 |
QuakerInfo.com Forum
A place to discuss Quakers and Quakerism
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 3, 2011 6:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| james wrote: |
| I have heard Friends distinguish conscience from the inward light in that way before, Anthony, but I find it unconvincing. My conscience is definitely more than the product of my conditioning, though conditioning plays a part. It is also the natural outcome of being a creature with feelings, and recognizing that other creatures have feelings, too. Once a person recognizes that obvious truth at a deep level, conscience becomes far more than conditioning; it becomes as natural as hunger, as fear, as breathing. Following it can be difficult, but all of us recognize it when we pay attention to our own hearts. |
James, what I am saying is that according to Quaker theology the Inner Light of Christ is not conscience. Now, one can ignore that if one chooses but there is no getting away from the fact that this is the Quaker view.
Conscience is not a constant, nor is it universal - it is relative and often self-serving. In Quakerism it is not conscience that guides us but the Holy Spirit. That, as a Quaker, is what I understand and accept as a matter of convincement.
Incidentally, James, whose the picture of the good looking guy.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 3, 2011 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I guess I would suggest I'm not ignoring that canard of Quaker theology, but disagreeing with it. Given that Friends subscribe to no creeds, I also disagree that it is the "Quaker view." It is a common view among Quakers; I will give you that.
(The picture is more recent than the one I'd been posting. I can't help it; it's just my face!  )
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 3, 2011 6:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
| I guess I would suggest I'm not ignoring that canard of Quaker theology, but disagreeing with it. Given that Friends subscribe to no creeds, I also disagree that it is the "Quaker way". It is a common view among Quakers; I will give you that. |
Can Quakers have a theology and not a creed? Is James right to disagree with a basic tenet of Quaker theology justified on the basis that we don't have creeds?
That the Inner Light of Christ is something other than conscience has always been a basic tenet of Quakerism.
James, when you sit down in your Meeting House on a Sunday morning, are you saying that it is the still, small voice of the conscience you are listening to and worshiping. I have never heard of a Quaker going to Meeting for Worship to worship, and listen conscience.
Last edited by Anthony on Tue Jul 5, 2011 4:22 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jim Wilson
Joined: 13 Sep 2009
Posts: 99
Location: Northern California
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 3, 2011 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
The wisdom of following a tradition or the expectations of a community depends entirely on the wisdom of that tradition or community, and not on the principle of obedience itself. Some, in fact many, of the greatest horrors of all time directly resulted from obedience to flawed traditions or communities. Inversely, the better models of community have inspired much compassion and peaceful coexistence. One way to look at this--perhaps your way, Jim--is that one should pick the best model one can find and stick to it without fail. The way I look at it, though, is that, where conscience and community expectations come into serious conflict, it is a moral imperative to reject those expectations and serve conscience.
It is certainly easier to follow social expectations, to do what the rules say one should do. No thinking or moral struggle is required, only obedience. In the simplest situations this often works out for the best, but there are times when obedience simply will not do. One cannot discern those times unless one accepts, in principle, that conscience is not secondary but primary. |
Friend James:
Thanks for your response, but I believe it does not actually deal with what I was attempting to communicate. Nowhere in my post did I mention 'obedience', and the reconfiguration of my post in those terms leads, I think, to a misunderstanding of what I was saying. Look at it this way: if I follow a recipe to bake bread, am I being 'obedient'. I don't think the idea of 'obedience' is relevant here. I am just following a tradition embodied in the recipe. 'Obedience' isn't an issue. Or if I am playing cards with others, and we follow the rules in the Book of Hoyle, or some other source, again, I don't think it is a matter of 'obedience'. Rather it is a matter of accepting that others have something to teach us, are capable of guiding us.
That is what I find missing in the hyper-individualism advocated by an approach based on individual conscience alone. In Quaker communities it was the procedure to bring one's leadings to the community for discernment, possibly to a clearance committe, to get feedback, so that others could point out considerations you might not have thought of. There is the sense that this community dimension is significant. For example, before a Quaker Minister would go traveling, the Minister would bring that idea to the Meeting and it would be thought through and then the minister would, upon agreement, receive a 'Minute of Travel'. Similarly, books were submitted before publication for the discernment of the Meeting. This strikes us as impinging on our rights as authors, but the Quakers didn't view it that way. That is hard for us to understand, but it does not seem to have caused Quakers difficulties.
Again, in today's hyper-individualistic culture such a procedure seems to be an affront to our sovereignty; but that is why I think such a procedure is a good idea, because it undermines the idea that we are sovereign, isolated individuals. On a practical level, such a discernment process deflects what might be eccentric, or even dangerous (to themselves, to others) leadings. Elevating individual conscience over the inner light, and over gathered discernment, is to aggrandize the individual over the community. But both dimensions are important and there needs, I think, to be a balance between these two. I think this balance is embodied in traditional Quaker practice, but is being lost among modern Quakers today.
Again, if someone appeared at a Meeting and said they were lead by their conscience to harass their neighbor, would you be OK with that? I mean suppose they had really given it some thought and were sincere about it. Suppose they said that their 'conscience was clear'. Would you go along with that? If not, why not?
Thanks,
Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 5, 2011 5:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
Friends
Many Friends have understandable problems with traditional Christian terminology. To get stuck on works obscures the message and its dynamics. Words are often inadequate in attempting to define the indefinable. One can either become stuck in a quagmire of words or simply bypass them, using images or metaphors of ones choosing. Taking this into consideration I submit the following: 'There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in the hope to enjoy its own in the end.' (James Nayler)
'There is a principle which is pure, placed in the human mind, which in different places and ages hath different names; it is, however, pure and proceeds from God. It is deep and inward, confined to no forms of religion nor excluded from any where the heart stands in perfect sincerity. In whomsoever this takes root and grows, of what nation soever. they become brethren.' (John Woolman) Speaking for myself, I cannot accept that the individual human conscience is impartial or trustworthy enough to lead us to unity, peace and unconditional love. It is not universal, unified and inclusive or necessarily against the use of violence. There are religious people who indulge themselves in acts of violence, feeling it is justified because their conscience tells them it is acceptable?
Taking into consideration Woolman and Nayler's avoidance of traditional Christian teminolgy in the above quotes (perhaps not to quagmire) I reproduce the following for consideration.
'The Light Within is not to be identified or confused with conscience and reason, but both can and need to be illuminated by the Light of Christ. In order to clarify this distinction Barclay compared conscience to a lantern. Both Fox and Barclay believed conscience and reason were the natural capacities that needed to be illuminated by the divine Light of Christ before they could become dependable guides for human action'. (W.A. Cooper. A Living Faith.)
Last edited by Anthony on Thu Jul 7, 2011 6:05 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 6, 2011 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
| I have heard Friends distinguish conscience from the inward light in that way before, Anthony, but I find it unconvincing. |
James, why do you find it unconvincing?
| james wrote: |
| My conscience is definitely more than the product of my conditioning, though conditioning plays a part. It is also the natural outcome of being a creature with feelings, and recognizing that other creatures have feelings, too. |
Therefore, non-human animals, who also have feelings, may also have a conscience. I am pleased that this is acknowledged.
I don't think conscience can be judged on the basis of natural feelings. Did not the Nazi's express love and affection - feelings for their friends and families? (Hitler actually loved children.) If the Nazi's had been in touch with that of God within - the true source of love, the Light within and not 'conscience' we may not have had the holocaust. So much for worthy feeling arising from conscience - as natural as bodily functions and emotions.
| james wrote: |
| Once a person recognizes that obvious truth at a deep level, conscience becomes far more than conditioning; it becomes as natural as hunger, as fear, as breathing. Following it can be difficult, but all of us recognize it when we pay attention to our own hearts. |
Hunger, fear, and breathing are subject to the autonomic nervous system as I suspect also my be conscience. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesse
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Montreal Quebec Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 9, 2011 9:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
The question of how conscience and inner light are related is at the core of my own theological struggle.
I left Quakerism for seven years while I was struggling with recognizing that I no longer believed in the concept of a external spirit. When I came back, I spent another six years struggling to understand why being back felt right before finally applying for membership. I'm still struggling, but I feel like Quaker meeting is still the right place for that struggle.
The partial resolution that keeps me here is the belief that when I look to guidance from "a deeper part of myself", or james looks to "conscience" or others look to "God", that we are looking to the same source and using different words for that shared experience.
It's only a partial resolution because of exactly the questions that are arising in this thread: if I don't believe there's an external spirit, what is the common voice we are listening to? How is Quaker worship not just a hodge podge of individual views? I think Jim's points about extreme individualism are really important. But, I think they're not irreconcilable with my (nontheistic) approach to Quakerism.
The strength of corporate discernment is its collective nature. Individually, we can misread our consciences; we can be swayed by selfish desires or narrow viewpoints. But collectively, when we come together to worship and discern, the individual, self-serving desires can be more easily filtered out. When I sit in worship with others, I'm trying to listen for my inner voice; I'm also trying to listen for others' inner voices, and I'm trying to find the place where all of that comes together. I do see myself as Liberal and Nontheistic... but I don't see myself as Individualistic (at least, I don't see myself as Isolated or Always Right). I still believe that collective discernment is far stronger than individual discernment. And I think it's completely appropriate for individuals to have their individual discernment questioned by the wider Meeting community. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 9, 2011 5:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Friend Jesse,
Thank you for your interesting and challenging post. I understand that you now recognise there is no external spirit, the Kingdom of God or source of truth is within and not without.
Conscience and the Inner Light are not the same: one is based on knowledge, culture and the human condition arising from nature/nurture. The other is universal, impartial and unconditional and the same for all. The love of the human spirit and conscience is conditional, judgmental and contrary - it can be absent in those afflicted with psychopathic or sociopathic conditions. Only the unconditional love of God of which we are in essence is impartial, unconditional, universal and true. One is true and the other a counterfeit that mimics the true but is in actual fact self-serving. It is of the ego.
The common voice we listen to in Meeting for Worship is the unifying spirit that is our oneness, the still, small voice within, that speaks or inspires when the voice of the intellect or the 'chattering monkeys' have been stilled. It is available to all and known by different names (see my previous posts, particularly the John Woolman quote).
When you say that you try to listen for others' inner voices you are really listening for the one voice that is available to all because we don't all have different voices unless it is the dictate of conscience or the individual self rather than the true Self. So, if we discern a truth it will be the same truth for everyone for there is only one and we are part of that oneness: that of God in us all. There is no way that one person in Meeting for Worship would be inspired by the Holy Spirit for war and another for peace - not only does a spring not send forth both bitter and sweet water, one is a denial of the other. The so-called leading for war denies the leading for peace and that is impossible if our creator is a God of Peace.
I understand that a nontheist is not necessarily an atheist but someone who cannot relate to the traditional religious terminology, if that is your position than I suggest you simply replace any unfavourable terms with your own as words do not change the underlying idea. Those who cannot do this are at a disadvantage because it seems that they are left with a humanistic position whereby they can only relate to phenomena that is of the physical: biological, psychological or physiological, etc. Therefore, without conscience it seems that they have nothing left to lead them, if they have, then what is it?
Thank you for your posts.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesse
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Montreal Quebec Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 9, 2011 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Anthony, for such a thoughtful reply.
When I first rejected the notion of an external spirit, I played around with calling myself an atheist to see how it felt. And it never felt like it quite fit. It took me a long time to realize why, but eventually I realised that I have had too many experiences with gathered meetings (and other profoundly spiritual experiences) to reject the *experience* of "God". I don't know if this makes any sense, but I believe in the experience of God, but not in an external source for that God experience. Atheism seems to reject the experience as well... when I discovered the term Nontheism, I felt like it was the word I'd been searching for... it allowed me to express my lack of believe in a "god entity" without rejecting the truths I hear in meeting that get expressed in "god language". To reject anything expressed in god language is to close myself off to a world a truths.
I'm still probably more humanistic than you might approve of! I'm a neuroscientist by profession, so I think in neurons! And spending so much time thinking about the human brain does influence my theology.
Here's an analogy I've been playing around with for some time now:
Colour, to a physicist, is a wavelength of light, a mathematical property. It's perfectly correct to think about colour in physical terms, as an external property of the universe. But thinking about colour that way, tells us nothing about the human experience of colour.
Colour, to an artist, is "redness" or "blueness", and maybe even best described by the emotional experience it evokes - by the intensity of the experience of seeing the colour. It's the experiential quality of colour.
Colour to a neuroscientist is the particular pattern of cone cells (and the subsequent brain neurons) that fire in response to a coloured stimulus; colour, from this perspective, is not so much what's "out there" in the world, but the internal response of our neural system to what's "out there". A colour-blind person would have a very different experience to the same "out there" as a normal-colour-vision person would have... and yet the source is the same.
The physicist, the artist, and the neuroscientist each describe colour in profoundly different terms, and they each have good reason to believe that their understanding of colour is the "correct" one (even to think of their own descriptions of colour as "complete" descriptions). Because colour IS a physical thing in the world, AND an internal experience, AND a physiological experience.
I wonder if God is not similar... something that is in some sense an "out there" that can be shared across people, and in some sense an "in here" that can only be detected by looking inwardly, and perhaps to some degree a "neural" experience that is part of our collective psychology.
So when I listen to God language, which tends to be "without" language, I translate that to language that works for my notion of God as a part of ourselves we tap into... and imagine it as the dilemma of the physicist and the artist or neuroscientist trying to communicate.
This is all very well to a degree, but it becomes deeply challenged by the content of these types of discussions: when one person discerns that going to war is ok, and another discerns that a pacifist stance is the only route to God... how do we understand this? From a theist perspective, true discernment is listening for God; there is only one God, and therefore only one answer to be listened for; if two people hear different answers, one person isn't listening hard enough (or maybe both aren't listening hard enough). And from my nontheist perspective? I'm not sure I even trust that there is a single truth that all can tap into... but I think I do trust that with better, more open-hearted listening, a single truth can be *created*.... I think that's deeper than the notion of compromise, and closer to the notion of being creatively open to the possibility that a third way may open. You may see that as hearing God, and I may see that as tapping into our full psychological potential (there's my humanist coming out!), but maybe we'd both be right on some level... just as the artist and the physicist are both right on their own levels.
Sorry for the long essay! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kiahanie
Joined: 25 Mar 2008
Posts: 464
Location: Oregon
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 11:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
I appreciate your essay, Jesse. Sometimes I feel alone in between non-theists/atheists and theists discussing "spirituality." Glad to have some company in this middle ground.
I understand "spirit" to be a quality of this world, not some other. When I have a need to explain my understanding, it comes out as connection, in terms consistent with emergent properties of complex systems.
I think maybe we are not far apart on this, although we may express ourselves differently.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While it's true that I put more emphasis on the importance of the individual conscience than some here, I pretty much agree with others that the community of Friends is invaluable in discernment. I have leaned on Friends in such work again and again. My ministry (yes, I'll call it that) as a nontheist Friend, and with the new liberalfriends.org site I just launched, was all under the guidance of a committee of elders I meet with regularly in my meeting--all of whom happen to be theists of various sorts, by the way. But in any important decision it is ultimately I, and not any committee, who have to take responsibility for my decisions and actions.
Anthony, I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree about the difference between conscience and the inward light. I just don't see them as two different things; but as different ways of describing an interior sense that is *never* foolproof, is *always* influenced by ego, but in the end constitutes the best guide we have for living worthy lives.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jesse
Joined: 07 Dec 2007
Posts: 50
Location: Montreal Quebec Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 11, 2011 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sometimes the middle-ground is disparaged and can feel like a lonely place... especially when a question like "do you believe in God" seems to invite only yes/no answers. It's a strange place to be in the middle, when by middle, I don't mean "I don't know", but rather something closer to: "it all depends on how you define God".
I'd be curious to hear more about your notion of "spirit", if you have the words for it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anthony
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 1542
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 7:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| james wrote: |
Anthony, I think you and I are just going to have to agree to disagree about the difference between conscience and the inward light. I just don't see them as two different things; but as different ways of describing an interior sense that is *never* foolproof, is *always* influenced by ego, but in the end constitutes the best guide we have for living worthy lives. |
I agree, James, we are not in agreement. I have to state the obvious, that Quakerism is a religion with the concept or understanding of the leading of the Inner Light, understood in the Quaker way to be that of God.
The Inner Light of Christ is not and cannot be subject to the ego and it cannot be conscience (for very good, sound and logical reasons that I have provided and that you have not given sound reason for denial).
What I can agree with is that the quietening of the intellect and silence of the loud, tempestuous inner voices allows us to listen to the still, small voice within which is the best guide we have for living worthy lives - and it is not the ego nor is it subject to it.
What I don't like it that the Inner Light of Christ is denied. I reiterate, with respect, Quakerism is a religion and your belief or lack of belief - and that of like minded - leaves you only with conscience. As you say, you are an atheist so, by this fact alone, you are not left with much option but to deny the Inner Light of Christ. That is the truth of it.
I am still intrigued to know if atheists sit in a Quaker Meeting for Worship and listen for the voice of conscience? The certainly can't be listening for any God inspired guidance. I don't really mind if this is the case but I find it irksome to be told as a believer in God that my God is conscience and is ego led or influenced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
james
Joined: 11 Jun 2004
Posts: 1108
Location: Minneapolis
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 14, 2011 8:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
Anthony, I'm not interested in arguing this with you any further. I have not heard you offer sound and logical reasons, but mere assertions based on your take--by no means the only valid take--on tradition and authority. Appeals to tradition and authority are not logic and reason, however much you insist.
I'm sorry to hear it irks you, but all I am doing is sharing my perspective. It is you, not me, who is denying the legitimacy of a fellow Friend, and I don't care to defend that.
_________________
James Riemermann
www.nontheistfriends.org
www.liberalquakers.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ironrat
Joined: 14 May 2011
Posts: 2
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 15, 2011 9:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, I’m very sorry that my questions have provoked such a heated debate and such strong, lengthy and at times complex expressions of what individuals interpret as right and wrong. I also apologise directly to Anastasia, I hijacked her original post and seem to have started a bit of a flamewar.
Although my own questions were not directly answered, many of the responses seem to have made the position clear.
Being honest, I was surprised to see how rapidly people started to assert what is right and wrong. This is one I’ve struggled with all my life and although sometimes I’m right, being human I’m often wrong, this makes me reluctant to assert my own interpretation when I don’t have…can’t have all the facts. I was also surprised to observe a few comments that seemed to be a bit personal in their nature. I’m a cantankerous old boiler myself at times though, so I won’t labour it.
I have all sorts of issues with organised religions, so going back to Church isn’t an option. It looks like I’m going to have to continue to follow my own simple approach to “faith” and life in general.
Thank you for your words, especially those that were kind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
