tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post1608714134006399668..comments2024-03-24T11:30:08.199-07:00Comments on Can you believe?: The golden age of evangelism, part two: Alan RutherfordJohan Maurerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-26139518340001495372006-10-28T13:09:00.000-07:002006-10-28T13:09:00.000-07:00Bill, I agree with your comment: It would be a sha...Bill, I agree with your comment: It would be a shame if we applied our most creative insights rigidly inside our own community, even as those same insights might become a creative leavening element in the wider ecumenical community. We need to apply these insights and testimonies knowledgeably and discerningly, in relationship. Instead, too often, some Friends insist on rigid application, and others, in reaction, give up entirely and avoid anything that ties into our classic Quaker discipleship.<br /><br />Thanks, Robin, for taking the time to touch on some very important concerns and inviting Alan's good feedback. One issue, why we would address any of our evangelistic energy toward people of other religions, is truly a central concern of mine, and I beg forgiveness for deferring it until later. (But let me put in a plug for one of the best books on mission that I've ever read, <I>Mission and Meaninglessness: The good news in a world of suffering and disorder</I>, Peter Cotterell, London: SPCK, 1990.)<br /><br />Concerning reliance on the experience of God, I was glad that Alan addressed the reality that many cannot claim to have any internal experience of God. This reminds me of William James's book <I>The Varieties of Religious Experience</I>, which points out that there seems to be a statistical minimum of people who simply don't seem wired for religious experience (he put it more elegantly). That's why it's so crucial to have a trustworthy community, with a tender and interactive relationship with the Bible, and a mutually respectful division of labor within the community that's based on what our gifts really are, not what we wished they were or felt constrained by social pressure to pretend they were. I think that early Friends were on solid ground concerning the primacy of the immediate witness of the Holy Spirit, but this was to be a witness to the community, not a filter to exclude non-mystics from the community.<br /><br />By the way, Alan makes amazing pies. And his stool metaphor has all the more credibility for me because, among other things, he makes furniture.<br /><br />- JohanJohan Maurerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13771067774042071617noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-52200294015751012342006-10-27T23:36:00.000-07:002006-10-27T23:36:00.000-07:00Robin,
I enjoyed your comments. I recall enjoying...Robin,<br /><br />I enjoyed your comments. I recall enjoying your blog and I see in your profile that we share many interests, especially religious education, children, and pie, as Johan will attest (I may be fishing for a complement here).<br /><br />Marva Dawn is an prolific Lutheran writer and speaker, who has a relationship with and degree from George Fox Seminary. I was quoting from her book <i>Is It a Lost Cause? Having the Heart of God for the Church's Children</i>, hence the reference to children in her warning against evangelistic worship. Her most widely read book is actually about worship and evangelism, entitled <i>Reaching Out without Dumbing Down.</i> I still want to get ahold of her dissertation on Jacques Ellul.<br /><br />I'll try to explain what I meant in my answer to question #5, when I said that the Friends' emphasis on experience "gives more authority to those who sense God than to those who don't." I'm guessing this was unclear because I was trying to make two points simultaneously. Or maybe I'm just unable to blog coherently and parent at the same time. Let me try again (only 4 interruptions from my son so far)...<br /><br />First, I was trying to say that this emphasis on experience gives more authority to those who <b>think</b> they sense God. In meetings for worship and business, those who sense God are invited to rise and speak. How can they know whether they're really hearing from God, and how can the community know? I have read books and attended several workshops on Quaker discernment, and even hosted one. I haven't heard a rigorous answer to this most basic question, one that really works in practice. In practice, those who think they've sensed God rise and speak, and the community has various ways of dealing with the aftermath when some comments were clearly BS. I'd be interested in worship leaders finding ways to let the horse out of the barn less often. The solution would not be another seminar on discernment, clearly, but perhaps focusing on spiritual formation of the community.<br /><br />The second problem with this emphasis on experience is that many of the faithful have ever directly experienced God. I never have. Those who don't directly experience God are not invited to speak. Yet I believe that my reliance on other valuable sources for discernment, such as scripture, tradition, discussion with other members, contemplation, theology, reason, prayers for wisdom (and Bach chorales) may make me eligible to be in on the discussion as the church tries to follow God. Unfortunately, in many cases, these sources for discernment aren't seen as direct enough -- and therefore inferior to -- spontaneous experience, which frankly, I find to be half-baked a lot of the time. Would there be a way that Quakers could invite less spontaneous, less direct forms of responses to God into worship and discernment?<br /><br />Whether one sees a three, four, or umpteen-legged stool as the model for spiritual discernment, I would like to see more attention paid to the necessity of strong connections between legs, just as an actual stool has connections between its legs for maximum stability.<br /><br />[- Alan Rutherford]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-87952044248786554332006-10-26T17:24:00.000-07:002006-10-26T17:24:00.000-07:00All right. Children retrieved from school, dinner ...All right. Children retrieved from school, dinner in the oven. Back to this blog comment.<br /><br />I was bothered by Alan's response to question #5. He lists reliance on the authority of experience of God as a danger. "...it gives more authority to those who sense God than to those who don't..." I thought this was one of the original points of Quakerism - that the experience of God is available to all people (that Christ Jesus does speak to our condition), that being bred at Oxford or Cambridge (or Fuller) was not enough to make one a minister, and that authority is given to those who hear the word of the Lord directly and obey it, with discernment through scripture and community, etc. <br /><br />Alan finds it hard to come into a meeting where anyone who feels they are led by the Holy Spirit is invited to speak - I find it hard to contemplate worship where someone who feels led by the Holy Spirit is not invited to speak. Again, having spent the week reading Scripture or listening to Bach chorales doesn't mean that you will have anything worth saying on Sunday morning. I don't mean that these would hurt, I agree that they help, but it's not enough. Perhaps this is why I am still worshipping with unprogrammed Friends and Alan is attending some more liturgical church.<br /><br />Liturgy can be an opportunity to practice gospel living, but in my experience it is more often an opportunity to follow human instructions. As for needing symbols and props, and other ways of engaging our whole selves into worship - some do and some don't and most of us do some times. <br /><br />If Friends seem smug and insular in our criticisms of other Christians, we are not alone. My experiences of this among Friends have nothing on my experiences as an interloper in a large and highly liturgical church which will remain nameless.<br /><br />Right now, it is enough for me to test, engage, explain and refine the underpinnings of Quaker worship with other forms of Quakers. My initial forays into more ecumenical and interfaith dialogue were just too much to get into.<br /><br />But it is good to hear from people who have recently left a community about its failings - this perspective is too often missing, and leads to more smugness and insularity, I'm afraid.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-42691814905435964012006-10-26T12:12:00.000-07:002006-10-26T12:12:00.000-07:00It's tough on readers, Johan, when you put so many...It's tough on readers, Johan, when you put so many interesting things into one post. It's taken me a while to check through them. But I also wanted to respond to some of Alan's points.<br /><br />In the first part, he was talking about feeling inadequate to convert his Buddhist, etc. neighbors to Christianity. I liked his point that his efforts are simply to live his life with integrity and hospitality. I wonder why one would bother at all to try to convert people who are happy with their faith when there are so many people unhappy with their lives, who would seem like much better candidates for conversion? Maybe this is my relativistic attitude, or simply a practical question, but I don't understand why this is so important to evangelicals.<br /><br />In the third part, I really liked the quote from Marva Dawn, but I don't know who she is. For me and my Quaker self, I think the point of worship is to devote ourselves to spending time in God's presence. God doesn't need our flattery, but rather our attention. To use a human metaphor, I don't want my children to tell me how pretty I am, I want them to do what I tell them. <br /><br />I would love to know more about how churches intentionally equip themselves for evangelism. How would we do that, if we had outgrown our allergy?<br /><br />Regarding the fourth question, I recently read John Ortberg's book, <i>God Is Closer Than You Think</i>. One of the chapters talks about seven spiritual pathways, ways that people experience the presence of God. Our adult religious ed committee is looking at expanding our definition of religious ed to offer opportunities on a variety of pathways. Next up: a movie night featuring three short post-modern films from www.nooma.com (which I first heard about from Gregg Koskela in Newberg). Next is to look at service opportunities as a form of religious education, not just a peace and justice concern.<br /><br />I have more to say, I'll have to write later. But this was great to engage with. Thank you to both of you.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-37784048805761361242006-10-23T07:01:00.000-07:002006-10-23T07:01:00.000-07:00Both the post and the links are incredibly rich. T...Both the post and the links are incredibly rich. There are some wonderful things going on out there, and people are getting out of some of the old ruts - even Quakers!<br /><br />In our church, we try to focus on being and making disciples of Jesus Christ. This means we do not focus on denominationalism (we're not in one), rigid ideas of what worship must be, a narrow approach to scripture, excluding the "wrong" people, numerical growth in the church as an institution, and so many other things that churches (and unprogrammed Friends meetings) are inclined to do.<br /><br />If the body keeps that focus, it will find itself crossing the traditional lines. For Friends, this could involve inclusion of things like the elements in communion and water baptism (both already adopted by some Friends), and for elements that seem somewhat programmed in "unprogrammed" meetings (done widely now under the subterfuge of the other element, such as singing, being outside the time period designated "meeting for worship" but increasingly treated as part of worship).<br /><br />Some things that have marked Friends, even while Friends might be less rigid in following them, still may have a lot to contribute to the Christian community. One is an awareness of the dangers in a professional clergy class, which I think is a much greater problem than most of the institutional church realizes, even in the emerging church. Another, not really unrelated, is the recognition and provision for God speaking through anyone in the community. Friends might be more useful in making such particular contributions to the broader exploration in the Christian community than in being rigid about applying them internally.<br /><br />I am encouraged by currents that seem to be present and growing in Northwest YM (probably not exclusively there, but it certainly seems by far strongest there) and by the "convergence" movement.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7217199.post-8071041750956015052006-10-22T14:32:00.000-07:002006-10-22T14:32:00.000-07:00Greetings Friend,
I have selected your Quaker blo...Greetings Friend,<br /><br />I have selected your Quaker blog for inclusion in the "Blogging for Worship" listings at <a href="http://quaker.zebby.org">Quaker.zebby.org</a>. I hope this will help bring more visitors to your blog. If you would like to return the favor and help the other quaker bloggers as well, please consider using one of the stickers available on my page.Susie Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11165536000543428173noreply@blogger.com