I first wrote this post as a form of procrastination.
What was being put off here was resuming the labor of writing down an explanation of Quakerism for a teenaged Quaker – let’s call her Lucretia. She feels strongly identified with the liberal wing of the Religious Society of Friends (RSOF), but has been having trouble answering questions about it from her peers.
Like many teens who live “in the world” rather than behind the hedges of a secluded liberal ghetto, she has buddies who want her to visit their fundamentalist megachurch, where they hope (tho they have not yet admitted this) to get her “saved” and signed up with their flock.
They’ve also been asking questions, along these lines:
“What do Quakers believe?” “Do they believe Jesus is the Son of God, who died for your sins?”
“Aren’t you afraid of burning in hell forever?” “But don’t you know the Bible says . . . (fill in the blank)??” Etc.
And the like. These may be pesky, but they’re legitimate inquiries.
Further, Lucretia has discovered that she has not a clue how to answer them.
Why not? Well, the biggest reason is that she’s never been taught anything that could serve as answers.
Which is too bad. And this despite six or seven summers at Quaker camp, plus a dozen sojourns at her Yearly Meeting, FGC Gatherings, and the like.
These experiences have influenced her greatly. But they have not left her equipped to articulate and explain why they are the way they are. Now, time’s up for this indirect, inarticulate approach.
So a week or so ago, I set out to try to fill this gap, at least somewhat, by explaining as much of the basics of such Christian orthodoxy as I could, and setting forth a concise version of alternative Quaker views.
Yes, yes – I know we don’t have a creed, and that’s how I like it. But deep in the mist, there has also been some serious Quaker thinking about all these matters, which can be drawn upon and summarized.
Of course, Lucretia will in due time draw her own conclusions, and find her own responses to “What canst Thou Say?” In the meantime, she needs guidance.
I’m under the weight of this project because of one more query, and my response. The query:
Does Quakerism – as a concrete religious group with a 360 year history – still have any value in the world?
My answer: Yes.
This one question is my focus here.
It’s not easy to explain why I believe Quakerism has value in the world, or to define just what that value is; but I believe it’s there.
The most satisfying stab at an explanation is a religious one, as follows:
For some unfathomable reason, God [use your alternative term as led] decided there was a place for the RSOF in the divine plans for planet earth, and the USA. (There’s also a non-theist version of this formulation; but that’s for another post.)
I figure the RSOF is probably item # 752,483 on the Divine’s Top One Million Priorities List, give or take a few digits; but it’s on the list all the same. And like any link in a long chain, we have our place and function.
In which case, it’s important for Quakers to be about our and God’s business, even despite our numerous shortcomings & incomplete understandings thereof.
Part of that business is to prepare our children – such as Lucretia – and newcomers to continue it after the generation now walking around (i.e., thee & me) are gone. That’s because we’re not finished, nor is God finished with us.
The above three paragraphs are the basic premise of much I do and think and write about Quakes in the US. Starting from that, here’s one of its major implications:
No one else is going to prepare young Quakes and newcomers to be active and competent Friends, except us. The Catholics, the Jews, the Muslims, the pagans – they are busy doing their work, and raising up new Catholics and Jews and etc.
It’s good to learn from and collaborate with them when possible. But our own work is our own to do, and a key part of it is the responsibility to pass it on to the next generation of Friends. Growing and shaping Quakers, with divine assistance, is up to us.
Now here’s the rub: because we’re a very small band, the preparation of young and new Quakers doesn’t bring many economies of scale. So the per capita cost thereof will likely be higher than for denominations with millions of folks to work with. It’s a BIG deal for Quakers.
In my time, a number of things have seemed important for this “religious formation.” Among them: yearly meeting sessions; FGC Gatherings; Young Friends gatherings; Quaker camps; participatory Quaker service projects (though in my time there have been far too few of these); RE programs, including publications; and, tagging along at the end, Quaker schools. Others might add more items.
In the budgets of Quaker organizations (Meetings etc), these items add up to a big chunk. And as potential recipients for individual Friends’ free-will giving, they can soak up a lot of money from all of us, affluent and non-. Same goes for the free-will donations of the asset that’s increasingly scarce for all, our time.
Viewed from the world’s perspective, many of these activities can seem less than compelling compared to stopping a torture program here, a famine there, the continual crises in Washington, wars, and warming all over the place.
Indeed, I have often heard these RE/formation efforts described by some Friends as essentially wasteful luxuries: there we go, we (mostly) middle and upper middle class (and overwhelmingly white) Quakes, indulgently cosseting our own, while the world goes to hell in a handbasket. (“You mean you’re going to talk to them about ’sense of the meeting’ when there’s a war on??!!” And so forth.)
While not endorsing all the inside Quaker projects that come down the pike, I still feel that much of this criticism is misplaced. It depends on an unspoken assumption that seems not only mistaken but dangerously corrosive.
The assumption is that Quakers and the RSOF don’t matter. That our overwhelmingly white middle-classness and all its cultural baggage is all there is to it — all there is to us, and all there is to our faith community.
Or all that’s important. And by implication, this view adds up to no more than a plethora of reasons for self-hatred & erasure.
Which in my view, is a lie. If you think any of that, stop it.
Surely we are class and color-bound to a great extent, such that among us one can often feel trapped in an endless public radio marathon being held inside a combination health food store, yoga studio and recycling center with no exits.
But, one keeps reminding oneself, that’s not all there is to it.
The RSOF does matter. Despite all our baggage & warts & failures, we’ve been assigned to fill slot # 752,483. And that’s not a generic slot. It’s like being a 17/32 double box ratcheting socket wrench: maybe not most glamorous tool in the box. But there are times when nothing else will fit, and we should be ready.
So here I sit, resolved, once I stop putting it off, to get back to the work of trying to explain what, for example, “the perfect sacrifice for our sins” means to someone almost totally innocent of every syllable and nuance of that phrase, and what a liberal Quaker can say in response to insistent assertions about it.
It’s not easy, not for me anyway. It will take much time away from labor to end the wars, stop warming, smash racism, classism, homophobia, etc. But it can be done.
And it’s worth doing.
Because Quakerism, including both the old ones (like me) with our stories & our scars, and rising Quakers with all their brains & passion and promise, we all have value in and for the world.
I really do believe that.
Next: a series of “Quaker FAQs” that came out of these reflections begins here.
“I know we don’t have a creed, and that’s how I like it.” is a creed. Maybe the problem you are having is coming to terms with this contradiction.
“Only when doctrine itself is understood to be provisional does doctrine begin to take on a more than provisional significance. Which is to say: truth inheres not in doctrine itself but in the spirit with which it is engaged, for the spirit of God is always seeking and creating new forms.
Of course, to assert that all doctrine is provisional and in some fundamental way untenable is itself a doctrine, and as subject to sterility and vainglory as the rantings of any radio preacher bludgeoning his listeners with Leviticus. One must learn to be in unknowingness without embracing it.”
— Christian Wiman, editor of Poetry magazine, from his book, My Bright Abyss: Meditation of a Modern Believer.
An extremely helpful post! Two quick remarks. First, it might be worth considering the possibility that being a Friend has less to do with accepting certain beliefs than it does with continually engaging in certain practices. Two, I very much appreciate the article’s emphasis on spending some money and some energy on activities that are not directly aimed at working for social justice. Money spent, for example, helping young Friends reach a deeper understanding of what it means to worship G-d is money well spent.
Sallie King’s recent pamphlet may be of some help: A Quaker’s Response to Christian Fundamentalism. Found at:
http://www.universalistfriends.org/quf2009.html
Hi Mike– actually, I was on the Baltimore YM RE Committee which first got Sallie’s booklet into print. So I’m familiar with it. That’s a curriculum for putting together RE classes, and very valuable for that. I’m glad to see it getting wider exposure.
However, the young “Lucretia” I’m initially writing it for doesn’t go to RE classes much, so my project hopes to build on Sallie’s work, with something addressed directly to teenagers.
An interesting post. I appreciate the points commenters make about non-doctrine (or provisional-doctrine-only) being a kind of doctrine in itself.
But whatever the provisionalities or caveats, we do need to make the effort to convey what we are about. This is something I’ve pondered myself, in the ‘Beliefs’ section of this post: http://johnfitzgerald.me.uk/2009/11/30/what-is-the-future-of-the-religious-society-of-friends-in-britain-friends-quarterly-essay/
After watching several young teens lose interest in our meeting, I suspect that your teen-focused material would be very useful. One aspect of the King pamphlet that I felt particularly important in answering fundamentalists (which I really was for a couple decades) is the recognition of the various (and differing) theologies present in the New Testament. It is helpful to realize that there’s no one single systematic NT theology. Knowing that there are a plurality of views in the NT itself could suggest that, perhaps, it is OK for Quakers to stress our best understanding of what it means to faithful to Jesus’ Way.
While attending one of the annual consultations co-sponsored by Earlham School of Religion and Quaker Hill Conference Center on “What we as Friends hold in common as Quaker treasure,” I distilled from the very powerful final session trying to answer this question what I now call the “Four Legs and a Heart” of Quaker belief, now revised to include a sixth element. This is my concise answer to the question, what do Quakers believe. There are parallel liberal and Christ-centered versions:
1. We believe that God (by which I mean the Reality Mystery behind our religious experience, whatever that experience is) calls each of us to a direct, unmediated relationship with God. Christ has come to teach his people himself. There is that of God in everyone. This includes the abandonment of the outward sacraments and the interpretation of scripture in the Spirit in which it was written.
2. We believe that God calls the meeting to a direct, unmediated relationship with God. Wherever two or three are gathered in my name. God is spirit; therefore we worship in spirit and in truth. This includes silent, waiting worship; the gathered meeting; gospel order; the faith and practice of Quaker ministry, especially, but not limited to vocal ministry; the interpretation of scripture in the Spirit in which it was written; and the abandonment of professional ministry or need for a priesthood.
3. We believe in continuing revelation: God is always offering healing, inspiration, guidance, strength and new truth. The Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things. This explains our laying down of slavery, though sanctioned in the Bible; our recognition of women ministers, though expressly forbidden by Paul; our laying down of outward baptism and the eucharist, though expressly commanded by Jesus.
4. We believe that we should live our faith in the world. This includes our testimonies.
Those are the four legs that get Quakerism up and around in the world. The heart is the commandment of love: to love God and to love one another.
And I would add one more myself, beyond those that were raised up at the consultation: we believe that we should base our religious/spiritual lives on what we ourselves have experienced, answering for ourselves the question: what canst thou say? This I know experimentally. Not that we do not honor and sustain our traditions and recognize a legacy from our Christian and Quaker past, but that beliefs are only ‘notions’ until we have experience their truth for ourselves in our hearts.
Did I miss anything?
Steven Davison >>
Chuck Fager replies:
Hi Steve. The only thing missing from your list is a sense that, at least as far as I’m concerned, the whole effort is so twentieth century. I am waaaay over it.
I wasn’t at the ESR assembly you mentioned, but I’ve survived several similar events; even Crossed The Pond for one. And read lots more. The upshot of all the sturm und drang came down to this:
What do Quakers across the spectrum have in common?? Here’s my answer [Cue the drum roll]:
Not Much.
(Or as some Brits might say, Not Bl**dy Much.) To wit:
A common starting point: 1652, Pendle Hill, George Fox, and all that.
That’s about it. With a bit of digging, one could turn up challenges to most of the items on the ESR list, highlighting serious frays in even that minimal theological garment.
I’ve come to a very different view of Quaker ecclesiology and the consequent harmony or lack thereof that’s possible within it. A thumbnail of this is on the QuakerQuaker site, in this post: http://www.quakerquaker.org/forum/topics/are-quakers-a-chosen-people-a . A longer treatment is in the essay, “Quakers As A ‘Chosen People'” http://quaker.org/quest/peoplehood-1.htm .
I consider this an optimistic view, which opens up many more possibilities for fruitful coexistence than the endless –and to me hopeless — quest for commonality or unity.
The notion in my post about Quakers having some specific purpose as item # 752,483 is based on this underlying ecclesiology. But it does not project a lot of commonality or “unity,” which is why I specified that my summary for “Lucretia” will be from and for the Liberal Quaker perspective.
Our tiny worship group in Baltimore City has been studying, of all things, Barclay’s Apology. The group studying ranges in ages from mid-20s to post-retirement. We are white, black, multi-racial, gay and not gay.
We have been amazed to read (or re-read) this text, and study the scriptures along side of it. It has helped us articulate some of the more liberal Quaker doctrines (universal salvation, inward / unmediated revelation to ALL people regardless of religion or lack therof / source of authority) in traditionally Christian language (which is important to us). It helps us understand Quaker Christianity (not Evangelical Quakerism, not Liberal Quakerism, and pre-Conservative Quakerism). Of course, there are parts of the Apology which are questionable to some of us, but the point is to understand as best we can what the 2nd Generation of Quakers believed. (We studied Ben Dandelion’s Intro to Quakerism to find out more about 1st Generation Quaker faith).
Studying this most basic of texts (which should have been a REQUIRED intro to Quakerism text at ESR when I was there) has helped give us words to our experience and help us to understand where Quakerism stands in relation to those who would proclaim the sufficiency of the animal mind (natural reason) or putting all authority in the Bible, the Church or other outward forms.
What was hardest for me growing up Quaker in EAst Tennessee was that I did believe in Jesus, he was important to me, but my meeting did nothing to help me articulate a particularly Quaker understanding of the Bible, of the Atonement, etc. We focused more on other religions than our own! Too much talk of Jesus was met with hostility (no exaggeration there). How CAN Quaker youth speak to the majority culture when our own churches ,, um ,, meetings, often only teach us one language, and couch that language in a culture of disdain or even loathing of the dominant culture and their language. As a foreign language teacher, this is the very attitude that we discourage.
Since you repeat much of what you say here on my blog, I’ll delete your comment and link to this blog piece.
This Fall at Palo Alto Meeting, participants in the 5th to 9th grade group in First Day School has been discussing the variety of definitions of Christian and of Quaker. We have cycled through this topic and related questions about other people’s faiths and finding one’s personal faith several times in the past 8 to 10 years. Exploring our faith through outreach and service has made the talk-about-it part more meaningful.
For the record, I never suggested that we stop giving to Quaker causes. And if I didn’t care about Quakerism or felt it had no value in the world, I wouldn’t be writing about it.
I assume you’ve also seen the pages produced by young adult Friends at FGC and Friends Journal. A book of reflections of young adult Friends world wide is soon to be published by QUIP – hopefully to come out early winter. I hope these sites help. I know that my own ‘grounding’ in a protestant sunday school (because our Meeting was too small for First Day School) and a mother just beginning her Quaker journey no doubt formed by sense of ‘ownership’ of a faith that was not threatened by fundamentalism. I grew up around fundamentalists who wanted me to be saved… I assured them I already was! ;o))) Joan
Chuckfager wants to add:
Jeanne is referring to a post on her blog, “Social Class & Quakers,” specifically “Generosity Rant,” here: http://quakerclass.blogspot.com/2009/12/generosity-rant.html .
My post began as a response to Jeanne’s; but it morphed into something else, which has only an incidental connection to the points Jeanne made there. And my comments about the implications of much internal Quaker criticism as implying that the RSOF is valueless were not particularly aimed at her concerns. (I still have some thoughts on Jeanne’s “rant,” but need to work on them some more.)
Indeed, the list of what I call “SNAQs” (“Self-Negating American Quaker” critics) could be quite long and tiresome, and I won’t start reeling it off here. The nightmare vision of the NPR marathon in the health food store-recycling center should be suggestive enough . . . .
Among the other comments here, it was impressive to hear that Kevin’s group is working on Barclay and the Bible. That’s a very good idea in my book — but how many meetings (especially the liberal ones) have enough gumption for that?? And I’m not sure that approach would work with teens. But I hope my project could serve as a worthy precursor to such a more substantive venture.
It also sounds like Palo Alto has it going on, as I would expect. But Joan, I have not yet reviewed the pages produced by Young Friends, and look forward to seeing the book.
One thing I’m hoping to see emerging from the rising generation is at least a handful who are prepared to do some serious (as in hard) thinking and study about some of the many issues facing the RSOF, so as to bring us some informed new insights that have substance behind them.
I’m afraid that too much of my generation of Friends has been spent sharing feelings and other internal stuff which has lacked sufficient grounding in solid engagement with real world issues and their complexity. (I’m referring here to matters theological as well as items of witness.) And frankly, the results have been much more mediocre than not.
There’s a lot of our example I’m hoping they will not follow.
Chuck, you close your last post with: “There’s a lot of our example I’m hoping they will not follow.” Probably true. But.
From my perspective, your best thoughts on this topic (that I’ve read) are found in the book Without Apology. Very helpful for me and I suspect for others. As you write the new pamphlet for teens, make sure you keep that unapologetic tone! That spirit is the best way to resist someone trying to get you saved at a megachurch.
Chuck Replies: I’ll do my best, Mike. I’ll need to come up with some new, teenage-friendly jokes, tho. That won’t be easy for this old fart . . . .
Just a quick note on “what do the kids want” question… About five years ago I co-led a high school workshop at the FGC Gathering and one of the things we did was read through a portion of the Sermon on the Mount every day (broken up so we’d get to the end on the last day). The only “complaint” we had is that a few of the shier participants mumbled through their readings, “so could they please speak louder so everyone could hear?”
For a slightly older, mostly 20-something workshop at Powell House a year later I had us read through the “Infant Ministers” chapter in Samuel Bownas’ “Description of the Qualifications…” It was so powerful that the workshop was more or less hijacked by the Holy Spirit when we got to the chapter’s end and we had one of the most unambiguous “Jesus is in the house” half-hours I’ve never experienced as we went into spontaneous prayers.
Barclay’s catechism was used by First Day Schools for generations. If it doesn’t answer “What do Quakers believe?” it sure comes close to “What do Quakers traditionally believe?” That’s a pretty good starting point for just about anyone answering to the name “Friend.”
Not every old text is accessible but I think we do the teens and newcomers a disservice when we assume they can’t handle them. If we really think the faith and technique of Friends is worth passing on then we’ve got to share it as teachers.
Quaker Schools…tagging along maybe…but still on board.
I don’t think that it is possible to explain what we believe to everyone. Some people need more structure than we can supply. Those who can only think in terms of black and white, as is often true of fundamentalists of every ilk, are just not going to understand. Some people don’t do subtle. The apostles were usually baffled by what Jesus said. Teens (and adults) should not feel compelled to explain what is ineffable. Nuanced beliefs are not for everybody: “If you see the Buddha in the road, kill him”.
The buddist monk said, “We don’t have answers. We have *methods*.”
Hi, Chuck…
Thanks for this. It’s really great.
As usual, I had too much to say about this to fit in the box…so I put it up on my own blog
onequakertake.blogspot.com
I don’t think that “not having a creed” is a creed; there is no contradiction in saying “I know we don’t have a creed and that’s how I like it.”
I will also say, here, that I think one should go back before Barclay to think about such questions as where the Society might go in the future. The Apology, for all its substantial benefit and value, is a work I believe begins the Quaker crawl back from the “limb” onto which Fox and some of the other founders had ventured back to the safety of protestantism. It was written to seek the acceptance of the powers that be, to smooth over some of the things that got Quakers in so much trouble.
And when we are reading the Bible we might consider that Quakers did not accept the protestant notion that it was “the word of God” in the modern sense that phrase is used. For all its use and all its value, it was not the highest religious authority, at least originally, in the faith and practice of Friends.
Thanks, again, Chuck, for stirring this pot.
Chuckfager replies: Brother Timothy, great to have you dropping in. Dig your blog — folks go see it! i think you’re quite right about the context of Barclay’s Apology, though it still has a lot of value. we need to say more about that in days to come.
Chuck, I’d urge you not to underestimate the role of evangelicals in educating young Quakers. My own experience is that as a teenager I found Qaukerism dry and lifeless until I had spent some time with evangelical youth, learning their doctrine. It was only after that that Quakerism really came alive for me.
Chuckfager replies: Hi Dan, I take your point. Evangelicals get big cred for actually taking the teaching task seriously. For me this goes beyond Ev. quakes. When I watched the documentary “Jesus Camp,” I was dipped into a whirling stream of mixed feelings: actual revulsion at much of what the film showed being done to young children in the name of God — along with frank admiration at the time, effort and money being put into the project by the adults dedicated to it. I also couldn’t deny the fact that or many kids the camp’s impact was long-term; it worked. Compared to the de facto indifference disguised as “universalist tolerance” in many Liberal Quaker circles as far a serious RE is concerned, there was little doubt which force was going to carry more weight in the world.
BTW, find out about “Jesus Camp” here ; and you can watch it on YouTube, beginning here . I believe it’s required viewing for Quaker parents.
The Atonement came up in an earlier comment. I just wanted to mention J. Denny Weaver’s interpretation, which I personally really appreciate and feel in accord with. Weaver calls his interpretation “Narrative Christus Victor,” and it is founded in Anabaptist theology. I think that a Quaker explanation of the Atonement could draw on Weaver’s.
A short summary [drawn from his book The Nonviolent Atonement (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 2001)] can be found at:
http://www.crosscurrents.org/weaver0701.htm
Here’s the conclusion:
“As sinners, in one way or another, we are all part of those sinful forces that killed Jesus. Jesus died making the reign of God present for us while we were still sinners. To acknowledge our human sinfulness is to become aware of our participation in the forces of evil that killed Jesus, including their present manifestations in such powers as militarism, nationalism, racism, sexism, heterosexism and poverty that still bind and oppress….
Narrative Christus Victor understands Jesus as the one whose person and mission make the reign of God present in our history. It pictures Jesus as a model of liberation. Those who accept the invitation of God join the movement that witnesses to the nature of the reign of God in contrast to the forces of evil that bind. “
Good start, Chuck! I certainly agree Quakers have a value in the world, even in our small numbers and our typical unobtrusiveness. I do find I’m eager to see you try to fathom the unfathomable reason you think God wants us here–is that part of your plan? With our without the “nontheist version” you mention. I fathom the phrase “leaven in the lump.” I’m not convinced we’ve got all the best answers, in any case not the best *practical* answers, but I think better answers emerge in the broader society when people like us are willing to speak up.
I support young Quakers reading Barclay, and the Bible, and Fox–but not with the implication that “this is what we believe”–that would simply be untrue. What distinguishes Quakerism from so much other religion is its openness to new light–that was also true of its founders–and we don’t encourage that in our youth by telling them what or who they’re supposed to believe. They need to be able to read the foundational works with their critical faculties fully engaged, willing to say “this bit here works for me, but the other there strikes me as nonsense.”
I have another thought about programs for Quaker youth, especially as they get older. I’m not sure our primary job should be teaching them, exactly. I would rather we use more energy toward binding them to one another and to the broader Quaker community–not through shared theology but through human friendship,. We can hardly be capital-F Friends if we’re not even small-f friends. If they come out of a high school program thinking and feeling “these are my people” we will have accomplished far more than any creed. The best teachers I have seen focus on this more than the history or the beliefs, though they also spend time on those.
I don’t think the RSOF has as much to offer the world as it did originally. There are many christian and secular organizations that overlap the RSOF in fulfilling the Gospel message. The RSOF sacrifices much in its attempts at being unfied. It might be better served to let the various limbs grow their separate ways even if many of them wither and die in the hope that the ones that survive will bear much fruit.
Tolles Blog. Das Theme gefaellt mir, wo kann ich das denn downloaden?