Timothy Travis: There is a spirit...

Fri, 25 Feb 2005 12:46:42 GMT

I came across a new understanding of "idols" this morning--not completely new, just nuanced. It was in the New Living Translation that my daughter uses. John 5:21 says:

"Little children, keep away from anything that might take God's place in your heart."

Both the King James Version and the New International Version translate that verse as "Keep away from idols."

If an idol is something that takes God's place in my heart then...

by what standard am I judged?

by what rules do I live?

by what principles am I guided?

by whom am I taught?

by what am I guarded?

In the end, where am I safe?

Perhaps there is a clue to the importance of this right above this verse, in 1 John 5:19.

"We know we are children of God but the world around us is under the power and control of the Evil One."

I think this is what all that early Quaker talk about the "offices" of Christ is about. Christ is our priest and our minister and our teacher and so on. The Spirit serves these functions for us, present to us and to others through us, as it is present to others and to us through them. (That's what the community is about--another way that God is manifested to us. We cannot look to things other than that immanent Spirit for our guidance.) Those things, things apart from that Spirit are of the world, of the flesh and not of the spirit. Those things come to control us, they become the standards by which our lives are judged , the source of the rules we follow, the principles to which we look to guide our lives, the teachers to whom we look to make sense of our experience, the means to security, to means to guard ourselves.

All of this the world is pleased to do for us, all of this we are pleased to let the world do for us--because it claims to speak to our needs. But in all of this there is really but one, Christ, the Living Spirit left with us, who can accomplish this in such a way that the result is life and not disappointed, bitter and alienated frustration.

To remove the mystical, present, conscious seeking of God and replace it with "common sense" or an understanding of "the way the world works" is to worship an idol. We are misled when we think of idol worship as dancing around a statute. Idol worship is taking place every time someone says "Well, no one will ever know..." or "If I don't take advantage of this person's vulnerability someone else will..." It is not the flashy car that is the idol, or money. It is not the car or the money we worship. Rather, we worship (and fellowship with) the spirit that tells us--convinces us--that the car or the money will bring us happiness. If that spirit, that idol, had not replaced God in our hearts, we would not be misled.

Sat, 19 Feb 2005 14:13:22 GMT

Works don’t work—but they do.

The paradox. We cannot manipulate God into favoring us. We cannot control God, we cannot bend the Transcendent Reality to our will, by what we do or do not do. Sacrifices and rituals and magic do not obligate the Spirit to bend to our will or to our desires. How many people in how many places and in how many times have learned this through experience? How many spell books have been thrown down in defeated disgust and frustration?

All of us, as children, grew through a phase of magical thinking. Although the incantations we wove were idiosyncratic the chant about avoiding stepping on sidewalk cracks, for fear of breaking our mothers’ backs, for my generation, in my culture, epitomizes them all.

We don’t wholly grow out of this. Aside from sports fans, who true believe that whether or not they watch their favorite team play on television will control the outcome of the game, our culture is riddled with superstition. It is often apparent when people talk about a God who intervenes in our lives on a daily basis that such theology can contain elements of magic and superstition.

Mine does. I believe that if I observe a "practice" or a "discipline" that the Holy Spirit will change me into the creature that God wants me to be, with the explicit promise of salvation here and now as well as there and then.

How is that different from someone who believes that he can make a volcano stop rumbling by throwing a virgin into its fire pit?

Isn’t the practice, the discipline, isn’t that a "work?" Isn’t it something I do for the same reason that some people make and save money? Aren’t we both doing what we think our experience teaches us, what our magic assures us, will "save us" from what we fear?

Aren’t I actually trying to manipulate the Transcendent Reality with my Bible reading and worship and my participation in the life of the meeting?

Perhaps, I tell myself, I am trying to manipulate myself, trying to bend myself to the will of God rather than the other way around. It’s what I tell myself, it’s what I believe. "Not my will, but yours…"

In the end, or at least what looks to me, today, to be the end, it’s about faith—faith in the works, faith that produces works. It’s faith that all this counter-intuitive stuff that the Spirit leads us into produces the works—the condition—to which we are exhorted in the Bible and other spiritual writings, exhorted by God/the Spirit as we walk our walk, avoiding the sidewalk cracks.

Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:48:36 GMT

Trials can clear up our mistaken impressions about ourselves. Trials can show us who we are. Good times allow us to rest on our illusions about ourselves and about the world. Trials show us what we are really made of, how far we have come and how far we have to go.

Blessing comes from enduring temptation. Trials change us, or give us the opportunity to be changed.

Wed, 16 Feb 2005 13:02:13 GMT

My own thought is that temptation is driven by the lie that some need of mine will be satisfied if I do what I have been told not to do and if I do not do what I have been told to do.

The truth is that this need, whatever it is, will actually be made bigger if I do what I have been told not to do, if I do not obey the exhortation to behave righteously. The need will actually grow in the way that a hole becomes deeper when, rather than putting dirt into it we shovel more out.

We have been shown the way to satisfy our needs, the greatest of which is, contrary to our conditioning and our culture, being loved. Sin seems to me to be either a wrong approach to seeking to be loved or trying to put something in our lives to replace it.

Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:13:57 GMT

Quaker writings (eg Penington) often speaks of "forms" and how things once "of the Spirit" degenerate into hollow or rigid forms. The Balby letter, after laying out what seem to be some fairly rigid rules about how to do things warns Friends about accepting these as "forms" although apparently exhorting them to accept these as something else. Mostly we understand this talk of forms in terms of ritual, empty ritual, the going through the motions, even with the best of intentions, rather than living the experience that the ritual (the form) is intended to be.

I found an intereting example of this in regared to the meaning of "The Law" as that phrase is used in Psalm 1.

²But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.

"the law," in my Hebrew-Greek Key Word Bible, is designated with the number 8451 and is, in the Hebrew, Torah. And exerpt from the discussion of this word is:

"So Torah was much more than a law or set of rules. It was not to be perceived as restrictions but the very means by which one could reach a spiritual ideal. If Israel would keep the Torah, then Israel would be kept safe. However, the people came to understand it as something which was imposed for its own sake rather than what God intended them to become."

The Law, once seen as a spirit filled way, becomes the form that Jesus condemns in his day. He does not condemn the law, but the way it is responded to, the practice it has become. For in the sermon on the mount he says:

¹⁷Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

¹⁸For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

¹⁹Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but

whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

²⁰For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom

of heaven.

It is not the observance of the Parisees, the going through the motions, the adherance to the form, that would lead to the entrance into heaven. It was the righteousness, the product of the The Law, the product of actually living The Way. This is what he came to fulfill.

Sat, 22 Jan 2005 14:49:11 GMT

I am taken with how different it is to read the Bible from a Quaker perspective, about how things jump out that did not, before, about how much richer the experience is. All of the stuff about the Spirit being the inward teacher, about a God who is available to show us what is right and empowers us to do it was always in there but I never saw so much of it as I do, now.

The phrase "waiting on the Lord" is an example of this. It's so common in the Bible but before the Quaker experience the phrase had a one dimensional meaning to me and was little more than an admonition to have patience with the mysterious but undoubtedly slow pace at which things unfold in God's realm.

But with a perspective on waiting that says that work is being done in that period, that the transformative power of God is bringing about change in us as we wait, and that the waiting is a necessary part of the change, it all means something more. Understanding that we are to wait is an instruction to abide in the discipline that cultivates, in us, this change, this process, this transformation.

For example, 1 Corinthians 4 seems to say that we have to wait to see whether or not people who are have been given trust are worthy of it. And it does say that.

"Judge nothing before the appointed time but wait until the Lord coimnes. He will bring to light that which is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men's hearts."

Sooner or later if someone is pulling our chain we are going to know it because that person's actions will reveal that to us, the spirit that animates that person will lead them to telling actions, the Spirit will cause people to do convicting things no matter how hard they try to hide their weakness.

But it says more than than. Aside from judging leaders and teachers it guides us in discerning our own response to every day life, discerning our leadings and movements as we respond and react to people and situations around us.

When we set about things we are often moved to act from some place other than than which takes away the occasion of all war, to act in a way we have been conditioned to act by a world built on the false premises and illusions of earthly wisdom. We are often motivated, at least in the first place, by fear or greed or hurt feelings or lust or pride. But the Spirit will, if we wait, work on these things and over come them, show us what is going on and show us the way out of the destructive control of these motives. The Light will expose these to us when they are in us, when they are moving us, and, once exposed, give us the strength and the power to withstand this temptation to be animated by them. The transformative power of God will enable us, if we give it time and attention, to act in a way that edifies us and comforms us to that power.

And it is in waiting on the Lord/Spirit/transformative power of God that the snares are melted away in us, in which the dross is burned away, when the scales are caused to fall. Waiting...

Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:53:07 GMT

On SRQ it was posted:

> But I dare to hope that convinced Friends will recall
>our obligations to non violence and individual liberty.

To which I replied:

While these two values are a part of the creed of a certain type of
contemporary libertarianism, Friends have no obligation to either.
They are both at variance with the traditional Quaker discernment that
developed in the mid seventeenth century. This is a discernment that
still survives so as to form the basis of spiritual aspiration for
some Friends, despite the workings of various impulses that have moved
others away from it, in one direction or another, through the years.

Thus it is that among those who call themselves Friends, at the
beginning of the 21st Century, there are many beliefs and one is
challenged to find some thing, any thing, that can be said to be
common to all who self identify with the Religious Society of Friends.

Some Friends have embraced political, economic and social creeds, and
the ideologies that are developed from them. The fact that some may
do so does not create any obligation on the part of other Friends to
adopt those creeds, to conform to the orders these creeds espouse or
to abandon the guidance of the Spirit in favor of rationalistic
ideologies. While Friends are certainly free to walk these walks it
is confusing (at least to outsiders) to refer to the creeds that
underlie them as something to which Friends in general have
obligations. As I say, I am a loss as to what, precisely, it is that
Friends, in general, have an obligation.

The term "liberty" that was so freely used by founding Friends had an
entirely different meaning than what "individual liberty" means in the
libertarian ideology of today. As another current thread in this
newsgroup makes clear, the definition of a word can "drift" over a
period of time. This drift makes it possible to ascribe beliefs to
people long ago that would distort their message, even with a complete
absence of malice.

The peace testimony, as developed at the dawn of the Quaker covenant,
was not, and for some Friends still is not, a synonym for what
contemporary Americans mean by "non violence."

"Friends are not opposed to all forms of coercion. Proper police
activities, incidental to carrying out the rightful purposes of the
state and directed solely against persons who refuse to abide by the
law, seem necessary and helpful. From its earliest days, however,
the Society has held that war is contrary to the will of God, and it
has counseled its members to refuse to bear arms or to accept
membership in military forces." (Faith and Practice, North Pacific
Yearly Meeting)

socialism--libertarianism--capitalism...although some Friends have
embraced these ideologies, and other ideologies, some other Friends have
continued to find unity in the traditional Quaker discernment that
there is but one, Christ, who can speak to our condition, both that
condition as it is and what it can become under the guidance and the
transformative power of God, the Spirit, the Light, The Word.

Fri, 26 Nov 2004 13:48:23 GMT

Years ago an acquaintance of mine suggested that we don't need to
figure out how to redistribute the wealth in this country, at least
not directly. We need to figure out how to redistribute the work.

If, for example, lawyers, notorious for the number of hours a week
they work, could be convinced to spend only 50 hours a week at work,
instead of the 60-70 of which we read in polls, their physical and
emotonal health would improve, as would their family lives. Many
benefits would accrue to them and there would be work for other
lawyers, who are not making as much money (don't be misled by averages
of which you read about lawyer earnings--income is very unevenly
distributed).

I heard, within the last year or so, of a well known television, radio
and book writing pundit who said that if he had to pay any more tax
that he was going to shut his operation down. He didn't need to make
any more money, he said, and it wouldn't be worth it to him if his
income was limited so he would just quit and put everyone who depended
on his operation out of work. My thought was "good," and not just
because I don't particularly like what this person has to say. My
thought was that he and his family would be better off (having heard
him describe his work and family life a time or two on the air) and
there would be opportunity for someone else to earn a better living
than they do by filling his air time, by having the public's book
buying money go to other authors who need the money. All those people
he is always reminding us that he "supports" would work for those who
flowed into the space his absence would create.

I am not into passing laws (or repealing them) as a means of trying to
reshape the world. If I were I would suggest that a 100% tax on
income above a certain level would give people incentive to stop
working (at least stop making money--there is plenty of good "work"
needing to get done--starting in our own homes--that does not involve
a monetary pay off) so others would have opportunity and so that they
would have time for other endeavors. That's as good or bad an idea as
*any* legislative social engineering. I would hope that people would
develop (or have developed in them) values and light such that they
would realize how they are damaging themselves by putting a
disproportionate amount of themselves into making money (it's an
obsession in our culture, which is in many ways a secular--and, to
some evangelists, a spriritual--fertility cult) and, like John
Woolman, would see how limiting their trade would improve their
condition.

We are led to believe that puting all this effort, all of ourselves,
into making money is the way to "security" for ourselves and our
families. The Adversary (often through investment and life insurance
advertising) tells us we are doing it for our families, for our
children. Like all sin, greed (which does not necessarily manifest
itself negatively toward others but is characterized by a
disproportionate emphasis on one's own needs) does not deliver what it
promises. Instead of making our lives better our being centered on
prosperity and "security" actually gets us out of right relationship
and makes us less secure.

Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:31:51 GMT

So American churches have $180,000,000,000 tied up in buildings (while millions of children starve in Niger, Mali, and in other places)

to honor a God who, by that God's own revelation, does not live in temples built with hands.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Sat, 30 Oct 2004 15:13:24 GMT

>          What counts as debate here is Justine Record and
>     William Rassman, two friends from nearby Marion, in a heated
>     discussion about whether God directly determined Bush's
>     election and the Iraq War (he says) or whether human free
>     will had some small hand in it (she says).

"Now our work in the world is to hold forth the virtues of him that
hath called us; to live like God; not to own any thing in the world
which God doth not own; to forget our country, our kindred, our
father's house, and to live like persons of another country, of
another kindred, of another family; not to do any thing of ourselves,
and which is pleasing to the old nature; but all our words, all our
conversation, yeah, every thought in us, is to become new.

"We are also to be witnesses for God, and to propagate his life in the
world; to be instruments in his hand, to bring others out of death and
captivity into true life and liberty. We are to fight against the
powers of darkness everywhere, as the Lord calleth us forth.

"...our only controversy is with that which captives and makes them
miserable; for we fight not all with flesh and blood, but with the
principality and power which led from God, and rule in it against God,
to the poor creature's ruin and destruction.

"...we are not man's enemies, against no righteous law, not against
relations, not against governments,not against any thing in the world
that is good; but only against that which is evil and corrupt. And of
a truth, the corruption of things God hath shown us, and daily calls
us forth after an immediate manner to witness against."

  Isaac Penington
  from
             A brief Account of what we are, and what our work
  is in the world (from "The Way of LIfe and Death
  made manifest, and set before men)

Tue, 26 Oct 2004 15:40:21 GMT

On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 13:54:26 -0700, M----------- A----------- wrote:

>Timothy,
>
>Is there something relatively compact which talks about the current (Book of) Discipline revision process? How much are you expecting to revise? New sections? What is driving this?

There isn't anything extant that explains what we are up to, except small snippets in various minutes of the NPYM steering committee.

It all started with the recent recurring ruckus over the junior friends and the five or six year struggle to get control of that situation, mostly by drawing the line between the high school and the post high school people who congregated under that banner.

I was one of the parents concerned about having his children, at fourteen, hanging out with junior friends in their mid twenties, especially because of increasing and well documented instances of...well, perhaps you know all about it. If not, just leave it at it was not a wholesome scene (from the point of view of the parents) and many families from all over the YM were reluctant to allow their children to participate.

In working with this situation I learned that the Discipline had some things to say about what was junior friends and what was not. When I pointed out that junior friends was supposed to be a high school group I was told that was "changed" since the book was published. I took the position that the process of change described in the Discipline, itself, had not been followed in order to make these changes and that, therefore, these changes should be changed back until such time as the changes I was told we had to live with were made by the process that was shown to us the last time we were in unity. (I was led to minister at a business meeting at YM, when we were in the midst of some rather trying times through which I explained we would not be struggling as we were at that moment if we had followed the Faith and Practice. We were out of right relationship, I preached in the scolding way I can when I run beyond God's light and start working with my own, with one another because we had not followed the process. If we had worked with these changes that were causing problems by using the process in the Discipline we would not have the disunity).

The process for selecting junior friends advisors that is described in the Discipline did not work out, for some reason, and people just improvised. They did not seek to incorporate this improvisation into the Discipline and that started a process in which other improvisations were made (including expanding the age of membership upward) without the process of the Discipline involved. Once these improvisations that were contrary to the Discipline were pointed out to the junior friends, and to their advisors, they took the position that since these were now the practices they followed that it was "Quaker process" to continue to follow them until the YM reached unity to go back to what was in the Discipline (or to something else).

I also learned, when I came on steering committee, that, contrary to the Discipline, steering committee itself often "changed" the Faith and Practice through its own process without consulting with the monthly meetings about the efficacy of these changes. There is an index of such changes that have been made over the years.

The book we call our Faith and Practice does not describe our practice because there have been changes made by the steering committee and by other less "formal" means. The book, if read by an outsider or even by Friends, does not give an accurate picture of what's happening or how we do things.

Also, in the process of becoming a monthly meeting, we in Bridge City discovered that the guidance about that process is both vague and ambiguous. As we turned to other meetings that had recently attained that status we discovered that they had gone through frustration similar to ours in "making it up as they went along."

I became clerk of this committee very reluctantly. I have a conservative view of the role of a Discipline in that I believe it's a reflection of the unity of Friends as discerned from the movement of God/the Spirit/the Transcendent Reality among us and that it is not to be deviated from lightly and certainly not to be deviated from just because those who are doing the deviation have not made themselves familiar with what's in the book, in the first place. No, I don't believe it has to followed as a form, but I do think that when people make changes they should go through the process to institutionalize those changes and make them known to others. That way, not only does everyone know what's what but everyone has the opportunity to provide light to the process of change.

I was put on the committee because I was so outspoken about the need to follow the Discipline, including changing it by the process it outlines. When I was asked to clerk the committee I said I didn't want to do it because I am so strongly identified with this conservative position (there are others who believe that the Discipline is a mere suggestion to be followed or not. This dispute is organized around different readings to the post script of the Balby Letter--see, aren't you glad you asked?) and I didn't want the process of working on the Discipline to be weighed down by the reluctance of those who hold a view different from mine, by their thinking that I would be pushing my own agenda.

D---- F----, who was on Nominating, took my answer back to the committee, he reported to me. He said that he believed that when I was clerk of Bridge City Preparative Meeting my clerking didn't reveal my own feelings about the various matters of business that came up, even when he knew I had strong feelings about a particular agenda item. He came back and told me that the committee wanted me to consider whether or not acting in the role of clerk might check my own partisan feelings about things and at the same time give the YM the benefit of my concern and leading in regard to working with the Discipline. Be that as it will work out or not, it was the light I saw in agreeing to clerk the committee and I have asked Friends, and will continue to remind them that I have asked, that they hold me to that light.

We changed the name from the discipline committee (which the Faith and Practice says is supposed to be an ongoing group but which steering committee some time ago "laid down" by its own--not the Discipline's--process) because "discipline committee" sounds as though it functions as the vice principal. Committee on the Discipline is the nomenclature we are working with, now, and, yes, I am aware of the irony that steering committee made that change, which I wanted, in its own extra-Faith and Practiced process, the following of which is, in my view, part of the problem.

Our first step was to get the Discipline into a form we could work with and so one of our committee members scanned it into a word file.

Our next step is going to be to go through index of changes that steering committee has made over the years and integrate those into the Faith and Practice where they "fit in." That will give us an up to date version of what we are actually operating under. I think it will be interesting to make that available to the monthly meetings so that Friends can see just how different the book in their hand is from what the "official" Discipline is. I anticipate that will create some issues for us to look at, as a YM.

I also think that there will be other suggestions from Friends about things that should be looked at (among these, I think, will be additional guidance for preparative meetings wishing to become monthly meetings). Who knows where this will go? Well, of course, God knows, but I mean besides God, who knows where this will go?

So, there you have it. This is going to be difficult because the members of the committee come from the different Quarterlies and we are spread out. Meeting will be challenging. Also, no one from Montana has yet come forward to be part of the process, but we are working on that. The committee, so far, consists of H--- D---, J--- T-----, D------T---, S---- K------, D-- C------- and me.

I believe that what has happened in regard to the Faith and Practice (and this is my own personal belief with which I know that many will take exception) is that in neglecting the unity to which we all came at one time and place, and updating "process" by some without updating that unity, caused us to fall into grave disunity which created much discord and division among us. I believe that having a Discipline that describes who we are and how we do things is far more important than other people seem to believe it is. I realize that the campsites of our ancestors are not to be clung to without question, but I also think they are not be discarded without understanding why they provided safe rest and haven to them.

As I say, aren't you glad that you asked?

Timothy

"The experience of being gathered by God leads into
the experience of being guided by God. This was not
just the experience of individuals, as important
though this is. The key to the development of
Quakerism is the understanding of corporate
guidance which tests and informs individual
leadings. At the heart of this is the meeting
for worship where Christ, the Inward Light,
is present and is met. Fox often wrote that Christ
has come to teach his people himself. From this
teaching comes Quaker faith and practice."

            The book of Christian Discipline
           of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends
           in Britain (second edition)

Sat, 11 Sep 2004 16:35:17 GMT

(posted 9/11/04 at alt.soc.quaker)

George Fox was committed to jail in Lancaster, in 1660, on an
indictment he was not allowed to see. He was informed of its
contents, however, by Friends who talked to his jailer. In his
journal, on page 347 of the edition edited by Rufus Jones, he begins
his answer to that "sealed indictment." On page 350 he reaches the
point at which he answers to the charge that he, and Quakers in
general, are "fanatics." He writes:

"And as for the word fanatic, which signifies furious, foolish, mad,
etc., he (his accuser, one Justice Porter) might have considered
himself before he had used that word, and have learned the humility
which goes before honour. We are not furious, foolish or mad; but
through patience and meekness have borne lies, slanders and
persecutions many years, and have undergone great sufferings. The
spiritual man, that wrestles not with flesh and blood, and the Spirit
that reproves sin in the gate, which is the Spirit of Truth, wisdom,
and sound judgment, is not mad, foolish, furious, which fanatic
signifies; but all are of a mad, furious, foolish spirit in that their
furiousness, foolishness and rage wrestle with flesh and blood with
carnal weapons. This is not the Spirit of God, but of error, that
persecutes in a mad, blind zeal, like Nebuchadnezzar and Saul."

I reached this passage yesterday at the end of my reading time, and
having a very general sense of it, marked it for more careful
consideration this morning. It is on September 11 that I turn back to
it and, after more than an hour, have not moved beyond it. This is
the anniversary of the attacks that have brought on this War on
Terrorism, perhaps more aptly titled the War of Terror. This is a fit
statement to consider, on this occasion. What a coincidence. Perhaps
not.

As it describes those involved in any war with outward, carnal
weapons, so this passage describes the people who are engaged in
this so-called war. Our President, and many, many others, believe
themselves to be engaged in a struggle with a group of people.
Rather, he chooses to be engaged in a struggled with a group of
people, insterad of struggling with the spirit that animates them,
instead of the power they serve. The President serves a power of his
own, and pits it against that of those he sees as his enemies.
Perhaps he actually serves the same power they do, a power which,
controlling both, is manifested, glorified, magnified, sustained and
extended in the world--displacing the kingdom/realm of God.

Both the President and his enemies see themselves as and claim to be
glorifying God in this struggle with carnal weapons. Neither side can
get far into its rap without getting to the claim that its side is
serving God and opposing evil.

Yet both manifest the fury, rage and persecution which Fox described
(to one who accused him rudely), earlier in his Journal (p 286), as
signs of reprobation (which means moral abandon, unworthiness, evil,
not enduring trial or proof, according to my dictionary).

Fox also revealed the source of such reprobation and fanaticism when
Judge Fell asked him the source of the persecution Fox endured. He
answered that such people manifested the fruits of their priests and
ministers, and in such behavior of fury, rage and persecution,
they revealed that the profession and religion of these priests was
wrong.

This gives powerful perspective to our predicament in this War of
Terror. Those engaged in it are captives of such reprobation. Both
believe--and are taught and are confirmed by their (hireling human)
ministers and priests-- that their evil is actually good, that their
unworthiness is worthy and that their immorality is the highest moral
order. Each side fairly accurately assesses the other, in a limited
sense, but does not see that it actually describes itself, as well.
(Lay a speech of President Bush and of Osama Bin Laden side by side.
It's chilling to read one in context of the other). Each side peers
around the log in its own eye and rails about the speck in the eye of
the other. Each one's corrupt ways are approved by their culture and
the religions that serve them--each one's corrupt ways have finally
made them blind.

Every Quaker knows that there is but one who can speak to this, the
human condition(ing).

"For Christ is come, and doth dwell and reign in the hearts of his
people. Thousands, at the door of whose heart he hath been knocking,
have opened to him, and he is come in, and doth sup with them, and
they with him; the heavenly supper with the heavenly and spiritual
man." Fox, Journal, Jones Edition, p 264.

May God have mercy on us all.

Timothy Travis
Bridge City Friends Meeting
Portland, Oregon

"I was never an enemy to the King, nor to any man's person upon the
earth. I am in the love that fulfills the law, which thinks no evil,
but loves even enemies; and would have the King saved, and come to the
knowledge of Truth, and be brought into the fear of the Lord, to
receive his wisdom from above, by which all things are made and
created, that with that wisdom he may order all things to the glory of
God."
                               George Fox
                    Journal (Jones Edition)
         p349

On the job and elsewhere in life, choose your friends
carefully. The company you keep has a way of rubbing
off on you and that can be a good thing, or a bad
thing.

George Bush

Sat, 04 Sep 2004 01:46:32 GMT

Judge Fell asked George Fox to give an account of his persecution at the hands of the people of a certain village. Fox replied, "I told him they could do not otherwise in the spirit wherein they were and that they manifested the fruits of their priests' ministry, and their profession and their religion to be wrong." (Fox's Journal)

How can people be expected to act other than their condition(ing) dictates?

Ezekial 34--the Bad Shepard--"Woe to shepards of Israel who only take care of themselves...you have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or vbound up the injured...you have ruled them harshly and brutally..."

"The one who tries to hide what he don't know, to begin with." (Bob Dylan)

Fox talks about Jesus coming to teach his people himself. Can it be that Jesus can break through all of this conditioning that has shaped people and taught them where to look for truth and guidance? Can the Spirit drown out or undermine the hirelings? How would people even realize that the bad shepard/hireling preacher has defined the world wrongly and so determined that responses to it will be wrong?

Thu, 12 Aug 2004 15:02:40 GMT

It is the evil (one) that both George Bush and Osama Bin Laden serve that is the enemy, not the two men, and it is overcoming this power (and freeing ourselves from its control) and not the victory of one or the other of them, that is our gospel. As I have said before, it is a sobering experience to put a speech describing "the enemy" by one of them next to a speech accomplishing the same purpose by the other. Mirrors, projections, illusions.

Ephesians 6:10 is instructive in this regard, in pointing out the difference between the power and those under it. I have been studying and parsing that section of scripture for a couple of days and below is the result. I do not read Greek and so rely on the lexical aids section of my Key Word Study Bible, King James Version. I would, therefore, appreciate any comments from those who may have more light to shed on these verses. Thank you.

Ephesians 6

10 Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power ("kratos"--ability to hold things together) of his might.

11 Put on the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles ("methodeia"--systematic, methodical efforts) of the devil ("diabolos"--one who falsely accuses and divides people without reason, slanderer).

12 For we wrestle not with flesh and blood (when used together "sarx" and "haima" can mean mankind as opposed to literal flesh and literal blood) but against the principalities ("arche"--rulers of this [carnal?] world), against powers ("exousia"--authority granted by principalities--"arche"--dominion, government, in Pauline writing often evil powers that oppose Christ), against the rulers ("kosmokrator"--a ruler of this [carnal?] world, spoken of evil spirits), of the darkness ("skotos"--sin and misery, person in such states, infernal spirits as opposite to Christ) of this world ("aion"--with its carnal cares, temptations and desires) against spiritual wickedness ("poneria"--characteristic of one not only evil but expressing evil in such a way as to impact others) in high places.

13 Wherefore take unto you the whole armor of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day (that day--or every day--of facing one animated by "poneria," one not only evil but expressing evil in such a way as to impact others), and having done all, to stand.

14 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth ("alethela"--the unveiled reality lying at the basis of and agreeing with appearance), and having the breastplate of righteousness ("dikaiosune"--conformity to all God's commands);

15 And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel ("euggellon"--the good news) of peace ("eirene"--that state of mind brought about by the grace and loving mind of God wherein the derangement and distress of life caused by sin are removed);

16 Above all, taking the shield of faith ("psistos"--knowledge of, assent to and confidence in certain divine truths, especially those of the gospel, as produces good works), wherewith you shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked (those animated by "poneria," one not only evil but expressing evil in such a way as to impact others, or in the service of one so animated; sometimes translated as "the devil" or those under the power of the devil).

17 And take the helmet of salvation ("soteria"--deliverance) and the word of the Spirit ("pneuma"--here best meaning seems to be the ability to think of God, to connect with God, our vertical window of consciousness) which is the word of God.

18. Praying always ("kairos"--whether convenient or not) with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints.

Sat, 07 Aug 2004 14:38:26 GMT

Lusts are the desires that are born of "pathos"--the human condition, the diseased condition of the soul, the alienation from God which is the condition of the "natural person."

These desires are inadequate means to fill the void left by the absence of the peace of God. We delude ourselves into thinking that allowing these desires to guide our lives will fill that void but they will not.

These are the desires that the carnal world appeals to and encourages in us so as to keep us in it and of it, adding our energy to it and thereby adding vitality to it. We are conditioned by the world to respond to the emptiness we feel by satisfying these desires, rather than by turning to the Spirit and allowing it to work in us to create the peace that will truly fill the void. A part of that work is an awareness that any relief we get from our lusts, any filling that they do, is temporary and unsatisfactory, like the way that sugar satisfies hunger. Without that awareness we continue to throw good energy after bad--redoubling our efforts to satisfy our lusts as a means of finding relief from the suffering caused by our alienation from God.

Fri, 07 May 2004 01:14:06 GMT

In SRQ On Wed, 05 May 2004 15:36:02 -0500, It was written

>Timothy Travis writes of

The fact that those who are stewards of Quaker Women's Theological
Conference have thus far been unable to bring themselves to cease
discriminating against men by denying them access to its proceedings.

>
>> tt: from what condition does that spring?
>
>From the sinfulness of humanity, which includes the domination of
>women by men.

and includes both sexes doing harm to one another while animated by
stereotypes and misconceptions about themselves and the other.

>It was to halt such domination that Fox encouraged
>separate men's and women's business meetings in the first place.

I am not of the opinion that is entirely accurate. It seems to me
that the separation of Men's and Women's Meetings "divided labor" to
a great extent, limiting the business of women's meetings to certain
things and men's meetings to certain other things. It shut both men
and women out of certain business of meeting and assigned to women
certain duties that are consistent with our western sexist notions of
what are "natural" and appropriate roles for women.

According to a more or less contemporaneous letter (1674) written by
"the Women Friends in London," an excerpt of which is to be found in
the Faith and Practice of the YM of Great Britain at 19.55, women's
meetings were very much about "women's place" and not about providing
a haven where women could bloom protected from interference by men:
visiting the sick, relieving the poor, elder women exhorting younger
to sobriety, modesty in apparel and subjection to truth...stemming
gossip among women...admonishing women as to the dangers of marrying
unbelievers or being married by priests..." But chiefly our work is,
to help the helpless in all cases, according to our abilities."

As Braithwaite writes in his second volume (p 273),

"It has been sometimes thought, by hasty students of Quaker history,
that the separate Women's Meetings were designed to give women some
share in Church government but not an equal share with men. *That was
indeed the effect of their institution,* but it is clear from this (a
passage from Fox quoted above in the text) and many other passages in
the epistles of Fox that the question whether women should be given
less or more authority was not in his mind. What he was concerned
with was to give them *their* place, their *right* place, and to stir
them up to take it." (all emphases are of course, mine).

Braithwaite goes on to write about Fox "...giving woman her true place
of equal partnership with man" but the fact is that it was not equal
except in the sense of "separate but equal." It was the place that
men assigned to women and that they, caught in the mores of their
time, believed was theirs. (future generations of Quaker women would
not be so limited...as, in fact, even some Quaker women of that time
were not so limited).

Perhaps you have a reference for this assertion that they were created
to protect women from men that I have overlooked or to which I have
not yet been exposed.

Why would men so driven to dominate them allow women to separate if it
made them stronger and more able to resist this domination? I don't
get it. Didn't separate women's and men's business meetings keep
women out of "men's" business and relegate women to "women's"
business, as the sources I cite, above, indicate? Do we believe,
today, that there is business, as early Friends seem to have believed,
in a meeting that is "men's" and other that is "women's?"

Braithwaite quotes Fox in his first Volume (p 341) as saying that he
called 60 some women together and "I declared unto them, concerning
their having a meeting once a week, every second-day that they might
see and inquire into the necessity of all Friends who was sick and
weak and who was in wants, or widows and fatherless in the city and
the suburbs."

Women's meetings were not, in any reference I have found, created to
protect women from overbearing men. In fact, considering that they
were created by men, who apparently defined their boundaries, they may
well have (as Briathwaite says above) turned out, whatever the
intention for their founding, to have been tools of male dominance
over women or for at least relegating women to the place that their
(both men's and women's) western sexist notions taught them was
appropriate for the "distaff side." (one cannot, as I think it was
Engels who wrote, necessarily blame people for an inability to escape
the limitations of their age).

It was left to later generations of women (and men) to break down
these barriers, within meetings and without. Without careful
scholarship on my part (or any, for that matter) I speculate it was
the eventual breaking down of these barriers within meetings (and
outside of them) that caused Women's Meetings to be laid down at
around the turn of the twentieth century. I don't know about that.
Perhaps you do and can teach me about that.

Perhaps, given certain famous occurrences in early Quaker history,
women were separated from men to prevent them from putting men on
horses and leading them into Bristol ... or Boston...

;=]

> And
>yet, as any reasonably clear-eyed observer will tell you,
> such
>domination still goes on in a very serious way today, even in many
>Quaker meetings for business.

In the Quaker world *I* inhabit--the only one about which I will
presume to testify, in this thread, and the one in which the dispute
that is the subject of this thread is taking place, women clerk most
monthly and quarterly meetings, and the steering committee of the
yearly meeting--as well as serving on and clerking more than half of
the ministry committees, oversight committees and nominating
committees.

I would say that women are more influential in the Quaker governance
around me than men are. That's not because they are any more fit than
men are--it's just that there are more of them and for various reasons
more of them serve.

I doubt that these women would say that they dominated by men or that
they are mere fronts for male domination, institutionally.

>
>> tt: and to which of the testimonies does this desire to keep
>>    : this "good thing" to themselves and deprive it to other
>>    : Friends witness?
>

> Giving women the freedom to grow
>in an atmosphere where they don't have to struggle with domineering
>men, does not merely benefit women; it benefits men as well.

Even if this were the purpose of separate women's meetings, a
proposition to which I remain open but of which, at present, I remain
unconvinced, I think I disagree with this, in principle.

I don't think that putting people we perceive (or even those who
perceive themselves) as needing protection into separate spheres does
anything but limit and weaken them. It also obscures the view of
those we think need protection and those from whom they think they
need protecton--both about one another and about themselves.   I think
whether one is talking about racism or sexism the way to deal with the
situation lies in a different direction than separation--it lies in
creating healthy integrated institutions.

But I am not speaking in principle in regard to the situation from
which this thread comes, nor am I talking about a time and place about
which I have no personal experience, where I do not know the
individuals involved or have some experience with their conditions.

>> tt: simplicity?
>>    :
>>    : community?
>>    :
>>    : harmony?
>>    :
>>    : integrity?
>>    :
>>    : equality?
>
>Let me point out that there is no standard list of Friends
>testimonies; what you've listed here are merely the five particular
>testimonies that one Quaker author -- Howard Brinton -- decided to
>focus on in his best-known book.

but it's a pretty good list, no? It's a pretty good frame of
reference with which to evaluate things, isn't it? At least, as a
start?

Wilmer Cooper also lists four of them (nodding with some approval
toward Brinton's fifth, community) as the "central Quaker testimonies
of our day." (Wilmer A. Cooper, A Living Faith p110).

They are the particular testimonies listed by two fairly weighty
Friends of the 20th Century--as well as by such as Lloyd Lee Wilson, a
registered Conservative Minister from North Carolina YM, whose work
you know I much admire.

Is your pointing this out meant to somehow question the legitimacy of
this characterization of the testimonies, or the usefulness of these
as a framework of analysis?

you and I have had discussion before about testimonies and I thought
we were clear that there are several ways in which that word can be
used, several things it can be used to describe and that my use of it
in this sense is as legitimate, in its sense, as any. Am I incorrect
in this regard?

>     Certainly, however, the practice of separate women's meetings
>greatly benefits the women involved, and benefits the men who share a
>community with them.

Not certain that the historical analysis above supports this
conclusion...there may be historical factors of which my analysis has
not taken account. Please help me if there is.

Other than combatting this "domineering" by men of which you write
(the implication being that women--and other men-- cannot prevent it
from doing damage to women by any means other than separation?), which
is not an accurate description of what is going on in the context of
the actual dispute that is the subject of this thread (and, as I
suggest above, may not even be an accurate description of the
motivation from which separate meetings for men and women originally
arose), I don't accept your assertion that there is "certainly" a
great benefit, or any benefit, for that matter, in separating the
sexes.

Perhaps you can elaborate upon your point to make it clearer to me
with some evidence, as opposed to assertion, that the separate
meetings had great benefits (that we would recognized as such) for men
and women.

I believe that the insularity created by separating the sexes actually
reenforces distorted beliefs men and women have about themselves and
about one another and makes seeing our true condition(s) more
difficult. I think we have a history, as a culture, that bears that
out. The results of these misconceptions about ourselves and others
lay around us as a testimony to darkness in which we have been reared,
and with which we struggle, in this regard.

I think that our social conditioning has put us, as a culture, into a
condition from which it is a real struggle for many of us to
accurately perceive who we are as men or as women or who the opposite
sex really is, either. We are given a set of characteristics by our
culture (very much including our religious traditions) and we struggle
trying to live as though they were true of us and the others who we
meet. It's not working out real well for us as we try to live out and
expect others to live out those patterns.

The fact is that human traits and characteristics (such as domineering
or nurturing) are not the exclusive province of one sex and great harm
is done to individual development when people buy into the idea that
they are--both about others and about themselves-- the "way it's
'sposed to be."

Put another way (you know I can usually find five or six ways to say
the same thing), I find that we are so indoctrinated and conditioned
to accept the sexual stereotypes and the social customs that support
them that often people have a hard time relating to one another. The
result of buying into the misconceptions (or, perhaps, rather, being
sold into them) is a condition that prevents them from understanding
their own nature and the nature of those around them. No wonder we
have so many failed relationships--not only between men and women, but
even between women and women, men and men. With heads full of
expectations about ourselves and others that are not borne out by our
experience how can we expect to get along?

>Thus it helps to uphold harmony and community,

I do not believe that separation upholds harmony--any more than
turning bass and treble clef lines into two songs creates harmony.
(putting one of my bickering children in one room and the other in
another may create a peace, of sorts, but it doesn't create harmony).

And to say that separation builds community can only be true in the
most abstract way.

>not to mention love which is a valid testimony too. By discouraging
>male domineering,

I believe that separating the sexes based on this illusion that "men
are domineering and women can't handle it" only encourages men and
women to believe that the illusion is real. The only way to actually
discourage domineering behavior that is not constructive, whether it
comes from men, women or from children, is for men and women and
children to confront it, together, in a loving and tender way within
the frame work of a healthy community process.

>it also helps to build equality, not to mention
>justice, mutual support and mutual empowerment, all of which are valid
>testimonies too.

Is male domination such a problem where you worship? In your
extensive travels do you find the world of Quakerism dominated by men
such that women, for their own protection and edification, must be
separated?

My view is that "separate but equal" and "separate for their own good"
do not support institutions that foster truth about the way we are and
the way "other" is. Rather they foster destructive institutions,
institutions that mislead us about who "we" are and who "they"
are--institutions that make people weaker than they could be in
healthy mixed sex institutions.

And that is really my point: if there are problems the solution is to
make the institutions we all share healthy, rather than separating.

>> tt: the point is access to this conference--which is denied to
>>    : me on the basis of my gender. I'm a boy so I can't come
>>    : to conference. what is it about boys that makes us
>>    : unworthy of this fellowship?
>
>The very fact that you are trying to push your way into it after
>you've been told that you're not welcome is the old domineering
>instinct coming to the fore.

perhaps.

but there are some women who, I understand, have stopped participating
in the actual conference we are discussing, here, because it excludes
men, and the matter of the sexual exclusivity of this institution is
discussed on an on going basis among the women who participate in it.

Some of them have found and others are moving toward a light that,
based on their actual knowledge of the actual situation, here, is
different than that which you bring to this discussion.

There is more going on, in this situation about which you know very
little, than just me trying to "push my way into" it.

> Examine your behavior carefully, and see
>if you can honestly deny that it is so.

the domineering "instinct," as you call it, comes forward, from women
as well as men, in many situations and we should all constantly
examine our behavior carefully to see that we can honestly deny that
this instinct animates us when we contradict others and disagree with
them.

Might there not be some of this drive to dominate, here, in your
applying abstract ideological principles based on sexual stereotypes
and arguably unsound history to make judgements about me and my
motives in a real situation about which you have very little
knowledge?

Might not this drive unconsciously motivate others, besides just me?

>And that's *exactly* what it
>is about boys that makes them unworthy. Why *can't* you wait till
>you're invited?
>Or go to a mixed-sex theological conference at
>Earlham or George Fox; heaven knows there are enough of them.
>You're
>not being deprived of the right to go to Quaker theological
>conferences, or to hear and be heard by female Quaker theologians;
>you're just being asked not to deprive women Quakers of the freedom to
>talk things out in private. Rationally, now: Why should you object
>to that?

When I was very much younger than I am today I heard a speech that
sounded very much like this. It was given by a man named Orlando
Holllis, who was the dean of the University of Oregon Law School. He
was explaining why women should not be admitted to institution of
which he was the steward.

It is right and good that women, for a long time now but certainly all
of my adult life, have refused to accept this rationale for being
locked out of male only institutions, the existence of which harmed
them by denying them access to the opportunities open to men--and
harmed the men by reenforcing the stereotypes they had of women. (and
also harmed society by depriving it of women's talents in so many
areas where their benefit is manifest today).

Rationally, now: using your argument, as Orlando Hollis did to
support his goal to deprive women of entry into medical and law
schools, why would I *not* object to that?

Especially when, as here, we are talking about an body of believers in
which women are not dominated by men to their detriment but are fully
in spiritual and governing partnership with them? Where men are not
able, as early Quaker men apparently largely were, to relegate women
to certain roles, at least within the institution of Church
government.

>> tt: There is a very real danger in single sex gatherings-
>>    : especially those endorsed as such by the body of Friends.
>
>Friends had single-sex business meetings for more than two hundred
>years. In your estimation, what damage did they do? Can you offer
>any evidence of damage?

damage from separation of the sexes?

within Quakerism only that which I site above. As a buttress to
sexual stereotypes of their day (and of ours), which are being
eradicated today, they did damage by contributing to a condition for
women (and men) that began to be changed at about the same time,
historically, that the women's meetings were laid down in Great
Britain. Do you believe that Quaker women and men were not damaged
when their world view was shaped by the sexual stereotypes described
by Braithwaite, above?

Outside of Quakerism I offer as evidence an entire culture in which
sexual stereotypes continue limit our abilities to have fruitful and
genuine connection to one another because we are trying to live
according to untrue stereotypes about ourselves and about one another.
Separating the sexes in an intentional way is based on and justified
by those very stereotypes and honors them even though they are
demonstrably not true in the world at large (as they are not true in
the actual situation under discussion, in this thread.

The issue is not how to keep men from domineering women, but how to
keep domineering tendencies that all people have from doing damage to
the relationships upon which the strength of the community depends.

Quakers have not been immune to the negative consequences of these
stereotypes, or the separation of the sexes they justify, but have
bought into them and struggle(d) with their consequences, just as the
larger culture has. I do think, as I speculate above, that many
strong Quaker women have edified Quakerism such that the separate
meetings have largely disappeared as not being consistent with the
testimony of equality.

I think that men's retreats and women's retreats are not so much
vestiges of these practices that Quakers have laid down so much as
they are imported from the carnal culture that surrounds and too often
invades our spiritual community. The idea that there are "men's
issues" or "women's issues" that the other sex cannot understand or
come to terms with or relate to is a part of the "war between the
sexes" mentality that has done and continues to do great damage to
people.

>> tt: haven't we moved beyond "men's meetings" and "women's
>>    : meetings?"
>
>The question, rather, is whether we've moved beyond the need for them.

well, from my point of view (supported by the sources I have quoted
above)--that Women's Meetings were set up to provide women with their
"rightful" place and keep them in it--I think we long ago moved beyond
the need for them, if ever a need there was.

Your question contains the assumption that there was actually a need
for them at one time, while mine does not--or at least, mine assumes
any "need" was not a legitimate one. I question whether they were
actually ever necessary--any more that "separate but equal" was a
necessary step toward racial integration.

But I will concede, arguendo, that there was once such a need. You
have not shown any need--aside from your statement that men are
domineering (and the implication that women cannot handle that)--for
them.

(sorry if I am seeing an unfair implication in regard to "women cannot
handle" the domineering you cite as the reason for separation. It
seems to me that for separation to be necessary because of the
domineering then it's because there is no other way, than separation,
to prevent it)

>If we haven't, then if there aren't such separate meetings already we
>should be helping to establish them, to meet the need.

Again, aside from the assertion about "domineering" which I do not
accept as true only of men (or even largely of men), and which is not
true in the situation that we are actually discussing, here, (nor,
apparently, in did such concerns play into the founding of separate
men's and women's meetings) what is/was the need that needs to be met?

It is my understanding that separate meetings for men and for women
have largely been laid down in the world of Quakerism--certainly they
have been entirely laid down where I am. Given the prominence of the
so-called "female voice" (granting, again arguendo, the possibility
that there might be any such thing as a "female voice") in NPYM if
there was a perceived need for separate meetings they would exist.

>> tt: what is the testimony given to the world, here, a world in
>>    : which women have struggled for centuries to be given entry
>>    : into the "male bastions." Is the message that men cannot
>>    : have institutions to which woman cannot have access but
>>    : that women can have institutions to which men cannot have
>>    : access?
>
>It is a testimony of gentleness and supportiveness and respect,

please consider the question that I asked you to consider, Marshall:
Is the message that men cannot have such institutions but women can?

If, as it appears, your answer is "yes" then how can women be saved
from doing the same damage that men did to themselves, to the other
sex and society as a whole with such institutions? Are women somehow
better equipped to handle sexual exclusivity than men were/are, such
that they will not do evil with it, as men did?

When men were defending the institutions that they established and the
benefits they derived from them, and precluded women from accessing,
was female acceptance of that situation a testimony of gentleness and
supportiveness and respect?

>Timothy; and no male Friend has any need to feel ashamed of holding up
>such a testimony to a savage and barbaric world.

we are talking about the world of Quakerism, here. I don't see the
world of Quakers as a savage and barbaric world, or Quaker men as
savage and barbaric in their behaviors toward Quaker women,
institutionally.

>
>     There is a well-known saying that when the woman says No that
>means No, and I think it applies in this matter just as much as it
>does in any other.

This is not very persuasive, Marshall. I think that this well known
saying has very limited application in the matter we are discussing or
in "any other matter" than the one from which it comes.

(applying sayings outside their contexts is risky. once forced
sterilization of borderline retarded women was justified with such
phrases --quite useful in clothing maintenance--as a "stitch in time
saves nine." Bad premise, bad reasoning, bad result--very human
premise, mistaking an analogy for a complete congruence--or
coincidence-- but very bad).

When a woman says that her child, for example, will not receive life
saving medical treatment we don't walk away and say "well, she said
no, that means no."   There are many instances in which any man or
woman saying "no" isn't the last word on the matter.

I think that in the circumstance to which you allude, it is true that
no should means no whether it is said by a man or a woman. (My
mother, supported by my father, taught me that in the situation you
bring up, I should "always take no for answer and never ask why.")

We are not, however, considering that circumstance, here, and my view
is that to apply this saying to the situation under discussion is not
any more helpful or edifying when examining the gender discrimination
log in the female eye than it is in the male eye. When one is talking
about access to institutions that is denied on the basis of one's sex
then I believe it is appropriate to question "no" and to require that
no be justified.

For that is what we are talking about, here. We are talking about
sexual discrimination as manifested by separation of the sexes in a
particular Quaker institution. (the thread is called "sexual
discrimination in the RSOF" not "should women's words be respected
when they are turning down sexual overtures").

You have justified separation of men and women in Quaker institutions
on the basis of historical assertion which my historical analysis
calls into question. I would appreciate any history of which I am
aware bearing on this question.

You have justified it based on stereotypes about men, and about women,
perpetuating it seems to me sex role misconceptions that contribute
more to confusion than clearness about who we are and how we should
relate to one another.

You have justified it as the best solution to a problem that, in so
far as it actually exists in the form you describe it, is a solution
has creates more problems that it solves (and when another
solution--dealing with overbearing people in a constructive manner
within a healthy integrated community--is far better, to my mind).

You have justified it on the basis of conditions that do not exist in
the actual situation under discussion, a situation about which you
know very little.

You have based it on the desire of some, but not all, of those who
benefit from it, to exclude others from that benefit.

I haven't heard any justification, yet, that compels me to accept "no"
in regard to the actual situation that is the basis for the discussion
in this thread. If you have any, I am open to hear it.

thanks.

Timothy

"There are girls who grow up strong and bold,
There are boys quiet and kind,
Some race on ahead, some follow behind,
Some grow in their own space and time.
Some women love women,
Some men love men,
Some raise children,
Some never do.
You can dream all the day without reaching the end,
Of everything that's possible for you.
...
And the only measure of your words and your deeds,
will be the love you leave behind, when you're through.
...
"Don't be rattled by names,
by taunts,
by games,
but seek out spirits true.
If you give your friends the best part of yourself,
they will give the same back to you."

                Everything Possible
                      (words and music: Fred Small)
          280 -- Worship in Song
                   A Quaker Hymnal

Fri, 23 Apr 2004 14:25:15 GMT

from soc.religion.quaker
April 23, 2004

It was asked:
"Worship seems to be a common word that comes up in the context of Friends'
Meetings and in Christian literature. This is something I simply have never
understood. Sitting in devoted admiration of anything seems strange to me;
I guess I just don't have the worship nature imbedded in me.
Maybe I misundertand what people are referring to by worship... Anyone care
to comment?"

I responded
I use the word all the time and I understand what you mean. It
bothered me for a long time, too. Worship conjured up images of
"natives" dancing around idols in the firelight or, as you describe,
admiration and supplication and such. I think that admiration and
supplication are not bad things, and I aspire to be so fully
integrated into God's plan as worms are :=]. I also know a
wonderful Quaker woman who easily convinces rooms full of people at a
time that dancing is a form of worship (although there have never been
any idols around).

Since the word figures in Quaker practice (Meeting for Worship,
Meeting for Worship for Business, Opportunities for Worship) I
wondered about this a number of times and began to see worship as
acknowledging the presence of God, of connecting with God. That's
what I always saw myself doing in Meeting for Worship, and in my
individiual worship, centering on the connection, bringing the part
of myself that is of God forward in my awareness, listening for that
still small voice of guidance, opening myself.

A non Quaker pastor who I frequently listen to on the radio talked
about worship in a way that was so interesting to me that I wrote it
down. He said that worshipping might be praise and singing but that
one worshipped God when one was being devoted to God. Reading
scripture is worship in that one is devoting oneself to the study of
God's word. One is also in worship when one is acting in God's
will--doing God's work, that which God would have done, God's will
(that which should be done to carry out the divine purpose).

This pastor said that worship also included acting in
obedience--willing subjegation to that which, in the sphere of divine
revelation, is right (to borrow a definition from the Lexical Aids of
my Key Word KJV). One is worshipping when one is denying one's
fleshy/carnal desires and acting in a holy/spiritual way ("denying the
world" is a phrase that comes to mind). He added acting with
tenderness and love to the list of things that are involved in woship.

As one is devoteed to God and God's way so one is in worship. He
didn't say it but after I wrote the words down, Devotion, Obedience,
Tenderness, Love--I realized that their first letters spell (in a
different order) DOLT.

I think this is the way people use the word worship when they say that
someone worships money, or they worship fame. they are devoting
themsleves to these things, doing what having or pursuing those things
dictates.

Timothy

"So the first act of worship is simply to offer ourselves, totally and
completely to God...Our second act of worship is to listen to God...we
have not invoked the presence of God nor attractive the divine
attention to ourselves, but prepared ourselves to perceive the eternal
Presence and to give our attention to God..."

Lloyd Lee Wilson
Essays on the Quaker Vision of Gospel Order

Wed, 31 Mar 2004 13:00:09 GMT

from alt.culture.oregon

There are many people in the world who are Quakers and don't even know
it.

>Could you explain what you mean by Quakers in this context?

The Quaker Testimonies (which at first blush seem to be what many
people call "core values") are simplicity, integrity, community,
equality and harmony.

These are values that a great many people aspire to, or would like to
aspire to. These are the values we see reflected (often but not
always, of course) in the environmental movement and in the movement
of people toward organic food and away from highly processed foods,
products and relationships. These were the values that underlay the
"back to the land" movement of a couple of decades ago, and despite
the impracticalities that were, in the end, the downfall of so many
who aspired to that lifestyle, the draw of these values is still
strong. (how many products promise us simplicity while requiring us
to live very complicated lives in order to be able to afford them?)

Many people understand the shortcomings of the lives we are living,
and that in many ways the lives we are living are killing us. It is
very attractive; removing the complications from our lives, walking
our talk, no longer striving to prove we are better than others (or
kowtowing to those who we perceive are better than us), having a group
that supports and encourages us as we contend with human condition and
living in a way that complements the lives of others and is consistent
within the context of a higher purpose

Our Western Culture is so often referred to as the "vast wasteland"
and the phrase "living lives of quiet desperation" strikes a chord in
so many of us, at one time or another. These phrases have survived in
our culture for decades after their sources are forgotten because they
are true--and we know it without reading TS Eliot or even remembering
which team he played for.

I think that is because our lives are distorted and fractured by the
imperatives of the system we have built. We are required, seeking the
rewards offered by our system, to live very complicated lives, which
require us to often compromise what we have been taught is good, where
we are often alone even among others we know well, feeling
alternatively better and worse about ourselves compared to everyone we
meet, and in conflict with ourselves and the people we encounter.

The additional piece of this is that Quakers share with many people a
faith in the inward light, faith that the voice of God is mixed in
with all those other voices that we hear every day, and that the
guidance of this Spirit/God/Transcendent Reality can be discerned from
all those other impulses that arise in us from other sources.

When I say there are people in the world who are Quakers and do not
even know it I mean that they have these values, these aspirations, in
common with Quakerism (regardless of the extent to which they--or
we--are currently able to actually live them), and this faith that the
Spirit is here to guide us if we will be cultivate the ability to
discern its leadings (even if we are not, yet, as good at discerning
it as we will become as the result of our spiritual practice).

The ability to live these values, of course, is based on the ability
to discern to leadings of the Spirit.

Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:15:34 GMT

>Your proof of god's questionable existence? Just because you believe
>something doesn't make it true. If your god is so 'loving' and
>'forgiving', why does s/he let all the suffering go on?

I have snipped all of your elaboration on this point for the sake of
clarity, because this is the gist of your rhetorical questions. You
probably know that there is a whole vein of philosophical/theological
inquiry that addresses the logical contradiciton between the existence
of evil and of an all knowing and all powerful God who is also a
loving and forgiving God. If you are not aware of it and are
interested in looking into it a little, this vein of inquiry is called
"theodicy." Just Google it and you will find rescources.

As a believer I have found no logically satisfying answer to the
problems of evil, free will and the rest that are raised in this
inquiry. watching myself and others try to resolve these issues puts
me in mind of watching a snake swallow its own tail.

But, coming at this as a believer, rather than a non-believer, as you
approach it, I have the problem of my experience with God/The
Spirit/The Devine/the Transcendent Reality, which has caused a
powerful transformation of my life for the good. If there is no God
then I don't know what to do with that experience, what sense to make
of it.

Through a spiritual discipline and practice (that includes prayer,
individual worship--ie, devotion, obedience, tenderness, love--study
of scripture and other spiritual writings--corporate meeting for
worship, activity in the life the meeting and so on), my personality
has been transformed toward conforming to the model of Christ--toward
simplicity, integrity, equality, community and harmony. I do not
claim to be identical to the Christ or to even approach that level of
transformation but only say that the movement is in that direction.
Considering where I started, however, a baby step in that direction
looks like a journey of a thousand miles.

I did not do this through the strength of will, I did not decide to
try to become more that way. It happened to me, as I now see, because
I was open to letting the work be done in me. Christians call the
agent of this change the Holy Spirit.

Moreover, I note that this is a similar transformation that can be
seen, to one degree or another, in others around me (although
certainly not in everyone who claims to be religious) and can be seen
in many people from many spiritual traditiond who have undertaken
similar disciplines and practice. This is not an exclusively
Christian thing. This is something that seems common to what I call
the "mystical wing" of most spiritual traditions about which I know
anything. It's the unmediated contact with God/The Holy Spirit/The
Devine/the Transcendent Reality that causes the change. It is not the
result of intellectual learning or persuading oneself that certain
things are true. It comes through waiting and practice.

There seems to be something going on, here, that is real and that is
reproduced in the lives of many people in many places. A very similar
result obtains from very similar spiritual practices--all changed in
much the same way, throught the same means to the same end, such that
the words I use above (which are a form of the Quaker Testimonies)
describes them; simplicity, harmony, equality, community and
integrity.

A complicating factor is, of course, that not all "religious" people
are spiritual people in the sense that I am using the word here (ie,
"mystical'). Many religiouos people--perhaps most--are very
intellectual in their faith and, being guided by their imperfect
reason and the assumptions they glean about the human condition and
how they should respond to it, they attach themselves to and follow
some pretty absurd notions. Some Christians look to sermons and
snippets from the Bible for their guidance in the way that Jimmy
Buffet once described a woman as looking to the juke box for her
answers, rather than seeking the guidance of the Spirit to put such
teachings in context. Killing for peace is one result of this. It's
hard for me to see Jesus on a bombing run, or carrying an AK 47, but
some people seem to have no problem with that. One can create a long
list of ways that Christianity, and other spiritual traditions, has
been manipulated for evil by people who sincerely thought they were
doing God's will as well as by cynics and pretenders.

So, I cannot answer your question(s) and I don't think that theodicy
can, either. I certainly cannot convince you that there is a God but
I cannot, through my experience and that which I observe around me in
others--from many times and places, including my own--but believe that
there is.

This God is not the God you describe, nor, frankly, the God that many
who claim Christianity describe as their own. You seem to think that
the only proof of God would be that everything would be cool in the
world, at least that would be the only proof of an all knowing and all
loving God. I don't know whether God owes you and the rest of us all
the best--as though we were, as many Christians believe--the crown of
creation. I don't know that humanity is the center of the universe
and I don't know if we really are what God's plans are about. I
chuckle, along with Mark Twain, over the notion that we are the
Creator's special pet, and that He stays up all night admiring us.

I don't know or care much about a lot of things that seem very
important to some Christians, but I know what I am supposed to do as I
walk through this world. That is made clear to me directly from
whatever I am tapped into through my practice, as well as from the
basic and bedrock teachings of every spritual tradition. Love my
neighbor as myself is an instruction which helps me live the way I am
intended to live. Understanding things like the Trinity, on the other
hand, do not help me so much and so I don't concern myself much with
it. The same is true with reconciling good and evil, and the
challenge that evil presents to the notion of an all knowing, all
powerful and all loving God.

A very wise Quaker once compared us to the one celled creatures on the
forest floor chomping up the fallen leaves and other organic matter
than finds its way there. they have no grasp of the ecology of the
forest, of which they are a part, they just chomp on, oblivious to the
way things work and what their part is in it. I believe we are in a
similar if not identical position. I believe that there is something
going on here, on this earth, and that what we do has a lot to do with
it. We will probably never understand what it is that we are part of
but we cannot help but know what it is that we are supposed to do
because that is hard wired into us, we have an inborn teacher who, if
we but heed it, will lead us in the right direction. (that, by the
way, is just basic, old time, hard core Quaker theology). Also hard
wired into us, for some reason, is the ability and the strong
inclination to heed earthly voices and to respond to our conditioning,
ignoring that inborn teacher.

We cannot help but wonder why great evil lays next to great good in
ourselves and therefore in the world around us. But we know it's
there, and we know which we are supposed to pursue.

I know what I have written does not convince you that God exists and I
hope you know that I was not trying to do that. I am not sure what I
am doing, here. Perhaps it's just witnessing.

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:32:53 GMT

from SRQ

>Again I ask, why would God bother sending a message to me through
>someone who has not eared my respect?

it is a mystery.

And yet, there have been many messages delivered, in the Bible and
outside of it, to people by people with whom they had no relationship
and for whom they, therefore, had no respect. Many times those to
whom the message was delivered were able to recognize it as beneficial
and heeded it.

I listen to what I refer to as my "radio preachers" on self labeled
Christian radio because, even though a lot of what they have to say
grates me and even annoys me and is, from my reckoning, dead wrong.
There is some stuff of value in there for me to hear and I benefit
greatly from it. This is even true of Dr. James Dobson of the Focus
Family. There may be a lot of straw mixed in with the alfalfa they
are handing out, but they still feed this sheep.

A very common experience that perhaps un programmed Friends can relate
to is to be sitting in meeting and have someone stand whose standing
is not, for some reason, anticipated with eagerness by those gathered.
Sometimes even the most tiresome, the ones who don't really understand
what vocal ministry is about, and who commonly drone on and on, producing more fidgets than enlightenment, are actually used by the Spirit
to deliver a message that needs to be heard. It's hard to go up
afterward and acknowledge and encourage that person, knowing full well
that one is creating the possibility that s/he will be reading two
chapters of George Fox's Journal outloud, next week.

My take is that The Spirit moves through everyone, in one way or
another, and it is beneficial to listen to what all have to say that
one can hear.

I have learned some very important things from people with whom
contact was not pleasant and even from some who meant me absolutely no
good at all. But God was using those people who meant me no good
to tell me something, to shape me through my experience with them. (if
the OT spin on things is correct, heathen armies were used to deliver
messages to Israel. I am not sure I buy that, but, there, for what it
is worth, it is).

The "noise" that came with the message, in such instances, made it
hard to discern. The medium through the message came, in such
instances, made it harder to accept. Both of which factors made it
take longer for me to realize the importance of the message. But
neither diminished its importance to me, or the necessity that I hear
it and heed it.

Why did God make it hard for me to get the message? I dunno. Why is
there so much about life that is hard when God is powerful enough to
change it so that the University of Oregon wins all of its football
games? I dunno. Beyond me. It would be so obviously correct to set
things up that way.

But it's God's creation, not mine. I'm just here to help feed the
hungry, heal the sick, clothe the naked, worship and do the rest of
the tasks that have been left for me on the pad by the phone. (and to
use that phone, to pray, often)

>Is God so powerless that
>he is unable to speak to me directly?

we are very powerful when it comes to ignoring messages that come from
God. we are very able to harden our hearts when the message we are
getting is not consistent with what we want to hear, when it conflicts
with what we "know" must be right. Jonah's experience illustrates
(whether we believe, literally in the most famous part of Jonah's
story, or not) the lengths to which God must sometimes go in causing
us discomfort because we will not listen to very direct and clear
messages.

are we so important that we need a personally engraved invitation,
wrapped in a package that pleases us, with our favorite chocolate
thrown in, so we will be sure to be in the right frame of mind to
accept what's sent?

This is especially true when what God has in mind is correcting us.
We don't like correction. We rarely think we need it. We usually
fight correcton, justifying ourselves and pointing out how we are
fine, it's all these other people who need to square themselves away
(try correcting my nine year old--who has two lawyers for parents. I
don't know where she gets it). Sometimes correction comes from God in
very unpleasant and disrespectful packages.

>Am I in need of a priest to
>act as a go-between between me and God, or is a direct contact
>possible?

of course it is possible. As is flight or programming a computer, if
we are prepared and attuned to it. One must put oneself in a position
to hear. One must, for a part of one's day, anyway, be still and be
open--even to things that don't "make sense" to one's earthly sense of
reason--not thinking, but listening..

And one will know if what one is hearing is of the Spirit, no matter
who or what it comes through--if it contributes to changing one to
conform more to Christ/Logos, it makes one more a part of what holds
the fabric of the universe together (rather than separates its
elements and tears them apart), if it contributes to the simplicity,
harmony, equality, integrity and community in one's life then it is
from the Spirit.

If it contributes to the opposite then it doesn't matter if it is a
voice shouting in one's head at 100 decibels--it's from another
spirit.

Fri, 26 Mar 2004 22:26:21 GMT

"Being attuned to the Spirit also allows a different response to
woundings we do and receive throughout our lives. I have never been
able to avoid periodically hurting the people most close to me, not to
mention strangers, whether through inattentiveness, preoccupation with
other things, or any of a million other reasons. When I am paying
attention to the inward monitor, I am less apt to harm others. When I
am focused on my own needs, and do harm, attention to the Light makes
this more visible to me and prompts me to make amends. I don't always
respond, buy the potential to do less damage is there for me if I will
take it. Similarly, when I am listening to the Inward Guide, I am
less apt to take offense when others inadvertently hurt me. This
entire process seems akin to what the Buddhists call "non
attachment"--not holding on to my own sense of being the center of the
universe and being more present to others in a less self interested
way. Being changed and being healed in the process is ongoing and I
expect it to take the rest of my life or longer."

"layers and layers of preconceived notions and bad habits take time to
be perceived and be let go. If baptism is a process of dying to the
old self and entering new life, for many of us, this does not happen
all at once. Many small deaths, many times of letting go appear
unexpectedly through the years."

Marge Abbot

Fri, 17 Oct 2003 14:37:29 GMT

George Fox said that there was one, Jesus Christ, who could speak to his condition. I have always taken that to mean his "situation" as a human being and while I still think that’s an accurate characterization of where he was coming from I think that substituting the word "conditioning" for condition illuminates.

Conditioning is the process—intentional or circumstantial—by which a creature is conformed to the demands of an environment.

We are all conformed, throughout our lives, to the demands of this earthly, fleshy, carnal existence that is going on around us. We are conditioned to react to stimulation in certain ways in order to be a part of where we live. This is, in a real sense, how it is that we "owe the world a living." (Did your father ever tell you that the world doesn’t owe you a living? Yeah. Mine did. He never explained to me that the point is that I owe the world a living—that in order to get from it what I want I must conform to it. Of course, more deeply, if I am to get from the world what the world has taught me that I should want then I must do that which the world demands).

Christ/The Spirit/The Light/The Transcendent Reality is the means to be conformed away from the conditioning. The conditioning tells us we need the world, the conditioning tells us that the world is where it’s at. But the world doesn’t solve our problems, our basic emptiness, our alienation which is the human condition. The world just takes more and more from us and then, when we are spent, leaves us with nothing.

Thu, 09 Oct 2003 16:31:50 GMT

"Because the Inward Light was everywhere unitary and identical, true communication and persuasion were effected by the reaching of the Light in another person. Truth was felt in the resonant chord struck within one’s conscience by another’s message. Accordingly, "the true ministers need no human authority, to authorize their ministry; for they have a witness in every man's conscience.""(J. Aynsloe, 1672, A Short Description of the True Ministers and the False) "…his words and his ministry, proceeding from the inward power and virtue, reach to the hears of his hearers, and make them approve of him, and be subject unto him." (Robert Barclay, 1831, Truth Triumphant, Vol 2, p 280).

The immediate objection heard to this is that false communication and persuasion can reach that of the flesh of hearers, that carnal messages have a witness in all people, as well. Those, then, who proceed from earthly powers and corruption also have the ability to reach into the hearts of their hearers, where they find approval. People will heed such false messages, as they will the authentic, and will act according to the lies they have heard.

How then, can we tell the true from the false, that which proceeds from the Light and that which proceeds from the flesh?

Fruit, of course.

Does the message guide with Truth, or with illusion? Does it edify? Or does it degrade?

If the message grows the seed of God within us, if it turns us toward a reliance on the Spirit to direct us, then it is of the authentic source. If it grows the worship of the flesh, encouraging us to live through earthly passions, then it is not.

Is the person directed toward, or along, the path that leads to simplicity, harmony, community, equality and integrity? Or is direction toward means of meeting our needs that rely on complication, discord, alienation, subordination and duplicity to make our way through the world?

Mon, 29 Sep 2003 01:28:32 GMT

A Friend left our meeting, recently. Although he had a Quaker history, this Friend had not been to meeting for a long time before coming to ours and frequently expressed, while with us, that it brought joy to his life and he was glad to have found us. But he stopped coming and, when some Friends made inquiry, he said it was because there was too much "Christ centered language" to suit him.

This made me very sad because I am a Christ centered Friend. I felt as though my expression of my spirituality had chased away someone I loved.

Our Meeting is as eclectic as any I have encountered. We have a little of everything on the Quaker spectrum, including some evangelicals who come, on and off, going back and forth from our unprogrammed "liberal" meeting to a Quaker church. One of the things that we have frequently commented on, one of the things we consider to be the strength of our meeting, is that we are a diverse community in which people of different spiritual orientations worship and live together and contribute to one another's spiritual condition. Messages at our meeting come from many spiritual contexts, Christian and pagan and Jewish and Buddhist...

This is a very big deal in Quaker circles. The divide that seems to exist between Christian and universalist Friends is an elephant under the rug when Quakers meet outside their home communities.

I have heard it said that Quakerism was accidentally a Christian religion, that the accident of where and when it was born made it Christian, in the way that the where and when of the birth of people who live around me made them, for the most part, Americans. Born in a different time and place I would be an Armenian or Chilean and, the same can be said of Quakerism. I am less certain of that than some, but I think about it.

First Friends (George Fox and the multitudes of seekers he found waiting for his message) came to believe in the light within, the indwelling spirit. This was called the "Christ within," as well. The idea was that all people have a measure of this spirit and that, if they will set aside the forms of worship and the theological notions they have been taught, this spirit will teach them and change them, this light will show them the way. It will transform them, conform them and they will exhibit new behaviors and attitudes that will testify to the change that has taken place within them as the result of this inward change, this work done within them by the Holy Spirit.

But, although first Friends were Christians and any that doubt that have but to read what they have written, they also very firmly believed that this spirit, this light, existed in all people, regardless of their faith. The lyric in the Quaker song is "...there's a light that is shining in the Turk and the Jew, there's a light that is shining, Friend, in me and in you." Among the first Friends were those who went to the Turks, and to the centers of power of many spiritual traditions (with little actual success) to expose them to The Truth of the light, the spirit, a measure of which waits in each of us to do its transforming work. Nonetheless, the idea that the spirit, the light, exists in all is firmly a part of Quakerism.

Although I am a Christian Quaker I take this universalism seriously and it has wider importance to me than it did to first Friends. And I do believe that anyone, anywhere, regardless of his or her spiritual tradition or lack of one, has access to this spirit, this light. If they will let it work on them--and it wants to work on all of us--they will become a "mystic"--one who is in a personal relationship with the divine. Over time this mystical relationship will change that person. And the product of this work, the fruit of this process of change, will always be the same. The spirit changes everyone it works on in the same way; the light shows all people the same path.

The Quakers have developed a list they call "The Testimonies." What these are is a source of discussion and disagreement among Quakers (are they "values?" are they our version of a "creed?"), but that they are is not much disputed. Over the past 350 years Quakers have been changed away from the "natural man" (describe it yourself, gentle reader, because you know what I mean. It's the human condition) into a person who is described, to one extent or another, by simplicity, harmony, equality, harmony and integrity. The existence of these characteristics in a person's behavior "testifies" to the change that has been done, the transformation that has taken place inside. This is what the spirit turns us into; it's the path along which the light leads us.

In any spiritual tradition there are mystics, people who have entered into an intentional and personal relationship with the spirit, answering the call that spirit makes to all, and allowing that spirit to do its work by clearing away the theological legalisms and formal stuff and the rituals and just being present, and open, to it. "Be still and know I am God."

And in every spiritual tradition these mystics are recognizable because they are described, as those Quakers who have similarly embraced the light are described, by the terms simplicity, equality, integrity, harmony and community. Wherever one finds oneself, in an Islamic tradition, a Jewish tradition, a Buddhist tradition or no spiritual tradition, a Friend can find other Friends, even though those we find may not know they are Friends. There is an outward manifestation of the inner change.

Friends who exist in these different contexts, if they do not see the illusions involved in these contexts, may not recognized one another, but they have been changed in the same way by the same spirit, and are walking the same path, by the illumination of the same light.

ps There are Quakers who are not mystics. There are Quakers who are legalistic, there are Friends who are intellectual and theological, Friends who are straight Christians and will tell you (and me, especially) that hell awaits those who don't start doing things they way they (think) they do. So, if you are not a Quaker, and you are reading this, keep in mind that not everyone you run into who calls him/herself a Quaker will approve of what I have written, here.

Fri, 19 Sep 2003 14:17:38 GMT

how frustrating.

I just spent an hour or so writing a piece about my first Quaker meeting and, when I pushed the button to post to the weblog I got a "cannot find server" (the "white screen of death") and what I had written was gone.

bummer.