A Modern Council of the Church

My spiritual language is "Christian." For me, the "Way of Life" is embodied in the life and ministry of Jesus and is stated in essence in the "new commandment" in which Jesus calls us to love one another just as He loved us. Ask any Christian what the heart of the Gospel is and most likely they will agree that it is "The Sermon on the Mount" as reported in Matthew 5-6. Ask them what the heart of that "sermon" is and they will be likely to say "The Beatitudes." I disagree

For me, the heart of the message is found in Matt 5:43 to the end of the chapter, which is essentially about loving our enemies, stating that God loves everyone and we should try to be more like God. To my mind Jesus was just picking the most glaring example of where to expand our consciousness of relationship, and the idea applies equally to anyone who is different from us in any way. I doubt that very many would disagree on that part.

That's it in a nutshell. Anything else is about how to acquire a heartfelt appreciation of that principle and then apply it, or it is about personal perceptions of our relationship to God.

It is clear that the first followers of the Way that Jesus embodied remained in the Jewish religion. They continued to meet in the Temple court and used Jewish practices such as water baptism. Until Peter and Paul expanded the horizons of the fellowship. Then a huge question arose as to what was required of a follower of Christ; was a convert required to convert to the Jewish religion?

The council of the Church at Jerusalem recounted in Acts is a fascinating study, but the result hinges on one perception: the report by Peter and Paul that the Spirit manifested in gentiles without the need for them to do what was necessary to come under the covenant with Abraham and with Moses as representative of the Hebrew nation. The Way is not dependent on at least that particular religion.

Within the diverse Society of Friends there is currently a question about whether a profession of faith in Jesus as the mediator between God and man is necessary for membership in that Society, an organization that has always professed to follow the Way embodied by Jesus. The more theologically liberal elements of the Society have pretty much decided for inclusiveness for any who wish to join and work together to make the basic element of the Way work in our lives and our relationship with others. The more theologically conservative are adamantly opposed to any but professed "Christians" becoming members.

"The Doctrine of the Light" was from near the beginning of the Society a foundational element of Quaker perception, though I understand some elements of the Society have relatively recently repudiated it. That doctrine states essentially that God speaks to everyone in the world and an appeal to "that of God" in a person may bear fruit in causing that person to come nearer into alignment with the Way. There have been various perceptions of how that works, but exposition of the doctrine by Barclay and expressions of the kinship of those who work for an increase of love as active principle in the world regardless of religion by such as William Penn indicate that the perception was that one need not know the name of Jesus to work in the Way.

I think we need to examine the direction perceptions were moving even before the Ministry of Jesus in such prophecies as that of Jeremiah in which he indicated that there would be a new covenant in which God's precepts would be "written on the heart" of the people. I think that means that actions would be the natural result of the attitude of love held by those who have come close to God AS love. The statement in Hosea 6:6, "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings," seems to me to be a clear direction that love of God is to be practiced in relating to others as opposed to simply religious observances. And the same thing is true of Micah 6:8

What IS "The Religious Society of Friends?" That is the question we have to answer when we ask whether it is a community based on a religious perception of Jesus AS "the" Christ, or on following the Way that we have said God makes available to all men through the light Christians see as the light of Christ. This is the choice that faces the Society as some face it and others choose to ignore. I love Jesus for what I see Him as having done for us, and relating to the Divine in the Light of the message and the person of Jesus is a source of joy to me, but that love and joy in no way precludes fellowship with those who live in love and have different perceptions.

To me the question hinges on whether the Spirit can be seen to be operating (as at least some early Friends said it does) within the framework of other religious structures or philosophical perceptions which can be seen as vehicles for the Light insofar as they really do express the same way that Jesus said His disciples would be recognized: by their love. If the Spirit is to be our "guide" as stated by Jesus, can that Spirit be seen at work in members of the Society who do not share religious perceptions with the Christians who have historically made up the majority of the Society?

I have seen it working. End of question for me, it only remains to see how we can work out the details of living together in the Light.

So, if it's that simple, what's the problem?

Perhaps it's the weight of 2,000 years of catering to the propensity of humans to make a religion, a set of forms around the conduct of our life. Veneration of the messenger is a natural response, especially when the message is so much embodied in the ministry or life of the messenger, but is it appropriate to make that veneration a requirement for participation in a Society based on the message? Is our language to be restricted to one description of how the Spirit moves? Is "renewal" to be merely a matter of getting back to earlier forms rather than expanding our perceptions to see what the root of our faith rests in?
I hope not.

"The Truth Project," Tour 1

In the introduction Del Tackett says that the goal is to transform us through an encounter with God, and the transformation should make us a world changer. That is a worthy purpose when most of us are somewhat less than avid in our application of our beliefs in our lives and in our contacts with others. I would like to have seen something about "be the change you want to see," but a spark is struck here.
The first "tour" is about the question, "What is Truth." Del starts by asking why Jesus came to earth, and for his purpose will accept only the answer given in one verse, "to testify to the truth." Good answer. Not the only one though, and I kind of see a tone being set in which the lesson is held to a narrow scope, but Del only has 45 minutes to get his point across, so let that go. The basis for the series of "tours" is set when Del says that there is no area of life in which God has not spoken, therefore making "revealed truth" the focus. The theme of the series is also set as Del indicates that "the world" has set itself up against the truth of God, making it a case of them against us. I have some serious trouble with that since "us" is nowhere near monolithic on some of the issues covered, but I guess that would be explained by indicating that those who don't toe the line are not really "believers." Truth is defined as that which corresponds to reality. Fine. The problem is that there are sometimes disconnects between "revealed truth" and "observed truth," and Del does not note in any way that there can be any reaction to that disconnect other than refusing to acknowledge "observed truth." The possibility that observed truth is "reality" makes it imperative that we be in a position to acknowledge that our understanding of "revealed truth" is in error, somewhat in the manner of the adjustments made to the church's teaching after Galileo. The idea that "now we see in a glass darkly" appears to be anathema to Del's worldview as he appears to be in the business of absolutes. There is a lot to be said about "the world" setting itself up against the things of God, but it isn't as clear cut as Del would have it...... on either side.

In His Love,
Nate

"The Truth Project" Project: Toward a critical analysis

I attend an Evangelical Friends Meeting, though I am far more "Quaker" than evangelical. I am happy in my church family and rarely do any difficulties arise, largely because I don't think that the proceedural conclusions reached by the earlier Quakers were the only answers to the concerns they were addressing. Occasionally, something will come up that causes some uneasiness for me, and one arose very recently: our Wednesday night adult study group took up "The Truth Project," sponsored by Focus on the Family. The idea of that project is to provide "a Christian worldview." My first reactions was, "'Christian worldview?' That's easy, read Matt 5:43 to the end of the chapter, which basically says that God loves everyone and we should try to be like God." No problem and no need for an elaborate program, right? All we need to do is figure out how to apply that worldview to our lives. I didn't think it was that simple to Dobson and crew. That little voice said, "Nate, you need to check this out." I guess I was nervous because, whatever good he has done and is doing, James Dobson has become a voice for conservative political Christianity. You may think that's fine. I don't. I don't think it is the business of Christians to try to make the kingdom of God into a kingdom of this world by legislating purely religious perceptions, partly because I don't want to live under Sharia under whatever particular perception of God gains political power.
SO.... I did what checking I could do online, but I still went to the youth group meetings on Wednesday night where I have been a sponsor for years. Ok, I was hedging, but I checked, right? Aside from factual checking such as titles of different lessons, I found a few commentors that seemed hostile to the program among a sea of comments indicating that it was the best thing since sliced bread. Then, as I casually kept track of what was going on, checking in from time to time, I ran into Del Tacket's tax day blog http://deltackett.com/2009/04/15/tax-day-who-is-carrying-all-the-bricks/ in which the "tour guide" for the studies of "The Truth Project" complains about the comparative tax loads of different people, relating it to how many bricks each is required to carry. Right off the bat I thought that this did not sound like it was coming from a "Christian worldview." Why? To start with our attitude toward possessions is that we are stewards of what belongs to God, and somewhere Paul said something about our governments being instituted by God and acting as His agents to maintain order, and that paying taxes were part of the program. Second, I remembered a little lesson in economics that Jesus gave in which He indicated that the number of bricks (I don't recall Him using that wording, but, you know) was not the point, but how many bricks the contributor had in the first place. We call that lesson the parable of the widow's mite. "Nate," that little voice said to me, "This sounds more like a politically conservative worldview, and I don't think this is what a Christian worldview should be teaching, you better attend the sessions and see what is going on." So I started, a little late, but highly interested, and I asked to use the dvd's already covered to catch up. Over the next little while, I hope to cover what I have found and am finding. I am not hostile to the program as a whole, and I find a LOT of good there, but it is laced with some VERY questionable materiel. I doubt seriously that my little musings will affect the program or participation in it, but I gotta put out the information that I see, let God use it for His purposes or allow it to fall by the wayside.
This seems to be a pretty big project for my little blog, and it's not all that interesting to many Quakers in any case, and I SURE don't want my blogging to be all about this kinda stuff, but it's one of the things heavy on my heart right now.

In His Love,
Nate

What am I DOing?

So, I'm minimally competent technologically and adrift on the sea of the world wide web. I've been having a wonderful time giving bloggers a bad time and posting on message boards after a fairly extensive trip into chatrooms. So why stick my neck out and blog on my own? How risky is it? Who's gonna pay any attention to me? (With THAT thought, maybe the risk element isn't that great after all). Well, occasionally things come up that I want to talk about and I don't really have an appropriate vehicle to do so. Therefore I launch this bird and see how it flies.

My concerns, at least to start, will deal with faith and community, primarily in a Quaker setting, with special interest in convergence, renewal and youth ministry.