“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.
But just like “that
of God”, it has an original meaning – obscure and debatable as it
might be, depending on analysis of the semantics of someone writing
long ago, with both time and linguistic drift between them and us.
When we use the phrase, we invoke that original sense. We are
referencing an injunction by Fox – and while we should not, in my
opinion, feel bound by the teachings of Fox, we should at least not
misrepresent them excessively, not appropriate them for a completely
different meaning. As in that case, we need not feel ourselves
completely bound to exactly what Fox meant, even assuming we could
determine that with perfect confidence; as our understandings change,
the context in which the idea operates changes. However, the broad
sense of the intent should be preserved, or we should not use the
quote.
What then, is
this original meaning? The best we have to go on is the text itself,
understood in the context of language and culture of the time. The
few words in Advices and queries,
however, are a tiny sample of the whole text from which they are
drawn. Slightly more of that text appears in Quaker faith &
practice, in the chapter on
approaches to God, the section on Meeting for Worship – indeed,
opening that section – as
paragraph 2.35. This reads “Friends, meet together and know one
another in that which is eternal, which was before the world was.”
Slight change in wording of the operative phrase aside, given they
can be explained by making the phrase better fit the context of the
advice, this changes the sense in two obvious and important ways.
Firstly, it clarifies the meaning of “that which is eternal” with
a subordinate clause, “which was before the world was”. Second,
it uses the phrase as part of a prescription, an admonition – that
“we meet together”. There's a more subtle difference as well,
which I shall return to in a moment.
Taking the
injunction first, Fox urging us to “meet together”. We shall look
at the original context of this quote a little later, which will
clarify (or muddy) things further, but I will say that it is
respected by the location of the quote with Qf&p
– in the Meeting for Worship section. This quote refers to Meeting
for Worship. It would not be excessive to suggest that, with modern
understanding, it might apply to other spiritual activities. On the
other hand, it would certainly be a major departure to suggest that
it applies to social activities. Fox did not mean, and we should not
mean, “getting to know people” in any conventional, everyday
sense. We come to known one another in that which is eternal not by
getting to know them, but by sharing spiritual experiences with them.
The understanding
of “that which is eternal” as also being “[that] which was
before the world was” is, in the context of Christianity in Fox's
day, tautological, so it is actually convenient that he saw fit to
give that clarification. Perhaps it was for the benefit of those less
versed in Christian understanding, or to make sure that people
understood it in the correct sense. That is because “eternal” is
understood to mean something different from “everlasting” or
“perpetual”. I'm aware that there are different opinions about
this distinction; I am writing from my best understanding, which I
consider to be consistent with the matter in question at this time.
I'd love to have conversations about the distinction (or not) between
these concepts, but for the purposes of this post, let's leave be and
work with my definitions.
That which is
eternal has no beginning or end, or perhaps exists independent of
time. That which is everlasting or perpetual, on the other hand, has
no end, but may have a beginning. The idea of “eternal” in
philosophy is distinguished into sempiternal and eternal, that is
having infinite duration but existing within time, versus existing
outside of time and thus duration being meaningless; that distinction
is unlikely to have been in the mind of early Friends, and the
difference is not entirely relevant to the matter at hand. What does
matter is that we can see here that Fox's idea of eternal is not just
that which continues without end, but that which (for all human
purposes) exists without beginning – which “was before the world
was”. In the context of early Quaker Christian spirituality, this
can only mean one thing, though even early Friends had many names for
it – the (Holy) Spirit, the Seed, the Light, or the plain and
simple God.
This brings us to
an appropriate stage to point out the third difference between the
verbatim (if truncated) quote and the paraphrase in Advices
& queries. The paraphrase
refers to “the things
which are
eternal”; the quote refers to “that which is
eternal”. As any eagle-eyed grammarians among you will have
noticed, the paraphrase leads to a shift from the singular to the
plural. For Fox and the early Friends, as with many Friends of
different beliefs today, the Spirit, the Divine – whatever we might
call it – is singular. What a shift of meaning it is, then, in that
change from singular to plural. What might have been the intention of
those Friends who drafted Advices & queries,
in that change? I'm not in a position to do the documentary research
involved, but it would be interesting to investigate when the change
was introduced; was it in the drafting of these Advices &
queries, or were they drawing on
some earlier source that had made the change?
Let us assume,
perhaps generously, that the drafting, at whatever stage it may have
occurred, was informed by the Spirit. Let us consequently assume that
whatever essential meaning, some eternally valid meaning, that
underlies both the original text and the modern, is valid with both
the plural and the singular. This is a difficult leap, for it suggest
that there be some meaning deeper than the idea of God in the
original text, some idea that can also be approached in the plural.
It is tempting to think that this might be a pointer towards a
universalist approach to the intersection of monotheism and
polytheism, but that feels to me as though it misses the point. As
nice as it would be to make this assumption of a common meaning, it
does not seem readily supportable until and unless we have a clear
idea of what that might be.
So, let us
confine ourselves to the meaning of the original, for now. After all,
while the more recent text is a paraphrase, it is clearly evoking the
authority (such as it is) of the original. The original is actually
from an epistle of George Fox, as collected in A Collection
of Many Select and Christian Epistles, Letters and Testimonies
Written on Sundry Occasions by … George Fox
(volume 1). It would be rather excessively long to include here, so I
shall quote some, and summarise the rest.
It is also worth
noting the fairly apocalyptic, and unquestionably Christian language
of the epistle. This is entirely normal for early Friends, and
especially for Fox; where liberal Friends have found that
Christianity is not essential to be a Quaker, still we must own the
Christian language of early Friends. Whatever your reason for
believing that such unabashedly Christian roots can lead to our
pluralistic Society today, they must cope with the fact that early
Friends, particularly of the first generation, were definitively
Christian. For me, it is simply a case that I believe that this
Christianity was not essential to the truth that was revealed to
early Friends; it was revealed to them thus as the easiest path for
the Light to take, given their existing beliefs and social context.
The same principles could occur with other faith bases. This, of
course, cannot be proven either way; it is a matter for individual
belief.
The epistle
begins with a basic expression of the idea of Quaker Meeting for
Worship, that we “meet together, and in the measure of God's spirit
wait, that with it all your minds may be guided up to God, to receive
wisdom from God”. Then follows the text in question – the
injunction “and Friends meet together, and know one another in that
which is eternal, which was before the world was”. So far, so
“going to Meeting is good”, uncontroversial, and frankly not
terribly illuminating. But let us see the context a little further.
“And Friends meet together, and know one another in that which is eternal, which was before the world was. For knowing one another only in the letter and flesh, differs you little from the beasts of the field; for what they know they know naturally. But all knowing one another in the light which was before the world was, this differs you from the beasts of the field, and from the world's knowledge, and brings you to know one another in the elect seed which was before the world was. And if ye turn from this light ye grow strange; and so neglecting meetings ye grow cold, and your minds run into the earth and grow weary and slothful, and careless, and heavy, and sottish, and dull, and dead.”
Here we get some
clearer idea of what knowing one another in that which is eternal
actually means, at least by reference to what it is not, and what its
effects are. Such knowledge is distinguished from “knowing one
another … in the letter and flesh”, which is further elaborated
with reference to the “beasts of the field”, and “the world's
knowledge”. Now, one must remember that in many cases (though
likely not all), early Friends' references to “the world” have a
distinct theological meaning, referring to the world of the fallen
and ungodly. The possibility of this meaning must be in our minds
when we try to understand this epistle, though in this case it may
not be entirely relevant. I suspect that here the knowledge of beasts
is the large part of what Fox refers to as knowing one another in the
flesh, and the world's knowledge is knowing one another in the
letter. We might say, then, that knowing one another in the flesh is
know one another physically – recognising one another, knowing each
other's ability. Then knowing one another in the letter is to know
one another intellectually, knowing about one another's likes and
dislikes, knowing what we each do in the world, knowing one another's
preferred pastimes, preferred foods, and so on. Knowing one another
in that which is eternal is then beyond that, not something that can
be achieved through social activities, but as the epistle goes on to
make clear, only through shared spiritual activities. More
specifically, by joining in Worship. Personally, I cannot agree that
Meeting for Worship is the only way to achieve this, for reasons that
I shall explain later.
This section of
the epistle continues, however, to explain the perils of failing to
“meet together, and know one another in that which is eternal”.
It is this meeting and knowing, says Fox, that allows us to continue
in the Light, and to be guided by it throughout our lives. Otherwise
we “grow strange” and “grow cold”, our “minds run into the
earth” and so on. Indeed, the epistle continues in that vein, with
dire imprecations for our immortal souls. One interesting point is
the assertion that, having gone from the Light and neglected
meetings, we “may speak then of things which were opened once from
the light, though now ye be turned from it”. This is rather in line
with the early Quakers' rejection of “profession” as an element
of faith; there is no shibboleth, no way to test by speech or
knowledge whether a person is a faithful Friend. Indeed, there is a
clear scriptural basis for this: “Not everyone who says to me,
‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one
who does the will of my Father” (Matthew 7:21 NIV). In Christian
terms, we Quakers seek to know the will of God, that we might do it,
and it is this seeking and doing
that makes us Quakers. To be a Quaker is to partake in prophetic
faith, and the Bible also has something to say about prophets: “Watch
out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but
inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize
them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad
fruit.” (Matthew 7:15–17)
It may seem
strange for me to reference scripture in this way. In this case, it
is natural, as this is the language of the early Friends – and that
is what we are considering. That's not the only reason, though. While
I don't consider scripture anything special, it's no less a source of
wisdom than anything else – and “by their fruits” is a concept
that has clear value. Anyway, back to the matter at hand.
Most of the rest
of the epistle is continuing to riff on the themes already
established, though there is also a call not to “boast yourselves
above your measure of light”. This is an important point, and one
that I feel I will likely return to in future, but it is a fairly
distinct point from the rest of the epistle.
Thus, taken as a
whole, what we might take from the epistle is thus: it is in meeting
together, in Meeting for Worship, that we attain knowledge and
transformation from the Light. We cannot sustain that illumination on
our own, and require the discipline and cooperative action of Meeting
for Worship to do so. If it is not sustained, we turn from it; or, as
both causalities seem to be implied, if we turn from it we cease to
go to Meeting for Worship. Then all sorts of bad things happen, even
if we might continue to profess beliefs and knowledge attained in the
Light.
It's an
interesting proposition, theologically. It certainly fits easily with
the idea of total
depravity, that man is of a fallen and sinful nature which can
only be overcome through the grace of God. It also implies that this
grace is not irresistible, as we are capable of turning from it by
our own choice; if we assume that total depravity is followed in its
entirety, the grace must be prevenient – as total depravity
postulates that grace is necessary in order to choose to overcome
sinful nature. However, it seems a largely theoretical question, as
one might consider that this initial prevenient grace is freely
given; then there is no practical distinction between total depravity
and freely given prevenient grace, and a slightly less than total
depravity. In any case, it clearly implies an idea of depravity, from
which we may be saved by grace, but into which we fall once more if
we turn from grace.
The more
specifically Quaker element is that grace is mediated through a
collective act. To obtain the full benefit, to become more removed
from depravity, the epistle says that it is essential that we meet
together and worship; we can assume that Fox intended this to refer
only to Quaker worship, though we may to choose to differ from him on
this point. For now, I take no position on this matter.
Now, for me
depravity in the Christian sense means little; the idea of sinful
nature is not an important one to me (though considering this in the
context of my thoughts on a liberal
Quaker concept of sin would be very interesting, it is not a
conjunction that I will explore today). I would say that each of us,
much in the spirit of Miaphysitism, has a single nature of two
characters. We might call the overall “human nature”. These two
characters are distinct, yet joined without separation or mixture.
One of those might be called “better nature”, and the other
“baser nature”. I think of them as “selfless” and “selfish”,
most often, though that is still misleading; our selfless nature
still requires us to selfish sometimes, and we might do things that
appear to be selfless out of selfish drives. The two are so close
that we cannot always know which is driving us. One might call them
“divine” and “sinful”. When Fox spoke of the Light showing
him the darkness within, the capability for all crimes, that was for
me the cognisance of this baser nature.
So in a sense,
there is depravity; but there is also as part of us the complement of
depravity. We might say that we all have an inherent measure of grace
within our natures. What the Light does for us is enable us to know
one from the other. Our mental faculties, our capacity for reason,
are not very good at guiding us ethically. No system of formal ethics
can properly account for the range of human experience. All people
then need the guidance of the Inward Teacher, though they may call it
different names, or not even recognise its existence.
I suspect all
people are guided by the Inward Teacher from time to time, when they
allow it, though they may not know it. That gut feeling of right and
wrong comes not from our capacity to reason, but from the Light. Do I
then disagree with Fox's assertion that the Light is essential, and
thus Meeting for Worship is essential? Yes... and no.
No, I do not
think it is essential to have any particular spiritual practice, or
indeed any discernible spiritual practice, to be guided by the Light.
That is all that can be said without simply proceeding to excessive
waffle.
But I do think
that corporate spiritual practice is essential to fully realise the
influence of the Light, to build awareness of the Inward Teacher, to
come to know the Divine as it is revealed to you. I do not see that
Meeting for Worship is the only practice that can do this, but it is
particularly well suited to attain this outcome – because it is
designed and intended for that outcome and no other. Other spiritual
practices not so intended may be useful in this way, while others may
positively get in the way, substituting the wisdom of hierarchical
priesthood for the guidance of the Spirit.
In our world
today, however, this raises one very important question – what of
those Friends who do not attend Meeting for Worship regularly? Those
isolated by lack of Meeting nearby, or those who are unable, for
whatever reason, to attend their local Meeting – are they cut off
from this corporate grace, this most efficacious method of gaining
the benefit of the Light that is in us all? Surely that would be an
unacceptable outcome.
Well, while I
think it is best if Friends attend Meeting for Worship regularly, for
any number of reasons, I do not think it is the only way to be a
faithful Friend. There are other spiritual practices common to
Quakers, even individual prayer, that can fill that gap. More
importantly, there are other ways of sharing spiritual experience and
fellowship that do not require physical co-presence. Meeting for
Worship via some form of telepresence is one, of course, but so is
engaging in thoughtful spiritual exchange by other methods. The
internet has amazing potential for spiritual purposes, even if it is
also fraught with peril.
For those unable
to attend a local Meeting due to illness, infirmity, or impairments
that make Meeting for Worship difficult – or simply due to not
being able to make the usual time for Meeting – there are ways to
modify our activities. We can reach out, when we know such Friends
are in our area, and offer them Worship in their own home, or some
other suitable location. We can offer alternatively timed Meetings,
which might differ in some other way. We can have shorter Meetings,
“fiddle-friendly” Meetings, or Meetings where all those present
know that they may be sharing Worship with people who cannot avoid
“disruptive” movements or utterances.
For those too
remote, I see we have another duty, other than just offering support
via technology. Liberal Quakers seem to spend a fair amount of time
laying down Meetings, but very little establishing new ones. Let us
keep track of where there are remote Friends, and see if there are
enough near some common point to start a Meeting. Let us not forget
that anywhere with any population might have people already living
there who would attend Meeting for Worship if they had they faintest
idea what it was – or that it existed. Let us consider experimental
Meetings, or worship groups, where we provide support – material
and spiritual – for outreach to see if a new Meeting might be
established. Indeed, there may be places where there are already
considerable numbers of active enquirers who wish to know more, but
are stymied by the lack of a local Meeting. FWCC, and its constituent
sections, do some work in this area, but mostly in places where there
are no established Meetings; in a country or area with an established
Yearly Meeting, they generally – as I understand it – refer
people to the appropriate YM, who generally then don't do very much.
To know one
another in that which is eternal is to share our grace, our Light,
our spiritual experience. It goes beyond the sort of knowing that
might come from social activities and icebreakers; indeed, it is of
an entirely different character. Meeting for Worship is an effective
way to do so, but it is not the only way, and indeed may be
supplemented by other spiritual activities to greater effect. Do not
look down on solitary Friends; instead, look at how they might be
helped, might have the opportunity to know others in that which is
eternal.
For it comes down
to this – to know one another in that which is eternal is to know
the Divine, and to know the Divine is to know one another in this
way; they are two sides of one coin, and we can only promote one by
also promoting the other.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.