Reflection on Aphorism 7: The Divine Can Only Guide Us If Willing

“As leaders can only lead with the consent of those led, however grudging that might be, the Divine can only guide us if we are willing to be guided.”
–Aphorism 7

Whatever your view on theology, it is clear that the Divine, however we conceive of it, is limited. If you believe in an omnipotent God, then this limitation is clearly self-imposed, for whatever reason. If one believes in a God that is good, one can only assume that it cannot or will not interfere in the world to maximise happiness (unless you go with the “best of all possible worlds” argument, which I always found sophistic). Other conceptions of the Divine are more obviously limited.

By analogy, this aphorism expresses one of those limitations – that while we can put our lives under the ordering of the Spirit, we have to be willing to do so. In fact, while it is not stated in the aphorism, I would go further – we have to work to do so. The Divine may be trying to speak to us all the time, but it cannot reach us without an open heart, or perhaps an open soul, and for most if not all of us, that takes work and practice. We have to learn to quiet the loud voices of our selves to hear the still small voice of God.

Reflection on Maxim 7: Being Who You Are Is Never A Sin

“Being who you are is never a sin.”
–Maxim 7

This is, I hope, self-explanatory. I suppose different people can take different things from it according to their own perspective and experience. I will reflect on it from my own perspective and experience.

People are all different. We’re different in different ways. Some of us are introverts, preferring to keep our time with other people to a minimum, and some are extraverts, thriving on the company of others. Some of us are born artists, or born dreamers, born analysts, even, it would seem, born bureaucrats. Some of us are attracted to people of particular sex or gender, the same as our own or different, and for some that matters little, if anything.

Reflection on Aphorism 6: It Is Not Faith That Sustains Us

“It is not faith that sustains us; the Spirit sustains us, and the exercise of faith and discipline facilitates this process.”
–Aphorism 6

This one is a little more mystical, more metaphysical perhaps, than is usual for me. I find it quite difficult to engage with because it doesn’t fit terribly well with how I conceptualise my relationship with the Divine. And yet I wrote it down, because I was called to do so.

I do not see the Spirit as something essential without the person, but as an essential essence of each person that is connected to that in others; a series of Divine shards, if you will, that joins us together and makes up a greater whole – though ‘shards’ conjures the image of these pieces having once been an undivided whole that was broken, which isn’t how I see it.

Reflection on Maxim 6: Forgive, Don't Be Quick to Forget

“Forgive as readily as you might, but do not be quick to forget.”
–Maxim 6

This is one of the most straightforward of these short pieces of written ministry. Indeed, it is entirely plain on its face. The question of why it needs saying, however, is worth some examination and reflection.

A common saying in English is “forgive and forget”; I do not know if similar sentiments are expressed in other languages where, perhaps, they are not so alliterative. The idea is much the same as “let bygones be bygones”, which is to say, let things in the past stay in the past – what’s done is done. I think many see this as a fine ideal, but hard to put into practice. On closer examination, though, is it even good as an ideal?

Reflection on ‘Aphorism 5’ (Never Seeing with the Same Eyes)

“The spiritual journey is much like the physical journeys of our lives. While you may return to the same territory, you will never see it with the same eyes.”
–Aphorism 5

This actually bears less reflection than many of the maxims and aphorisms I have shared. It is, to be frank, fairly direct. It is not cryptic, and doesn’t have a great many layers of meaning. Still, I will deconstruct it, as I understand it, and we shall see what we shall see.

It is harder to see when considering those things and places we see every day, or every week. Still, it has been my experience that when I revisit places that I have not seen for some time, they do not seem the same. Sometimes, of course, it is because they have changed – a park that you visit for the first time in years will have changes in trees, in furniture, maybe even in the routes of paths. Returning to your school in adulthood, buildings may have been demolished and replaced, uniforms altered, the behaviour of staff and pupils altered. But that’s not all there is to the difference.

Reflection on ‘Maxim 5’ (Each of Us Dies)

“Each of us dies with our work incomplete.”
–Maxim 5

Some people have told me that they find this very short ministry depressing. I guess I can see that. On the other hand, it’s a bit like “things are always in the last place you look”, or “a letter always reaches its destination”. Not as much of an absolute tautology as those, in that one doesn’t generally look anywhere else for something once they’ve found it (and no-one says it can’t also be in the first place you look), and wherever a letter arrives is, by definition, its destination (even if it isn’t the intended destination).

No, this one is, to me, extremely simple in essence and very complex in implication. The essence is simply this: there is always more we might have done. Every life that ends is a loss of someone who could contribute, albeit some of that loss may have occurred earlier than the point of death in the case of senescence or degenerative and/or progressive illnesses. Whatever you do, whatever amazing work you have done, you could always have done more.

Reflection on ‘Aphorism 4’ (Every Prejudice)

“Every prejudice that exists in your society is a part of you. To deny it is to refuse to fight it.”
– Aphorism 4

To me this ministry is a direct and clear challenge. Many of us, and Quakers not least, like to think that we are so enlightened and have moved beyond prejudice and bigotry. We like to tell ourselves comforting lies, and this is a key example.

It’s understandable. We can be so scathing of those who are blatant racists, so negative about employers with sexist policies or pay rates, so condemnatory of those who attack others for their faith, that it is a simple matter of psychological self-defence that we struggle to see the speck in our eye when we decry the beam in another’s. Yet while it may not be the degree of hypocrisy described in the Sermon on the Mount, still, it is hypocrisy.

I’d imagine that a lot of you got a little defensive at that, as well. At being accused not only of being prejudiced but hypocritical as well. Here’s the thing:

Reflection on ‘Maxim 4’ (Fox is no authority)

“Fox is no greater authority than you or I, nor was his access to the true authority any greater than ours.”
–Maxim 4

I was not surprised that this one was controversial for some Friends. I suppose I wish I were surprised, but really I was more relieved that it seemed very few found it challenging.

George Fox is often spoken of as the founder of the Religious Society of Friends. He was certainly a charismatic leader (and for those into Christian theology, that applies in both the everyday and technical sense), and the proto-Quakers of the North West of England did coalesce around him. Yet it is in the very nature of what he taught – and he wasn’t the only one teaching it, mind you – that we not ascribe authority to other people. The message being shared by various spiritual teachers of the time, including Fox, was that we all had access to the ultimate source of teaching and authority. Not only did we not need intercessory priests, as asserted by Luther and Calvin, but every single one of us could sit down and find the still small voice within, and know some measure of God’s guidance and God’s will (at the time, there would have been no question as to whether or not it should be identified as such).

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

Aphorism 20

Maxim 20

Aphorism 19

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.