©2008, Ramona K Silipo. All rights reserved.
NB: See the posting of the same title on April 24, 2008 for the first part of this discussion
Continuing the discussion of non-theists among Friends, a non-theist said:
“Religion” can have two meanings: (1) to do with ‘God stuff’, worship, believing in spiritual powers. (2) a way of life, a set of rules/guidelines/ideas that enable a fair and just society. It may well be that Quakers, along with a large part of the Western World, are slowly capsizing from religion (1) to religion (2).
To which I reply:
The Religious Society of Friends has always “been about” both of these aspects. We have the Testimonies of Friends who came before us; we have our ongoing practice of living our principles in our daily lives; and we have continuing revelation.
The Testimonies are the experiences and thoughts of Friends whose lives were based on trying to follow Christ’s teachings. Some modern Friends seem to forget this– often. The Testimonies are based on following [George] Fox’s [founder of the Religious Society of Friends] efforts to return to an Apostolic faith, to follow simply Christ’s example and teachings. If you separate Christian thought and ethics from the Testimonies, you have hollow words.
We are not “capsizing” but are rather caving in. We are, as do many groups, allowing the squeaky wheel to steer the wagon. It is one thing to recognize other people’s beliefs without trying to beat ours into them; that is Quaker tradition and custom. It is another thing entirely to allow other people to bully us into adopting their beliefs. It’s one thing to refrain from proselytizing; it’s another thing to let ourselves be taken over by a concept (non-theism) that is diametrically opposed to what we are about, by history, custom and faith.
Non-theist (NT):
You can’t have relative truth. Truth is based on evidence, an “agreement with fact or reality.”
Theist (T):
Only objective truth is based on demonstrable facts. And facts do not always add up to Truth. For instance, Barack Obama (only because he’s on my mind lately) is thought of as the first viable Black candidate for the U.S. Presidency. But Obama’s mother is white. Objectively he is of mixed parentage. That is a fact. But the truth is that he is Black in every sense of the word that matters in the United States.
For me, the greatest Truth is based not on “objective” factual evidence but on experience. I have experienced (very vividly and in concrete ways) the presence of God. There are no scientific facts, no objective measurements, to “prove” this. I simply know it to be true.
NT:
One of my arguments with type (1) religion is that some of its proponents are accustomed to accepting things without evidence, and easily cope with ideas such as relative truth. They also do things like invade Iraq, for similar reasons.
T:
God’s existence cannot be proved in objective terms. Anything based on faith is just that, beyond observable fact or demonstration.
NT:
The often repeated Quaker query asks us about the source of “the promptings of love and truth in our hearts,” and the other things we know experientially as the leadings of God (where the word, “God,” has the meaning generally accepted by modern, educated people). Do they originate in each individual, the result of their genetic nature and their nurture?
T:
My personal answer to this is that the promptings of love and truth come from God– including the parenthetical qualifier. I choose sometimes to say “The Absolute,” or “The Divine Entity,” or “The Spirit,” or even the medieval spelling, “Godde,” in different contexts. But, yes, I experience leadings as coming from God.
My leading has been for many years that we relate to God as our own spirit and awareness allow us to. That is, if we are closed to the leadings, we do not hear or understand them; and if we are open we do. Nature or nurture undoubtedly conditions us to one state of awareness or the other. But God is always with us whether we understand God’s leadings or not.
NT:
If these ‘leadings’ etc are not from God, but are a human construct, is it acceptable nevertheless to name them ‘God’? I think to do so is thoroughly confusing. Why not call it Factor X, or ‘HC’ (for Human Construct)
T:
On the one hand, I know that each person’s understanding of “God” is individual and unique; and that each person’s relationship with God is unique to that person. On the other hand, I do not accept that non-belief in God is just another different understanding of God.
While I have my various issues with organized religion, I still think that the RELIGOUS Society of Friends ought to be just that, i.e. religious. My home meeting termed itself Christ-centered, keeping the “Christ” but avoiding the dreaded word, “Christian.” This seemed to be acceptable to everyone there.
NT:
I assume that all would agree that those who wrote and agreed our “Quaker Faith and Practice” (which contains many references to God) meant to convey by the use of the word, “God”’ not a human construct but has the generally accepted meaning. This being so, is it honest (to oneself and to others) mentally to translate every occurrence of the word ‘God’, giving it another definition?
T:
Short answer: No, it is not honest. It flies in the face of the Truth testimony.
Longer answer: Again, we come up against another traditional Quaker value, that of accepting that people come to God on various paths and that they are all acceptable. I don’t feel I could or ought to interfere with what is in someone’s mind when s/he says, “God” (or doesn’t say it).
By the same token, however, I don’t feel that any other person ought to interfere with my worship by pretending to be waiting upon the Lord when s/he doesn’t believe in the Lord (or any form of God). Worship is not meditating, thinking or merely sitting quietly. Worship is an active state of waiting with openness for the Spirit to manifest, in spoken ministry, perhaps; or, if we’re really focused, in a Gathered Meeting where everyone in the room is lifted by the Spirit.
NT:
Would it be a Good Thing if there were a new, post-religious,>spiritual, reformist society [of Friends], whose ethical basis and ‘testimonies’ were those of liberal Quakers?
T:
Possibly. I’ve thought about this before. But is there a workable definition of “liberal Quaker?” I mean, I think of myself as a liberal, even a leftie, in most political and social contexts as well
as in religion. I don’t think that identifying as a Christian automatically makes me a conservative Friend. (I mean, really– my Christ-centered meeting is in Berkeley, California, a place identified with just about everything left-wing.)
NT:
Should the Religious Society of Friends morph itself into that post-religious, etc., society?
T:
No. The newer group should leave the Religious Society and create their own organization as they wish it to be. I suspect, however, that few of them are committed enough to take on such a complex and demanding process.
NT:
Would it be fair to those Friends who do not wish to change in this way? (Many of us remember the pain and feel the loss of the Christo-centric Friends who felt unable to stay with us as we became more universalist since the midtwentieth century.
T:
Universalism implies encompassing every belief. I don’t think non-theist people generally do this. They want to be included/’accepted, but they do not as a rule respect the feelings or
needs of theists. (I base this observation on many discussions, in both Quaker and non-Quaker forums.) The non theists that I have been foolish enough to engage flatly refuse to accept that they do not understand the nature of worship if they think they can worship a God they do not believe in. Nor do they understand that their non-belief affects the quality of worship for the meeting as a whole.
NT:
Can anyone explain to me how person A’s ‘truth’ about something can validly differ from person B’s ‘truth’ about the supposedly same thing. If I were to assert that this letter is written in Swahili, and you say it is written in English, is my truth as valid as yours?
T:
There is a big difference between objective facts which can be proved or demonstrated, and spiritual facts which can only be experienced. This kind of analogy (or non analogy) is not very helpful. I don’t know if there is really one that is helpful. Spiritual life is a deeply personal experience, and we each choose our own path. This choice may be influenced by countless considerations, from how our parents taught us to what we read yesterday in the newspaper; but we do make a choice. Sometimes that choice is a conscious one, and sometimes it is simply drifting in one direction or another. Some of us choose not to have a spiritual life at all.
But this choice is not based on objective fact. It comes from our experiences, our innermost intuitions and instincts, intangible and indefinable. It is far more complex than objective facts