121
+ − 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>
123
+ − 8 <date>14 Dec 2017</date>
121
+ − 9 </head>
+ − 10 <body>
+ − 11 <div>
+ − 12 <title>Introduction</title>
+ − 13 <p><emph>God, words and us</emph> 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 is valuable. But it feels to me that it got trapped by its
+ − 17 own success and never got past a fundamental assumption which guaranteed its
+ − 18 eventual limitations.</p>
+ − 19 <p>The key, mistaken, assumption is that what we need to talk about as
122
+ − 20 Quakers is what we <emph>believe</emph>.
+ − 21 That's not the right way to look for what unites us as Quakers. After all,
+ − 22 the
+ − 23 <emph>single</emph> thing we can confidently say unites
+ − 24 Britain Yearly Meeting is that we go to
+ − 25 Meeting for Worship. Our identity is not determined by what we
121
+ − 26 <emph>believe</emph>, but by what we <emph>do</emph>.</p>
+ − 27 <p>If you only look at the language of belief, you miss a whole different
+ − 28 way of looking at religious identity. Choices with respect to the language of
122
+ − 29 belief are what distinguish many, even most, Christian denominations, but
124
+ − 30 that's something Quakers have stood aside from: we don't do creeds. And we're not the only religion that
121
+ − 31 isn't best understood in terms of belief, and recognising that points us towards a better way to
122
+ − 32 distinguish ourselves, by shifting the focus from belief to practice, from
121
+ − 33 ortho<emph>doxy</emph> to ortho<emph>praxy</emph>.</p>
122
+ − 34 <p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this: John Punshon pretty much
+ − 35 writes exactly this in
+ − 36 QF&P 20.18, and it's at the heart
+ − 37 of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been saying for some time.</p>
121
+ − 38 </div>
+ − 39 <div>
+ − 40 <title>We already know this</title>
122
+ − 41 <p>Some well-known phrases make my point:</p>
121
+ − 42 <list type="naked">
+ − 43 <item>Let your life speak</item>
+ − 44 <item>Be patterns, be examples</item>
+ − 45 <item>A testimony to the grace of God as shown in the life of ...</item>
+ − 46 <item>As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship</item>
+ − 47 <item>... in the manner of Friends</item>
+ − 48 <item>Swear not at all</item>
+ − 49 <item>Live simply</item>
+ − 50 <item>[need a quote for equality/justice testimony]</item>
+ − 51 <item>[L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars</item>
+ − 52 </list>
122
+ − 53 <p>It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom
+ − 54 orthodoxy is fundamental we should have
+ − 55 fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse. But we
+ − 56 need to shake that off, and embrace our distinctive nature.</p>
+ − 57 <p>Emphasising what we <emph>do</emph> puts us, according to
+ − 58 Karen Armstrong, in line with the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p>
121
+ − 59 <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>
+ − 60 <p><emph>The Case for God</emph>, 2000</p></display>
+ − 61 <p>Armstrong suggests that contemporary Judaism and Islam have retained
+ − 62 their original self-definitions centred on orthopraxy ("uniformity of religious
122
+ − 63 practice"), whereas Christian denominations have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").</p>
121
+ − 64 </div>
+ − 65 <div>
122
+ − 66 <title>"And this [we know] experimentally"</title>
121
+ − 67 <p>But, what does that have to do with us, you may well ask? That old
+ − 68 language may give us a warm feeling of in-group-ness when
122
+ − 69 we hear it, but what does it mean to us now? It may be
121
+ − 70 of intellectual interest to hear that historical Christianity and
+ − 71 contemporary Judaism were/are founded on practice, but we're not about water
+ − 72 baptism or keeping kosher. What's so special
+ − 73 about Meeting for Worship that it can sustain us in unity, preserve the
+ − 74 effectiveness of our business method and allow our disagreements about belief
+ − 75 language to be recognised without fear?</p>
+ − 76 <p>It's simple, really. In Meeting for Worship, on a good day, we
+ − 77 experience two things: a presence and a possibility. That's why we keep
122
+ − 78 coming back, because at some level we know we need that experience.</p>
121
+ − 79 <p>What presence? The technical term for it is 'transcendence'. We're not very good at talking about it. We refer to a
+ − 80 "gathered" meeting. We say "Meeting for Worship is not just meditation". We
+ − 81 know it when it happens. It's
+ − 82 elusive, and if we try to pin it down we lose it, that feeling that we are
+ − 83 joined with one another into something more than just our physical co-location.
+ − 84 Accepting that it is "not just me" isn't easy in the resolutely individualistic
+ − 85 culture we live in today, but if there is one item of faith we
+ − 86 <emph>must</emph> confess, at least to one another, it is the truth of that
122
+ − 87 experience, embracing 350 years of history and hundreds of
121
+ − 88 Meetings around the world today.</p>
+ − 89 <p>What possibility? The technical term for it is 'immanence'. We see and
+ − 90 hear it in the witness of those around
+ − 91 us: the possibility of living an inspired life. We <emph>recognise</emph> it
122
+ − 92 most vividly when we hear authentic ministry, coming from someone
121
+ − 93 we know is speaking as they live. It cannot be be faked, it is unmistakable,
+ − 94 terrifying and uplifting in equal measure. It
122
+ − 95 calls us to what we aspire to, here and now: These are neither historical
+ − 96 figures, contemporary celebrities nor
121
+ − 97 distant missionaries, they are each <emph>one of us</emph>.</p>
122
+ − 98 <p><emph>This</emph> is what we need most to
121
+ − 99 be talking about, and we don't need to agree about the <emph>words</emph> in
122
+ − 100 order to get started. There's nothing <emph>wrong</emph> with talking about
+ − 101 belief—it's natural to want to dig in to <emph>why</emph> we do what we
+ − 102 do, and belief language creeps in to this, precisely <emph>because</emph> we're
+ − 103 not sure of ourselves.</p>
+ − 104 <p>So, guard against being <emph>consumed</emph> in such
+ − 105 talk, and remember that it's the
+ − 106 <emph>experience</emph> that matters, and matters deeply. Its reality and
121
+ − 107 its significance are <emph>not</emph> compromised by our unsatisfactory
122
+ − 108 attempts to talk about it. We know that what we <emph>do</emph> works for us. So sure, keep trying
121
+ − 109 to figure out why. But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.</p>
+ − 110 </div>
+ − 111 </body>
+ − 112 </doc>