1. 01-03-2007 21:26

I read Terry Wallace's article and was very unsettled by it. Recently we had a visitor at Meeting and I said some of the things Wallace mentions in the article. He called it a "code" for saying among other things, "Don't bother me." I didn't feel that way. I was really trying to share how we as Quakers worship and what we believe. I think our visitor was from an evangelistic tradition but he could see many similiarities between what he believed and what we do. That surprised me. 
 
Your response is wonderful, particularly the part about creeds. Many of us left churches because we could not recite the creeds. I didn't think that the words from the Philadelphia Yearly Meeting could be called a creed. It is more a statement of belief that begins with questions. The creeds I am familiar with had no room for questions. I like that you said "Concepts point to truths; they are not the truths themselves." It is like the Zen saying that the finger pointing at the moon is not the moon... 
 
I also agree with your statement: "It is true that many Friends whom I know tend to have a limited knowledge of the Bible and we would do well to focus more on the teachings found there." Also most of do not know much about the history of Quakerism. Maybe these could be directions our Meeting could explore.

IP: 68.154.132.94

Guest

2. 01-04-2007 10:29

Thanks

Thanks for an incisive critique. I will let our meeting know it's here.

http://www.americanconfusion.com

IP: 71.235.57.226

Guest

3. 01-07-2007 15:13

On Terry Wallace’s “Misunderstanding Qua

Gerry, 
 
I appreciate your calling my attention to Terry Wallace’s “Misunderstanding Quaker Faith and Practice (Friends Journal, Jan 2007, pp.6-8, 44 http://www.friendsjournal.org/contents/2007/0107/index.html). Furthermore, I share some of the broader concerns expressed in your online response http://palmettofriends.org/content/view/29/1/. For example: 
 
• that explicit, formal creeds can distract us from attending to continuing revelation; 
• that such creeds can be abused as tests for who does or does not belong; 
• that credal differences about the nature of God ought not to prevent us from affirming and sharing our experience of God; 
• that valuing the unique revelations of the Bible is not the same as attributing to it final authority on doctrinal matters; or 
• that (as Jim Wallis points out in God’s Politics URL), American culture has falsely polarized theological discussion into emotionally hostile ideological camps, thereby suppressing genuine prophetic dialog. 
 
Nonetheless, Friend Wallace in fact speaks my mind, and I find nothing to disagree with in his article. He voices with articulate objectivity most aspects of a deep concern with which I have struggled for two decades. 
 
Many of us “1960s-70s liberals” came to Quakerism first as a refuge from the abuses we had experienced and/or witnessed, done in the name of the religious orthodoxies under which we were raised. We welcomed the opportunity Quakerism seems to offer us, both to speak our individual “heretical” leadings without risking condemnation, and to extend what we though of as a universal inclusiveness to our friends and acquaintance of other races, cultures and religions. 
 
However, Quakerism is not merely a refuge, a place for seekers to wait. It is a specific spiritual discipline of centering down in silence and making oneself vulnerable precisely where one feels least comfortable with regard to faith and practice. How else can either an individual or a meeting be open to receive a greater measure of the Light than to give public voice to one’s own convictions and then listen tenderly to the heartfelt testimonies of those with whom one most disagrees? 
 
The finest recent demonstration I have seen of this process is also found in FJ: Kate Griffith’s “Conversations from the Heartland “ (Oct 2006, pp.9-12, 50 http://www.friendsjournal.org/contents/2006/1006/feature1.html). 
 
I encourage all of us Friends to read these two articles side by side, and then to let them lie fallow together, without acting on the urge to defend our own present convictions. 
 
Blessed Be, 
Michael

http://walhycra.blogspot.com

IP: 207.69.138.10

Guest

4. 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

5. 01-09-2007 17:32

More thoughts

I have thought more about Terry Wallace and the issues surrounding the clash between religious groups. In some ways it is similar to the clash between Western culture and the culture of the Muslims who are turning to fundamentalism, though still on a smaller and less intense scale.  
 
I am not trying to make a moral or ethical comparison. It is just that people become strongly identified with ideas and with a group that promotes activities and rituals that are based on these ideas. Then when changes are introduced that threaten the ideas, it becomes more than just a discussion of concepts. It becomes a discussion about the validity of the self-identity that a person has and the identity he or she is trying to establish. 
 
This is true on both sides.  
 
But, the issues need to be discussed and views presented plainly, and as you say, with compassion. But as the article you provided a link to by Kat Griffith shows, just revealing your thoughts can raise shackles, and can be interpreted as an attack. It is not an easy thing to do. 
 
I am rewriting the article, perhaps talking about the issues of the clash of ideas in more general terms rather than directly in response to Wallace.  
 
I do not think that the concepts I presented are all that important. Religion is more about compassion and yearning for light than about concepts. But there are concepts that are just part of a system of concepts and refer to nothing that we experience or are aware of. There are also concepts that point to truth that is experienced, even though sometimes dimly. If the concepts are of the latter, then as we find more of the truth, we can abandon the language and even the concepts like an accomplished musician stops thinking about musical concepts and plays the music from his or her soul. It seems to me that a clinging to a set of fundamental concepts is something quite different. 
 
I know and love people who have very strong beliefs that the Church has taught for centuries and that do not make any sense to me. But the people who think somewhat as I do, and who cannot accept the rituals, the creeds, and beliefs of conservative Christianity should not be degraded.  
 
Friends Journal did us no service by publishing such a polarizing piece. But you are right that my piece was also polarizing and I will not send it in its current state to Friends Journal. Hopefully in a few days or more I and post another version. 
 
Thanks.

http://palmettofriends.org

IP: 151.213.89.175

Registered

6. 01-12-2007 04:57

Accepting Wallace's Challenge

Friend Gerry, 
 
For several days I have worked over what I now recognize was merely a “defense of my defense of Wallace,” rather than a spirit-led response to the concerns which you clarified in your comment of January 7th. Rather than remain in that academic exercise, it seems more important to do what Wallace challenges us to do, and to voice my own convictions in the context of your concerns. 
 
First, I believe that Quakerism is neither a theology nor a political philosophy, but rather a spiritual discipline, grounded in the Christian tradition, which aspires to ever greater objectivity about the intersection of the spiritual and the material in human consciousness and action. 
 
Second, I believe that every imagined pair of opposites actually draws our attention to a continuum of partial truths along one dimension, and that arguing for either/or prevents us from perceiving and affirming the greater unity. 
 
You summarize well much of what I appreciate about Wallace's criticism of tendencies he observes among some liberal Friends: 
• over-intellectual focus 
• over-reliance on political solutions 
• lack of convictions—I would say, rather, reluctance to give public voice to convictions 
• over-reliance on talk rather than on concrete, strategic sacrifice (e.g., Woolman's avoidance of slave-produced goods). 
 
I want to emphasize two more of Wallace’s themes. 
 
First, our tendency to “homogenize” public religious statements arises in part from our wanting "to avoid any challenge or conflict" (what I used to call practicing the "niceness testimony") and in part from our wanting to "avoid the difficult and uncomfortable struggle of seeking and finding God, and… seeking and doing God's will." 
 
I observe both of these hesitations in myself all the time—and particularly when I am in situations in which I ought to voice explicit convictions for the sake of someone else. Two quick examples: 
• non-Quakers ask me what Quakers (and I in particular) believe 
• my evangelical Christian sister asks me questions arising from her own convictions. 
 
Second, when we avoid voicing specific convictions out of our desire to practice a universal inclusiveness (my phrase, not Wallace’s), this circumspection can have at least two harmful results: 
• we fail to learn from genuine dialog with those who believe differently than we do 
• we (unintentionally) insult others by the implication that they cannot deal kindly with disagreement or conflict (see Wallace's example of the Muslim student who said, "That reasoning treats people of others faiths…as bigots. It assumes we will be offended."). 
 
As for positing that Wallace would advocate “abandoning our current world view...and adopting the world view of Paul...and some other beliefs that the Church has defended,” I don’t find that inference in the article. I do find a cautionary note about bias against self-identified Christians and other dissenters from the popular opinions which liberal Quakers tend to share. 
 
More pointedly, I find a historically accurate reminder that the first Quakers were not polite Rufus Jones-style mystics, but folks who considered themselves to be Friends of Jesus. This brings me to the tender, growing edge of my own faith and practice. 
All people are born into a native religious language. Not only the first Quakers, but also all of us modern Quaker refugees from conventional Christian upbringings were born into a community and a biblical tradition which gave our infant minds their first songs and stories and names and words and concepts for talking about our human intersection with the divine. 
 
Unless they traveled beyond Christian realms (as some of the boldest of them did), the first Quakers had no option but to take the Christian language of 17th century Europe with them as they settled down in despair and hope to wait for new revelation. In that refiner’s fire, as they let their home culture’s theological notions be burned away, and then as they let their own ego pretenses be burned away, they discovered—not atonement theology, but a living divine Presence which could comfort and teach them and lead them up from the darkness in which failed human religions had left them. 
 
Furthermore, because they already knew of him from their Christian upbringing, they discovered that they could give the name of the historical Jesus—not the theological “Jesus” but the living person—to this Presence. They discovered that, beneath the learned theological notions, they had always known what this real person was like, because the reality of him is more powerful, more cleansing to the heart, than human theologies can be. In knowing him, they knew what genuine human intersection with the divine could be. 
 
I have just described to you my own experience, over the twenty-some years I was “in the Church” and the thirty-some years since I told myself I had left. Unlike those boldest first Friends, I quested out beyond Christian realms before I was sure of the real Jesus. Yet he went along with me, because I had actually known him from childhood. 
 
I do not believe that those born to other native religious languages need to adopt Christian language. I believe they need to settle into whatever refiner’s fire is meant for them—and, in time, to meet there the same Presence, by whatever name, that I and all those early Quakers have met. 
 
I say the same for those born to the Christian language who have been burned too badly by the outer forms and doings of religion. I say the same for nontheist and secular folk. Whatever language, whatever purer fire they are drawn to, they should step into it boldly and let it do its cleansing work. 
 
It does not matter what names we use, for names are mere human inventions to point clumsily to realities. Even to blesséd realities to which we long to lead our fellows. 
 
In Jesus, 
Blesséd Be, 
 
Michael

http://walhydra.blogspot.com

IP: 207.69.137.205

Guest

7. 02-08-2007 13:42

thoughts from a Conservative-leaning Fri

Thanks to Michael for pointing me here. ...I find myself reluctant to add my take on Wallace's article, and equally reluctant to NOT add my take on it. Hmmm. 
 
Some of what you offer, Gerry, reflects on writing I have done elsewhere, such as some thoughts about my own understanding of creeds and the discipline of living into the many dualities and paradoxes that exist within Quakerism. 
 
So I have appreciation for the concern you raise, Gerry, that Wallace's article may seem to polarize Friends, along with your own reconsideration of whether your initial remarks would do the same. 
 
It is in fact a discipline to speak passionately about our inward conversion/conviction without assigning judgment about other's faith tradition or participation in our own--in this case, Quakers.  
 
I identify as a Conservative-leaning Friend: one who has been learning about and exploring Conservative Quakerism, who carries a concern for how we conserve our tradition and convey it to others, and who worships among Liberal Friends (there are as yet no Conservative meetings or worship groups in the area).  
 
Because of my experience among Friends and the concern I carry, I read Wallace's article with a lens of  
 
"Here is someone who like me is wanting to remind Friends that there ARE things we can say about our faith, what we believe, and what we don't believe; how we practice and how we don't practice and why those practices have come about." 
 
Especially among Liberal Friends, it seems to me, the breadth of theological diversity within our meetings may be--MAY be--tipping too far to the side of becoming an all-inclusive ETHICAL society rather than remaining a RELIGIOUS society that has parameters of who we are and who we aren't. 
 
So I wonder if Wallace doesn't write from that concern... 
 
My Jewish upbringing has given me a model from which to draw: 
 
In Judaism, the various sects range from ultra-orthodox to reform, with conservative in the middle. Synagogues in large metropolitan areas can embrace Jews according to their level of religious orthodoxy or religious liberalism.  
 
I have not heard Reform Jews cry out that they are excluded from Judaism because Orthodox Jews want them to practice their faith in a certain way; neither have I heard Orthodox Jews cry out that Reform Jews have got it all wrong and should ultimately be excluded or discounted as Jews. 
 
But it comes down to Jews are Jews are Jews, and it's widely accepted that Reform Jews will seek out a Reform synagogue; Conservative Jews will seek out a Conservative synagogue; etc. And Reform Jews and Orthodox Jews will write about their respective experience in their faith tradition, always lifting up concerns as they see them. 
 
But among contemporary Quakers, and perhaps peculiar to American Friends, for some reason we think that Conservative-leaning Friends or Evangelical Friends or Liberal Friends should keep their opinions to themselves, lest we have in-fighting and nastiness. Many of us get stuck in the "We're right/they're wrong" sort of thinking that closes down conversation rather than opening up dialogue that will grow all of us into our full measure of Light and understanding of Truth. 
 
I would say, Wallace and the growing internet phenomenon of Quaker blogs may be--MAY be--providing Friends the opportunity to wrestle with other parts of our faith tradition, other perspectives and other branches that still comprise the larger whole: the Religious Society of Friends. 
 
A dear Quaker friend of mine reminds me when I don't like what I've heard or what I've read:  
 
Well, are you looking for the kernel of Truth in what has been said? 
 
It's not a question I like to consider, but by considering it, I allow myself to be transformed by the Light... 
 
Well, this response didn't exactly touch on things I had thought I would share, but it is what emerged on this day. Thanks to Mike and Gerry for the exchange. 
 
Blessings, 
Liz, The Good Raised Up

http://thegoodraisedup.blogspot.com

IP: 75.72.186.144

Guest

8. 02-12-2007 22:38

Another online response

Just a quick note to point out that a Quaker blogger has made his own remarks about this same article. 
 
Blessings, 
Liz Opp, The Good Raised Up

http://thegoodraisedup.blogspot.com

IP: 75.72.186.144

Guest

9. 02-13-2007 10:38

That Credal Thing

Dear Gerald, 
 
Overall I found your essay here an interesting counterpoint to Terry Wallace\'s position. And for the most part, where I disagree, I think my disagreements are not terribly serious. 
 
There is one statement here, however, which I find factually troublesome, and that is the statement, \"Without creeds you cannot have heresy, and without heresy you cannot have orthodoxy.\" I think this is an oversimplification of the matter, and is at least in part demonstrably false. And I think a clarification might be helpful to some folks trying to understand what Quakerism is about. 
 
To begin with, while the classic creeds (Apostle\'s, Nicene and Athanasian) were certainly composed to serve as quick tests of orthodoxy, a more basic orthodoxy preceded their existence by centuries. That more basic orthodoxy was defined, not by creeds, but by doctrines. And the heresies which the creeds were written to address likewise preceded the creeds, for Christianity seems to have struggled with heresies from the very generation of its birth. 
 
Friends rejected creeds from the beginning. But they did not reject orthodoxy. Fox\'s famous letter of 1671 to the Governor and Assembly at Barbados was a Quaker declaration of orthodoxy -- though not a creed. Barclay\'s Apology was another such. 
 
In the Quaker world, the vast majority of Friends worldwide are what is known as \"Orthodox Friends\" -- members of FUM-, EFI-, Conservative- and Holiness-affiliated yearly meetings, which are all descended from the Orthodox side of the Hicksite-Orthodox split. They are \"Orthodox Friends\" because they adhere to the orthodox Christian faith. But they and their meetings have no creeds. This again is a demonstration that one may have orthodoxy without creeds. 
 
The distinction between doctrines and creeds is, I think, critical to this discussion. Barclay\'s Apology, the classic statement of Quaker beliefs, is a compendium of doctrines, but not of creeds. Fox\'s \"doctrinal writings\" -- volumes 4, 5 and 6 of his collected Works -- are likewise compendiums of doctrines, but not of creeds -- as also are many of his letters. And there are of course doctrines embedded within the New Testament, too. So far as I know, Friends have never seen anything wrong with the use of such doctrines; quite the contrary, Friends have relied heavily on them all through their history -- and still do so rely -- in their efforts to explain their faith to children and newcomers. 
 
In the great separations of the nineteenth century, Orthodox Friends condemned Hicksites, and Wilburite Friends condemned Gurneyites, for departing from doctrines contained in these compendiums; the Hicksite and Gurneyite responses were of course that the doctrines so departed from were not essential to true religion. There was some loose talk of \"heresy\" in those quarrels, but so far as I know there was never a formal charge of heresy, and there was certainly no use of creeds. 
 
So in sum, without creeds, you can still have heresy and orthodoxy. And I think this is important.

http://journal.earthwitness.org/the-quaker-magpie-journal/

IP: 68.13.162.248

Guest

10. 02-13-2007 16:37

orthopraxy

Orthopraxy is unity of conduct 
and worship rather than through a profession of beliefs. 
 
Listening to the inwardly revealed Word of God,whether it is in,silence,prayers,music,spoken word for me, is the heart of Quakerism. 
 
Paul 
 
In the worship 
you feed your people and strengthen them in holiness, so that the family of humankind may come to walk in the light of one faith, in one communion of love. 
We come then to the worship 
to be fed at your table and grow into the likeness of your Spirit. 
 
revise prayer from the Catholic liturgy

IP: 69.1.133.133

Guest

11. 02-13-2007 19:55

re Thoughts from Conservative-Leaning Fr

Liz,  
 
I appreciate your feedback. I do not think that Wallace intended to be polarizing, and I realize my initial response was too much of a response in kind. I included phrases and associations that were unnecessary to my points, and I did not look for the kernal of Truth as you said.  
 
I also understand that Wallace is probably coming from perceptions that have some validity, and my attitude has softened somewhat as I read your remarks and those of Mike and others. Wallace, like many Quakers, is honestly concerned about perserving the essence of the Christian tradition that is found in our Quaker tradition. I guess the disagreement is about of what that essence consists. I perceive a tendency to perserve the forms and not the essence. Of course, I say this knowing I do not have a corner on truth, and I hope I am open to being persuaded differently if I am mistaken. 
 
Thanks again for your insights. 
Gerald

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered

12. 02-13-2007 19:54

That Credal Thing

Marshall, 
 
I see creeds as formalizing heresy at the same time they formalize what doctrine is acceptable. I speak, admittedly, with only a general knowledge of the Hicksite and Gurneyite controversy. Although I have attended at Quaker meetings since the 70's and been a member for about 13 years, my religious training was with Southern Baptists. I attended seminary at Southern Seminary in Louisville before moving away from that tradition to the Quaker tradition. 
 
I am not clear how a doctrine is determined to be acceptable to a tradition or not without a creed. That is, how do you determine that heresy is heresy without a creed or something that substitutes for a creed? Otherwise, it is just another doctrine or another person's understanding. Are you viewing heresy as being a personal judgement as opposed to a judgement of a larger body? Or are you saying that there is a kind of "common-law" (my apologies) doctrine that can be used to identify heresy without having it formalized by a creed? I admit that people seem to use the term in that way. Maybe my concept of heresy and orthodoxy is too narrow. 
 
Gerald

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered

13. 02-13-2007 20:42

That Credal Thing

Gerald, as I understand the order of progress in Christian tradition, it works this way: something begins as a doctrine (a teaching), and then, if it is found to be sufficiently central to the life of Christianity that it seems a necessary part of orthodoxy, it is elevated to the rank of dogma. If the dogma is challenged, a creed may be formulated to summarize the dogma for the purposes of defense. But not all dogmas get summarized in creeds, and not all doctrines achieve the rank of dogma. 
 
Thus a creed is determined to be acceptable or not by testing it against preëxisting doctrines; and once the creed is in existence, it is then used to test people. This is the reason why creeds are called creeds, in fact: the very name \"creed\" means \"I believe\" (Latin credo), and the act of reciting a creed is the act of saying \"I believe thus-and-so\" (credo thus-and-so) -- in this way giving evidence that the person reciting it willingly conforms to the doctrines that the creed summarizes. 
 
So, for example, the baptismal creeds of the second century and later were summaries of those doctrines which the individual catechumen (the candidate for baptism) needed to embrace in order to be worthy of admission into the church. The catechumen was taught the doctrines in question during catechetical instruction, and then the baptismal creed was administered at the time of baptism to establish that his acceptance of the doctrines was sufficient. The Church kept going over its catechetical doctrines, working out which ones were truly deserving of the status of dogma and which ones were not, and as it did so the Church also kept going over its baptismal creeds, testing them against its doctrines and refining them -- until finally, in the eighth century, the Church settled on a credal formula that it was fully satisfied with, and this formula was the Apostle\'s Creed we know today. 
 
The Nicene creed was developed in the fourth century for the specific purpose of excluding the followers of the Arian heresy. Arianism was already regarded as a heresy by the majority of Christian bishops before the Nicene creed was composed, since Arianism denied one of the doctrines they themselves regarded as essential -- the doctrine that Christ was fully equal to his Father. But at the time of Arius, the idea of Christ\'s complete equality with his Father was not yet universally understood as deserving the status of dogma, and there were ways of thinking that would seem to argue that making it a dogma would be a mistake. And that is precisely why Arianism emerged. The purpose of the Nicene creed was to provide a formula summarizing the points where the doctrines which the majority of bishops accepted, conflicted with the views of Arius and appeared to be deserving of the status of dogma. Since it was breaking new ground, the creed -- and the dogmas it summarized -- did not spring into existence in an instant, but were refined over a period of perhaps sixty years, from some time before the Council of Nicæa to around the time of the second ecumenical Council of Constantinople. During that sixty-year period they were tested and re-tested against the bishops\' understanding and experience. The doctrines involved were not tested against the creed, but the creed against the doctrines. 
 
The Athanasian creed evolved in southern Gaul in the fifth century, as a summary of orthodox doctrine on the Trinity and the Incarnation for the guidance of catechismal teachers. The views it excluded as heretical were already regarded as heretical a century before it was formulated. Again, the creed was shaped by the doctrines, rather than the other way around. 
 
In the early centuries of the church, the determination of what was orthodox and what was heretical was a very messy process. But after the time of the struggle with Arius, the body of orthodox Christian doctrine was sufficiently well-documented that new works by new authors could simply be compared with known heresies to determine whether they were orthodox or not. This was not a testing against creeds but a testing against dogmas. 
 
Once in a long while, however, some major new teaching or body of teachings would arise which did not clearly conform either to orthodoxy or to known heresies, and when this happened, the teaching or teachings in question would have to be examined and either exonerated or condemned by a Church Council. This task of examination had to be completed without use of a creed, precisely because the teachings in question did not clearly contradict any preëxisting creed. But the teachings on trial would still be compared against preëxisting doctrines, and the doctrines the teachings were tested against would be on trial to see if they deserved the status of dogma, even as the teachings were tested to see if they deserved the label of \"heresy\". 
 
Thus Jan Hus\'s teachings were evaluated and condemned by the Council of Constance, without reference to any preëxisting creed that they clearly contradicted. Luther\'s teachings were initially identified as a variation of Hus\'s, in an attempt to save the Church the trouble of another Council, but when it proved that Luther\'s teachings were not just Hussitism revisited but something genuinely different, they were ultimately examined and condemned by the Council of Trent -- again, without the use of a creed, since no existing creed clearly proved Luther wrong. 
 
This has been a very long response to your concerns, and I hope I have not imposed unduly. I have drawn heavily on the reference texts in my home library -- books on Christian theology and Church history -- and if you need some citations, I\'ll be happy to oblige.

http://journal.earthwitness.org/the-quaker-magpie-journal/

IP: 68.13.162.248

Guest

14. 02-14-2007 11:00

Creedal Thing

Marshall, 
 
Thanks so much for the clarification, and it was not too long. I actually started recalling some things from my previous life at seminary in my distant past. Since Baptists and Quakers (my religious background) are not hierarchical, both follow a version of the "priesthood of the believer", and each meeting or congregation is independent in all matters, the concepts of doctrine, dogma, and creeds were not so clear. I was confusing dogma and creeds. Your explanation was quite helpful.  
 
For the purposes of the article I wrote, I believe I would need to modify it to include dogma as well as creeds as an attempt to "glue the tuning pegs on your zither". Would it not be true that dogma, like creeds, requires an authoritative structure to impose itself on a group. Or to say it differently, would not a dogma require the interceding of an authority between you and god? Otherwise, one person's dogma is another person's heresy and the terms lose any useful meaning.

http://palmettofriends.org

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered

15. 02-15-2007 07:14

That Credal Thing

I don't think dogmas necessarily require a human power structure for their establishment. The core Quaker dogmas -- the ones described in Barclay's Apology -- are dogmas that were established because Friends collectively felt a divine imperative that these things must be taught. No human made Barclay, or Fox, or any other Quaker apologist, teach these things, and no human made Quaker meetings agree that these things were essential to their faith and practice. But so they were.

http://journal.earthwitness.org/the-quaker-magpie-journal/

IP: 68.13.162.248

Guest

16. 02-15-2007 11:35

That creedal thing

Marshall, 
 
I thought I understood what you meant by dogma, but I am not so sure now. Are dogmas the set of beliefs that are taught by the meetings and that are generally believed by its members? If the people in our meeting have a general agreement about religious matters would that establish the dogmas of our meeting? Since our membership changes over the years, do the dogmas also change? Should we look to meetings of decades ago for our dogmas? Or centuries ago?  
 
I guess it is not clear to me what \"established\" means in your sentence, \"dogmas were established because Friends collectively felt a divine imperative ...\".  
 
To come to unity in our yearly meeting or even the local Friends Meeting about something much less complicated than a dogma, like the wording of a brochure or a faith and practice document, can be tedious and brings light to differences in understanding that would not have otherwise been apparent. How would we know what the dogma is that is \"established\" if it is not established by a human structure?

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered

17. 02-15-2007 22:34

That Credal Thing

Okay, this is going to be a long one. Because it looks like we need to get definitional, doesn't it? 
 
In what follows, I will be drawing on the definitions and discussions of the terms "doctrine" and "dogma" contained in the following texts: 
 
1) Van A. Harvey, A Handbook of Theological Terms (Macmillan, 1964) 
2) Joseph A. Komonchak, Mary Collins and Dermot A. Lane, eds., The New Dictionary of Theology (Liturgical Press, 1987) 
3) Sinclair B. Ferguson, David F. Wright, and J. I. Packer, eds., New Dictionary of Theology (InterVarsity, 198 
4) Gerald O'Collins and Edward G. Farrugia, A Concise Dictionary of Theology (Paulist, 1991) 
5) E. A. Livingstone, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (Oxford, 2000) 
 
I will also be drawing on the Greek text of the New Testament, and on various Quaker documents as you will see. 
 
I list these sources to make myself accountable -- you can look them up to see how I am using them, or suggest better alternatives if you please. 
 
The word "doctrine" means "teaching". In its most simplistic sense, Church doctrine may be defined as Church teaching in all its many forms. Similarly, Quaker doctrine may be defined as the teaching of our Religious Society in all the forms that teaching takes. Doctrine is intended not only to convey the ideas that define and shape our religion, but also to nourish religious life and worship. 
 
In the Christian world generally, the most basic doctrine is the kerygma about Christ's life, death, resurrection and rôle as Savior, which collectively set apart Christianity from all other religions. But there is room in Christianity for additional doctrine, or doctrines, beyond this nucleus, and the additional doctrines of the Church consist of all those other teachings that follow naturally from the words and deeds of Christ, and speak to particular times and circumstances in ways that are of benefit to seekers and believers. In some parts of the Christian world, for example the Roman Catholic church, these doctrines are fairly well organized and codified; in other parts, they are left more fluid. 
 
Turning then from the Christian world at large, to the Quaker world at large, we must distinguish between the different parts of the Quaker world: 
 
1) In the most emphatically Christian parts of the Quaker world, including EFI, the Holiness yearly meetings, the non-FGC portion of FUM, and some smaller communities elsewhere, the most basic doctrine is likewise the kerygma about Christ's life, death, resurrection and rôle as Savior. 
 
2) In the most traditional parts of the Quaker world, such as Ohio (Conservative) and scattered communities elsewhere, the most basic doctrine is probably the kerygma of the Holy Spirit and Christ's Presence in the midst. 
 
3) In the least Christian parts of the Quaker world, such as FGC, the independent Beanite yearly meetings, and Britain Yearly Meeting, the most basic doctrine is probably the teaching of the Light within each person. 
 
As with the rest of the Christian world, all parts of the Quaker world also have lesser doctrines, such as the doctrine of pacifism, the doctrine of simplicity, etc., that follow naturally from whatever source is pointed to by the basic doctrine, and that speak to particular times and circumstances. 
 
Now to "dogma". This is a concept that has evolved markedly through the centuries. 
 
The term "dogma" is derived from the Greek word meaning "that which seems good". Its archetypal use in the New Testament is in Acts 16:4, where it refers to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem concerning (among other things) the admission of Gentiles to the young Church. Luke writes in Acts 16:4: "As they went through the towns, [Paul, Silas and Timothy] delivered to [their listeners] the things-which-seemed-good (dogmata) that had been arrived at by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem, (for them) to keep." 
 
And this passage, Acts 16:4, in turn refers us back to Luke's description of how the apostles and elders arrived at those same dogmata in Jerusalem -- a description which we may find in Acts 15:28, where we are told that the apostles and elders wrote, "It seemed good (edozen gar) to the Holy Spirit and to us, that nothing more should be imposed on you than these (minimally) necessary things...." We may note that the idea of something seeming good is described using different words in verse 15:28 from the word used in verse 16:4 -- edozen gar instead of dogmata -- and yet it is indisputably the same idea. In the book of Acts, therefore, a dogma is something that seems good to the Holy Spirit and to the weightiest members of the Church. 
 
Historically, the Christian Church took from this primordial dogma-story these three lessons: first, that dogmas are far more serious and binding than mere doctrines -- indeed, they must be utterly binding on true believers; second, that a dogma must be grounded in God's revelation, either immediately or (more commonly) via scripture; third, that a dogma cannot be established except by the highest authority of the Church, which in the Orthodox and Catholic world swiftly came to mean the high Church Councils. 
 
Of course, with the schism between Roman Catholicism and the Orthodox churches of the East, and later with the outbreak of the Reformation, there have been disagreements about exactly which Church Councils have had sufficient authority to establish (or clarify) dogmas. The Roman Catholic world recognizes all its Church Councils down to Second Vatican, and also the ex cathedra pronouncements of the Pope on faith and morals. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglican churches regard only seven Councils as sufficiently authoritative ("genuinely ecumenical"), and do not accept the claims to authority of the Pope. And the Reformed tradition -- the Protestant world outside Anglicanism -- accepts only four councils, so that, when it uses the term "dogma" at all, it restricts the application of the term to the formula of the Trinity and the christological formulations of those four councils. 
 
But the Roman Catholics, the Eastern Orthodox, the Anglicans, and the Reformed churches, would all unite behind Karl Rahner's description of what "dogma" means today: "A proposition which the Church explicitly propounds as revealed by God in such a way that its denial is condemned by the Church as heresy and anathematized." 
 
Note how much of a change this is from what the dogmata were in Acts 16:4. There was no threat of being branded a heretic or being anathematized in Acts 16:4. The apostles' hearers were "to keep" (psylassein, "to guard, to watch over, to protect, to preserve") what was being proclaimed to them, but this Greek verb does not mean "obey" as one obeys a commandment, it means "preserve" as one preserves an insight or a wisdom. Luke is describing a process in which Paul, Silas and Timothy were calling their hearers to rise to their best and do their very highest in response to this doing of the highest and best by the apostles and elders in Jerusalem. They were not laying down laws the violation of which would be punishable by anathematization. 
 
So the modern meaning of "dogma" in the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican and Reformed world, is a serious departure from the spirit of scripture. This is important. And the early Friends recognized that this was so. We might benefit by listening carefully to Friend Robert Barclay, in his early work The Anarchy of the Libertines, §VI: 
 
"...Here lay the debate: some thought it not needful to circumcise the Gentiles; others thought it a thing not to be dispensed with: and no doubt of these (for we must remember they were ... such as had already believed in Christ) there were [some] that did it out of conscience, as judging circumcision to be still obligatory. For they said thus, except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. Now what course took the church of Antioch in these cases? Acts 15.2. They determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain other of them should go unto Jerusalem, unto the apostles and elders, about this question. We must not suppose they wanted the Spirit of God at Antioch to have decided the matter, neither that these apostles neglected or went from their inward guide in undertaking the journey; yet we see, they judged it meet in this matter to have the advice and concurrence of the apostles and elders that were at Jerusalem, that they might all be of one mind in the matter. For there is no greater property of the Church of Christ, than pure unity in the Spirit; that is, a consenting and oneness in judgment and practices in matters of faith and worship (which yet admits of different measures, growths and motions, but never contrary and contradictory ones... therefore prayeth Christ, That they all may be one, as he and the Father is one." 
 
And so the first Friends threw out even the four councils accepted by the Reformed tradition, regarding them as part of the period of apostasy -- for those Councils had never proceeded as the apostles and elders had done in Jerusalem, but had engaged in intellectualizing, and wrangling, and power struggles, never coming to true oneness, but neglecting the Holy Spirit. And the Friends determined to begin afresh, as the apostles and elders had begun in Jerusalem, with the example and teachings of Christ and the merciful, loving guidance of the Spirit. 
 
The first Friends put great store by the exact phrasing of Acts 15:28 -- the standard for early Quaker discernment was what seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to their weightiest members. Not what was logically derivable from this-and-that scriptural text or this-and-that theological proposition, but what seemed good. Thus did dogma, in the Quaker world, cease to be a matter of what one is supposed to believe intellectually, and became, instead, a matter of truths known in the heart, the conscience and the æsthetic sense. 
 
This decision to base dogma, not on logic and the intellect, but on the sense of "what seems good", had other consequences as well. Friends still anathematized those who departed from their dogmas in the first generation, but they learned fast from their hearts, and in later generations they only disowned those who departed from their dogmas, without shunning or excluding those they'd disowned. "Disownment" meant merely a public statement that the person disowned was not behaving as a Friend and had therefore been deprived of formal membership and of a rôle in the Quaker community's decision-making process. There was no longer any anathematizing, let alone any shunning, nor was there any pronouncement of "heresy". The gentleness of the heart melted down by Christ now ruled. 
 
The very word "dogma" was abandoned -- though the reality which the word points to, still survived. The declaration of 1660 established much basic dogma for Friends, even though it was not written as a creed. The writings of George Fox and Robert Barclay added further dogma. The lists of testimonies in the Quaker minute books of the eighteenth century, and in the Quaker books of discipline of the nineteenth centuries, were dogmatic lists: the teaching of these testimonies, as mandatory rules, was the teaching of the dogma of Quakerism, and those who behaved in a way that said they didn't accept this teaching were eldered and, if things went far enough, disowned. 
 
But whenever Friends elevated a teaching to dogmatic status, it was always under the oversight of councils of their weightiest members -- yearly meetings in which their ministers, elders and overseers had special weight -- who in turn were under, not just the corrective guidance, but the outright rule of the Holy Spirit. 
 
"Meet often together and wait upon God for his teaching alone in a cross to your own wills, for therein is the secrets of God revealed." -- Thus James Nayler, who was second only to George Fox himself in the early Quaker leadership, writing "to all dear Brethren and Friends in Holderness, and in the east parts of Yorkshire" in 1653. Note that bit about the "cross to your own wills": if the discernment did not contradict what the Friends involved would personally have preferred, the Friends involved were inclined to treat it as suspect. No one, even in the leadership, wanted to be ruled by the selfish desires of men. 
 
Were these Quaker dogmas, then, established by a human power structure? Some might still answer, Yes, they were. But Friends have historically testified otherwise. They would say that these things were made dogmas precisely because they seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and the weighty Friends who were present saw that this was so. The weighty Friends did not play the rôle of a power structure in this; they were simply a trusted agency of discernment, just as the apostles and elders in Jerusalem had been before them. The one real power in the picture was the Holy Spirit itself. All else was a matter of believers uniting around what the Holy Spirit had revealed. 
 
Here I quote from a document issued in 1925 by London Yearly Meeting's Revision Committee (the committee charged with formulating revisions of the yearly meeting's Book of Discipline): "It is in the unity of common fellowship, we believe, that we shall most surely learn the will of God. We cherish, therefore, the tradition which excludes voting from our meetings, and trust that clerks and Friends generally will observe the spirit of it, not permitting themselves to be influenced in their judgment either by mere numbers or by persistence. The clerk should be content to wait upon God with the meeting, as long as may be necessary for the emergence of a decision which clearly commends itself to the heart and mind of the meeting as the right one." 
 
This is not a description of how a human power structure determines things. It is a description of how a group of humans lets God determine things. And this is the process Friends have used in working out their dogmas, just as it is the process they have used in working out lesser decisions.

http://journal.earthwitness.org/the-quaker-magpie-journal/

IP: 68.13.162.248

Guest

18. 02-17-2007 20:07

That creedal thing

This certainly sheds more light on your beliefs, but it seems that we are not in total agreement. 
 
On doctrine, what you say seems pretty clear and I have no question about it except to say that I assume you are speaking of general tendencies rather than complete uniformity. As for the doctrine of the teaching of the Light in FGC Friends, my perception is that the uniformity has more to do with the choice of words used than uniformity in conceptual understanding. I cannot really speak about the other groups. Perhaps there is more uniformity there.  
 
As for your examples of dogma and its evolution, I have no reason to doubt the history you present. The question of whether the human structures from which such decisions emerged were truly letting God determine things or not I cannot say. I can say that I can not believe something that does not have the ring of truth to me simply because a group of people presented it as coming from God. I have heard too many religious people speaking for God to just accept something as truth because it is said to be from God. Of course, a person or a body of people whom I respect and whom I feel are seeking truth in honesty will have my attention and will lead me to serious questions about whether I am blind to truth in some way. I perhaps have more comfort with ambiguity than many, but I am not able to bring myself to believe a set of concepts that do not have the ring of truth to me. 
 
As for the evolution of dogma, I suggest that it may still be evolving even in dialogs such as the one we are having. 
 
My initial question, though, was more about the ability of concepts found in dogma, doctrine, philosophy, creeds, and even everyday thought to communicate truth. I gave examples of how even everyday concepts like that of the taste of something cannot capture the "truth" of the actual taste, nor can the concepts communicate the taste to another person. It is even more evident that concepts in the realm of religious thought cannot be contained by language nor can religious experience be communicated by language. At best, the doctines, dogmas, philosophies, and notions we have about things serve as bridges to truth, and who is to say how many different bridges may be available.  
 
Moreover, most of the doctrines and dogmas were written in the world view of another age and do not function the same way now as they did in that age. What is important is the truth that is beyond concepts that we believe the early Christians knew.  
 
It appears to me, though, tat the doctrines of the Church today are just as likely to lead to fantasy as truth. Our doctrines need to continue to evolve, and we must use the conceptual framework of people today to build bridges to the truth we see. 
 
One could argue that it is not possible to distinquish the concepts from the reality as I have done. But currently that is how I perceive reality. The notions are in our minds, like our language is in our minds. They do not exist apart from our thoughts, though they may point to a truth that is not verbal or conceptual. In my way of thinking, using creeds, dogmas, and generally accepted doctrines to classify some concept as heresy may conserve the forms of our tradition, but that does not mean we are preserving the essence. It is my opinion that while at times dogma may have served to keep people from taking bridges to fantasy, it is used more today to stifle our search for the Truth of God that is beyond all concepts and notions in an attempt to validate people and institutions who depend on those forms for their self identity.

IP: 151.213.107.242

Registered