I'm Back (I Hope)

Well, this is awkward.

I always knew, with this blog, that I wouldn’t keep up a consistent pace of posts – there would be times when there were many, and there would be breaks.

Then things happened, starting in 2019. I moved home, which obviously is a lot of effort and leaves one with less free time for a while. Then there was Covid. Then I had a mental health crisis – regarding which I have previously posted. Then I got back in the game a bit, albeit slowly. Then it all fell apart again.

For those who have supported me in the endeavour that is this blog, I want to say sorry. Indeed, for any who found my posts interesting or helpful and have missed them, to them also, I apologise. For everyone, I’m going to try and explain.

First though, I want to say that I’m really aiming to get back into this and post regularly again. Maybe not at the pace I was going before 2019, but without long gaps (partly because a long gap makes it harder to get back into it afterwards, as I’ll explain below). I still have a lot to say, a lot of things to explore – the blog didn’t dry up because ideas dried up. I even have a couple of posts ready to go and some that were in-progress when my ability to deal with the blog dried up.

Reflection on Aphorism 7: The Divine Can Only Guide Us If Willing

“As leaders can only lead with the consent of those led, however grudging that might be, the Divine can only guide us if we are willing to be guided.”
–Aphorism 7

Whatever your view on theology, it is clear that the Divine, however we conceive of it, is limited. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then this limitation is clearly self-imposed, for whatever reason. If one believes in a God that is good, one can only assume that it cannot or will not interfere in the world to maximise happiness (unless you go with the “best of all possible worlds” argument, which I always found sophistic). Other conceptions of the Divine are more obviously limited.

By analogy, this aphorism expresses one of those limitations – that while we can put our lives under the ordering of the Spirit, we have to be willing to do so. In fact, while it is not stated in the aphorism, I would go further – we have to work to do so. The Divine may be trying to speak to us all the time, but it cannot reach us without an open heart, or perhaps an open soul, and for most if not all of us, that takes work and practice. We have to learn to quiet the loud voices of our selves to hear the still small voice of God.

Quaker Business Method and Rational Decision-Making

This is a long post, exploring issues in detail, and I would encourage those interested in the topic to read the whole thing. However, a summary is provided at the end of the post, covering both arguments and advice, and should you wish, you can skip to it.

Faith and reason are not mutually exclusive in
the application of Quaker Business Method.

As Quakers, we try to make our decisions using Quaker Business Method – a subject on which I have written a lot, albeit no basic introduction, but please check out the Quaker Business Method tag on this blog for more of my writing on the subject. This is a method, also known as discernment (or more specifically group discernment, as one can engage in discernment entirely alone) whereby we do not set aside our rational mind entirely; we prepare by trying to understand the subject as much as possible, and try to be aware of all the rational factors involved, as well as spiritual ones. We do, however, make the decision in silent waiting, led by spoken ministry (when meeting in such a way that that is possible), so as to make the decision under the guidance of the Divine.

As such, many would say we can’t always (or possibly ever) give clear reasons for decisions. Sometimes the ministry is such that we can see how the various factors were balanced, and we can give an ex post facto rational explanation. Sometimes it’s just “the ministry led us this way, and well, that’s the decision”.

Good vs Evil: Nontheism and Dualism

Some expressions of Christianity are what is termed dualist: they are concerned with the adversarial nature of a divine Lord of good, in the form of God (and the Trinity), and a diabolical lord of evil, in the form of the devil, Satan, Lucifer, or the adversary, to give it a few of the more common names it is known by. All, or almost all are dualist in at least a purely moral sense – there is good and evil, even if there is not a personification of evil in opposition to a personification of good.

Quaker non-theists take a range of positions on the nature of that which our theistic Friends generally (and some non-theists) call ‘God’. Generally speaking, those who consider themselves non-theists (or who might be analytically classified as such) do not accept the idea of God as an entity with personality or personhood, but we recognise something in ourselves which we identify to some extent with what others call ‘God’.

Likewise, theistic Christian Quakers (neither Christianity nor theism inevitably follows from the other in practice, among Quakers) have a range of views about the devil, though among liberal Friends the identification of it as an adversarial persona with true power in opposition to God is relatively unusual. Yet we all recognise the concept of evil, that there are acts that are evil, that we all have the potential for evil within us – just as we all have the potential for good, and that we all have ‘that of God’ within us. We, Quakers, tend to be dualists to that extent, even if the degree of Christian dualism found in some other churches is (in my experience) extremely rare.

Reflection on Maxim 7: Being Who You Are Is Never A Sin

“Being who you are is never a sin.”
–Maxim 7

This is, I hope, self-explanatory. I suppose different people can take different things from it according to their own perspective and experience. I will reflect on it from my own perspective and experience.

People are all different. We’re different in different ways. Some of us are introverts, preferring to keep our time with other people to a minimum, and some are extraverts, thriving on the company of others. Some of us are born artists, or born dreamers, born analysts, even, it would seem, born bureaucrats. Some of us are attracted to people of particular sex or gender, the same as our own or different, and for some that matters little, if anything.

Quakers and Christianity

It’s a pretty common question online, in various question-asking-and-answering communities, and indeed offline when talking to people about our faith: are Quakers Christian? Seems like a simple question, doesn’t it? Well, the answer is, as ever, not anywhere near as simple.

If you want my short answer, it would be “some are”, but then others would say “yes”, despite the obvious presence of Quakers who do not identify as Christian, or “no”, despite the obvious presence of those who do.

If you want the quickest answer that is minimally misleading, I’ll have a go at that. Quakers grew out of Christianity, in a time and place where Christianity was the assumed norm, an almost, and to all practical purposes, universal faith – but where there were many varieties of it, most varieties suffering some degree of persecution. Christians who hold that a credal statement is a necessary characteristic of being a Christian – be it a specific formulation such as the Nicene Creed or a more general belief in, for example, the Trinity – would reject Quaker institutions as Christian, from early in our history, due to both our rejection of creeds and our acceptance of diverse forms of Christian belief from the very beginning. However, all early Quakers would call themselves Christians, indeed they generally felt they were ‘restoring’ true Christianity.

What's in a (New) Year?

In this post, I address things that are, for some, a matter of religious faith from a historical perspective. This means saying things that are based primarily on evidence outside of religious tradition. This is not to suggest that anyone is wrong to see them as matters of faith; it is rather an entirely different way of looking at something, and is in no way a challenge to the view taken by any religious tradition as a matter of faith or theology.

Here we are, at the end of 2021, the start of 2022.

It’s been quite a year for all of us, and I don’t need to talk about why. Everyone will also have had personal tribulations, sometimes related to wider events, and some not.

What I need to say isn’t about this year, or next year, but about the very idea of a ‘new year’.

A Christmas Message (2021)

I don’t have a big, Quaker, theological post for Christmas this year (though I encourage you to look at Christmas posts from previous years). I have no Christmas-related written ministry to offer (at least, at the time of writing, that can always change unexpectedly). This year, I’m offering more of a personal message. Life, me, a year in review… well, we’ll see how it goes.

Recent history first. I went a bit quiet again, didn’t I? I won’t deny that any break is still harder for me to come back from, in terms of my mental health, weird (but apparently not unusual) topic-specific anxiety still holding me back a lot. The reason for the break, or at least a contributor to the length of it, is that I was actually physically ill again. Not my usual exacerbations of my balance problems or viral upper respiratory tract infections, either. No, shortly after my first in-person work since the pandemic started, I developed a chest infection. Bacterial. Possibly pneumonia, apparently, though that not confirmed, and if it was it was pretty mild (turns out there is such a thing as mild pneumonia, though such things are obviously relative). Either that or a pretty bad and tough-to-beat more conventional chest infection. I was laid out pretty badly, high fever, needed two lots of antibiotics to beat it (though the first lot broke the fever), and extremely low energy – mentally as well as physically – for a few weeks. I’m fine, now. My wife got a viral cough around the same time, so I suspect I brought home a viral lower respiratory bug and I got a secondary infection with it – it did take a little while for it to get productive in my case.

Now Also on Ko-Fi!

As regular readers will no doubt be aware, I invite those who wish to support this blog to subscribe to my Patreon. I’m gratified by the support that some of you have given – it lets me know that people value what I’m writing, as of course do comments, shares and so on. You can be sure that I also look at my page views and see when a post is popular, which usually means that people have shared it more widely, which is great.

Financial support is not more important to me than that sort of moral support, but is, obviously, different. It means I can spend more time on the blog, and it can mean that my financial situation is a little less precarious, all my sources of income being variable and not entirely within my control. So when you support me and my blog financially, you make a practical difference to my life, as well as encouraging me to write more.

The Limits of Quaker Universalism

I am, as regular readers will no doubt realise, a proponent of Quaker Universalism – the idea that a person’s underlying theology can take a wide range of forms, and still be a Quaker. This is not, however, a matter of ‘anything goes’. It can’t be.

For starters, it’s never a matter of “believe what you want”; it can only be “believe what you believe”. But while that is the most common error in talking about Quaker Universalism – often derisively – it is not the most fundamental limit. No, that most fundamental limit comes from the essence of Quaker practices.

Everything about how Quakers do things, especially in the Liberal part of our Religious Society, but not uniquely to it, is based on the idea of direct revelation – the idea that God, the Spirit, or whatever-you-call-it, can tell us things, give us guidance. Burning bushes are rare, but a still small voice is accessible to all. A personal theology, whether it involves a theistic God or not, must allow for this, or Meeting for Worship makes no sense. It is the usual centre of our spiritual life and the foundation for all other key Quaker practices and liturgy (yes, in practice we have liturgy, but that’s a matter for another day), and it is fundamentally based on the idea that we are prompted by something to speak, and that something is capable of doing something different from our ordinary, every day personal mind.

Reflection on Aphorism 6: It Is Not Faith That Sustains Us

“It is not faith that sustains us; the Spirit sustains us, and the exercise of faith and discipline facilitates this process.”
–Aphorism 6

This one is a little more mystical, more metaphysical perhaps, than is usual for me. I find it quite difficult to engage with because it doesn’t fit terribly well with how I conceptualise my relationship with the Divine. And yet I wrote it down, because I was called to do so.

I do not see the Spirit as something essential without the person, but as an essential essence of each person that is connected to that in others; a series of Divine shards, if you will, that joins us together and makes up a greater whole – though ‘shards’ conjures the image of these pieces having once been an undivided whole that was broken, which isn’t how I see it.

On Ministry and Clear Sight: A Reflection on Imperfect Divine Reflection

Copper alloy mirror, Turkey, circa 500 BCE

I was recently given written ministry to which I gave the title On Ministry and Clear Sight. It flowed as easily as any ministry I have ever given, and came as unexpectedly – a strong, clear leading to write or say certain things. As the ministry itself expresses, of course, there is much of myself in that ministry; it is an imperfect reflection shaped by what one might call, from the language of that ministry, as the ‘landscape of my mind’. In any case, it hit me hard, and I felt the need to think about it and give my own reaction to it.

The first, possibly most immediate point being that we have no sure way to know that any ministry offered is not genuinely drawing on the Spirit. Something might be so antithetical to our understanding of Quaker values and philosophy that we cannot countenance the idea that the Spirit gave it forth, yet still it did. Our task is to understand the possibilities of how it might have been inspired, let the ministry teach us about the Divine, about the world, and about the person who is speaking. We have to live with the discomfort that someone can say something we consider horrific in ministry, and yet there is some truth to it.

Remembrance, Performativity, and Sincerity

The Cenotaph, Whitehall.
Photo by Matt Brown

Today is the 11th of November – Armistice Day. When many people around the world remember that active fighting ceased, in Europe, on this day in 1918, at 11am (creating the easy to remember, and date-format friendly, time and date of 11am 11/11) local time. Many say the armistice was signed at 11am, but this is incorrect; it was signed earlier that day, after some negotiation, and communicated initially around 9am in Paris; the 11am time was that specified in the armistice for cessation of hostilities, and the troops had notice of it some time before that – and in many cases, carried on fighting quite close up to the minute specified, especially artillery units (who didn’t want to have to shift their ammo back home) and those who were in sight of a strategic target, whose officers were thinking ahead to the possibility that the armistice might fail. However, by 11am people had pretty much stopped fighting (in Europe), and the armistice did not fail – the war being formally ended with the Treaty of Versailles in June 1919.

I clarify ‘in Europe’ because, communication not being globally instantaneous in 1918, it took a while for the news to reach those fighting in Africa. About two weeks later, they got news, and the local commanders had to make their own arrangements for an armistice ceremony and cessation of hostilities in Northern Rhodesia (modern Zambia).

But this isn’t a history blog. It’s a Quaker blog. You might think, from the text above and a little knowledge of Quakers, that I’m about to get into Quaker pacifism, the wastefulness of the so-called Great War (now commonly known as the First World War), or, perhaps, how our public observances of Remembrance have taken on characteristics of glorification of war and the military. All of those would be valid things to post here, but that’s not what I’m up to right now. No, as those of you who’ve paid attention to the title of this post will have gathered, I want to take this opportunity to talk about performativity.