Quaker Humanism?
Mjcrook
week of following this titanic debate over historical/modern faith,
practice, belief, unbelief, divinity and humanism (on both this newsgroup
and Quaker-L), I feel almost nauseated. It struck me in prayer, night
before last, that the tendency to overcomplicate matters of faith is
hard-wired into human nature. It sure keeps
theologians/philosophers/thinkers in work. I recognize that I succumbed to
that tendency when I read a message that seemed to me to be saying the
Society of Friends either should not or soon will not be composed mainly
of those who follow Jesus, and posted a reply out of my own spiritual
pain. I say pain, because I see Christ being crucified again day after
day, many times by those using His name in vain (doctor-killers, for
example) or by those who are reacting against human errors committed by
Christians over the ages. I came back to Christian faith by a long and
winding road, and I'm trying hard to figure out how to stand by Christ
without becoming what He called a "stumbling block" to others. I apologize
if I've failed in this case.
Chris, as to your question about Buddhists and your comments on
Universalists, please know that I, Michael Crook, hereby assure you that I
am not fit to judge anyone's faith or practice. I shall resist all
opportunities to judge. I have the rest of my life to work toward
perfection, and though I don't expect to achieve it, it seems more than
enough work to occupy me, which is a good enough reason to let God do
His/Her work in the lives of others.
I pray that we all may be given the grace to speak of our own spiritual
beliefs and experiences in ways that tend to build up and enlighten
others, and that each of us may be given the grace to listen to that of
God in the words of others. I've heard it in yours, Chris. Thank you.
Michael Crook
bhaw...@kate.smith.edu
aw...@yfn.ysu.edu (Daniel Chase) writes:
>
>Why wouldn't Jesus care how people expressed themselves about him?
>
>Daniel Chase
He cared more about how people behaved. (Matthew 35)
Bruce Hawkins
Chris Faatz
[clip, including "Christ crucified day after day"]
: Chris, as to your question about Buddhists and your comments on
: Universalists, please know that I, Michael Crook, hereby assure you that I
: am not fit to judge anyone's faith or practice. I shall resist all
: opportunities to judge. I have the rest of my life to work toward
: perfection, and though I don't expect to achieve it, it seems more than
: enough work to occupy me, which is a good enough reason to let God do
: His/Her work in the lives of others.
: I pray that we all may be given the grace to speak of our own spiritual
: beliefs and experiences in ways that tend to build up and enlighten
: others, and that each of us may be given the grace to listen to that of
: God in the words of others. I've heard it in yours, Chris. Thank you.
: Michael Crook
Friend Michael:
I'm touched in my deepest part. Thank you for your message.
Rest assured that I, too, see Christ crucified every day--whether by those
who take His name in vain, or by those with the money and greed to think
they can ignore His message altogether--and I both agonize and organize
over it.
I stand by you, Friend, in both our differences and in our core convicitions.
Your Friend in the Light,
chris
--
cfa...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
Chris Faatz
: Why wouldn't Jesus care how people expressed themselves about him?
: Daniel Chase
Friend Daniel:
I suspect that matter would come secondary to His concern that
people walk the path that he laid for them.
Chris
Chris Faatz
: In article <3igues$e...@kelly.teleport.com>, cfa...@teleport.com (Chris
: Faatz) wrote:
[clip]
: Can you really read Fox's Journal, and claim that he belived in a universal
: light separate from Jesus Christ? That must be some interesting reading...
Friend Michael:
No, but I *do* claim that Fox interpreted the universal experience of the
seed through the particular and peculiar circumstances of his time and his
place. Just as Shakyamuni did, just as Muhammed did.
: I expected to find more universal sentiment in Fox. I'd be syurprised if
: you could read two pages out of Fox's Journal and not find the light
: associated with Jesus Christ...
Where you might find "the light associated with Jesus Christ," I'd find
the light associated with Jesus Christ for a particular reason, while the
light itself is a universal gift.
: Where does he "speak of the light being universal, even if it isn't
: named Christ"? I can imagine taking a quote or two out of context, but
: it's pretty hard for me to see Fox thinking of the light as anything other
: than Jesus Christ. *I'm* not real comfortable with that, and I'm not real
: sure what it means for the light to be Jesus Christ, but there's not doubt
: in my mind that Fox was saying exactly that.
: Mike
I'm sorry, Friend. I've only read the _Journal_ once, and don't have enough
material to draw from to answer your question.
Here's a good one from Woolman, though. I'm certain you're acquainted with
it:]
"There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in
different places and ages hath had different names. It is, however, pure
and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of
religion, nor excluded from any, where the heart stands in perfect sincerity.
In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever, they become
brethren in the best sense of the expression."
"...confined to no forms of religion...." Where are our steeple houses of
today? Where are our dogmas? And what of perpetual and ongoing revelation?
Christ and Christianity are not dead, and will not die, and I would be the
last to wish that they would do so. But, I'd also be the last to say, only
under this particular mantle can you find solace and peace in the arms of
Truth.
Yours in the Light,
Timothy Lillie
Thanks for responding. I stand by my conviction that the message
to which I was replying was "cultural imperialism," though perhaps
"intellectual imperialism" might be better, because I have been there and
recognize the territory. My conviction of Christianity as practiced by
Friends has not been an instant thing, nor do I condemn Universalists
just because they are Universalists. The point I wanted to make (and
hope I did) is that saying something like: "If George Fox were a
Buddhist we would all be wearing orange robes" is nonsense because the
author is trying to have his cake and eat it too.
What speaks to me (and, historically to other Friends) is the
emphasis on the Spirit of Christ as opposed to the letter of the law.
Yes, it is true that early Friends felt that "true religion" as Penn once
phrased it, could exist anywhere. They argued that those who were not
Christian were not bad, just because they adhered to a different
tradition. But they always said that the reason this was so was because
the Spirit of Christ informed their religion and practices. In other
words, they (Buddhists, Moslems, etc.) were Christians without knowing it.
However, just because early Friends felt that way did not mean
that they insisted that everyone else worship just the same as they did.
I submit that this attitude was remarkable for the 17th century with its
established churches and forced uniformity and remains remarkable today.
___________________________________________________________________________
Timothy Lillie
tli...@sunflowr.usd.edu (605) 677-5210
University of South Dakota Vermillion SD 57069
On 22 Feb 1995, Chris Faatz wrote:
> Friend Timothy:
>
> Is the spirit of Christ, which is indeed what endures, the only means
> through which one can come into the presence of the divine? There are plenty
> of other quotes for a quote war of Fox's writings (or Woolman's, etc) that
> speak of the light being universal, even if it isn't named Christ. And, I
> appreciate your statement regarding "Christianity without legalism."
>
> I guess it saddens me to hear universalists berated as being cultural
> imperialist or "holier-than-thou"/smarter-than-thou types because the choose
> to emphasize those teachings of a common tradition rather than the one that
> you embrace with such evident love and convincement.
Mjcrook
killers-of-doctors. As in those who bandy about the name of Christ while
trying to justify homicide. Sorry if my posting seemed to judge the
practice of doctors.
Michael Crook
Michael Crook
Timothy Lillie
In the message below you state that you would be the last to
suggest that only in Christianity can one be saved (to use evangelical
language). Insofar as I understand early Friends (including my
understanding of the Woolman quote you make), I think they would agree
and so would I. HOWEVER (and this is the point, I think), those who do
not know or believe in Christ, no matter how righteous they are, are not
Quakers, they are something else.
Because there are no Meetings close by, I often attend a small
Episcopal church (ironic, when one thinks that Friends began at least
partly as a reaction the the Anglican church of the 17th century), but I
am not an Episcopalian, but a Quaker. I am welcomed by the Episcopalians
and have even agreed to serve as Lector from time to time (reading the
lessons, for those who wonder what a Lector does), and I am not afraid to
bring up Friendly thoughts from time to time. One does not have to be a
formal member of the Episcopal church to share the Spirit of Truth with
them, but I am not an Episcopalian. In the same sense, those who share
in understanding the workings of the Seed or the Inner Light (by whatever
name) are my friends, but not practicing what the Religious Society of
Friends stood for and (overwhelmingly) still stands for.
Best wishes,
___________________________________________________________________________
Timothy Lillie
tli...@sunflowr.usd.edu (605) 677-5210
University of South Dakota Vermillion SD 57069
Thomas A Webb
s > Friend Timothy
s >
s > I must assume that you know your Bible at least as well as I do, and
s > that makes your examples very surprising to me. The Epistles of Paul
s > and of Peter are full of texts on which one could reasonably base an
s > argument for the subjugation of women. Try 1 Peter 3, for example. It
s > is precisely because, for us 'liberals', these texts do contradict the
s > Spirit of Truth by which we are led that we cannot accept the Bible
s > *as a whole* as divinely inspired.
s >
s > >Or: "We have a new revelation that
s > >tells us that war is sometimes all right, namely when it is fought
s > for
s > >what we consider 'just' purposes." Is that consistent with the
s > Spirit
s > >that gave us the Bible?
s >
s > The Old Testament is awash with the blood of peoples slain by the
s > Hebrews with the blessing, according to the text, of God. What about
s > the Midianites, for a particularly gut-wrenching example? The Bible
s > *undoubtedly* supports the concept of a 'just war' -- or even, for
s > that matter, of an unjust war, if prosecuted by God's chosen people.
s > Try Jericho. What had the poor souls of Jericho done to have their
s > city destroyed about their ears?
s >
s > The Bible justifies and glories in slaughter. The Spirit of Truth (as
s > I experience it) does not. Therefore, I believe strongly that the
s > Spirit of Truth did *not* inspire (at least most of) the Bible.
s >
s > If you argue that it did, then I think you ought to consider how you
s > can reconcile the contradictions which I have outlined above.
s >
..
I grew up in Richmond Indiana, in the shadow of the ivy covered walls of
Earlham College, and Elton Trueblood. I remember hearing that the
ongoing search for light must be founded in the bedrock of the
"spirit of truth that produced the bible". I still believe that to be
true, but I have to point out that the Friends that urged that truth on
me fifty years ago never suggested that the Bible was literally true,
word, by word; verse by verse. Looking to the "spirit of truth that
produced the bible" for guidance in interpreting new revelation, and
using the Bible as if it were a technical manual, issued by our maker,
are two very different things.
I believe we need an anchor to hold our position against the pressures
of self interest and expediency. For me, that anchor is Christ, as
represented in the new testament. I agree with you, and Kurt Vonnegut,
that the Christianity as practised by the Bible thumpers is a slaughter
house religion. But that doesn't invalidate the message of Jesus. It
invalidates the Christianity practised by Bible thumpers. God, in the
person of Jesus, didn't come to us through the organized church (the
church that produced the body of writings we call the Bible), he came
to us person-to-person.
I believe he still does.
For what it is worth, consider this a statement of support from
on of those Friends over there on the conservative right.
s > ...but have you *seen* the size of the world wide spider?
Just thinking about it boggles the mind..
Tom Webb Pueblo Colorado
---
* OFFLINE 1.56
Walter Wilson
> As Quakers we
>are called upon to witness to the Spirit of Truth which gave the Bible
Could this same spirit have brought forth the Upanishads, or the
teachings of Buddah variously reflected down the ages?
Apart from historical associations, should Jesus and
the Bible have any special meaning to Quakers?
Walter G. Wilson