On Days, Months and Names

Early Friends quickly shed the common names for days of the week and months of the year, instead referring to them by number. Sunday was “first day”, Tuesday “third day”, and so on. Likewise, July became “seventh month”, November “eleventh month”… you get the idea.

The usual explanation given for this is that the names themselves were of pagan – that is, pre-Christian – origin, giving regard to, variously, Germanic deities (like Woden and Thor), heavenly bodies (like the Sun and Moon), Roman deities (like Janus and Mars), and deified Roman “emperors” (Julius for Julius Caesar, not technically an emperor, and Augustus for his heir, generally recognised as the first emperor). I suspect the last four months, as named in English, would meet with early Friends' approval – except they were misnamed, and naming them in English is much more in line with plain speaking. It would be interesting do delve into early Quaker sources and try to get to the bottom of the practice, but for now we will accept the usual explanation as enough to be getting on with.

Aphorism 9

Three Marriages

Marriage is an important idea to many people. Whether as a matter of recognition of commitment, and the importance of equal access to legal recognition, or as a vital spiritual experience, it is important. Even for those who reject the concept, it is important in that rejection. One must acknowledge that there are some who consider it an utterly irrelevant idea, but that does not alter the fact it is important to others.

What is marriage, though? It has so many interconnected ideas, so much history – indeed, so much divergent history – and so much individual interpretation, that it is hard to form a coherent and consistent idea of marriage.

It has struck me, however, that there are three basic elements or dimensions to marriage. In fact, while these three do relate to one another and impact one another, they may also each stand entirely on their own. As such, we might consider them independent sorts of marriage, though in many marriages all three will be present.

A Quaker Yule

Even thirty years ago, the word Yule would not have been completely foreign to English-speaking ears. After all, we've used the word Yuletide to refer to the Christmas period for some time. Indeed, the cognate jul exists as a modern word in the Scandinavian languages to refer to the Christian holiday of Christmas.

These days it's not unusual for people to be aware of the pre-Christian roots of the word, referring to a midwinter festival or holiday in the Germanic world. The exact practices among Germanic pre-Christians varied; while their languages and cultures, and indeed religion, shared common roots and themes, there was considerable cultural variation. We know, or at least think we know, of the dísablót and álfablót of the Norse, the public and private sacrifices that took place (as best we can tell, in some periods and some places) around the shortest day of the year, the winter solstice. The first honoured, perhaps placated, the dísir, a range of female spirits and gods, and the Valkyries; the latter the elves, mythic and folkloric figures attributed a great range of impacts of daily life. As the names suggest, each of these was a blót, an act of ritual worship generally involving a sacrifice, generally of an animal (though the similarity of “blót” and “blood” is generally understood to be coincidental). Some sources and evidence indicate that there was also human sacrifice, though evidence that is not questionable generally points to this being exceptional, and generally associated with war.

So far, so much interesting (if hideously simplified for brevity) history. What does it have to do with the world (or society) today, and especially what does it have to do with Quakers? We are not, after all, Germanic pre-Christians.

Maxim 9

Aphorism 8

Maxim 8

Aphorism 7

Maxim 7

Aphorism 6

Maxim 6

Aphorism 5

Prejudice, the Individual, and "Aphorism 4"

I've had a generally good response to my recent posting of my “Maxims & Aphorisms”, which is good. There's still a lot of them to come – I've done a few of each, and there's actually 12 of each in the full collection (so far). Healthy debate has sometimes been sparked, and others have provoked general agreement or support.

The one I posted last Saturday, however, Aphorism 4, has provoked pretty emotive reaction. Indeed, to me it seems more so than the reaction to Maxim 4, which I perfectly expected to be controversial in some circles.

To save you the trouble of clicking through (though following the link above will allow you to view it in all its “text overlaid on a stock image” glory), Aphorism 4 reads as follows: “Every prejudice that exists in your society is a part of you. To deny it is to refuse to fight it.” Challenging, yes, but some of the reaction has been, rather than that of being challenged, that of being attacked. Some Friends, mostly American as far as I can see, have seen it as an extension of the “all white people are racist” attitude that they have felt regularly attacked by. I do not mention the nationality of those Friends to disparage them or their nation; rather, observing that perhaps social discourse in that country has led to a different reaction than might be found elsewhere.

Maxim 5

Aphorism 4

Maxim 4

Aphorism 3

Maxim 3

Divine Love

Love is so much more than the romantic sort. We have known this for a long time, but we tend to forget it. We have the love of family, of course, and that is well understood, but love without context generally refers to romantic love, or euphemistically to sex, as in physical “acts of love”. We have love songs, and love stories, and (more's the pity) Love Island.

Love is more than wanting to be with someone, more than caring deeply for some specific individuals. It is more than selfless devotion to a lover or a child. There is love in fast friendship, love in care for anyone. There is love throughout life, if we allow there to be.

Aphorism 2

Divine Justice

Justice is a primal drive. It finds many forms of expression – the desire to see good conduct rewarded and bad conduct punished, the reluctance to benefit from undeserved reward, and also the desire for revenge, to see people hoist on their own petard, and even, perhaps, schadenfreude.

Like any primal drive it can lead us to right action or to wrong action. What is just is not simple, nor possible to know in all circumstances. Indeed, even our basic urge to justice does not reliably lead to just outcomes, for while it is that drive that pushes us to vengeance, vengeance is rarely just.

Yet it also drives us to protect those who suffer unjustly, to stand against persecution and scapegoating. It causes us to wish to see credit given where it is due, and it drives us to let others know that we appreciate their work, their actions, indeed that we appreciate them as people.

Maxim 2

Ego, Inner Light, and the Individual Journey

One of the allegations made about theologically pluralistic liberal Quakerism is that it feeds ego; that if we all have our own path that may look dramatically different from another Friends, we may become dominated, each individually and the Meeting and wider community of Friends collectively, by the worst sort of individualism. If we are all following our individual leadings, at least in terms of our spiritual development, it is all too easy to be led astray by our subconscious (or conscious) desires. Where a regimented, hierarchical faith community with a central authority can be a check on individual development through doctrine and review by the clerical hierarchy, a levelled faith community such as that of Friends can only apply any such check through a sort of collective supervision.

This is, frankly, obviously true in a logical sense. What is less obvious is how much of a problem it is in reality, and – related to that – what level of supervision, or even collective control, is appropriate.

Aphorism 1

Divine Wisdom

We treasure wisdom. Wisdom is not the amassing of knowledge and the ability to recall it at appropriate moment. Wisdom is not the understanding of diverse fields of study. Wisdom is not the ability to predict the outcomes of different courses of action. Wisdom is more, and less, than that.

Wisdom is not intellect, for great wisdom may come from those who cannot claim any great intelligence. It is not reason, for it need not follow any line of thought or logic. It is not intuition, for we can often see its sense once it is revealed.

What Is The Real Crisis In Masculinity?

There are those who talk of a crisis in masculinity. When those terms are used, it seems that it is usually to refer to an erosion of what some see as traditional masculinity – a feminisation of society, or particularly of men.

To some today, it might not be clear what some of those terms mean – particularly “traditional masculinity” or “feminisation”. Gender expectations are shifting, and weakening, in much of the global economic north (and in many other parts of the world, albeit in different ways). This is actually what some of the people who speak of a crisis in masculinity are talking about, though I'll explore what it means in some more detail later on.

Maxim 1

What I Fear

I have fears, when I write things like this. When I write down what I am led to write, or when I sit down to write deliberately, certain worries are always on my mind.

There are the usual worries of anyone writing things others will read, of course. Have I written this well? Is it understandable? Will people criticise harshly, perhaps even mock me?

When writing down ministry, there are extra worries. Have I faithfully rendered that which has been given to me? How sure am I of the leading?

Thoughts On Outreach

You may be aware that I recently posted some written ministry concerning outreach, asking why we are so quiet. I didn't mean in worship, of course; silent worship with contributions moved by the Spirit is at heart of the Quaker way. I mean how we are in the world beyond our little Meeting communities. I have written somewhat about this before, concerning the spiritual and moral imperative I see in outreach. It seems timely to put down some other thoughts on the matter.

I can understand a lot of reasons for reticence to engage in outreach. I can understand less the reticence I have seen among some Friends for others to engage in outreach, in general. You might be unsure of how to talk about Quakerism. You might not be generally socially outgoing. You might feel awkward at the idea of talking about your faith tradition as being a good thing. These are all valid. Some of them can be overcome, but none of them are things that you should feel you must overcome. Just because outreach is something that should happen, doesn't mean that everyone should be engaging in it. Indeed, I've sometimes seen people doing outreach who I would much rather weren't, but that's a whole other matter.

Coming Soon – Maxims and Aphorisms

Thanks to everyone's feedback, largely on Facebook, I've come to a decision about how I'll be sharing the very short ministry I mentioned recently.

For the next 16 weeks, or longer if more come to me, I will be sharing one of these pieces, what I call “maxims and aphorisms”, each week. I will aim to do them on Saturdays, around lunchtime (UK time). Hopefully this will mean a lot of you get to digest and reflect on them at the weekend, though that of course supposes that Friends (and others who are interested) tend to have Monday-to-Friday jobs, which is a bit of a problem. However, I have to pick some particular time to do them, and that's it.

The Personalness of Morality

Ethics and morality are odd things. Sometimes it's clear that an ethical belief is something we hold to be universal – that there can be no question that something is wrong. Sometimes it's clear that it's a personal thing – that we hold for ourselves that that thing is completely wrong, but do not expect others to share that belief.

This isn't just a matter of different beliefs fitting different categories, though. It's also a matter of different people or ethical systems having different views of relativism. Very few people would extend moral relativism to murder or slavery in the modern context (though there are those who do), but many people (though far from all) are ready to see ethical beliefs about drugs, alcohol or sex as matters of personal morality.

What To Do About Very Short Ministry?

Good things in small packages?

What originally drove me to start this blog was my written ministry. This came to me, as I have previously written, with as much compulsion as any spoken ministry in meeting, and after writing it down in obedience to that leading I was led to share it. Once I came to the conclusion that a blog was a good way to do this, it made sense to write what I chose to write as well. I refer to this as “deliberate writing” in order to differentiate it, on the basis of the primary differentiating factor. Such writing has become slightly numerically dominant on the blog, though it swings the other way when I'm going through periods, as recently, with not much time for deliberate writing. Written ministry comes as it will, and I write it down and share it when I have it. Deliberate writing needs me to choose to do it rather than something else.

There is a set of written ministry that I have not yet shared, however, and the leading to do so is generating a considerable amount of discomfort. The problem is that I also know that I should share it in the most effective way that I can, and I have no idea what that would be.

Morality, Action, and Inaction

The moral value of a course is determined by both motives and outcomes, and that value is attached to us by our decisions – whether that be a decision to act, or not to act. Inaction holds no inherent moral superiority over action.

Written July 2018

The Simple Good News of Friends

There is, in each of us, a part of the Divine.

Through this, each of us can know first-hand the guidance of God, whatever you might call it and however you might think of it.

By what it shows us, we might call it Love or Light.

We do not need special places or people to have access to it, no special rituals or forms of words.

In silent waiting we learn to recognise the promptings of this Spirit.

In waiting together we gain clarity and confidence in our discernment of how it is leading us.

Flashes of Clarity

It is inescapably true that we see, as the quote goes, “through a glass, darkly” (1 Corinthians 13:12) or, in more modern translations, “in a mirror, dimly” – assuming glass to be in the old sense, as in “looking glass”, though there is debate as to which sense was meant by the author of the epistle. This is clearly true, from the evidence of modern neuroscience, of our perception of the mundane, everyday world. We see the reflection of the world that our senses and our complex neural circuitry manage to produce, and it fills in the blanks with reasonable assumptions all over the place. It finds patterns anywhere it can, so we see dogs and sofas in clouds. We miss far more of the world around us than we see.

On Titles

One of the little details of Quaker practice that is not completely unheard of outside of Quaker circles – though that does not mean it is well-known – is our rejection of titles. That is to say, we traditionally do not use such things as “Mr”, “Mrs”, “Miss” etc., preferring to simply use names.

There are several reasons behind this. One is our view of equality; especially in the society in which the Quaker movement developed, a huge range of titles existed and reinforced the expected structure of society, of social interactions, and of status. Nobility was still considered important by many, and the titles of right or of courtesy that went with them were often insisted on. Titles and styles related to offices under the crown, such as “judge” or “doctor” (usually for those who have achieved a certain degree of study – academic doctors or doctors of divinity – rather than physicians) were important, and people of standing who could claim neither noble nor official title often sought a knighthood. Those entitled to the style of “esquire”, not a general formal term as it is now in the UK, nor a term conventionally restricted to certain professions as it is now in the US, would often insist upon its use. As such, the rejection of titles stands for a rejection of the formal and conventional delineations of standing and status, as well as of the forms that derive from them (such as the giving of hat-honour, one of the most noted rejections of convention among early Friends).

Repentance and Forgiveness

Like much of our spiritual experience, the Quaker
confessional is inward.

Once upon a time, I habitually listened to Radio 4. For the Americans, this is broadly similar to NPR – I don't know a good point of comparison for any other countries. Basically, it's one of the nine “mainstream” national radio stations from the BBC (there's also a tenth specifically focused on British Asian communities, and local stations for the nations and regions), and it's focussed on talk content. Comedy, drama, in-depth current affairs, that sort of thing. It's very popular with Quakers. If your Quaker community has a trope about ministry coming from a radio station, we have the same thing with Radio 4.

In the last few years, I've listened to Radio 4 less and less. While it has some wonderful content that isn't related to current affairs, there's a huge amount that is – and current affairs has gotten rather depressing lately. It would be quite bothersome to put it on just for the programmes we want and change station every time a news bulletin comes on. Not that we avoid all news; we follow a lot of news online, consuming it when we want to, on our terms. Managing mental health is very important.

Following Light, Purely?

I have heard it suggested that the most true and pure form of Quakerism would be to follow the Light “purely”, directly, with neither story, nor symbolism, nor any form of tradition. It certainly follows logically from the idea of our direct experience of the Divine (or God, Light, whatever you want to call it). In a sense, it might be the Platonic ideal of Quakerism.

The problem is, it isn’t really possible.

We do not live in a world of Platonic ideals. The ideal triangle, the ideal sphere, the ideal rock – all are beyond our grasp. The ideals of purely conceptual things are similarly beyond us (indeed, some would argue that all Platonic ideals are conceptual). We shall never attain ideal democracy, ideal equality, nor even ideal faith or ideal love.

So far, so general and dismissive, you might think. It is only fair to ask that I give more specific, concrete, practical reasons to object to such a theoretically laudable objective – for we would surely follow the Divine most faithfully if we were not impeded by preconceived ideas of its nature or how it might direct us. Of course, as the matters involved include cognition, my points will still be somewhat abstract, or at least not tangible, but they ought to be more concrete than “ideals are unattainable, therefore it can’t be done, quod erat demonstrandum” – which is, after all, not just snobbily dismissive, but also somewhat begging the question.

Goodbye, Grandma

Next week, I will be at my grandmother's funeral.

She is the last of my grandparents to die, and the one that I was closest to in my youth. This was not a result of any particular compatibility of personality or interests; rather, she lived nearby and looked after me a lot when I was little and my parents both worked. My other grandparents lived further afield; her ex-husband not too far away, in a neighbouring borough, though he was frail and largely housebound, while the other set of grandparents lived in Spain when I was born, then County Durham a few years later – both a long way from London.

My London grandfather I barely knew, which became a regret once he died. His long illness made it no surprise that he was the first to go, when I was about 14. My other grandparents I spent time with intensively, when I saw them, and I suppose I had most in common with my other grandfather – curiosity, an interest in technology, that sort of thing. I didn't see them that often, though.

Membership, Convincement & Belonging

There are many ways of belonging to the Quaker family. There are those who are part of our community without identifying with our faith, fellow-travellers who participate in some, even all of our activities but do not consider themselves Quakers. There are those of fervent religious belief in the spirit of the early Friends. There are those who call themselves Quakers but deny the religious nature of the experience, or who recognise it as religious but are still patiently waiting for a direct experience of the Divine that they recognise. There is, of course, the division between member and attender, and other terms we throw around – newcomer and enquirer being quite popular ones.

We don't seem to have a coherent view, however, of these different dimensions of belonging, of being part of the Quaker community, of being a Quaker. In this post, I will be exploring some elements of this “belonging space”, to borrow mathematical terminology.

Revision: What Next?

So, Yearly Meeting has decided. British Quakers will begin the long, thoughtful process of revising our Book of Discipline, the same process (more or less) as was begun in the 1980s to produce our current book, Quaker faith & practice, eventually approved and published in the mid-1990s.

Okay, you might be thinking, but what next?

Let me explain what I understand of what will happen, and my own thoughts and suppositions about what them might happen. I think it's going to be quite an interesting time to be a Quaker in Britain, if you want to be engaged in the process. If you don't, I suspect you may get bored in a year or two and wish people would shut up about it. Either way, it's going to be a lot of work for some people.

Why Are We So Quiet?

This is written from the perspective of theologically pluralistic liberal Friends; I make no claims or assumptions either way of its validity to any other branch/wing of the Religious Society of Friends.

Why are we so scared of going out there and telling people about ourselves, suggesting that maybe they might like our way, were they to try it?

Is it that we are shy, culturally, corporately or individually? Our record on outspoken activism for peace, equality and justice says not.

Is it that we don't want new people in our Meetings? Maybe that is true for some; I have certainly heard some comments that seem to amount to that, reading between the lines. However, a great many of us are concerned about our numbers, about our sustainability. We cannot continue to do our work, follow our leadings, if we do not have the resources that ultimately come from there being people in our Meetings.

Equality Is More Than Equal Treatment

Equality is one of the most consistent values across the world family of Friends, and has a long and proud history as a Quaker value. Early Friend recognised the essential spiritual equality of men and women, and of rich and poor. Of course, there were hiccups on the way; Quakers were slower than we like to admit to recognise the evil of slavery, and meetings for church affairs (aka business meetings) were long segregated by gender. Still, the essential idea of equality, while it might not always have been as strongly held as it is today, is an important Quaker tradition, and is recognised as a core Quaker testimony by all groups of Friends that make lists of such (at least as far as I am aware).

What do we mean by equality? Equality before God was certainly always an important idea for Quakers, with no ordained clergy. There were those known as ministers, but this was a description of what they did more than who they were. They travelled in the ministry, held public meetings aiming to convince those outside of the Quaker fold, and developed reputations for inspired and powerful ministry in worship. For this, they were known as ministers, but this was essentially a recognition of certain gifts and activities, rather than giving them any authority. The source of authority remained the Spirit itself, and that dwelt equally in all.

The Great Lord and His Sons

There was once a great lord. His realm was peaceful and prosperous. He had five sons, and he gave thought to how they should be raised.

He had not been raised to rule himself, as he had elder brothers. They had all died before their father, so the rule had fallen to him. So it was in his mind to raise them all to know what it is good for lords to know. He saw that it would be best for his realm if any one of them could take up the rule of the realm, govern rightly and judge fairly.

Yet his aunt had married the lord of another realm, and had had many sons. They had all wished to take the place of the lord their father when he died, and so had schemed and plotted and killed, and in the end gone to war on one another. All had died, in assassination or in war, and the last at the hands of his people when he claimed rule over a land broken by war. The lord of that realm now was the the great lord's aunt's grandson, and the power in the hands of courtiers ruling in his name. So it was that the great lord saw that it would be best for his realm, and for his family, if none of his sons should greatly desire to succeed him.

The Fire Inside

There's a fire inside me.

It burns to make the world better. It burns to help those I care about, and to help those I do not know.

It burns to drive me forward. It burns to sustain me in adversity. It burns to tell me I'm still alive.

Though I am assailed and dismissed, the fire burns.

Though I am unfairly accused, the fire burns.

Though I am misrepresented, the fire burns.

Though some seek to obstruct me, the fire burns.

Though I may be unnoticed, the fire burns.

Though I fail or fall, the fire burns.

Revision: A Reaction to the Decision

As readers of my blog, or indeed those who keep up with Quaker matters in Britain at all, will be aware, this weekend Britain Yearly Meeting met in session, with the principal matter on the agenda being the proposal to revise the YM's Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice. This was proposed at Yearly Meeting Gathering four years ago, but Friends were unable to come to unity; instead, it was decided that a group be appointed to help prepare the Yearly Meeting to be better able to take the decision in either direction, and to lay the groundwork for future revision whenever it might occur.

This group, the catchily-named Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group (BoDRPG is how I abbreviate this; it seems that BYM decided the appropriate revision would just be RPG, which I suppose is not too ambiguous in context – even if it makes me think of Final Fantasy or Dungeons & Dragons), has been working hard for over three years. They have been working out logistics, engaging in explorations of theology, and running the Reading Quaker faith & practice programme to encourage Friends to be more familiar with the existing text before trying to make the decision again.

That preparation has borne fruit, with – by all reports that have come my way – an amazingly positive and constructive approach to the question at Yearly Meeting. The decision was taken, with suitable commentary in the minute instructing Meeting for Sufferings, and the to-be-appointed revision committee, about the approach that Yearly Meeting feels they should take.

(Buckle up, this is going to be a long one)

True Inspiration

Many Friends find great value in reading the writings of early Friends. This is understandable. Some of it inspiring, some is intellectually very interesting. Some borders on being incoherent, but overall the hit rate is pretty good.

It is important to treat such writings with some caution, however. As early Friends wrote in the heat of the new inspiration they had found, we may read them hoping to catch a little of that inspiration. While it may inspire us, however, it is nothing like the inspiration that led to those writings.

Revision: Hopes and Fears

Well, the time is almost here. Again.

Britain Yearly Meeting, taking place this coming weekend, has managed to draw a little press attention, both specialist and general (paywall), regarding the question of whether to revise our Book of Discipline. So I thought I'd take another little look at the whole matter.

Firstly, both of the linked pieces put an unreasonable focus on specific elements of change that Friends think might happen in a revision process. One focuses on environmental matters and gender & sexuality; the other focuses on the suggestion that we might remove “God” (or, they acknowledge, maybe just reduce the use of the term). These are all things that will be live issues if the revision goes ahead, to be sure, but they miss the key point of revision.

What Are "The Things Which Are Eternal"?

“Seek to know one another in the things which are eternal”. It's a popular phrase, made particularly well-known by it's inclusion in Britain Yearly Meeting's Advices and queries, number 18. It falls easily from our lips, and a lot of people seem to put a lot of emotional investment in the idea, but what does it mean?

In my experience, Friends often seem to use the phrase in a way that is rather non-specific. Much like “that of God in every one”, its meaning seems to be in the moment, in whatever form is useful to the speaker. Usually, it seems to add a sort of warm fuzz to the idea of getting to know one another, that it means getting to know one another in a deep sense, rather than a superficial one. You might know what someone does for living, but it is knowing them in a deeper way to find out that they paint landscapes, or write poetry. This is a reasonable distinction to make, and the idea that we, as Friends, should know one another well is a laudable one. Is this really “the things which are eternal”? Certainly, there's a degree to which meanings change with time and context, especially as society changes – or as our Religious Society changes.

On Quaker Universalism and the Unchanging(?) Nature of the Divine

There are those who say that Truth, or the true Light, or God, is eternal and the same, unchanging, at all times and all places, among all peoples constant.

I do not know if that is true. I do not know the underlying nature of the Divine, but even if it is somehow a product of humanity, it is possible that it is constant, a product not of our changeable and evolving natures but of some common, constant core of what makes us human.

What I can say, however, is that an eternal, unchanging constancy need not be reflected in how the Spirit is revealed to us. It comes upon us in manners suited to our varied natures, in ways appropriate to our different situations. It is in this way that actions, principles and beliefs may severally be inspired by the Spirit, despite their differences. They may be different in small ways, even so small as to seem trivial, or in large ways, even so large as to seem fundamentally incompatible.

Theology and "Notions"

Water baptism: a ritual Quakers have traditionally considered
an empty form, based on notions, rather than any true leading
of the Spirit.

A fair amount of my writing could be described as theology. Not high, formal, academic theology, perhaps, but it's theology – questions (and, to be fair, rarely answers) about the nature of God, or at least of what-you-will. I've known some to quibble with the idea of calling it “theology” if there's no theos involved, but there's no better term, so I'll use this one. Indeed, I'm hardly the first person to talk about theology in the context of a non-theistic worldview. So, if you are a purist in the meaning of that term, insisting that it only applies to theistic (some would say only Christian) contexts, I ask your forbearance. Also, to not argue with me about it on this post – as will become clear, a large part of what I will be discussing here is in the Christian context, indeed in the context of early Friends, and in any case it would be rather missing the point of the post overall. If you prefer to think of the wider idea as hierology, you may do so, but this isn't the place for a debate on what counts as theology and what as hierology.

The context of early Friends is important here, because one of the great criticisms of those early Quakers was against notions. All the haggling among the Church and its divisions, in the first millennium, over the nature of Christ, the question of the Chalcedonian formulation versus Miaphysitism – that is, whether Christ incarnate was of two natures, human and divine, united in a single hypostasis, or whether he was of one nature, wholly human and divine – is one example. Another, far more contemporary with the early Friends, would be detailed questions over the nature of the Trinity and the relationship between its members. The early Friends were, of course, strongly bible-believing Christians; though this was tempered by reliance on “the Spirit that gave them forth”, the bible was still important and a key tool of the early Friends. Because of this, they did not consider the basic idea of the Trinity to be a notion – it is clearly pointed to in scripture. Indeed, one of the members of the Trinity is of particular importance to Quakers, for it was said from quite early days that what moved them in worship was the Holy Spirit (among other terms). Precisely what the relationship is between the members of the Trinity, however, would be a notion.

Stop. Attend. (A Message Concerning Meeting for Worship)

Stop. Attend.
I do not mean to call you to attend to my words. If you are reading them, or hearing them, it is natural that they will have your attention.

Stop. Attend.
Stop, as best you can, your busy thoughts, your worries and concerns, your plans for the week ahead and for the further future. Important as they may be, that is not why you are here.

Stop. Attend.
Stop your rational thoughts and reasoning on spiritual matters. Intellect and reason alone are not the path to that which we seek.

Doing It Ourselves

I've heard it said, many times, that Quakerism is a “do it yourself” religion.

People usually seem to mean it one of two ways. In one of those ways, they are usually being broadly positive about the idea. In the other, people tend to give it a negative connotation.

The first, positive way refers to our lack of separate, particularly paid, clergy. We are all in it together, we all muck in to do the jobs that need doing. Whether it's spiritual nurture, pastoral care, administration or looking after our property, everything is a communal task. This is, I think, usually seen as a positive both in the sense of having thrown off the authority of the “hireling priests” and in the fact that it enriches our sense of community. It is also often used as an encouragement, even admonition, to encourage members of our community (whether in formal membership or not) to get involved and take on voluntary roles within the community.

A Quaker Easter Part 2: Meaning

In yesterday's post, I looked at the role the celebrating or otherwise marking Easter might have within Quaker communities, and in terms of a Quaker community's relationship with the community in which it is situated. Today, I will continue the exploration of Easter, but on a more spiritual note. I will look at the story/stories behind Easter, its history, and what meaning we might take from it.

As I have explained previously, I think this is important for Quakers. This is because, where we observe the traditional testimony concerning times and seasons at all, we tend to only remember half of it. No day is more holy, or more significant than another, which is important. However, the early Friends did not reject the lessons and meaning of holy days, just their fastening to a particular day. The same argument applies to liturgical seasons. Thus, it would be taught that we do not observe Easter, or other holidays, but that we should remember the lessons and meaning of Easter all through the year.

Now, of course, with the cultural pervasiveness of many holidays, it is (in my experience) a rare Quaker that refuses any observance of the holidays at all, yet I see little deep engagement with the meanings of these festivals, whether at that time of the year or otherwise.