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" >
137
+ − 4 <doc xmlns:x="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
117
+ − 5 <head>
+ − 6 <title>Not a notion but a way</title>
+ − 7 <author>Henry S. Thompson</author>
138
+ − 8 <date>9 January 2018</date>
137
+ − 9 <style>.bib p {clear: right; float: right; width: 75%; margin-top: 0pt}
+ − 10 .bib name {display: inline-block}
+ − 11 .bib div {clear: both}</style>
117
+ − 12 </head>
+ − 13 <body>
+ − 14 <div>
+ − 15 <title>Introduction</title>
137
+ − 16 <p><emph>God, words and us</emph> <link href="#hr">[Rowlands 2017]</link> is a good thing to have done,
117
+ − 17 thoughtful, worth reading but, for me, ultimately disappointing, an opportunity
+ − 18 missed. Maybe focussing on the language that divides us was necessary, and the
+ − 19 light this book shines on the nature of that division, what is and isn't
+ − 20 important about it, is valuable. But it feels to me that it got trapped by its
+ − 21 own success and never got past a fundamental assumption which guaranteed its
125
+ − 22 eventual limitations.</p>
117
+ − 23 <p>The key, mistaken, assumption is that what we need to talk about as
+ − 24 Quakers is what we <emph>believe</emph> (or don't believe). There are a few
+ − 25 oblique mentions of alternatives in the book, but it's almost all about belief.
125
+ − 26 That's not the right way to look for what unites us as Quakers. After all,
117
+ − 27 we've all heard it said, indeed many of us have said ourselves, that the
120
+ − 28 <emph>single</emph> thing we can confidently say unites the membership of
125
+ − 29 Britain Yearly Meeting is that when we can we go to
+ − 30 Meeting for Worship. Our identity is not determined by what we
117
+ − 31 believe, but by what we <emph>do</emph>.</p>
+ − 32 <p>If you only look at the language of belief, you miss a whole different
+ − 33 way of looking at religious identity. Choices with respect to the language of
125
+ − 34 belief are what distinguish many, even most, Christian denominations, but
+ − 35 that's something Quakers have stood aside from: we don't do creeds. And,
+ − 36 importantly, we're not the only religion that isn't best understood in terms of
+ − 37 belief. Acknowledging this points us towards a better way to distinguish
+ − 38 ourselves, by shifting the focus from belief to practice, from
117
+ − 39 ortho<emph>doxy</emph> to ortho<emph>praxy</emph>.</p>
137
+ − 40 <p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this: John Punshon <link href="#jp">[Punshon 1987]</link> pretty much writes exactly this, and I think it's at the heart
125
+ − 41 of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been writing and saying for some time.</p>
117
+ − 42 </div>
+ − 43 <div>
+ − 44 <title>We already know this</title>
125
+ − 45 <p>Some well-known phrases illustrate the point:</p>
117
+ − 46 <list type="naked">
+ − 47 <item>Let your life speak</item>
+ − 48 <item>Be patterns, be examples</item>
+ − 49 <item>A testimony to the grace of God as shown in the life of ...</item>
118
+ − 50 <item>A humble learner in the school of Christ</item>
117
+ − 51 <item>[For Quakers] Christianity is not a notion, but a way</item>
+ − 52 <item>As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship</item>
+ − 53 <item>Come regularly to meeting for worship</item>
118
+ − 54 <item>... in the manner of Friends</item>
+ − 55 <item>Swear not at all</item>
+ − 56 <item>Live simply</item>
137
+ − 57 <item>[A]lleviate suffering and seek positive social change</item>
118
+ − 58 <item>[L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars</item>
117
+ − 59 </list>
+ − 60 <p>And an old family story:</p>
+ − 61 <list type="defn">
+ − 62 <item term="visitor">Are you a Christian?</item>
+ − 63 <item term="host">[pause] You'll have to ask my neighbour</item>
+ − 64 </list>
118
+ − 65 <p>This emphasis on what we <emph>do</emph> as Quakers puts us, according to
125
+ − 66 Karen Armstrong, in line with the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p>
118
+ − 67 <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>
137
+ − 68 <p><link href="#ka">[Armstrong 2000]</link></p></display>
118
+ − 69 <p>Armstrong suggests that contemporary Judaism and Islam have retained
+ − 70 their original self-definitions centred on orthopraxy ("uniformity of religious
+ − 71 practice"), whereas Christian denominations in the
+ − 72 main have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").</p>
+ − 73 <p>It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom
+ − 74 orthodoxy is fundamental, as well as strident parodies of all religious people
+ − 75 as little better (indeed more dangerous) than flat-earthers, we should have
125
+ − 76 fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse. But once
+ − 77 we're <emph>aware</emph> of that, we can choose to step away.</p>
118
+ − 78 </div>
+ − 79 <div>
125
+ − 80 <title>"And this [we know] experimentally"</title>
119
+ − 81 <p>But, what does that have to do with us, you may well ask? All that old
+ − 82 language may be all very well, and give us a warm feeling of in-group-ness when
+ − 83 we hear it, but what does it actually amount to here and now? It may be
+ − 84 interesting in an intellectual sense to hear that historical Christianity and
+ − 85 contemporary Judaism were/are founded on practice, but we're not about water
125
+ − 86 baptism or attending Mass or circumcision or keeping kosher. What's so special
119
+ − 87 about Meeting for Worship that it can sustain us in unity, preserve the
+ − 88 effectiveness of our business method and allow our disagreements about belief
+ − 89 language to be recognised without fear?</p>
120
+ − 90 <p>It's simple, really. In Meeting for Worship, on a good day, we
119
+ − 91 experience two things: a presence and a possibility. That's why we keep
+ − 92 coming back, because at some level we know we need to keep having that experience.</p>
+ − 93 <p>What presence? The technical term for it is 'transcendence'. We're not very good at talking about it. We refer to a
+ − 94 "gathered" meeting. We say "Meeting for Worship is not just meditation". We
+ − 95 know it when it happens. It's
+ − 96 elusive, and if we try to pin it down we lose it, that feeling that we are
+ − 97 joined with one another into something more than just our physical co-location.
+ − 98 Accepting that it is "not just me" isn't easy in the resolutely individualistic
+ − 99 culture we live in today, but if there is one item of faith we
+ − 100 <emph>must</emph> confess, at least to one another, it is the truth of that
+ − 101 experience, joining with and encouraged by 350 years of history and hundreds of
+ − 102 Meetings around the world today.</p>
+ − 103 <p>What possibility? The technical term for it is 'immanence'. We see and
+ − 104 hear it in the witness of those around
+ − 105 us: the possibility of living an inspired life. We <emph>recognise</emph> it
+ − 106 most vividly in Meeting for Worship, when we hear authentic ministry, 'authentic' because it comes from someone
120
+ − 107 we know is speaking as they live. It cannot be be faked, it is unmistakable,
119
+ − 108 terrifying and uplifting in equal measure. It
+ − 109 calls us to what we aspire to. It is at once daunting (how can I possibly do
125
+ − 110 what they do) and reassuring (it is possible). These are not historical
+ − 111 figures, not contemporary celebrities, not
+ − 112 distant missionaries: they are each <emph>one of us</emph>.</p>
119
+ − 113 <p>Whole books have been written about both of these, I have barely scratched
125
+ − 114 the surface. The point is simply that <emph>this</emph> is what we need most to
119
+ − 115 be talking about, and we don't need to agree about the <emph>words</emph> in
+ − 116 order to get started, we just have to acknowledge that there is a shared
+ − 117 <emph>experience</emph> that matters, deeply, to us, and that its reality and
+ − 118 its significance are <emph>not</emph> compromised by our unsatisfactory
+ − 119 attempts to talk about it.</p>
118
+ − 120 </div>
+ − 121 <div>
+ − 122 <title>There's nothing wrong with talking about belief</title>
125
+ − 123 <p>It's natural to want to dig in to <emph>why</emph> we do what we do, and
+ − 124 belief language inevitably creeps in to this, precisely <emph>because</emph> we're not sure of ourselves. And
118
+ − 125 it's not surprising that we struggle to come up with agreed answers. The key
+ − 126 point to hold on to is <emph>that doesn't undermine the validity of the
+ − 127 doings</emph>. Or, rather, it only undermines our faith if we <emph>let</emph>
+ − 128 it. If we restricted ourselves to only doing things if we understood why they
+ − 129 worked, we'd have very little left. And, as the previous section tried to
125
+ − 130 explain, we know that what we do <emph>does</emph> work for us. So sure, keep trying
118
+ − 131 to figure out why. But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.</p>
117
+ − 132 </div>
137
+ − 133 <div class="bib">
+ − 134 <title>References</title>
+ − 135 <x:div><name>[Armstrong 2000]</name><p id="ka"> Armstrong, Karen, <emph>The Case for
+ − 136 God</emph>. Knopf, New York, 2000.</p></x:div>
+ − 137 <x:div><name>[Punshon 1987]</name><p id="jp"> Punshon, John, <emph>Encounters with silence: reflections
+ − 138 from the Quaker tradition</emph>, pp. 44–45. Quaker Home Service,
+ − 139 London, 1987. Also Friends United Press,
+ − 140 Richmond Indiana, 2006. As quoted in <emph>Quaker
+ − 141 Faith and Practice</emph>, The Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of
+ − 142 Friends (Quakers) in Britain, 1995. Available online at <link href="https://qfp.quaker.org.uk/passage/20-18/">QF&P 20.18</link></p></x:div>
+ − 143 <x:div><name>[Rowlands 2017]</name><p id="hr"> Rowlands, Helen ed. <emph>God, words and
+ − 144 us</emph>. Quaker Books, London, 2017.</p></x:div>
+ − 145
+ − 146 </div>
117
+ − 147 </body>
+ − 148 </doc>