Aphorism 19

Maxim 3

Morality, Action, and Inaction

The moral value of a course is determined by both motives and outcomes, and that value is attached to us by our decisions – whether that be a decision to act, or not to act. Inaction holds no inherent moral superiority over action.

Written July 2018

Repentance and Forgiveness

Like much of our spiritual experience, the Quaker
confessional is inward.

Once upon a time, I habitually listened to Radio 4. For the Americans, this is broadly similar to NPR – I don't know a good point of comparison for any other countries. Basically, it's one of the nine “mainstream” national radio stations from the BBC (there's also a tenth specifically focused on British Asian communities, and local stations for the nations and regions), and it's focussed on talk content. Comedy, drama, in-depth current affairs, that sort of thing. It's very popular with Quakers. If your Quaker community has a trope about ministry coming from a radio station, we have the same thing with Radio 4.

In the last few years, I've listened to Radio 4 less and less. While it has some wonderful content that isn't related to current affairs, there's a huge amount that is – and current affairs has gotten rather depressing lately. It would be quite bothersome to put it on just for the programmes we want and change station every time a news bulletin comes on. Not that we avoid all news; we follow a lot of news online, consuming it when we want to, on our terms. Managing mental health is very important.

No Hands But Ours

In hardship, I do not expect God to help me.
For all change in this world comes through us, you must see.
As I hurt, as I fear, still I know I rely,
Upon care, upon love, those who suffer as I.

For such powers as may seek to watch and to aid,
Need our hands, need our voice, need our hearts not to fade.
We might wish, we might hope, as we nurse at our scars,
This I know, this I say, they have no hands but ours.

New Year(s)

Tomorrow, we mark a new year.

But then, today is a new year, too.

Every day, every hour, every minute is as much a new year as any other. It may be a cliché, but every day is the first day of the rest of your life.

When you are moved to make a change in your life, do not wait for a socially-sanctioned time for such changes. Likewise do not find things to change just to fall in line with traditions.

The Divine is a surer guide to such things, and their timing, than any calendar.

What Is "That of God in Every One"?

We often quote George Fox, but do we do so
without regard for what he meant?

One of the most well-known, and to many well-loved, traditional Quaker phrases is “that of God in every one”. Perhaps because of the advance of liberal sensibilities, perhaps because the phrase is used in isolation so often, rather than in its usually-cited context, the meaning of the phrase seems to have become rather woolly, disconnected from how it was originally meant, and – to my mind – less than useful.

Nowadays, people often seem to take it, or use it, to suggest that there is something good about each person, that there is something worthwhile or even laudable about each of us in this strange species we call “human”. That's an idea, as far as it goes, and it's often something worth pointing to, but people struggle with it when relating it to historical (or modern) figures in whom it is difficult to see any redeeming quality – be it serial killers, genocidal dictators, or ethically and morally bankrupt figures in business and politics. It's still valuable even then, as the reminder that there are essential principles to our treatment of people, now enshrined in law in many jurisdictions, that cannot be compromised however awful we think the people in question might be. However, it misses what I consider to be both the essence of what Fox likely meant in that famous quote, and the most useful interpretation we can put on it today.

Standing Up for Quaker Groundedness

In an earlier post, I argued that Quaker practice is essentially mystical. I stand by that point. However, it is also clear that this is not all there is to Quakerism. While my meaning of mysticism in that post is quite clear, there are connotations of mysticism that are unavoidable for many, and that jar with Quaker teaching. In this post, I will outline what those connotations are, why they jar in the minds of many Quakers, and why it is important that they continue to do so.

As I previously discussed, mysticism has the connotation of some of the more ill-defined spirituality approaches of the modern age, including New Age practices, conjuring images of billowing robes and the power of crystals. Even aside from that, people might think of the stylites, Christian ascetics who lived on pillars, believing that the mortification of their bodies would lead to the sanctification of their souls. It may even lead to poorly understood images of South Asian fakirs, beds of nails, that sort of thing. Overall, a lack of concern for the material or every day things of life. Even the understanding of mysticism that I argue fits Quakers, that of seeking through religious or spiritual efforts to attain spiritual understanding not accessible to the purely rational mind, has no obvious connection to the life that we live, to practical concerns. And yet it is the Quaker experience that our spiritual life drives decisions and actions in our practical life, and many if not most would say that the spiritual life is hollow if not accompanied by the practical life.

On Reliance On The Spirit

The Spirit is wonderful, marvellous, awesome – very much in the truest senses of those words. It astounds us, surprises us, fills us with wonder; we marvel at the things we can achieve with its assistance; we stand in awe of the things we are shown in its power.

Quaker Week

Once again, Quaker Week is here. This is a week that Quakers in Britain designate for Outreach, Friends House sets a theme, and all individual Quakers and Meetings are encouraged to run activities to help raise the profile of Quakers, inform and interest the general public, and just generally be “out there” more.

Outreach is a difficult topic for British Quakers. One of the first things I learned about Quakers could be summarised as “we do not proselytise”. Of course, I learned that in the context of liberal Quakers. Evangelical and pastoral branches of the world Quaker family are quite keen on proselytisation, especially (as you might expect) the evangelical branch. But liberal Quaker, especially the sort here in Britain, just don't go out and tell people they should be Quakers.

Yet, obviously thing we have something worth finding out about, and thus surely worth sharing. Anecdotally, it seems that those convinced in adulthood are growing, as a proportion of our Yearly Meeting, compared to those raised among Quakers. I'm sure someone has figures on that, but I don't have them to hand; in any case, that is the impression I, and others I know, have been getting over the last decade or so, at least in terms of people who are actively involved in Quaker goings-on. When you add our dwindling numbers and ageing demographics, it becomes clear that we would be both selfish and foolish not to try to share this wonderful thing we have found.

The Irrelevance of Life After Death

An aspect of diversity of belief among British Quakers, that we discuss less than most others, is the question of what happens after we die. There are likely several reasons for this, including that, for some, that belief is very important, and challenging it strikes deeply at their life and, perhaps, what helps them to maintain hope.

However, it strikes me that the greatest reason is a distinction in the Quaker motivation to right action. In rhetoric at least, many mainstream – especially, but not only evangelical – Christian churches, it is common to talk about the promise of heaven as a motivation to right action, or at least avoidance of wrong action, or at least for full and frank confession. In my time among Liberal Quakers, I have not seen or heard that used, rhetorically or conversationally. Rather, we see that we should do what is right, what the spirit urges, what love requires of us, simply because it is right – or indeed, that we cannot do otherwise, when the leading is sufficiently strong. We do it because of our conviction that it will lead to a better world, and that if all acted as we did, it would be a wonderful result. We do this because if we will not, who will?

I do not mean by this that we are morally superior to mainstream Christians. I don't even know what it would mean to be “morally superior”. It is, however, a difference, and one not unique to us; there are certainly those among many denominations, and many other faiths, who see right action in this way, as do many humanists. It is, however, more consistent among Quakers than any other faith group I have known.

Thus, the idea of what happens after we die, of life after death, of eternal reward and punishment, is something we do not speak of much – simply because it is seldom of relevance to our decisions and actions.

Written September 2017

Again, and Again, and Again

Do you come to me asking for rules?

You will not receive them.

Simple algorithms, “if this, then that”,

Are not the fruit of the spirit.

Come to me with questions that are timely,

When you need an answer,

When the choice is before you.

Come to me for inspiration,

For principles,

For paths and pathfinders.

Do not come to me for maps.

 

For the land you would navigate cannot be mapped, being ever-changing.

The wisdom you would understand cannot be stated, being complex beyond your ken.

The rules that determine right action cannot be written, though you covered every page in every book in all the world.

You cannot take from me and then never need me again; if you would know how I would have you act, you must ask again, and again, and again.

Written August 2017

On Sin and the Liberal Quaker

Sin isn't something you hear liberal Quakers talking about very much. I suppose that is largely our modern tendency towards non-judgementalism, as well as the increasing tendency to avoid religious language. As most people think of it, talking about “sin” is talking about things that you are religiously forbidden to do, and we don't tend to do that any more.

However, there have been several conceptions of sin, even just among Christian scholarship. The various major branches of the Christian church have their own formal, theoretical conceptions, and practices stemming from these, while theologians have expounded their own views at different points in history.

Thomas Aquinas held sin to be contrary to virtue; referencing Augustine of Hippo, his Summa Theologiae describes it as being “word, deed or desire contrary to the eternal law”, seeing this as superior to competing definitions of it as contrary to reason, or as an offence against God. I must admit, with limited background in Christian theology, I find many of distinctions made in this analysis baffling, but an important distinguishing point seems to be that sins are defined and differentiated by the “end and object”, or motive, for the sin. Adultery is differentiated from murder not by the difference in the acts, but in the difference in why they are committed, in what the sinner seeks to get, obtain or induce by committing the sin. However, it does not require that the sinner conceives their act as sinful, and that sin may come from a misplaced desire to do good. Really, the whole text is a work of philosophical logic applied to theology, as much theological writing is, and I wonder if this might be part of the source of the objection to rational approaches to faith among Quakers, now and historically. It is certainly cold to me, and seems vastly inferior to drawing our understanding of the Divine, and of right action, from lived experience. Reason has its place, but cannot supplant that experience. However, I digress…