Why Quaker?
Ed Harman
Friends...
What are the basic tenets of the Society of Friends and what sets it apart
from other expressions of Christian belief... I am seeking an understanding
of what you have found within the teachings of your faith that you believe
is unique or special in such ways as to distinguish it from other Christian
denominations and sects. I would be especially interested in the
perspective of folks who converted to this faith from other religions or
denominations.
Thanks for taking the time to comment!
Ed
This article was posted from <A HREF="http://www.slurp.net/">Slurp Net</A>.
Andre Boulanger
Chris Cypser
"Andre Boulanger" <arb...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> You ask why.
>
> I ask, why not?
>
> Andre
Robert Kennedy? :)
--
Chris Cypser www.nyx.net/~ccypser ccy...@nyx.net
------------------ Nyx, the Spirit of the Night ------------------
"Listen to them--the children of the night. What music they make!
You city dwellers cannot enter into the feelings of the hunter."
JM
>Friends...
>
>What are the basic tenets of the Society of Friends and what sets it apart
>from other expressions of Christian belief... I am seeking an understanding
>of what you have found within the teachings of your faith that you believe
>is unique or special in such ways as to distinguish it from other Christian
>denominations and sects. I would be especially interested in the
>perspective of folks who converted to this faith from other religions or
>denominations.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to comment!
>
>Ed
Here, courtesy of William Penn, the Quaker testimonies:
I. Communion and loving one another. This does not mean a ritual but
actual dropping of defenses and giving in to the power of love (they
used the phrase "grow loving")
II. Loving enemies. Quakers set themselves apart by literally
copying Jesus in this. It also makes Quakerism far harder than any
other existing denomination.
III. The sufficiency of truth-speaking, meaning saying "Yea" and
"Nay" rather than "I swear".
IV. Suffering instead of fighting. Fox said he lived the life that
took away occasion for all wars.
V. Refusal to pay anyone to be a priest. One is not to accept money
for witnessing to the truth.
VI. Refusal of all customs which admit to differences of degree in
humanity before God, radical equalitarianism, such as the refusal of
hat-honor and knee-honor in Fox's time (the main reason he and others
constantly got beat up)
VII. Plain language, refusal to use artificial plurals in talking to
others, refusal to give or receive vain flattery.
VIII. Use of few words.
IX. Avoidance of drinking toasts to people as an excuse for excessive
use of liquor (But Fox was not a teetotaler, he believed in
moderation)
X. Refusal to hire priests to marry couples. Couples are married by
God, not by humans, so people give themselves to each other. Fox
perceived that a class of priests had invented all sorts of corrupt
human additions to pure Christianity to assure their employment and
Quakers like to rid themselves of encrustations.
XI-XII. Simple customs for birth, death, and other occasions.
These describe the peculiar markings of the sect at Penn's time. Most
of these have been carried on, though "hat-honor" is an anachronism.
But the beatings that Quakers suffered back then is part of the REASON
we now all live in a higher degree of equality. All degrees of
society reacted with rage when Fox and his peers first began living
the conviction of equality before God. Without them we'd probably
still be obliged to genuflect before higher classes.
I think anyone who looks over Penn's list will understand that this
indeed a radical program for walking in the footsteps of Jesus. And
like all radical programs, it has been slightly followed over the
years. A lot of people labeled Quaker follow little or none of the
program. But that doesnt make "Quakerism" any less radical. It just
makes these people weak Quakers. I'd say the two things modern
Quakers most often agree on is silence and peace. But it is easy to
see how small a part of the body of testimonies this is. Moreover,
one thing that modern Quakers do a lot of is diluting their speech to
prevent any conflict. The beatings that Fox got showed that he never
diverted from what he considered The Truth to ingratiate himself with
those in error. So, I wonder what these contemporary Quakers think
they are doing. Perhaps they are acting out love on the outside
instead of from the inside. In the end, truth is more important than
conviviality. It is more important to love than to BE loved. God
would not tell us lies to save us from distress. And original Quakers
refused to lie to avoid the anger of others.
JM
On 25 Dec 1997 22:49:07 -0700, ccy...@nyx.net (Chris Cypser) wrote:
>"Andre Boulanger" <arb...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>
>> You ask why.
>>
>> I ask, why not?
>>
>> Andre
>
>Robert Kennedy? :)
George Bernard Shaw.
Allistair A. Lomax
>
>What are the basic tenets of the Society of Friends and what sets it apart
>from other expressions of Christian belief... I am seeking an understanding
>of what you have found within the teachings of your faith that you believe
>is unique or special in such ways as to distinguish it from other Christian
>denominations and sects. I would be especially interested in the
>perspective of folks who converted to this faith from other religions or
>denominations.
Dear Ed,
My attention was caught by your posting, and after some prayerful
consideration, I felt I wanted to reply. I was 'converted' to Quakers, or
'convinced' as Quakers say, from no particular religion. If I had any
religious upbringing, it was very limited, and mostly we worshipped mammon,
or material things. (I'm not being disrespectful to my parents who I love
very much, but that's the way it was), and I came into Friends seeking after
Truth as you seem to be.
I have come to view the Quaker view of the Christian faith as pretty unique,
and the late Lewis Benson of Manasquan Meeting, NJ, who has been a great
influence in my life, always maintained that Quaker Christianity represented
a third stream of Christianity, a stream that is neither either essentially
Roman Catholic/Orthodox nor Protestant.
If I wanted to distil where I thought the real difference lies between the
Quaker view and other Christian views, I would say it lies in that of
Religious Authority. The Roman Catholic view is that the Institutional
church with a human figurehead is the authority we have to obey to follow
the Will of God. The Protestant view is the Bible is the supreme Authority
and we have to follow that to obey God's Will.
The Quaker-Christian view is that it is the Living Jesus Christ, himself,
who is the authority whom we have to hear and obey. Central to knowing
Christ is this way, is the knowledge that he enlightens all people with his
Light, (John 1:9), which is of him and from him, and is him, and if we hear
and obey this Light, it will lead to us hear and obey God (John 3:21).
Also, something which I personally consider unique to the Quaker faith, is
its understanding of who Jesus Christ is, and how he saves men and women.
Christ saves us not just by forgiving our sins, which he can do and does,
but also by teaching people to do what is right in the sight of God. As
God's spokesperson, and as the Living Word of God, he speaks to us the Words
of God, and teaches us how to leave in accordance with God's Will.
He teaches us this by his Light within, (as mentioned above), and also by
being present in our midst as we gather for worship, according the promise,
(Matthew 18:20). He is not just present, but actively present, teaching us,
guiding, leading, helping, forgiving, ordering.....the list goes on of all
the things Christ does in our midst, if we are willing to be faithful. It
has we gather to know Christ in all these ways, we can begin to understand
what is meant by the Church, which is not an institution, or a building, but
the gathered, obedient People of God. Gathering in the presence of Christ,
feeling his power in our hearts *is* our Communion, and being partakers of
his Holy Spirit, this *is* our Baptism, Christian Quakers hold that these
are inward and spiritual things.
Also gathering in to hear and be lead by Christ in this way has a number of
consequences, it leads to a new kind of worship, ministry and church order
that belongs to the New Covenant, firstly, a waiting worship, where all
gathered to wait to be led and taught and ordered by Christ, secondly, a
free gospel ministry, where all present may be moved to speak, sing or pray
under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, (fulfilling the prophecy in Joel
2:28), and thirdly, a spiritual fellowship that is led and ordered by the
presence of Christ in the midst, which is not led by a institution or a
priesthood, but led by Christ himself, and under the gospel order, the
Church gathers in silence so that the True Head, Christ can be heard in all
things. This is the basis of the faith of George Fox and the early Quakers,
a faith which has grabbed and challenged me, and which I have embraced, as
best as I can. I have tried to put it as simply and faithfully as I can.
You will find that Quakers have changed very much over their 300 year
history, and some modern Friends would agree entirely with what I have said,
and some will disagree entirely with what I have said, and there will be
very many somewhere in the middle. I hope what I have said will be helpful.
my very best wishes,
Allistair Lomax, Fritchley PM, Notts and Derbys. MM, Britain YM
Affiliate Member, Rockingham MM (Ohio YM, cons.)
"Change lays not its hand upon Truth" (Swinburne)
Bill Samuel
In article <681an0$1bd$1...@heliodor.xara.net>, "Allistair A. Lomax" <alo...@globalnet.co.uk> wrote:
>If I wanted to distil where I thought the real difference lies between the
>Quaker view and other Christian views, I would say it lies in that of
>Religious Authority. The Roman Catholic view is that the Institutional
>church with a human figurehead is the authority we have to obey to follow
>the Will of God. The Protestant view is the Bible is the supreme Authority
>and we have to follow that to obey God's Will.
>
>The Quaker-Christian view is that it is the Living Jesus Christ, himself,
>who is the authority whom we have to hear and obey. Central to knowing
Yes, absolutely basic. And increasingly I hear this from outside
Quakerism. In the last couple of days, I have read this from a couple of
self-proclaimed fundamentalists. In each case, it was in the context of
their position, a bedrock one for early Friends, that the Holy Spirit is
the only true interpreter of Scripture.
We often hear posited an either/or of relying upon present revelation or
upon scripture. The position of early Friends, which I also frequently
hear among evangelicals and fundamentalists, is that these are by necessity
consistent as the revelation is from a common source (God) and God does not
contradict himself. I think it is easy to paint as fundamentally different
positions which are really more differences of nuance than basic
differences in faith.
The others who are expressing the same fundamentals as early Friends
frequently differ from early Friends in some particulars. I would suggest
focusing on the fundamentals, and even to maintain a healthy skepticism
about whether some of the particulars early Friends preached were universal
truths. Even some of the particulars that were at one point normative for
Friends were not universally accepted in the first generation. "Quaker
grey" was viewed as a "silly, poor Gospel" by Margaret Fell Fox, for
example.
Bill Samuel, Landover Hills, MD, USA wsa...@cpcug.org
Co-founder, Friends in Christ, 301-773-8007 24 hrs. a day
Inactive member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
Quaker links + more at homepage: http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
Alan Rayner
> >What are the basic tenets of the Society of Friends.
> The Quaker-Christian view is that it is the Living Jesus Christ,
> himself, who is the authority whom we have to hear and obey. Central
> to knowing Christ is this way, is the knowledge that he enlightens all
> people with his Light, (John 1:9), which is of him and from him, and
> is him, and if we hear and obey this Light, it will lead to us hear
> and obey God (John 3:21).
> Also, something which I personally consider unique to the Quaker faith,
> is its understanding of who Jesus Christ is, and how he saves men and
> women. Christ saves us not just by forgiving our sins, which he can do
> and does, but also by teaching people to do what is right in the sight
> of God - and teaches us how to leave in accordance with God's Will.
> You will find that Quakers have changed very much over their 300 year
> history, and some modern Friends would agree entirely with what I have
> said, and some will disagree entirely with what I have said, and there
> will be very many somewhere in the middle.
> Allistair Lomax
As a newcomer to Quakerism (three weeks ago!) one thing is very clear to
me now. There is no such such thing as a "typical" Quaker.
What Allistair reports must be taken (as he says) as the views of a
"Christian Quaker". However, there are NON-Christian Quakers. One of
the members of my local meeting even claimed that an *atheist* had been
a member of the group. I cannot vouch for that as I suspect that some
form of "communion" with some form of "god" is key to the movement - but
I could be wrong!!
My purpose in adding this is so that enquirers should not be misled, as
I was for a while, into thinking that Quakerism is solely christian.
That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the
beliefs of those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
--
Alan Rayner (al...@lightnet.co.uk)
Ivydene Cottage, Homend Crescent, Ledbury, Herefordshire HR8 1AH UK
0976-262406
Data Consultant to FE colleges in the UK
Alan Rayner
> > we have to obey God's Will.
> >
> > The Quaker-Christian view is that it is the Living Jesus Christ,
> > himself, who is the authority whom we have to hear and obey.
> Yes, absolutely basic. And increasingly I hear this from outside
> Quakerism. In the last couple of days, I have read this from a couple
> of self-proclaimed fundamentalists. In each case, it was in the context
> of their position, a bedrock one for early Friends, that the Holy Spirit
> is the only true interpreter of Scripture.
> Bill Samuel
The concept of obeying God's will through Christ is not universal
among the Quaker community. It may be basic for some but not for all!
There is a danger in comparison with fundamentalists. Many of those
in such groups are affected by hysteria in some form. The Quaker approach
as I understand it is quite different. The "will of god" is made known
in quiet contemplation in the meeting AND the veracity of what is made
known can be verified in the context of the Quaker meeting.
Fundamentalists often have leaders ("cheer" leaders?). In the Quaker
context, the "listening" for the "will of god" is far more important
than the "position" of the indivduals concerned. When taken with the
tenets of love that pervade the Quaker movement it is (in my opinion)
far more likely that the truth of god's will will emerge from Quaker
meetings than from a fundamentalist group where distinction from the
"other" group is an "end" in itself.
The beauty of Quakerism is that the "will of god" can be the same for
all in the meeting even though the "god" is different for each of them!
EVolkel
In article <199712290...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner
<al...@lightnet.co.uk> writes:
>That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the beliefs of
>those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
I would not be certain of that Alan. Not meaning to be rude but I invite you
to spend a longer period of time (at least longer than 3 weeks) with the RSoF
before speaking for "*all" Friends."
eric s volkel
Timothy Lillie
Alan Rayner wrote:
>
> My purpose in adding this is so that enquirers should not be misled, as
> I was for a while, into thinking that Quakerism is solely christian.
> That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the
> beliefs of those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
First, Alan, I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
"de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
Second, I would not be too sure about your last sentence at all. My
experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian Friends is
only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
--
___________________
Timothy Lillie
tli...@uakron.edu
Dave Moorman
>The beauty of Quakerism is that the "will of god" can be the same for
>all in the meeting even though the "god" is different for each of them!
Different bulb, same Light! :-)
Dave
--
Dave Moorman Life is short. Say it all.
Downers Grove,
Illinois USA
maureen Allen
Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> wrote in article
<34A7EB9B...@uakron.edu>...
I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
> "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
> Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
If someone asks "what is a Quaker" it would be wonderful
to say "a deeply christian movement" Friend Maureen
.
.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on soc.religion.quaker street, the vibe from Alan Rayner is:
~ As a newcomer to Quakerism (three weeks ago!) one thing is very clear to
~ me now. There is no such such thing as a "typical" Quaker.
Ah, you have perhaps misunderstood - a typical quaker is somebody who is
not a typical quaker...
[imagine the colon & the close bracket if such things are your scene]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNKhCXkdRFO5sC2Q6EQJdTgCg6HmkEfBGsavmfgEXoSQOURISpvkAoKUE
2Pz9rpGyqXvIJ88/0C9XPKQd
=mnAZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"The world is divided into 2 camps: tossers, & non-tossers. Membership of either
is in no way dependent on your race, creed, sex, sexuality, or appearance"
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ - hugh davies
Bruce Hawkins
This all depends on what you mean by "Christian". Some who loudly proclaim
themselves "Christian" (I am not referring to any of the regular
contributors to this newsgroup) seem to me completely unchristian in their
lack of charity, desire to opress others, and support of militarism.
What looks to some as de=Chrsitanizing, looks to others as becoming more
deeply CHristian as instructed by Jesus, who in Mathhew 25 told us that
what matters in not saying "Lord, Lord" but service to others.
To me, much of the theologizing of the church and posturing of prominent
"Christians" is an attempt to escape the plain and simple message of the
Gospel to love God and your neighbor (now a world-wide neighborhood) in
order to serve their own power and the power of the state.
--
Bruce bhaw...@sophia.smith.edu Northampton (Mass) Friends Meeting
support the Peace Tax Fund: http://www.nonviolence.org/peacetax/
support conscientious War Tax Resistance: nwt...@igc.apc.org
Russell Nelson
Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> writes:
> My experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian
> Friends is only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths
> shut.
Because often the first thing Christian Friends do is try to exclude
the non-Christian friends. The Bible, after all, tells them to do that.
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> http://www.crynwr.com/~nelson | Freedom is the
Crynwr Software supports freed software | PGPok | primary cause of peace.
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | Obedient, Christian, statist:
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | you only get to pick two.
Timothy Lillie
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> writes:
>
> > My experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian
> > Friends is only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths
> > shut.
>
> Because often the first thing Christian Friends do is try to exclude
> the non-Christian friends. The Bible, after all, tells them to do that.
>
believe that it is, but let's assume that -- as usual -- Russ knows
best).
Let us look at other groups which exclude "wrong" thinking -- or, at
least, I assume so, after having seen a fragment of a presentation by
the editor of MS. magazine, who proudly and properly proclaimed that her
magazine's purpose was not "balance" but advocacy. She specifically
said that she had no interest and no intention of printing Camille
Paglia or Katie Roiphe. Now, Russ: is this exclusionary or is it
keeping the faith?
If I joined a civil rights group, would I be correct in assuming that
the views of the Klan would not be valued by that group; indeed, would
it not be true that avowed Klan members would not be permitted to join?
Is this exclusionism (I know -- a bad word in Quaker circles, unless the
ones being excluded are Christian) or is it keeping the faith?
Now, let's take it back to Quakerism. Would a Meeting be within its
rights to decline to admit an avowed militarist as a member? If not,
why not? Ooops, I know: exclusionary activities again.
--
____________________________________________________
Timothy Lillie tli...@uakron.edu
Alan Rayner
> > My purpose in adding this is so that enquirers should not be misled,
> > That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the
> > beliefs of those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
> First, Alan, I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
> "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
> Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
> Second, I would not be too sure about your last sentence at all. My
> experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian Friends is
> only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
> Timothy Lillie
I am saddened by this reply although I very much thank Timothy for
posting it and aiding my understanding of Quakerism in practice.
The term "hijacking" is emotive. I am wondering whether there is a lot
of unspoken resentment here. Is there really a battle going on?
Even more saddening is the counter to my comment about respect. It would
be (to my mind) a complete travesty of the basic tenets of Quakerism
for non-Christians not to respect the Christians (who were I believe in
the movement first). I could understand some of the Christian group
being a bit miffed at losing their monopoly but if the situation truly
is the other way round then somewhere, someone has not been listening
accurately during silent meeting. If Quakers cannot love one another,
what hope is there for the world outside?
I would like to gain a wider perspective on this. Does anyone else have
experience of a lack of respect (as opposed to a difference of opinion)
between Christian and non-Christian "factions" at meetings? If so, what
is being done to approach a resolution of the issue?
As a non-Christian myself I recognise the value of the heritage that is
in the movement. If newcomers are determined to throw out the baby with
the bathwater then a tragedy is brewing but then perhaps this is a good
opportunity for the development of conflict resolution procedures.
Alan Rayner
> >That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the
> >beliefs of those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
> I would not be certain of that Alan. Not meaning to be rude but I
> invite you to spend a longer period of time (at least longer than 3
> weeks) with the RSoF before speaking for "*all" Friends."
> eric s volkel
Thank you Eric. I agree that it is unwise for me to speak of *all*
Friends with such a short acquaintance. However, my comments did
provoke two responses and I am learning all the time.
If, indeed, my assumption is untrue I am saddened.
My comments are in a separate posting.
Dave Moorman
In article <199712300...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner
<al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I would like to gain a wider perspective on this. Does anyone else have
>experience of a lack of respect (as opposed to a difference of opinion)
>between Christian and non-Christian "factions" at meetings? If so, what
>is being done to approach a resolution of the issue?
Our meeting is largely Universalist, but many are Christian Universalists,
meaning that their religious life is rooted in Christianity, usually
through their upbringing, but they are not exculsivistly (!) Christian and
recognize that there is more than one path to God. Friends who are
exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel very
much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be treated
disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
respect. If they were to make a big deal of "Christ is the only way", I'm
sure that there would be some resentment of such a message. That viewpoint
is basically a disrespectful one, and many folks here would be hard put to
be accepting of it since their experiences have led to them to a different
spot.
It's a sore point with many Quakers, Alan, as you will undoubtedly learn.
I think Tim Lillie and Bruce Hawkins are about to begin slugging it out in
another thread.
Alan Rayner
> I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
> > "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
> > Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
> If someone asks "what is a Quaker" it would be wonderful
> to say "a deeply christian movement" Friend Maureen
Yes, for some it would be wonderful; but not for all!
Thus it would be as wrong to call it such as to call it a
deeply atheist movement.
This topic is about trying to discern what *are* the *common* points,
not about what we would like them to be - especially if the suggestion
alienates a substantial number of Friends.
Alan Rayner
> Some who loudly proclaim themselves "Christian" seem to me completely
> unchristian in their ... support of militarism.
This quote emanated from someone involved with a campaign not to pay
taxes which support war and preparations for war etc. Thus there may
be an over-emphasis of the point but, despite that, I am concerned
that support for militarism may be an issue in Quakerism.
I am still exploring but I imagined (perhaps naively?) that there would
be a broad consensus among Quakers on the Peace/War issue - the debate
being on where to draw the line - in both the personal and societal
areas of human activity.
Can anyone tell me if there is a major rift on the militarism issue,
and is it true that support for militarism emanates primarily from
those who who proclaim themselves "Christian"?
Alan Rayner
> > My experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian
> > Friends is only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths
> > shut.
> Because often the first thing Christian Friends do is try to exclude
> the non-Christian friends. The Bible, after all, tells them to do that.
> russ nelson
This is getting more difficult for me. Does this mean that there are
Friends who are "fundamentalist" to the extent that what is written in
the bible is more important than their own communion with "god" within
a Quaker meeting?
There is an inconsistency somewhere!
How can a meeting function properly if a section of the participants
are "shutting out" another section? I accept that this may occur on
the social level but in meeting it seems incomprehensible.
Can someone explain to me how it works in practice?
Do Christians and non-Christians go to different meetings?
If so, what happens at quarterly/annual combined meetings?
Please assist in allaying my confusion!
Alan Rayner
> Ah, you have perhaps misunderstood - a typical quaker is somebody who is
> not a typical quaker...
> [imagine the colon & the close bracket if such things are your scene]
hugh davies
I agree entirely. The other thing that I have learned about Quakerism
is that all (or nearly all!) is paradox ... and Hugh has just given a
wonderful exemplar of that!
PS: I do not normally use colons and close parenthesis adjacently
but on this occasion I will grin and bear it! :)
Alan Rayner
> >I would like to gain a wider perspective on this. Does anyone else have
> >experience of a lack of respect (as opposed to a difference of opinion)
> >between Christian and non-Christian "factions" at meetings? If so, what
> >is being done to approach a resolution of the issue?
> Our meeting is largely Universalist,
> but many are Christian Universalists,
> meaning that their religious life is rooted in Christianity, usually
> through their upbringing, but they are not exculsivistly (!) Christian
> and recognize that there is more than one path to God. Friends who are
> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel
> very much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be
> treated disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive
> in that respect. If they were to make a big deal of "Christ is the only
> way", I'm sure that there would be some resentment of such a message.
> That viewpoint is basically a disrespectful one, and many folks here
> would be hard put to be accepting of it since their experiences have
> led to them to a different spot.
> It's a sore point with many Quakers, Alan.
> Dave Moorman
Thank you for this helpful comment. I was unaware of the terms
"Universalist" or "Exclusivist" but I sense their meaning from what
you have written.
Basically it seems that Non-Exclusivist Christians and Universalists of
whatever persuasion can co-exist but a minority(?) are Exclusivist
Christians and they may be less willing to "share the meeting". I hope
that someone will correct me if I have mis-interpreted this.
Is there a "long" history of Universalism or is it a relatively recent
phenomenon? Has there been an "invasion" of universalists, or have an
increasing number of Friends had a "conversion" since becoming Friends?
maureen Allen
Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<199712310...@lightnet.co.uk>...
A *common* point is that the majority of Friends are Christian.
One can discuss the logistics, get into the psychology, try to
hide it under verbosity... but it is, what it is. Friend Maureen
Dave Moorman
In article <34A7EB9B...@uakron.edu>, Timothy Lillie
<tli...@uakron.edu> wrote:
>Alan Rayner wrote:
>
>>
>> My purpose in adding this is so that enquirers should not be misled, as
>> I was for a while, into thinking that Quakerism is solely christian.
>> That said, I am certain that *all* Friends have a respect for the
>> beliefs of those who choose to embody Christ in their Quakerism.
>
>
> First, Alan, I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
>"de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
>Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
> Second, I would not be too sure about your last sentence at all. My
>experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian Friends is
>only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
>--
We end up being disrespectful of each other's position because of the
logical conundrum that is involved. There may not be a way out of it
except to ignore it, which I did for many months. Others know more about
logic than I do, but it seems to go something like this; Person A says his
way to do something is the only way. Person B says there are many ways to
do it. However, If he accepts person A's method, B's way and all other
ways are invalidated. If person A accepts Person B's point of view, then a
major aspect of A's way (exclusivity) is invalidated. So there is no way
for A and B to live together, except by avoiding discussions of the topic
altogether. I think they could realize that they are both OK people and
probably get along pretty well as long as they avoid this particular tangle
which really can't be straightened out.
Dave
--
Dave Moorman Many bulbs, one Light.
EVolkel
In article <dmoorman-ya023580...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
dmoo...@interaccess.com (Dave Moorman) writes:
>In article <34A7EB9B...@uakron.edu>, Timothy Lillie
<tli...@uakron.edu>
>wrote:
> Second, I would not be too sure about your last sentence
>at all. My experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian
>Friends is only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
I think part of the reason is that many non-Christian Friends were raised
within a Christian environment and have been hurt and are sensitive to what
they perceive to be an overall, general attitude of many Christians as being
judgemental and accusatory. In fact I think your statement above is reflective
of that type of statement which causes non-Christian Friends alarm because the
apparent message is that non-Christian Quakers are unaccepting, rude and
uninterested. It seems to me to be a rather inflammatory statement that serves
more to entrench the attitude of certain Friends rather than to open up true
dialouge. Instead of accusations perhaps it would be better to explore common
ground whereby Friends might actually be friendly with one another?
in peace and grace
eric s volkel
Guy Macon
In article <199712310...@lightnet.co.uk>, al...@lightnet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
>> > "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
>> > Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
>
>> to say "a deeply christian movement" Friend Maureen
>
>
>Yes, for some it would be wonderful; but not for all!
>
>Thus it would be as wrong to call it such as to call it a
>deeply atheist movement.
I would love it if all meetings led folks to make the following comments:
Quakerism stands for Peace.
Quakerism stands for Truth.
Quakerism stands for Equality.
Quakerism stands for Simplicity.
Guy Macon
In article <68cgkl$8...@mtinsc05.worldnet.att.net>,
ms.ma...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>
>Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote...
>
>> This topic is about trying to discern what *are* the *common* points,
>> not about what we would like them to be - especially if the suggestion
>> alienates a substantial number of Friends.
>
> A *common* point is that the majority of Friends are Christian.
> One can discuss the logistics, get into the psychology, try to
> hide it under verbosity... but it is, what it is. Friend Maureen
Ah, but what is the *purpose* of pointing this out? What conclusion
are you drawing from this (correct) raw data? Are you implying that
the minority view is somehow wrong? What is the net effect on the
relationship between members of the majority and minority groups when
you point out that the minority is in fact a minority? If the minority
is a majority in your town, does it matter what the statistics (which
include giant Friends churches in Yorba Linda, CA and big sucesses by
Quaker missionaries in Africa) say? If the minority is a majority in
your *newsgroup*, does it matter what the statistics say?
I also have a big problem with this majority/minority determination.
As a working engineer, I can see that the way that we are doing the
counting is flawed. This is an example of a set with poorly defined
boundries, and of confusing local with global conditions. The average
person who visits the average meeting house in the U.S. or U.K. is much
more likely to experience a non evangelical majority than the statistics
on how many Quakers are evangelicals would lead you to believe.
Russell Nelson
Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> writes:
> Russell Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> writes:
> >
> > > My experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian
> > > Friends is only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths
> > > shut.
> >
> > Because often the first thing Christian Friends do is try to exclude
> > the non-Christian friends. The Bible, after all, tells them to do that.
> >
> Let us, for a moment, assume that this is so. (I don't, for a moment,
> believe that it is, but let's assume that -- as usual -- Russ knows
> best).
Sigh. I remember reading, somewhere (no, I can't quote chapter and
verse), that Christians are not supposed to consort with
non-Christians.
And whether the Bible tell Christians to do it or not, they do it.
And while you say that you don't believe me, you go on to defend exclusion.
I'm not saying that it's wrong to exclude, merely that one cannot
decry exclusion when one practices it.
Timothy Lillie
Russell Nelson wrote:
>
>
> And while you say that you don't believe me, you go on to defend exclusion.
>
> I'm not saying that it's wrong to exclude, merely that one cannot
> decry exclusion when one practices it.
>
So, then, exclusion is all right in some circumstances it would seem.
However, Russ is the one who suggested that Christians "must" be
exclusive, so (as usual) I am confused.
Timothy Lillie
Dave Moorman wrote:
> Friends who are
> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel very
> much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be treated
> disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
> respect.
And calling someone naive is NOT being disrespectful of their beliefs?
> If they were to make a big deal of "Christ is the only way", I'm
> sure that there would be some resentment of such a message.
Resentment of the truth, from my point of view. How can one resent the
truth?
> That viewpoint
> is basically a disrespectful one,
No, Dave; that point of view is one which is concerned for the Truth
and for the salvation of those who won't listen.
and many folks here would be hard put to
> be accepting of it since their experiences have led to them to a different
> spot.
>
> It's a sore point with many Quakers, Alan, as you will undoubtedly learn.
> I think Tim Lillie and Bruce Hawkins are about to begin slugging it out in
> another thread.
"Slugging it out?" Well, at least you are disrespectful equally. Must
be that Quaker inclusiveness we keep hearing so much about. :-)
Timothy Lillie
EVolkel wrote:
> In fact I think your statement above is reflective
> of that type of statement which causes non-Christian Friends alarm because the
> apparent message is that non-Christian Quakers are unaccepting, rude and
> uninterested.
I stand by my statement, as your response seems to me to prove my
point: if I state how *I* have experienced treatment as a Christian
among so-called Universalist Friends, then you say that I am "rude," or
whatever. However, one can get away with calling Christians names, on
this group.
Thus: my view is respected when I don't mention it, and criticized
when I do.
Dave Moorman
In article <34AA7E6F...@uakron.edu>, Timothy Lillie
<tli...@uakron.edu> wrote:
>Dave Moorman wrote:
>> Friends who are
>> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel very
>> much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be treated
>> disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
>> respect.
>
> And calling someone naive is NOT being disrespectful of their beliefs?
It's more like recognizing that they have not had all of the experiences
that other folks have had. It's not disrespectful. It _could_ be
disrespectful, but the Friends at DGFM would not be disrespectful about it.
Young people can be naive in many ways, but I'm sure you don't treat them
disrespectfully because of it, Tim.
Dave Moorman
>> It's a sore point with many Quakers, Alan, as you will undoubtedly learn.
>> I think Tim Lillie and Bruce Hawkins are about to begin slugging it out in
>> another thread.
>
> "Slugging it out?" Well, at least you are disrespectful equally. Must
>be that Quaker inclusiveness we keep hearing so much about. :-)
"Slugging it out" is about what it comes down to, and it's just about as
pointless. Christian/Universalist Quaker relationships involve a logical
tangle which we won't be able to straighten out but which provides endless
opportunities for taking pokes at each other.
The only way out of it is to just drop it and get on with other things together.
DCMcKeever
During the next year, as part of first hour (adult ed.), we will be doing
several studies. One is a new testiment bible study, one is a study of the
queries and ways to use them, another is a searching for the common ground
between the various branches of Quakerism and trying to discern "the place
where the words come from." - all as part of an overall desire to nuture the
faith community that we are a part of here. We have strongly Christo-centric
members, Universalist members, agnostic members, members who have been very
hurt by fundamentalist upbringings, etc. I feel very unprepared to be the
facilitator for this undertaking, and wonder if anyone on this list has had
experiences or suggestions which might help.
Diana Corry McKeever
Nashville Friends Meeting
Bill Samuel
In article <199712310...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote:
>I am still exploring but I imagined (perhaps naively?) that there would
>be a broad consensus among Quakers on the Peace/War issue - the debate
>being on where to draw the line - in both the personal and societal
>areas of human activity.
>
>Can anyone tell me if there is a major rift on the militarism issue,
>and is it true that support for militarism emanates primarily from
>those who who proclaim themselves "Christian"?
I wouldn't say there's a major rift on the issue. The peace testimony is a
corporate testimony of almost all Quaker groups. However, there are large
numbers of individuals among Friends who have real problems with it. These
individuals come from pretty much across the Friends' theological spectrum,
in my experience.
Bill Samuel, Landover Hills, MD, USA wsa...@cpcug.org
Co-founder, Friends in Christ, 301-773-8007 24 hrs. a day
Inactive member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
Quaker links + more at homepage: http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
Bill Samuel
>Friends who are "fundamentalist" to the extent that what is written in
>the bible is more important than their own communion with "god" within
>a Quaker meeting?
>
>There is an inconsistency somewhere!
>
a touchstone, among other things to evaluate whether one's own communion is
really with God. The way the early Friends put it was that God was
consistent, and that therefore God's current revelations would be
consistent with God's revelations in scripture.
>How can a meeting function properly if a section of the participants
>are "shutting out" another section? I accept that this may occur on
>the social level but in meeting it seems incomprehensible.
>
It's very difficult.
>Can someone explain to me how it works in practice?
>Do Christians and non-Christians go to different meetings?
>If so, what happens at quarterly/annual combined meetings?
>Please assist in allaying my confusion!
>
To some extent they go to different meetings. The vast majority of
meetings are thoroughly Christian, and while of course non-Christians are
welcome to attend, members are people who have a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ.
The minority of meetings, from which probably a large majority of those
active in this forum come, do not hold that a personal relationship with
Jesus Christ is essential to being a Friend. These usually have both
Christians and non-Christians. How this works varies greatly. But
conflicts certainly are known to arise, which sometimes result in some
leaving. The larger groupings, particularly where there is business
conducted, are often fractious as people come not only from different
individual faith perspectives but often from meetings with different
perspectives. Often many people at one or more points on the spectrum feel
somewhat excluded and beleagured. In many yearly meetings, there are large
numbers of members who deliberately stay away from the annual sessions
because they are not comfortable with the atmosphere there. As a result,
one could easily get an impression of the yearly meeting from attending
sessions that might not well reflect the grassroots.
Bill Samuel
>phenomenon? Has there been an "invasion" of universalists, or have an
>increasing number of Friends had a "conversion" since becoming Friends?
>
they understand as universalist. But until well into the 19th century, the
disciplines of all yearly meetings which lasted any length of time were
very clear about being Christian. Not believing in the divinity of Jesus
was cause for reading someone out of meeting (terminating their membership)
even in "Hicksite" meetings which were relatively liberal theologically.
I wouldn't say there's been an "invasion." What happened is that one part
of Friends tended to evolve in this direction, and in recent decades has
attracted large numbers of people who have this approach. I'm not aware of
any large number of Friends who moved to this position after becoming
convinced as Friends.
Bill Samuel
In article <34AA7D92...@uakron.edu>, Timothy Lillie <tli...@uakron.edu> wrote:
>
> So, then, exclusion is all right in some circumstances it would seem.
I think almost anyone would agree with exclusion in some circumstances. I
think the real question is what exclusion in what circumstances is
appropriate.
Who among Friends, for example, would argue that we should not exclude
someone from membership who actively practiced and promoted the torture of
other persons because of their race?
Bill Samuel
during the studies. A second suggestion - encourage others also to
similarly pray.
maureen Allen
Dave Moorman <dmoo...@interaccess.com> wrote in article
<dmoorman-ya023580...@nntp.interaccess.com>...
> In article <34AA7E6F...@uakron.edu>, Timothy Lillie
> <tli...@uakron.edu> wrote:
>
> >Dave Moorman wrote:
> >> Friends who are
> >> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel
very
> >> much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be
treated
> >> disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
> >> respect.
> >
> > And calling someone naive is NOT being disrespectful of their
beliefs?
>
> It's more like recognizing that they have not had all of the experiences
> that other folks have had. It's not disrespectful. It _could_ be
> disrespectful, but the Friends at DGFM would not be disrespectful about
it.
> Young people can be naive in many ways, but I'm sure you don't treat
them
> disrespectfully because of it, Tim.
>
> Dave
>
I left the christian church when I was younger because I
thought that christians had their head so high in clouds they
could not see. I read Goethe when I was 11, and countless
religious books since then. I have travelled around europe,
and some of america, have been friends with hippies, druggies,
sleezies, buddhists,hindus, muslims,yuppies, preppies, and have
even met green- peacers in an unprogrammed meeting
In life experience I've seen it,been there,done it, than
the average american and have recognised that nothing
has been more exhilarating, life changing,mind expanding
than finding that Christ is alive. What is naive about that?
Friend Maureen
maureen Allen
Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote in article
<199712310...@lightnet.co.uk>...
> This is getting more difficult for me. Does this mean that there are
> Friends who are "fundamentalist" to the extent that what is written in
> the bible is more important than their own communion with "god" within
> a Quaker meeting?
>
As an Evangelical Friend I believe that God (through the
Holy Spirit) can speak to me personally. However the
Holy Spirit will never say anything that will contradict the
teachings of Jesus, and the New Testament. Friend Maureen
ECrownfiel
In article <dmoorman-ya023580...@nntp.interaccess.com>,
dmoo...@interaccess.com (Dave Moorman) writes:
>>Dave Moorman wrote:
>> Friends who are
>> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel very
>> much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be treated
>> disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
>> respect.
>
> And calling someone naive is NOT being disrespectful of their beliefs?
It's more
>like recognizing that they have not had all of the experiences that other
>folks have had. It's not disrespectful. It _could_ be disrespectful, but
>the Friends at DGFM would not be disrespectful about it. Young people can be
>naive in many ways, but I'm sure you don't treat them disrespectfully because
>of it, Tim.
Gee, this is getting really interesting. It would seem that Dave has had all
the experiences that Tim has had, but that Tim has not had all the experiences
that Dave has had. This is the only explanation for how Tim can be so naive,
so like a young child; if only he were more experienced he would think just
like Dave.
Hmm. Can't imagine why anyone would feel patronized or excluded by that
attitude.
My theology is closer to Dave's than to Tim's (at least on the face of it), but
I think there is something wrong with this picture.
Elizabeth Crownfield
Dave Moorman
In article <19980101034...@ladder02.news.aol.com>,
ecrow...@aol.com (ECrownfiel) wrote:
>Gee, this is getting really interesting. It would seem that Dave has had all
>the experiences that Tim has had, but that Tim has not had all the experiences
>that Dave has had. This is the only explanation for how Tim can be so naive,
>so like a young child; if only he were more experienced he would think just
>like Dave.
>
>Hmm. Can't imagine why anyone would feel patronized or excluded by that
>attitude.
>
>My theology is closer to Dave's than to Tim's (at least on the face of it), but
>I think there is something wrong with this picture.
Tim could equally think me naive because I haven't had the experiences with
the Risen Christ that he has had. In fact, he has said in the past that
all religions other than Christianity are illusory and his hope is that
adherents of other religions would come to see that they are actually
Christians, thus overcoming what could be termed their naive faith. So on
and on the pointless argument goes....
Guy Macon
In article <m27m8l1...@desk.crynwr.com>, nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
>
>Sigh. I remember reading, somewhere (no, I can't quote chapter and
>verse), that Christians are not supposed to consort with
>non-Christians.
>
On the contrary. The Jews of Jesus' day were critical of him for hanging
out with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors. This exclusivist
attitude is clearly taught to be wrong in the Bible. Christians are
ordered to "be in the world but not of the world".
Bruce Hawkins
On 1 Jan 1998, maureen Allen wrote:
> As an Evangelical Friend I believe that God (through the
> Holy Spirit) can speak to me personally. However the
> Holy Spirit will never say anything that will contradict the
> teachings of Jesus, and the New Testament. Friend Maureen
>
understanding of Universalism is that God's Grace and Mercy are available
to all persons, and this is my understanding of Jesus' teachings.
Love,
--
Bruce bhaw...@sophia.smith.edu Northampton (Mass) Friends Meeting
support the Peace Tax Fund: http://www.nonviolence.org/peacetax/
support conscientious War Tax Resistance: nwt...@igc.apc.org
Dave Moorman
In article <68es3h$g...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "maureen Allen"
<ms.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>...What is naive about that?
> Friend Maureen
Not a thing Maureen :-) Your life is rich with the blessings of the
Spirit, and I thank you for sharing them with us.
Dave Moorman
In article <68g0tl$a$2...@news01.deltanet.com>, guym...@deltanet.com (Guy
Macon) wrote:
>In article <m27m8l1...@desk.crynwr.com>, nel...@crynwr.com wrote:
>>
>>Sigh. I remember reading, somewhere (no, I can't quote chapter and
>>verse), that Christians are not supposed to consort with
>>non-Christians.
>>
>
>On the contrary. The Jews of Jesus' day were critical of him for hanging
>out with sinners, prostitutes, and tax collectors...
Mark 2:17 When Jesus heard this, he said to them, ³Those who are well have
no need of a physician, but those who are sick; I have come to call not the
righteous but sinners.²
Gee, Guy, that makes us Universalists sinners and "those who are sick"!
Dave Moorman
In article <68es3h$g...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "maureen Allen"
<ms.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Here's a quote from one of your earlier postings, Maureen:
>If I were a muslim,hindu etc.
>I certainly would not be in a Quaker meeting , but to a monestary,
>temple, or place of higher learning, where I can find guideposts on
>the particular path I am on.
This is a strongly Universalst point of view! We should be encouraging
Hindus to follow their path to God and not wasting time trying to convert
them to Christianity, hoping that they will see that their spiritual life
was actually an illusion. On the other hand, if Hindu or Moslem person
finds that Chritianity is spiritual home, let's make them welcome.
DCMcKeever
We're back to the same discussion that was going on in September when I dropped
the newsgroup because of lack of time. (I sign in during school breaks). What
does it mean to be Christian? I consider Quakers to be Christian, but not in
the traditional meaning. When I look at the created world and see the variety
and diversity of life it makes perfect sense to me that all spiritual
experiences would not be the same. When I was growing up in the Evangelical
Friends, there was no place for me because I had no sense of belief for most of
what I was taught. I have no belief in the orthodoxy of beliefs that most
"Christians" require - virgin birth, divinity of Jesus, resurection, assention,
the Trinity (Father, Son, and Male Holy Spirit), and the requirement to be
"born again" according to their formula. I don't have a sense that this is
really important. My mother regularlly had people praying for me because I
was obviously headed for hell. I also don't understand a god who would require
that only one name be acceptable, only one form of worship. The few glimpses
that I have been given of the mystery have had nothing to do with dogma or
exclusiveness. The feeling of the spirit in meeting is one of love and being
called to become an expression of that love. Following the path of Jesus for
me has meant first taking away all the additions to that path to try to
discern the heart of the path - not right beliefs in dogmas and things added
by others to further their own control and power. The way that I am called to
follow this path may not be exactly the way someone else is called. The first
person I met in whom "the light was shining" was a Hindu woman.
maureen Allen
Dave Moorman <dmoo...@interaccess.com> wrote in article
<dmoorman-ya023580...@nntp.interaccess.com>...
> In article <68es3h$g...@bgtnsc03.worldnet.att.net>, "maureen Allen"
> <ms.ma...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> Here's a quote from one of your earlier postings, Maureen:
>
> >If I were a muslim,hindu etc.
> >I certainly would not be in a Quaker meeting , but to a monestary,
> >temple, or place of higher learning, where I can find guideposts on
> >the particular path I am on.
>
> This is a strongly Universalst point of view! We should be encouraging
> Hindus to follow their path to God and not wasting time trying to
convert
> them to Christianity, hoping that they will see that their spiritual
life
> was actually an illusion. On the other hand, if Hindu or Moslem person
> finds that Chritianity is spiritual home, let's make them welcome.
>
You are right, this is a universalist point of view, which I
believe has no place in a Christain Quaker movement.
Separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. It is
easier to know a person if he sais "I am a Muslim"
than someone spiritually shrouded in the term
"universalist". The most important job of a Christian is
to shine the light where others have not seen it, and try
to let all know the power of the risen Christ. I believe
that those who do know Christ and have denied him
as their Saviour, who will judged differently from those
of other paths who have not yet known Christ.
Peace, Maureen
Dave Moorman
>Dave Moorman wrote:
>> Friends who are
>> exclusivistly (there must be a better word) Christian would not feel very
>> much support for their viewpoint in the meeting. They would not be treated
>> disrespectfully, just thought of as being perhaps a bit naive in that
>> respect.
>
> And calling someone naive is NOT being disrespectful of their beliefs?
>
>> If they were to make a big deal of "Christ is the only way", I'm
>> sure that there would be some resentment of such a message.
>
> Resentment of the truth, from my point of view. How can one resent the
>truth?
>
>
>> That viewpoint
>> is basically a disrespectful one,
>
> No, Dave; that point of view is one which is concerned for the Truth
>and for the salvation of those who won't listen.
I think they are probably listening to another Voice speaking the Truth,
Tim,and probably one which speaks to them more directly and clearly.
What I said about some folks' attitudes in our meeting is real, Tim, and
confirms your frequent statements that some universalist Quakers have less
than positive feelings about Christian Quakers. Please don't jump on me
for it. Maureen Allen has described universalist Quakers as being led
astray by Satan. That's probably the attitude of many in her meeting.
That's the way things are. It's not the end of the world. We'll all
survive and be good Quakers, each to our own Lights.
maureen Allen
DCMcKeever <dcmck...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19980101160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
What does it mean to be Christian? I consider Quakers to be
Christian, but not in the traditional meaning. .....I have no belief
in the orthodoxy of beliefs that most "Christians" require -virgin
birth, divinity of Jesus, resurection, assention,the Trinity
(Father, Son, and Male Holy Spirit), and the requirement to be
> "born again" according to their formula. I don't have a sense that this
is
> really important. .....
DC McKeever, I ask in all sincereity,why do you
say you are a christian, when you do not believe the
the very foundation of christian faith?
I am a christian first, I came to the Friends because
like Fox I saw much "of the flesh" by those professing
to be christian, and wanted a more personal relationship
unencumbered by pomp and circumstance.
The Holy Spirit spoke to George Fox through Christ.
Fox never denied Christ as being the Son of God,
he spent most of his life, earnestly seeking
Christs will in his life. That is the reason I believe that
the Quaker faith, is a christian walk, and not a
'universalist ' path.
As I have said before, I do not know what God
has planned for people who are true to other faiths.
That is for God and not for me. But I do know that
as a Christian, Christ will save me, and as I do know
that this path is true, and Christ has ordered me to
love my fellow man, I will beckon all to follow the
one path I am assured (through Christ) is the road
eternal life with God.
Friend Maureen
CHUCKFAGER
Dear Friends--
Three cheers to DC McKeever.
He/she has stated very well the dilemmas faced by so many who were
raised in evangelical settings but didn't fit there. A reading of Quaker
history would show that most of the key "founders" of what is now called
"universalist" Quakerism (e.g., Joel & Hannah Bean, Rufus Jones, W.C.
Braithwaite, Henry Cadbury, et al) were similarly raised in very evangelical,
even fundamentalist settings, and felt obliged by their experiences of
spiritual truth to leave such behind.
So Friend McKeever is treading a familiar path, and one which I believe
will continue to be taken by thoughtful persons now maturing in similar
settings today. Some may want to pray, as McKeever's mother's friends did, for
his/her return to their "truth." My prayer will be that McKeever continue to
follow that Light which he/she has been shown.
Chuck Fager
McKeever wrote:
>
>We're back to the same discussion that was going on in September when I
dropped the newsgroup because of lack of time. (I sign in during school
breaks).
>What does it mean to be Christian? I consider Quakers to be Christian, but
not in the traditional meaning. When I look at the created world and see the
variety and diversity of life it makes perfect sense to me that all spiritual
experiences would not be the same. When I was growing up in the Evangelical
Friends, there was no place for me because I had no sense of belief for most
>of what I was taught. I have no belief in the orthodoxy of beliefs that most
"Christians" require - virgin birth, divinity of Jesus, resurection, assention,
the Trinity (Father, Son, and Male Holy Spirit), and the requirement to be
"born again" according to their formula. I don't have a sense that this is
really important. My mother regularlly had people praying for me because I
>was obviously headed for hell. I also don't understand a god who would
require that only one name be acceptable, only one form of worship. The few
glimpses that I have been given of the mystery have had nothing to do with
dogma or exclusiveness. The feeling of the spirit in meeting is one of love and
being
>called to become an expression of that love. Following the path of Jesus for
me has meant first taking away all the additions to that path to try to
discern the heart of the path - not right beliefs in dogmas and things added
by others to further their own control and power. The way that I am called to
follow this path may not be exactly the way someone else is called. The first
>person I met in whom "the light was shining" was a Hindu woman. >>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Chuck Fager
-----------------------------------------------
For informative and provocative articles and books on Quakerism,
check out the Kimo Press website at:
http://www.kimopress.com
maureen Allen
Bruce Hawkins <bhaw...@sophia.smith.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.SUN.3.96.980101...@sophia.smith.edu>...
> On 1 Jan 1998, maureen Allen wrote:
> > As an Evangelical Friend I believe that God (through the
> > Holy Spirit) can speak to me personally. However the
> > Holy Spirit will never say anything that will contradict the
> > teachings of Jesus, and the New Testament. Friend Maureen
>Bruce Hawkins wrote:
As a Universalist Friend, this is also very close to my experience. My
> understanding of Universalism is that God's Grace and Mercy are
available
> to all persons, and this is my understanding of Jesus' teachings.
>
Gods Love is available to all and this is Universalism.
However eternal life is not available to sinners (though
he still loves them.). (These laws by the way were not
written by me, so I can't change them) In the Old
Testament Gods mercy was achieved through
the blood offering of unblemished sacrificial animals.
In the New Testament, He delievered to us his Son,
to be the greatest sacrifice of all. which atones us of
our sins and allows Gods Grace and Mercy to enter
our lives. We do however, have to make a personal
sacrifice in this. That is to give ourselves to Christ,
and worship him as our Lord and Saviour. Friend Maureen.
Alan Rayner
> >If I were a muslim,hindu etc.
> >I certainly would not be in a Quaker meeting , but to a monestary,
> >temple, or place of higher learning, where I can find guideposts on
> >the particular path I am on.
> This is a strongly Universalst point of view! We should be encouraging
> Hindus to follow their path to God and not be wasting time trying to
> convert them to Christianity, hoping that they will see that their
> spiritual life was actually an illusion.
> Dave Moorman
I agree entirely with the second point. There are as many roads to
godhead as there are souls incarnate on our planet. Each soul may
take responsibility for advising or guiding others but the decision
*must* rest with the free will of each soul. Further it behoves each
of us to recognise the spirituality of other roads - even if we find
the external forms strange or alarming. If we *truly* listen to the
will of god, the truth of this will be discerned.
On the first point, I have found nothing in my recent enquiries into
the nature of Quakerism which would debar a Hindu or a Muslim (or
even a Christian!) from participation in a Quaker meeting. The salient
point is the *quality* of the spirituality not its form. Clearly it
would not be appropriate for a Muslim or Hindu to prosletise within
a Quaker meeting (either the formal or informal part) but it would seem
to be quite acceptable to share the stillness of "god" with whoever is
willing to come with the humility and spiritual openness of true seeking
for communion with "god". Further, attendance at a Quaker meeting could
for some people (in my opinion) be compatible with other forms of
worship and may be an inspiration (drawing in of breath!) to the quality
of such other forms. It depends upon the individual and I believe that
it would be a mistake to deny the possibility of shared worship.
In my own experience, I enjoy the worship in the ashrams of India and
participate in them when I am there. I have also participated in
local Quaker meetings and would intend to do so in future. I see no basic
incompatibility in this but would be very willing to withdraw from
either community if my presence were inappropriate.
--
Alan Rayner (al...@lightnet.co.uk)
Ivydene Cottage, Homend Crescent, Ledbury, Herefordshire HR8 1AH UK
0976-262406
Data Consultant to FE colleges in the UK
Alan Rayner
> Mark 2:17 Jesus said to them, "Those who are well have
> no need of a physician, but those who are sick"
One needs to be careful here.
The Chinese have a practice of paying the physician while they are
well and suspending payments when they are sick.
The theory is that the responsibility of the physician is to keep
the client "well".
Taking the analogy of "god" as the physician.
Can we really be "well" if we have no need of the physician?
In practice our health (not least spiritually!) is in practice a
joint enterprise between the individual and nature (ie "god").
It behoves us to take that responsibility for our ourselves and to
honour the part played by the "physician".
Luc Schneider
maureen Allen wrote in message <68glu9$c...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>DCMcKeever <dcmck...@aol.com> wrote in article
><19980101160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
>
> What does it mean to be Christian? I consider Quakers to be
> Christian, but not in the traditional meaning. .....I have no belief
> in the orthodoxy of beliefs that most "Christians" require -virgin
>birth, divinity of Jesus, resurection, assention,the Trinity
>(Father, Son, and Male Holy Spirit), and the requirement to be
>> "born again" according to their formula. I don't have a sense that this
>is
>> really important. .....
>
> DC McKeever, I ask in all sincereity,why do you
> say you are a christian, when you do not believe the
> the very foundation of christian faith?
>
Dear Maureen,
Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between what is said on the one
side and what is meant on the other side. Words, sentences and dogmas are
sometimes useful, but often misleading. To grasp the meaning (i.e. the
Spirit) is difficult if one sticks to terminology.
Maybe it is not helpful to emphasize "standards" (dogmas) too much. Almost
every Christian could be declared a non-Christian depending on the
"standards" (dogmas) you choose. And as an ex-Catholic I know that
"standards" and dogmas tend to undergo drastic changes...
Should we see Ebionites, Cathars or Socinians (Unitarians) as the children
of Satan ? And if we did, would we not be the heirs of Torquemada ?
Well, I also believe that the Bible is the expression of a timeless Truth.
However it has been written down by mortals born at a certain time and in a
certain place. And to write (down) means to interpret. If you merely stick
to words, you risk to confound the message of the Spirit with its culturally
biased interpretation by those who wrote it down. To honour the letter more
than the Spirit is a sin (and, as we know, the only one which cannot be
forgiven).
Finally it may also be useful to distinguish between the Gospel (the Truth
above all words) and the Nicean declaration of faith (established by
mortals). It is possible to reject the latter *and* to believe that Jesus is
the living expression of the Divine Love.
Excommunication is a bad custom. Perhaps we should be more Friend-ly than
that...
Luc
EVolkel
In article <34abc62a...@NNTP.netcomuk.co.uk>, oldt...@pobox.com
(Ol'Timer) writes:
>dcmck...@aol.com (DCMcKeever) wrote:
>The first
>person I met in whom "the
>light was shining" was a Hindu woman.
How sufficient, and miraculous, it
>is, that we do know when someone we
meet has the light shining within them.
I just rewatched the movie Gandhi and cried quite a bit as I saw how the power
of love worked through him. The spirit of Christ is within all people and,
with their cooperation, can be made manifest in so many wonderful ways. I hope
I never forget the true heart of Quakerism being that the Inner Light is within
all people and that all people have the opportunity to respond to that light
whether or not they happen to know a certain sequence of code words or
philosophies (such as "Jesus saves" etc.).
peace and grace to all!
eric
Keith Johnson
Timothy Lillie wrote:
> First, Alan, I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
> "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
> Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
Dear Timothy
That is what bothered me about the Quaker Meeting I attended. For
awhile there were only TWO of us (Christian Quakers) at the meeting,and
there was MUCH discussion about how too much Christian terminology was
somehow insulting to the non-Christians in the world. When the OTHER
Christian left, I was the only person who EVER read from the Bible
during worship. That's why I left; I felt the need for a more Christ
centered worship experience. I now attend (with my wife) a Lutheran
church.
> Second, I would not be too sure about your last sentence at all. My
> experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian Friends is
> only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
I didn't have THAT experience, however. Everybody at my meeting
recognized that I was a Christian, and they never showed me the least
bit of disrespect; when I DID read the Bible at Meeting, it often
inspired OTHERS to break the silence with comments from THEIR point of
view.
This second paragragh seems to contradict the first, but it really
doesn't. The anti-Christian bias at my meeting was more general; MY
Christianity was welcome, but most members seemed to support eliminating
Christ from the Faith in Practice. THAT, I disagreed with.
your friend
Keith
> --
>
> ___________________
> Timothy Lillie
> tli...@uakron.edu
Alan Rayner
> I do know that
> as a Christian, Christ will save me, and as I do know
> that this path is true, and Christ has ordered me to
> love my fellow man, I will beckon all to follow the
> one path I am assured (through Christ) is the road
> eternal life with God.
> Friend Maureen
>
This raises two interesting aspects.
a) Maureen appears to be encouraging others to follow the path of
Christ as it will lead to eternal life.
b) Maureen has been ordered to love.
This seems a bit odd to me.
If love is to be of value it surely must come from the heart and
be freely given by the person - not be the result of an "order" from
Christ or anyone else.
There seems also to be a tendency towards the "earning a reward"
syndrome in that a primary motivation for following Christ is either
being "saved" or to reach "eternal life".
Of course, there can be no proof about the nature of the afterlife
(if any) and so the issues about eternal life are a matter of faith.
I believe that we *all* have "eternal life" anyway so that there is
no requirement to travel any particular road to reach it, but eternal
life must remain an issue of personal faith.
What is much more of concern is the point about being ordered to love
as this *does* affect life in this physical realm. One of the saddest
aspects of the history of Christianity is its self-image as an army
(the army of Christ). We have all heard the excuse for actions - "I
was only obeying orders" and the troubles arising from it.
I have little quarrel with the values of Christianity (although I discard
the dogma etc) but surely their value comes from their willing adoption
(as in the blessing of the sinner who repents?) rather than from strict
adherence because of some "order" from the hierarchy?
In old testament times, there were ten commandments; they were expressed
that way as they spoke to the context of the times. In the new testament
these have been reduced to two. Why? The difference is that we mortals
have been given back responsibility for our behaviour on this planet.
We have had the advice. Now we have the choice to love our god-self or
not and to love our neighbour or not. We are specifically *not* told
how to organise our lives in detail. We have to *choose for ourselves*
whether coveting our neighbour's spouse is in accord with the will of
god. If we choose to covet in that way we have to take responsibility
for the consequences.
Sad to say, I gain the impression (and I may be wrong, very wrong) that
Maureen is motivated by fear (fear of *not* gaining eternal life with
god) and as with many motivated by fear, she is willing to hide behind
the orders of the leader.
This is NOT a personal attack, merely an observation as to how the
quote above comes over to me. Maureen is not unique in being in such a
position. I do not know how prevalent such is in the Quaker movement.
I am not anti-Christian per se but I have come away from Christianity
because of the theme of fear that is often near its surface. Quakerism
I see as a way to retain what is good in Christianity and to discard
aspects that our not appropriate. I have no objection at all to the
use of Christ as an intermediary to "god". What I am saying is that
the quality of the understanding of the will of god is far more the
pertinent issue than how we come to such understanding.
In the physical realm of duality (up/down, left/right, good/bad etc)
there are two principal pillars of emotion - Love and Fear. We have
the free will to choose to between them. I hope that we can choose
Love because of who we are rather than Fear because of what we don't
want to be.
B Medlin
DCMcKeever wrote:
>
> During the next year, as part of first hour (adult ed.), we will be doing
> several studies. One is a new testiment bible study, one is a study of the
> queries and ways to use them, another is a searching for the common ground
> between the various branches of Quakerism and trying to discern "the place
> where the words come from." - all as part of an overall desire to nuture the
> faith community that we are a part of here. We have strongly Christo-centric
> members, Universalist members, agnostic members, members who have been very
> hurt by fundamentalist upbringings, etc. I feel very unprepared to be the
> facilitator for this undertaking, and wonder if anyone on this list has had
> experiences or suggestions which might help.
>
> Nashville Friends Meeting
A great approach might be to go back to see what Quakerism originally
was all about: What did the early Quakers say themselves brought them
into the Life and Power that made them Quakers. I suspect that Friends
of all backgrounds might be surprised at the answers. If you just try to
find this out from a Yearly Meeting Faith & Practice or one book or
books from ome publisher or tradition, you will get a slanted and
distorted view that does not represent Truth. But if you are willing to
dig a little, the experience could be life-transforming. I would like to
suggest my own book, BORN AGAIN QUAKERS, as one source, which tried to
go back and look at what set the early Quakers apart from other
Christians. But though I tried to be objective, my own bias shows
through just like everyone else's in their books. The only way to be
fair and honest is to use several sources with different perspectives.
(BAQ is available through Quaker Hill Bookstore or from Quaker House
Publishers, PO Box 334, Lynn, IN. 47355.) -Bill Medlin
Dave Moorman
>Basically it seems that Non-Exclusivist Christians and Universalists of
>whatever persuasion can co-exist but a minority(?) are Exclusivist
>Christians and they may be less willing to "share the meeting". I hope
>that someone will correct me if I have mis-interpreted this.
>
>Is there a "long" history of Universalism or is it a relatively recent
>phenomenon? Has there been an "invasion" of universalists, or have an
>increasing number of Friends had a "conversion" since becoming Friends?
The Christian and Universalist branches both trace their origins back to
George and Margaret Fell Fox, William Penn, and Robert Barclay, and each
generally feels that they are the "truest" Quakers. Numerically,
Christian Friends outweigh Univeralist Friends by a _wide_ margin. As Tim
points out regularly, universalist Friends are over-represented on s.r.q.,
but that may be changing.
The gap _is_ bridgeable, Alan. Some of my best Friends are Christians!
Dan Birchall
Maureen wrote, at various times:
> > >If I were a muslim,hindu etc.
> > >I certainly would not be in a Quaker meeting , but to a monestary,
> > >temple, or place of higher learning, where I can find guideposts on
> > >the particular path I am on.
> this is a universalist point of view, which I
> believe has no place in a Christain Quaker movement.
> Separating the wheat from the chaff so to speak. It is
> easier to know a person if he sais "I am a Muslim"
> than someone spiritually shrouded in the term
> "universalist".
Hmmm.... there seems to be an emphasis on selecting, and following, a
single path here. Very "salvationist" (to use a Daniel Quinn word).
I'm curious whether you (or others) feel that one should only read
the signposts left by those who made the path you follow, or read
others as well, and look for the relationships between them.
For example, I was raised as a Christian... I've been one for most
of my life. But I'm an avid reader, and I don't restrict myself to
books written by Christians, expressing Christian views. If I can
read Krishnamurti, or Ayn Rand, or Dave Barry, and pick out ideas
that are harmonious to my beliefs, should I dismiss those ideas as
invalid simply because of their source?
Or, to put it another way, Jesus said "you must love one another."
I doubt there are many on SRQ who view this statement as anything
other than true. We must, really, if there's to be any hope for
humanity whatsoever. :) If I, or Dave Barry, or Marilyn Manson
walked up to you on the street and said "you must love one
another," would the statement stop being true because of who said
it?
While I believe that Christ speaks only truth, I do not believe
that only Christ speaks truth. :)
-Dan
--
Dan Birchall (d...@scream.org) -- working with the Internet since 1989
Send all ads to the address listed at http://www.scream.org/uce-eval/
Sending ads to this address constitutes a request for loss of access.
Watch this space for my 1998 "Spammer Kill Count" - coming real soon!
Alan Rayner
> > My understanding is that God's Grace and Mercy are available
> > to all persons; this is my understanding of Jesus' teachings.
> >
> However eternal life is not available to sinners (though
> he still loves them.).
This is a matter of personal opinion.
Many would disagree with it totally.
> In the Old Testament God's mercy was achieved through
> the blood offering of unblemished sacrificial animals.
Hopefully we have moved on since then.
The various parts of the Bible are relevant to their *own* times.
> In the New Testament, He delivered to us his Son,
> to be the greatest sacrifice of all. which atones us of
> our sins and allows Gods Grace and Mercy to enter
> our lives. We do however, have to make a personal
> sacrifice in this. That is to give ourselves to Christ,
> and worship him as our Lord and Saviour. Friend Maureen.
This is one route. Christ was a magnificent example to us of the
potential of the human condition. There have been many others and
there are some avatars in human form on our planet today.
However, it is not *necessary* to worship Christ nor to regard
Christ as our Lord or Saviour.
Do we or do we not have free will on this planet?
Is our primary objective to be "saved"?
If so then "god's" offer is akin to blackmail
(Worship me and ye shall have eternal life but if you don't you
will be damned for ever).
It seems far more likely that god's vision for us is that we come to
understand (of our own free will) what is the will of god and then
choose freely to align with it - rather then acting under duress.
A crude analogy is the difference between a loving relationship of a
woman and a man uniting sexually and the counter of a man threatening
to scar a woman if she does not agree to penetration.
I may be odd but I fail completely to understand what pleasure any man
can obtain from rape (or a prostitute for that matter). Sex outside a
mutually, freely agreed relationship loses its whole value/purpose. It
would be a travesty to confuse "rape" and "making love". A similar
consideration applies to a relationship with "god". As soon as *any*
sense of trading enters the relationship the quality is totally, and
possibly irreversibly, transformed from the bedroom to the market place
or from the heart to the wallet.
I do not for one moment believe that god's purpose is for us to submit
to the blackmail of the rapist. Let us make love with god out of mutual
respect for the inherent qualities in each other - without any trace of
future rewards, benefits or penalties. Lets do it just because of the
relationship and our inner sense that it is "right" (if indeed it is!).
Alan Rayner
> Everybody at my meeting recognized that I was a Christian, and they
> When I DID read the Bible at Meeting, it often inspired OTHERS to
> break the silence with comments from THEIR point of view.
Thank you, Keith, for this commentary. It is especially good to have
someone keep in touch after leaving as it broadens the perspective.
I do hope that the sharing in the meeting did not get into a *debate*.
That would seem to be a danger when there are differing points of view
in the same meeting. It must be to the credit of many Friends that
such debate is kept out of the "silence" period.
> Christianity was welcome, but most members seemed to support eliminating
> Christ from the Faith in Practice. THAT, I disagreed with.
> Keith
Yes, and as a non-christian so would I.
It is seldom appropriate to *eliminate* anything that has been a mainstay
in the past and is still supported by substantial numbers - unless there
is overwhelming reason to do (my example is of the move from a flat
earth to a spherical one - the old idea was clearly wrong!).
However, it would be wrong also to put "Christ" as an *essential* part
of the faith in practice. What is needed is a middle way where faith
in Christ on the part of some members is allowed to support them in
their communion with "god" and spoken in such a way that the theme is
not seen as divisive. Similarly, others should express their ministry
in such a way as not to deny the validity of Christian (or any other)
beliefs held by others in the room.
The period of "communion/silence" is a sacred one and not to be "tainted"
by debate and "points scoring".
It is sad that Keith felt that he needed to leave.
I very much hope that, despite being a second choice, the Lutheran
church has enabled him to find a real relationship with *his* god.
Bill Samuel
In article <34AC2862...@pe.net>, co...@pe.net wrote:
>
> That is what bothered me about the Quaker Meeting I attended. For
>awhile there were only TWO of us (Christian Quakers) at the meeting,and
>there was MUCH discussion about how too much Christian terminology was
>somehow insulting to the non-Christians in the world. When the OTHER
>Christian left, I was the only person who EVER read from the Bible
>during worship. That's why I left; I felt the need for a more Christ
>centered worship experience. I now attend (with my wife) a Lutheran
>church.
>
other. If your Friends meeting does not provide Christian worship and
fellowship, it is proper to worship and fellowship with Christians
elsewhere either in place of or in addition to attending the meeting.
We need to keep our priorities straight. I'm a Christian who finds
particular meaning in certain testimonies and practices emphasized by
Friends, not a Quaker who happens to be Christian.
Bill Samuel, Landover Hills, MD, USA wsa...@cpcug.org
Co-founder, Friends in Christ, 301-773-8007 24 hrs. a day
Inactive member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
Quaker links + more at homepage: http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/
"There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
Bill Samuel
In article <199801012...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>This raises two interesting aspects.
>
>a) Maureen appears to be encouraging others to follow the path of
> Christ as it will lead to eternal life.
>
>b) Maureen has been ordered to love.
>
>This seems a bit odd to me.
>
>If love is to be of value it surely must come from the heart and
>be freely given by the person - not be the result of an "order" from
>Christ or anyone else.
>
is not inconsistent with it being the mandate of a Christian. Real love is
from the heart. Jesus called us to that real love, not just to some
outward practices which looked like love.
>There seems also to be a tendency towards the "earning a reward"
>syndrome in that a primary motivation for following Christ is either
>being "saved" or to reach "eternal life".
>
Eternal life can be viewed in a much broader sense than simply as a reward
after we die. It can mean, and Maureen's words seemed to convey that to
me, a union with God that begins in this life and continues after. And
salvation is freely offered; but we need to accept it.
Bill Samuel
In article <199801020...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner <al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> However eternal life is not available to sinners (though
>> he still loves them.).
>
>This is a matter of personal opinion.
>Many would disagree with it totally.
>
affect whether it is true.
>However, it is not *necessary* to worship Christ nor to regard
>Christ as our Lord or Saviour.
>
>Do we or do we not have free will on this planet?
>
We do have free will. The invitation to live in Christ is made to each of
us. We can choose whether or not to accept it. There are consequences to
this decision. That's not God threatening us; it simply reflects how God
has made the universe. We all have the opportunity to be adopted as sons
and daughters of God; but we aren't forced to. We can go our own way
instead.
Bill Samuel
>of the faith in practice. What is needed is a middle way where faith
>in Christ on the part of some members is allowed to support them in
>their communion with "god" and spoken in such a way that the theme is
>not seen as divisive. Similarly, others should express their ministry
>in such a way as not to deny the validity of Christian (or any other)
>beliefs held by others in the room.
>
it. But it is a snare. What is attractive is not necessarily what is
true. I am reminded of the message to the angel of the church in Laodicea:
>Rev. 3:15-16 (NIV)
> I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were
>either one or the other! [16] So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot
>nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
Or as Eugene Peterson renders it in The Message version:
> "I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not
>cold, you're not hot庸ar better to be either cold or hot! [16] You're
>stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.
maureen Allen
Luc Schneider <lu...@hermes.ceps.lu> wrote in article
<68h0ai$gdn$1...@caladan.restena.lu>...
>
> maureen Allen wrote in message <68glu9$c...@mtinsc03.worldnet.att.net>...
> >
> >
> >DCMcKeever <dcmck...@aol.com> wrote in article
> ><19980101160...@ladder02.news.aol.com>...
> >
> > What does it mean to be Christian? I consider Quakers to be
> > Christian, but not in the traditional meaning. .....I have no belief
> > in the orthodoxy of beliefs that most "Christians" require -virgin
> >birth, divinity of Jesus, resurection, assention,the Trinity
> >(Father, Son, and Male Holy Spirit), and the requirement to be
> >> "born again" according to their formula. I don't have a sense that
this
> >is
> >> really important. .....
> >
> > DC McKeever, I ask in all sincereity,why do you
> > say you are a christian, when you do not believe the
> > the very foundation of christian faith?
> >
> Luc Schneider wrote:
. To grasp the meaning (i.e. the Spirit) is difficult if one sticks
to terminology.
I think that the words of Jesus are simple to understand.
> Maybe it is not helpful to emphasize "standards" (dogmas) too much.
Almost
> every Christian could be declared a non-Christian depending on the
> "standards" (dogmas) you choose.
Believing the Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and
that "nonone cometh unto my Father but by me" is a simple
faith.
>
> Should we see Ebionites, Cathars or Socinians (Unitarians) as the
children
> of Satan ? And if we did, would we not be the heirs of Torquemada ?
>
Explain these more. And what is Torquemada ?
As you know Paul said "Even Satan disguises himself as an
angel of light, Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also
disguise themselves as servants of rightousness"
> Well, I also believe that the Bible is the expression of a timeless
Truth.
The Inspired Word of God and the guidance of the Holy
Spirit (through Jesus Christ) are the only ways we have
to know Gods Word.
>. To honour the letter more than the Spirit is a sin
(and, as we know, the only one which cannot be
> forgiven).
I will let God the Father,God the Son, and God the Holy
Spirit discern who has committed the unpardonable
sin. The only way a believer can be forgiven for resisting
the Holy Spirit is to embrace Jesus Christ to whom the
Spirit bears witness.
> Finally it may also be useful to distinguish between the Gospel (the
Truth
> above all words) and the Nicean declaration of faith (established by
> mortals). It is possible to reject the latter *and* to believe that
Jesus is
> the living expression of the Divine Love.
Of course you can believe that Jesus is the living expression
of Divine Love, but he is also our Saving Grace.
> Excommunication is a bad custom. Perhaps we should be more Friend-ly
than
> that...
George Fox : Concerning the Holy Scriptures we do believe
that they were given forth by the Holy Spirit of God, through
the Holy men of God... we believe they are to be read,believed
and fulfilled (He that fulfills them is Christ)
Letter to Barbados,1671
maureen Allen
Bill Samuel <wsa...@cpcug.org> wrote in article
<68hg5o$2lr$3...@news2.digex.net>...
> In article <199801012...@lightnet.co.uk>, Alan Rayner
<al...@lightnet.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >This raises two interesting aspects.
> >
> >a) Maureen appears to be encouraging others to follow the path of
> > Christ as it will lead to eternal life.
> >
> >b) Maureen has been ordered to love.
> >
> >This seems a bit odd to me.
> >
> >If love is to be of value it surely must come from the heart and
> >be freely given by the person - not be the result of an "order" from
> >Christ or anyone else.
> >
> Jesus clearly emphasized the importance of it coming from the heart.
That
> is not inconsistent with it being the mandate of a Christian. Real love
is
> from the heart. Jesus called us to that real love, not just to some
> outward practices which looked like love.
>
> >There seems also to be a tendency towards the "earning a reward"
> >syndrome in that a primary motivation for following Christ is either
> >being "saved" or to reach "eternal life".
> >
> Eternal life can be viewed in a much broader sense than simply as a
reward
> after we die. It can mean, and Maureen's words seemed to convey that to
> me, a union with God that begins in this life and continues after. And
> salvation is freely offered; but we need to accept it.
>
> Bill Samuel, Landover Hills, MD, USA wsa...@cpcug.org
> Co-founder, Friends in Christ, 301-773-8007 24 hrs. a day
> Inactive member, Adelphi MM, BYM; Affiliate, Rockingham MM, Ohio YM
> Quaker links + more at homepage: http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/
> "There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."
>
Thank you for giving clarity Bill, as you and many others
understand my intent if not my clarity. Eternal life in itself
is not a reward. Eternal life with Jesus, is a reward.
After I wrote * ordered* I questioned whether to change it
or not, but decided to keep it as is, as I know I have not
yet mastered the love which Thomas Merton describes
in No Man is an Island, but I believe Jesus knows the
sincerity with which I am trying to overcome my selfishness.
Friend Maureen
Bill Samuel
In article <34AC65...@globalsite.net>, medl...@globalsite.net wrote:
>A great approach might be to go back to see what Quakerism originally
>was all about: What did the early Quakers say themselves brought them
>into the Life and Power that made them Quakers. I suspect that Friends
>of all backgrounds might be surprised at the answers. If you just try to
>find this out from a Yearly Meeting Faith & Practice or one book or
>books from ome publisher or tradition, you will get a slanted and
>distorted view that does not represent Truth. But if you are willing to
>dig a little, the experience could be life-transforming. I would like to
>suggest my own book, BORN AGAIN QUAKERS, as one source, which tried to
>go back and look at what set the early Quakers apart from other
>Christians. But though I tried to be objective, my own bias shows
>through just like everyone else's in their books. The only way to be
>fair and honest is to use several sources with different perspectives.
>(BAQ is available through Quaker Hill Bookstore or from Quaker House
>Publishers, PO Box 334, Lynn, IN. 47355.) -Bill Medlin
Another suggestion would be using Wilmer Cooper's book, A Living Faith: An
Historical Study of Quaker Beliefs (Friends United Press, 1990), available
through Quaker Hill Bookstore and other Quaker bookstores. You can reach
Quaker Hill Bookstore through <http://www.fum.org>. For a list of major
Friends bookstores, go to <http://cpcug.org/user/wsamuel/qbook.html>.
Peggy Lipscomb
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting developed a series of "courses" called
Quakerism 101 and 102. I've "done" 101, and it was very well thought
out. I believe there's only a nominal charge for one master copy of
the material (which you are allowed to copy for your participants).
Also, there's a lot of suggested (and some "required") reading. It
would be a help, I think.
B Medlin <medl...@globalsite.net> wrote:
>DCMcKeever wrote:
>>
>> During the next year, as part of first hour (adult ed.), we will be doing
>> several studies. One is a new testiment bible study, one is a study of the
>> queries and ways to use them, another is a searching for the common ground
>> between the various branches of Quakerism and trying to discern "the place
>> where the words come from." - all as part of an overall desire to nuture the
>> faith community that we are a part of here. We have strongly Christo-centric
>> members, Universalist members, agnostic members, members who have been very
>> hurt by fundamentalist upbringings, etc. I feel very unprepared to be the
>> facilitator for this undertaking, and wonder if anyone on this list has had
>> experiences or suggestions which might help.
>>
>> Diana Corry McKeever
>> Nashville Friends Meeting
Peggy Lipscomb
I have been attending Quaker Meetings for 3-4 years now. I've
subscribed to the Journal, gone to retreats & study groups, etc., but
I have never been able to figure out what a Universalist friend is.
What does a Universalist friend believe? I ask because I have been
somewhat disconcerted in the last year to find that there are a quite
a few Quakers who are non-theist (not just agnostic but atheist). I
have had people tell me that in their clearness committee for meeting
membership the subject of a belief in God never came up. I would hate
to see Quakerism go the way of the Episcopal Church (from whence I
came), which seems to have altogether lost its identity in trying so
hard to be all things to all people.
Bruce Hawkins <bhaw...@sophia.smith.edu> wrote:
>On 1 Jan 1998, maureen Allen wrote:
>> As an Evangelical Friend I believe that God (through the
>> Holy Spirit) can speak to me personally. However the
>> Holy Spirit will never say anything that will contradict the
>> teachings of Jesus, and the New Testament. Friend Maureen
>>
>As a Universalist Friend, this is also very close to my experience. My
>understanding of Universalism is that God's Grace and Mercy are available
>to all persons, and this is my understanding of Jesus' teachings.
> Love,
>--
>Bruce bhaw...@sophia.smith.edu Northampton (Mass) Friends Meeting
>support the Peace Tax Fund: http://www.nonviolence.org/peacetax/
>support conscientious War Tax Resistance: nwt...@igc.apc.org
Charley Earp
In article <68hfp8$2lr$2...@news2.digex.net>, wsa...@cpcug.org (Bill Samuel)
wrote:
> I'm a Christian who finds
> particular meaning in certain testimonies and practices emphasized by
> Friends, not a Quaker who happens to be Christian.
I am a Christian who happens to be a Universalist! For over 20 years of my
life, I believed the "orthodox" dogmas - creationism, trinity,
incarnation, resurrection, hell, heaven, etc. However, while I was flat on
my back with a pinched nerve, PTSD, depression, and various other ailments
brought on by a fanatical religious addiction, I dreamed the face of Jesus
telling me that it was time to stop judging others on the basis of
dogmatism, but rather on the basis of universal love.
I can't claim that this was an infallible revelation, but it has saved me
from the self-destruction that my former fanaticism was causing. I am a
christocentric universalist on the basis of my belief that an eternal
conscious punishment for anyone, even Hitler or Stalin, is a sadistic,
self-loathing dogma based on a misreading of the Judaic culture of the
first century.
--
==================================================
Charley Earp <visi...@interaccess.com>
Phone: (773)764-6126
"This bluegreen ball in blackspace/
Filled with beauty even now/
battered and abused and lovely."
--Bruce Cockburn
EVolkel
In article <visionry-020...@d149.maxtnt.interaccess.com>,
visi...@interaccess.com (Charley Earp) writes:
>In article <68hfp8$2lr$2...@news2.digex.net>, wsa...@cpcug.org (Bill
>Samuel)
wrote:
> I'm a Christian who finds
> particular meaning in certain
>testimonies and practices emphasized by
> Friends, not a Quaker who happens
>to be Christian.
(and Charlie responds:)
>I am a Christian who happens to be a Universalist!
I have struggled all of my life with what I have lately come to think of as an
obsession with God. I have tried denying God, even tried what is often termed
an atheistic religion (Buddhism, although I am not entirely sure that the claim
is accurate). For years I claimed to be a Christian, but floundered while
looking for a church in which I could associate. Lately I have found it
impossible to call myself anything but a Quaker, even though I could probably
still describe myself as a Christian if pressed on the matter. The conclusion
that I have reached is that labels are truly worthless and serve more towards
division than meaningful dialogue. This entire christo-centric vs.
universalistic issue is lamentable and ill-advised.
People use these labels as a means to dismiss others; once we can identify a
thing we can neatly tuck it away and ignore further interaction and discourse.
We just simply say, "Ah, yes, she is but a Christian and can be safely
ignored," or "She is but a universalist," etc. Jesus Christ was so dynamic and
powerful and wonderful and so unlike so many who claim to be his followers. Of
course this is to be expected because we are frail and fallible humans and
sometimes we are just simply unable to meet the ideals of our goals.
Nevertheless, whenever Christians begin to whine about how others mistreat them
and they begin to defend Christianity through such earnest pleas and posturing
I must sadly shake my head and contemplate the Lord who, when condemned,
remained silent. Kierkegaard has some interesting things to say about this
subject:
"Now we see how extraordinarily stupid (so that there can still be a remnant
of something extraordinary) it is to defend Christianity, how little knowledge
of human nature it manifests, how it connives even if unconsciously, with
offense by making Christianity out to be some poor miserable thing that in the
end has to be rescued by a champion. Therefore, it is certain and true that
the first one to come up with the idea of defending Christianity in Christendom
is de facto a Judas No. 2: he, too, betrays with a kiss, except that his
treason is the treason of stupidity. To defend something is always to
disparage it. Suppose that someone has a warehouse full of gold, and suppose
he is willing to give every ducat to the poot -- but in addition, suppose he is
stupid enough to begin this charitable enterprise of his with a defense in
which he justifies it on three grounds: people will almost come to doubt that
he is doing any good. As for Christianity! Well, he who defends it has never
believed it. If he believes, then the enthusiasm of faith is not a defense --
no, it is attack and victory; a believer is a victor." The Sickness Unto Death,
A Christian Psychological Exposition for Upbuilding and Awakening, Soren
Kierkegaard, Princeton U Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1980, p 87
"...do you believe that a lover would ever think of conducting a defense of his
being in love, that is, admit that to him it was not the absolute,
unconditionally the absolute, but that he thought of it as being in a class
with arguments against it and on that basis developed a defense; that is, do
you believe that he could or would confess that he was not in love, inform
against himself that he was not in love? And if someone were to suggest to a
lover that he speak this way, do you not believe that the lover would consider
him crazy; and if besides being in love he was also something of an observer,
do you not think he would suspect that the person suggesting this to him had
never known what love is or wanted him to betray and deny his love -- by
defending it? Is it not obvious that the person who is really in love would
never dream of wanting to prove it by three reasons or to defend it, for he is
something that is more than all reason and any defense: he is in love. Anyone
who does it is not in love; he merely pretends to be, and unfortunately -- or
fortunately --he is so stupid that he merely informs against himself as not
being in love.
"But this is just exactly the way they speak about Christianity, these
believing pastors; they either "defend" Christianity or transpose it into
"reasons," if they do not go further and tinker speculatively with
"comprehending" it. ..ibid, pgs 103-104
I often see posters talk about being offended concerning how they are treated,
and I see them defending their faith and, almost like children jumping up and
down stomping and in a fit, claiming that Christianity is the very mostest
"true" religion in the whole wide world. On the other hand, I very rarely see
people see conduct communication in an experiential mode by explicating what
Jesus means to them personally. I very rarely see expressed any examples of
this love relationship. This seems so very odd to me in a quaker newsgroup
since quakers have historically emphasized the "experimental" quality of their
spirituality. Claiming that Christianity is "truth" does little to establish
its veracity; establish its truth by demonstrating that you are truly in love
with Christ -- show us by example!
"Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you, revile you,
and defame you an account of the Son of Man. Rejoice in that day and leap for
joy, for surely your reward is great in heaven; for that is what their
ancestors did to the prophets... But I say to you that listen, Love your
eemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for
those who abuse you... love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing
in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most
High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as
your Father is merciful. Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not
condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven;
give, and it will be given to you. vs Luke 6.22-23, 27-28, 35-37 NRSV
(This shouldn't be construed that universalists are the enemies of Christians,
but rather that if love is due our enemies, surely we can give nothing less to
our Friends. I see little of Christ's love but a great deal of the other stuff
as we pontificate on who should allowed to be Quakers, who are the real
Quakers, who follows the "right" religion, etc. Sometimes it seems to me that
we are building anew the tower of Babel and that God must once again come down
and confound our language. Hang the words, throw away the labels, rather,
settle down into the life, look towards the Light and find that experience that
transcends all words. When we find that presence deep within our human breast,
which some call Christ and some by another name, we find that we have no need
to defend our experience because our feeling of love and delight transcends the
need for argumentation. Let us be known by our love, not by our love for
pugnacious insistence upon imposing labels.)
in peace and grace
eric
Dave Moorman
>> I do know that
>> as a Christian, Christ will save me, and as I do know
>> that this path is true, and Christ has ordered me to
>> love my fellow man, I will beckon all to follow the
>> one path I am assured (through Christ) is the road
>> eternal life with God.
>> Friend Maureen
>>
>
>This raises two interesting aspects.
>
>a) Maureen appears to be encouraging others to follow the path of
> Christ as it will lead to eternal life.
>
>b) Maureen has been ordered to love.
>
>This seems a bit odd to me.
>
>If love is to be of value it surely must come from the heart and
>be freely given by the person - not be the result of an "order" from
>Christ or anyone else.
It's one of those "orders" that you are very glad to obey!
DCMcKeever
Maureen,
I've been sitting with how to answer your question. I'm not sure I am a
"Christian" by your criteria. But if "Christian" means trying to follow the
teachings of Jesus, then does orthodoxy (right belief) matter? If Jesus were
the illegitimate result of a rape (as some Bible scholars think) who's legend
was added after his death, as it is for many historical figures, does this
change his message? "Love God, love your neighbors, love yourself, take care
of each other. You can meet God here and now." Isn't it just as miraculous that
God could work through such an ordinary human. That you have these beliefs
from within I don't doubt. But if I am forced into "correct belief" without it
coming from the inner light, isn't that a betrayal of what God has given me.
If I have no knowledge of, or desire for, "heaven or hell", no understanding of
the other orthodoxies ( which change from church to church), no belief in the
violent, petty God of the Old Testiment, and no understanding of a religion
based on blood sacrifice, can't I still follow the teachings of Jesus? Wasn't
Jesus's message about relationship with God and transformation from that
relationship? This is one ot the things I feel led to explore - what are the
common points between the branches of Quakerism and is there a way to meet for
dialogue?
Diana Corry McKeever
Nashville Monthly Meeting
Dave Moorman
>I have been attending Quaker Meetings for 3-4 years now. I've
>subscribed to the Journal, gone to retreats & study groups, etc., but
>I have never been able to figure out what a Universalist friend is.
>What does a Universalist friend believe? I ask because I have been
>somewhat disconcerted in the last year to find that there are a quite
>a few Quakers who are non-theist (not just agnostic but atheist). I
>have had people tell me that in their clearness committee for meeting
>membership the subject of a belief in God never came up. I would hate
>to see Quakerism go the way of the Episcopal Church (from whence I
>came), which seems to have altogether lost its identity in trying so
>hard to be all things to all people.
The unexpected aspect of this situation is that most univeralist Friends
are pretty much Christian. The one that I know were raised as Christians.
Some had spiritually fruitless but formative experiences growing up in
Christian churches and really appreciate a spiritual home which is
Spirit-centered and not dogma- or authority-centered. Others, one of whom
is the child of a minister, have come to realize that God loves everyone,
not just Christians, and that He will find you, even if you are a Moslem,
Hindu, or Jew.
Luc Schneider
maureen Allen wrote in message <68hma0$s...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>
>Luc Schneider <lu...@hermes.ceps.lu> wrote in article
><68h0ai$gdn$1...@caladan.restena.lu>...
>>
> > . To grasp the meaning (i.e. the Spirit) is difficult if one sticks
> > to terminology.
>
> I think that the words of Jesus are simple to understand.
Yes and no. Maybe it takes a whole life to understand them. Well,
i agree that i am a very stupid person.
>> Maybe it is not helpful to emphasize "standards" (dogmas) too much.
>>Almost every Christian could be declared a non-Christian depending on the
>> "standards" (dogmas) you choose.
>
> Believing the Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Light, and
> that "nonone cometh unto my Father but by me" is a simple
> faith.
This seems to me also the essence of our faith !
By "dogmas" i did not mean such simple and essential truths as the one
you mentioned, but the man-made theological elaboration of the simple
teaching of Jesus and the apostles.
>> Should we see Ebionites, Cathars or Socinians (Unitarians) as the
>> children of Satan ? And if we did, would we not be the heirs of
>> Torquemada ?
>
> Explain these more. And what is Torquemada ?
> As you know Paul said "Even Satan disguises himself as an
> angel of light, Therefore it is not surprising if his servants also
> disguise themselves as servants of rightousness"
The Ebionites were a Jewish-Christian sect which did not believe that Jesus
is the Son of God. The Cathars, a sect which flourished in the Middle
Ages, believed that there are two divinities: God and the Devil; the world
(of matter),
in their opinion, was created by the latter. Torquemada was the head of the
Spanish Inquisition in his time.
What i meant is not that we should not contradict those we think
are dwelling in error. But it could be that a person expresses simple
truths in a very excentric way. I did not mean that we should tolerate
every opinion - we should have the patience to listen.
>> Well, I also believe that the Bible is the expression of a timeless
>> Truth.
>
> The Inspired Word of God and the guidance of the Holy
> Spirit (through Jesus Christ) are the only ways we have
> to know Gods Word.
Once again i agree completely with you.
But perhaps we should not forget that even an author inspired
by God is limited by his mortal understanding and his
mortal language.
That's why we have to rely on "the guidance of the Holy
Spirit (through Jesus Christ)".
>>. To honour the letter more than the Spirit is a sin
>> (and, as we know, the only one which cannot be
>> forgiven).
>
> I will let God the Father,God the Son, and God the Holy
> Spirit discern who has committed the unpardonable
> sin. The only way a believer can be forgiven for resisting
> the Holy Spirit is to embrace Jesus Christ to whom the
> Spirit bears witness.
You are right.
>> Finally it may also be useful to distinguish between the Gospel (the
>Truth
>> above all words) and the Nicean declaration of faith (established by
>> mortals). It is possible to reject the latter *and* to believe that
>Jesus is
>> the living expression of the Divine Love.
>
> Of course you can believe that Jesus is the living expression
> of Divine Love, but he is also our Saving Grace.
Yes !
>> Excommunication is a bad custom. Perhaps we should be more Friend-ly
>> than that...
>
> George Fox : Concerning the Holy Scriptures we do believe
> that they were given forth by the Holy Spirit of God, through
> the Holy men of God... we believe they are to be read,believed
> and fulfilled (He that fulfills them is Christ)
> Letter to Barbados,1671
Quoting this sentence (which cannot be contradicted) is not replying to what
i meant. I did not mean that we are allowed to tolerate every opinion.
But we should be careful to reject words which seem excentric
or non-biblical to us. I did not mean that as Christians we could reject the
Bible as something old-fashioned. But we have to rely on our Inner Light
in order to understand the Scriptures.
Guy Macon
>
>> First, Alan, I am among those who believe that those Friends trying to
>> "de-Christianize" the Society of Friends are simply hijacking a deeply
>> Christian movement, in the name of present-day thinking.
>
>Dear Timothy
>
>awhile there were only TWO of us (Christian Quakers) at the meeting,and
>there was MUCH discussion about how too much Christian terminology was
>somehow insulting to the non-Christians in the world. When the OTHER
>Christian left, I was the only person who EVER read from the Bible
>during worship. That's why I left; I felt the need for a more Christ
>centered worship experience. I now attend (with my wife) a Lutheran
>church.
>
>> experience has been that the "respect" shown such Christian Friends is
>> only there when the Christian Friends keep their mouths shut.
>
>recognized that I was a Christian, and they never showed me the least
>inspired OTHERS to break the silence with comments from THEIR point of
>view.
>
>doesn't. The anti-Christian bias at my meeting was more general; MY
>Christ from the Faith in Practice. THAT, I disagreed with.
Just so that those who are reading can get a good idea of the diversity
among Friends, let me describe my first visit to Yorba Linda Friends
church in Yorba Linda, California.
(Actually, I will describe my second visit. I was only 15 minutes early
the first time and there was no room for another person in the meeting,
or in the overflow rooms where the service was reproduced on projection
television screens).
I arrived nice and early and negotiated the major traffic jam caused by
the previous service letting out. One of the churches parking enforcement
officers guided me to an empty parking place in a large lot, and I took
the long walk to the meeting house. There were a *lot* of other people
going the same way.
I found a seat in a large auditorium, and experienced the following:
[1] A pastor giving a very good evangelical sermon calling all there to
follow Jesus Christ and accept him as Saviour, with practical advice
on how to avoid sin and to love one another.
[2] Traditional hymns led by a group of what sounded like profesional
vocalists, with a band consisting of Piano, Organ, Lead Guitar,
Rhythm Guitar, and (if I remember correctly) Drums and Synth.
I didn't pay much attention, as this is normal for any kind of
Southern California megachurch. A special display projected the
words on both side walls.
[3] A very touching performance where a dancer did a Ballet as a passage
from the Bible was read. She designed that dance as an interpetation
of that passage, and it showed. On another day this might have been
a poet or a display of a computer generated multimedia video.
[4] An opportunity to join in with any of dozens of small groups meeting
in various rooms that day. There were groups sorted by age, interest,
theology discussions, prayer meetings, etc.
[5] A short time of prayer. In many programmed meetings there is a short
silent period, but I have never seen it reach five minutes.
Of course, just a few miles away is a traditional unprogrammed silent
meeting. You would hardly believe that they are the same religion,
but they are!
Guy Macon
In article <34adb45a...@NNTP.netcomuk.co.uk>, oldt...@pobox.com wrote:
>
>In my attempts to evaluate whether or not I could become a Friend in any
>sense that would be useful to myself and/or others, I find this post
>difficult to understand. It seems different in spirit somehow to most of
>what is written here.
Welcome to Quaker Diversity! There is a HUGE range of opinions in this
newsgroup, and in the RSOF. Some try to exclude others, but usually have
only local sucess. If we had a central priesthood, then we could do as
other denominations do and kick entire groups out, but we don't so we
can't. The best that we can do is to have a bunch of different Yearly
Meetings, and affiliate with the one that most closly matches our position.
I *love* it!
Glenn S.
In article <68ennf$j8f$3...@news2.digex.net>, wsa...@cpcug.org says...
>
>
>Who among Friends, for example, would argue that we should not exclude
>someone from membership who actively practiced and promoted the torture of
>other persons because of their race?
>
14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
also forgive you:
15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father
forgive your trespasses.
Matt 6:14-15(KJV)
Ol'Timer
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>Of course, just a few miles away is a traditional unprogrammed silent
>meeting. You would hardly believe that they are the same religion,
>but they are!
This message speaks deeply to me. I have sometimes wondered if we might do
well never to use the word "Belief." What we (I?) experience seems to me
to be what matters. I always seize the chance, now seldom alas, to enter
any great cathedral during any kind of service. If it is choral I
invariably find that god is there. Just as she is if I enter an empty
cathedral and listen to the silence. He is with me the same if I meditate
in my quiet room, and the same, more easily noticed perhaps, when I am
lucky enough to be able to meditate with others. And yet, miraculously,
though the same in each situation she is also quite different. I find that
now I am older I cannot be bothered with what I believe, which always
turns out to be horrendously complex - what I experience is the nub of the
matter.
--
Regards,
Ol'Timer.
Ol'Timer
guym...@deltanet.com (Guy Macon) wrote:
>Welcome to Quaker Diversity! There is a HUGE range of opinions in this
>newsgroup, and in the RSOF. Some try to exclude others, but usually have
>only local sucess. If we had a central priesthood, then we could do as
>other denominations do and kick entire groups out, but we don't so we
>can't. The best that we can do is to have a bunch of different Yearly
>Meetings, and affiliate with the one that most closly matches our position.
>
>I *love* it!
Thank you, Guy. I believe that I might be able to love it as well. It is
the politics of these positions that bother me. I have grown accustomed to
thinking that seekers after the spiritual cannot also engage in anything
political (using the word in a broad sense.) Politics whether in
government or church affairs have to encompass the art of expediency, but
god (for me) is whatever is eternal. I find I cannot even express my
difficulty at the moment. I shall listen to you all and see if it
resolves.
--
Regards,
Ol'Timer.
Ol'Timer
evo...@aol.com (EVolkel) wrote:
>I just rewatched the movie Gandhi and cried quite a bit as I saw how the power
>of love worked through him.
He once said that there is nothing we can do that will ever change
anything, but that it is of the utmost importance that we should continue
to try. I hear in this the profoundest wisdom - in fact the still small
voice of god.
--
Regards,
Ol'Timer.
CHUCKFAGER
As long as we're mentioning books as possible resources fro Diana McKeever's
"first hour" series, I'll include mine: 'Without Apology: the Heroes, the
Heritage and the Hope of Liberal Quakerism."
Diana, the title indicates that the book has a definite point of view (as
do the others mentioned here), and it also attempts to place Liberal Quakerism
(which is roughly approximate to what you've got in nashville Meeting) in both
historical and theological context, answering some criticisms, and examining
possible bases for interbranch communication.
It also includes a number of jokes to lighten the load. (And be warned;
there is a fictional quote near the beginning atttributed to Elias Hicks which
is part ofthe humor, not the history. This for the benefit of literalists
among you.)
You can get "Without Apology" from the Pendle Hill Bookstore
1-800-742-3150.
Peace,
Chuck
Diana McKeever wrote:
>>> During the next year, as part of first hour (adult ed.), we will be doing
>>> several studies. One is a new testiment bible study, one is a study of
>the
>>> queries and ways to use them, another is a searching for the common
>ground
>>> between the various branches of Quakerism and trying to discern "the place
>>> where the words come from." - all as part of an overall desire to nuture
>the
>>> faith community that we are a part of here. We have strongly
>Christo-centric
>>> members, Universalist members, agnostic members, members who have been
>very
>>> hurt by fundamentalist upbringings, etc. I feel very unprepared to be the
>>> facilitator for this undertaking, and wonder if anyone on this list has
>had
>>> experiences or suggestions which might help.
Chuck Fager
-----------------------------------------------
For informative and provocative articles and books on Quakerism,
check out the Kimo Press website at:
http://www.kimopress.com
JM
On Fri, 02 Jan 1998 04:10:57 GMT, wsa...@cpcug.org (Bill Samuel)
wrote:
>Another suggestion would be using Wilmer Cooper's book, A Living Faith: An
>Historical Study of Quaker Beliefs (Friends United Press, 1990), available
Another suggestion: William Penn wrote it down very simply. I don't
think you really need to read more than that.
Cmgreenlnd
>The conclusion
>that I have reached is that labels are truly worthless and serve more towards
>division than meaningful dialogue. This entire christo-centric vs.
>universalistic issue is lamentable and ill-advised.
>
>People use these labels as a means to dismiss others; once we can identify a
>thing we can neatly tuck it away and ignore further interaction and
>discourse.
>We just simply say, "Ah, yes, she is but a Christian and can be safely
>ignored," or "She is but a universalist," etc. Jesus Christ was so dynamic
>and powerful and wonderful and so unlike so many who claim to be his
followers.
>Of course this is to be expected because we are frail and fallible humans and
>sometimes we are just simply unable to meet the ideals of our goals.
>Nevertheless, whenever Christians begin to whine about how others mistreat
>them and they begin to defend Christianity through such earnest pleas and
>posturing I must sadly shake my head and contemplate the Lord who, when
>condemned, remained silent.
Thanks so much, Eric. It gives one pause to determine whether "i" am really
following Christ rather than being concerned about whether others are or
aren't.
Christine M. Greenland
Horsham MM, PhYM;
(affiliate, Stillwater MM, OYM)
****
"Art thou a child of the Light? Art thou in the Light?
What canst thou say? Is it inwardly from God?" George Fox
Cmgreenlnd
>On 1 Jan 1998, maureen Allen wrote:
>> As an Evangelical Friend I believe that God (through the
>> Holy Spirit) can speak to me personally. However the
>> Holy Spirit will never say anything that will contradict the
>> teachings of Jesus, and the New Testament. Friend Maureen
>>
>As a Universalist Friend, this is also very close to my experience. My
>understanding of Universalism is that God's Grace and Mercy are available
>to all persons, and this is my understanding of Jesus' teachings.
>
Both Friends speak my mind.
As someone who has come through several traditions on the way to where I now
am, I can attest to the great difficulty many of us have when those whom we
expect to accept our beliefs cannot do so without passing judgement upon others
who aren't in the same place.
It seems Jesus had the same difficulties with those who'd missed the point,
too. He was prone to sitting down for supper with (GASP!) sinners. Thank God!
I'd be out in the cold gnashing my teeth, too, if he hadn't.
Divisiveness just serves to divide, no matter which side of the divide we
happen to be on. Unity, I was reminded in a telephone conversation this
morning, can only come from One Source, not several opinions about what how the
source is best expressed.
Simon Gray
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Down on soc.religion.quaker street, the vibe from Alan Rayner is:
~ I would like to gain a wider perspective on this. Does anyone else have
~ experience of a lack of respect (as opposed to a difference of opinion)
~ between Christian and non-Christian "factions" at meetings?
Certainly none of the ones *I* have ever been to.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.0
Charset: noconv
iQA/AwUBNK0oPkdRFO5sC2Q6EQLLeQCcCDSgF1qDoNkIImR/Xa35JHdGsb0AoMgj
f7Kg4GeLKnNzPw/pO/W9/JPg
=Xs76
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
"The world is divided into 2 camps: tossers, & non-tossers. Membership of either
is in no way dependent on your race, creed, sex, sexuality, or appearance"
http://www.mahayana.demon.co.uk/ - hugh davies
Bill Samuel
In article <68hrqm$e...@camel21.mindspring.com>, mtl...@mindspring.com wrote:
>I have been attending Quaker Meetings for 3-4 years now. I've
>subscribed to the Journal, gone to retreats & study groups, etc., but
>I have never been able to figure out what a Universalist friend is.
>What does a Universalist friend believe? I ask because I have been
>somewhat disconcerted in the last year to find that there are a quite
>a few Quakers who are non-theist (not just agnostic but atheist). I
>have had people tell me that in their clearness committee for meeting
>membership the subject of a belief in God never came up. I would hate
>to see Quakerism go the way of the Episcopal Church (from whence I
>came), which seems to have altogether lost its identity in trying so
>hard to be all things to all people.
>
different directions. The two largest streams are unequivocally Christian.
Are there several meetings close enough to you that you could attend? You
might be able to find one that is much more theist than the one you're
attending.
If you find ten different Friends who say they're "universalist" probably
they'll have ten different beliefs.
Bill Samuel
In article <34acae58...@NNTP.netcomuk.co.uk>, oldt...@pobox.com (Ol'Timer) wrote:
>To avoid more than one post where I am not entirely sure that even one is
>appropriate, may I ask that I be told if putative Friends ought not to
>post here but just to listen? I will say at once that I greatly enjoy my
>listening in this place, and have gained much increased tranquillity from
>it.
You're welcome to post here.
Dave Moorman
In article <34acfe9f...@NNTP.netcomuk.co.uk>, Ol'Timer
<oldt...@pobox.com> wrote:
>This message speaks deeply to me. I have sometimes wondered if we might do
>well never to use the word "Belief." What we (I?) experience seems to me
>to be what matters. I always seize the chance, now seldom alas, to enter
>any great cathedral during any kind of service. If it is choral I
>invariably find that god is there. Just as she is if I enter an empty
>cathedral and listen to the silence. He is with me the same if I meditate
>in my quiet room, and the same, more easily noticed perhaps, when I am
>lucky enough to be able to meditate with others. And yet, miraculously,
>though the same in each situation she is also quite different. I find that
>now I am older I cannot be bothered with what I believe, which always
>turns out to be horrendously complex - what I experience is the nub of the
>matter.
Truthfully spoken, Ol' Timer
Bill Samuel
are called to forgive everyone, we're called to admit everyone into
membership?
Glenn S.
In article <68iq61$a...@mtinsc04.worldnet.att.net>,
Glenn...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>In article <68ennf$j8f$3...@news2.digex.net>, wsa...@cpcug.org says...
>>
>>
>>Who among Friends, for example, would argue that we should not exclude
>>someone from membership who actively practiced and promoted the torture of
>>other persons because of their race?
>>
>
>
>
>14 For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will
>also forgive you:
>15 But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your
Father
>forgive your trespasses.
> Matt 6:14-15(KJV)
>
>
Dear Friends,
Please understand that I am just learning about Quakers. What I was
expressing was that, if someone had sincerely repented from a sin and God
had forgiven them, it doesn’t seem Christ like to continue to penalize them
for that sin. In fact, if we do that, will we be forgiven for our sins?
I am not trying to be a "smarty pants", I just want to learn as much
as I can about Quakerism, because I enjoy it’s services more than any I have
ever been to.
Sincerely,
Glenn
ECrownfiel
>wsa...@cpcug.org (Bill Samuel) wrote:
>The "middle way" is very attractive and seems to have a lot to recommend
>it. But it is a snare. What is attractive is not necessarily what is
>true. I am reminded of the message to the angel of the church in Laodicea:
>
>>Rev. 3:15-16 (NIV)
>> I know your deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were
>>either one or the other! [16] So, because you are lukewarm--neither hot
>>nor cold--I am about to spit you out of my mouth.
>
>Or as Eugene Peterson renders it in The Message version:
>
>> "I know you inside and out, and find little to my liking. You're not
>>cold, you're not hot庸ar better to be either cold or hot! [16] You're
>>stale. You're stagnant. You make me want to vomit.
>In my attempts to evaluate whether or not I could become a Friend in any sense
>that would be useful to myself and/or others, I find this post difficult to
>understand. It seems different in spirit somehow to most of what is written
>here. If I were to become a Friend it would certainly be in the hope that
>such an orientation would assist me in seeing that nothing of god's creation
>was too hot or too cold or 'vomit making.' If anyone feels it worth while I
>would appreciate tuition on this point.
Here's my take on it. First, unlike Bill, I am in the universalist camp. But
I can see some real truth in these quotes.
There are people, some of whom would call themselves universalists, who are
equally ready to believe anything or nothing to suit themselves. NOT all
universalists are in this category, though it sometimes may appear that way to
non-universalists! I don't believe God calls us to be undiscriminating,
thoughtless, namby-pamby, or wishy-washy. I believe that people who are
universalists simply because they think it's an easy way to keep all the bases
covered, or because they can't be bothered to work at discerning the truth, are
gravely mistaken. (I wouldn't personally use the word "vomit" about them; it's
obviously meant to be a provocative translation.)
What I do believe is that there is such a thing as Truth, and that Truth finds
expression in various different ways. Whether we are Christians, Muslims,
Buddhists, universalists, or anything else, it is our task to seek that Truth.
My own belief is that the Truth is what I call God, and that different aspects
of it are glimpsed by people of different religions. But that is very
different from saying it doesn't matter what you believe!
So, in short, I agree with Bill that the idea of "compromising" on belief has
no meaning.
On a much earlier thread, someone told a story about two Quaker kids having an
argument over whether 2 + 2 = 4 or 5, and one of them suggesting a compromise.
Here's a little bit more elaborate version that just came to me: Suppose I am
talking to someone who says that the square root of 4 is 2. Another person
comes along and says the square root of 4 is -2. In one sense the first is
right, in another sense both are right. But anyone who tried to find a "middle
road" between them and claim that the square root of 4 was 0 (or that, since
there was more than one opinion, it could be any number you chose) would be
both wrong and foolish.
Elizabeth Crownfield