Mercurial > hg > rsof
diff but_a_way.html @ 120:191550c1e091
as sent to The Friend
| author | ht |
|---|---|
| date | Wed, 13 Dec 2017 12:26:48 -0500 |
| parents | |
| children | c6b0fe9dda75 |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/but_a_way.html Wed Dec 13 12:26:48 2017 -0500 @@ -0,0 +1,156 @@ +<?xml version="1.0" encoding="US-ASCII"?> +<!DOCTYPE html + PUBLIC "-//HST//DTD XHTML5 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/xhtml5.dtd"> +<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head><meta name="copyright" content="Copyright © 2017 <a href="http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/">Henry S. Thompson</a>&#160;<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en">CC-BY-SA</a>"/><meta http-equiv="Content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"/><style type="text/css"> + ul.nolabel { margin: 0; margin-left: -2.5em} + ul.naked.nolabel {margin: 0; margin-left: 0; padding-left: 0} + ul.cdefn {clear: both} + div.ndli { margin-bottom: 1ex } + div.hidden {display: none} + + ul.naked > li { list-style-type: none; background: none; margin-left: 2em; +margin-bottom: 0 } + li ul.naked > li, dd ul.naked > li { list-style-type: none; background: none; margin-left: 0; +margin-bottom: 0 } + li.cdefni {} + li.cdefni span.cl {display: inline-block; vertical-align: bottom} + li.cdefni span.cr {display: inline-block; margin-left: 1em; vertical-align: bottom} + pre.code {display: inline-block} + blockquote.vanilla {display: inline-block; margin-left: 1em; + border: solid 1px; background: rgb(238,234,230); + padding: .5ex .5em} + blockquote.vanilla ul.naked li {margin-left: 0 ! important;font-size: 100%} + ol ol ol, ol ol ol li {list-style-type: lower-roman} + ol ol, ol ol li {list-style-type: lower-alpha} + i i {font-style: normal} + li li {font-style: normal} + li ul li {font-style: normal} + li { line-height: 100%; margin-top: 0.3em} + .math {font-family: 'Arial Unicode MS', 'Lucida Sans Unicode', serif} + .sub {font-size: 80%; vertical-align: sub} + .termref {text-decoration: none; color: #606000} + .licence {margin-left: 1em; font-size: 70%} + .credits {margin-left: 1.5em; font-size: 70%} + .right {position: absolute} + .stackdown {vertical-align: text-top; margin-top: 0} + body {font-size: 12pt} + @page { size: A4 portrait; margin: 2cm; + orphans: 2; widows: 2;} + @media screen { + body {width: 20cm; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto} + } + @media print { + body {font-size: 10pt} + h1, h2, h3, h4 {page-break-after: avoid} + } + pre.code {font-family: monospace; + font-weight: bold; + line-height: 120%; + padding-top: 0.2em; + padding-bottom: 0.2em; + padding-left: 1em; + padding-right: 1em; + border-style: solid; + border-left-width: 1em; + border-top-width: thin; + border-right-width: thin; + border-bottom-width: thin; + border-color: #95ABD0; + color: #00428C; + background-color: #E4E5E7; +} + pre {margin-left: 0em} + div.toc h2 {font-size: 120%; margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em} + div.toc h4 {font-size: 100%; margin-top: 0em; margin-bottom: 0em; + margin-left: 1em} + div.toc h1 {font-size: 140%; margin-bottom: 0em} + div.toc ul {margin-top: 1ex} + .byline {font-size: 120%} + div.figure {margin-left: 2em} + div.caption {font-style: italic; font-weight: bold; margin-top: 1em} + i i {font-style: normal} + img {border: 0} + .copyright {font-size: 70%} + </style><title>Not a notion but a way</title></head><body style="font-family: DejaVu Sans, Arial; background: rgb(254,250,246)"><div style="text-align: center" class="head"><hr/><h1>Not a notion but a way</h1><div class="byline">Henry S. Thompson</div><div class="byline">13 Dec 2017</div><div class="copyright">Copyright © 2017 <a href="http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/">Henry S. Thompson</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en">CC-BY-SA</a></div></div><div class="body"><div><h2>1. Introduction</h2><p><i>God, words and us</i>[subtitle] is a good thing to have done, +thoughtful, worth reading but, for me, ultimately disappointing, an opportunity +missed. Maybe focussing on the language that divides us was necessary, and the +light this book shines on the nature of that division, what is and isn't +important about it, is valuable. But it feels to me that it got trapped by its +own success and never got past a fundamental assumption which guaranteed its +eventual limitations: it gives good advice about what kind of language +<i>not</i> to use, but is much less useful about what kind of language we +<i>should</i> use.</p><p>The key, mistaken, assumption is that what we need to talk about as +Quakers is what we <i>believe</i> (or don't believe). There are a few +oblique mentions of alternatives in the book, but it's almost all about belief. + That's not the right place to look for what unites us as Quakers. After all, +we've all heard it said, indeed many of us have said ourselves, that the +<i>single</i> thing we can confidently say unites the membership of +Britain Yearly Meeting is that when we can we meet together in something called +Meeting for Worship. Our identity is not fundamentally determined by what we +believe, but by what we <i>do</i>.</p><p>If you only look at the language of belief, you miss a whole different +way of looking at religious identity. Choices with respect to the language of +belief are what distinguish many, even most, Christian denominations from one +another, but that's actually a game we Quakers 'officially' declined to play a +long time ago: we don't do creeds. And we're not the only religion that +isn't best understood in terms of belief.</p><p>I was moved by my disappointment with where the theology think tank has +left us to try to write down what I see as a better way to +distinguish <i>us</i>, to try to shift the ground of looking for language +that we can unite with, that works for us, from belief to practice, from +ortho<i>doxy</i> to ortho<i>praxy</i>.</p><p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this: John Punshon, as quoted in +QF&P 20.18, pretty much writes exactly this in 1967, and I think it's at the heart +of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been writing and saying for some time. I'd +be surprised if there weren't others who will read this and say "But that's +what I've been saying for <i>years</i>". I can only apologise for not +having read more widely or, increasingly likely, that I have simply forgotten +what I <i>have</i> read. My excuse for writing this none-the-less is to +try to encourage people to read <i>God, words and us</i>, but avoid the +not unreasonable conclusion from doing so that +belief-talk is what matters most.</p></div><div><h2>2. We already know this</h2><p>Quoting a few well-known phrases will help me make my point:</p><ul class="naked nolabel "><li>Let your life speak</li><li>Be patterns, be examples</li><li>A testimony to the grace of God as shown in the life of ...</li><li>A humble learner in the school of Christ</li><li>[For Quakers] Christianity is not a notion, but a way</li><li>As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship</li><li>Come regularly to meeting for worship</li><li>... in the manner of Friends</li><li>Swear not at all</li><li>Live simply</li><li>[need a quote for equality/justice testimony]</li><li>[L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars</li></ul><p>And an old family story:</p><dl class=" "><dt><b><a name="visitor">visitor</a></b></dt><dd>Are you a Christian?</dd><dt><b><a name="host">host</a></b></dt><dd>[pause] You'll have to ask my neighbour</dd></dl><p>This emphasis on what we <i>do</i> as Quakers puts us, according to +Karen Armstrong, right back at the heart of the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p><blockquote class="vanilla"><div><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> + <p><i>The Case for God</i>, 2000</p></div></blockquote><p>Armstrong suggests that contemporary Judaism and Islam have retained +their original self-definitions centred on orthopraxy ("uniformity of religious +practice"), whereas Christian denominations in the +main have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").</p><p>It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom +orthodoxy is fundamental, as well as strident parodies of all religious people +as little better (indeed more dangerous) than flat-earthers, we should have +fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse.</p></div><div><h2>3. And this [we know] experimentally</h2><p>But, what does that have to do with us, you may well ask? All that old +language may be all very well, and give us a warm feeling of in-group-ness when +we hear it, but what does it actually amount to here and now? It may be +interesting in an intellectual sense to hear that historical Christianity and +contemporary Judaism were/are founded on practice, but we're not about water +baptism or attending Mass or circumcision keeping kosher. What's so special +about Meeting for Worship that it can sustain us in unity, preserve the +effectiveness of our business method and allow our disagreements about belief +language to be recognised without fear?</p><p>It's simple, really. In Meeting for Worship, on a good day, we +experience two things: a presence and a possibility. That's why we keep +coming back, because at some level we know we need to keep having that experience.</p><p>What presence? The technical term for it is 'transcendence'. We're not very good at talking about it. We refer to a +"gathered" meeting. We say "Meeting for Worship is not just meditation". We +know it when it happens. It's +elusive, and if we try to pin it down we lose it, that feeling that we are +joined with one another into something more than just our physical co-location. +Accepting that it is "not just me" isn't easy in the resolutely individualistic +culture we live in today, but if there is one item of faith we +<i>must</i> confess, at least to one another, it is the truth of that +experience, joining with and encouraged by 350 years of history and hundreds of +Meetings around the world today.</p><p>What possibility? The technical term for it is 'immanence'. We see and +hear it in the witness of those around +us: the possibility of living an inspired life. We <i>recognise</i> it +most vividly in Meeting for Worship, when we hear authentic ministry, 'authentic' because it comes from someone +we know is speaking as they live. It cannot be be faked, it is unmistakable, +terrifying and uplifting in equal measure. It +calls us to what we aspire to. It is at once daunting (how can I possibly do +what they do) and reassuring (it is possible). These are not celebrities or +distant missionaries, they are each <i>one of us</i>.</p><p>Whole books have been written about both of these, I have barely scratched +the surface. My point is simply that <i>this</i> is what we need most to +be talking about, and we don't need to agree about the <i>words</i> in +order to get started, we just have to acknowledge that there is a shared +<i>experience</i> that matters, deeply, to us, and that its reality and +its significance are <i>not</i> compromised by our unsatisfactory +attempts to talk about it.</p></div><div><h2>4. There's nothing wrong with talking about belief</h2><p>It's natural to want to dig in to <i>why</i> we do what we do. And +it's not surprising that we struggle to come up with agreed answers. The key +point to hold on to is <i>that doesn't undermine the validity of the +doings</i>. Or, rather, it only undermines our faith if we <i>let</i> +it. If we restricted ourselves to only doing things if we understood why they +worked, we'd have very little left. And, as the previous section tried to +explain, we know that what we do <i>does</i> work. So sure, keep trying +to figure out why. But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.</p></div></div></body></html> \ No newline at end of file