--- a/but_a_way_short.xml	Thu Dec 14 08:49:55 2017 -0500
+++ b/but_a_way_short.xml	Thu Dec 14 10:09:07 2017 -0500
@@ -17,31 +17,28 @@
 own success and never got past a fundamental assumption which guaranteed its
 eventual limitations.</p>
    <p>The key, mistaken, assumption is that what we need to talk about as
-Quakers is what we <emph>believe</emph>.  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 that the
-<emph>single</emph> thing we can confidently say unites the membership of
-Britain Yearly Meeting is that when we can we meet together in
-Meeting for Worship.  Our identity is not fundamentally determined by what we
+Quakers is what we <emph>believe</emph>.
+ That's not the right way to look for what unites us as Quakers.  After all,
+the
+<emph>single</emph> thing we can confidently say unites
+Britain Yearly Meeting is that we go to
+Meeting for Worship.  Our identity is not determined by what we
 <emph>believe</emph>, but by what we <emph>do</emph>.</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
+belief are what distinguish many, even most, Christian denominations, but
+that's something Quakers have declined to play: we don't do creeds.  And we're not the only religion that
 isn't best understood in terms of belief, and recognising that points us towards a better way to
-distinguish <emph>us</emph>, by shifting the focus from belief to practice, from
+distinguish ourselves, by shifting the focus from belief to practice, from
 ortho<emph>doxy</emph> to ortho<emph>praxy</emph>.</p>
-   <p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this:  John Punshon, as quoted in
-QF&amp;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.  What
-follows is very much in line with what I understand them (and others, no doubt)
-to be saying.</p>
+   <p>I don't claim originality in suggesting this:  John Punshon pretty much
+writes exactly this in
+QF&amp;P 20.18, and it's at the heart
+of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been saying for some time.</p>
   </div>
   <div>
    <title>We already know this</title>
-   <p>Quoting a few well-known phrases will help me make my point:</p>
+   <p>Some well-known phrases make my point:</p>
    <list type="naked">
     <item>Let your life speak</item>
     <item>Be patterns, be examples</item>
@@ -53,25 +50,23 @@
     <item>[need a quote for equality/justice testimony]</item>
     <item>[L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars</item>
    </list>
-   <p>This emphasis on what we <emph>do</emph> as Quakers puts us, according to
-Karen Armstrong, right back at the heart of the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p>
+   <p>It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom
+orthodoxy is fundamental we should have
+fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse.  But we
+need to shake that off, and embrace our distinctive nature.</p>
+   <p>Emphasising what we <emph>do</emph> puts us, according to
+Karen Armstrong, in line with the origins of the great monotheist religions:</p>
    <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>
    <p><emph>The Case for God</emph>, 2000</p></display>
    <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 than flat-earthers, we should have
-fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse.  But we
-need to shake that off, and embrace our distinctive nature.</p>
+practice"), whereas Christian denominations have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").</p>
   </div>
   <div>
-   <title>And this [we know] experimentally</title>
+   <title>"And this [we know] experimentally"</title>
    <p>But, what does that have to do with us, you may well ask? That old
 language may give us a warm feeling of in-group-ness when
-we hear it, but what does it actually amount to us now? It may be
+we hear it, but what does it mean to us now? It may be
 of intellectual interest to hear that historical Christianity and
 contemporary Judaism were/are founded on practice, but we're not about water
 baptism or keeping kosher.  What's so special
@@ -80,7 +75,7 @@
 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>
+coming back, because at some level we know we need 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
@@ -89,34 +84,28 @@
 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
 <emph>must</emph> 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
+experience, embracing 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 <emph>recognise</emph> it
-most vividly in Meeting for Worship, when we hear authentic ministry, 'authentic' because it comes from someone
+most vividly when we hear authentic ministry, coming 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
+calls us to what we aspire to, here and now:  These are neither historical
+figures, contemporary celebrities nor
 distant missionaries, they are each <emph>one of us</emph>.</p>
-   <p>Whole books have been written about both of these, I have barely scratched
-the surface.  My point is simply that <emph>this</emph> is what we need most to
+   <p><emph>This</emph> is what we need most to
 be talking about, and we don't need to agree about the <emph>words</emph> in
-order to get started. We just have to acknowledge that there is a shared
-<emph>experience</emph> that matters, deeply, to us. Its reality and
+order to get started.  There's nothing <emph>wrong</emph> with talking about
+belief&mdash;it's natural to want to dig in to <emph>why</emph> we do what we
+do, and belief language creeps in to this, precisely <emph>because</emph> we're
+not sure of ourselves.</p>
+   <p>So, guard against being <emph>consumed</emph> in such
+talk, and remember that it's the
+<emph>experience</emph> that matters, and matters deeply. Its reality and
 its significance are <emph>not</emph> compromised by our unsatisfactory
-attempts to talk about it.</p>
-  </div>
-  <div>
-   <title>There's nothing wrong with talking about belief</title>
-   <p>It's natural to want to dig in to <emph>why</emph> 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 <emph>that doesn't undermine the validity of the
-doings</emph>.  Or, rather, it only undermines our faith if we <emph>let</emph>
-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 <emph>does</emph> work.  So sure, keep trying
+attempts to talk about it.  We know that what we <emph>do</emph> works for us.  So sure, keep trying
 to figure out why.  But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.</p>
   </div>
  </body>