quakers: Is the inner Light relative?

humofyourvoice (

humofyourvoice) wrote in

quakers,
@ 2008-01-25 21:18:00

Is the inner Light relative?
Hello, all. I'm a first-time poster; in the past 2-3 days I have read/skimmed over all 330+ posts in this community, and I feel like I have learned a lot. I've checked out the F+P for my nearest Yearly Meeting, I know where my closest Meeting house is (though have not yet had the opportunity to attend) and have been hunting for good literature on the subject of Quakerism... I feel very drawn to this belief system, especially the attitude that wisdom of God and God's nature can be found, even in unlikely places.

However, this last attitude is also the one that I seem to be struggling with the most. I am from a fairly conservative, Christian background. I am comfortable with Quakerism within a Christian framework, or even an Islamic, Jewish, or Taoist framework. However, I find that when I am faced with atheist, skeptical agnostic, or polytheistic attitudes about Quakerism, I become very uncomfortable, and want to say, "How can we worship the same thing?"

Because worship, one would assume, is a part of the Quaker way of life -- after all "meeting" IS short for "meeting for worship", right?

So many of us have different beliefs. I believe in one truine God. You may believe in no God. You may believe in several gods. If we are all being led by the same inner Light, that of God in each of us, wisdom from the same entity/Spirit, then how do we reach such radically different conclusions?
Or, if you believe that the inner Light is not from God, but rather a result of human love and compassion, doesn't that make you a humanist, not a Quaker?

I have always felt that the attitude of relative truth was just solipsism masquerading under a pretty name.
I acknowledge fully that my attitude is biased ... But if God's wisdom is absolute, then how can God's truth be relative?

(Yes, this IS my first post... Don't you love people who start with the easy questions?)

(Post a new comment)

mareserinitatis
2008-01-26 04:35 am UTC (link)

I don't think that God's truth is relative. The idea behind meeting for worship is that if what we believe is God's word is genuine, the whole of the meeting will come to see it in time. It is not for the meeting.

However, the question of the nature of God's existence may not necessarily be part of God's truth. While we may experience God, we may not understand what form (if any) he/she/it takes. (My personal interpretation is that, if there is a God, he/she/it would probably work on the quantum mechanical levels of the universe. I have a difficult time dealing with the idea of large-scale miracles.)

And maybe I'm just not tapped into God's line, which is why I tend to be skeptical...but it strikes me that a lot of Quakers are, so I'd like to be hanging around them. Divinity by association, perhaps. :-)

(Reply to this)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 05:22 am UTC (link)

I find your perspective interesting, and I thank you very much for your comment! :) I appreciate it very much. If you don't mind my pontificating a little further....

I saw a post here that said something that I agreed with. The poster was a Christian Quaker, I do believe, and said (either of their own opinion, or sharing a quotation) that they believed in the divinity of Jesus Christ; for this reason, they felt that people could experience Jesus Christ in spiritual ways as they experienced God, whether or not they associated it with the historical person of Jesus or not. Did that make any kind of sense? I suppose that I feel that if someone is experiencing the God that I know, they are also experiencing Jesus, because he is a part of my understanding of who/what God is.

So whether they acknowledge/realize it or not, I seem most comfortable with the attitude that people experience 'Christ' in the Godhead, whether they experience 'Jesus' or not. To clarify, I believe that God and Jesus are two parts of a whole, and the Holy Spirit, the Light, the personal conscience, inner voice, whatever you choose to call it, is the extended power/wisdom of the God/Jesus combo...

However, I fear that this attitude will foster an 'I am right, and you agree, you just don't know it yet!' approach to my faith and beliefs... While my attitude /could/ be one of tolerance, because I am acknowledging wisdom from God and the power of God in every person, no matter what their personal beliefs are, I don't know if my feeling is very Quakerly...

Is it WRONG to think that I am right? :( Or am I just being too concerned with political correctness?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

entropyspring
2008-01-26 05:39 am UTC (link)

Is it WRONG to think that I am right? :(

There is a notion in Quakerism that *individuals* are never "right" -- that is, the Whole Truth is never revealed to any one person. Perhaps our minds are too small to grasp the Whole Truth, or perhaps we just get so wound up in the first bit of Truth we get exposed to that, like the blind men and the elephant, we assume that the little bit we've seen is all there is to it.

The Quaker answer to this problem is twofold. First, there is Meeting for Worship, where bits of Light (spritual insights) and bits of, well, dark (personal doubts) and even the first glimmerings of a Leading can be shared, pondered by the group, and later responded to either by further messages in Meeting or by personal conversations.

Second, there are Committees for Clearness. These are our version of Pastoral Counseling, and they come up primarily at three points in a person's life: 1. a Friend applying for Membership in a meeting, 2. a couple asking to be married under the Care of Meeting, and 3. when a Friend feels a need to test a Leading or a Notion or simply to have their thoughts reflected back at them by more "seasoned" Friends.

Of course, once in a while an individual -- John Woolman is the best example that springs to mind -- does happen to receive a bit of Light that others seem to miss, and such Friends then sometimes take it upon themselves to educate others, sometimes just in their own Meeting and sometimes abroad.

So, take from that what you will...

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 03:42 pm UTC (link)

Thanks for this comment; the analogy about the man and the blind elephant actually helped me a great deal. I suppoose that is why I have always felt that wisdom can, and should, be gleaned from people of different beliefs -- we are all seeing a different part of God.

The more I post, the more I am starting to realize that part of my issue here might be my 'Salvation' way of thinking... I'm sure I'll make a post asking about THAT in a day or two, when I've had more time to think about it. XD

Thanks again.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

king_laugh
2008-01-26 01:21 pm UTC (link)

It is not wrong to think that you are right, especially if you are. I happen to be of a strong Christian faith, and considering trading my Catholicism for Quakerism, so I think you are more right than wrong.
I do think, however, that it is wrong to imagine that your partial rightness makes others entirely wrong.
Thik of it like this: three guys see a rainbow, and they all agree that it is beautiful and magnificent and soul-enhancing. They all agree that apreciating a rainbow makes us all better people.
The first guy says "You know how a rainbow is made? It's billions and billions of tiny fairies flying in formation, wearing different-coloured clothes."
The second guy says "No, don't be stupid. There's no such thing as a fairy. God has painted the rainbow across the sky with his own hands."
The third guy says "You're both superstitious fools. A rainbow is an illusion cast by white light from the sun passing through a prism - the rain - and being broken up int its constituent wavelengths, which the human eye perceives as colour."
The first guy says "Duh! What do you think fairy clothes are made of."
The second guy says "Duh! What do you think God uses for paint?"

These guys will never agree. The third one, to be fair, is the only one who is undoubtedly a little bit right, but you'd have to be a damn fool to think that that is the entirity of the truth about rainbows.

So... they can fight about it, maybe attract folowers and raise armies against each other. But the point of what they are fighting about, the beauty, the humanity that was awakened by the rainbow, whould be lost.

They could go their seperate ways and just ignore each other, and apreciate the beauty of a rainbow alone... but they would lose the unity that was offered to them, the chance to learn from each other's perceptions, to see each other's wisdom.

Or they can recognise that something in the glory and magesty of a rainbow touches them, unites them. And they can join together in quiet gratitude of this wondrous gift, and be enhanced and nurtured by it and each other.

There is a light inside all of us, a little rainbow, That of God in Everyone. Whatever its nature, however it got there, it exists, and it unites all human beings, and while we all have our own beliefs about it... we really are just guessing. But we should still love it and cherish it in out own way, together.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	humofyourvoice 2008-01-26 03:40 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for the post. :) I think you're correct -- that perhaps I need to acknowledge that my view is incomplete, and everyone else's view is incomplete, also. Seeing through a glass darkly, and that sort of thing... And then cling to the things that are universal for all of our beliefs? Is THAT Quakerly?? (Reply to this)(Parent)

mareserinitatis
2008-01-26 10:38 pm UTC (link)

I think it's a beautiful notion that a Christian thinks a person who doesn't believe that the historical Christ is the savior of humanity will still benefit from God's love and wisdom.

In fact, I find it disturbing that so many Christians believe you must have heard of Christ and believe in Him in order to be saved. (I honestly can't believe a benevolent God would condemn those who live in ignorance of his existance to eternal damnation. This is part of the reason I don't like a lot of traditional Christian doctrines.)

So, more or less, I think that it's perfectly fine to believe what you want about how people receive the inner light. The important thing is that you do believe that. But yeah, I wouldn't push everyone else to believe it.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	humofyourvoice 2008-01-27 12:04 am UTC (link)
	Thanks very much for your words. :) (Reply to this)(Parent)

entropyspring
2008-01-26 05:51 am UTC (link)

One more general comment: Friends have long held that one's view of the Divine is rather personal, and really not worth arguing about, but have instead sought to find unity around certain notions of what is right and wrong in the here-and-now, our so-called Testimonies. (Note, however, that there is not even complete agreement about which words best express these Testimonies!)

This is, I suspect, quite the opposite of other Christian groups you have experienced; most Christian groups seem to emphasize having a consensus of *belief* (about God, Jesus, Scripture and which pieces of it to emphasize, etc) and then encourage members to build on those beliefs in certain general directions of action in the world.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 03:27 pm UTC (link)

Right. :) I obviously wasn't planning to argue with anyone, or think that they HAD to believe what I believe -- but I'm finding it difficult to shed the prejudices that I picked up from my Protestant background, while at the same time, I don't exactly feel that they are 'prejudices' at all... It, like most of the things I am thinking about my faith right now, is a bit paradoxical.

Bleh. :(

(Reply to this)(Parent)

yourprecious
2008-01-26 07:53 am UTC (link)

This may or may not make any sense, but I believe that God's truth is not necessarily relative...but that it does fit each individual. I don't know how better to explain it really. But I really do believe that the Truth is equal for all, but I believe that each individual has different circumstances that cause that to manifest differently....

Erm...let me know if this makes no sense. It's more along the lines of

entropyspring's claim that the Divine is personal.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

capriuni
2008-01-26 10:03 am UTC (link)

*Nod*

God is Infinite. Humans, and human souls, are finite. God is so far beyond anything that a single human mind or soul can understand, entirely, that I have no language to express it..

To continue the Light metaphor: God's Truth is is infinite, and shines through all of us. And each human soul is like a lens, or a prism. And since each soul, each lens, is unique, we each bring a different aspect of God's Truth into focus... So that it just looks like our differing beliefs are at odds with each other, but they're not, really. As the Friend William Penn wrote, in 1692:

The humble, meek, merciful, just, pious, and devout souls are everywhere of one religion; and when death has taken off the mask, they will know one another, though the divers liveries they wear here make them strangers.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 03:32 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for this post. It makes a lot of sense to me. I think that just a slight attitude adjustment might solve my whole problem -- rather than thinking that anyone is 'right' or 'wrong', I should acknowledge the fact that my view is incomplete, and so is everyone else's? Is that okay? I mean... obviously, we all have different beliefs, so should we cling (as a religious group/community) to the things that we agree on, accept these as 'universal' (like the liberal Quaker tenets of Simplicty, Peace, Equality, etc.) and not worry about the details as a group, but rather as individuals?
I guess I worry that I just can't, or don't want to, believe EVERYTHING that comes across my path comes from God... That seems to be lacking a spirit of discernment. :/

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

yourprecious
2008-01-28 02:48 am UTC (link)

I do think that everyone's view is incomplete....and I think that we should be willing to learn from each other and try to listen to what one another has to say....because probably all of us have a different perspective on truth (an incomplete perspective), and that's the closest we can come to true understanding. I don't necessarily believe that EVERYTHING that happens is necessarily from God...of course, I do believe in free will, and I have always had a problem with the concept of destiny in the sense that it affects people romantically...I think it causes a great deal of problems when people misunderstand and start to believe that they are destined to only be with one person...I think that is how people end up in bad situations (as has happened to me in the past, but that is another story for another post).

/babbling off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	flynd 2008-01-28 02:27 am UTC (link)
	(A Softer World icon!) (Reply to this)(Parent)

engelhardtlm1
2008-01-26 01:39 pm UTC (link)

As should be no surprise to anyone who recognizes my username... I tend to agree with the sentiments in your post.

The big reason:

Historically, early Quakerism considered itself to be a "subset" of Christianity (or one could argue that Quakerism considered itself to be "true" Christianity!). The (at least near) universality of this belief is evident all the way up through the 1810s at least. Which means that for about 150 years everyone knew (at least within the Society) that one could not be a Quaker without being a Christian as well. The evidence of this fact is quite difficult to deny. Reading George Fox, Robert Barclay, William Penn... and so on make it very clear. Also, reading some of the comments made about Elias Hicks at the time of the Schism show that there was a concern that Hicks' beliefs were not even Christian, let alone Quaker. (The words of Elisha Bates at the Ohio Yearly Meeting on Sep 7, 1828 make that clear. See here:http://www.qhpress.org/quakerpages/qhoa/hicksbates.htm) But arguing against (and officially condemning!) Hicks' doctrine would make absolutely no sense unless the Friends actually took some kind of doctrinal stand. Yet, a number of YMs at the time did exactly that.

Of course, this raises an important question: how much should modern Quakers be bound by early Quakerism? After all, we aren't Eastern Orthodox. We don't believe in "Holy Tradition" which must remain unchanged.

Generally, I think that the three major camps of modern Quakerism disagree on this question, and the way in which they disagree is what defines them.

The conservative/Wilburite camp would say that modern Quakers should be bound to early Quakerism pretty strictly. We should, as far as possible, maintain the same Testimonies (though naturally applied to modern history), and the same doctrines. (After all, it is called Faith AND Practice, not just Faith or just Practice.)

The evangelical/Gurneyite camp (which I belong to) would say that modern Quakers should hold to the early Friends desire to "be like the early church"... But, in recent years (the past 100 or so), that has meant leaving a lot of Quaker practices behind, to the point where many evangelical YMs embrace physical celebration of the Lord's Supper and Water Baptism, and the grand majority use programmed worship... Some (like my own YM) aren't even strictly pacifist. (Thus, an emphasis on traditional Faith, but leniency with regard to traditional Practice.)

The liberal/Hicksite camp (which many in this community belong to) would say that modern Quakers should hold to the traditional Quaker values (Peace, Community, Integrity, Equality, and Simplicity being the big ones), and traditional worship form, but that doctrine is not central. (Leniency in Faith, but emphasis on historical Practice.)

St. Augustine said "In essentials, unity; in Non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity." I think we all agree... Except that we disagree on what is "essential" and what isn't!

Turning then to your big question...

I think that I'd tend to answer it this way: The Truth is absolute. However, our perceptions of that Truth are tainted by our perspective. Thus, the Quaker emphasis on consensus. If Truth is not bound by culture, personal experience, and circumstance, then it is to our advantage when seeking Truth to have multiple perspectives presented and then come to an agreement, if possible.

So, in short, Truth is not relative. But, our perceptions of that Truth are.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 03:35 pm UTC (link)

Thank you for your comment! I had seen your posts/comments here (like I said at the top of my post, I have read/skimmed the entire posting history of this community), and have always found your comments interesting, and reflecting a Christian spirit.

Thank you for the history lesson.

Your penultimate remark ("If Truth is not bound by culture, personal experience...") really speaks to me. Thanks again. :)

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	spacepppete 2008-01-28 03:03 am UTC (link)
	cool space hippie (Reply to this)(Parent)

engelhardtlm1
2008-01-28 03:30 pm UTC (link)

Glad to hear that something I said "speaks to your condition". :-)

Actually, (as you know from reading previous comments) you can probably count on me to give history lessons on a somewhat regular basis... Mostly because I love church history (and Quaker history in particular) and believe that understanding our history helps to enlighten where we are today and why.

So, welcome to the community! It's always good to get a new, active member!

(Reply to this)(Parent)

stafferchick
2008-01-26 02:00 pm UTC (link)

part of why you'll come across non-Christian Quakers is that Quakerism is more than just a denomination. (And this is not speaking against any other denominations either, you'll find this is true in almost all peace churches and other denominations and religions.)

There's this ethical/social/ethnic aspect to Quakerism. A sort of way of life, if you will. Being true to the nature of Quakerism, I can't just rattle off a list of what that is exactly. But it's basically agreeing with all the general aspects in Quakerism--being connected to everyone, therefore the need for pacifism, living simply, for example... It's basically just plucking God right out of it. (Or in some cases, exchanging their perception of what/who God is...)

Traditionally, Quakerism is a Christian faith...
and I do remember reading somewhere in some of the older writings (though I can't remember who at the moment).. that someone once said there are three Christian groups: The Protestants, the Catholics, and the Quakers.
So to go along with what

entropyspring has said, we are fairly different than most other Christian groups...

Anyway. Welcome! Obviously we're more than happy to help with any questions, be they spiritually related or not.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	humofyourvoice 2008-01-26 03:35 pm UTC (link)
	Thanks for the welcome. I hope there will be some new posts for me to read soon! ^^ (Reply to this)(Parent)

	wolfshift 2008-01-26 03:09 pm UTC (link)
	"The colour of the cup is the colour of the water." Perhaps we are each given the understanding of God that we most need, or are the best suited for. This makes none of us right or wrong, because it's in God's hands. (Reply to this)(Thread)

humofyourvoice
2008-01-26 03:38 pm UTC (link)

Can you explain to me, then, how is it that it is one person's Truth that there is no god, but might be another person's Truth that there unquestionably is? Don't you feel that this would be sort of .. misleading, of God? Or like a wishy-washy view of religion? I'm not trying to condescending, but as I'm struggling with this attitude, those are the ideas that keep coming through my head. How do you reconcile different people's definition of what is "true"? Can you discard someone else's (or your own!) idea as being irrelevent/nonessential because it is only their (your) personal definition, and then hold fast to the wisdom at the heart of it?

...or what? :O

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

wolfshift
2008-01-26 04:20 pm UTC (link)

The point is best made by the quotation I gave (which I got from the Sufi philosopher Muhyiddin ibn Al-'Arabi). No two people perceive the world around us in exactly the same way. Doesn't it therefore follow that we must each perceive God differently, influenced by such things as our education, our upbringing, and our prejudices? The water is the same no matter what cup holds it, but it looks different. In fact, the colour of the water is the colour of the cup--that is, the colour (beliefs) of the water tells us more about the cup (the believer) than it tells us about the water itself (God). In other words, the names and attributes (or lack thereof) we assign to God do not describe God so much as they describe ourselves. Religion is the means for us to approach God, not the other way around.

That I call it "God" says more about me that it says about God. The fact that someone else calls it "Nirvana" or "Brahman" or "Christ" or nothing, reveals nothing at all about God/Nirvana/Brahman/Christ/nothing.

-- Except, perhaps, it reveals what that Ultimate Reality has sent each of us for the sake of our own growth/enlightenment/salvation/whatever you want to call it. Perhaps what I call "God" has decided that John Doe would connect better and develop in better directions if he approaches spirituality from a Buddhist framework. On the other hand, maybe the Universe understands that I cannot connect through a Buddhist approach and so it has led me to belief in the One God. All I can do is trust that God has a purpose in creating so many different religions of equal validity, and that anyone who sincerely believes, believes in what they need--for whatever reason(s)--to believe.

Is that wishy-washy? I don't know. I also don't care. I do know that (a) it allows me to believe as I feel led to believe, (b) it does not impose my beliefs on anyone else to make them wrong, (c) it doesn't require me to choose between my education and my beliefs, and (d) it allows me to be at peace with people of many different religions.

Can you discard someone else's (or your own!) idea as being irrelevent/nonessential because it is only their (your) personal definition, and then hold fast to the wisdom at the heart of it?

The wisdom is not in the definitions. The wisdom is in the seeking. That's how I see it, anyway.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

kibbles
2008-01-26 03:41 pm UTC (link)

On top of the well thought out answers you will get here, I wanted to point something else out. I totally get what you are saying and understand it, because it suits me too...but as you read and consider it, do try to be very open, pray over it, whatever you do, because my coming to terms with it was a process and it just sort of revealed itself to me, in enough of a way that I went 'oh, ok' and it was enough for me to just put it aside and continue on my way. Not that it is unimportant, not at all, but it was just a part of the puzzle of me trying to understand LIFE.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

	humofyourvoice 2008-01-26 03:43 pm UTC (link)
	Thank you so much for the encouragement, kibbles. :) I like your sock monkey. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

kibbles
2008-01-26 04:00 pm UTC (link)

Thanks. It was a gift, when I was considering worshipping the little buggers. ;)

Also do remember that you don't have to see the light like everyone else does. Some things I believe just don't 'fit', or can be explained to the satisfaction of other people but it's hard to put it out there. And me being Christ-centric does not exclude me from the rest of Quakerism, or the other way around. It really is so hard for me to put in words but at some point it does just fit in my brain in a very kibbles-like way. Sort of like a small series of epiphanies (That happen in the strangest places at the strangest times).

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	humofyourvoice 2008-01-26 04:10 pm UTC (link)
	You're welcome! And thank YOU. I am hoping I'll have a similar revelation sometime soon... (Reply to this)(Parent)

	spacepppete 2008-01-28 03:01 am UTC (link)
	love practiced is more important than any differances over theology or not (Reply to this)

Thinking about God
(Anonymous)
2008-02-01 03:37 am UTC (link)

Hey there,

I posted this the other day at AJSchwanz.com (http://www.ajschwanz.com/2008/01/26/communing-and-consuming/)in a response to the meaning (or not) of communion within Quakerism, but it seems applicable here as well considering the One God/Many Gods thing:

I have found that religious/theological problems pertaining to “either/or” duality are usually ripe for the picking in terms of insight. In particular, I have found that our cultural normative default of fixed, logical, scientific, Western thought often impairs my ability to enter into a deep immersion in the Divine. God simply doesn’t play by our rules, and when we try to impose our educated critique on the movement of the Spirit, we get funny results. Conversely, when we accept that mystery is part of the mystic, prophetic path, we can more readily allow fluid definitions and continually revealing aspects of truth. For those interested, my pet project at theopoetics.net (http://theopoetics.net/) directly addresses these issues.
In the Light,

Callid Keefe-Perry
Rochester Monthly Meeting
New York Yearly Meeting

(Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2008-02-01 06:38 pm UTC (link)
	I reconcile the two by saying God is as vast as the Universe. Therefore, God is the Universe and the Universe is God. And therefore, if people prefer nontheism, it doesn't matter to me because we are just using two different words and mental images for the same thing - The Light. Allison www.rainbowfriends.net (Reply to this)

	worship question tom_farley 2008-02-04 08:38 am UTC (link)
	hum asks "How can we worship the same thing?" I hear an assumption in that question that worship must be a transitive verb with a direct object - the thing [person, object, word, concept, etc.] that is worshiped. My experience of Quaker unprogrammed oe waiting worship is that it is intransitive - a process or state of being or relationship. (Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…