In a comment to a recent post, Friend Marshall Massey mentioned a 14-volume "Friends' Library" published by Orthodox Friends in the mid 1800's. Google books has now digitized all 14 volumes, and thanks to the services of Public Domain Reprints, you can order your own copies. I will update this page more volumes are available for printing.
Also, Marshall quoted from a book entitled "The Life and Travels of John Pemberton, a minister of the Gospel of Christ". Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a copy of that book, but the passage Marshall quoted is also available in Memorials Concerning Deceased Friends.
All of these are available for download as PDFs.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Some Reflections Upon Reading George Fox' Epistles
I have been working my way slowly through George Fox's epistles, which is a different experience than reading his journal. For one thing, the epistles are very repetitive - Fox said the same thing to many people. For another, I get a better sense as to what Fox and other early Quakers were most concerned about. There are a few things that really stand out for me. I originally intended to list several things here, but this first one is so long, I will save the others for later.
1. "Answering that of God" and the experience of "The Light"
George Fox used variations of the phrase "that of God in every one" fairly often in his epistles, and he is referring to that "divine seed", the "Light of Christ" that "lighteth every man coming into the world". In modern usage, we more often hear "that of God" as "there is that of God in every one", and the modern usage is closer to a philosophical reason why we should treat people justly and equally - that is, you are doing these things to God. The modern usage seems close to what Jesus was saying in Matthew 25 ("Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.") Fox's usage of "that of God", however, wasn't a philosophical justification, in fact, I think he would have opposed such a thing. Instead, it reflected the simple belief that the Light of Christ was present in every person.
The experience of that Light was not necessarily a warm, fuzzy, feel-good experience, at least not at first. The Light shows you where you are straying from God (i.e. it reveals your sins to you) but also gives you the power to resist temptation. This is what Fox says in Epistle 10:
Epistle 43 also has a good description:
This power of the Light to turn us towards God is, for me, what makes "that of God" such a powerful idea. Last month, The Quaker Agitator had a post about Looking Hard For That Of God In Everyone. In it, Quaker Dave relates a story of a women in meeting who had trouble seeing "that of God" in people like Cho Seung-Hui. What bothered me about the story is that it is as if we have to find some sign of something good in a person in order to see "that of God" in the person. If, however, you look at it from George Fox's point of view, "that of God" is there in someone no matter what they do. "Answering that of God" isn't a process of trying to see some good in the person, but of trying to awaken that person to the divine seed within themselves so that they might be drawn closer to God. That potential exists in every single person, no matter what they have done, no matter how evil they may seem.
The part of "answering that of God" that may be uncomfortable to some modern Friends, and in all honesty I must include myself here, is that it is along the lines of being evangelical. That is, it asks us to talk to people about that divine seed, or to awaken them to it in some way. It seems that many of us have no problem calling on others to do things, such as ending the war in Iraq, so why should this be any harder? Couldn't they go hand-in-hand? If we advocate peace because we are "living in that life and power that takes away all occasion of war", would it not be more effective to call others to that life and power? In fact, it almost seems cruel to try to get someone to change their mind because of what we say, rather than because their mind was changed from the inside.
Although "answering that of God" is sometimes accomplished merely by our own acting in accordance with God's will, I noticed places where Fox took a more direct approach, such as Epistle 5, which was written to his parents:
Before I end, I would like to return to something I said earlier, which is that I think Fox would have been opposed to using "that of God" as a philosophical justification - that is, using it as a reason for doing something, treating people certain ways. One of the most frequent themes in Fox's epistles is that Friends should "wait on that which is pure, which gathers you out of the world's nature, disposition, conversation, churches, forms, and customs, which will knit your hearts together up to God." (Epistle 43) Over and over he emphasizes being led by God and not by our own reasoning. For example, "take heed of reasoning with flesh and blood, for there disobedience, pride, and presumption will arise". So when it comes down to "Why did you visit that guy in prison?" or "Why did you feed and clothe that homeless person?" or "Why did you stand up for that person's rights?", the answer isn't "because there is that of God in that person", the answer is "because that is what the Light led me to do."
1. "Answering that of God" and the experience of "The Light"
George Fox used variations of the phrase "that of God in every one" fairly often in his epistles, and he is referring to that "divine seed", the "Light of Christ" that "lighteth every man coming into the world". In modern usage, we more often hear "that of God" as "there is that of God in every one", and the modern usage is closer to a philosophical reason why we should treat people justly and equally - that is, you are doing these things to God. The modern usage seems close to what Jesus was saying in Matthew 25 ("Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.") Fox's usage of "that of God", however, wasn't a philosophical justification, in fact, I think he would have opposed such a thing. Instead, it reflected the simple belief that the Light of Christ was present in every person.
The experience of that Light was not necessarily a warm, fuzzy, feel-good experience, at least not at first. The Light shows you where you are straying from God (i.e. it reveals your sins to you) but also gives you the power to resist temptation. This is what Fox says in Epistle 10:
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 gone; and then content comes. And when temptations and troubles appear, sink down in that which is pure, and all will be hushed, and fly away.
Epistle 43 also has a good description:
To you all, who are enlightened with the light of the spirit, that the light which shows you sin and evil, and your evil deeds and actings, and the deceit and false-heartedness; it will teach you holiness, walking in it, and bring you into unity; and it will draw your minds up to God, and in it ye will see more light. But hating the light, there is your condemnation.
This power of the Light to turn us towards God is, for me, what makes "that of God" such a powerful idea. Last month, The Quaker Agitator had a post about Looking Hard For That Of God In Everyone. In it, Quaker Dave relates a story of a women in meeting who had trouble seeing "that of God" in people like Cho Seung-Hui. What bothered me about the story is that it is as if we have to find some sign of something good in a person in order to see "that of God" in the person. If, however, you look at it from George Fox's point of view, "that of God" is there in someone no matter what they do. "Answering that of God" isn't a process of trying to see some good in the person, but of trying to awaken that person to the divine seed within themselves so that they might be drawn closer to God. That potential exists in every single person, no matter what they have done, no matter how evil they may seem.
The part of "answering that of God" that may be uncomfortable to some modern Friends, and in all honesty I must include myself here, is that it is along the lines of being evangelical. That is, it asks us to talk to people about that divine seed, or to awaken them to it in some way. It seems that many of us have no problem calling on others to do things, such as ending the war in Iraq, so why should this be any harder? Couldn't they go hand-in-hand? If we advocate peace because we are "living in that life and power that takes away all occasion of war", would it not be more effective to call others to that life and power? In fact, it almost seems cruel to try to get someone to change their mind because of what we say, rather than because their mind was changed from the inside.
Although "answering that of God" is sometimes accomplished merely by our own acting in accordance with God's will, I noticed places where Fox took a more direct approach, such as Epistle 5, which was written to his parents:
To that of God in you both I speak, and do beseech you both for the Lord's sake, to return within, and wait to hear the voice of the Lord there; and waiting there, and keeping close to the Lord, a discerning will grow, that ye may distinguish the voice of the stranger, when ye hear it.
Before I end, I would like to return to something I said earlier, which is that I think Fox would have been opposed to using "that of God" as a philosophical justification - that is, using it as a reason for doing something, treating people certain ways. One of the most frequent themes in Fox's epistles is that Friends should "wait on that which is pure, which gathers you out of the world's nature, disposition, conversation, churches, forms, and customs, which will knit your hearts together up to God." (Epistle 43) Over and over he emphasizes being led by God and not by our own reasoning. For example, "take heed of reasoning with flesh and blood, for there disobedience, pride, and presumption will arise". So when it comes down to "Why did you visit that guy in prison?" or "Why did you feed and clothe that homeless person?" or "Why did you stand up for that person's rights?", the answer isn't "because there is that of God in that person", the answer is "because that is what the Light led me to do."
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Thanks to QuakerQuaker.org
For me, QuakerQuaker.org is the hub of the Quaker blogosphere. I especially appreciate it for learning about new blogs, and also as a snapshot of the conversations currently going on. Many thanks to Martin Kelley for his vision and hard work.
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Quaker Texts Online
You may have already heard of Google Books before, but in case you haven't, it is a great resource. Google is digitizing out-of-copyright works from libraries all over the world and making them available. Earlham's Digital Quaker Collection has a remarkable number of Quaker works available as well. Although Google Books offers a search capability, the books typically display as scanned text, so you can't search from within the browser. On the plus side, however, Google Books can typically be downloaded as a PDF, which is a huge advantage over the rather clunky interface of the DQC. Also, some digital archives can be a little funny about the use of their texts even though they are public domain, Google is more open, only asking that you not use them for commercial purposes or do automated queries, and that you retain their watermark.
Some of the works that I have found on Google Books are:
Samuel Bownas' "A Description of the Qualifications Necessary to a Gospel Minister"
George Fox's Journal (If you have a recent Rufus Jones edition, you may find that a lot has been edited out, the ones on Google are more complete)
A Doctrinal Epistle written by Elias Hicks (Purporting to be an exposition of Christian Doctrine respecting the nature and office of Jesus Christ)
Caroline Stephen's "Quaker Strongholds"
Some of the works that I have found on Google Books are:
Samuel Bownas' "A Description of the Qualifications Necessary to a Gospel Minister"
George Fox's Journal (If you have a recent Rufus Jones edition, you may find that a lot has been edited out, the ones on Google are more complete)
A Doctrinal Epistle written by Elias Hicks (Purporting to be an exposition of Christian Doctrine respecting the nature and office of Jesus Christ)
Caroline Stephen's "Quaker Strongholds"
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Listening in the Spirit
The traditional Quaker approach to the Bible is that we read it in the same Spirit in which it was written. George Fox, for example, said:
This idea goes back to the Bible, where Jesus says in John:
This way of looking at the Bible is difficult for many Christians to accept, since it isn't simply reading the Bible with your intellect and trying to interpret it literally. Instead, it requires faith -- trust -- in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as well as a willingness to be taught. I often hear Friends speak of reading only specific sections of the Bible -- a Friend this weekend said that he sticks to the Gospels. Having done this myself for several years, I understand some of the motivation, but I also found that I learned much more, and became changed, when I let loose my grasp of what I knew and wanted to believe, and allowed myself be led into uncomfortable areas.
This came to mind during worship this weekend when a number of Friends spoke about listening to each other. What I don't often hear people talk about (at least not explicitly), but I think is crucial for Quakers, is to listen to each other by that same Spirit that guides us when reading the Bible, and should be guiding our everyday lives. As with reading the Bible, listening to each other can mean a willingness to let go of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs -- for me it often means trying to ignore that internal commentary that puts immediate spin on what someone else says. It also means keeping one ear on the person speaking, and one on that voice of Christ within.
That the holy scriptures were given forth by the Spirit of God; and all people must come to the Spirit of God in themselves, by which they might know God and Christ, of whom the prophets and the apostles learnt; and by the same Spirit know the holy scriptures; for as the Spirit of God was in them that gave forth the scriptures, so the same Spirit of God must be in all them that come to understand the scriptures; by which Spirit they might have fellowship with the Father, with the Son, with the scriptures, and with one another
This idea goes back to the Bible, where Jesus says in John:
but the advocate, the Holy Spirit whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you everything and remind you of all that I have told you. (John 14:26 REB)
This way of looking at the Bible is difficult for many Christians to accept, since it isn't simply reading the Bible with your intellect and trying to interpret it literally. Instead, it requires faith -- trust -- in the guidance of the Holy Spirit, as well as a willingness to be taught. I often hear Friends speak of reading only specific sections of the Bible -- a Friend this weekend said that he sticks to the Gospels. Having done this myself for several years, I understand some of the motivation, but I also found that I learned much more, and became changed, when I let loose my grasp of what I knew and wanted to believe, and allowed myself be led into uncomfortable areas.
This came to mind during worship this weekend when a number of Friends spoke about listening to each other. What I don't often hear people talk about (at least not explicitly), but I think is crucial for Quakers, is to listen to each other by that same Spirit that guides us when reading the Bible, and should be guiding our everyday lives. As with reading the Bible, listening to each other can mean a willingness to let go of thoughts, ideas, and beliefs -- for me it often means trying to ignore that internal commentary that puts immediate spin on what someone else says. It also means keeping one ear on the person speaking, and one on that voice of Christ within.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
My Committment to Quaker Faith & Values - In 250 Words or Less
RobinM at What Canst Thou Say presented a task she has been working on - "In 250 words or less, give a brief statement of your commitment to the Quaker faith and values as you understand them. I thought I would try this exercise as well.
This is actually my second version. The one I wrote last night spoke more about what I do, and didn't really talk much about values. Perhaps I have gone too far in the other direction, but I ran out of words.
This is actually my second version. The one I wrote last night spoke more about what I do, and didn't really talk much about values. Perhaps I have gone too far in the other direction, but I ran out of words.
"My understanding of Quaker faith is that we listen to, and follow, the will of God, corporately and individually. I try to make it to Meeting for Worship wherever I am, and to faithfully attend Meeting for Business. I try to both hold the Meeting in prayer, and listen for God's voice. Although I have dry periods, I try deepen my relationship with God in my everyday life, through prayer, meditation, and reading.
Our values spring forth from the working of Christ on our hearts. Although we consider the inner guidance of the Holy Spirit to have priority, the Bible also holds a special place as further description of Christ's teaching and the working of God on others throughout history. I try to spend time reading the Bible and various inspirational writings.
We also speak of testimonies (currently Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, and Equality) which are outward signs of the working on the Holy Spirit upon our souls. The testimonies are not an end or a goal, but an indicator of the health of our relationship with God. I try to seek God's guidance in how I should use my time.
In practicing our faith, we are led by God to minister to each other during Worship, and at other times. We may also be led to give encouragement or reproach in a loving and truthful manner. We use queries individually and corporately as a means for self-examination and improvement. I am trying to use them more often.”
Saying Grace Without Words
Although I am not very good at remembering it for other meals, I try to say grace when I sit down for breakfast in the morning. It is a short prayer, similar to the kind I grew up with: "Dear Lord, thank you for this food, and for your many blessings. In Jesus name, Amen." On so many mornings, I just rush through it, barely even considering what I am saying. This morning I caught myself doing just that, so I started over, and tried to pay attention to the words. To my surprise, nothing came. I just felt a calm, wordless, "being with God" moment that seemed to stretch for a while.
Looking back on that moment now, I think about my use of that short prayer. While I didn't need those words this morning, are they what made this morning possible? Quakers have historically looked down on empty rituals and sacraments, but I have to wonder how we can really judge if a ritual is empty. When I rush through grace without thinking about the words, is that empty? I did remember to take a moment to thank God, even if I may not have been too conscious of it. I think a lot of it is your attitude in why you are doing the thing, and not totally how you are doing it. That is, if you are doing it because you think it is something you have to do in order to go to heaven, then perhaps whatever you are doing really is an empty ritual. If you are doing something in order to deepen your relationship with God, however, I believe there is some value, even if you aren't "fully there". Perhaps these unconscious rituals, done for the right reason, are like little drops of water that eventually wear away stone. You may not perceive any wear, until one day, maybe over breakfast, a huge chunk falls away.
Looking back on that moment now, I think about my use of that short prayer. While I didn't need those words this morning, are they what made this morning possible? Quakers have historically looked down on empty rituals and sacraments, but I have to wonder how we can really judge if a ritual is empty. When I rush through grace without thinking about the words, is that empty? I did remember to take a moment to thank God, even if I may not have been too conscious of it. I think a lot of it is your attitude in why you are doing the thing, and not totally how you are doing it. That is, if you are doing it because you think it is something you have to do in order to go to heaven, then perhaps whatever you are doing really is an empty ritual. If you are doing something in order to deepen your relationship with God, however, I believe there is some value, even if you aren't "fully there". Perhaps these unconscious rituals, done for the right reason, are like little drops of water that eventually wear away stone. You may not perceive any wear, until one day, maybe over breakfast, a huge chunk falls away.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)