From: valenza@bigq.enet.dec.com (Michael K. Valenza)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker
Subject: Re: Inner Light
Date: 12 Jan 93 23:08:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation

>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.

    I think your question is a good one.  It gets to the heart of the
    question of universalism.  Unfortunately, I have let my membership
    in the Quaker Universalist Fellowship expire, but I think my
    universalist credentials are still intact.   However, all I can give you
    is a personal answer, and I certainly cannot speak for other Quakers,
    not even those of a universalist bent.

    My own, admittedly personal, answer is to your question, "what if it is
    essentially true, not matter a matter 'personal choice' of
    'superimposing interpretations' on your 'direct experience with the
    Ultimate'?" is that, in many ways, it IS a personal choice.  While it is
    true that I borrow the term "Ultimate" from Tillich, my main influence
    in the area of religious pluralism is John Hick.  Perhaps it is a kind
    of notionism, if you accept that all theology is notionism (which would
    make Barclay a notionist also); however, ultimately what this kind of
    religious pluralism does is (I believe) work on a differently level, by
    proposing that such "notions" are irrelevant.  Early Quakerism not only
    was Christian, it also had a universalist character.  Isaac Pennington,
    for example, said

        "Are there then more dispensations of life and mercy than one?

    	"Yes.  For though the life and mercy in itself is but one; yet it
    	hath several ways of seeking-out after, and gathering into itself, 
    	the lost sons of Adam."

    I believe that universalism is consistent with the traditional Quaker
    view that theological matters are less relevant that the immediacy of
    religious experience and the "mending of the world" (which William Penn
    described as the purpose of religion.   I believe that cultural factors,
    personal preference, and a host of other factors determine how we are
    most comfortable in addressing That Which is Greater and Unsurpassable
    (how's that for an alternative to 'the Ultimate')--and also, to our
    finite minds, not completely comprehensible in all its infinite glory. 

    That is a statement of my religious belief.  I realize that you disagree
    with this.  However, this only partly relates to  the original question,
    whether or not it is appropriate for modern Quakers to deviate from the
    original Christianity of the early Quakers.  I have stated that I
    believe that is is legitimate because Quakerism is, as I view it, a
    PROCESS, and as such is defined by its processes, though also
    conditioned by its traditions but not fettered by them.  It is, as I see
    it, a process that emphasizes creed over dogma, and a process by which
    by which we can work together as a faith community in our direct
    experience with God.  

    Your question, "Do you live as Jesus taught us to live?  Then why not
    acknowledge him?"  is an interesting one.  I do honor the ethics that
    Jesus taught--ethics that include abhorrence of revenge and retaliation,
    for example.  I have gotten into many discussions with orthodox
    Christians who adamantly criticize the idea that honoring Jesus's ethics
    is the essence of Christianity.  They point out that doing good things
    is advocated by many faiths, that Jesus was expressing many of the
    values already extant in Judaism, and that it is thus not the ethics per
    se that define Christianity, but a belief in Jesus as one's Savior.  At
    one point, in your commentary on Gandhi, you state:

        "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 Your which influenced him more than anything in his
        becoming an pacific activist."

    Actually, I am aware of Gandhi's debt to the ethics of Jesus. But, of
    course, Gandhi was not a Christian, and I doubt that you are suggesting
    that he was.  Being influenced by, or paying homage to, the ethics of
    Jesus as recorded in the gospels does not make one a Christian.  No
    orthodox Christian would find Gandhi's theology acceptable, and would
    hardly claim him for their own unless he had undergone some major
    conversion at some point in his life.  My point was that he, as a
    non-Christian, nevertheless acted in a way that expressed his own
    spirituality in a positive way.

>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.

    Actually, God is not necessarily the only person who knows my motives. I
    sometimes do know my own motives.  If the subject of my motives
    interests you, you could try asking me, and I will try to answer as
    sincerely as I can; although perhaps you question my sincerity and thus
    would consider such a dialogue a waste of your time.  As for how I would
    have been received by early Quakers, there are two ways of looking at
    it.  I would guess that if I had been born and raised in the 1600s, a
    modern universalism probably would not have occurred to me, just as, had
    I been born and raised in ancient Palestine I might have given no
    thought to the biblical depictions of massacres as Jericho and Ai.  I
    have no way of knowing how I would have reacted to Quakerism in the
    1600s, for that matter.  On the other hand, if I were magically whisked
    back in time at this moment, then perhaps I would have been disowned by
    the Quakers.  Fortunately, I live in the late twentieth century, and am
    lucky enough to have found a spiritual home in modern Quakerism.
    Obviously, modern Quakerism is not a home for you (although Evangelical
    Quakers in the West, and those in the programmed churches of FUM in the
    Midwest, are possibly much closer to your own theological perspective.)

    Thank you for sharing your conversion experience with us, by the way.
    God can indeed manifest herself/himself in powerful ways.

>it is not always a warm-fuzzy, philosophically and politically correct, 
>and spiritual experience to encounter Him. 

    I don't share that characterization of modern Quakerism, but if  it is not
    for you, then I support and respect your right to find a denomination that
    is more comfortable for you.

    Mike Valenza
Newsgroups: soc.religion.quaker