Tuesday, July 11, 2006
I am positive that I am not the only Christocentric Quaker to be wagged by members of their liberal meeting for being "inwardly focused" instead of being an "activist."
In these situations, I find myself thinking of the press conference held by Frank Sinatra to announce his new line of salad dressing. It is purported that on that occasion, a reporter mentioned that Paul Newman was donating all of his profits to charity. Sinatra is said to have answered, "Yeah, we do that too, but we just don't like to talk about it."
To a certain extent, some "activist" projects on the part of Quakers seems to be political posturing -- patting oneself on the back for being politically correct. After all, how many rallies does it take to end a war? If we all display enough bumper stickers, can we really change the way people think and behave? Or are we just stroking ourselves into thinking that we are Good -- when I personally think Quakers should believe that there is but One that is Good. There is but One who can work on the hearts of men and liberate them from their sinful ways.
Some conservative Quakers have a different world view than liberal Quakers -- with conservatives seeing history as being more episodic in terms of improvements and decline in social condiations and justice. In some eras and parts of the world, conditions might be good, while at other times conditions in these same nations might decline. Liberal Friends may see history more as a progression towards a more ideal social state. Despite this disparity, it could be that conservative Quakers are just as if not more giving to those in need than liberal Quakers, but might shy away from some social causes that are not as grounded in the scriptures or Christian witness as others. I am not sure what others' observations on this might be.
My own view has progressed more in the conservative direction over the years, and increasingly I wonder how the liberal wing of Quakerism will hold up as the social pendulum in the developed world swings back the other way. We live in perhaps the most permissive culture in history, and this has allowed us to take for granted our social freedoms. Secular activism is easy in the United States today, but if persecution, imprisonment and death become the reward of this activism, will secular Quakers keep up the fight? Or will only faith in Christ be powerful enough a motivator to stimulate Christian witness in the face of severe hardship? Would early Quakers endure the imprisonment and tortures they did without their sense of the immediate presence of God, and the knowledge that they were doing God's bidding?
Each time I am characterized as not being "activist" and indulging myself by pursuing my own spiritual journey in Christ, I find myself thinking -- first of all -- that in our outward works we are not to let our left hand know what our right hand is doing. If we are doing the work of God, does it serve the cause to tell anyone about it? Or is our communication purely self-congratulatory, or worse yet confrontational towards those who might not agree with us?
I then find myself thinking how this secular activist focus is robbing Quakerism of the power of its Christian witness. In an ill-advised attempt to cleanse Quakerism of Christ, we dishonor those who see their activism as a leading of the Holy Spirit. The Christian martyrdom of Tom Fox in Iraq is an example of this, and the paradoxical fact that Quaker organizations were ill-prepared to deal publicly with his death is analyzed at length on the blog of Martin the Quaker Ranter (whose blog you should check out anyway). Major Quaker bodies like the American Friends Service Committee and even Friends General Conference are so focused on the causes of this world that they have a hard time relating any of these causes to an inward leading by Christ.
This secular focus causes many Friends, I fear, to forget that the battle between good and evil is not an outward political one any more than it is an outward military one. We must first be strong in our spiritual selves -- a vessel for Christ -- empty as much as we can be of our wordly, human failings. Until we are at peace with God, we can not instill peace in anyone else. The source of that peace is not secular political thought, but rather a willingness to disavow this world in favor of the immediacy of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is this fact that requires us to spread the Gospel if we be true activists.
Just as a hireling minister can inhibit the spiritual development of a congregation, Quaker bodies can fail their members in some of the same ways. Hireling ministers can become a surrogate for their congregant's spirituality, and can also tend to sugarcoat the spiritual truth -- or tell congregants what they want to hear -- for the sake of avoiding offense and hanging onto their jobs. Quaker bodies can be guilty of this latter sin, distancing themselves from the prophetic Quaker message to appease their increasingly secular membership.
"He who is last among you shall be first" was the advice given Jesus to his apostles, and a concept that is alive and well in the ideal nature of Friends' decision-making. But at what point do attempts on the part of Quaker organizations to act as a "servant" to other Quakers turn these organizations into "enablers" of these same Quakers as they drift into apostasy, and forget the spiritual and scriptural underpinnings of the social stances they take? And should some of the current "politically correct" stances taken by many Quakers be abandoned? The Religious Society of Friends is structured in the loose, leader-less way that it is so it Christ can be its head. As these Quaker organizations turn away from Christ, who shall lead them back? Who shall provide that prophetic zeal to turn Quakers back to the inward free teacher, and back to the scriptures? Who shall be that much-needed traveling prophetic evangelist to ride into town, pull out the proverbial fire and the brimstone and put the "fear of the Lord" into folks before departing to the next venue?
In these situations, I find myself thinking of the press conference held by Frank Sinatra to announce his new line of salad dressing. It is purported that on that occasion, a reporter mentioned that Paul Newman was donating all of his profits to charity. Sinatra is said to have answered, "Yeah, we do that too, but we just don't like to talk about it."
To a certain extent, some "activist" projects on the part of Quakers seems to be political posturing -- patting oneself on the back for being politically correct. After all, how many rallies does it take to end a war? If we all display enough bumper stickers, can we really change the way people think and behave? Or are we just stroking ourselves into thinking that we are Good -- when I personally think Quakers should believe that there is but One that is Good. There is but One who can work on the hearts of men and liberate them from their sinful ways.
Some conservative Quakers have a different world view than liberal Quakers -- with conservatives seeing history as being more episodic in terms of improvements and decline in social condiations and justice. In some eras and parts of the world, conditions might be good, while at other times conditions in these same nations might decline. Liberal Friends may see history more as a progression towards a more ideal social state. Despite this disparity, it could be that conservative Quakers are just as if not more giving to those in need than liberal Quakers, but might shy away from some social causes that are not as grounded in the scriptures or Christian witness as others. I am not sure what others' observations on this might be.
My own view has progressed more in the conservative direction over the years, and increasingly I wonder how the liberal wing of Quakerism will hold up as the social pendulum in the developed world swings back the other way. We live in perhaps the most permissive culture in history, and this has allowed us to take for granted our social freedoms. Secular activism is easy in the United States today, but if persecution, imprisonment and death become the reward of this activism, will secular Quakers keep up the fight? Or will only faith in Christ be powerful enough a motivator to stimulate Christian witness in the face of severe hardship? Would early Quakers endure the imprisonment and tortures they did without their sense of the immediate presence of God, and the knowledge that they were doing God's bidding?
Each time I am characterized as not being "activist" and indulging myself by pursuing my own spiritual journey in Christ, I find myself thinking -- first of all -- that in our outward works we are not to let our left hand know what our right hand is doing. If we are doing the work of God, does it serve the cause to tell anyone about it? Or is our communication purely self-congratulatory, or worse yet confrontational towards those who might not agree with us?
I then find myself thinking how this secular activist focus is robbing Quakerism of the power of its Christian witness. In an ill-advised attempt to cleanse Quakerism of Christ, we dishonor those who see their activism as a leading of the Holy Spirit. The Christian martyrdom of Tom Fox in Iraq is an example of this, and the paradoxical fact that Quaker organizations were ill-prepared to deal publicly with his death is analyzed at length on the blog of Martin the Quaker Ranter (whose blog you should check out anyway). Major Quaker bodies like the American Friends Service Committee and even Friends General Conference are so focused on the causes of this world that they have a hard time relating any of these causes to an inward leading by Christ.
This secular focus causes many Friends, I fear, to forget that the battle between good and evil is not an outward political one any more than it is an outward military one. We must first be strong in our spiritual selves -- a vessel for Christ -- empty as much as we can be of our wordly, human failings. Until we are at peace with God, we can not instill peace in anyone else. The source of that peace is not secular political thought, but rather a willingness to disavow this world in favor of the immediacy of the Kingdom of Heaven. It is this fact that requires us to spread the Gospel if we be true activists.
Just as a hireling minister can inhibit the spiritual development of a congregation, Quaker bodies can fail their members in some of the same ways. Hireling ministers can become a surrogate for their congregant's spirituality, and can also tend to sugarcoat the spiritual truth -- or tell congregants what they want to hear -- for the sake of avoiding offense and hanging onto their jobs. Quaker bodies can be guilty of this latter sin, distancing themselves from the prophetic Quaker message to appease their increasingly secular membership.
"He who is last among you shall be first" was the advice given Jesus to his apostles, and a concept that is alive and well in the ideal nature of Friends' decision-making. But at what point do attempts on the part of Quaker organizations to act as a "servant" to other Quakers turn these organizations into "enablers" of these same Quakers as they drift into apostasy, and forget the spiritual and scriptural underpinnings of the social stances they take? And should some of the current "politically correct" stances taken by many Quakers be abandoned? The Religious Society of Friends is structured in the loose, leader-less way that it is so it Christ can be its head. As these Quaker organizations turn away from Christ, who shall lead them back? Who shall provide that prophetic zeal to turn Quakers back to the inward free teacher, and back to the scriptures? Who shall be that much-needed traveling prophetic evangelist to ride into town, pull out the proverbial fire and the brimstone and put the "fear of the Lord" into folks before departing to the next venue?
Comments:
<< Home
Charles,
I have a number of thoughts on the subject of activism. One of them is that it appears to me that there is a lot of emphasis on political activism, and not much emphasis on engaging with people directly - the feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned from the verses in Matthew 25 that Robert Hopper is referring to. I find this troubling.
On the subject of being too inward vs. too outward, I have often looked to the story of Mary and Martha as some comfort that the inward work is important (I feel it leads to the outward work and that the outward work is not a replacement for the inward). But these days I also look to Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, that we are all one body and we have different functions, none more important than the other. There are people who feel called to be political activists. There are people who are called to tend to the needy. There are people who are called to minister to others and give them the spiritual support they need to continue their work. It is not right to expect everyone to do the same work.
With love,
Mark
I have a number of thoughts on the subject of activism. One of them is that it appears to me that there is a lot of emphasis on political activism, and not much emphasis on engaging with people directly - the feeding the poor, clothing the naked, visiting the imprisoned from the verses in Matthew 25 that Robert Hopper is referring to. I find this troubling.
On the subject of being too inward vs. too outward, I have often looked to the story of Mary and Martha as some comfort that the inward work is important (I feel it leads to the outward work and that the outward work is not a replacement for the inward). But these days I also look to Paul in 1 Corinthians 12, that we are all one body and we have different functions, none more important than the other. There are people who feel called to be political activists. There are people who are called to tend to the needy. There are people who are called to minister to others and give them the spiritual support they need to continue their work. It is not right to expect everyone to do the same work.
With love,
Mark
Mark --
Thanks for the note. I share your concern about the disparity between activism and acting as our brother's keeper.
And I also agree that some are more inclined towards activism than others.
The core of my concern tends to be towards the secular tone of much of Quaker activism -- and its orientation towards directions that are not grounded in the life of the Spirit or the scriptures.
Advocating for right stewardship of resources is one thing, but some of the more militant environmental stances one encounters among liberal Quakers must be attributed more to secular than spiritual concerns. Climatologists don't seem to think that global warming is a threat, but I hazard that most liberal Quakers do -- and are certain that fossil fuel consumption is to blame. Neither the Democratic or the Republican party can lay claim to Friends principals, yet I once again hazard that most liberal Quaker meetings are solidly Democratic.
When activist stances drive membership in the society, when we focus more on condemning the wrong in others than winning our own battle with sin and helping others do the same, we are lost.
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
Post a Comment
Thanks for the note. I share your concern about the disparity between activism and acting as our brother's keeper.
And I also agree that some are more inclined towards activism than others.
The core of my concern tends to be towards the secular tone of much of Quaker activism -- and its orientation towards directions that are not grounded in the life of the Spirit or the scriptures.
Advocating for right stewardship of resources is one thing, but some of the more militant environmental stances one encounters among liberal Quakers must be attributed more to secular than spiritual concerns. Climatologists don't seem to think that global warming is a threat, but I hazard that most liberal Quakers do -- and are certain that fossil fuel consumption is to blame. Neither the Democratic or the Republican party can lay claim to Friends principals, yet I once again hazard that most liberal Quaker meetings are solidly Democratic.
When activist stances drive membership in the society, when we focus more on condemning the wrong in others than winning our own battle with sin and helping others do the same, we are lost.
In the Light of Christ,
~ Charles Rathmann
<< Home
