someone thanked her for having the courtesy to explain what was going on. I really didn't intend to go away for so long. But I wondered about the "accountability" of just shutting it down with no explanation. I'm not conceited enough to think this was of concern to anyone at all, although a few Friends in my meeting mentioned it.

My thinking about this blog and its purpose has undergone some significant change. Initially the idea was to share, well, whatever I felt led, in a serious Quaker sense of "leading," to share. It turned out though that this became a place to explore some of my "issues" with Christianity, and to struggle with what it meant to be a "Friend" -- looking at some of my aversion and fear of the Christian label, while at the same time feeling drawn to the roots of Quakerism in the Bible, or at least the light that they found evidenced there. I half-expected myself to reach some sort of watershed some day in which I would here proclaim that I had "found Jesus" and was now "a Christian."

The truth is a little different and perhaps much stranger. But suffice to say for now that that struggle subsided. I do feel "engaged with" the Judaeo-Christian tradition. I'm currently reading "The Great Omission" by Dallas Willard, a book about the need in evangelical Christianity for discipleship to Christ, which he asserts comes through "the disciplines" such as silence, solitude, fasting, journaling, and others. The goal, he says, is to become ever more like Christ. While these disciplines do not "earn" us anything, they open us to God's grace. "Grace is not opposed to effort, only earning," he says. This speaks to me because, while I still really don't grok what the Nicene creed, for example, says about Jesus, he is a figure I can't really ignore. I have no personal conviction that he is actually "present" in the sense that, say, Rich in Brooklyn, is present (hey Rich!) (never met him personally but reading his blog makes his present existence fairly convincing). But, if Christianity can have any meaning for me, than it has to be more centered on what Jesus was "about" than upon Jesus himself. While Willard probably wouldn't go that far, he does emphasize that doing what Jesus taught and learning to be more like him is an essential piece of what a Christian must do. So while my dubiousness about worshiping Jesus as a Lord would probably exclude me from membership in most Christian circles, the "praxis" of opening myself to the possiblity of living his teachings might place me somewhere in the Christian stratosphere.

Everything I've Learned in Fifty-Four Years of Living, Stripped to the Bare Essentials

2006-09-04T20:05:00.000-07:00

Observe.

Learn.

Grow.

Enjoy.

Share.

An INS raid in the Bible Belt

2006-07-25T09:09:00.000-07:00

Having lived in Arkansas for a good 25 years or so, I have come to appreciate this place and its people in many ways. They have taught me valuable lessons about honesty, humility, humor, and a livable pace. Nevertheless, I sometimes have to cringe at news stories from elsewhere about my adopted state. Old stereotypes, some partly deserved, others not, linger in the national imagination. But the story told in this article from the L.A. Times is one that I think any locale should be proud to claim. Having lived and worked here for decades, the story is not that surprising to me. But I will say I was very moved by it. The humanity of "Arkansas people" shines through and I'm glad this story has been told. Hopefully it will help to dispel a sterotype or two.

Why I Ask Part II

2006-07-21T10:38:00.000-07:00

A little more on why I invited Friends to share on the topic of Jesus' "aliveness." A great deal of my spiritual formation has occurred prior to taking much interest in Christianity (a thing that our Quaker forbears declared was eminently possible). So there are two additional reasons that I'd like to add to my previous explanation of "why I asked."

One has to do with "correspondence." I'm interested in sussing out the extent to which Christian language and thought might correspond to whatever light has come my way through "non-Christian" sources and my own experience. I put "non-Christian" in quotes, because I'm willing to view Christ's teaching as more than simply "corresponding" to those sources but perhaps sharing an identity with them -- although I can already hear the sound of eyeballs rolling (I think there's a Zen Koan about that....)

The other has to do with vocabulary. The English language is largely devoid of language to express spiritual matters, outside of the Christian context and putting aside imported terms from Hinduism & Buddhism such as karma, nirvana, and the like.
For example, JT's answer to my question -- to which I immediately experienced a momentary sense of aversion -- ended up sweeping into my consciousness with its breadth, universality and possibly even ecstatic qualities. This doesn't mean that I intellectually accepted her answer as "literally true," but that I recognized and connected to her statement on a spiritual level.

Enough talking. Friends, may we have some silence?

I Learn Even More About the Varieties of Q'ism...

2006-07-21T10:29:00.000-07:00

OK, this is getting hard, but I'm trying to keep up. So far then, I've determined that I am an unprogrammed, vaguely Hicksite, Christo-interested-but-not-centric, liberal-but-conservative-friendly, possibly-convergent-but-we'll-have-to-see-how-that-shakes out, [and as of today I realize:] non-nametag-wearing* (by custom but not conviction, necessarily) Quaker.

Now if YOU are one of those, please stand on the left side of the room....

_________________

*See Martin Kelly's comment to Linda's post on Boundless Stores of Grace - to which I have linked.

Why I Ask

2006-07-19T12:37:00.000-07:00

In my previous post, "An Online Worship Sharing Opportunity" I invite Friends to share what it means to them to say that Jesus was/is alive prior to and after his human existence on earth. AJ responded and also queried: "Might I ask what is prodding your interest?" I replied that what had I initially intended as a quick answer turned into a "main-entry" length post -- and here it is:

What prompts my interest? I posted a lengthy post answering that the other day but took it down as I was dissatisfied with what I had written. I'll try again here:

First, I have no experience with membership or close associations in a Christian context. Becoming Quaker has exposed me to a tradition that, whatever else one might think about it, undeniably has Christian underpinnings. (I'll leave aside the question for the moment of whether being a Christian is necessary to being Quaker today.) Reading 21st Century Penn (see review elsewhere on this blog) provided a sort of "opening" in which the Bible became for the first time comprehensible to me as a source of spiritual understanding.

In addition, I encounter Friends online and occasionally in person for whom Christianity is central. I want to (1) at least be able to communicate respectfully with them and (2) to put it crudely, find out what may be "in it for me."

And beyond the Quaker world, I live in the Bible belt and indeed a nation in which the majority of people probably identify as Christian in one of the many ways in which that might be understood. I've always felt somewhat at sea in the good old USA, and perhaps am searching for clues to my identity and place in the Judeo-Christian heritage from which we all sprang (and have undoubtedly strayed in important respects).

Comprehensibility can be a barrier when one seeks to understand Christianity "cold," i.e., without having been raised in it. Of the various religions I've studied, this one seems -- to me -- the hardest to understand. I say that intending no disrespect, and hope no one is offended by it. From the rather copious amount of reading I've done, it would seem to me that Christians themselves often find this to be true as well.

Another factor might be one of reconciliation or at least anxiety reduction. I've long viewed Christianity as something vaguely threatening (I have Jewish forbears from Germany which might play a part in that - I grew up hearing that 10 family members perished during WWII) and life-alienating. I'd rather not go through life being fearful of a large part of the population on the one hand -- nor would I like to harbor prejudices based on my own ignorance.

My inquiry in yesterday's entry had its germination in an exchange I had with Rich in Brooklyn on his blog on what it means that Christ "exists" (his answer: the same thing as it means to say that Dave Carl exists, and I think he threw in something about the Clinton Clause) and another post recently by Cherice of Quaker Oats Live (or so I thought, can't find it at the moment...) discussing a closely related question. (I apologize for the lack of links -- my blogging time is rather limited).

Now, the "being," "aliveness" or "reality" of Jesus seems rather foundational to the faith of many if not most or all Christians. I suppose it may seem like bad form to question this too closely. To "question" often may be taken as the equivalent of "disagree with" or "look askance upon." However, my question here is sincere, and as I've already claimed, non-argumentative. I am aware from my own experience that spiritual experience is hard (if not impossible) to put into concrete terms. So I am not trying to put anyone's faith under a microscope. I guess, at bottom, I am simply seeking light on an what to me is an intriguing but often obscure topic.

Much more could be said, and what I have said is probably indaquately expressed. Its the closest I can get at the moment and will hopefully serve.

In Friendship,

Dave

An Online Worship Sharing Opportunity

2006-07-18T09:12:00.000-07:00

I am genuinely (not merely argumentatively) interested in what it means to Friends when they say that Jesus might have been "alive" either prior to or subsequent to his existence as a human being on earth. Are we talking about a spirit of love and compassion, which we are all capable of feeling within our hearts? Or is Jesus a discrete "entity" who exists in a spiritual dimension and interacts with us from there? (Or are there other alternatives?) I favor the former interpretation, but again I am genuinely interested in how others view this and am willing to listen with an open mind and heart. I will not argue with any responses, although I might post followup questions for the sake of achieving clarity. I view this as a sort of online worship-sharing opportunity rather than a debate.

Having said that, I would like to ask that any responders address this specific question without rambling too far afield into other matters of religious faith or doctrine. Thanks.

Mi Quakersmo - and a Request for Suggestions

2006-06-20T09:42:00.001-07:00

My posts have been running more to the ridiculous than the sublime lately. Not that there's anything wrong with that. God told me to write each and every one of those things. (Or at least didn't stop me -- and he could have, right?)

But to every thing there is a season, and the worm turns (in this case) toward seriouser subjects. Suffice to say that I turn now to "my Quakerism" which, in inadequate shorthand, means not a Quakerism that I invent, nor one that I adopt from the opinions of others, but one that involves my relationship in/with/around the divine. From a practice standpoint, this means:

1. I'm back to reading the Bible again. My interest has been reinvigorated by our Friendly Bible study group. I'd urge Friends of all persuasions to try this. The process is truly a Friendly one, in which we can engage with the text without any demands to conform to a preordained interpretation. Each session is a wonderful "sermon" on the text coming from many different perspectives, which truly gives life to the letter. If you have problems with the text, well, that's one of the things you get to talk about.

1.a. I'm also reading daily, following a one-year "plan" which divides the week up into different genres such as history, prophecy, poetry, letters, etc. This provides variety and is a good way to keep from getting bored or bogged down, which I felt when I started with a chronological approach. I can't say exactly how or why, but I find spiritual nurture there, even when reading godawful horrible passages such as the one about the righteous washing their feet in the blood of the wicked. I tend to read without preconceived notions about what I will find. I am also finding that I can read in a "Quakerly" way -- taking time to quietly pause before reading in order to enter the spirit. Previously I felt a rush to hurry up and "devour" the text -- I felt so "far behind" and wanted to read as much as quickly as possible. I finally burned out on that which led to a hiatus. Taking it slow and easy is better. This isn't a race. (I'm teachable!)

2. Going to MfWorship twice a week. Once just ain't enough to overcome the roaring material world.

3. Taking time to pause for a few silents moments throughout the day whenever there is any anxiety, worry, etc. Or even just because.

4. Pondering how I/our meeting might make use of leading-calling-discerning processes with other Friends. There is little of this in our meeting, though not, in my opinion, because we are headstrong individualistic leeburls with no interest in such things -- or at least not solely that. Rather, I think, it is more that it is not an aspect of Quakerism with which we are familiar. Most of us did not grow up in a tradition where that was modelled. At a recent one-day retreat we had a brief presentation on the subject, so perhaps a sprig will grow from that seed. If any Friends have experience with nurturing such processes in similar circumstances, feel free to chime in.

En Paz

The Problem with Quakerism Today

2006-06-18T20:20:00.000-07:00

No, I don't really have anything to say about that topic. Other than I'm tired of it at the moment. Not that it hasn't produced a lot of soul-searching, study, sifting, and so forth.

But I want comments! And using a subject heading like "The Problem with Quakerism Today" (PQT)is, I think, as provocative a title as I can think of. In Quaker blogworld, its as titillating as "naughty nurse webcam" would be elsewhere.

Sure, I know the title alone isn't sufficient to draw any comments. I need something trenchant, probing.... let's see....

The PQT is...is... ah, its late and I have to get up and go to work tomorrow. And, as I said, I'm not all that hep on this at the moment. Maybe Quakerism is exactly what its supposed to be. Has been where it needed to go at the time. And is going where it needs to go from here. Nah, that won't get those comments! I've got to think... need something better.... who's ox shall I gore? Tree huggers? Christians of Norwegian-Irish descent? Carnivores? Must think...but getting...so tired....

Cats, Minds & Screwdrivers

2006-05-05T09:55:00.000-07:00

There are many ways to describe religious truth.

Many are perfectly legitimate.

None of them are adequate.

Attempting to impose one on others --or even to impose another's on ourselves without our own genuine experience of it -- is a grievous error.

Words are divisive because that is their nature. They proceed from human thought, the very principle of which is to limit and separate. I can think of a cat, but I cannot think about the cat's respiratory system, its life history, its relationship with the family dog, and the precise pitch at which it purrs, all at once. Nor do I need to do that. If I could take all that in, I might be having a religious experience of some kind but wouldn't be able to ask the question, "is the cat in for the night?"

But knowing that the cat does have a history, relationships, biology, and all the rest, I see the artificiality of the mental images and descriptions I create to help me deal with the presence of a cat in my life. I know then that I cannot take in or describe "wholeness" or "allness" with my mind. My mind is not made for that. This is frustrating only if I expect my mind to do what it was not made to do, just as attempting to drive a nail with a screwdriver would be an exasperating experience.

That does not mean that either minds or screwdrivers should be discarded, or even trained, disciplined, shaped in some way. What they need to be is understood. I need to understand that my thinking mind can help figure out what size screws I need to buy or which flight to take on my next trip to California. I also need to understand that my thinking mind has created an image for, or of "me" but that this image is no more complete or accurate than anything else my mind cooks up.

I also notice that I am conscious of this thinking mind. This is proof that the "I" image is something smaller than the "I" that is conscious of it. That conscious "I" may be nothing less than the "I AM THAT I AM," the name God revealed to Moses.

John Woolman "died" to his "self will." He noted, however, that "John Woolman" didn't actually die, he was still there. What could he have died to? Often we take "self will" to mean "the bad little me who just won't listen to God and do what he commands." As long as we think this way, there will be struggle. In fact, we may never be able to do God's will out of this model, because we will always be artificially discarding God's messages -- or part of them -- when God's voice comes in the nature of a prompting that we identify as coming from "the bad little me." If I were the Devil, I'd derive supreme enjoyment from creating just this sort of confusion! Getting these frail humans to endlessly torture and judge themselves for their sins would be another delightful trick. Let them think they are capable of judging themselves! That, of course, would be an obvious conflict of interest in the judicial system: no one gets to be the judge of their own case. (Hence, Paul said, I don't judge myself -- God judges). But it gives us a great sense of power to be able to kick ourselves. Sure it hurts, but we also get the satisfaction of doing the kicking! And since we can say that we are only hurting ourselves, its completely legit -- even admirable! (When I've explored the source of pain in my own life, I've been able to ultimately trace it to my own hand, or foot -- figuratively speaking).

Of course it doesn't hurt only us. As within, so without. We cannot love others as ourselves when we don't know how to do the latter. So whatever those promptings from within, listen with patience and forbearance. If you want to be peaceful and kind with others, start practicing on yourself. When thoughts arise, as they always will, we might answer, "yes, possibly so -- is there more? Particularly 'where the words come from?"

You Might be a Slaker if....

2006-05-03T14:07:00.000-07:00

Friends, I'm throwing in the towel. “Uncle,” I cry. Its time for me to admit I’ve made a mistake and to take appropriate action. What mistake did I make? I attached myself to a Religious Society in which it is either a) terribly unclear what it means to be a member or b) it is clear, but many of us, myself included, don’t share in that clarity. And one thing I crave is clarity, as hard as it is to come by.

So my solution is to simply admit that I cannot with any integrity claim to be one of those critters that goes by the appellation of “Quaker.” (And as you’ll soon find out “integrity” is one of those things I want to hang on to) There’s a lot to like about the way Quakers do things, but there is so much disagreement about the proper outer boundaries of inclusiveness that I think it best to simply stake out my own boundaries and invite others of like mind to join. I don't want to turn the Quakers into the Unitarians (see below for heart wrenching details). Howard Brinton once wrote that the world may need a “Quaker-like religion.” Don’t press me for the source, but I’m sure I read it somewhere. I am now ready to found such a religion. What I propose will share many of the characteristics of Quakerism, mostly in the “practice” department.

Now I’m not really proposing a schism here. Its just that I do have a decent respect for the opinions (as Tom Jefferson might have said) of those who want to preserve Quakerism As They Understand It. Whether that is truly possible or not is for them to work out. I can’t figure it out and my brain hurts from trying. So this isn’t a new branch of Quakerism. It’s a new religion altogether.

So welcome to the formational meeting of the Religious Society of Blends. We are also commonly known as the “Slakers.” The latter term refers to our desire and willingness to slake our spiritual thirst, and our belief that our practices can help us do that. We believe that if we show up and do the practices, God (or divine energy or the Tao) will take care of the rest. Some wags may wish to point out the similarity to the term “Slackers.” That's fine, as we are proudly slack in our devotion to theology. Oh, we may dabble in it, and perhaps even discuss – or when we are feeling particularly bold -- debate it! But we do so only in a spirit of fun, enjoying the many possible variations and points of view, much like jazz musicians seeking yet another possible improvisational riff.

You may have any sort of religious or non-religious point of view, although we do ask that you don’t take yourself too seriously. (You may take your religion as seriously as you like, its yourSELF we’re asking you not to get overly prepossessed with). Be prepared to respect others’ outlook. We are a religion, by the way, and if you can’t abide anyone using religious language, we understand, but perhaps you’d be happier in another society, the Spakers, perhaps...

What we do request is that you adhere to our practices as faithfully as possible (though we understand we will all often fall short, which will be an occasion for good-natured laughter). These practices are ones which we have borrowed from “the Quakers” (and a grateful nod of appreciation to them!) They include silent worship, meetings for business, and the like.

We do have a loosely defined notion about spiritual guidance. We ask that you not speak unless you feel led by something more exalted than your everyday chattering mind. We think you know what we mean by that, and as you progress in our society your understanding will grow deeper and you’ll get it even more. You can call that “something” whatever you like, as long as you understand that others may call it something else.

We also have testimonies, and they are the SPICE testimonies, dag nabbit. That’s right the SPICE testimonies. SPICE. Got that? (Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community and Equality). We like acronyms. We borrowed this one from some Quakers, although not all....oh, never mind!

Now, as open-minded and tolerant as all of the foregoing may seem, we have some definite proscriptions. The following rules (yes, rules!) Must Be Observed among the Religious Society of Blends:

1. Wednesday is “Plain Dress Day.” This means you must forego wearing T-shirts bearing messages of any kind (particularly political ones) from sunup to sundown. Hey, one day isn’t gonna kill you!

2. Bumper stickers: you may have 2 on any one bumper. No more. Why? Because its just good to have a few boundaries, that’s all.

3. Thou shalt not string colored yarn formlessly about trees and bushes. Or anywhere else for that matter.

4. And you shall surely refrain from calling it a “tapestry” much less a “blessed” one. In fact, don’t ever even say the word “tapestry.” I believe it was the Unitarians that started this, or maybe the Wiccans – at any rate, it wasn’t us and we don’t wish to be guilty of cultural appropriation (except from Quakers!). (If you’re wondering what’s in my bonnet, I’m a recovering Unitarian, you see, and I have a lot of pain around this -- for reasons that are mostly inexplicable). You may use the word "blessed" however.

5. Violators of any of the foregoing rules shall be gleefully pelted with silken tofu.

Ah there, I’ve now established a religion for me -- just the way I like it. I’m ready for new members to come flooding in. Helloo? Anyone there? Hello?

No? OK, then, I’m willing to compromise a little. The yarn people can join. OK, OK, three bumper stickers and plain dress day ends at noon -- but that’s my final offer....

Prayer No. 2

2006-04-17T14:17:00.000-07:00

May God grant me just the right amount of Orthodoxy, conservatism, new-ageism, liberalism, Hicksism, Gurneyism, Wilburism, Christocentrism, theism, nontheism, universalism, narrowness, discipline, looseness, humor, seriousness, dualism, nondualism, rationality, feeling, tenacity, surrender and hard-headedness that I need to overcome my tendency to get stuck on Orthodoxy, conservatism, new-ageism, liberalism, Hicksism, Gurneyism, Wilburism, Christocentrism, theism, nontheism, universalism, narrowness, discipline, looseness, humor, seriousness, dualism, nondualism, rationality, feeling, tenacity, surrender and hard-headedness.

Amen.

p.s. This, dear reader is posted here only for my own reference. It was directed to no one other than myself.

p.p.s. Really, and if you think otherwise, I protest much!

Here's to milk out your nose...

2006-04-17T13:23:00.000-07:00

Absurdity has a place in the life of the spirit. Dreams seem absurd to the rational waking mind. Yet they help us reconnect to ourselves by erasing the artificially separating lines we draw across our mental landscapes. The best jokes similarly contain spiritual truths -- perhaps the worst ones do as well. Our everyday motives are largely a joke, which is why humor punctures all pomposity and the wise laugh readily.

This wasn't funny and I know that. But I have sat through an entire Unitarian service on humor, and believe me dear reader, you are getting off lightly here.

A prayer

2006-04-12T07:13:00.000-07:00

May we turn away from worshipping that god who is a creature of our own imaginations, and toward the worship of the God who is.

And may we be granted the wisdom to see the difference.

Stakes, steaks, jackals & judgments

2006-04-04T10:52:00.000-07:00

Kwakersaur asked: "How then do we disagree with each other's interpretation of scripture without threatening to burn each other at the stake?"

I'd like to offer some suggestions:

Unacceptable: "I disagree with your position on atonement, therefor I shall burn you at the stake..."

Acceptable: "I'd be glad to burn you a steak" (in the case of vegetarians such as myself, this could be a Tofu-Steak).

Another approach: "I seem to recall a scriptural passage reciting, '"vengance is yours, Dave," saith the Lord....' Or was it 'vengeance is MINE...' (flipping pages), ah yes, it was indeed the latter. I suppose that would also agree with "judge not" as well as "resist not evil" and even "love one another."

Ive been watching copious amounts of Marshall Rosenberg (of Nonviolent Communication renown) videos lately. I like his approach of dispensing with moral judgments of one another in order to concentrate on what each other feels and needs about a situation. On the surface this may seem amoral, but anyone who's studied it to any degree will find that its really aimed making heart connections that rarely occur in our normal argumentative, diagnosing and blaming mode of conversation(which he calls "Jackal language.") I suppose this method would work just as well discussing theology as marital or tribal disputes.

I do have a reservation or two about NVC - mainly around the problem of a potential over-emphasis on "I" & "my", but I'll save that for another time.

Thou Art Salty

2006-03-24T07:25:00.000-08:00

I wrote this in response to a post by QuakerK on "How We Imagine God." I've been wanting to post something like this, anyway, so...

I think of God as the ocean, ourselves as the waves. This is an Eastern analogy, but has correlates in Christianity. We are in God and God is in us. It brings to life Jesus' prayer in John that we understand our oneness with him, God and one another. (Why don't I ever hear the radio preachers talking about that?)

It also deals with a problem we sometimes have with a notion that "thou art that." We don't want to say that "I am God" because that sounds megalomaniacal. But the real intent of "thou art that" is that thou art the wave -- not the whole ocean, but arising from it (or created by it, if you will) and wholly inseparable from it. The ego or "self-will" is nothing more than the mistaken notion that we are stand-alone entities, the real "doers" existing independently of the divine whole.

Keep It Simple, Seeker

2006-03-17T07:52:00.000-08:00

I don't mean to slight "spiritual disciplines" here such as fasting, prayer, study, and doing good works. But this post is about some really simple stuff that's easy to forget. These suggestions are not meant to replace anything else, merely to supplement and even provide a foundation, perhaps. When your theology fails, when your are in a spiritually dry period, when no words satisfy, here are some things you can do anyway:

1. Good posture. I have it on good authority how important this is. Charlie Brown said if you want a good depression, you have to slump over. Can't stay depressed if you stand up straight, he said. Whenever I see Friends in meeting for worship slumped over, I invariably also see a furrowed brow. Its sort of like crimping a hose: the water can't flow freely -- same for our spirits. If you're feeling down, try straightening up and see what happens.

2. Diet. Food is drugs. Take good drugs. Lighten up on the sugar and eat a lot of veges, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts & seeds.

3. Move. Sitting still is fine, but we gotta move as well.

4. Nature. We were created in a garden, remember? Wm. Penn said somewhere that when we are in the city, we see what man has made, in nature, what God has made.

These are things that are often presented under the guise of "health," and that's true enough. However, they also help nourish our spiritual well being.

Check in

2006-03-13T15:18:00.000-08:00

Its been awhile since I posted. I do this more when I'm really seized by something...sort of like those who say of vocal ministry in meeting for worship that their "test" is they speak if they just can't hold it in.

But as its been so long, I almost feel compelled to blog just to keep the cobwebs away.

Had a most disturbing medical emergency a few weeks ago in the family. The patient has recovered, but not sure I have. Things seem different: although not bad necessarily, I'm still looking over my shoulder, figuratively speaking. Its sort of like after I got rear-ended last year - I wasn't hurt, but shaken -- "you mean that can really happen?"

And how minor those events are to all the tragedy of the world. In searching for meaning, God's purpose if I may, I find myself feeling much closer to friends and family, more aware of my own fragility and mortality, keener on how much I take for granted. How much more I depend on others than I really knew.

And then Tom Fox died. Very sad. Many more people have written eloquently about him, and I won't attempt to go there right now. I feel just a little sadder about that then when I hear of someone more anonymous to me in Iraq or elsewhere dying a needless, violent death. Probably more than a little, although I didn't know him. I'm asking why...because he looks more like me and was a Quaker?

We started our Bible study last night at our house, using the Friendly Bible Study method. It went great. We had people from all sorts of backgrounds: Quaker, Baptist, Catholic, Church of Christ, Unitarian et al. We started with Matthew, 1:1-17, Jesus's Genealogy. Some of us were incredulous that we'd get much out of that (the study method provides for responses to 5 queries from each participant). What ensued was an amazing discussion of family ties, the importance of context, patriarchy, Biblical history, chromosomes, elitism, faith, and doubt. One participant who grew up in a small town in south Arkansas talked about the power of these verses for him: at home everyone knew he was _____'s and ______'s boy, and knew the lineage for each of them. I grew up in southern California, with my parent's relatives far away. Rarely saw my grandparents. Not the same at all.

We were asked to relate any problems we had with the verses. For me it was the need to emphasize Jesus's authority or authenticity by tying him back to Abraham. Someone said Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience so this makes sense. "He's one of us" and part of the tradition. Therefore, give him creedence.

I was pleased to learn Edward R. Murrow came from a Quaker family, an affirmation of "Quaker goodness?" And therefore an affirmation somehow that I'm at least in the right company, and even dare I think it, of my own "goodness?" Is that why Tom Fox's death is a little more poignant?

A lot of this is natural enough and perhaps not to be rejected out of hand. I grieved tremendously for the sudden illness of a close family member, but feel only mildy melancholic for the deaths of faceless children in the news. I'm not going to feel too guilty about that, although I do take note of it. But there is a sinister side to it as well. Isn't it just out of this sort of thinking that we devalue the other, the one not like us? The Friend from South Arkansas, who felt the power of those verses, also alluded to this.

I don't really mean to moralize here, to myself or others. The lesson for me is not that I or thee deserve reproach. Our ability to see all this is of the light. In the seeing is the healing and a torch to light the way to something better. Another few cracks in my shell, a way beyond my self-concern, a way to friends and relations and the knowledge that we are one.

Another crack at carnality

2006-02-07T11:18:00.000-08:00

I get a sense that the term "carnal" was often used in a not-necessarily-sexual sense by early Friends. It seems to simply be a way of making a distinction, in vocal ministry for example, between a message or leading that comes from God and one that doesn't. Carnal in this sense may have some connection with self-will. I struggle with these ideas as they seem to embody (incarnate?) a dualism that separates the physical and the spiritual, and which often leads religious folks to label what may be of God within them as coming from "me alone" -- hence sinful or inadequate.

I interpret "carnality" then as identification of oneself as an "individual I" dissociated from others (and God), with interests and desires that bring one into conflict with others. The idea of an I is not totally useless, but it is simply a way of describing things, not the actual nature of things as they are. Perhaps the key to overcoming this state is to simply understand its mistakenness. We are not in any sense "separate" from creation except in our own minds. "I am the branch and your are the vine." There is that of God within us not as a sort of divine implantation in a gross material body, but our "jars of clay" are actually themselves of the divine substance. "I and the Father are one, and as I am so shall you be." Quantum physics tells us that "material" at its smallest component has no mass.

The objections to overemphasis on pleasures of the flesh have root in the understanding that we are not simply these seemingly physical "things." Keeping ourselves occupied with carnal pleasure gives temporary (but ultimately unavailing) relief from the discomfort of living as though we are separate, disconnected creatures. This makes the pain greater and inspires more lust to escape. Turning our attention away from all this and toward the light which reveals us to ourselves leads to reacquaintance with our divine birthright. Then, sex, food, and even shopping can be enjoyed even more when these are simple pleasure rather than guilty addictions.

2006-01-26T12:22:00.000-08:00

Robin M. has come up with the term "convergent" for "Friends who are seeking a deeper understanding of our Quaker heritage and a more authentic life in the kingdom of God on Earth, radically inclusive of all who seek to live this life. It includes Friends from the politically liberal end of the evangelical branch and from the Christian end of the unprogrammed branch."

The first sentence draws me in. I’m about to walk in the door when I trip over the second. At this stage I would fail the definition, as I don't explicitly identify as Christian. I know the centrality of Christianity to Quakerism can be a touchy and hot topic -- and its made a little more confusing for me by the many stripes and shades Christianity can take -- probably takes in more categories than even the term "Quaker!" Maybe I'm a Christian and don't know it! (I currently describe myself as Christo-curious.

My position at the moment though is that Quakerism can be practiced deeply and authentically without identifying with a particular theological label. At the same time, I read the Bible and what others have to say about it and am spiritually nourished and growing by all that. I seek God's (and other words than "God" will do) guidance (from within and without)as much as possible. I can am inspired by Penn, Barclay, and Thomas Kelley (et al). On the other hand, I just can't conceive (not today at least) that I might ever say to someone: "I'm a Christian and I'd like to share the good news...." Now there is a spirit alive in me that I am willing to share in a number of ways. Maybe that's the Christ within, eh? Sometimes I can think so, but its sort of a transient thing. "Christ" is a useful word because its so serious, connotative of very deep spirituality, love, commitment; its just a word that noone is going to take lightly. It gets my attention.

On the other hand, "Christian" is a horse of a different color for me. It has too many negative connotations for me to adopt wholeheartedly as a personal tag. Many of those connotations are no doubt unfair to many fine folks who identify as Christian. But do we really need a label to be Christly? Its just a word -- but words can be such a trap. I'm told that "Buddhist" is actually a western word; that in the East, the practitioners follow the teachings of the Buddha without becoming "ists." They don't want to be set apart from you and I, you see. That's the whole point of their practice.

And again, does "Christian" (or "Christian Quaker", more particularly) mean like Marcus Borg, or more like Pat Robertson? Does it mean I believe Jesus raised people from the dead, or is it enough if I love others as myself? Must I adopt "personal lord and savior" or is "visiting those in prison" going to qualify? Should I be reading the Bible connotatively or denotatively?

I realize this must seem awfully tedious to people raised in (as I was not) or otherwise presently rooted in a Christian world view. Two thirds of the world is not, however. Quakerism has this odd capacity to draw people in though, and with no creed (maybe that was a mistake, George!) we're hard to get rid of. Sometimes our camel nose is followed by the rest of us right into the tent! Now that we're here, lets do more than all just get along. Lets get down to where all those words come from.

Anyway, I'll probably just need to come up with my own term... Crypto-convergent, perhaps?

St. Judas

2006-01-20T14:24:00.000-08:00

"Judas is a Saint?" Want to have scripture opened to you in true Quaker fashion? To read a counter-intuitive but spot-on, wisdom-filled interpretation of a biblical passage? Well, I can't promise anything, but for me this did all of that.

But what's actually happening?

2006-01-19T10:47:00.000-08:00

Just thought I'd ask. Comedian Flip Wilson had the "Church of What's Happening Now." Funny, but doesn't that somehow get to the heart of Quaker worship? What happened yesterday, or might tomorrow, all involves the self-seeking mind. God's presence is here and now, to repeat a hackneyed but still serviceable phrase. And is that God the God of my imagination, or a God that is -- one who precedes and exceeds anything my feeble imagination could cook up? Thus, from my perspective, this God comes to me in what seems a spontaneous manner -- nothing that I can plan for, create, or manipulate into being, or even truly envision. And can I see myself attempting to do those things? And then can I refrain from judging myself and simply be grateful that God allowed me to catch myself doing it? "I do not even judge myself," said Paul. After all, my "self-willed" thoughts also arise spontaneously and unplanned. We normally don't think about thinking a thought prior to thinking it.

So, I ask, what actually is happening? Now, I mean. Don't answer--it will be too late by the time you do. But feel free to chime in about what did or might. And keep taking care of isness. Right now.

Bingo!

2006-01-09T15:12:00.000-08:00

From the Quaker Ranter Blogwatch on my last post:

"My sense is that it is 'us v. us', or more accurately, the spirit nudging us while we often pull back into a more sociable, culturally-conditioned way of being."

Just the pull-quote I predicted. I know we don't gamble, but there ought to be a way to make a little money on the side here....or win a free pamphlet, maybe? A bumper sticker, surely?

And now I'm thinking of a Thomas Kelley quote about cracking jokes that bring credit to us rather than God. Can't I just credit God for all my wisecracks? A topic for another post perhaps....

Who's Your Coreligionist, Pt. II

2006-01-07T10:13:00.000-08:00

Martin has challenged me to go beyond my “notable quote” approach to the passage in Sheeran’s “Beyond Majority Rule” which I’ve previously posted. I’ve taken in his review and will now attempt to respond to his queries of me (see his comments to the previous post on this topic).

My first response is to question the underlying assumption about “cleavage.” I am of course quite unfamiliar with seventies-era Philadelphia Quakerism, or even current-era for that matter. I suppose one of the things that triggered my desire to disseminate Sheeran’s observations were recent debates, on the use of language about Jesus in meetings.

I don't experience a cleavage in my meeting between Friends of the type that Sheeran describes. On the other hand, PYM Friends might not have "experienced" it either: it took social scientist Sheeran to come do interviews to unearth it. If we have cleavages, there are more obvious ones than this one. I also wonder if the "non-gathered's" that Sheeran discovered were truly having no experience of the spirit whatsoever? I have my doubts, as you'd have to ask why they would keep returning to a meeting for worship. Perhaps there were so many vocal messages about peace and social justice that it kept them happy and distracted from any workings of the spirit. Or perhaps they were new enough to Quakerism that the spirit was only sneaking up on them....and they hadn't realized it or learned to articulate it.

In either event, our meetings for worship are fairly quiet, so I have a hard time believing that there's "nothing happenin' here," to paraphrase Mr. Stills, of a spiritual nature. Our meetings for bus., on the other hand, take place right after MFW. This has the advantage of a group who is already somewhat centered, although this often gives rise to a sort of bubbly gregariousness and good-humor that can overwhelm the worshipful nature of the meeting.

So any cleavage of the sort Sheeran describes is for us not so much of the "us v. them" variety. My sense is that it is "us v. us, or more accurately, the spirit nudging us while we often pull back into a more sociable, culturally-conditioned way of being: what we're "used to." But I also think we're working on this. As one of our elder Friends likes to say, "God's not done with me, yet." Nor us, I hope.

So what then, did I find notable about Sheeran's findings? That there is unity to be had when we sink down below our notional preoccupations. Its hard to speak of the ineffable, and the more time we spend in the ineffable state, the easier it should be for us to see that our verbal diagrams of the spirit are merely maps, not to be confused with the country we wish to actually inhabit.

Who's Your Coreligionist?

2006-01-03T20:51:00.000-08:00

I just finished reading "Beyond Majority Rule: Voteless Decisions in the Society of Friends," by Michael Sheeran, a Jesuit scholar who studied Quaker meetings for business in Philadelphia in the 1970s. I found the following particularly notable:

"When a Christocentric Friend stood at the 1975 Yearly Meeting to proclaim, 'I consider all of you my Friends, but many I cannot consider my coreligionists,' his remark ws generally greeted with shocked dismay. But those individuals this reporter interviewed combined concern over the inappropriateness of the remark with acknowledgement that the point could not be ignored.

It would appear, in short, that the cleavage is between Chistocentric and universalist Friends.

After most interviews were completed, this reporter began to feel uneasy with this understanding....when the reporter reflected on the atmosphere and the tone of his interviews instead of the words that were exchanged, he began to find that the Christocentrics and certain uinversalists shared a sort of profound reverence for the gathered meeting for worship which was not readily found among other Friends.

When asked what they treasured most about Friends, Christocentrics and some universalists would typically recall a meeting for worship conducted in the Light. If asked to recall the business meeting decision that meant the most to them, they would often describe how some incident led the group to a gathered condition. Their words to explain the experience varied markedly, of course, but for both groups, the experience itself was what counted.

Asked the same questions, other universalists and Friends favoring what we have called the social action and the democratic myths might recall the same decision at a meeting for business or express their pride in a decision well made, but would be apparently unaware of the special atmosphere experienced by the others. Even when told directly that others in attendance reported a special sense of being gathered, such individuals were likely to comment, 'That sort of thing doesn't much impress me,' or 'other people can talk about their experience; I can only talk of mine.'

Put simply the real cleavage among Friends is between those who experience the gathered or covered condition and those who do not....

In this very important sense, those who share the experience, be they Christocentric or universalist or whatever else, are the coreligionists."

Nonviolent Communication Radio Program

2005-12-15T13:06:00.000-08:00

From "Humankind" which aired on NPR over the weekend:

http://www.humanmedia.org/pom_12.php3

Jesus at the Well

2005-12-13T08:52:00.000-08:00

From a fellow musician-J.D.-blogging-Friend comes this powerful ministry.
I link to it here to preserve for my own future reference and perhaps to disseminate further to readers who may not otherwise have found it. Other than that, no comment, none needed. Blessed be.

Of horsehair and value judgments

2005-11-15T09:21:00.000-08:00

"Let's learn to ask questions. What are the assets and liabilities of a technological society? What has the fast-food industry done to the tradition of a family gathering for dinner? Why do we find it difficult in our culture to have time to develop relationships? Is Western individualism beneficial or destructive? What in our culture is in harmony the the gospel and what is at odds with it?"

Richard J. Foster, Celebration of Discipline: The Path to Spiritual Growth (Rev. Ed. 1988).

I pulled this quote for a Friend who was looking for a front-cover quote for a local Quaker publication. It dovetails with my own current inquiry about how much of my life is merely an unintentional product of the larger culture -- and to what extent I either justify or merely accept without question: "that's just the way it is...."

There's another sentence to this paragraph that I left off. Its this: "One of the most important functions of Christian prophets in our day is the ability to perceive the consequences of various forces in our culture and to make value judgments upon them." The term "value judgments" tripped me up. Why? The terminology worries me, although I acknowlege that there is such a thing as "value" and that we must and do make "judgments." This is not for me simply a matter of "moral absolutes" versus "moral relativism." I believe in absolutely there is such a thing as "right and wrong" but I believe the big question of the hour is how we get there. The history of religion is replete with the most immoral means of enforcing "morality," and Quakers have not been immune (which ought to prove that noone is!) The temptation to hard-heartedness can be at its highest when we are dealing with judging the morality of others (and ourselves, for that matter).

During last meeting for worship I was pondering the Irish Friends who questioned whether God really told the Israelites to slaughter the Canaanites. A first time visitor then ministered to us about Jesus driving the money-changers from the temple using a "gentle whip" made of horsehair -- "that's progress, at least" was my thought. Horeshair whips are better than swords. Hopefully we can continue the trend in the direction of gentler, and probably more effective ways, of dealing with sin. By that, I do not mean politely ignoring it -- rather, a gentle exploration of the consequences, how it affects us and our relationships with others. For me, this at bottom is more about finding our way to where we truly want to be -- with God, with one another, in loving relationship -- than about making a career out of beating (or arguing) the sin out of ourselves and others. True, I don't want to be angry, selfish, greedy, and so forth. But then I need, with God's help, to focus on the opposites of those qualities. Too much attention to a thing gives it force, and resistance makes it stronger. Sin itself is a form of resistance ("resist not evil"). "Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Philippians 4:8.

Note: I have only started reading "Celebration of Discipline," so nothing I've said here is intended as a critique of the book or as a characterization of its author's views.

Worth reading:

2005-11-07T13:23:00.000-08:00

If you wanted to read about religious freedom, courageous Quakers, and parking barrier worship, you could do much worse than to click right here.

Book Review: Twenty-first Century Penn

2005-11-04T15:37:00.000-08:00

Here's a Book Review I've written for The Carillon, the monthly publication for Arkansas Friends. I was really quite inspired by Penn's writings, and have struggled to put into words exactly how and why. Perhaps because I have felt largely estranged from Christian thinking for most of my life, regarding it as a realm of implausible claims. Penn's writing made the Bible seem more accessible, connecting with the "best" of my own inward experience. Hmm, maybe that needs to go in the review as well! At any rate, the current draft:

I first attended South Central Yearly Meeting in 2004. Also present was Paul Buckley, who led a workshop on his book “Twenty-First Century Penn, Writings on the Faith and Practice of the People Called Quakers.” The book is a “translation” into modern English of six theological works by William Penn.

Why a translation? In his introduction, Buckley notes that, in comparison to the writings of George Fox and Robert Barclay, “Penn’s theological works have fallen from favor. He was a gentleman and a courtier, and he wrote like one. His sentences are long and involved. His word choices are often unfamiliar to modern readers – even when a word looks familiar, its meaning may have changed in the intervening three hundred years.” During the workshop at Yearly, Buckley also pointed out that Penn was a lawyer, an occupation not always known for modeling clarity in the written word!

At another point in the workshop, Buckley observed that the writings of Fox, Barclay and Penn were, in times past at least, the sources Friends most commonly turned to (other than the Bible, one imagines) for the written exposition of their faith. That statement intrigued me enough to buy the book.

Even in “translation,” Penn’s writing can be rough going for the modern reader. For one thing, his is not the language of the modern liberal Quaker fed on a diet of Alternatives to Violence Programs and Marshal Rosenberg (myself, for one example). In these pages, Penn is locked in a tumultuous theological debate with critics of Friends’ beliefs. The debate was not merely academic, as the second tract included in the book finds Penn writing from the London Tower, where he was confined for the capital offense of blasphemy. Obviously Penn lived in a time and place in which the outcome of a theological dispute could be a matter of life and death. Although Penn professes “forbearance and forgiveness,” he observes that such qualities are “strangers” to his opponents and sternly warns that their “cruel mockings” of Quakers will lead God to destroy them in the end. The title of the first essay, “The Sandy Foundation Shaken” refers to his opponents’ theology. Another stumbling block for some modern Friends may be the intricate and detailed argument of theological points that may seem irrelevant to many (although certainly not all) modern readers. Finally, Penn spoke plainly in terms that some Friends today might find discomfiting: of sin and salvation, for example.

Nevertheless, I found it worth the effort. After attending unprogrammed Quaker meetings for several years, Penn’s writing did two things for me. First, it helped me understand the theological and historical roots of Quaker faith and practice. Second, it revealed to me a view of Christianity different from those I had previously encountered. The Quakers’ inward orientation earned them the criticism that: as to “Christ’s coming in the flesh,… we mean only a mystery or some mystical sense of him….” Penn responds with a fairly short denial, quickly affirms the biblical accounts of the life of Jesus, and then quickly returns to asserting the importance of Christ’s inward appearance: While he may well have genuinely believed in the historical accounts, it is not hard to tell where his true interest lies: in the actual experience and resulting changes of what to him was the fundamental principle for Friends: “the Christ within.”

Penn gives several names for this principle, “Seed,” “Word,” “Truth,” “Power,” “Vine” “Life-giving Spirit” are a few examples.. He seized mainly, however, on “the Light” as his term of choice, one which is apparent among Friends today. What one finds missing in much of Friends’ discourse today, however, is the type of exploration Penn undertakes of what the Light means and how it affects us. It may be tempting for some to simply assert that “it means Christ.” While that is true as far as it goes, it short circuit’s Penn’s explanation of his and early Friends’ experience. “It is Christ” says Penn, but, he goes on to say, Christ is “that glorious Sun of Righteousness and Heavenly luminary of the spiritual or invisible world.” This light shows us our shortcomings (okay, sin, a word I admit doesn’t roll easily off my tongue), but it also shows us a better way. It enlightens us all, but we may choose to take heed or not.
Penn also firmly believed that the light of Christ was always present and available to human beings, even before the birth of Jesus and even to those who did not have the opportunity to hear his message. In order to prove this point, Penn quotes the words of the ancient Greek philosophers (whom he calls “gentiles”) at length to show the remarkable similarity of their writing to biblical scripture. “I know very well that there is something in all people that draws them toward religion and that thing is not to be found in tradition nor in mere formal rituals,” Penn writes.

The last essay explains various practices of early Friends, such as refraining from swearing, refusing hat honor, and using plain speech. Although I was aware of these practices, Penn’s explanations bring them to life for a modern reader – and shows how dangerous they were to practice at the time. For example, Penn tells of a non-Quaker threatening bodily harm in response to being addressed by the informal “thou.” According to the offended party, that’s what you would call your dog!

Another helpful and fascinating feature is Buckley’s thorough annotations of Penn’s scriptural references, which Penn used liberally. Like other early Friends, Penn found the “word” within, but relied heavily on the “words” in the Bible. Buckley’s footnoted references not only aid in understanding the sources of Penn’s biblical allusions, but further demonstrate how early Friends found textual support for the divine light which they had discovered within themselves and recognized in others.
Friends of various theological persuasions may find support for their views in Penn’s writings. One may find in Penn both a universalist mystic and Christocentric Friend. While I found support and encouragement for my own meditative orientation to spiritual life, I also became fascinated by the way Friends used the richness of Biblical language to illustrate and convey their understanding of religious experience. Reading the Bible was not a feature of my upbringing, but reading Penn’s work has ignited within me an interest in reading the scriptures, as George Fox instructed, “in the spirit which gave them forth.”

Am I Christing?

2005-11-02T09:33:00.000-08:00

Friend Sarah of A Thing So Small mused a few weeks ago on whether she is a Christian. Her post is fascinating and I can't do it justice here, but generally centers on whether she is actually a "Christian" as defined by others who claim that appellation. There were several thoughtful and interesting replies. I added mine and would like to archive it here (lightly edited) as well:

I was thinking about this in Meeting for Worship this week. I recalled someone saying that perhaps we'd be better off if we had no nouns, just verbs. Thus, the question would be, not "am I a Christian" but "am I Christianing" or perhaps "am I Christing?" If we're not, we can keep seeking guidance from the Christ within us. George Fox urged us to be in the spirit first, then read scripture that was written in that same spirit. He found that a native American had "the light" of Christ when the man told him there was something within him that let him know when he had done something wrong. Perhaps Christ's yoke is lighter (in terms of doctrinal requirements, at least) than our fundamentalist brothers and sisters might have us believe.

Membership Update

2005-10-26T10:31:00.000-07:00

Had my clearness committee last Wed. It was more and less than I expected. I felt that I spent a lot of time blurting out longwinded answers to questions -- but then, how often do I get to talk about this stuff (other than on the web!) I'm a little hesitant to try to "evaluate" it-- isn't that sacreligious or something? I think there was a tenderness about it which is what I carry now, and a willingness to even forgive myself for being such a blowhard (I'm a lawyer after all....). I guess I was somewhat nervous -- there was a bit of feeling exposed, on the hot seat, having to defend the "thesis" that I'm worthy of membership! (The movie "Defending Your Life" comes to mind: imagine Albert Brooks trying to get into heaven). But somehow for all that, the Spirit managed to be there -- or rather, I managed to feel its presence. The committee asked some probing and interesting questions, but nothing to really justify or exacerbate the foregoing trepidations.

They asked about the spiritual journey that brought me to Friends (short answer: I married into it!), which testimony I most related to (answer: community), why I wanted to join (feel like I'm already a member so....) , how I thought the meeting might improve (more corporate discernment of individual leadings --myself particularly included--, outreach, and thinking about how we engage with younger members in our predominately graying meeting) and did I consider myself a Christian (I'm exploring Quaker Christianity -- and perhaps experiencing it! -- but not ready to so self-identify at this point). I had the opportunity to ask a question, which was how they felt about membership in the RSOF (I related some of my hesitations as described in the previous post), which was a nice way to get to know a little bit more about them. (The answers to the "improvement" question were highly influenced by my Quaker blog reading, BTW!).

I learned the next day that the committee recommends membership, which will be brought to business meeting Nov. 5. I am blessed.

I apply myself....

2005-10-18T13:25:00.000-07:00

I have applied for membership in my monthly meeting.

In my original post I mentioned some hesitation about membership. I've pondered this a lot and it has various sources. First, I grew up reading Krishnamurti, who emphatically advised against joining any sort of spiritual or religious organization. I followed this advice for several years with the Unitarians, but broke down one evening after a Christmas eve service --"Christmas always gets 'em," was the Minister's comment. As for Friends, I wondered why we needed "membership." Isn't that sort of a worldly idea? Early Friends didn't have membership -- if you were "convinced" that was enough. I guess I wanted that sort of "purity" -- you are either a "Friend of the Light" or not. I've felt very involved with and moved to be a part of Friends, not to mention just fascinated by the whole phenomenon -- although whether my "convincement" measures up or is even similar in kind to that of early Friends is -- well, perhaps a topic for another post.

Part of my hesitance is my vocation as a public lawyer. What are the standards for membership? In lawyer language, this process looks suspiciously "arbitrary and capricious" -- or at least has that potential. The decision to admit or deny membership could be described as extremely subjective. I would never advise one of my local government clients to engage in a decision-making process like this, for fear that they would be sued.

On the other hand, someone once remarked that in hell, there will be nothing but due process! And I don't mean to suggest that my committee will be arbitrary or capricious. (I've yet to appear before them, so I'd best not impugn their integrity at any rate). Friends rely on the spirit to guide their decisions, and that would be tough to codify.

Another hesitation has been the equality principle. This was raised by a long-time attender in our meeting: if we're all equal, then why make the distinction between attenders/members? If you keep coming back and sharing your gifts year after year, should you be considered any less a part of this religious community simply because you haven't subjected yourself to a committee designed to judge your spiritual fitness? In our postmodern, individual-centered society, there's something quite unusual about this -- why can't I make my own decision whether to be a Friend or not? When I joined the Unitarians, the only requirement was to "sign the book."

And finally, membership can have spiritual disadvantages, such as complaceny, pride/egotism, the setting of one group against others, and so on. (I think this was what Krishnamurti was concerned about).

So why have I applied for membership? For one, there's something to be said for making a commitment. I have a tendency toward the non-committal, and every once in a while it does me good to make a stand. Its what led me to get married as opposed to merely sharing living quarters. Its what keeps me going to work every day, even when I'd rather not. Yes, we can get into a rut, but there's also a danger of never finding the road at all. Committment over time enables the richness of being involved at a deeper level.

Another reason: I was asked to join. This helps. The fact that others would like you to belong takes the question out of the abstract, philosophical realm (see above) into the world of real relationships with fellow human beings.

Finally, this was coupled with a request to consider filling a position with the meeting (the truth will out!) that requires membership. To some extent its just pragmatism: easier to join than to engage in potentially endless airy debates that would most likely go nowhere. But its more than that: I think my philosophical objections were overcome by my desire to be engaged in the life of the meeting -- and to concentrate on weightier matters than the issue of membership.

Reading the Bible for the Very First Time

2005-10-05T10:19:00.000-07:00

The subject header here is a paraphrase of Marcus' Borg's book "Reading the Bible Again for the Very First Time." In my case, I've been reading the Bible for the "first" first time as part of my inquiry into the roots of Quakerism. I've started mainly with the Old Testament, which has been often fascinating and rewarding. On the other hand, the slaughter, threats, curses, and extreme punishments get can be hard to take. (I understand things lighten up a bit in the NT). However, I came across this nugget today from Ch. 30 of Deuteronomy:

"11 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, "Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, "Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?" 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it."

Sounds Quakerly to me!

(thanks to biblegateway.com for the text)

Rocky Raccoon

2005-10-04T08:39:00.000-07:00

Her name was MaGill,
but she called herself Lil,
but everyone knew her as Nancy.

Rocky Raccoon,
Lennon & McCartney

I met a guy in law school once who, when asked his name, went into a spiel something like this:
"My name is Bob, but my friends call me Rick, although my family calls me Bud, but you can call me....."

I feel a bit like that, as I've been experimenting with suitable internet user names. I've posted on other blogs as Dave Oschen & Dascho. I've tried a few additional iterations here. I don't actually like using pseudonyms (their "pseudo" after all, meaning false, untrue -- hardly a testament to light and truth!) On the other hand, I'd like a bit of internet anonymity. So, I've settled on Dave Carl, my first and middle names, thereby accomodating my desires for both truth and reticence.

But you can call me Dan, although my friends call me Jack....

Self Will / God's Will

2005-09-28T11:33:00.000-07:00

Could it be that at bottom, human will is the same as God's? I don't mean that God wants me to do everything that catches my fancy. But what if my everyday wants are proxies for what I really want? Maybe I don't believe that I can achieve what I really want -- or maybe I'm not even clear on what that is. Suppose that's why, whenever we do get what we "want," the satisfaction is fleeting? Perhaps our heart's desire lies at the very heart of our desire. What if we looked there? And patiently listened?

Let's just be quiet and talk

2005-09-27T15:11:00.000-07:00

In my meeting, we have very little vocal ministry. Usually the hour is completely silent. But once the hour is over, it seems we immediately break into conversation, jokes, discussions of business, and announcements as if nothing significant had just happened. I usually feel the need for some sort of transition, at least.

I read a passage by William Penn recently in which he said that Friends used few words. It seems to me that today Friends could benefit from adhering more to Penn's description (was that diplomatic enough? :) On the other hand, a hopeful sign for our meeting: our clerk announced that many Friends had told her that they want our Meeting for Business to be more worshipful. And last Sunday it was: not entirely, as we're all (myself included) in the habit of speaking without being recognized and engaging in cross-talk, but it was an improvement.

Subvocal ministry

2005-09-12T12:12:00.000-07:00

Words that almost rose to the level of vocal ministry during meeting for worship, but for (1) obedience to the spirit or (2) disobedience to the spirit, did not:

When the lion lies down with the lamb in our own hearts, then we will be peace-makers in this world.

This is the holy moment.

We'll do the right thing when we understand.

Deepening liberality

2005-09-08T14:37:00.000-07:00

Some blogging liberal Friends describe themselves using some iteration of "conservative", e.g. "conservative leaning" or some such combination. Conservative in this sense refers more to the religious realm than the political. Reading their posts, I am often in sympathy with the desire for deeper and more authentic spirituality. However, without getting to hung up on terminology, I prefer to think of my own quest as "deepening liberality." With all the beatings "liberalism" is taking these days, I guess I want to stand up for it and assert its essential seriousness, and yes, even morality. On the other hand, the deeper we go, the more we find the essential unity. I guess when you get right down to it, I don't see a conflict between true conservatism and the liberal spirit. Its unfortunate that these terms get frozen into stereotypical notions.

Forty's more like it but....

2005-08-30T11:21:00.000-07:00

I started attending an unprogrammed Quaker meeting about 8 years ago or so, in my forties. However, I was still attending a Unitarian church at the time, which I continued until a few years ago. After reaching age 50, I felt for various reasons to quit "straddling the fence" and began attending the local Friends meeting exclusively. I'm still an "attender," not a member, as I seem to have some issues with the membership idea. Nevertheless, I feel decidedly "Quaker" and have been immersing myself in the history, faith and practice of Friends.

I've been following the Quaker blogosphere for several months and find it fascinating and thought provoking. I've posted a few times as "Dascho" on Brooklyn Quaker's blog (excuse the lack of a link, I'm not quite up to speed on that sort of thing yet). I find myself checking in with Quaker Ranter's blog watch daily to stay up to date with the latest posts. And now I've felt the urge (or "call"?) to cross the line from observer to participant.