|
117
|
1 <?xml version='1.0'?>
|
|
|
2 <?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="../../lib/xml/doc.xsl" ?>
|
|
|
3 <!DOCTYPE doc SYSTEM "../../lib/xml/doc.dtd" >
|
|
|
4 <doc>
|
|
|
5 <head>
|
|
|
6 <title>Not a notion but a way</title>
|
|
|
7 <author>Henry S. Thompson</author>
|
|
119
|
8 <date>13 Dec 2017</date>
|
|
117
|
9 </head>
|
|
|
10 <body>
|
|
|
11 <div>
|
|
|
12 <title>Introduction</title>
|
|
|
13 <p><emph>God, words and us</emph>[subtitle] is a good thing to have done,
|
|
|
14 thoughtful, worth reading but, for me, ultimately disappointing, an opportunity
|
|
|
15 missed. Maybe focussing on the language that divides us was necessary, and the
|
|
|
16 light this book shines on the nature of that division, what is and isn't
|
|
|
17 important about it, is valuable. But it feels to me that it got trapped by its
|
|
|
18 own success and never got past a fundamental assumption which guaranteed its
|
|
|
19 eventual limitations: it gives good advice about what kind of language
|
|
|
20 <emph>not</emph> to use, but is much less useful about what kind of language we
|
|
|
21 <emph>should</emph> use.</p>
|
|
|
22 <p>The key, mistaken, assumption is that what we need to talk about as
|
|
|
23 Quakers is what we <emph>believe</emph> (or don't believe). There are a few
|
|
|
24 oblique mentions of alternatives in the book, but it's almost all about belief.
|
|
|
25 That's not the right place to look for what unites us as Quakers. After all,
|
|
|
26 we've all heard it said, indeed many of us have said ourselves, that the
|
|
120
|
27 <emph>single</emph> thing we can confidently say unites the membership of
|
|
|
28 Britain Yearly Meeting is that when we can we meet together in something called
|
|
117
|
29 Meeting for Worship. Our identity is not fundamentally determined by what we
|
|
|
30 believe, but by what we <emph>do</emph>.</p>
|
|
|
31 <p>If you only look at the language of belief, you miss a whole different
|
|
|
32 way of looking at religious identity. Choices with respect to the language of
|
|
|
33 belief are what distinguish many, even most, Christian denominations from one
|
|
|
34 another, but that's actually a game we Quakers 'officially' declined to play a
|
|
|
35 long time ago: we don't do creeds. And we're not the only religion that
|
|
|
36 isn't best understood in terms of belief.</p>
|
|
|
37 <p>I was moved by my disappointment with where the theology think tank has
|
|
|
38 left us to try to write down what I see as a better way to
|
|
|
39 distinguish <emph>us</emph>, to try to shift the ground of looking for language
|
|
|
40 that we can unite with, that works for us, from belief to practice, from
|
|
|
41 ortho<emph>doxy</emph> to ortho<emph>praxy</emph>.</p>
|
|
118
|
42 <p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this: John Punshon, as quoted in
|
|
|
43 QF&P 20.18, pretty much writes exactly this in 1967, and I think it's at the heart
|
|
|
44 of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been writing and saying for some time. I'd
|
|
117
|
45 be surprised if there weren't others who will read this and say "But that's
|
|
|
46 what I've been saying for <emph>years</emph>". I can only apologise for not
|
|
|
47 having read more widely or, increasingly likely, that I have simply forgotten
|
|
|
48 what I <emph>have</emph> read. My excuse for writing this none-the-less is to
|
|
|
49 try to encourage people to read <emph>God, words and us</emph>, but avoid the
|
|
|
50 not unreasonable conclusion from doing so that
|
|
118
|
51 belief-talk is what matters most.</p>
|
|
117
|
52 </div>
|
|
|
53 <div>
|
|
|
54 <title>We already know this</title>
|
|
118
|
55 <p>Quoting a few well-known phrases will help me make my point:</p>
|
|
117
|
56 <list type="naked">
|
|
|
57 <item>Let your life speak</item>
|
|
|
58 <item>Be patterns, be examples</item>
|
|
|
59 <item>A testimony to the grace of God as shown in the life of ...</item>
|
|
118
|
60 <item>A humble learner in the school of Christ</item>
|
|
117
|
61 <item>[For Quakers] Christianity is not a notion, but a way</item>
|
|
|
62 <item>As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship</item>
|
|
|
63 <item>Come regularly to meeting for worship</item>
|
|
118
|
64 <item>... in the manner of Friends</item>
|
|
|
65 <item>Swear not at all</item>
|
|
|
66 <item>Live simply</item>
|
|
|
67 <item>[need a quote for equality/justice testimony]</item>
|
|
|
68 <item>[L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars</item>
|
|
117
|
69 </list>
|
|
|
70 <p>And an old family story:</p>
|
|
|
71 <list type="defn">
|
|
|
72 <item term="visitor">Are you a Christian?</item>
|
|
|
73 <item term="host">[pause] You'll have to ask my neighbour</item>
|
|
|
74 </list>
|
|
118
|
75 <p>This emphasis on what we <emph>do</emph> as Quakers puts us, according to
|
|
|
76 Karen Armstrong, right back at the heart of the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p>
|
|
|
77 <display><p>"Religion as defined by the great sages of India, China, and the Middle East was not a notional activity but a practical one; it did not require belief in a set of doctrines but rather hard, disciplined work..."</p>
|
|
|
78 <p><emph>The Case for God</emph>, 2000</p></display>
|
|
|
79 <p>Armstrong suggests that contemporary Judaism and Islam have retained
|
|
|
80 their original self-definitions centred on orthopraxy ("uniformity of religious
|
|
|
81 practice"), whereas Christian denominations in the
|
|
|
82 main have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").</p>
|
|
|
83 <p>It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom
|
|
|
84 orthodoxy is fundamental, as well as strident parodies of all religious people
|
|
|
85 as little better (indeed more dangerous) than flat-earthers, we should have
|
|
|
86 fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse.</p>
|
|
|
87 </div>
|
|
|
88 <div>
|
|
|
89 <title>And this [we know] experimentally</title>
|
|
119
|
90 <p>But, what does that have to do with us, you may well ask? All that old
|
|
|
91 language may be all very well, and give us a warm feeling of in-group-ness when
|
|
|
92 we hear it, but what does it actually amount to here and now? It may be
|
|
|
93 interesting in an intellectual sense to hear that historical Christianity and
|
|
|
94 contemporary Judaism were/are founded on practice, but we're not about water
|
|
|
95 baptism or attending Mass or circumcision keeping kosher. What's so special
|
|
|
96 about Meeting for Worship that it can sustain us in unity, preserve the
|
|
|
97 effectiveness of our business method and allow our disagreements about belief
|
|
|
98 language to be recognised without fear?</p>
|
|
120
|
99 <p>It's simple, really. In Meeting for Worship, on a good day, we
|
|
119
|
100 experience two things: a presence and a possibility. That's why we keep
|
|
|
101 coming back, because at some level we know we need to keep having that experience.</p>
|
|
|
102 <p>What presence? The technical term for it is 'transcendence'. We're not very good at talking about it. We refer to a
|
|
|
103 "gathered" meeting. We say "Meeting for Worship is not just meditation". We
|
|
|
104 know it when it happens. It's
|
|
|
105 elusive, and if we try to pin it down we lose it, that feeling that we are
|
|
|
106 joined with one another into something more than just our physical co-location.
|
|
|
107 Accepting that it is "not just me" isn't easy in the resolutely individualistic
|
|
|
108 culture we live in today, but if there is one item of faith we
|
|
|
109 <emph>must</emph> confess, at least to one another, it is the truth of that
|
|
|
110 experience, joining with and encouraged by 350 years of history and hundreds of
|
|
|
111 Meetings around the world today.</p>
|
|
|
112 <p>What possibility? The technical term for it is 'immanence'. We see and
|
|
|
113 hear it in the witness of those around
|
|
|
114 us: the possibility of living an inspired life. We <emph>recognise</emph> it
|
|
|
115 most vividly in Meeting for Worship, when we hear authentic ministry, 'authentic' because it comes from someone
|
|
120
|
116 we know is speaking as they live. It cannot be be faked, it is unmistakable,
|
|
119
|
117 terrifying and uplifting in equal measure. It
|
|
|
118 calls us to what we aspire to. It is at once daunting (how can I possibly do
|
|
|
119 what they do) and reassuring (it is possible). These are not celebrities or
|
|
|
120 distant missionaries, they are each <emph>one of us</emph>.</p>
|
|
|
121 <p>Whole books have been written about both of these, I have barely scratched
|
|
|
122 the surface. My point is simply that <emph>this</emph> is what we need most to
|
|
|
123 be talking about, and we don't need to agree about the <emph>words</emph> in
|
|
|
124 order to get started, we just have to acknowledge that there is a shared
|
|
|
125 <emph>experience</emph> that matters, deeply, to us, and that its reality and
|
|
|
126 its significance are <emph>not</emph> compromised by our unsatisfactory
|
|
|
127 attempts to talk about it.</p>
|
|
118
|
128 </div>
|
|
|
129 <div>
|
|
|
130 <title>There's nothing wrong with talking about belief</title>
|
|
|
131 <p>It's natural to want to dig in to <emph>why</emph> we do what we do. And
|
|
|
132 it's not surprising that we struggle to come up with agreed answers. The key
|
|
|
133 point to hold on to is <emph>that doesn't undermine the validity of the
|
|
|
134 doings</emph>. Or, rather, it only undermines our faith if we <emph>let</emph>
|
|
|
135 it. If we restricted ourselves to only doing things if we understood why they
|
|
|
136 worked, we'd have very little left. And, as the previous section tried to
|
|
|
137 explain, we know that what we do <emph>does</emph> work. So sure, keep trying
|
|
|
138 to figure out why. But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.</p>
|
|
117
|
139 </div>
|
|
|
140 </body>
|
|
|
141 </doc>
|
