Raison d'etre

Comment by Tony Haynes on 1stMo. 31, 2011 at 15:20

An atheist who felt secure in his atheism would not have joined a religious society in the first place.

 

That is an enlightened observation, Edward.

 

It seems that the danger now is that there are many who would like to see the word 'Religious' severed from 'Society of Friends' so that they can feel more comfortable. That would be the same as our Christian 'roots' being cut away, as you so colourfully pointed out.

 

In the Thames valley trees are being killed by non-indigenous marauders. They are very colourful flocks of wild parakeets. Noisy, powerful and overwhelming. They are stripping the foliage, leaving bare, dead branches.

I am glad that the RSoF is a tree where birds of all varieties can rest and nest, but it must not be stripped from its Christian life by those birds.

Tone

Comment by Peter Glass on 2ndMo. 1, 2011 at 6:26

Perhaps those who are sufficiently insecure in their atheism to have joined a religious society  are whom Fox referred to as "tender," and therefore can be engaged. Evidently they sense that there might be "something there," which they're seeking. I posit that they are in fact seeking God, but are still a little skittish about "taking the plunge;" haven't quite yet experienced "the convincer." If, say, Richard Dawkins suddenly came along and joined the Society, then I'd say he'd gone a little wobbly on his atheism, and therefore closer to belief in God, than he'd been previously, though he'd be loath to admit this - at first.

In my opinion, the fact that the term 'Religious' makes many feel uncomfortable is all the more reason to retain it. Posing a challenge to peoples' comfort zones is a primary tool in the prophets' toolbox - or at least that's the impression I get from reading the OT prophets, NT apostles, George Fox, and others.

On the other hand, the argument can be made that Friends are not "Religious" in the sense that the term is normally understood. That is, no rituals, creeds, sacraments, etc. - elements of what Lewis Benson terms the "paraphernalia of religion,"  which Friends jettisoned right from jump-street. Religion can be defined as humankinds' attempt to perform actions intended to influence God. Contrarily, Christianity, at least in Friends' interpretation, is about allowing God to influence us. So, if Friends are not "religious" in this traditional sense of the word, than they wouln't require this as part of their name.

It comes down the fact that "religious" can mean different things to different people, which in turn would affect the arguments, pro or con, on whether to keep the term as part of the Society's name. Nonetheless, I would vote in favor of keeping it, if only as a counterweight to the increasingly aggressive secularization of all aspects of society in general, and the continuing dilution of religious faith from within, in particular.

Just to be contrary. 

Comment by Tony Haynes on 2ndMo. 1, 2011 at 14:14

I have no objection to anybody wanting to join the society, of whatever background, faith or no faith, if they are seeking to upholding our spiritual roots or just need somewhere to belong.

 

My main concern is when the society appoints folks who declare adamantly that there is no God, as elders and overseers charged with, not only the material welfare, but also the spiritual welfare of others, thus changing us into a secular friendly society.

 

I'm not convinced that 'working for the common good' is the same as being led by the Holy Spirit to do God's will.

 

Tone

Comment by Michael Langford on 2ndMo. 2, 2011 at 11:28

 There are some very valuanle Friends who joined us sincerely believing themselves to be atheists but who now feclare thir believe in God.  They were always lovers of truth but have shed d their former skin for a more comfortable one.  A proper and effective Eldership might have sorted this out before they applied for membersgip buthat is something we no longer have in BYM.  Uthers have neen badly hurt and damaged by the wrong kind of religion andbtheie atheism is a kind of protective shield.  They need the non-judgemental loving care of atruly Christian Meeting. We must not impose our faith on them but it does no favours to either type if we water it n or cobeal it.  There is however a ird type who are potential gangleaders of either sex looking for a group they can take over by offering a "superuor ! or "newer" form of knowledge. They are not always atheists and their mentality is similarto that of Bible-based would-be shepherds who are looking for a little flock of their own.  George Fox called this self-will and we are none of us entirely free of it. .    

Comment by Tony Haynes on 12thMo. 8, 2011 at 22:54

Mainly for health reasons, after almost 12 years living in a narrowboat, I am currently moving ashore into sheltered housing with the Rowntree Housing trust in York. I am richly blessed to be offered the flat, and I am delighted that the trust is still holding close to its Quaker origins in principle.

On one side of my new home I have a Quaker meeting house. On the other, I have a Methodist Church. Both meet for worship at the same time. It seems to represent the crossroads where I now stand at age 70, near enough.

I actually find myself undecided as to where I should go! I suppose it depends on what I find in the Quaker meeting, but if there is a strong non-theist influence there, then maybe I might have to attend both, alternately, to gain some Spiritual succor! In the past I have found dealing with the non-theist influence in our midst, extremely exhausting, Spiritually.

Mind you there are some strong egotists amongst the Methodists too, but no non-theists  to my knowledge.

I do like the hymns though.

Tone

Comment by Ellis Hein on 12thMo. 11, 2011 at 0:52

Tony, I am sorry to hear of the health reasons. My picture of you living on your boat has always been, perhaps, a bit of a fantasy, and I am sorry to hear that you are moving out. I suppose I suffer from the same illusions regarding your situation that some might have about us living in a strawbale cabin at the base of Casper Mountain. It isn't always as idyllic as it sounds. This is a round about way of saying that I hope the new situation suits you. Will you be taking to your boat again in spring or summer?

 

Ellis

Comment by Tony Haynes on 12thMo. 11, 2011 at 14:32

Thanks for your kind words, Ellis. 

I may get another season's boating in next year, though a friend has offered to buy it in the spring. If that goes ahead, I may buy myself a good campervan. Having been pretty much itinerant for the best part of 55 years, I think I would be happier knowing that I can always take off down the road now and again.

Tone

Comment by Trevor Bending on 12thMo. 16, 2011 at 15:57

Interesting read Tony. I first went to meeting in York (Fishergate) with a friend who has been a member for about 12 years. I went again two years ago and then began attending my local meeting (Brentford & Isleworth in Hounslow).

I applied for membership a couple of months ago but then got cold feet because I didn't want to be what George Fox might have called a 'professor'. (A fake?). So my visit is on hold until next month.

I'm minded to continue but ...   I decided I was an atheist when I was 17 (nearly 50 years ago). Now I'm not quite so sure but I can't say I've found God. If I read 'The God Delusion' I'd say Dawkins is about 98% right - but then there's 2%.  That's not about doubt - it's an absolute certainty that he is missing something.  I've found, I think, that that's what many Quakers in BYM believe - there can be no absolute certainty that any one of us is 100% right. Only a certainty that there must always be something beyond explanation. "Consider that you may be mistaken" from A&Q are magic words for me.

What did Jesus say to Thomas (if he did) that caused Thomas to report (in the non-canonical gospel) that to repeat it would surely mean being stoned for blasphemy? Might he have whispered (in Aramaic) 'there is no God' and if he had done so would he have been not very different from the Buddha?

I want to know a lot more about George Fox and the other early Quakers. What were they 'convinced' of and what did that mean or how did it happen?

I've been taking part in the forums on Woodbrooke's 'Becoming Friends' course and found that very helpful. What does 'God' mean? Are the 'Inward Light', the 'Christ within', the 'pearl of great price', the 'Holy Spirit', Nirvana or Samadhi all the same thing and what other names would do?

What did Jesus mean when he said (approximately - in Aramaic?) 'you may deny me or the Father but not the Holy Spirit'?  I fear there may be more to fear from the 'mad Evangelicals' than from accepting that Sikhs too may have the (or an) answer. That there are may paths to 'God' who has all forms or none, all attributes or none (as many Sufis seem to believe). That "humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask they will know one another, though the divers liveries they wear here makes them strangers" (Wm. Penn QF&P19.28, 27.01)

As a 'boaty' person myself, I'll try and seek you out next time I'm in York.

As for the Methodist church next door - our meeting has a Catholic who goes to mass every day and twice on Saturdays but not on Sunday because then he comes to meeting. (Fox I think was pretty anti-papist for reasons relevant at the time).

Hope this finds you well as I continue seeking the truth.

Trevor

Comment by Tony Haynes on 12thMo. 16, 2011 at 18:04

Trevor Friend, thank you for your clear words and your frankness. It is delightful that a 98% atheist should be reading this site!

Don' be put off membership by all this. As has been stated already by others, the fact that you are 'seeking' Truth (with a capital 'T') is the main criteria. After all, we are in full, 'The Religious Society of Friends of the Truth'. 

I am not an exclusive. I don't want to bar anyone from the RSoF because they don't believe 100% in God. My concern is when those that don't believe in God begin to crave power over us and to sever us from our spiritual roots.

On the Quaker Forum I have just been likened to the 9/11 terrorists and the Inquisition because I am a 'fundamentalist' in my faith in Christ, and that comes from a Quaker who boasts that he has held many positions of clerkship, eldership and committee-ship over many years, bless him.

That term, 'Think it possible that you may be mistaken' is often bandied about nowadays as a weapon used against those who hold different views. He used it against me in my belief in God. But if you read the Advice that it comes from:

17. Do you respect that of God in everyone though it may be expressed in unfamiliar ways or be difficult to discern? Each of us has a particular experience of God and each must find the way to be true to it. When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the lives of others. Listen patiently and seek the truth which other people's opinions may contain for you. Avoid hurtful criticism and provocative language. Do not allow the strength of your convictions to betray you into making statements or allegations that are unfair or untrue. Think it possible that you may be mistaken.

It is full of 'God' language. It assumes the existence of God in all (even atheists) long before we are reminded to consider how we discern this.

I'd love to meet you in York. Isn't York a wonderful City? So vibrant and alive.

My email address is   canaldrifter at gmx dot com   Email me and I'll give you a mobile number.

Rich blessings, Trevor.

Tone

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page