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.

He hung around with prostitutes, publicans, the poor, the unclean, the unwanted, the sinners. Those who were considered to be beyond the pale of religious community.

Breaking down barriers between people was the absolute heart of his ministry. 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.

Perhaps I do embody an oxymoron, Friend, but here I am, a nontheist Quaker. I exist. As Walt Whitman wrote:

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

You seem to be suggesting I am quaking before something horrific, like Satan. Is this what you mean?

I seldom quake, to be honest, though I do sometimes tremble when I am operating out of my depth, such as sometimes when I minister in worship. Trembling is a human thing that sometimes comes over me. I’m OK with it.

This Holy presence was felt so strongly that one might Quake in light of its power, hence the name. The idea of nontheist Quakers is an Oxymoron — is it not? What is it that thee is quaking before, Friend?

In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
http://john4-14.blogspot.com

I, too, find myself understanding more after your last comment. Thank you.

I will respond more fully later. In short, though, it is clear to me that tolerance of theological diversity has to run both ways. It is not fair for nontheist or non-Christian theist Friends to demand tolerance for their own views, without extending the same tolerance to those of more traditional views. In fact, it takes more than tolerance–we need to really listen and see what we can learn from each other.

While I understand and sympathize with some of those who bristle at Christian language in their meetings, they’re going to need to get over it if we’re going to worship together and care for each other in a deep and genuine religious community.

I wrap myself in the words of Friends why have endured this frustration before. Here are a few. It would be good to read of others.
Os

“Men are to be judged by their likeness to Christ, rather than their notions of Christ.”
(William Penn, 1682)

“And I made answer: ‘Truth is one;
And in all lands beneath the sun,
Whoso hath eyes to see may see
The tokens of its unity.
No scroll of creed its fulness wraps,
We trace it not by school-boy maps,
Free as the sun and air it is
Of latitudes and boundaries.
In Vedic verse, in dull Koran,
Are messages of good to man….’”
(John Greenleaf Whittier, 1870)

“have truth for authority, and not authority for truth”
(Lucretia Mott, 1872)

“Well, my answer to the question in general of what we shall do in the presence of these two possible spheres of loyalty, Quakerism and Christianity, is that perhaps it is both/and rather than either/or. I don’t think it has to be either/or. I suppose that to be completely honest, the amount of Christianity that you have, and the amount of Quakerism, in the last resort is your own selection out of those two orbits of what has come to appeal to you. Nobody can put down in writing either for a Christian or a Quaker what he has to be. He can put down in writing some of the things he can honestly attribute to those two groups; and we select from them, unconsciously I’m sure, those features which are congenial to us. I guess you know that in the Society of Friends people select very different things.”
(Henry Joel Cadbury, 1966)

Thank you for this. This topic is much on my mind and heart as well.

It feels that we are, as a community, much caught up in a time of change. Perhaps we are all somewhat clumsy.

I was talking about this with f/Friends last night. One mentioned her experience with coming out and learning about feminism, and the time, at the beginning of that awakening where she was radical, seperatist, and unyielding. I had a similar experience, and almost wrote off one of my dearest friends because he teased me about my stridency. Many of us seriously questioned whether we could (or wanted to) have men in our lives in any capacity. Most of us found, in the end, that we could, and it’s often a blessing.

And I don’t know that that time was unnecessary, or avoidable. Sometimes when you feel as if you’ve had no room to be yourself (and many liberal christian Friends seem to feel that) you need a LOT of space, you need to test all the extremes, to come into yourself.

I am happy that those in our meeting who find liberal quakerism to be against their leadings have founded their own meeting, rather than trying to change ours, or especially, to exclude others from it.

At the same time, I miss them. And I agree with them on some of the concerns they raise. I seek a deep experience of spirit, a groundedness, a unity in worship and in community.

The difference is that when I look at that question (how do we deepen our communal worship experience?), the answer is complex, and it’s about talking to each other, and really listening, and learning skills of centeredness (which I am still a novice at!) and truly answering that of God in each person (which is an immense challenge!) - the richness of such a vision - a deepened, grounded communal worship experience which includes everyone, is beyond words. It is what I seek.

I am frustrated and baffled when I hear people saying (whether or not it’s what they said, or meant to say) that we can acheive that unity, that depth of experience by focusing our spirit life around the word “christ”

Mostly I am hurt because it excludes me, to me it pretty much directly translates into “I can have a moving, deep spiritual experience without you, and I can’t with you?” it is pretty much that antithesis of responding to that of god in me.

I am baffled because there are so many who use that word who I can’t imagine these Friends see as more their spiritual sisters and brothers than I am. George Bush is the easiest example, Fred Phelps also springs to mind. Are people really saying that the essence of their spirituality, their home, their core, is best named and honored by the words that they share with those people than the words they could share with me?

Thank you for making the point that we can decide, corporately, that certain behavior is “unquakerly” and unwelcome (or forbidden)

I feel that this is often a similar attempt, and I feel the genuine desire for spiritual depth and aliveness, which is sometimes lacking in large, and/or diverse meetings, but I also feel the proposed “answers” are all wrong, if only because they exclude me, but then, I hope that that is reason enough.

blessings,

Pam

Pam and I were bouncing a few similar topics back and forth the other day, and I certainly welcome any thoughts folks might add to the conversation.

Thanks for the ongoing discussion. If I wasn’t running out the door, I’d say more.
Rob

Are you putting words in these Quakers mouths? Is this one voice or many? Is this referring to me?

“What defines Quakerism for me is, the people I sit with in worship. When someone new comes in and sits with us, they redefine Quakerism, immediately and without effort. A Quaker is one who shows up and takes part.”

Is an avowed racist a Quaker? An anti-Semite? One who is anti-Christian? What about someone who is ‘anti-spirit’ or ‘anti-faith’? Or one who is ‘anti-spiritual’? Or one who is not a pacifist? James, from the description of your Meeting’s treatment toward the homophobe, it sounds like you don’t believe that the people who sit with you on Sunday necessarily define Quakerism. Who then does? I feel like I’m hearing an implicit definition in this post, and I think it needs to be made explicit.

Pointed questions, but I think there are some serious undercurrents that require further discussion.

Rob