From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Inner Light
Date: 12 Jan 93 19:41:51 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <1993Jan11.182711.26715@engage.pko.dec.com> valenza@bigq.enet.dec.com (Michael K. Valenza) writes:
[replying to me ...]

>
>    I agree that the "inner light" is not some abstract 'theological'
>    concept of profession.  That is precisely my point--I believe that the
>    direct experience of the Light is anything but abstract, but instead a
>    very real experience of each member of a community of faith.  One can
>    superimpose whatever theological interpretation of this direct
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    experience of God that one wishes--the Christian would, of course,
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    identify this with Christ; a follower of another faith might interpret
>    this experience differently.  I believe that the direct experience of
>    God does not require that one need toe a particular theological line
>    with respect to Christ.  How we choose to characterize or interpret our
>    direct experience with the Ultimate, does not change the fact of that
>    experience.  To superimpose an interpretation is a personal choice, but
>    I am thankful that modern Quakerism does not force me to accept one
>    particular interpretation, and I would not have chosen Quakerism for my
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    faith if it had.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
\\\\\\\\\\\
I suggest you do not understand (want?) the Christian faith of early 
Friends; what if it is essentially true, not matter your "personal choice"
of "superimposing interpretations" on your "direct experience with the 
Ultimate?" (Worse than Paul Tillich, highly "notional" ;-) I will tell
you about my "conversion" (from "scientific" atheism) below.)

You go on:

>    I agree that the religious experience of Christianity is not based in
>    notions or theological dogmas.  I have close friends who have expressed
>    their Christian faith in the ways that you cite.  (There are also people
>    who are not Christians who have also expressed their lives in amazing
>    ways, witnesses for faith or spirituality--Gandhi comes to mind, for
                                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    example.)  I fully agree with your view that these people all have a
>    direct experience with the Light, and that there is nothing abstract
>    about it.  That was the point I had been trying to make in my previous
>    posting, apparently not very well.  Identifying that direct religious
>    experience with the risen person of Jesus of Nazareth who lived 2000
>    years ago is a theological interpretation superimposed upon that
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    specific and direct religious experience.  I respect those devout
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    Christians who believe this to be the case; but to force others to
>    accept that particular theological interpretation upon all who engage in
>    that direct religious experience is not what my faith is all about.  
\\\\\\\\\\
We know that God reveals Himself to all peoples; even early Friends say so;
(even the modern Catholic Church teaches this ;-); but the issue is whether
this "light" of revelation attends to Christ, and calls us to live as he
did. The "risen Christ" was "glorified" by God - so that he "appears" with
God in this Light. It does attend to Christ. Do you live as Jesus as taught
us to live? Then why not acknowledge him? I can only infer that, for you,
whatever your religious experience of "inner light" or "direct experience
of the Ultimate (as you say)" - it is not the same as mine, or otherwise
the same as that of the early Friends, who all of them identify the Light 
with that of Christ.

>
>    As I stated, I have no problem with others gravitating toward a
>    community of faith that is closer to their own theological perspectives.
>    However, I am thankful that elements of modern Quakerism do not approach
>    the faith in this way.  The use of the word "pretenders" is an
                                 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    insinuation of intellectual or moral dishonesty on the part of certain
>    Friends.  It is one thing to disagree with someone else's heartfelt
>    beliefs; it is another thing altogether to question their sincerity or
>    motives.

\\\\\\\\\
Only God knows your motives, but you imply above that you disavow the
Christian faith of early founding Friends, and probably would not be
Friend if modern Quakerism was like their faith and community.

Referring to several of you remarks above (marked ^^^^^^^^^^^^^)
As I said, I honestly do think you know - as a matter of own experience -
what you are talking about. It reads like preconceived social commentary
- and not personal experience. I was an atheist, with no knowledge of New
Testament theology (a little of supposed morality) - an adult intellectual
(scientist), who had never read the Bible since early childhood. I knew
absolutely nothing about "the light of Christ," nothing about the conversion
of Paul, nothing about any Christian literature at all. I rejected the
religion as popular, unscientific, some well-intentioned, delusion, which
justifies a history of violence.

But for some reason, I happened accidentally to read Tolstoi's _My Confession_
- I didn't konw what it was when I picked it up in the library among a
dusty collection - just something I hadn't read. (Later I read that a
well-known modern (English) Quaker activist (prison reform) had also stumbled
ont his same short book by Tolstoi about his late adult conversion to
radical Christianity. By the way - you mention admiring Ghandi - but surely
you are unaware, or do not acknowledge of you are - that Ghandi said that
it was Tolstoi's Christian essay _The Kingdom of God is Within You_ which
influenced him more than anything in his becoming an pacific activist; and
M.L. King said it was Ghandi who influenced him as a young man, besides
Christ. There is an ideological and spiritual chain of being, which should
not be disavowed for what it is. No Quaker should disavow the early Friend's
faith in Christ. I think this is a sin, because it mocks these faithful
people. Does your "Ultimate" know about 'sin'? Just wondering.

Back to my own conversion - I was lead somehow by accidental reading of
Tolstoi's account - to rearead the Gospels for myself, to see what they
said, to check what Tolstoi said about it. (I must have been looking for
the truth of Christianity, because of his witness and my own desire to
have faith *if* I could be persuaded that what he said and the Gospel
was true.

So I read the Gospels once and again, and I read the whole Bible. But
when I had finished, after several evenings of steady reading - I still
could not believe there was a God even if Jesus' moral teachings seemed
true or preferable. (I still do not understand anything at all about
the 'theology' of the New Testament or of the Old - I read it as
cultural/moral literature; I never read about the conversion of Paul,
and never had even the slightest inkling of comprehension of why Christ
was called "the light of the world" (I assumed it was a metaphor.) or
"salvation" by God (what is that?).

So when I finished reading, I had set aside my (library-issued) Bible,
determined not to waste anymore time. I did not believe in God, and if
there was no God, then faith in Jesus was nonsense. So in the morning
darkness a little while before dawn - I got up from my bed; I looked at
the Bible I set aside for the last time (my intention), since I gave
up hope of finding any truth or faith in Christ. And I made a judgment
in my mind against Christ: I thought, I will never forget: \\\\ Give
up this hopeless nonsense \\\\\\\ And that very instant, I was momentarily
blinded by a bright flash of light - very much like sheet lightning -
which greatly startled me, but didn't harm me - but it definitely "pointed"
("high-lighted" if you like, as if God has an illuminating 'staff' like
lightning) my own thought -judging it and "pointing" me to Christ, whom
I had just rejected.

I only read about the conversion of Paul later, and only understood the
entirely obscure Biblical allusions, after I reread the Bible again,
carefully, in light of my experience.

Therefore - I did not, as you suggest - interpret my experience of an
"inner light" (God illuminating our hearts and minds) this first time of
my conversion from scientific atheism (and intellectual arrogance)
according to my intellectual preconceptions or religious education, but
I interepreted the Bible in light of my immediate experience of God's
judgment of my thoughts and His pointing to Christ. Such is the grace
of God, which I surely did not deserve.

I subsequently read about the remarkably similar experiences of other
Christians - including John Woolman, American Quaker abolitionist,
among very many others. And I was lead to meet many others today,
especially among missionaries and peace workers, many not Friends but
Christians. This same "light" called them for "Christ."

You may think this is a "superimposition" - but I suggest that you do
not know quite what you are talking about - something you have not
experienced for yourself. Friends were called "Quakers" according to
George Fox, because they "trembled at the word of God" - for good reason;
it is not always a warm-fuzzy, philosophically and politically correct, 
and spiritual experience to encounter Him. And His "word" is not just 
the ancientwwordsthe Bible - they may be unnerving, a matter of reluctance,
like this posting by me, against my preconceived intention ;-)

But we know of God's love shown to us in Christ Jesus, and as Paul says,
it is by the grace of God that we are what we are - called into the Light
to be witnesses for Christ.

David H.