QuakerInfo.com Forum

[james]

IronRat, your questions were perfectly legitimate. You wrote:

[Anthony]

[Kiahanie]

Anthony, I would like to say again that you are not the arbiter of what is Quakerly or unQuakerly. We have processes for reaching clarity that involve our respective communities, through whom we have membership in the Society of Friends, and ultimately our Yearly Meetings. These are the ;proper venues to take up the question of whether are actions or our beliefs are in harmony with Quaker Testimony and practice, whether we are "Quakerly enough."

You are at your most persuasive when you speak of your own Light, your own leadings. You are least persuasive when acting as Grand Inquisitor. Please remember that we are all members of a common Society, and memvbers of Meetings to which we are responsible and upon which we rely for much of our sense of hjow Spirit moves among us and through us.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[Jim Wilson]

Friend Kiahanie:

I have a different take on what Anthyony is saying. I am not offended by it, even though I sometimes disagree with particulars. In some ways, I see it the opposite of the way you do. By that I mean that I often find the statements James makes to be casually dismissive of the Quaker heritage. Dismissive in the sense that the sense I get from James is that he seems to put the Quaker heritage in the dock, with himself as evaluator and judge. Rather than learning from that tradition, he simply substitutes his own understanding for that of earlier Quakers when it suits his purpose. I am uncomfotable with that approach. (I am aware that this reaction of mine may be due to the way online interaction works; I'm completely willing to be wrong about this.)

I don't think Anthony is acting is arbitor or judge; rather I think he is simply pointing out how Quaker Faith and Practice has worked, its views, and its history and how greatly they vary from what James is fielding as a Quaker perspective. I think it is legitimate to bring this up.

An analogy might help. I'm knowledgeable about music and if someone told me that a particular music technique was not significant, and I knew that it has been used widely over many years, I would call them on it. Not in a confrontative way, but I would suggest that they may not really have a broad understanding of the way music has been written.

I used to give talks on Buddhism for many years and I ran into this kind of thing all the time. For example, I might say that Buddhism was a renunciate tradition, and invariably someone would say that they didn't think so because they themselves were disinclined towards renunciation. I would gently point out that the Buddha was a renunciate in a way that was consistent with Indian spirituality in general, and the centrality of the monastic institution for Buddhism. Often this would have no effect; individuals would somehow reconfigure in their own minds the history of Buddhism to fit their own preferences. I have no objection to someone not following a renunciate path, that's not the issue. Similarly, I have no objection to people following their understanding and joining the military. But I will step forward if someone says that Buddhism has nothing to do with renunciation because that, historically, just isn't so. And I will step forward if someone wants to argue that being an active-duty soldier is compatible with being a Quaker. I think James is wrong when he says they are compatible. I think he can say so only through the mechanism of casual dismissal of the Quaker heritage that I alluded to earlier.

In some ways I think something similar to what I experienced when giving talks about Buddhism is going on among Liberal Quakers in general; a kind of willful disregard for what Quakers have stood for and how they have lived, and a substitution of their predilections and preferences instead. I think this way in some of my more sour moods; I don't think it applies across the board among Liberal Quakers. I can think of exceptions. On the other hand, I do think it is a force and direction and I think Anthony's comments are a legitimate way of pointing this out.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[Anthony]

Jim, thank you for your kind, understanding and considered post and supportive agreement.

[jesse]

I appreciate the traditional perspectives that Anthony and Jim bring to the discussion. I also appreciate the open-minded seeking that James brings when trying to consider modern Quaker perspective. And I think Kiahanie is quite right to remind *all of us* that we speak only as individuals, and not for the society as a whole. Even when expressing traditional/historical Quaker views, these views are open to interpretation. Even George Fox was not absolute: he told Penn to wear his sword as long as he could. He let Penn seek the light himself, and discern his own approach to weapon-bearing. The examples of Friends before us are extremely important, and it’s good to be reminded of them, and to consider them deeply, but it’s also important to look inwardly and seek ourselves. I don’t think it’s wrong to question any of our testimonies. That’s why we have testimonies; not creeds. But I do think that it would be rash to ignore or forget the testimonies. There are many centuries of discernment expressed therein.

[Jim Wilson]

Good Friends:

I appreciate Jesse's remark regarding the previous testimonies regarding non-participation in war among Friends:

"There are many centuries of discernment expressed therein."

Taking a cue from Jesse's post, here is one such testimony:

"Friends are exhorted to faithfully to adhere to our ancient testimony against wars, and fightings, and in no way to unite with any in warlike measures, either offensive or defensive, that by the inoffensiveness of our conduct we may convincingly demonstrate ourselves to be real subjects of the Messiah's peaceful reign, and be instrumental in the promotion thereof, towards its desired completion; when, according to ancient prophecy, 'the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; and its inhabitants shall learn war no more.' . . .

"This meeting fervently recommends to the deep attention of all our members that they be religiously guarded against approving or showing the least connivance at war . . ."

From the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, based on the 1806 edition; the first quoted paragraph goes back to 1755. The entire section on War is worth contemplating.

The Old Discipline
Nineteenth-Century Friends' Disciplines in America
Quaker Heritage Press
Pages 125 and 126

There is a disturbing ease among contemporary Friends with which they put aside the Testimony Against War. I have mentioned previously on this thread the posting at the political site Dailykos of a Quaker in support of Obama's illegal attack on Libya. I think that is a measure of how far Quakers have drifted from their Faith and Practice.

Best wishes,

Jim
_________________
www.shapingwords.blogspot.com

[Anthony]

[jesse]

Jim - I haven't experienced that trend toward acceptance of war in Canada (despite that CYM is entirely made up of liberal Friends). It is extremely rare for me to encounter Friends who believe in the notion of "just wars".

But I think, on the topic of this original thread, there is still room at meeting for people with different starting views. I see meeting as a place to come for worship (separate and distinct from questions of membership). Meeting for worship is open to all, in my opinion. It's a place to come together, worship, and seek discernment. I still believe that most people who truly accept the notion of that of god in everyone will perceive that not doing violence to others follows naturally from that starting belief. But I don't think someone's view on the peace testimony should dictate their welcomeness at meeting. I'm not sure how I feel about whether it should dictate their membership. I'd need to think more on that.

Thanks for the quotations. I'll give them more time later when I'm less tired!

[jesse]

Anthony -

I find this type of line-by-line dissection a bit aggressive. That may not be your intent, but that's how it feels to me on reception.... However, I'm going to assume that wasn't your intention, and try to read beyond my initial reaction, and assume you dissected my post just for the sake of clearer dialogue.


I'll warn you that I'm not up to responding to everything in your response tonight (and partially, because I don't feel particularly motivated to get in the middle of your "conscience" argument with James). I've already tried to voice my own approach to Quakerism, which though it has some commonality with James, is probably not precisely the same, so I'm not comfortable standing in for him or putting words in his mouth.

I guess my only response to your first set of comments tonight is this: sometimes very different words get used to explain the same internal experiences; I'm trying to listen past words... James may listen to "conscience" and you may listen to "God", and you may be listening for the same internal voice, and using very different words to understand your experiences. I hope my last statement doesn't raise your hackles: I'm not trying to belittle or dismiss or diminish your experience of God. Rather, I'm trying to say: what if God presents himself to you as spirit, and to me as "a deep part of myself", and to James as "conscience"? Is anyone really "wrong" in that case? We interpret our experiences in the light of our best understanding... but that's going to result in different words from different people.


Just a couple specific responses:

[Kiahanie]

Also on the topic of peace, I find no acceptance of war nor proponents of "just war" among Friends in my Yearly Meeting, a "liberal" western independent Meeting. I have read a very few articles justifying war, but have no idea of where the authors fit on the Quaker spectrum. The only advocate I have personally heard was a member of an FUM Meeting.
_________________
"There is a field out beyond right and wrong. I'll meet you there." --Jellaludin Rumi

[Anthony]

[Jim Wilson]

[Bazza]

My father volunteered for service in the army during the second world war as he thought it the right thing to do. There's no doubt about that his war experience coloured his later thinking. Although he would deny vehemently that he is a pacifist he does believe there's no such thing as a just war. His most telling statements are "the ending of one war starts the fermentation process for the beginning of the next" and "victory doesn't go to the deserving - it goes to the strongest".

As a youngster, I used to admire his war medals (he was decorated a number of times). I was about 12 when it dawned on me that he had always discouraged us from admiring them and he never wore them even on commemorative occasions. At ANZAC day ceremonies he would stand out, being the only ex-soldier not wearing any medal. I believe it was his quiet way of making a statement about the futility of war.

I probably hold an extreme view of pacifism, even for Friends. I believe all violence against a fellow human being is sinful, no matter the circumstance. This doesn't prevent me from protecting myself or my family from danger, just that I can't use violence in doing so. Originally it was a belief based on a number of passages from the bible, but now it is because that is how the light leads me. I'm not sure, as I have not been tested, whether I can live up that standard, but I pray that I can.

[Anthony]