|
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>
|
