‘Birthright’ Quakers

For quite some time, Quakers have found it worthwhile – or at least traditional – to have an idea of who is formally part of our Religious Society. Quite naturally, we refer to people who have such formal status members; in Britain, we refer to those who have some degree of relationship with a Meeting but are not in membership as attenders. Membership has formally existed for some time, and while there are naturally voices who wish to see it abolished – and even more who wish to see it reformed – it has persisted. In Britain Yearly Meeting, we (supposedly) require that people in certain roles be members, though the only role that this seems to be universally applied to is that of trustee, a restriction that has sound legal basis. Quaker faith & practice recommends that clerks of meetings, elders, overseers, treasurers, registering officers and members of nominations committees should be in membership (Qf&p 3.24).

Nowadays, people principally come into membership in Britain Yearly Meeting by applying for it, and going through some sort of process. This usually involves a visit from seasoned members who talk about the application with the applicant, and produce a report, which is generally a sort of spiritual biography, though it can take many forms, and largely serves to help the Area Meeting as a whole to better know the new member. There are also provisions for a child to be brought into membership on the application of a parent or guardian, and I consider both the adult and child processes below.

Back from Unplanned Hiatus

As my regular readers will have noticed, I’ve been a little bit lax in posting of late. So, as I’m finally back on track and ready to get on with somewhat regular posting again, I thought I’d let you know something of why.

My posting schedule had become a bit more infrequent when I started some new work around last November. Unfortunately, the nature of the work means I can’t talk about what it is publicly (and if you know, as some of you will, please don’t you talk about it publicly either). Work that pays solid money is always going to have to take priority, at least until such time as this blog somehow earns me something solid towards my living costs (and slim chance of that, though if you think it deserves it please do consider contributing to my Patreon – the more I’m making there, the more reliable my posting will be). So while that work is variable, I’m going to take all the days I can of it in order to be financially not-in-a-crisis. Having this work is good news, it means my wife and I are a little more secure (though not as secure as we would be if it were a reliable, set amount of work), and that’s great. It does mean other things were under a little more pressure and some things got squeezed out.

Reflection on ‘Aphorism 3’ (Do not ask for lessons)

“Do not ask for lessons; all I can give are opportunities.”
–Aphorism 3

This is an interesting one, to be sure. To understand what it might be taken to mean, we must consider the possible meanings of different parts of it. For instance, what is meant by ‘lesson’, and what by ‘opportunities’? More profoundly, in whose voice should it be taken as being? At the same time, it is a very simple statement that seems to have a fairly straightforward meaning, at least from the point of view of certain approaches to education. So straightforward that it might be considered a pat answer itself, in fact (though that adjective, pat, has some divergence in meaning that means it might be appropriate whether the explanation is trivial and misguiding or simple and correct).

Let us first consider that straightforward answer. A popular view of education, of the process of learning, is that the only true agent in the process is the learner. Constructivist theories of education hold that knowledge cannot be transmitted, only constructed by the individual. In that context, even modified in such variants as social constructivism (where knowledge construction takes place in the context of interaction between individuals), a more traditional ‘lesson’, in which knowledge is transmitted from teacher to student, is impossible – or at least ineffective. The educator instead provides opportunities for the construction of knowledge, facilitates the process. It might be said, then, that this aphorism is simply a truism in the context of constructivist educational theory. However, in receiving it as ministry it behoves us to look beyond that simple explanation. That is where we must consider the possible meanings, beyond that of constructivism, and the voice of the statement.

Reflection on ‘Maxim 3’ (No system of formal ethics)

“No system of formal ethics can properly account for the range of human experience.”
–Maxim 3

This is an interesting one to approach, because one has to understand the phrase “system of formal ethics”. I assume, as the ministry came through me, that it should be understood through the lens of my own understanding at the time. After all, I do not get the sense that ministry is literally words being put in our mouths (or at our hands); it is, rather, a sense of knowledge or the shape of an idea that makes use of our own faculties to be recorded. It is in this way that ministry also comes in the form of verse or visual artwork. This does not mean that the person through whom the ministry is delivered understands it fully, of course – rather that they have better context than others, perhaps, for discerning the meaning of specific terms. It’s important to know that sometimes that context gives little overall insight, but when it comes to what a phrase means, there are certainly times that it is helpful.

(There are also times when ministry comes in a way that adamantly insists on certain words being used without conscious understanding of why on the part of the person through which it comes. That is not the usual situation, in my experience, but it is not uncommon.)

Quakers and ‘Paksworld’

Continuing the theme of my previous post, about the fictional setting of Valdemar in the context of Quakerism, I’m going to look at another fictional setting and see what parallels there might be. Today, you get to read my thoughts on Quakers and the setting of the ‘Paksenarrion’ books. This was introduced to the world through the three-volume fantasy novel The Deed of Paksenarrion (the volumes being Sheepfarmer’s Daughter, Divided Allegiance, and Oath of Gold), a Tolkienesque fantasy epic with a female protagonist, Paksenarrion (shortened to ‘Paks’), an asexual soldier (and yes, the asexuality is plot relevant, which is pretty good going for the late eighties), who goes on to bigger and better things (while still being a fighter) and saves, well, not the world exactly (at least not directly – that comes with other people in the sequels) but at least the way of life of people of her own culture. That’s a familiar line for those who would take people to war in the modern world, but she is not fighting against people of another culture, but for good against evil.

Reflection on ‘Aphorism 2’ (Reason and Light Combined)

“When you dwell in thought on important or profound matters, dwell also in the Spirit. Reason and Light combined give the truest fount of insight.”
–Aphorism 2

This is very simple advice, easy to understand in a literal sense, and making very little use of symbolism of imagery. Technically, ‘Light’ is imagery, but it is such standard imagery for Quakers that it barely counts; it is one of the terms we use, largely regardless of specific theological views, for the Divine, or an aspect of the Divine, or a way of looking at the Divine. Early Friends spoke of the “Light of Christ”, seeing it as an expression of the work of the Holy Spirit upon those who are open to it. Indeed, it is a clear reflection of the Pentecostal essence of the Quaker way, however different we might be now from those churches referred to as ‘Pentecostal’ today.

The idea of Pentecostal Christianity is a focus on the Holy Spirit’s work among Christians today, in reference to the events commemorated by the festival of Pentecost – the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles (and other followers of Jesus). This happened during the Jewish Feast of Weeks, Shavuot, commemorating Moses’ receipt of the law – the Torah – on Mount Sinai, as well as marking the wheat harvest in Israel. Shavuot occurs on the 50^th day after Passover (according to some traditions), and was thus also known in the language of the New Testament, Koine Greek (including by some Hellenistic Jews of the first century CE), as Pentēkostē, or ‘fiftieth’. That word is also used in the Septuagint, the key Koine translation of the Hebrew scriptures, to refer to the “year of Jubilee” that occurred every fifty years, but its use to refer to Shavuot is key to its importance as a term in Christianity. It was adopted to commemorate the events of Shavuot so long ago – counting the 50 days from Easter, which marks events that occurred at Passover, though Easter and Passover now no longer necessarily coincide.

What is Community?

Our Meetings are each a community. Each is situated in wider communities – the Area Meeting, the Yearly Meeting, and let us never forget the wider community, beyond Friends, in which our Quaker communities sit.

Community, as a word, is obviously related to commune. As a noun, a commune is a group of people that share something, usually property. As a verb, with a slightly different (but closely related) etymology, it is often used in a spiritual sense for a sort of silent communication, often with something bigger than a person – as in communing with nature, a divinity, and so on. It can also refer to other sorts of intimate communication, or taking of communion in the Christian Eucharist.

Another related word is common. A commune hold their property in common. A community is a group bound together by something in common.

Reflection on ‘Maxim 2’ (The Lone Voice)

“The most important voice to speak and be heard is the lone voice.”
–Maxim 2

This is a deceptively simple statement, I feel. At its most obvious interpretation, it is straightforward – we should listen to people who hold unusual views, or at least uncommonly expressed views. The “lone voice of dissent” should not be dismissed. But does that mean it should be accorded the same weight as the views that are held by most people? There we fall into the same sort of ‘false balance’ that the media have often been accused of in cases like climate science, treating fringe ideas (like “the climate is changing but it’s not because of what humans are doing, and nothing we do can change it”) as worthy of equal time and prominence as mainstream ideas (like “the recent rapid climate change is a result of human activity, and if we have any hope of halting it we must change our behaviour”). Certainly, the lone voice of dissent should not automatically be able to halt a considered and discerned position that has been reached, or is forming, among the rest of a community. Why then would be be encouraged to ensure that the lone voice speaks and is heard?

Quakers and Valdemar

There are, obviously, no photographs of companions, so here's
a white horse.

We can draw inspiration from many places. The natural world, scripture and other sacred texts, spiritual writing by great thinkers (or humble bloggers), philosophy, political and economic writings, art, all sorts of things. Many of these things, we can, as Quakers, consider potentially inspired by the Divine, perhaps in just a small way, perhaps in a great way. I’m very fond of Khalil Gibran’s The Prophet, personally, and though I don’t know for sure how spiritual he intended it to be, I find it a very spiritual book and think it likely to be inspired.

But it’s not just these very conventionally spiritually inspired and/or inspiring works that can give us that sort of spiritual fillip. Sometimes it’s fiction. For me, especially, I find some works of fantasy and science fiction particularly likely to stimulate my thought on spiritual matters – seeing parallels, intended by the author or not, with matters in our own world. This is one of the great strengths of some of the best science fiction and fantasy, showing us things about our own world in a fresh form to help us see them. Whether any of this is divinely inspired, I can’t see, but reflecting on it, or even just reading it, I feel the Light working in me.

Reflection on ‘Aphorism 1’ (Looking Out for the Divine)

“The divine may be found everywhere; one does not look for the divine so much as look out for it”
–Aphorism 1

This one is interesting. The essential statement of the first half is straightforward, on the face of it, and the second half is easily read in two (subtly) different ways. The difference hinges on the different senses people intend when they talk about “looking out” for something.

The straightforward reading of the first half is quite clear. If you believe in a theistic God, it could be seen as an expression of the idea of omnipresence. Whether or not you believe in such a thing, it can be taken as suggesting that, whatever the Divine is, it is in some sense everywhere, or at least reflected everywhere. Actually, that could do with some unpacking and elaborating, but let’s look more closely at the second half of the aphorism first.

The Divine and Number

Number is an interesting thing. In mathematics it is the structure that we apply to the idea of quantity, making it sit in nice neat rows. In linguistics, it’s a grammatical feature in which words mutate depending on how many (of whatever) they or another word relate to. We have our system of ‘arabic’ numerals, more properly known as hindu-arabic numerals (represented using different symbols in different scripts, but sharing the essential system of placed number and associated marks to denote decimal fractions and so on). We count things almost obsessively, at times, with national censuses (for good reason), stock takes (also good reason), or “notches on the belt” (or bedpost, both for less good reason, in my opinion).

Sex Positivity Isn't Always Positive

Asexual Pride Flag

A lot of Quaker writing on sex reads like it’s trying to be sex-positive. That’s good, in the sense that religious approaches to sex in the Christian world aren’t generally expected to be, and it’s fair to say that we have this capacity to great pleasure and it can be godly to make use of it. I think sex-positive approaches to spirituality and – more importantly – to sex education are great. We don’t need to be telling people they shouldn’t have sex, just that they should do it responsibly and in a way that is fair and kind to them and to their partner(s).

There’s one problem with such sex-positivity, though. We can end up making it sound like sex is an essential part of the human experience – in fact, sometimes we come right out and say that, in more or less similar words. The problem is that it isn’t. It is for some of us, perhaps, even most of us. But there are those for whom it is not part of their experience. People who experience little or no sexual desire, or for whom it is never directed at another person (though solo enjoyment is still a sexual experience). There are those who experience it seldom, or only in certain circumstances, such as those who are demisexual (definitions of which vary). These people are not broken (though changes in experience as a result of trauma require careful consideration), any more than those who experience sexual desire for people of the same gender are broken. To be asexual, or anywhere on the ‘ace spectrum’, is as valid a sexuality as any other.

Quaker Pharisees

Before reacting negatively to some of the language in this ministry, please see the note that follows it.

Do not doubt that there are, among Quakers today, our own Pharisees.

I do not refer to the actual historical figures, of course. The Pharisees were one of several schools of thought, or sects, among Temple Judaism, and not necessarily even the dominant one; they became dominant with the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 CE, as the various other sects had been particularly targeted by Rome, were small and unpopular in the first place, or were too closely tied to the Temple itself. Much of the thought or approach depicted from Jesus in the Gospels was in fact most likely common among Pharisaic thought, or were the view of a particular sub-sect.

Reflection on ‘Maxim 1’ (Always Question Everything)

“Always question everything; certainty is the enemy of spiritual growth.”
—Maxim 1

This is the very short piece of ministry that started it all, so to speak, in terms of such short ministry. It occurred to me repeatedly, and once I gave in and wrote it down, it was soon followed by a series of other such short pieces. It wasn’t a rush, nor a constant flow over time, but came in fits and starts.

It’s also rather a foundational thought for my own spiritual approach. The first part is actually a common saying among skeptics (they always seem to use that Americanised spelling online, even many of the Brits, and I’ll use that spelling specifically for this usage), by which I do not mean people who are generally slow to believe things. I mean the movement of actively non-religious, often science-focussed (and positivist), and sometimes downright anti-religious people that has grown largely online. The patron saints of the movement seem to be Dawkins and Popper, though there is also a current among skeptics that suggests that Dawkins might be a bit of a jerk and that Popperian science is both not as restrictive as some think, and not the only way to think about science. It is the approach and attitude that gave rise to Pastafarianism (also known as The Church of The Flying Spaghetti Monster) and various other satirical approaches to (or uses of) religion, and might be seen as a new generation’s version of the secular humanist movement. Indeed, some people involved in the skeptical community also get involved in secular humanism. “Always question everything” might reflect a sceptical view generally, though I’ve also heard it from conspiracy theorists – by which they mean to question the official narrative of events – and various sorts of counter-cultural and off-mainstream viewpoints.

On Sex, and Love, and Being ‘Casual’

In the liberal wing of the Religious Society of Friends, we’re pretty liberal about sex (liberal meaning slightly different things in those two cases, so not automatically following one from the other). We aren’t down on premarital sex, we’re fine with same-sex relationships and sex, and I even perceive a growing acceptance of, if not always support for, various forms of ethical non-monogamy (polyamory and suchlike). While we might not be overly judgemental of casual sex, though, I generally sense a certain disapproval, a lack of acceptance of it. I think that is driven by the right motives, there are good reasons that flow from Love for that attitude, but still I think the conclusion is slightly wrong.

Reflections on ‘Maxims & Aphorisms’

As I’ve now posted 40 of the very short pieces of written ministry that I’ve been referring to as ‘Maxims & Aphorisms’, I felt that it was a good time to step back, pause them (pause the posting of them, new ones come as they will), and reflect. This weekend I’ll be posting the first of these, a reflection on Maxim 1, and I’ll aim to keep them up weekly like I did the maxim & aphorisms themselves.

These will be my own reflections, and they will also be somewhat influenced by the reactions that I’ve had to each piece. So, if you have thoughts on any of the maxims & aphorisms that you would like to know has fed into the reflection, you can still comment on any of them, or let me know your thoughts by some other means.

The reflections will also be reachable by link on the Maxims & Aphorisms page as they are posted.

Our Ways Are Not The World's Ways

Our ways are not the World’s ways, and we should have care to keep to our traditions.

The first part of that is a common enough saying among a lot of Christian groups, nonconformists more than others. The second is my own summary of what a lot of people seem to mean when they say it, or anything like it, in certain situations. And funnily enough, I cannot help but agree with it. It’s not simple, though. Consider…

Aphorism 20

Quakers and Equal Civil Partnership

In a legal development in which British Quakers were vocally involved, equal marriage has been achieved in Great Britain – with separate laws in Scotland and in England & Wales, of course. Since 2014, it has been possible for two people to marry regardless of gender. Northern Ireland, for complex cultural and political reasons, has yet to follow suit, although they recognise same-sex marriages as civil partnerships, and civil partnerships can be entered into in that part of the United Kingdom.

As well as the campaign on the long road to equal marriage, along which the introduction of civil partnerships is generally considered a stop, there have also been those arguing for opposite-sex civil partnerships. I have known Friends who have been involved in this action, including those who stated their wish to form a civil partnership rather than a marriage, despite not being a same-sex couple. That campaign has now, thanks in large part to a supreme court judgement (the Steinfeld-Keidan judgement), led to a change in law in England and Wales and opposite-sex civil partnerships are expected to be available before the end of the year.

Quakers and Social Media

Photo includes trademarks that are the property of
their respective owners.

Love it or hate it, social media is now part of our world. It's not a purely western phenomenon, nor something restricted to “developed” economies. Not only is it prevalent in the so-called BRICS economies, or even the so-called “Next Eleven”, but it is increasingly a meaningful part of life in pretty much every country where it is available – and it’s available in more than you might think. We might look at how much our computers cost, in the Global Economic North, and the price of iPhones and their most direct competitors, and boggle at the idea that people in poorer countries have access, but remember that far more inexpensive phones exist. Companies want to make money from every population they can, and if that means finding a way to make it affordable to additional populations, that is what will happen. Also, it is worth remembering that every country, no matter how much poorer it may seem, has a wealthy elite. In fact, the biggest barrier to social media adoption in some parts of the world is not wealth, but literacy.

Maxim 20

Sun and Clouds

The Spirit is like the sun. It is always there, its light shining always and in every direction, as bright one moment as any other. But like the sun, it does not always seem as bright to us from day to day, or hour to hour, or moment to moment – though even to our perception, there is no night of the Spirit.

What, then, are the clouds that make the sun seem dim or obscure? Perhaps our own condition: both the things that we do that put that separation between us and the Divine, that make us blind or deaf to it until we have put our own spirit in better condition, and the things that we have less control over – our state of mind, the distractions of our daily life, tiredness or busy-ness. Perhaps also something outside ourselves that is pure chance, like the behemoths and the wisps of sparse droplets of water and ice crystals that we see in the sky.

Aphorism 19

A Salutary Prayer

Do not give me certainty.
It is seductive and comforting, but it closes my mind.

Give me curiosity.
The desire to know and understand experiences other than my own.

Give me scepticism,
So I challenge what I hear, what I see, and what I know.

Thoughts on Revision

So, Britain Yearly Meeting has decided – nearly a year ago now – to start the process of revising our Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice. As I have previously written, I am very much supportive of this process, seeing it as an opportunity. The revision committee has been appointed, with several people on it being well known to me, and showing quite a range of diversity – as had been requested of nominations. As they slowly and thoughtfully begin their work, I wish to offer them – and the wider community – some thoughts. I suppose this might be considered an ‘open letter’, but I do not intend it in the way that most open letters are used; they are generally in the context of campaigning, and I do not consider it appropriate that anyone campaign for anything in the context of the revision process. This is not about lobbying and defending interests, but about coming together to reach the right decisions for our Yearly Meeting at this time, just as in all of our spirit-led decision-making. This post is just my unasked for advice, or perhaps a statement of my own hopes. Members of the committee, and of the wider Quaker community in Britain, can take it as they will.

Maxim 19

Where Things Are, Where They're Going

This blog has been a bit quiet lately. Very few posts other than the Maxims and Aphorisms, and I’ve even missed posting those a few times lately. There are reasons for this that I shan’t be shouting about publicly, but I have been reflecting on where I want to go with a few things.

Firstly, I don’t want anyone to worry, either about me or about the blog. I’m okay, or will be, and the blog will continue much as before, with the same sort of mix of content. For those who have backed my Patreon, I apologise for the lack of updates (though the backing never reached the level where I made a commitment to a certain rate of posting), and that will get better.

What About When You Don't Hope So?

Sceptical Cat isn't sure you read the sense of the meeting aright.

As I discussed in some detail in an earlier post, the tradition – at least among British Friends – when a clerk offers a minute during a business session is to indicate assent/consent by saying “I hope so” (often elided to just “hope so”). But what about when you cannot do so? What do Friends do in that situation, and what should they do?

This is an interesting question to look at, because both the theory and the practice vary between communities of Friends, and have varied over time, somewhat separately from one another. I shan’t attempt to summarise everything done everywhere, nor identify when or where a practice was or is common, but I will try and give an overview of different approaches – and my opinion of them. First, however, we must consider the different sorts of disagreement.

The Candle

Candles are an amazingly rich source of metaphors. They show up in common sayings, such as “better to light a candle than curse the darkness” (which is itself of debated origin, often given as an old Chinese proverb but possibly dating to a written sermon by an American preacher published in 1907), and are a popular form of imagery as well as a focus for meditation or hypnosis. I doubt this is the first candle metaphor for Quaker spirituality, but it is the one I am given.

The gathered meeting is a table of candles, much as one might find in some churches. Each of us is a candle, stood shoulder to shoulder with the others, wax and wick and flame.

Aphorism 18

Maxim 18

What's This ‘Privilege’ Thing, Then?

In about a month, Friends from across Britain – and beyond – will gather in London for Britain Yearly Meeting 2019. The theme for this year is privilege, examining our own and the range of privilege within our community. As the document Preparing for Yearly Meeting (available from the BYM website) notes:

Privilege – whether we recognise it or not – fundamentally impacts our ability to act on our urgent Quaker concerns regarding climate justice and sustainability, and inclusion and diversity. Privilege is fluid, there are many types, and each varies according to context. The purpose of our examination of privilege is to help each of us become aware of the unseen chains that bind us and determine how we act in our lives.

That document has a lot of great material to prepare, and I don't intend to reproduce it or compete with it. There is also a ‘toolkit’ available from the same link above, Owning power and privilege, produced by QPSW, and I do not intend to supplant that, either. It looks at some key concepts and explains them somewhat shallowly, albeit with examples. I say this not as a criticism – for many, this is the most we can expect them to learn about this on their own, and the information in the toolkit is certainly clearer than a lot of explanations of these things. Hopefully, sharper learning will come from sessions at YM.

There are two things that I want to try and help with, in this post. One is simply to recognise the fact that most active Quakers in this country, including myself, won't be at Yearly Meeting. I imagine Friends House would collapse – organisationally, if not physically – if that weren't the case. Friends elsewhere in the world who are interested in the same sorts of learning that Britain YM is trying to encourage will also (in the vast majority) won't be there. These conversations have to happen in other places if they are to have the greatest benefit.

Aphorism 17

Easter Reflection: The Lord's Supper

I wrote last year about Quakers and Easter, both what it can mean from a community perspective, and what it can mean from a spiritual perspective. This year, I wish to reflect on a Christian story that forms part of the Easter narrative, but which has led to a practice that is undertaken regularly, year round, by most Christian and derived traditions – though not, largely speaking, by Quakers (certainly not by those who worshipped in an unprogrammed manner, and not consistently by those in programmed traditions). I refer, of course, to the story of the Last Supper, and the practice of the Eucharist – also known as Holy Communion, the Lord's Supper, the Blessed Sacrament, Sacrament of the Altar, the Breaking of Bread (a term which can relate to wider and older traditions), and other names besides. For those who do not recognise those terms, this is the symbolic (or more than symbolic, depending on your denomination) consumption of the body and blood of Christ – in the form of bread or wafers and wine (or grape juice or water, depending on denomination) – during the main worship service in most Christian churches.

Maxim 17

Recognising and Supporting Ministry

We always say, and have said for some time (not without scriptural authority, though I sometimes think that one of the favourites is being twisted a little away from its intended meaning) that there are many gifts of the Spirit. These are abilities that we might put into use in the service of Truth, usually now meaning in service of our Meetings. However, liberal Meetings have largely grown away from recognising certain gifts. I speak, of course, of gifts of ministry.

It is necessary here to digress slightly into what we mean by “ministry”. It is a wonderful word, quite rich in its meaning before we Quakers came along and bent it into new shapes, albeit ones not inconsistent with the history or etymology of the time. It is derived from the Latin ministerium, meaning the office of a minister. Of course, what is meant by that term in Latin would not necessarily be terribly recognisable to modern English speakers. In countries where governmental terms derive from Britain (but a more recent divergence than that of the United States), a minister is a member of a government, generally one with considerable power – or at least who likes to think they have. Certainly they tend to have plenty of underlings. Of course, they are led by a prime minister, often conceived of as a first among equals but generally speaking the head of the executive element of government. In many faiths, we have ministers of religion, who tend to exercise authority over their flock in some way. A third major instance of the term, much less familiar to most people nowadays, is in the world of diplomacy. There, it is the usual short form for the title envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, and obsolete but still technically extant diplomatic rank used for the heads of missions that were rated as legations, a lower status than an embassy (which is naturally headed by an ambassador). There was also, going further back, a further rank of minister resident, for missions ranked below legations – often from or to states that existed de facto rather than de jure, or otherwise poor or unimportant polities. Since the growing value of the UN in the 60s, sovereign states now generally only create embassies as their diplomatic missions, unless there are not full diplomatic relations between them. In that case, a mission led by a chargé d'affaires en pied will be established, if anything. In that case, the head of mission is accredited between the foreign ministers involved, rather than between heads of state.

Sharing Joy

When we see two people in love, we can rejoice in it and share it even though we are not, ourselves, part of that love.

When someone has a passionate interest that we do not share, we might have little interest in hearing them talk about it at great length, but we can still take joy in the joy it gives them.

Even where we have been hurt and cannot engage in romantic love, or where romantic interest is no part of our own makeup, even where we have been traumatised by that in which someone else is interested, we can share their joy.

Aphorism 16

Maxim 16

Aphorism 15

Maxim 15

Aphorism 14

Maxim 14

Aphorism 13

Maxim 13

True Religion

True religion raises up,
      It does not cast down.

True faith frees the mind,
      It does not constrain.

True divinity heals,
      It does not rend apart.

True friendship fosters growth,
      It does not hem you in.

True love enables life,
      It does not enjoin unlooked-for change.

True forgiveness looks forward,
      It does not look to settle scores.

True knowledge illuminates ignorance,
      It does not give certainty.

True insight shows your inner self,
      It is not limited to the outer world.

Hold fast to the true, and be wise to the false.
Love your friends, and uphold life.
Forgive as you can, but not falsely.
Be free in your mind, and rejoice in the freedom of others.
Illuminate as you would be illuminated,
And share all, giving and receiving.

Written February 2019

Aphorism 12

Coining a New Name

I am indebted in writing this piece to several friends (not all of whom are Friends) helping me puzzle out the nuances of a dead language. Special mention must go, however, to my sister-in-law, and to the helpful folks of the Latin Stack Exchange. I am no scholar of ancient languages myself, though I dabble (as I do in many things). Any errors in how I have made use of Latin are my own, and as I've had to be a little creative I expect there are some.

Much conversation goes on among liberal Friends, at least recently in Britain, concerning our range of names for the Divine. This is why there's a tag for it on this blog, and has become a startling focus of conversation around our theological diversity. Some of the worry – and some of the excitement – about the upcoming revision of Britain Yearly Meeting's Book of Discipline even relates to this. Some of the differences in name reflect the different ways we have of thinking about the Divine, and sometimes using the same name conceals that difference.

We have the old names – God, the Father, Christ, and more esoteric terms early Friends were fond of, such as Seed. Then we have names that are old, but new to Quakers, as other faith traditions feed into our own, and they are too many and varied for it to be easy to pick out a few. We have names that reflect theological liberalism and universalism, delightfully non-committal like my own go-to name, the Divine. We have terms that were used by early Friends and are used today with different nuance, like Light (for early Friends it was often the Light of Christ, or Inward Light; today it is often Inner Light, and for both it would just be shortened to “Light”). Maybe it's time for something new. Something that reflects what we are united on, or at least as united as we ever are, without claiming anything else.

Maxim 12