tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13555940937123581642024-03-05T14:53:07.022-06:00The Ear of the SoulThis divine whisper which enters in by the ear of the soul is not only substantial knowledge, but a manifestation also of the truths of the Divinity, and a revelation of the secret mysteries thereof. For in general, in the Holy Scriptures, every communication of God said to enter in by the ear is a manifestation of pure truths to the understanding, or a revelation of the secrets of God.<br> St. John of the Cross, "The Spiritual Canticle of the Soul" Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.comBlogger153125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-47291481090027290672018-04-29T15:59:00.000-05:002018-04-29T15:59:10.458-05:00A Prayer from Job ScottI recently encountered this prayer in the works of Job Scott<sup>1</sup>, which he claims is the first prayer he ever offered in meeting:
<blockquote>
"O Lord God Almighty! thou who art from everlasting to everlasting! Hear, O Lord, we pray thee, and arise for the help of the suffering seed. Circumcise thy people's hearts to love and fear thee. Baptize us in the river of judgment. Spare not thy rod, nor withhold thy hand, till thou has bowed the stubborn will, and brought forth judgment unto victory. And then, O gracious Father! pour in the oil of consolation , and heal the wounds with the balm of Gilead. Sanctify us, O Lord, for thy service. Cleanse us, we humbly pray thee, in thy fire, which is in Sion, and purify us in thy furnace which is at Jerusalem, that we may be a people to the praise of thy great name, which is worthy of all adoration and praise for evermore. Amen, Amen."
</blockquote>
My first thought was that this prayer wouldn't go over well some meetings because of the language, but that the main reason for that, I think, is that we no longer have the same context for it, and we aren't used to hearing people speak this way any more. When I read this, the main context I read it in is what George Fox expressed in this excerpt from Epistle #10:
<blockquote>
Stand still in that which is pure, after ye see yourselves; and then mercy comes in. After thou seest thy thoughts, and the temptations, do not think, but submit; and then power comes. Stand still in that which shows and discovers; and there doth strength immediately come. And stand still in the light, and submit to it, and the other will be hushed and hone; and then content comes;
</blockquote>
My understanding of this is that early Friends experienced the light as illuminating their sins and temptations, but that in continually dwelling in the light, they found those temptations lessening. As Robert Barclay wrote, "I found the evil weakening in me and the good raised up." Incidentally, Lloyd Lee Wilson recently pointed out that our modern phrase "holding someone in the light" takes on quite a different meaning when looked at in this context.
<br/>
<br/>
I think this experience of the light is essentially what Job Scott is praying about, using biblical language. This is how I interpret some of these:
<br/>
<br/>
<i>Circumcise thy people's hearts to love and fear thee</i>
<br/>
<br/>
The idea of "circumcision of the heart" did not originate with Paul, but occurs several times in the Hebrew bible, such as this passage in Deuteronomy 30:6, which seems close to Scott's phrasing: "Moreover, the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, in order that you may live."
<br/>
<br/>
<i>Baptize us in the river of judgment. Spare not thy rod, nor withhold thy hand, till thou has bowed the stubborn will, and brought forth judgment unto victory.</i>
<br/>
<br/>
These words might sound harsh to our ears, but I think that when coupled with the consolation that comes afterwards, it is a liberating thing. Many times we have no problem identifying our own flaws and temptations, but what Friends have testified to is that the light takes us from being mired in those temptations to getting beyond them. It makes sense that one would pray for that.
<br/>
<br/>
<i>pour in the oil of consolation , and heal the wounds with the balm of Gilead</i>
<br/>
<br/>
Praying for that judgment, for God to "spare not thy rod", makes the most sense to me when coupled with praying for the consolation after it. The later talk of sanctification, being cleansed in fire, or being purified (which is basically being cleansed in fire) is essentially this same process.
<br/>
<br/>
What I think is most important about this prayer is that it is about something experiential, and that Job Scott (and presumably others in the meeting) desired that experience. I find this aspect of the light both desirable and compelling, and I think it is necessary for us to find true unity in meeting - to have the light push away our selfishness, fear, anger, so that we are able to dwell in God's presence together without obstruction.
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
<br/>
1. Some other editions of Job Scott's journal do not contain the prayer at this point. The version I am using is the 1831 "The Works of that Eminent Minister of the Gospel, Job Scott" published by John Comly, who was a Hicksite Friend.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-15531280963721741662018-04-03T15:37:00.000-05:002018-04-03T15:37:02.902-05:00Belief, Faith, and "That of God"One of the difficulties I have with the question "What do Quakers believe?" is that it makes an automatic assumption about the nature of belief—that it is essentially the acceptance of some doctrinal statement. I tend to prefer the aspect of belief that has to do with putting one's faith or trust in something. While it may be that people are asking "What do Quakers put their trust in?", my experience has been that they are more often looking for doctrines that they can compare with their own set of accepted doctrines.
<br/>
<br/>
A common answer among liberal Friends today to the question "What do Quakers believe?" is "there is 'that of God' in every person". It often seems to me that this answer is given as an item of doctrine, and then one might say how other doctrines derive from it, such as "we believe in non-violence" because every person has 'that of God', we believe in equality because every person has 'that of God', etc. At the same time, people often express difficulty in trying to see 'that of God' in certain people.
<br/>
<br/>
My impression of Fox's writings is that 'that of God' played a more active role than being an item a doctrine, more than a reason to treat people equally or not war against them. For example, in one of his epistles he wrote:
<blockquote>
So, when their minds are turned with the light and spirit of God towards God, then with it they shall know something of revelation and inspiration; as they are turned by that of God from the evil, and emptied of that, then there will be some room in them for something of God to be revealed and inspired into them.
</blockquote>
Traditionally, Friends experience of the Light is that it would illuminate those shadowy places in us, and would lead us away from sin and evil. There was a change wrought in us by the Light. It was important that to wait to be rightly led: "And in the wisdom of God wait, that ye may answer that of God in every one" and "Nor any write, print, nor speak, (for God,) but as ye are moved of the Lord God; for that reacheth to that of God in others, and is effectual." To me this seems more as a matter of faith and trust than just a doctrine, because it is an active process around which Friends base their activities.
<br/>
<br/>
So that brings me to ask: Do Friends today have faith and trust in 'that of God' in every person? Are we striving to answer 'that of God' in others, and do we have the faith that doing so may eventually bring them away from evil? I ask this because much of the discourse today seems to ignore this. It seems to me that people think it is okay to speak badly of someone, to be rude, condescending, insulting to someone advocating some oppressive policy. As long as one has the votes to force one's will on a minority of people, there is little concern for answering 'that of God' in them. Is there an expectation that a particular law will answer 'that of God' in someone?
<br/>
<br/>
Do Friends blend in with the crowd when it comes to politics? Are we carrying the same signs, saying the same things as everyone else? Are we waiting in the wisdom of God so that what we write, print, and speak answers 'that of God' in others? I wrestle with this frequently, and most of the time the result is me not doing something because I feel a stop from it. I feel a general pull towards finding ways to effect change while answering 'that of God' in others, while not yet having concrete leadings. For now, I am striving to walk in the Light as best I can and manifest the fruit of the Spirit in my interactions with people.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-44721432006619340972018-02-24T19:51:00.001-06:002018-02-24T19:51:31.511-06:00Living by the SwordI have been considering the phrase "he who lives by the sword will die by the sword." I was sure it was in the bible in the story of Jesus' arrest, but that passage actually says "all who take the sword will perish by the sword" (Matt. 26:52, NRSV) That seems even more encompassing than "living by the sword". I have always thought of it somewhat literally - actually being killed by a sword, or a gun. Lately, however, in watching my nation's reactions to yet another mass shooting, I have begun to understand that dying as a spiritual death, in much the same way that Paul writes of sin as death.
<br />
<br />
Taking up the sword, especially in a way in which one no longer has regard for the life of one's neighbor, is a kind of spiritual death, and a separation from God. When you say "you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands", you're dead already, because that is what you cling to until death. Jesus said "Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell". The sword and the gun are symbols and manifestations of that fear.
<br />
<br />
Given the circles I travel in, perhaps most people reading this just not in approval. But, what are other things that we might hold in a fearful death grip that are spiritually killing us? Are there people, institutions, ideas, physical objects that we must have? Are there things that interrupt our love of God or of our neighbors? Money, for example, is one I struggle with. Perhaps I also have too much faith in institutions.
<br />
<br />
One aspect of the Exodus story is the Israelites learning (and failing to learn) a daily dependence on God. I recognize in myself that I need that same lesson - that checking the news or Facebook has more importance in my daily routine than it should, and that what I read in the news stirs up fear of those who kill the body. Maybe I'm not in danger or taking up the sword, or gun, but there are other things I have taken up that are not life-giving.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-31075520536573619142017-02-02T18:47:00.000-06:002017-02-02T18:47:16.202-06:00Avoiding the Light<blockquote>
For all who do evil hate the light and do not come to the light, so that their deeds may not be exposed. John 3:20 (NRSV)
</blockquote>
<br/>
Right before Christmas, <a href="http://friendlymama.blogspot.com">Mary Linda</a> and I became aware of a young man who was homeless and needed a place to stay. We had a lot of discussion about it, much of it involving logistical difficulties. As we talked about it, I began to feel uncomfortable with the situation and expressed my frustration over it. Eventually, Mary Linda said "can we sit in worship around this?" I became aware of a part of me that didn't want to do that — the part of me that said "No, I don't want to be talked into this." But, we sat in worship, and as we did, I felt my objections falling away and we decided that we would offer space for him.
<br/>
<br/>
A few days later, I happened to read John 3:20, and I felt it was in some way talking about how I didn't want to sit in worship. There was something in me that did not want to come to the Light. It occurs to me that there are times when I hold so tightly to either wanting to do something or not wanting to do something that I am reluctant to bring it to the Light — to sit and listen for God's guidance. I must be willing to let go of that thing, and if I feel some reluctance to do that, perhaps I have some deep sense that it may not be what I am supposed to do.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-61256562037094929472016-08-21T18:39:00.000-05:002016-08-21T18:39:38.585-05:00Words, Symbols, and IdolsI was at the West Knoxville Friends meetinghouse this weekend for a meeting with the Nurturing & Steering committees of Southern Appalachian Young Friends (the teen group for my yearly meeting). Last night, we had a discussion that touched on our use of language and how our language can hurt others. One of the things that I found myself thinking is how words can be symbols, and when they are symbols for systems of oppression they can be hurtful to those who are victims of that oppression system, and yet seem somewhat innocuous to those who are not on the receiving end of that oppression, especially if we aren't aware of what they symbolize.
<br />
<br />
On the way to Knoxville, <a href="http://friendlymama.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">Mary Linda</a> took this picture around the Cookeville exit: <img align="LEFT" border="0" height="320" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiHo41MDOOworH70kLFVeD-aLfCQ9rCsSjNFtxb0RSrsYPIazLWYYEPUdIRA1JStAekVxF14s5pxGkCKVq6Pf-prOUg9ZRP-yJXU5TPFxK9Y7GN3gKfVZtC2a0q27_monZNJXd3ZBbQ6glMRGc/s320/cellphone_cross.jpg" width="180" /> Then on the way home, right around the same place, I passed a car with a bumper sticker reading "In God We Trust". That got me thinking about Christian words and symbols, and at first, I thought about how those words and symbols might be used more as symbols of American Christian culture, which is not the same thing as Christianity. In this case, they are sometimes used to symbolize membership in a group, but not necessarily in consideration of what those symbols actually represent. Of course, that's me being somewhat judgmental, but I do think it is important to consider how we use words and symbols, and when it comes to religious symbols, it can get into the area of idolatry when the symbol becomes separated from God. For example, look at "In God We Trust". I often hear that phrase used in ways that seem more about establishing Christianity as the official religion of the U.S.A., rather than being about trusting God. Much of our political discourse these days seems driven by fear, and if we really trusted in God, fear wouldn't have such a grip on us. I don't know if I would say that the phrase itself is the idol, or the political ideal is the idol, but it seems like either way it suggests that something is substituting for God.
<br />
<br />
I started questioning how I might also be using a symbol, word or practice without consideration or connection to God. We might be tempted to say that since Quakers have internalized everything, we don't really get stuck on symbols in the same way other faith traditions do, but I think maybe we have just made it harder for us to find those things, but they do exist. One personal example that comes immediately to mind is the silence. I know that there are times when I just sit in worship being silent, sometimes I even find myself settling in and enjoying the silence. Intellectually, I understand the silence in our worship to be a product of our listening for the Inward Teacher to lead us and I remember one time thinking that the phrase "silence means assent" works well for us in that it is our assent to being led by God. But more times than not, I do not have this assent at the forefront of my mind when I settle into worship. I may think of being centered, and I do have periods of being aware of listening, but I feel like do not enter into it consciously.
<br />
<br />
It gets more complicated for me with the cross. Again, intellectually, I resonate with the internalized understanding of the Cross mystical that William Penn describes here in No Cross, No Crown:
<blockquote>
The cross of Christ is a figurative speech, borrowed from the outward tree, or wooden cross, on which Christ submitted to the will of God in permitting him to suffer death at the hands of evil men. So that the cross mystical is that divine grace and power which crosseth the carnal wills of men, and so may be justly termed the instrument of man’s holy dying to the world and being made conformable to the will of God. ...
<br />
<br />
Well, but then where does this cross appear, and where must it be taken up? I answer, within, that is, in the heart and soul; for where the sin is, the cross must be. Custom in evil hath made it natural to men to do evil; and as the soul rules the body, so this corrupt nature sways the whole
man; but still, ’tis all from within. Experience teaches every son and daughter of Adam an assent to this; for the enemies’ temptations are ever directed to the mind, which is within; if they take not, the soul sins not; if they are embraced, lust is presently conceived (that is, inordinate desires). Here is the very genealogy of sin.
<br />
<br />
But how and in what manner is the cross to be daily borne? The way, like the cross, is spiritual, that is, an inward submission of the soul to the will of God as it is manifested by the light of Christ in the consciences of men; the way of taking up the cross is an entire resignation of soul to the discoveries and requirings of it.
</blockquote>
I don't consciously think about taking up the cross daily, although I do occasionally recognize it at work in me. Lately I have felt a concern about my interactions with people online, which I felt upon hearing one of the advices read at NCYM-C: "Seek the beautiful and worthwhile in literary and recreational pursuits, being always sensitive to the encroachment of the banal, the degrading, or the violent." I felt that I shouldn't be contributing to the banal, degrading, or violent. Since then there have been times when I really wanted to, but I have felt an inward stop, that I think is that inward submission to the will of God. Although I can see this in retrospect as a small example of taking up the cross, I feel I want it to be more a more conscious thing.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-24613788036762799102016-08-13T21:23:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.686-05:00Brokenness of SpiritI have been re-reading the Journal of Stephen Grellet lately, and in it he tells a story about Spring Meeting in North Carolina and how the meeting had lost all of its membership, until a young man felt drawn on First-days to open up the meetinghouse and worship there by himself. One day, he felt a strong leading to stand and speak, which he did - to empty benches. Shortly after he sat down "several young men came into the house, in a serious manner, and sat down in silence by him. Some of them evincing brokenness of heart." <br/><br/>The phrase "brokenness of heart" has been on my mind since then, and with it, the contrast in the level of emotion between what I perceive in the writings of early Friends and what I experience in most liberal and conservative meetings today. One of the things that stands out to me among early Friends is the amount of tears. Stephen Grellet writes often of "tears of joy" or "tears of gratitude". Samuel Bownas wrote of an early childhood experience of accompanying his mother to worship with imprisoned Friends at Appleby prison: <blockquote>I observed, though very young, how tender and broken they were; and I was very inquisitive of my mother, why they cried so much, and thee too, said I, why did thee? She told me that I could not understand the reason of it then, but when I grew up more to man’s estate I might. </blockquote>After his famous encounter with Anne Wilson, he writes: <blockquote>... in secret I cried, <i>Lord, what shall I do to help it?</i> And a voice as it were spoke in my heart saying, <i>Look unto me, and I will help thee</i>; and I found much comfort, that made me shed abundance of tears. Then I remembered what my mother had told me some years before, that when I grew up more to man's estate, I should know the reason of that tenderness and weeping, and so I now did to purpose. </blockquote>I know tears are not unknown among Friends today. Some Friends in NCYM-C like to quote a now-deceased member who would say "the floor was wet with tears". I also remember that at the close of SAYMA one year I saw a beloved member of Nashville Friends Meeting with tears streaming down his face. I have experienced them from time to time as well. <br/><br/>I have an internal conflict here because I am somewhat suspicious of emotionalism by itself. I have had plenty of experience of revivals and church services that can get people into a high emotional state. There is one in particular I remember fondly, being maybe 11 or 12, I found myself quietly singing hymns in the car ride home, feeling a great level of peace and love. But, my experience with this kind of thing is that it didn't last, and so I have grown somewhat skeptical about it. <br/><br/>I wrote recently about <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2016/07/the-testimony-of-humility.html">humility</a> and I think is it one of the factors in some of these cases of tears of early Friends - the "brokenness of heart" (or of spirit). One of the ways early Friends experienced the Light of Christ was as a searchlight that illuminated the dark places in the heart and brought them forth. My impression is that this was often felt in worship and led to tears and other gestures of humility. Isaac Penington describes it in very stark language: <blockquote>By his casting into the furnace of affliction, the fire searcheth. The deep, sore, distressing affliction, which rends and tears the very inwards, finds out both the seed and the chaff, purifying the pure gold and consuming the dross; and then, at length, the quiet state is witnessed, and the quiet fruit of righteousness brought forth, by the searching and consuming operation and nature of the fire. </blockquote>What I love about this passage is its representation of the struggle and pain of seeing one's sins illuminated, and then the quiet state that follows. My experience of this searching light is not as vivid as what early Friends portray. There are times when I am in meeting, or reading, especially times when I have tried to settle into the presence of God, when something speaks to me and makes me aware of something I should or shouldn't do, but it generally doesn't reduce me to tears. <br/><br/>I think there may be some level of discomfort among liberal Friends with this idea of the Light searching and revealing one's sins. Many people have grown up in churches that preach the Calvinist idea of the "total depravity of humanity", or in ones that have a tendency to be very judgmental. I have heard people say "there's nothing wrong with me" in a way that has felt to me as more a rejection of "total depravity" than a statement of being perfect. Although I think it is important for us to acknowledge that we are not perfect, I don't think our emphasis should be on how sinful we each are, but rather on how the Light changes us. One of the things I heard mentioned at NCYM-C this year, was that in the early days people came to meeting expecting to be changed. It seems to be that allowing ourselves to be brought low, to have our spirits and hearts broken - broken open, by the Spirit, lets us welcome in that change. <br/><br/>The other part of this brokenness, then, is the peace that comes afterwards - the "quiet state" that Isaac Penington wrote about. This comes about from the Light as well. I particularly like the way George Fox talks about it in Epistle 10: <blockquote>Your strength is to stand still, after ye see yourselves; whatsoever ye see yourselves addicted to, temptations, corruption, uncleanness, &c. then ye think ye shall never overcome. And earthly reason will tell you, what ye shall lose; hearken not to that, but stand still in the Light, that shows them to you, and then strength comes from the Lord, and help contrary to your expectation: then ye grow up in peace, and no trouble shall move you. </blockquote>Even harder than submitting to the searching of the Light is standing still in what it finds. I live in a culture that is action oriented, and if something is wrong you have to do something to fix it, and the idea of not doing something is very contrary. I think this attitude also contributes to my resistance to being broken in the first place. Just as the silence in meeting for worship comes out of our surrendering ourselves to the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I want to silence my impulses to fix myself and wait in the Light. Similarly, I want to cultivate the willingness to be broken open - it's not something I can do on my own, and while it may often be something I couldn't resist if I wanted to, I think it is helpful to be open to it.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-36027589007941591142016-08-05T07:58:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.707-05:00Testing LeadingsYesterday I read <a href="http://afriendlyletter.com/carolina-quakers-one-creed-two-creeds-or-none/">an article by Chuck Fager</a> about the ongoing situation in North Carolina Yearly Meeting (FUM). In the article, Chuck includes a letter from the NC Yearly Meeting on Ministry and Counsel, outlining a doctrinal basis for splitting the yearly meeting. In listing perceived differences between two factions, it has these contrasts about the purpose of scripture:<br/><br/><table border="2"><tr><td><i>The Holy Scriptures are subject to the Holy Spirit and, should a seeming conflict arise, the Holy Spirit provides the final answer.</i></td><td><i>The leadings of the Holy Spirit never contradict the Holy Scriptures and, should a seeming conflict arise, the Holy Scriptures are a trustworthy source of the Truth because they are inspired by the Holy Spirit.</i></td></tr></table><br/>I originally had a lot to say about these two statements, but I believe much of it was just rehashing a 200-year-old argument, so I will only say that I believe the Scriptures must be read in the Spirit in which they were written, and if the second statement implies otherwise then I disagree with it. <br/><br/>But, this got me thinking about the whole idea of testing leadings against the Scriptures and whether that has mostly disappeared from Liberal Friends. My impression is that it has (and I note that the first of NCYM's statements about Scriptures doesn't mention it either). The follow-on question, then, is whether there are things that we do test leadings against (I'm going on the hopeful assumption that we at least test leadings with one another via sitting in worship and discerning). It seems to me that the testimonies are one of these touchstones. If a perceived leading is not consistent with the peace testimony, for example, that should at least make us pay extra attention to it. I don't think that we should reject it outright, but be extra careful in discernment. Perhaps the writings of early Friends can serve as touchstones as well - I have read a bit of Robert Barclay in working on this post and some of it will probably come to mind in the future. In particular, I wonder how much of our surrounding culture becomes a touchstone. Is there an automatic assumption that something is right because it is consistent with our political views or our party's platform or those of our neighbors and co-workers? Among Liberal Friends, can we tell when something is part of the liberal culture we tend to surround ourselves with, but not necessarily of the Spirit? <br/><br/>One reason I ask this is that in the polarization of our politics, there seems to be more of a lock-step mentality. If you are for X, you must also be for Y and Z. It sometimes feels like there is an unspoken "if you are a Quaker, you must be for X, Y, and Z". Now, I don't have a problem with someone assuming that if I am a Quaker that I am at least striving to be humble, peaceful, honest, etc., but when it comes to assuming that I would support or reject some particular law or organization, I have a problem with that. The Holy Spirit can lead us in unexpected directions that are not necessarily the direction our surrounding culture would understand, and we must continue to seek that Spirit and to test our leadings against it, and not fall back on our cultural assumptions. <br/><br/>With regard to the Scriptures, I do find myself examining my behavior in light of them. For example, Matthew 5:22 says "But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, 'You fool,' you will be liable to the hell of fire." I have been trying to take that seriously, and refrain from referring to people I don't agree with as "stupid", and not trying to perpetuate insulting memes. I also find this statement by Robert Barclay compelling, and it speaks to another reason why I continue to read the bible: "This is the great Work of the Scriptures, and their Service to us, that we may witness them fulfilled <i>in</i> us, and so discern the stamp of God's Spirit and ways upon them, by the inward acquaintance we have with the same Spirit and Work in our Hearts". Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-70949906237704196592016-08-01T17:08:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.724-05:00That Which Is Not Of GodThe phrase "that of God in every person" is common among Friends. In the last century it has come to be, for some, the foundation of the Quaker testimonies (e.g. we don't believe in war because other people have "that of God" in them). But, an older usage that continues today among some Friends is the idea that there is "that of God" in us that guides us, illuminates the shadows in our hearts, and transforms us. The peace testimony in this case comes from being transformed into a life in which war and violence are no longer options. I often quote this phrase from Fox's journal in explaining the peace testimony: "I lived in the virtue of that life and power that took away the occasion of all wars". <br/><br/>"That of God" in others was something to be answered. Here is one way that George Fox expressed it:<br/><blockquote>So all Friends, of what calling soever, that dwell in the power of God, and feel the power of God, and the light of Christ Jesus: dwell in that, act in that; that ye may answer that of God in every one upon the earth with your actions, and by your conversations, and by your words, being right, just, and true. This goes over the unjust, untrue, unholy, and unrighteous in the whole world; and reacheth to the good and true principle of God in all people, which tells them when they do not do equally, justly, righteously, and holily. </blockquote> The idea here is that when we dwell in the Spirit and we act from the leadings of that Spirit, it resonates with "that of God" in others, and perhaps brings them to a new awareness of "that of God" within themselves. What this brings me to is the consideration of the opposite - in what ways do we answer that which is not of God in others? Take anger, for example, which is one of the "works of the flesh" that the Apostle Paul listed (along with its cousins enmities, strife, quarrels, dissensions, and factions) before he listed the "fruit of the Spirit". Anger seems to be one of those things that feeds itself, and it can almost be an addiction for some people. I think that when we knowingly and intentionally anger someone we are answering that which is not of God in them. That is not to say that there aren't things we may be led by the Spirit to do that may anger people, but that there are things we do that are not directly of God that feed those things that are not of God. <br/><br/>There is also something of a mob mentality that we can trigger. Someone may have some desire to do or say something but deep down they know they shouldn't, but then we say or do that thing and then they feel it is okay because we did it. On the positive side, I should also say that one person stepping forward and speaking up about something can give other people the courage to speak. The negative side can also feed on itself, since you may affect one person, and they in turn affect another and so forth (and in the Internet age, it can affect hundreds, thousands, perhaps even millions). <br/><br/>One aspect of the idea of not answering "that which is not of God" in others might be the first part of query #9 from North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative): <blockquote>Are we mindful of Friends testimonies against alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and other harmful drugs; and do we refrain from using them or dealing in them, realizing that abstinence is the clearest witness against overindulgence? </blockquote>I bring this one up because it seems to me to be a perpetual struggle for the monthly meetings to answer. Some people, especially those who have personal experience with substance abuse, seem to prefer a hard line on this, while others don't see a problem with an occasional glass of wine. It will be a shame if queries like this go by the wayside in the future, because I think it is good for us to wrestle with these questions, and acknowledge that we aren't isolated individuals - what we do or don't do can have an effect on people. <br/><br/>I took up plain dress about 6 years ago and one of the reasons was as a spiritual discipline in which I became more aware that people were watching me, so that perhaps I would be more aware and deliberate about what I do. I think my success in that area has been mixed. I think it has helped me in many ways, but perhaps I have also developed an ability to not see people staring at me. While this kind of discipline can be helpful, it seems like it could be particularly harmful if I am not watchful. When I do something that answers that which is not of God in someone, does the way I dress make it worse (i.e. "well, if HE can do it...")? Along that same line, do those of us who have various positions of leadership in our meetings have that same potential to make things worse? <br/><br/>My hope is that the consideration of whether we are answering that which is not of God can be a useful tool in discerning the difference between our own wants and desires and what "that of God" is telling us to do.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-19880906679610193932016-07-25T16:07:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.761-05:00The Testimony of Humility<blockquote>"that if those who were at times under sufferings on account of some scruples of conscience kept low and humble, and in their conduct in life manifested a spirit of true charity, it would be more likely to reach the witness in others" -- John Woolman </blockquote>One of the things I love about John Woolman's journal is that it conveys a sense of tenderness and humility, and two words that express humility to me in the writings of Friends are "meek" and "low". Low, of course, has a wide range of usage, but in this case I am thinking of the phrases "keep low" and "brought low". While "brought low" carries a general sense of being "brought down", it appears to me that the emphasis among many Friends was in the humbling that results from it. For example, in one of Fox's epistles: "the lofty looks of man shall be brought low, and the haughtiness of man shall be bowed down" (borrowing from Isaiah 2:12 and 2:17). The idea of "keeping low" seems to refer to remaining humble. Again from Fox: "keep low in your minds, and learn of Christ, who teacheth you humility, to keep in it". <br/><br/> Meekness is frequently mentioned in early Friends' writings, and one of the places I see it a lot is in confronting one another over actions. For example, Isaac Penington writes to his children about what to do when they notice evils in others, that they should first take notice of that evil in themselves and wait in the Light ("in the fear of God", actually) to be "delivered from it and kept out of it." Only then does he suggest that they "in tender pity, love and meekness, admonish they brother or sister of his or her evil, and watch to be helpful to preserve or restore them." <br/><br/> Meekness, lowliness and humility all seem to be both a way to encounter the Holy Spirit, and a result of that encounter. That is, there are times where we are reminded to "keep low", as if that is something we do on our own, and at other times we are "brought low" by the Spirit. Isaac Penington, in writing about "The Way and Means to Avoid Persecution" (he means avoiding persecuting others), says:<br/><blockquote>The gospel makes meek, tender, gentle, peaceable; fills with love and sweetness of spirit; teaches to love, to forgive, to pray for and bless enemies: and how shall this man persecute?" </blockquote> When I got back from NCYM-C and was again immersed in the online world, it felt to me as if things had gotten far more vicious in the span of a few days. It also occurred to me that it might just seem more vicious because I spent several days in the gentle, peaceful spirit of that yearly meeting. Either way, it made me question where meekness and gentleness have gone, and why that is not one of our primary witnesses in the world, especially now. Why isn't humility listed as one of the testimonies? (aside from the fact that you can't make a word out of SPICE+H, although if you could add something with O, HOSPICE would work). The SPICE acronym is relatively new, of course. The original testimonies were more actions than ideas - using "thee" and "thou", not removing your hat for people, not swearing oaths, plain dress, refusing to fight in a war, etc. Only within the last century have our testimonies been described as general concepts. As I <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2012/02/quit-pushing-your-belief-system-on-me.html">said before</a> (in a manner that could have used a bit more gentleness and meekness), I don't treat the testimonies as a core set of beliefs, but rather as expressions of our shared experience of the Holy Spirit. In replying to a comment on that previous post, I realized that I think of the testimonies as touchstones, just as I do Galatians 5:22-23 ("the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control"). As touchstones, I compare my actions and leadings against them - is there love in this, is there integrity, etc. <br/><br/> I think humility should be in the list - that we should consider whether what we feel we are led to do is from a spirit of meekness, gentleness and humility. Maybe this means that we don't always have to be right (okay, that one stings). Maybe it means that instead of writing other people off as stupid, we try to understand why they disagree with us. Maybe it means that we are willing to be laughed at and criticized because we take a stance that our culture thinks is naïve. I know there are a lot of bad things going on in the world and I don't think we should be hiding our heads in the sand rather than confronting evil. But, I also believe that our tradition has an important witness, and that we should be willing to do things differently. <br/><br/>As I was writing this, I kept thinking about the phrase "the meek spirit of the gospel", knowing that I had read it somewhere, but couldn't find the reference. As it turns out, it was in a passage that I have <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2009/05/i-have-written-before-about-my.html">written about before</a>. The quote is from Elias Hicks:<br/><blockquote>[I] set forth the great danger of mixing in with the spirit of the world, which leads to strife and contention, and the promotion of parties and party animosities in civil governments: all of which have a direct tendency to engender war and bloodshed, and are therefore inconsistent for us, as a people, to touch or take part with, or to suffer our minds to be agitated thereby; as it always has led, and always will lead those, who are leavened therewith, out of the meek spirit of the gospel, which breathes "peace on earth, and good will to all men". </blockquote>Now, I think there is some context necessary here. First, as I <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2016/07/myths-and-beliefs.html">wrote recently</a>, I don't think we should just blindly copy the actions of earlier Friends, and in Hicks' day, some Friends were very opposed to participation in government. Some of this may have come out of disillusionment with Penn's government in Pennsylvania. Hicks was sharply critical of Penn in a letter to John Murray, Jr. (See Paul Buckley's excellent <a href="https://quakerbooks.org/products/dear-friend-letters-and-essays-of-elias-hicks-3652">"Dear Friend: Letters & Essays of Elias Hicks"</a>, pp. 17-22). Even being in a different time, however, I still recognize the truth in what he writes. Party politics do engender a warlike spirit in which members of the other parties are no longer thinking, feeling human beings, but are masked, uniformed figures to whom are ascribed a particular set of beliefs and positions. We may not all agree about the amount to which Friends should be concerned with politics, but I would hope we can at least recognize the dehumanizing spirit that has pervaded our political landscape. It is my hope that we can overcome that spirit by acting in the meek spirit of the gospel. <br/><br/>"Oh! wait to feel this spirit, and to be guided to walk in this spirit, that ye may enjoy the Lord in sweetness, and walk sweetly, meekly, tenderly, peaceably, and lovingly with one another." -- Isaac Penington to Friends in Amersham.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-82677854465567106032016-07-22T18:06:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.776-05:00Myths and BeliefsI have a confession to make: I have a problem with authority, and here's an example of what I mean. <a href="http://friendlymama.blogspot.com/">Mary Linda</a> and I watched "Cold Comfort Farm" a few weeks ago, and this scene with Ian McKellen brought some of my authority issues to my attention:<br /><iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="270" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/T5evsxRdkJw" width="480"></iframe> <br />While I love the line "there'll be no butter in Hell", my inner critic is saying "how do you know?", and that question occurs a lot for me. It comes up, for example, when we pass a billboard along I-40 that says "When you die, you WILL meet God", and another along I-75 that says "The Holy Bible: Inspired, Absolute, Final". I am okay with "inspired", although I think they mean something else by it. What do they even mean by "absolute"? Being in a religious tradition that believes in continuing revelation, "final" doesn't work for me either. When I am feeling cynical, I feel like they are saying "the bible says what I say it does, period". There is a take-it-or-leave-it absoluteness in the way many people approach the bible, and for that reason, some people leave it. <br /><br />Even so, I am still one who values the bible and I think that's because my approach to the bible is more along the lines of what Marcus Borg calls "historical-metaphorical", in that it isn't the factuality of the stories of the bible that are the important thing, but what they convey about the authors' understanding of God. This obviously implies that I don't think that the bible was divinely dictated. I find myself thinking about using the word myth when talking about some of the stories, but I don't usually say it out loud. I remember thinking it was somewhat scandalous in "Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan" to hear Dr. McCoy saying "according to myth, the Earth was created in six days". I always understood the word "myth" to imply falsehood, which is one of the definitions that Merriam-Webster gives for it. Another definition is "a usually traditional story of ostensibly historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon". It is in the latter context that I use the word in referring to at least parts of the bible, not as a judgment of any truth or falsehood. You don't have to believe that the world was created in six days to appreciate the message that the world is good. <br /><br />What this means is that I keep in mind that there is a human element here — that the various authors of the bible were writing about their experience of God, but I don't believe they were infallible. Friends have always maintained, that as the bible was written by people influenced by the Holy Spirit, it must be read in that same Spirit, and I continually try to do that. One of the results of this is that I think of the various stories of the bible as influences on my understanding of the Holy Spirit, but not as things that should just be duplicated. To use a musical analogy, musicians study the playing of other musicians, learning various riffs, studying phrasing, practicing techniques, but the end result is not to play exactly like the musician they are studying, but instead to expand what they are able to play. Music is played in a context. You wouldn't normally play a Miles Davis note-for-note solo in the middle of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, but you might play the symphony in Miles Davis' style (as if he was playing it), or you may play it in your own style that is influenced by him — what an interesting creation that might be! The bible is an intersection of the Spirit of God, people, and a point in time. Living in a different point in time, the result of that intersection may be different — or not. We are all still human after all. <br /><br />The Sermon on the Mount talks about turning the other cheek. I think as Friends we often just take that literally, but Walter Wink suggested that it had to do with asserting your equality with the person slapping you (based on which hand was being used to do the slapping). I find it interesting to view some of Jesus' actions as being similar to what early Friends were called to do with "hat honor" and "thee & thou", witnessing against class inequality. Now, maybe I will be called to literally turn the other cheek, but maybe there will be some other form of self-sacrifice that I am required to do, or maybe there will be some other way to assert my equality with someone or confirm someone else's. I think we get a richer view of the bible when we don't assume that things are to be copied literally. I have the same attitude towards the writings of early Friends. Sure, maybe we're supposed to go naked as a sign, but maybe our time calls for something different. <br /><br />My confession here was spawned by the reference to "the enemy" in a <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2016/07/some-counsel-from-alexander-parker-part_21.html">previous post</a> about an epistle from Alexander Parker. Right now, I don't think that I have to believe in a literal enemy, devil, tempter, adversary to see the truth in this epistle, because it describes a tendency for us to misunderstand what the Spirit is telling us, or a temptation to just say something we want to say even thought we don't really feel a leading from the Spirit. Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-57158563223101543542016-07-21T15:59:00.000-05:002016-09-03T09:15:27.268-05:00Some Counsel From Alexander Parker, Part 2I recently posted about an <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2016/07/some-counsel-from-alexander-parker-part_20.html">epistle from Alexander Parker</a> in which he speaks of how we settle into Meeting for Worship. Immediately following that, Parker goes on to speak about vocal ministry: <blockquote>And if any be moved to speak words, wait low in the pure fear, to know the mind of the Spirit, where and to whom they are to be spoken.—If any be moved to speak, see that they speak in the power; and when the power is still, be ye still.—And all who speak of the movings of the Lord, I lay it as a charge upon you, to beware of abusing the power of God, in acting a wrong thing under pretence of being moved of the Lord:—for the pure power may move, and then the enemy (who goes about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,) he may present a wrong thing to the view of the understanding; and here is a danger of abusing the power, acting that which the true power condemns, and yet pretending that the power moves to it;—this is a double sin. Therefore, let every one patiently wait, and not be hasty to run in the dark; but keep low in the true fear, that the understanding may be opened to know the mind of the Spirit; then as the Spirit moves and leads, it is good to follow its leadings;—for such are led into all truth. Thus, my Friends, as you keep close to the Lord, and to the guidance of his good Spirit, ye shall not do amiss; but in all your services and performances in the worship of God, ye shall be a good savour unto the Lord; and the Lord will accept of your services, and bless and honour your assemblies with his presence and power. </blockquote> In the previous post, I mused about the idea of our Meeting for Worship being such that we were reluctant to leave, and hoped that we would feel that more. I think Parker's advice here becomes daunting when our meetings don't experience the power that he did. In the absence of that power, Would waiting until we feel it have the effect of completely shutting up vocal ministry? Would that be a good thing? One one hand, it might be good for us to have more consideration over our words, on the other hand, if the purpose of vocal ministry is to <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2012/02/let-all-things-be-done-unto-edifying.html">build us up ("edifying" in the King James Bible)</a>, what happens when there is none? I don't mean to say that we never experience that power, but I think the experience varies from meeting to meeting, and changes over time, and some meetings find themselves in a fairly dry state. Perhaps expectation is the key. Do we come to meeting expecting to experience what Parker refers to as "the power", what is our waiting worship waiting on?Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-14068442678304101552016-07-20T19:30:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.801-05:00Some Counsel From Alexander Parker, Part 1I recently came across an epistle from Alexander Parker to Friends published in <a href="https://books.google.com/books?id=0EYNAAAAYAAJ">Letters, &c, of Early Friends</a> (Douglas Steere referenced it in the introduction to "Quaker Spirituality"). The opening reminds me of the Apostle Paul in 1 Corinthians 14 when he talks about worship in his time, beginning with "What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, …". <blockquote>So Friends, when you come together to wait upon God, come orderly in the fear of God: the first that enters into the place of your meeting, be not careless, nor wander up and down, either in body or mind; but innocently sit down in some place, and turn in thy mind to the light, and wait upon God singly, as if none were present by the Lord; and here thou art strong. Then the next that comes in, let them in simplicity of heart, sit down and turn in to the same light, and wait in the Spirit: and so all the rest coming in, in the fear of the Lord, sit down in pure stillness and silence of all flesh, and wait in the light; a few that are thus gathered by the arm of the Lord into the unity of the Spirit,—this is a sweet and precious meeting, where all meet with the Lord!—Those who are brought to a pure, still waiting upon God in the Spirit, are come nearer to the Lord than words are: for God is a Spirit, and in the Spirit is he worshipped; so that my soul hath dear union with you, who purely wait upon God in the Spirit, though not a word be spoken to the hearing of the outward ear. And here is the true feeding of the Spirit; and all who thus meet together to wait upon the Lord, shall renew their strength daily. In such a meeting, where the presence and power of God is felt, there will be an unwillingness to part asunder, being ready to say in yourselves, it is good to be here: and this is the end of all words and writings—to bring people to the eternal living Word. So, all dear hearts, when you come together to wait upon God, come singly and purely; that your meetings together may be for the better, and not for the worse. </blockquote> One thing that struck me in reading this passage was the idea of being drawn together in meeting such that we don't want to part. One time during worship at Atlanta Friends Meeting, a small child of a visiting family was a little noisy and his mother decided to take him outside. As they were going, he said "I don't want to leave", and I thought how lovely it would be if we all had that feeling during worship. Years ago I talked about having a <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2007/08/holding-up-hourglass.html">time limit</a> on Meeting for Worship, and that came up in conversation at the NCYM-C annual sessions last week. My current feeling about this is that I wouldn't want to arbitrarily say that there is no time limit, but my hope is that one day we might all feel like we don't want to leave.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-2661716226477616102016-07-19T17:04:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.814-05:00Selections and Letters From the Works of Isaac PeningtonI notice that I posted several times about my reprint of "Southern Heroes" several years ago, but not once about my work on combining two out-of-print collections of Isaac Penington. I really enjoy Penington and had a reprint of "Selections From the Works of Isaac Penington" (Darton & Harvey, London). I decided to combine the selections with the "Letters of Isaac Penington" (Association of Friends, Philadelphia) and create a nice single-volume Penington collection (for a much more thorough collection, see <a href="http://qhpress.org/books/penington.html">Quaker Heritage Press' 4-volume "The Works of Isaac Penington</a>. <br /><br />As usual, it is available for <a href="http://www.lulu.com/shop/isaac-penington/selections-and-letters-of-isaac-penington/hardcover/product-21602154.html">print-on-demand</a>, and is also available for free as a <a href="http://www.wutka.com/download/Penington_Selections.pdf">PDF</a>. <br /><br />Given the vicious political environment we find ourselves in today, I share this letter of Penington's from 1667: <br /><blockquote class="tr_bq"><center>Letter 21</center><center>ON LOVE, MEEKNESS, AND WATCHING OVER EACH OTHER.</center><center><i>To Friends in Amersham.</i></center><br /><div style="font-variant: small-caps;"> Friends:-</div><br /> Our life is love, and peace, and tenderness, and bearing one with another, and forgiving one another, and not laying accusations one against another; but praying one for another, and helping one another up with a tender hand, if there has been any slip or fall, and waiting till the Lord gives sense and repentance, if sense and repentance in any be wanting. Oh, wait to feel this spirit, and to be guided to walk in this spirit, that ye may enjoy the Lord in sweetness, and walk sweetly, meekly, tenderly, peaceably, and lovingly one with another. And then ye will be a praise to the Lord; and any thing that is, or hath been, or may be amiss, ye will come over in the true dominion, even in the Lamb's dominion; and that which is contrary shall be trampled upon, as life rises and rules in you. So, watch your hearts and ways; and watch one over another in that which is gentle and tender, and knows it can neither preserve itself nor help another out of the snare; but the Lord must be waited upon to do this in and for us all. So, mind Truth, the service, enjoyment, and possession of it in your hearts; and so to walk as ye may bring no disgrace upon it, but may be a good savor in the places where ye live: the meek, innocent, tender, righteous life reigning in you, governing over you, and shining through you, in the eyes of all with whom ye converse. <br/><br/> Your friend in the Truth, and a desirer of your welfare and prosperity therein. <br/><div style="text-align: right;">I.P.</div><center><div style="font-variant: small-caps;">Aylesbury</div>4th of Third Month, 1667.</center></blockquote>Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-66352558640505042312016-07-18T13:17:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.837-05:00NCYMC - The Honeymoon is Over, and That's a Good ThingI just got back from the 319th annual session of North Carolina Yearly Meeting (Conservative), which was held at Guilford college. Sometime over the weekend, I came to the realization that the honeymoon was over, and probably had been for a few years. When I was younger, the phrase "the honeymoon is over" had a very negative connotation, as in "you don't care about me anymore". Not only do I not think it is a bad thing for the honeymoon to be over, I consider it a healthy part of a relationship.<br /><br />When I first started attending the NCYM-C annual sessions, I gushed about them, and I still do. It felt like my spiritual home, and so much of what was going on there resonated with me, met my spiritual needs, and changed me. But, I also recognize that I idealized the yearly meeting to some extent. I didn't particularly notice flaws, or things that just didn't speak to me. I also recognize that I have changed over the past 10 years (so has the yearly meeting). While I'm just thinking at this moment about my spiritual life and my views on Quakerism and Christianity, it occurs to me that my life has gone through tremendous upheaval since that first visit. I find that I don't idealize the yearly meeting as much any more. There are things I don't agree with, people that may occasionally grate on me, but despite that, it still feels like my spiritual home and I feel deep love for the yearly meeting. I think it's important to recognize that. <br /><br />People often come to our meetings seeking something, just as I did in my first visit to NCYM-C. For those who find what they are looking for, they often have the assumption that they have found the perfect place. Then, when they discover that we are, in fact, human beings, there can be a feeling of disillusionment and disappointment that may drive them away. This happens in other kinds of relationships as well -- friendships, romances, jobs, memberships, etc. I do think it's good to have a honeymoon period -- it helps cement those things in a relationship that connect us, but as the honeymoon period wears off, it's equally important to not let the things we have overlooked suddenly obscure those things that connect us. Mary Linda and I often find ourselves mentioning this dynamic with newcomers (not necessarily first-time visitors, but those that want to sit down and talk with us about the meeting). It's not that I want to end that honeymoon period, but that I want people to be aware that there is something beyond it, and that it deepens the relationship to love one another flaws-and-all.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-73472001749494602862012-02-26T19:38:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.849-05:00Quit pushing your belief system on me!Dear Friends, Quit pushing your belief system on me! You keep telling me that this is an experiential religion, and then every time I turn around you are telling me that I need to believe in things like simplicity, peace, integrity, community, equality, etc. You proudly tell me that Quakers don't proselytize but then preach to me about opposing war and how bad Republicans are. What is experiential about that? If it is truly experiential, I think I would expect you to be able to describe it to me without starting with "Quakers believe in.." or "Quakers don't believe in..". Here's why I am confused. I come across things like this from Robert Barclay: <blockquote>for when I came into the silent assemblies of God's people, I felt a secret power among them, which touched my heart, and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me, and the good raised up, and so I became thus united unto them, hungering more and more after the increase of this power and life, whereby I might feel myself perfectly redeemed. </blockquote>That, to me, speaks of experience, and not about believing in particular principles or values. Why aren't you saying things like that instead of telling me what values I should have? Isn't there something beyond words and ideas? Is there something like what Isaac Penington describes here: <blockquote>Yea, I did not only feel words and demonstrations from without, but I felt the dead quickened, the seed raised; insomuch that my heart (in the certainty of light, and clearness of true sense) said, <i>This is he, this is he, there is no other: this is he whom I have waited for and sought after from my childhood; who was always near me, and had often begotten life in my heart; but I knew him not distinctly, not how to receive him, or dwell with him.</i> And then in this sense (in the meltings and breakings of my spirit) was I given up to the Lord, to become his, both in waiting for the further revealing of his seed in me, and to serve him in the life and power of his seed. </blockquote> He wasn't persuaded by arguments, ideas, or speech, but by experiencing the Spirit in his heart. You talk about Quakerism as if it is about experience, but when you get down to the details, you are long on values and short on experience. Maybe you could just admit that it isn't about experience any more and is just about a set of beliefs. Sincerely, Mark WutkaMark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com32tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-32192371283743255982012-02-06T19:11:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.863-05:00Let All Things Be Done Unto EdifyingI have been thinking again lately about the content of vocal ministry. I have mentioned before that one of the things I really love about my visits to North Carolina Yearly Meeting Conservative is that much of the ministry and conversation centers around our faithfulness to God. Are we listening? Are we allowing ourselves to be led? Are we obeying the inward Guide, or are we resisting it?<br /><br />One of the verses in the bible that I consider key to our worship is 1 Corinthians 14:26:<br /><blockquote><br />What should be done then, my friends? When you come together, each one has a hymn, a lesson, a revelation, a tongue, or an interpretation. Let all things be done for building up. (NRSV)<br /></blockquote><br /><br />In the King James Version, the last sentence is "Let all things be done unto edifying." The idea of edification is all over the writings of early Friends. It is very common for worship, or opportunities, or the influence of the Light upon the soul to be referred to as edifying. In a similar way, Friends were often encouraged to exhort one another, following the advice from Hebrews to "exhort one another daily." Alexander Parker, in a 1660 letter from prison writes, in part:<br /><blockquote><br />Dear hearts, in brotherly love and heavenly fear, I do exhort you all, as dear children, to walk together in truth and love; exhorting one another, and building up one another in the holy faith, which works by love;<br /></blockquote><br /><br />What has been on my mind lately is how often vocal ministry seems to be about things like the nature of God or other more theological subjects (perhaps those who are bombarded by politics and summaries of NPR would ask "What are you complaining about?")<br /><br />When I hear Friends talk about Quakerism, I often find that our supposedly creedless faith is described in terms of what we believe ("we believe there is that of God..", "we believe in equality, simplicity, etc."). It seems like many Quaker Quest sessions also present our faith tradition in terms of its beliefs or ideas. The rejection of creeds wasn't about not believing in anything, but was a witness that Quakerism was about our direct encounter with the Spirit and how it changes us, teaches us, and guides us. Faith is a matter of trusting in that Spirit, not about believing in particular doctrines. I think Friends often grasp this idea with respect to other faith traditions, but don't notice when they do the same thing.<br /><br />Why does it seem rare to hear people speak about listening, obeying, welcoming the Light? Why aren't we exhorting others to faithfulness? I think we all need that from time to time. It isn't that I think we should resolve ourselves to deliver specific messages, but I feel that if faithfulness is in the forefront of our mind - both individually and as a meeting, that we may perceive messages differently, perhaps finding different ways to express what has been laid on our hearts.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-40348153104190530162011-11-28T21:38:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.873-05:00Southern Heroes is now availableDuring the North Carolina Yearly Meeting Conservative annual session this year, I heard about an out-of-print book called "Southern Heroes" about southern Friends and their struggles with not participating in the Civil War. I found some of the descriptions I heard compelling, such as men having guns tied to their hands and being put at the front of the battle lines. I spent the next few months cleaning up a scan of the book, reformatting it with LaTeX and indexing it. I am happy to say that printed copies are <a href="http://www.lulu.com/product/paperback/southern-heroes/18706050">now available from lulu.com</a>. <br /><br /><img src="http://static.lulu.com/product/paperback/southern-heroes/18706050/thumbnail/320" alt="Southern Heroes cover"/><br /><br />I have also posted the PDF to the <a href="http://www.box.com/s/xnpfzemmx8q38b0baubd">QuakerQuaker Library</a>.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-35087457777691968132011-11-15T12:35:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.886-05:00Seth Loflin and the Firing SquadThere are so many passages in "Southern Heroes" in which Friends maintained their principles. I found this one particularly touching:<br /><br />Others of the members of this meeting suffered severely for their principles, but we will now follow our friend Seth W. Loflin in his time of trial.<br /><br />He had been a member with the Friends but a short time, when he was arrested as a conscript and sent to camp near Petersburg, Va. He was at once ordered to take up arms, which he refused to do, saying that the weapons of the Christian were not carnal, and that he was a Christian and forbidden to fight. The officers evidently thought that by prompt and severe measures he could be made to yield his conscientious scruples, but they knew not of what spirit he was.<br /><br />First they kept him without sleep for thirty-six hours, a soldier standing by with a bayonet to pierce him, should he fall asleep. Finding that this did not overcome his scruples, they proceeded for three hours each day to buck him down. He was then suspended by his thumbs for an hour and a half. This terrible ordeal was passed through with each day for a week. Then, thinking him conquered, they offered him a gun; but he was unwilling to use the weapon. Threats, abuse and persecution were alike unavailing, and in desperate anger the Colonel ordered him court-martialed. After being tried for insubordination he was ordered shot. Preparations were accordingly made for the execution of this terrible sentence. The army was summoned to witness the scene, and soldiers were detailed. Guns, six loaded with bullets and six without, were handed to twelve chosen men. Seth Loflin, as calm as any man of the immense number surrounding him, asked time for prayer, which, of course, could not be denied him. The supposition was natural that he wished to pray for himself. But he was ready to meet his Lord; and so he prayed not for himself but for them: "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."<br /><br />Strange was the effect of this familiar prayer upon men used to taking human life and under strict military orders. Each man, however, lowered his gun, and they resolutely declared that they would not shoot such a man, thereby braving the result of disobeying military orders. But the chosen twelve were not the only ones whose hearts were touched. He who holdeth our lives in his hand melted the hearts of the officers as well, and the sentence was revoked. He was led away to prison, where for weeks he suffered uncomplainingly from his severe punishments.<br /><br />He was finally sent to Windsor Hospital at Richmond, Va., where he was taken very sick, and after a long, severe illness, during which his Christian spirit and patience won the hearts of all around him, he quietly passed away, leaving a wife and seven children. A letter was written to his wife by one of the officers, an extract from which may be a fitting close to the account of this worthy man's suffering.<br /><br />"It is my painful duty to inform you that Seth W. Loflin died at Windsor Hospital, at Richmond, on the 8th of December, 1864. He died as he had lived, a true, humble and devoted Christian; true to his faith and religion.... We pitied and sympathized with him.... He is rewarded for his fidelity, and is at rest."Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-25862119687553348662011-11-13T18:16:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.897-05:00Eliza Gurney Meets Abraham LincolnAs I continue my work on "Southern Heroes", I would like to present the story of Eliza Gurney, the widow of Joseph John Gurney, meeting Abraham Lincoln.<br /><br />Eliza P. Gurney of Burlington, N. J., the widow of Joseph John Gurney, was a Friend minister of deep spirituality, refined tastes, and much ability. Her sympathies were enlisted for Abraham Lincoln during the dark days of the war, and she felt constrained in the love of the Gospel to visit him. It was on a rainy morning of the first day of the week in 1862, that she and her friends were introduced into the private apartments of the President, who received them very cordially. John M. Whitall, of Philadelphia, one of the party says: “It was a time not soon to be forgotten. I cannot possibly describe the scene; the solemnity of the silence, and the impressive address of our friend, during which the tears ran down the cheeks of our honored President. During the earnest prayer for the nation and himself, he seemed much affected, and as we arose to go he retained the hand of Eliza P. Gurney and made a most beautiful response to what had been said. This response began and ended with the words, ‘I<br />am glad of this interview.’”<br /><br />More than a year after, Abraham Lincoln sent Eliza P. Gurney a request to write him a letter, which she did, and so highly did he prize that letter, that it was found in his breast pocket at the time of the fatal shot of J. Wilkes Booth, nearly two years afterwards. Below is a copy of the letter:<br /><blockquote><br />Earlham Lodge, 8/18,1863.<br />To the President of the United States.<br />ESTEEMED FRIEND, ABRAHAM LINCOLN: Many times, since I was privileged to have an interview with thee nearly a year ago, my mind has turned toward thee with feelings of sincere and Christian interest; and as our friend Isaac Newton offers to be the bearer of a paper messenger, I feel inclined to give thee the assurance of my continued hearty sympathy in all thy heavy burthens and responsibilities, and to express not only my own earnest prayer, but, I believe, the prayer of many thousands whose hearts thou hast gladdened by thy praiseworthy and successful efforts "to burst the bands of wickedness, and let the oppressed go free," that the Almighty Ruler of the universe may strengthen thee to accomplish all the blessed purposes which in the unerring council of His will and wisdom, I do assuredly believe He did design to make thee instrumental in accomplishing when He appointed thee thy present post of vast responsibility, as the Chief Magistrate of this great nation.<br /><br />Many are the trials incident to such positions, and I verily believe thy conflicts and anxieties have not been few. May the Lord ‘hear thee in this day of trouble, the name of the God of Jacob defend thee, send thee help from his sanctuary, and strengthen thee out of Zion.’ The Lord fulfil thy petitions that are put up in the name of the Prince of Peace, of the increase of whose government and peace there shall never be an end.<br /><br />I can hardly refrain from expressing my cordial approval of thy late excellent proclamation appointing a day of thanksgiving for the sparing and preserving mercies, which in the tender loving-kindness of our God and Saviour have been so bountifully showered upon us; for though, as a religious people, we do not set apart especial seasons for returning thanks, either for spiritual or temporal blessings, yet, as I humbly trust, our hearts are filled with gratitude to our Almighty Father that His delivering arm of love and power has been so manifestly round about us; and I rejoice in the decided recognition of an all-wise and superintending Providence, which is so marked a feature in the aforesaid document, as well as the immediate influence and guidance of the Holy Spirit, which perhaps never in any previous state paper has been so fully<br />recognized before.<br /><br />Especially did my inmost heart respond to thy desire "that the angry feeling which has so long sustained this needless and cruel war may be subdued, and the hearts of the insurgents changed, and the whole nation be led through paths of repentance and submission to the divine will, back to the perfect enjoyment of union and fraternal peace." May the Lord in his infinite compassion hasten the day.<br /><br />I will not occupy thy time unduly, but, in a feeling of true Christian sympathy and Gospel love, commend thee and thy wife and your two dear children to the preserving care of the unslumbering Shepherd, who, in his matchless mercy, gave his life for the sheep, who is alone able to keep us from falling, and finally, when done with the unsatisfying things of mutability, to give us an everlasting inheritance among all them that are sanctified through the Eternal Spirit of God.<br /><br />Respectfully and sincerely, thy assured friend,<br />ELIZA P. GURNEY.<br /></blockquote><br /><br />During the next year President Lincoln sent to Eliza P. Gurney the following acknowledgment of her visit and letter:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Executive Mansion,<br />Washington, September 4, 1864.<br />To ELIZA P. GURNEY.<br />My Esteemed Friend: I have not forgotten–probably never shall forget–the very impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbath afternoon two years ago. Nor has your kind letter, written nearly a year later, even been forgotten. In all it has been your purpose to strengthen my reliance upon God. I am much indebted to the good Christian people of the country for their constant prayers and consolations, and to no one of them more than to yourself.<br /><br />The purposes of the Almighty are perfect and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accurately perceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of this terrible war long before this, but God knows best and has ruled otherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom and our own error therein, and meanwhile we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trusting that so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely He intends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortal could make and no mortal could stay.<br /><br />Your people, the Friends, have had and are having a very great trial. On principle and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they can only practically oppose oppression by war. In this dilemma some have chosen one horn of the dilemma, and some the other. For those appealing to me<br />on conscientious grounds I have done, and shall do, what I could and can, in my own conscience under my oath to the law. That you believe this I doubt not, and believing it, I shall still receive for our country and myself your earnest prayers to our Father in Heaven.<br />Your sincere friend,<br />A. LINCOLN.<br /></blockquote>Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-51219272250350049272011-11-04T21:31:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.909-05:00Ulysses S. Grant on Settling DifferencesFor the past few months I have been working on reprinting the book "Southern Heroes", about Friends in the southern U.S. who refused to fight in the American Civil War. When I finish, it will be available via lulu.com as was the Journal of Joseph Hoag I worked on a few years ago. I have encountered many interesting stories in this book, and interesting quotes. I find this one particularly good, given the source:<br /><br /><quote><br />Though I have been trained as a soldier and have participated in many battles, there never was a time when, in my opinion, some way could not have been found of preventing the drawing of the sword. I look forward to an epoch when a court recognized by all nations will settle international differences, instead of keeping large standing armies, as is done in Europe.<br/><br /><p align="right">Ulysses S. Grant</p><br /></quote>Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-9019549806307707272011-03-27T18:36:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.927-05:00Unity of the SpiritAs I sat in meeting this morning, I found myself reflecting on unity, and what it does and does not mean to be in unity. Where Friends once spoke about finding unity during business meeting as meaning that all had the same sense of where the Spirit was leading them, it seems like many Friends use the term "consensus" and refer to it as finding something that everyone can agree on. I do not think consensus and unity are the same, because to me unity allows for the possibility that while I do not agree with something, I may have a sense that the Spirit is indeed leading us in that direction, and that my disagreement might come from my personal feelings interfering with my discernment.<br /><br />I was thinking on unity on a larger level, however, not just in terms of the business meeting. There is often a homogeneity among Friends that springs from a desire to be with like-minded people. It is certainly easy to see why someone who disagrees with the norms of American culture might seek some shelter from it by huddling together with like-minded folks. I believe that we send subtle, and often not-so-subtle, signals to those that are not like-minded that they do not belong, whether it be through "Republicans for Voldemort" bumper stickers, or various odd-looks at large SUVs or particular forms of dress, or folks making disparaging comments about various other groups during meeting. This like-mindedness takes on the appearance of being "what is it to be Quaker".<br /><br />When early Christians and early Friends spoke of "unity of the Spirit", I believe it was someone quite different from like-mindedness. Instead, it was a shared experience of God, of a love and power so strong and so bright that worldly concerns became pale before it. It is an experience in which like-mindedness does not matter, because the experience of love is so strong that it is impossible to hate the person you disagree with. It occurs not <i>because of</i> like-mindedness, but <i>in spite of</i> it.<br /><br />This evening, as I was reading through some selections from Isaac Penington, I came across this discussion of spiritual unity, which spoke to the things that have been on my mind:<br /><br />Some Questions and Answers Concerning Spiritual Unity<br /><br /><i>Q</i>. 1. What is spiritual unity ?<br /><br /><i>A</i>. The meeting of the same spiritual nature in divers [i.e. one another], in one and the same spiritual centre or streams of life. When the spirits or souls of creatures are begotten by one power into one life, and meet in heart there; so far as they thus meet, there is true unity among them.<br /><br /><i>Q</i>. 2. Wherein doth this unity consist ?<br /><br /><i>A</i>. In the life, in the nature, in the Spirit wherein they are all begotten, and of which they are formed, and where their meeting is. It consists not in any outward or inward thing of an inferior nature; but only keeps within the limits and bounds of the same nature. The doing the same thing, the thinking the same thing, the speaking the same thing, this doth not unite here in this state, in this nature; but only the doing, or thinking, or speaking of it in the same life. Yea, though the doings, or thoughts, or words be divers; yet if they proceed from the same principle and nature, there is a true unity felt therein, where the life alone is judge.<br /><br /><i>Q</i>. 3. How is the unity preserved?<br /><br /><i>A</i>. Only by abiding in the life; only by keeping to the power, and in the principle, from whence the unity sprang, and in which it stands. Here is a knitting of natures, and a fellowship in the same spiritual centre. Here the divers and different motions of several members in the body (thus coming from the life and spirit of the body) are known to and owned by the same life, where it is fresh and sensible. It is not keeping up an outward knowledge or belief concerning things, that unites, nor keeping up an outward conformity in actions, etc. for these may be held and done by another part in man, and in another nature; but it is by keeping and acting in that which did at first unite. In this there is neither matter nor room for division; and he that is within these limits, cannot but be found in the oneness.<br /><br /><i>Q</i>. 4. How is the unity interrupted?<br /><br /><i>A</i>. By the interposition of any thing of a different nature or spirit from the life. When any thing of the earthly or sensual part comes between the soul and the life, this interrupts the soul's unity with the life itself; and it also interrupts its unity with the life in others, and the unity of the life in others with it. Any thing of the man's spirit, of the man's wisdom, of the man's will, not bowed down and brought into subjection, and so not coming forth in and under the authority and guidance of life, in this is somewhat of the nature of division: yea, the very knowledge of truth, and holding of it forth by the man's wisdom, and in his will, out of the movings and power of the life, brings a damp upon the life, and interrupts the unity; for the life in others cannot unite with this in spirit, though it may own the words to be true.<br /><br /><i>Q</i>. 5. How may unity be recovered, if at any time decaying?<br /><br /><i>A</i>. In the Lord alone is the recovery of Israel, from any degree of loss in any kind, at any time; who alone can teach to retire into, and to be found in that, wherein the unity is and stands, and into which division cannot enter. This is the way of restoring unity to Israel, upon the sense of any want thereof; even every one, through the Lord's help, retiring in his own particular, and furthering the retirings of others to the principle of life, that every one there may feel the washing from what hath in any measure corrupted, and the new-begetting into the power of life. From this, the true and lasting unity will spring amain, to the gladding of all hearts that know the sweetness of it, and who cannot but naturally and most earnestly desire it. Oh! mark therefore, the way is not by striving to beget into one and the same apprehension concerning things, nor by endeavouring to bring into one and the same practices; but by alluring and drawing into that wherein the unity consists, and which brings it forth in the vessels, which are seasoned therewith and ordered thereby. And from this, let all wait for the daily new and living knowledge, and for the ordering of their conversations and practices in that light, and drawings thereof, and in that simplicity and integrity of heart, which the Spirit of life at present holdeth forth and worketh in them; and the life will be felt, and the name of the Lord praised in all the tents of Jacob, and through all the inhabitants of his Israel; and there will be but <i>one heart, and one soul, and one spirit, and one mind, and one way and power of life</i>; and what is already wrought in every heart, the Lord will be acknowledged in, and his name praised ; and the Lord's season contentedly waited, for his filling up of what is wanting any where. <i>So, the living God, the God of Israel, the God of everlasting tender bowels and compassions to Israel, fill the vessels of his heritage with his life, and cause the peace and love of his holy nature and Spirit to descend upon their dwellings, and to spring up powerfully in them towards his living truth, and towards one another</i>.<br /><br />And let all strive to excel in tenderness, and in long-suffering, and to be kept out of hard and evil thoughts one of another, and from harsh interpretations concerning any thing relating to one another. Oh! this is unworthy to be found in an Israelite towards an Egyptian; but exceeding shameful and inexcusable to be found in one brother towards another. How many weaknesses doth the Lord pass by in us? How ready is he to interpret every thing well concerning his disciples, that may bear a good interpretation! "The spirit," saith he, "is willing; but the flesh is weak." When they had been all scattered from him upon his death, he did not afterwards upbraid them; but sweetly gathered them again. O dear friends! have we received the same life of sweetness? Let us bring forth the same sweet fruits, being ready to excuse, and to receive what may tend towards the excuse of another in any doubtful case; and where there is any evil manifest, wait, oh! wait, to overcome it with good. Oh! let us not spend the strength of our spirits in crying out of one another because of evil; but watch and wait, where the mercy and the healing virtue will please to arise. <i>O Lord, my God, when thou hast shown the wants of Israel in any kind sufficiently (whether in the particular, or in the general) bring forth the supply thereof from thy fulness, so ordering it in thine eternal wisdom, that all may be ashamed and abased before thee, and thy name praised in and over all!</i>---<i>Works</i>, vol. ii. p. 457.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-64237754268320199082011-03-07T18:32:00.000-06:002016-08-19T12:58:22.940-05:00Being Carried By God<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe1TMQyFwikEZlpebJBr-VeM4-yOt-WL6uaXaSk5p_dTXnoHsOegI2tHc6F4sRTIW1BFhrLT4lupirgd5H12HrobKFCPaCfBKGfbJtJ2s_OhYeFdI4SWvZ0fQOPtf-X4lViau7txgNzHfwV0Cg/s1600/cealpic.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 225px; height: 191px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhe1TMQyFwikEZlpebJBr-VeM4-yOt-WL6uaXaSk5p_dTXnoHsOegI2tHc6F4sRTIW1BFhrLT4lupirgd5H12HrobKFCPaCfBKGfbJtJ2s_OhYeFdI4SWvZ0fQOPtf-X4lViau7txgNzHfwV0Cg/s320/cealpic.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5581504900632448642" /></a><br />On February 26, I lost Ceal, my beloved wife of 18 years, to cancer. It was barely a month between the time we found out she had cancer to her final day. Through that time, she was the same cheerful, loving person I have known for the past 25 years.<br /><br />I know this is a time when people can feel angry, especially at God, for taking such a beautiful person from us. While I don't pretend to know how God does things, I think I tend to believe what I have heard Lloyd Lee Wilson say, which is that God is the ultimate opportunist. That is, we don't have to blame God for bad things, or assume that God wants awful things to happen in order to accomplish a grand plan, but we can look for God working in any situation, no matter how difficult.<br /><br />Through the times in the hospital and at home, Ceal and I felt the presence of God with us very strongly. Despite some awful times, Ceal kept her sweet demeanor. She seemed so at peace, especially at the end, and never seemed to show any fear of what was ahead. I remember thinking back to that "Footprints" poem where a person is looking back over their life and seeing it as footprints in the sand, and during the tough times there is only one set of footprints, and when the person asks Jesus why he wasn't there during those times, he says "That is when I carried you". We experienced what it felt like to be carried, and I know I need a lot more carrying before I can walk again on my own.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-13334087740512180222010-09-23T18:36:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.950-05:00How I Ended Up Leading a Semi-Programmed WorshipAtlanta Friends Meeting started a mid-week worship late last year, and as part of it, every month or so, we have a semi-programmed worship. When it was brought to the Ministry and Worship committee, I had some objections. I felt that we had some difficulties with unprogrammed worship, and I doubted that a semi-programmed worship would get the intentionality to the Spirit that it requires. And to be honest, I had some prejudices against it, as being inferior to unprogrammed worship.<br /><br />While I didn't particularly approve of the semi-programmed worship, I didn't feel strongly enough to stand in the way. I decided instead just not to go. That didn't last, however. Ceal volunteered to do a reading for the first one, and since I was leaving for School of the Spirit the next day, I didn't want to be apart from her that evening, so I went. I didn't enjoy it. As I look back on it, I think my negative attitude towards it really colored my perception and got in the way. I brought this difficulty to my Koinoneia Group at School of the Spirit, and they helped me try looking at things a little more broadly.<br /><br />Over the summer, I led the bible study at North Carolina Yearly Meeting - Conservative, and it was really wonderful. It felt very Spirit-led, in a deeper way than I have experienced in leading workshops.<br /><br />I also found myself reading the bible much more often. I spent a lot of time reading Paul - over and over. I found many challenges - passages confronting ideas I held, and also finding the Spirit rising within me, and often filling me with a feeling of the need to preach the gospel (to bring the "power of God" to people).<br /><br />I began to wrestle with my opinion of semi-programmed worship, in light of my experience with leading the bible study, and began to question my feelings that a semi-programmed worship was less Spirit-led. I eventually came to the point where I volunteered to actually lead one of the semi-programmed worships. I came to think of it as more of a talk followed by open worship. I still maintain the importance of unprogrammed worship, and our listening to God speak to and through us. But I am also seeing gifts I have in speaking and teaching that can be manifested outside of an unprogrammed worship.<br /><br />At my fifth School of the Spirit residency, I managed to get some time to talk with Frank Massey, who is now a pastor for Jamestown Friends Meeting. I wanted to understand how he and his meeting work to follow the leadings of the Spirit. We had some discussion about preparation for speaking, and also some discussion about my thoughts on evangelism. Frank also recommended, wisely, that I not do an "altar call". (No, I wasn't considering it). When I asked about writing out the whole sermon ahead of time, Frank told me that because he has a lot to do when he gets to the meetinghouse, he typically needs to have it written down, although he still listens to what God wants him to do or say.<br /><br />When it came to planning, I wanted to be open. I asked Ceal to help in the discernment of any music or readings. Nothing arose for us music-wise, but Ceal felt that the 23rd Psalm from the New Jerusalem Bible would be good. We opened with some period of silence, then Ceal read the psalm, then more silence, then I spoke, then we had about 30 minutes of open worship. No one spoke in the open worship and it felt very deep. I will continue to discern whether I am led to do another one.<br /><br />Here is the text as I had it written out, I did add some bits as I spoke, but not much:<br /><br />Come to me, all you that are weary and are carrying heavy burdens, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me; for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light. Matt 11:28-30 (NRSV)<br /><br />We often think of Jesus as a teacher, and we focus on his wise sayings and parables. But there are other times when he speaks for God, and tells us about our relationship with God, and I believe this is one of those passages.<br /><br /><b>Come to me, all you that are weary and carrying heavy burdens</b><br />I have read different interpretations about what burdens Jesus might have been referring to here. Some people think that it refers to the burden of the Law and the weight of keeping all the rules and commandments. Others think that it referred to the rule of the Roman government. That would also fit with the image of the yoke, which was often associated with governments.<br /><br />There is a timelessness to this passage, though. It speaks to people in every age, because we are always carrying burdens.<br /><br />So, what are our burdens today? What wearies us?<br /><br />I find our modern culture to be a great source of weariness. Our senses are constantly bombarded by sights and sounds, by ideas, stories, tragedies, bickering. Even in those times when we can keep ourselves afloat in this stream of senses, we find burdens in the state of our world - with the great disparity between rich and poor, the way our planet is abused, the way others suffer while we live comfortably.<br /><br />Of course we have everyday burdens, too, that are a part of living in a human community. Emotional burdens, physical burdens, obligations.<br /><br /><b>I will give you rest</b><br />God, speaking through Jesus here, is offering us rest from those burdens. One of the things that is most important to me about the Quaker life is that we are all about experiencing God every day, in practical ways. So, if we say "God will give you rest", it is something real that we can experience.<br /><br />One afternoon this past summer, I found myself feeling worn down. I started to do what I usually do when I feel that way, which is to flop down on the couch, turn on the TV, and turn off my brain. But it occurred to me that day that I should try "resting in the Lord". Instead of turning on the TV, or surfing the Internet, I just sat quietly. I realized later that that this was a way of trusting God that I had not been willing to do before.<br /><br />We can also find rest by entrusting our worries and burdens to God. For me, this feels almost like a physical process. It is as if I can feel myself releasing things that I am holding on to, and instead grasping towards God. One of the things we encounter in our silent waiting upon God is a welling up of love and peace, and it is something that can make our burdens feel lighter. It is as if, as the Spirit rises within us, our burdens begin to float. They don't necessarily float away, but we find they become lighter.<br /><br />The burden of concern for our world, and the people in it, seems to be particularly heavy for Friends. I wonder, though, if we believe that God wants to heal the world, and will guide us in what needs to be done, can we not find some relief from these burdens by trusting in that guidance?<br /><br /><b>Take my yoke</b><br />Most of us being city folk, we don't have much experience these days with yokes, or farm animals. The yoke is something that is fitted around the necks of a pair of animals to allow them to share a load. Jesus is talking about sharing the load with us -- that God doesn't want us to work alone. I believe that being yoked with God means that we are constantly operating under the guidance of that Spirit within us.<br /><br />Yokes are typically fitted, so that they don't chafe or injure the animal, and make it easier for the animal to do its work. I believe that for us, our yoke fits when we do the things that the Spirit is calling us to do. When we wear another's yoke, it may not fit us as well, it may chafe, it may wear us down. Paul writes about the Body of Christ, and how each member has a specific purpose. Not everyone can be the eye, or the ear. Everyone has a specific purpose, and none is more important than any other. I think this is another way of saying that each of us has a yoke fitted especially for us.<br /><br /><b>Learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart</b><br />Part of taking on this yoke is to learn gentleness and humility. To work with our yoke, we must be sensitive to where God wants us to go, and not insist on our own way. We must also do our work in a gentle way, not trampling and pushing in a particular direction.<br /><br /><b>My yoke is easy and my burden light</b><br />It can be difficult living the life we are called to live in our present day. Many of us have had experiences of work that we felt was necessary, but felt extra burdensome. For me, one of those experiences was in doing prison visitation. In the last few months, I have realized that it was a burden I could no longer carry, that the yoke was not fitted properly. There are other things, though, that may require much work, but feel so natural that we might not notice how much work it is. Working with the teens for the past seven years has not seemed so burdensome. Yes, it can be tiring, but not wearying.<br /><br />When we are properly yoked, God lays on us burdens that we can handle. And God, being yoked together with us, helps us carry that load.<br /><br /><b>Come to me</b><br />This passage started with the words "Come to me". When I was a teenager, our youth choir sang a song taken from this passage. The song started and ended with "Come to me".<br /><br />This passage starts with us coming to God, to learn how to listen, and to become yoked to God with a yoke that is specially fitted for us. We come to God to do the work, and when the work is done, we come to God to rest.<br /><br />No complications. Just a simple "Come to me".Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-71894949025350204482010-09-14T18:49:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.963-05:00Onward Christian SoldiersAs I <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2010/07/my-fifth-trip-to-ncym-c.html">mentioned before</a>, I led the bible study at the NCYM-C annual sessions this year, on the topic of the spiritual armor of God (Ephesians 6:10-20). <br /><br />When I first brought this topic to my care committee, one member had some reservations. This person felt that the somewhat romanticized image of a soldier was no longer useful for comparison in an age of drones, smart bombs, and what Roger Waters calls "the bravery of being out of range". While I had it in my notes to invite Friends to consider whether the images Paul presents are still applicable, I never felt a time during the bible study where we should discuss it.<br /><br />On my drive back from School of the Spirit, down I-85 from Durham to Atlanta, I noticed a billboard for the U.S. Marine Corps, featuring a picture of a soldier and the message "Dedicated to a Life of Honor." It came to me that I thought that it was an apt description of the Christian life, at least if by "honor" we mean "integrity". As I continued my drive, I saw two other variations on this billboard. One read "Devoted to a Life of Courage", and "Committed to Something Greater Than Themselves". These two reinforced the image I was getting of the Christian Soldier. Perhaps it isn't the hardware that makes the image work in our time, but rather the image of total devotion to that Spirit within us, calling us to a life of integrity, and to a life that confronts evil (spiritual forces, not flesh and blood) in ways that require great courage.Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1355594093712358164.post-60338613133190990802010-08-27T14:09:00.000-05:002016-08-19T12:58:22.976-05:00Politics and WarThis is a subject I have <a href="http://earofthesoul.blogspot.com/2008/11/quakers-voting-and-seeds-of-war.html">written about before</a>, but I recently had some more openings about the subject while listening again to Lloyd Lee Wilson's <a href="http://www.pendlehill.org/lectures/fall2009/253-who-do-you-say-i-am">Pendle Hill talk</a> on the subject "Who Do You Say I Am?"<br /><br />In his talk, LLW says something about how the Kingdom of God is not the same as earthly governments, and that it is not realized by "giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof majority in the senate." In the questions that followed, LLW talked about "how easy it is for the Christian vision to be co-opted by political power", and he went on to caution Friends about not letting themselves get co-opted. As I heard this discussion, things arose for me about politics, especially the attitudes found in partisan politics and the attitudes in war.<br /><br />There's a movie called "Joyeux Noel", about the German, French, and British troops celebrating Christmas together during the first world war. At the beginning of the movie, they show school teachers in each country telling the children almost identical stories how evil the other side is, how they don't have the same value for human life. In times of war, we often hear such demonizing of the other side, often times using extreme examples to characterize the general population. The same thing happens quite frequently in political battles. People have in mind certain characteristics when they hear "right" and "left", and there often seems to be very little middle ground, much less compromise. People like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin or Al Franken become the caricatures by which others are judged.<br /><br />When Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize, I heard Friends refer to those who questioned the decision as "not getting it". During the health care debate, I heard talk about how the people who opposed the health care bill were just looking out for themselves and didn't care about other people, with little regard to the possibility that the disagreement was about the role of government. It seemed to be framed more as "we are in the right, they are in the wrong", which is also the core of any proposed justification for war.<br /><br />I am often disappointed at the level of wheeling and dealing that takes place to get legislation passed, and the seeming lack of concern for that on the part of the victors. It seems like we are willing to put up with a lot of behavior that would be otherwise unacceptable as long as it results in the passage of some important piece of legislation. Similarly, in war we often find the people willing to suspend their previously-held standards in order to carry out the war. The PATRIOT act seems a good example of this. Look at the difference in Friends' attitudes with regard to disagreements in business meeting as compared to political issues. Is there a similar lowering of principles?<br /><br />In his talk, Lloyd Lee said something to the effect of "Who am I to judge how you may be led by God?" I am not writing this with the intent of saying that anyone who engages in politics is wrong, but I think it is very important to be aware of what political battles do to us. The similarity between partisan politics and war with respect to attitudes and behaviors suggests to me that if nothing else, we can find the seeds of war within these political battles.<br /><br />The final thing I would ask Friends to consider is what it means to experience the Unity of the Spirit. When we sit and commune with God, as we experience the Holy Spirit, do we not find that worldly concerns drop away? When we experience the perfect love that casts out fear, do we not reach a place in which we can commune with one another where our differences and disagreements fade into the background? Are our meetings unified by the experience of this Spirit - is that what we all come for? If so, then why are our meetings so politically homogenous?Mark Wutkahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01735952904584567390noreply@blogger.com1