Theologies of liberation, including and especially feminist theologies, have shown that transcendence can also be expressed horizontally, with people standing in relation *with* rather than relation *to*. In this way, experiencing the breadth of life rather than the height of divine power is seen as transcendent experience.

I truly believe that deep hearing of the Light entails extending oneself into the noise and business of life to the point that we cease being merely observers. At that point we don’t just have the Light within, we ARE Light, localized and specialized and luminous with transcendence.

It would be the hope no doubt of many that Nazis quakers would change there beliefs by participating. If they were atheist Nazis quakers then why should they have to believe in ‘that of God in everybody’ which is the basis for the peace testimony for example?

I myself dont want to find a definition to set up boundaries for those who are in or out as much as find a definition for definitions sake so I can see how Quakerism is truly distinct from other ‘isms’.

Could Quakerism be the western equivalent of Hinduism? Hinduism embraces anything and everything because anything and everything they believe (or have experienced) comes from the divine reality of Brahman. This includes non-theist beliefs.

Someone just coming along and taking part can be used to define someone who goes to a charity group to going to catholic church services (in the loose pragmatic sense).

While Christ did I believe want to break down barriers and bring equality he did say that the first most important commandment is to love God with all our heart, mind and soul. He was God centered to the end and hence he was such a great Guru.

It can be easily argued that one doesnt have to be Christian in the orthodox sense to fulfill this great commandment. How does a non-theist fulfill it?I can easily see how a non-theist in the sense that he or she doesnt accept a personal creator but a divine substance could. But how does a non-theist in the sense that they deny anything transcendent?
I am not asking you to justify it to me as much as these are the questions we are bound to come across in trying to define something that many people believe is taboo to define.

Your friend Chace

Yes, I think Nazis could come and worship. They can’t do or say any horrible thing they want–I do think there are limits to acceptable behavior in a meeting for worship. But I can’t think of any limits as to what kind of person can participate. As I said, showing up and taking part. Some behavior isn’t really taking part. I think our practices, if faithfully followed, have the potential to transform anyone for the better.

I realize that my “definition” doesn’t say much–it’s hardly even a definition. I really, honestly am reluctant to defining Quakerism in order to decide who’s in and who’s out. I just don’t see much value to it, and a great deal of potential harm. While I’m not a Christian, I think one of Jesus’s most important ministries was around breaking down boundaries between people. I think he was onto something there.

After this I returned into Nottinghamshire again, and went into the Vale of Beavor.As I went, I preached repentance to the people. There were many convinced in the Vale of Beavor, in many towns; for I stayed some weeks amongst them.

One morning, as I was sitting by the fire, a great cloud came over me, and a temptation beset me; and I sat still. It was said, “All things come by nature”; and the elements and stars came over me, so that I was in a manner quite clouded with it. But as I sat still and said nothing, the people of the house perceived nothing. And as I sat still under it and let it alone, a living hope and a true voice arose in me, which said, “There is a living God who made all things.”

In all fairness I think that the early Quakers would probably have accepted your experiences as valid but would say that you are also deluded for forsaking God and the light and idolizing nature (this is by no means my opinion of you and your views and experiences).

As for starting off the definitions with ‘believe’, I did so to be succinct. As much as I share to an extent your definition, it doesnt actually tell much about the underlying beliefs or principles of Quakers as a people and the beliefs that motivate them. A large measure of our actions is based on what we believe we are and the world is whether consciously or subconsciously and it is no degradation to the beauty of the life of a religiously practicing people, to, for the sake of explanation to encapsulate the principles in such a manner.

The direct and mystic religious experience itself is the ultimate definition of Quakerism but this can never be adequately put into words.

A nazi or groups of nazis can show up and take part as attendees to a Quaker meeting. Does Quakerism therefore extend to participating nazis in silent worship?

I dont say this to prove that I am more right or anything. I myself am interested in a casual way in finding what would be the best definition for what modern progressive quakerism is. Beliefs as far as I see play a part in defining what quakerism is for practical distinction purposes. As to what beliefs, I dont know for one hundred percent. You have any thoughts?

Your friend chace

One thing I’d say in response is, I’m not particularly interested in a Religious Society of Friends full of people who see things the way I do, nor are any of the many nontheist Friends I know. Nor do I think it likely. So I hope you don’t worry too much about the RSOF becoming “defined as atheist.” Religious belief is pretty deeply embedded in the human psyche, and I don’t think that’s going to go away in this millennium. I’m easy with that, and I hope you can be.

My own feeling is, my naturalistic views would have flown in the face not of the *experiences* of the early Friends, but the way that experience is interpreted, by what the felt was the source of that experience. My sense is, deeply mystical and powerful experiences of a spiritual quality can rise out of a completely natural human life which is completely dependent on the physical body. To call those experiences natural and founded in biology, is not to dismiss those experiences as unreal or unimportant or delusional. Rather, it is to say, the depths of human psychology and biology are far more mysterious and subjectively powerful than we are able to comprehend or hold in our rational mind. I do not need to make any supernatural assumptions to accept the experiences of Fox, or of any of us. Having those kinds of experiences is an aspect of the kinds of beings we are.

Beyond that, I would have difficulty with any definition that begins: “Quaker: A person who believes that…” It doesn’t matter how the sentence ends; if it begins with “believes” I think it is not quite right.

In the most mechanical, pragmatic sense, it seems to me that a Quaker is a person who has been accepted as a member of a Friends Meeting. In a looser but still pragmatic sense, a Quaker is one who participates in the community of Friends, as a member or not. As I have said elsewhere, a Quaker is someone who shows up and takes part. One can challenge whether the fact that Quakerism includes atheists and agnostics is a good thing, but one can hardly argue with the fact that it does include us. We are here.

In Friendship,

james

Does the rich Christian quaker tradition and notions (and yes I am fully aware that early quakers did not dwell on notions per se but direct experience) of the early friends now get defined as a free for all subjectivism/activist movement?

Will silence at the meetings be the only uniting force of friends?And if quakerism in large part becomes defined atheist or agnostic then what ultimately can be said from such a point of view to make silence sacred? It doesnt become an environment in which one recieves illumination from God or the divine but an environment that maybe helps inspire one in having a better opinion about nature or the world or ethics. The reason why the early quakers left such a long lasting legacy was because they were united in the same basic theological beliefs except for some subtle differences.

I myself could never devote myself to any orthodox belief system but I do have beliefs.

I am of the opinion that George Fox, William Penn, Issac Pennington and Robert Barclay if they had of met true Hindus, Sufis or Buddhists in their time would probably have reformed their exclusive christian theological beliefs while maintaining the essential ‘experience of divinity’ aspect (nirvana in Hinayana Buddhism, a transcendent state of being could be compromised as experiencing the ‘kingdom of God within’ and the primordial buddha-womb in Mahayana Buddhism as ‘Godhead’ or God) but never would have compromised to pure secular or atheistic beliefs or notions. Such notions would have flown in the face of their personal experiences for a start.

And while many modern quakers take joy in their activist history and think that all ‘evil’ is simply war that ought to be protested against and think that participation humanitarian efforts is the essence of quakerism, it should be remembered that the early quakers focused more on cleansing oneself from inward sin (ego?) and attaining spiritual perfection the best one can than being preoccupied with ‘outward’ works and just being a good person (though such things are not bad in themselves).

Had george fox merely been satisfied with holding good ethical opinions and striven for worth while social reforms, he would not have left the impact he did on the early seekers and quakers. He would not have had the spiritual experiences which drove him beyond a fear of death. The early quakers felt the presence of grace come from him. He felt himself to be an apostle and believed that the spirituality he was experiencing should and can be experienced by everyone.

Now while I agree it doesnt matter whether or not one has buddhist beliefs or christian ones in order to have such direct divine experience as Fox did. Nor that spiritual experience only occurs to those with an established theology.I do hold that Religious/spiritual beliefs do help sow the ground and create a better environment in which religious experience is encouraged and nourished.

I understand how many Christocentric friends feel threatened that their ‘religious society’ is going to become a ‘personal philosophical society’ (British yearly meeting is more or less for which I am grateful).

What happens if a friend is moved by the spirit to exhort or declare something to an atheist friend who doesnt believe in spirit? Both are defined as quakers right? Will it become taboo to express religious belief or insight in order to be politically correct to the non-believers? I am aware that the line isnt as simple as that. But if atheists, non-theists or agnostics feel that quakerism isnt making enough effort for secular philosophy then why join a religious society in the first place?

Why not like george fox and the early quakers perhaps go and preach the gospel of holding the natural world and human reason,creativity etc (inspired by atoms and logic) as the highest good and that the best means of connection to it is via silence?

Then if such a society forms and is successful then religious peoples or christians will then be feeling the frustration that non-theists dont include more christian values and beliefs in their corporate decisions.

And here is where at least a large part of the controversy lies. The definition for the word ‘Quaker’.

Here are some definitions I think could apply

Quaker: Christian who believes that all humanity is lighted with a divine spark or light from God and that one must conform to God’s will via this light.

Quaker: A person that believes something divine or ‘other’ can be experienced directly within themselves regardless of theological beliefs, and that one ought to live the best they can by the inspirations and leadings it gives forth.

Quaker: A person who believes whatever they want and might if they want to, believe in divine inspiration and living by it.

I know these are more or less oversimplifications but they roughly sum up the majority of quakers. Does the definition become exclusively one of the three, all of the three or only any two mixed together.

I myself would not wish to see the first definition the modern prevailing one. Yet I think it would maybe be unjust and an insult to the early inspired quakers to make their legacy nothing but a memory footnote with no relevance.

I myself would never had joined the quakers if I had to believe in something like the Richmond Declaration. In saying this I also never would have joined if quakers were just a group of self-opinionated activists.

Yet also no one has the right to tell anyone what to believe, the silence is there for that.

I guess I would like to conclude by saying that while I myself think it would be great if everyone had their own liberal theological belief with a uniting mystic core, those who dont hold such beliefs will still benefit best by sharing in an inoppressive religious environment.

And if enough people at a quaker meeting humble themselves to the touchings of grace then hopefully it may be contagious enough to be caught by those that believe grace a myth.

But there are certainly Quakers who would see things differently, as you seem to. That’s okay, too.

The beliefs are theories, interpretations, notions. Sitting in worship together, building community, caring for one another, trying to be our best selves, is the real thing.

Or so it seems to me.

You say we are in an organized religion with a belief system. We are in a (loosely) organized religion, but many Friends, theist and nontheist alike, would argue that a “belief system” isn’t particularly what Quakerism is about. At least in the liberal branch of Quakerism, Friends tend to focus much more on practices, on ways of being together in community, and on responding to the world and our fellow creatures, than on beliefs.

While the idea of a nontheistic Quaker on the manner of spong is not an oxymoron,an atheist Quaker is.The sole purpose of the creation of a Quaker sect was a belief in “that of God in every man”, and of the ability of every man to meet God without intermediaries. Quakerism without God is a pointless exercise.

“Yes, of course, he saw the universal connection with God as that which could draw us all together, but that doesn’t change the fact that his purpose was to draw us together.”

The fact that doesn’t change is what you so wish to ignore,that Christ broke down barriers through a belief that in God all are equal. It is dishonest to emphasize the breaking down of barriers without acknowledging tha the basis for this to Christ was that in God all are equal.