01-07-2007 17:55

Palmetto Friends

Michael, 
 
Thanks for your thoughtful response and the link to the article by Kat Griffith. 
 
It is certainly important that we listen with compassion and with a sincere attempt to understand and to do so without a smugness or a feeling of contempt. I will go back through the article I wrote here with an eye toward such expressions as I do wish more clarity and not just polarization.  
 
It was not entirely clear to me how you found nothing to disagree with in what Wallace said while you shared the concerns I expressed in disagreement with him. Yet I know you to be sincere and insightful and a person of deep conviction, and I assume that there is more for me to understand. As I tried to indicate, I certainly do not equate conservative theology with shallowness of devotion, nor do I think that liberals in general or liberal Quakers are currently offering a clear path for responding to the crises we are facing.  
 
Reading the article in Friends Journal by Kat Griffith helped me to understand your attraction to Wallace, and I suspect you found that Wallace articulated perceptions of our unprogrammed tradition (disregarding the conservative yearly meetings who share unprogrammed worship style but may be quite different otherwise) that are as follows:  
(1)We are much too focused on intellectual pursuits. 
(2)We see solutions to the problems of society in political strategies, 
(3)We are so open to any religious traditions that are not like the conservative Churches of our past that we have no convictions. 
(4)We talk a good talk but are not willing to sacrifice. 
Please let me if I am wrong or not that it is within these or similar points that Terry Wallace spoke to you, more than the statements to which I responded in my article. If so, perhaps I should address these as well before submitting it to Friends Journal, because I too share a concern about these things. 
 
However, I do not find the critique of Wallace helpful. Nor do I find a solution in his article. If he is offering anything other than criticism, it seems to be one of abandoning our current world view (which may be ok to do) and adapting the world view of 2000 years ago (which is not ok to do). I believe that like George Fox, we should search for the spirit of the New Testament Church. We do not, however, need to accept the world view of Paul, with his teachings of such things as atonement theology, and some other beliefs that the Church has defended with creeds, excommunication, imprisonment, and worse for so many years. I think many unprogrammed Quakers are struggling with a desire for more depth but are being taught that finding Paul's strength of faith is contingent on adapting Paul's world view, and I am convinced that such is not the case. As for Terry Wallace, my only knowledge of him is from his writing, and I am admittedly speculating a bit about his beliefs based on my knowledge of many people whom I have known who have expressed similar beliefs. Consequently, I was not comfortable going into too much of this line of thought in the response I wrote. 
 
I think that having a deep concern for Quakers and our society in general does not assure an enlightened response. I also think that our deep concern reaches both to the people who are attacking Christianity from the scientific-minded world as well as those who would equate Christianity with a conservative Christian theology.  
 
I believe that we are living in a time that has a serious dearth of religious spirit, and it is a rebirth of spirit that is desperately needed in our times. I am convinced that many people in our society are disillusioned with the American dream and the answers to life promoted by Wall Street and Madison Avenue. Yet it is increasingly difficult for them to find anything in the teachings of Christ when on the one hand they are offered a 2000 year old world view about the person of Christ and how he atoned for sins, and on the other hand a severe critique of all religious thought by Richard Dawkins with his book, The God Delusion that was on the NY Time Best Seller List for at least nine weeks.  
 
I believe both represent a serious threat to a renewed spirit. It is increasingly important to articulate a way of faith that is intellectually reasonable and has spiritual depth. We must listen to all sides with compassion and openness, and if we truly listen, it is possible we will see things differently. However, my current perception is that we must answer both the right-wing Christianity and the anti-religious groups compassionately but unequivocally.  
 
We must get away from the search for conceptual certainty that comes with creeds and biblical authority, as well as much of the myths of the anti-religious groups who, in my mind, are also confusing the finger with the moon, to use the zen phrase offered in Sue's comments. But it is too much to address that here.  
 
I will wait a bit longer for more clarity before sending my response. They are likely not to publish it anyway.

http://palmettofriends.org

IP: 151.213.92.173

Registered