Water baptism: a ritual Quakers have traditionally considered an empty form, based on notions, rather than any true leading of the Spirit. |
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.
The essence of
this point among these early Friends must be, for me, that it is that
Spirit, inward teacher, seed, light of Christ, or whatever you want
to call it, that is the fundamental source of spiritual experience
and guidance. Though I am not Christian, and do not place any special
value on the bible, still I do not neglect or dismiss it – it is
one source of wisdom among many. However, we can only gain true
appreciation of this wisdom, as the early Friends realised, by going
back to their source – that inner light, or whichever of the many
terms you prefer to use for it. Haggling over the words as if you
were in a court trying to determine the meaning of a contract?
Notions, notions! Reflecting on the words in openness to the Spirit?
That is where understanding lies. As William Penn noted:
“It is not opinion, or speculation, or notions of what is true, or assent to or the subscription of articles or propositions, though never so soundly worded, that … makes a man a true believer or a true Christian. But it is a conformity of mind and practice to the will of God, in all holiness of conversation, according to the dictates of this Divine principle of Light and Life in the soul which denotes a person truly a child of God.” (Quaker faith and practice 26.78)
I would, however,
note that early Friends were much quicker to label some ideas as
“notions”, thus to be dismissed or not dwelt upon, than they were
others. Some Friends in later years – and I shouldn't be surprised
if some of their contemporaries – have suggested that the cry of
“notions!” was often used as a way of shutting down heterodox
thought. This is also worth bearing in mind today.
Now, theology is
often concerned with such things. Since the Renaissance, theologians
have been concerned with applying exegesis, rational analysis and
argument to matters of the Christian faith, and that is how the term
entered the English language. Similar matters exist in other faiths,
some in the relatively academic context that European Christian
theology has generally been found in, and others in more community-
or mystically-oriented contexts. The essential idea is the
application of reason and rationality to the spiritual, and the
attempt to describe the nature of the Divine.
There are those
whose approach to the question of non-theism within the Religious
Society of Friends is to extend the idea of “notions” to even
such ideas as whether the Divine has theistic properties, never mind
whether it is essentially the God of Christianity rather than that of
any other faith. As such, some say, we should dismiss any concern
about these matters and focus instead on our experience of the
Divine, being attentive to the leadings of our hearts and the
promptings of truth and love, allowing our lives to come under the
direction of that Spirit.
This is an
attractive universalist approach, and I am largely in sympathy with
it. However, I approach it with some caution. Not because I do not
consider answers to questions about the nature of the Divine to be
“notions”; I certainly think they are. However, to say we should
not bother with them at all is taking the dismissal of notions too
far.
Early Friends
were not rejecting any attempt to express our experience, nor to
describe any element of the nature of the Divine. They rejected the
habit, found in existing churches, of suggesting that the form was
what matters. That acceptance of the propositions of doctrine and
catechism was necessary to the following of true religion. It was a
rejection that went hand in hand with that of “empty forms”
(religious rituals) and of “profession” (proclaiming one's
allegiance to a church or faith).
The rejection of
“profession” was not a statement that one should not state one's
beliefs or religious affiliation; Quakers would openly state their
identity as Quakers even when to do so led to persecution. The
rejection of ritual was stronger, certainly, but still not as
absolute as we might like to think, as we live today as Friends
(especially liberal and conservative Friends) with an often smug
sense of non-ritualism (despite our sitting together on a regular
basis in the same manner, and despite our habit of following various
forms of physical performance and choice of words). And likewise,
they rejected the idea of notions as either necessary nor sufficient.
While the churches said “believe so, and proclaim so, and perform
these rituals, and you are saved by true religion”, the Quakers
said “sit quietly and experience true religion, and be changed by
it, and you are saved”. The difference is stark, but in my
experience under-appreciated.
“Perform these
rituals” is not part of the Quaker formulation, because of the
rejection of empty form. Silent worship is not an empty form, we
might argue, because it is something that we practice for its
demonstrable and immediate utility (at least in the subjective sense
of what we “known experimentally”). It is what allows us to grow
closer to, and have personal knowledge of the Divine. If we are true
to the rejection of forms, however, we must admit that it is possible
there are other things that have such an effect. This is one of the
root arguments for Quaker universalism, to my mind. It is not
necessary, nor is it a component of some formulation of what is
sufficient. Not only that, it is not the sitting in silence that
opens us to the Light, but the humble opening of our hearts. Sitting
in silence without doing so might be pleasant, even therapeutic, but
it is not religiously profitable.
“Proclaim so”
is not part of the Quaker formulation, because of the rejection of
profession. We do proclaim our faith, when appropriate to do so, but
proclaiming oneself a Quaker does precisely nothing to show that you
follow any “true religion”. Nor, for that matter, does formal
membership in a Quaker Meeting. We might say “Quaker is as Quaker
does”. It is that opening to the Light and acting on the basis of
what is revealed to us that makes us Quaker, followers of what early
Friends might have called “true religion”, whether we do so
through silent or programmed worship, whether we do so as Christians
or pagans, whether we have heard of the Religious Society of Friends
or not. This is, to my mind, another of the root arguments for Quaker
universalism.
“Believe so”
is not part of the Quaker formulation, as we have no creed or
catechism; though some have described some historic documents as
filling these roles, I am not aware of any being used truly as such
among liberal Friends today or among early Friends.
Importantly, we hold that no belief is necessary, nor part of any
sufficient formulation, to be a follower of “true religion”. This
is perhaps one of the most obvious roots of Quaker universalism,
though I personally think it is a less fundamental logical
underpinning than the previous points.
None of these
things are necessary, and none of them – indeed, not even any
combination of them taken together – are sufficient to the Quaker
idea of “true religion”. But as any logician will tell you,
something being neither necessary nor sufficient says nothing about
whether it might be true or not. Logically, it leaves them orthogonal
to the question of true religion. They were all railed against by
early Friends because they had become harmful in the churches of the
day, because they distracted from experience of the Divine. Tell
people that they must believe so, and proclaim so, and perform
certain rituals (including, of course, giving material support to the
church), and they are saved, is to hide from them what Friends
considered true religious experience. If something is unnecessary,
but is serving as an obstacle to experience of true religion, then
the only effective remedy is to throw it out, eliminate it as utterly
as possible.
Yet among those
who are not so hemmed in by religious practice and creeds that might
give such obstruction, it is no longer fruitful to utterly eliminate
these things. We have the freedom to explore these things without
letting them become shibboleths. Yet that freedom is not without
risk; it is not as easy to prevent them from becoming shibboleths as
one might think.
I experience the
Divine in a thousand ways. I experience it in nature, in
contemplation, in meditation, and in worship. I cannot express what I
experience properly; no-one can. It goes beyond any words, or poetry,
or art, or music. Yet while our faith is one based on direct
experience of the Divine, it is not
a wholly individualistic faith. It is something
we do together, something we build together, something we share.
As such, we do not merely have our own experiences, but we share
them. We share them to test our leadings, and we share them that
others might benefit from them – just as we benefit from the
experiences of others.
That means that
we will, inevitably, traffic in notions. It is not only okay to do
so, it is vital. What we have to remember, while we do so, is that no
notion is more important than the experience of the Light; that no
notion is essential to faithful living; that no notion is superior to
others.
If we shy away
from notions entirely, we lose the ability to communicate our
experiences and be a community of faith. If we focus on them to the
point that they become competitive and exclusive, we lose sight of
the Light and we fracture our community. Just as professing ourselves
Quakers is not harmful in itself, but believing that profession to be
the truth in itself, notions are not harmful in themselves – but
the holding of any notion pre-eminent or as a test of true faith,
that is harmful.
Let us celebrate
notions, and not fear them, so long as we celebrate them in their
full abundance. Let us not be fearful of setting down ideas, so long
as we do not set them down in stone and say “this is the Truth”.
Let us each share our experiences of the Divine as best we can, and
try to understand what others offer in the spirit in which it is
given, and let us hope that spirit is always one of love.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.