From: valenza@bigq.enet.dec.com (Michael K. Valenza)
Subject: Re: Inner Light
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Mon, 11 Jan 1993 18:22:23 GMT

In article <63314@mimsy.umd.edu>, harwood@umiacs.umd.edu (David Harwood) writes...
>This has nothing to do with 'fundementalism' or 'Bibliolatry' -
>it is matter of individual experience, shared by all these - not
>doctrine to be professed. 

    Yes, exactly!  That is indeed what has always been a key element of the
    Quaker faith--the direct experience of God.  It is this direct
    experience, and not any "notions" (to use Fox's term), that characterize
    Quakerism.  That is precisely why George Fox confronted a preacher who
    was espousing a bibliolatrous doctrine.  In his journal he writes:

        "Now the Lord's power was so mighty upon me, and so strong in me,
        that I could not hold, but was made to cry out and say, 'Oh no, it
        is not the Scriptures', and was commanded to tell them God did not
        dwell in temples made with hands.  But I told them what it was,
        namely, the Holy Spirit, by which the holy men of God gave forth the
        Scriptures, whereby opinions, religions, and judgments were to be
        tried [or tested]; for it led into all Truth, and so gave the
        knowledge of all Truth."

    I think everyone is fully aware that the early Quakers were devout
    Christians (although it is interesting that many of their Christian
    contemporaries considered them heretics).  My point is that an argument
    by authority--in this case, the authority of the early Quakers--is (in
    my view) contrary to what Quakerism is all about.  Quakerism expresses a
    kind of process of religious experience, rooted in certain traditions,
    but certainly not some rigidly imposed creedal religion.  The fact that
    early Quakerism was exclusively Christian is not in and of itself a
    justification for imposing a doctrinal test on modern Quakers.  

>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.

    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.

>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.

    I am wondering if anyone was ever read out of a meeting for not adhering
    to plain dress or other traits that identified Quakers as a "peculiar
    people".  Even in Margaret Fell's time, after Fox's death, we saw an
    increasing tendency of intolerance and rigidity, a closing of ranks.
    The fact that early Quakers may or may not have accepted all modern
    Friends is in and of itself not an argument for anything.  I am more
    interested in what we should be doing today than in what others thought
    they should have been doing hundreds of years ago.

>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 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.  

    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.

    Mike Valenza
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker