From: harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Inner Light
Date: 11 Jan 93 16:32:53 GMT
Organization: UMIACS, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742

In article <1993Jan8.190458.6688@engage.pko.dec.com> valenza@bigq.enet.dec.com (Michael K. Valenza) writes:
>
>    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.
>
>    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.
\\\\\\\\\\\

I didn't intend to offend you, and have great respect for religious
experience and morality of Friends, among others. I intended to give
my honest view - of the significance of the religious experience of 
the "inner light" among early Friends and today.

It is a fact that nearly all influential Friends were 'converts' 
(in actuality), who experienced a revelation of a "light of Christ"
which transformed their lives. (Some today are as well, and often
they remain the most influential in quiet ways.)

It is a fact that they explicitly identified this "inner light"
with Christ, and they tried to follow radical Christian teaching,
especially of the Sermon on the Mount (something like Tolstoi - see
_My Confession_).

This has nothing to do with 'fundementalism' or 'Bibliolatry' -
it is matter of individual experience, shared by all these - not
doctrine to be professed. (The early Friends would be appalled by
ignorance of the Bible - all the influential Friends knew their
scriptures thoroughly, and referred to them throughout their lives
and witness.)

You may not know - my impression is - that for all your wordy
protestations - you may not - that the issue of who was become
a Friend was discussed in the first years of Quakerism. The question
was whether every member must be convinced by personal experience
of the light of Christ. This was disputed, but it was decided that
this was not necessary, if there was evidence of the spirit of their
lives.

Nevertheless, the "inner light" was not (and is not) some abstract
'theological' concept of profession - it is a manifest and supernatural
communication of God's presence and intention, and it attends to Christ.
No early Quaker would disavow this. (A different issue is whether this 
also is manifest among other religious people, who may not know or who
may disavow Christ. The earliest Quaker tradition is "yes" to the first;
and surely God is gracious, as well as merciful, even among those who 
disavow Jesus.

As for my harsh reference to "pretenders" - I am acquainted with Friends
and Meetings (some of my best friends ;-), but some are pretenders, in
their experience and in their lives, and in their witness for Christ, and
I am very sure they would not be accepted by early Friends. Others are
faithful and true, as the saying about church of Philadelphia. (Not many
know that Philadelphia was named for this prophetic church - and not
because it means 'city of brotherly love.' That is part of the original
history and experience of Friends; it is not a matter of 'theological'
speculation.)

My impression is - because of your abstract expression - that you are
not a witness of the light of Christ, else you would know instantly
what is origin of faith in Christ - is is not speculation or ideology.
(I have met dozens of such witnesses in my adult life - some among
Friends, many among missionaries and peace workers (I could tell you
a stories gatherings of Christian protesters at Livermore National 
Laboratory, or organized by Sojourners - many are witnesses of the
light of Christ, not of some religious notions.)

I am sorry for my harsh epithet, but I believe what I said is true.
(You are lucky George Fox and Margaret Fell are not answering you ;-)
I shall say no more. (My friends who are Friends are wonderful people.)

Now for some Bibliolatry ;-)

Let us give thanks to the Lord
He is good -
For His merciful love - shown to us in Christ Jesus
Endures forever.

David H.