This is the fourth and, at least for now, final post in the series Quaker Business Method and Theological Diversity.
If you haven't already, you will get the most out of this post if you read the opening post
in the series. That post will also include links to all other posts in the series as they are
posted. Reading the second and third posts as well would be an advantage, but it's the opening post that's important, as it sets the context.
The best description I
have ever come up with for this conception of the Divine came as
written
ministry, and I have never been able to put it better through
deliberate action. As such, while it is available as its own post on
this blog, I reproduce it here:
There is a light in each of us.
We call it by many names – Inner Light, Holy Spirit, Divine Principle, the Light of Christ, and many more besides. Still, it is the same light in each of us, and if we can heed its promptings, it will show us the way to right actions – how we arrange our own affairs, how we are to govern our community, and how to act with love towards all.
When we gather in the silence, each of us willing to heed that light, it grows in us. Each light grows, reaching to one another, joining and binding us, allowing us to know it, and one another, with greater joy and clarity than we ever could without it.
That describes the
nature of the presence of Spirit in each of us, and how it interacts
during worship. In a sense, you might say that my view of the divine
is pantheist, but not panentheist; there is a divine essence in each
of us, possibly in all things but richer in people, and what might be
called “god” is the union of all of these parts – no more, and
no less.
What, then, does this
mean for Quaker discernment, for my understanding of the business
method? It is quite simple, really. That divine spark in each of us
is capable of insights and leaps of understanding that our conscious
minds are not – and more especially moral and ethical insights.
Increasing our awareness of it, such as by Quaker spiritual
disciplines, gives us the advantage of that. When we gather together
in worship, the divine spark in each joins with the others, and we
are capable of much more – and the same is true in Meeting for
Worship for Business.
Thus, to my conception,
we are not seeking to know the “will of God”, because the nearest
thing I conceive of to “a god” doesn't have will. We are seeking
to leverage our awareness of and connection to the divine, and the
gestalt interconnection of the divine essence in all concerned, to
make the best decisions, to seek the right way forward. That
“rightness” should be both moral/ethical, and in terms of
satisfying whatever objectives we might have.
Thus it is that the
sense of the meeting should, we hope, point towards a right action,
not because of any divine figure with will and personality trying to
tell us what it wants us to do, but because of the insights of our
own collective divinity helping us to see the right way forward.
There is no will but ours, but we allow it to be steered by the
guidance of an ultimately incomprehensible, but still ultimately part
of us, force of goodwill and wisdom.
A great strength of
this conception is the reminder that, provided we can maintain
discipline, we can expect stronger decisions from larger groups
discerning together. It cautions against taking individual
discernment with too much weight, not only because the fallibility of
human beings is mitigated by working together, but also by the
understanding that there is more of the Divine involved when more
people work faithfully together to find the right way forward.
However, it shares with the materialist conception the tendency to
accord too much weight to expertise, albeit to a lesser extent.
I'm probably a bit
partial here, though. I'm not likely to see the weaknesses of my own
conception as clearly as others would. I'd be very interested to hear
your thoughts on the weaknesses of this conception.
And so we see some of
the different ways we can conceive of Quaker Business Method. Very
different, but all pointing in a similar direction. All fitting with
the observable features and behaviour of Spirit-led discernment, but
all disagreeing as to exactly what that means.
It is my belief, and
experience, that we need not see it in the same way to engage in it
together. Indeed, it is my firm conviction that there are many
different ways of conceiving of this decision-making method, so
different that they cannot be said to be different ways of describing
the same thing – but compatible in application so that we might
engage in it together even though we have different understandings of
what we are doing.
How about you? Are you
a materialist, or a traditionalist, or do you prefer to remain
conceptionless? I'm sure there's lots of variations on these themes,
and lots of ways of thinking about it that aren't covered by the
broad types I've described. I'd love to hear about how you think of
such things, or any other sorts of conception that you'd like to read
my take on
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
