From: valenza@bigq.enet.dec.com (Michael K. Valenza)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Inner Light
Date: 8 Jan 93 18:53:49 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


    A couple of people have objected to the fact that contemporary Quakerism
    is open to a broader range of theological perspectives than they can
    accept.  I respect the right of others to associate with a denomination
    that they are most comfortable with.  However, I would like to say that
    it is precisely because Quakerism does not impose a dogmatic, orthodox
    Christianity on its membership that I became a Friend.  Thus it is
    precisely what they have objected to that I find most appealing about
    Quakerism.

    One of the objections that was raised was that Quakerism is somehow not
    true to the theologies of its founding generation and its early
    generations of members.  I would like to respond to this, based on what
    Quakerism means to me.  Perhaps others, even those from an unprogrammed
    background like my own, would disagree.  But this is, at least, my
    perspective on the question.  I think that this objection fails to
    understand Quakerism on its own terms.  Quakerism emphasizes religious
    experience over creeds.  In this way, in my view, it maintains itself as
    a living, breathing religion; creeds, appeals to the authorities of its
    founding members, or other authoritarian approaches to the faith are
    not, as I see it, what Quakerism is all about.  This is a difficult
    question for some people to understand, because they often associate
    what it means to be a follower of a faith in terms accepting doctrines
    or creeds.  Thus the test of being a "true" follower is in adherence to
    those doctrines.

    I think that the definition of "Quakerism" is less clear cut than that.
    Quakerism is defined by a set of traditions and processes, and it is
    those traditions and processes, rather than strictly imposed theological
    doctrines, that define what it means to be a Friend.  Because the
    experience of revelation is available to all of us, and because it is a
    continuing process, everything, including the Bible, can only be
    interpreted in view of the same Light that influenced the formulation of
    the normative traditions and writings.  Thus Fox, devout Christian that
    he was, criticized the bibliolatry of his day.  I don't turn to Fox as a
    final authority that I appeal to in order to settle disputes among
    Quakers; that would be fundamentally wrong, and a violation of the
    spirit of Quakerism.  Fox was a human being like the rest of us; his
    thought processes, his reasoning, as expressed in his journal, makes for
    fascinating and often inspiring reading.  As one who pointed the way to
    the Quaker faith, he was, in the loose sense that I use that term, a
    prophet.  But what he wrote, said, and believed, must also be
    interpreted in view of the same Light that inspired him.

    Margaret Fell criticized the tendency of Quakerism to impose rules of
    outward form.  Such rules tended to choke the religion.  Quakers
    sometimes did read out of their meeting people for doing things that
    seem innocuous to us.  And I don't say "thee" in my ordinary speech,
    because there is no need to, and in fact Friends used such speech long
    after the justification for it ceased.  Such are the symptoms of a
    religion that has hardened itself instead of living and breathing as a
    continuing faith.  We have moved beyond those days of using a peculiar
    language for its own sake, and I am thankful that we have.

    Quakerism began as a rich and complex denomination, with many tendencies
    that eventually led to splits, at least within the United States.  Both
    liberal unprogrammed Friends and conservative programmed Friends can
    point to one another and claim a deviation from the original Quaker
    heritage, and yet each in their own way can claim heritage for
    themselves without batting an eye.  Such is the process of a living
    faith, I believe.  Perhaps heterogeneity is a big price to pay for a
    living religion, but I would rather take a living faith like Quakerism
    than one that is choked under the strains of rigidly imposed dogmas.  It
    is possible for Quakers of such radically different strains to pay
    homage to the same original traditions precisely because those
    traditions were diverse enough to open themselves up to this process. By
    analogy, the various strains of Buddhism in the world can pay homage to
    the original religion of the Buddha, while differing among themselves on
    many important points.

    Quakerism is a living faith, but it also is important to realize that it
    is not an individualistic one.  Quakers form a community of people,
    sharing in their experiences of divine revelation.  We attain value, we
    attain reality checks, we attain spiritual nourishment from others in
    the faith community, just as we provide those things for others.  It is
    a mutual process of give and take, as we struggle with the process of
    continuing revelation.  Turning to any single authority as the final
    source would convert this process from being mutual to being unilateral.

    John Woolman brought one such revelation when he strove to convince his
    fellow Friends of the evils of slavery.  Similar processes are occurring
    within the Quaker community today as Friends come to overturn old
    prejudices and accept gays and lesbians within their community.  These
    developments are not always comfortable to everyone, but they are, in my
    view, necessary.  Quakers, or at least most unprogrammed Quakers, do not
    view the Bible as a cookbook.  To me, it makes for a marvelous record of
    people in one region and range of time trying to understand God.  They
    didn't always get it right, such as, for example, when they claimed that
    God ordered the genocides at Ai and Jericho.  We don't always get it
    right either.  That is why we the process of revelation is continual. I
    believe we can interpret those tales of divinely inspired atrocities
    only in the Light that they were written, rather than accepting them
    literally.

    For those who are in agreement with modern unprogrammed Quakerism, I
    support and respect their right to find a home that is comfortable for
    them.  However, I take strong exception to the suggestion that I am a
    "pretender" because I don't conform to someone else's theology.  My
    views come from much sincere thought, and are not taken lightly or out
    of convenience.  The suggestion seems to be one of intellectual or moral
    dishonesty on my part, and I don't think that such a charge is either
    fair or appropriate.

    Mike Valenza