What just happened to us—to me—in the last 48 hours of the USA's political life?
The first word that came to me is ... catharsis.
Is that fair?
Looking in the Oxford English Dictionary (thanks to our public library's online services), I was reminded that Aristotle's Poetics, in defining dramatic tragedy, proposed a word often translated as "catharsis" or "purgation."
Tragedy, then, is an imitation of an action that is serious, complete, and of a certain magnitude; in language embellished with each kind of artistic ornament, the several kinds being found in separate parts of the play; in the form of action, not of narrative; through pity and fear effecting the proper purgation [katharsis] of these emotions.
[Aristotle, around 335 BCE, via S.H. Butcher, 1895.]
The spectacle we've been presented this last decade has its share of tragedy, evoking an abundance of pity and fear. We saw the MAGA occupation of our federal system replacing long-standing norms with incompetence, corruption, and gleeful cruelty. Lives were lost.
After years of Act I, the USA's voters just presented Act II, arguably a massive catharsis. In fact, I feel as if much of the country looked back on this era of venomous indecency, and metaphorically vomited! At least at the moment, I feel like there's been some kind of a cleansing. Yes, it was fragmented, involving different personalities and local histories in different places, but cumulatively it was an astounding rejection of the toxicity and degradation of the last ten years.
Now we embark on Act III, yet to be written.
Two powerful dynamics compete for center stage. One is a misguided desire for retributive satisfaction. In some cases there's a temptation to rub losers' face into their losses. My fear is that this would simply prolong the "Malice in Wonderland" I've been writing about all along in the Trump era. I hope and believe that this stage will pass.
In this connection, the OED entry for "catharsis" included a quotation from D.H. Lawrence (Touch and Go): "It's a cleansing process—like Aristotle's Katharsis. We shall hate ourselves clean at last, I suppose." Hate has no place in Act III—not from us.
The second dynamic is very different but can be confused with, and compromised by, the first: a correct and necessary demand for accountability. We need wisdom to discern how broad a front of confrontation with waste, corruption, misappropriation, and constitutional violations we can mount, while not neglecting routine (but nevertheless vital) legislation and administration. In sorting out these questions, there will be lots of conflict, horse-trading, second-guessing; it's my hope that the strong personalities that have proven themselves worthy of their recent victory will also be capable of imaginative, ethically informed debate in full public view.
I liked Jennifer Rubin's observations in her Contrarian op-ed, "Margins Matter."
In sum, Democrats have received clear marching orders from the voters. Failure to move expeditiously and aggressively would be a gross error, risking loss of the faith temporarily entrusted to them.
An anti-authoritarian movement cannot stop with a rebuke of those who abuse power. We must urgently call for a Third Reconstruction to address the underlying issues that brought us to this crisis.
Without comment: Kristin Du Mez's "Hot Democracy" post begins with a thread labeled "candidates for a 'Hot Guys of Democracy Calendar'." If you scroll far enough, there's "a bit of analysis."
Jeremy Morris (Postsocialism) on the actual, if unpredictable, fragility of today's Russian system: "Looking in the Crystal Ball, Shattering the Crystal State."
Another delicious rerun from Steve Guyger: "Mighty Long Time," with Anson Funderburgh.
"Fresh olives undergo washing at an olive mill in the Arraba village, Jenin governorate, before being processed for oil extraction, 22 October 2026. Photo by OCHA."
These days, we're in the middle of the olive harvest season in Palestine—and of the violence that, with sad predictability, attends this season. And here in the USA, we're about to harvest the midterm election results in just a few days, with all the tension that has been building up over months of ferocious and sometimes vicious campaigning.
As I follow these stories now, memories of my own modest participation in the Palestinian olive harvest, back in October-November 2019, come flooding back. (So do memories of the two kittens that joined our Hebron-based Christian Peacemaker Team that autumn. More about them below.) The following meditation is from that season, seven years ago:
Stand firm then, with the belt of truth buckled around your waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with your feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. Ephesians 6:14-15, NIV; context.
After years of reading Ephesians on the "whole armor of God" (and hearing sermons, reading commentaries, and so on), last Sunday I finally paid attention to one word that has always slipped by me: the readiness, or preparedness, that comes from the gospel of peace.
It's easy for me to see why I skipped that word. The structure of the other metaphors in Ephesians 6:12-16 are crisp two-word associations:
belt — truth
breastplate — righteousness
shield — faith
... but it's not "shoes — peace," even though my eyes tended to make that contraction.
Different translations into English vary on whether we're supposed to emphasize readiness to proclaim the gospel of peace, or the readiness that comes from that gospel, but either way I find this specific quality fascinating. For myself, I interpret this passage as a call to be alert, attentive, available, to make the connections between the evil we witness and—more and more as we gain practice—apply the peaceable gospel to our situation.
After all, the whole context of these "armor" metaphors is our struggle against the spiritual forces of evil—a struggle that is not against a human enemy, according to Ephesians, even though recorded history shows how we habitually ascribe evil to our flesh-and-blood "enemies" and miss the larger struggle entirely.
Looking around at our painfully divided world, torn apart by racism, nationalism, class warfare, involuntary migration, and environmental damage (abetted by corporate indifference and popular complacency), it is amazing how directly the whole New Testament challenges our number one primordial sin: the ways we objectify each other, and over time, the ways those patterns of objectification solidify into evil structures. Early on, the letter to the Ephesians applies the gospel of peace to these old patterns:
But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near by the blood of Christ.
For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. Ephesians 2:13-17, NIV.
"Russian War against Ukraine. 2022, Orthodox Churches Destroyed." Source.
What does "readiness" to apply the gospel of peace in our time and place look like for you, for me? I hope we will be less content to jump to convenient conclusions about the obvious villains our politicians or activists want us to hate. Will we be more ready to do the hard work of diagnosing the structures that provide the controls and incentives for those agents of division?
What does this "readiness" mean for our own division of labor in the church? Are there experiments in nonviolence that we need to support, or start? Are there prophets among us, who have insights into the way our structures and traditions and habits become corrupt, and whom we need to encourage—first of all by listening to them? If you, reading this, are one of those prophets or experimenters, tell us how you are connecting the gospel of peace to the Lamb's War against bondage. How can the church as a whole become more ready to support you?
My blog posts from autumn 2019 documented our Christian Peacemaker orphan kittens, starting with this post and ending here. In my imagination, on one Sunday I became a kitten, too.
On one of my first days in Hebron, our group visited an extended family that was expecting their four homes to be demolished as a result of the alleged participation of one family member in the murder of a young Israeli man. Toward the end of my visit I was part of a photo team documenting that demolition. As I read today's news of what passes for law enforcement in that land, those memories haunt me.
Elderchaplain Greg Morgan on going gentle into that good night....
Things Philip Gulley learned at Fairfield Friends Meeting.
Happy Halloween! "... Democrats are the party of anti-Western Marxists and hostile third world migrants." Donald Trump, October 19, 2026. (Source of graphic.)
The context: The USA's midterm elections.
In Malice in Wonderland, part one, I analyzed a sample of MAGA rhetoric regarding immigrants.
In what I sincerely hope is the last in this series of posts, I'm simply sharing what the U.S. president and his defenders consider acceptable speech in the service of their current political campaigns.
A couple of the more flagrant insults in this recent speech were covered in the media, but they're so accustomed to performances like this that you need to read a little more to get the full scale.
My original draft of this post included a couple of paragraphs of brilliant commentary. However, I deleted them as totally unnecessary. The transcript speaks for itself.
So here is the president of the USA at Park City, Kansas, three days ago: (based on this full transcript)—judge for yourself if you think I've been unfair in picking these gems. I did edit a bit, mainly by comparing transcripts and making my own paragraph divisions. Within paragraphs, the ellipses ... were in the original transcripts and don't represent cuts made by me.)
When you see burning steeples and raging fires in France, just remember that is what the radical Democrats want to do to America. They expect to do it. They’re not going to come close. And just like in Europe, Democrats are the party of anti-Western Marxist and hostile third world migrants.
And the Dumocrat agenda, and I’ve used this name a lot because their policy is just so dumb. Men in women’s sports, transgender for everybody. The absolute mutilization of your children where your son, Timmy, comes home five days later as Sarah, and you don’t even know about it.
They have open borders so that every jail throughout the entire… From The Congo in Africa to all over South America to Asia and Europe, every jail can be dumped into our country. Murderers, drug dealers, everybody. We’re not putting up, and we never did, and we got them mostly the hell out of here. What a mess that has been.
But the Democrat agenda is a plan to extinguish Western civilization.
The worst thing they did to us is allowing 25 million people into our country totally unchecked, totally unvetted, and many of them were hardcore criminals, 11,888 murderers. And I say it all the time, more than 50% of which killed more than one people.We have them in our country. We’ve gotten most of them out. We’re getting the rest of them out very soon. But they want to shut down our power plants. They want to set loose the criminals, turn your children transgender, confiscate your money, and raise up the Palestinian flag right in the middle of your wonderful state. And at the same time, they’re willing to defile our great and very beautiful American flag. We’re not going to let that happen. Roger [Senator Roger Marshall], how would the Palestinian flag play in the middle of your state? Do think it would play well? I don’t think so. Roger will not… By the way, his opponent, I think, would like it. I’ve learned a lot about him. I’ve learned a lot.
. . .
I have the all time in history Christian vote. I have the evangelical vote, the Christian vote.
. . .
Actual communists: "Where is the party in opposition that has not been decried as communistic by its opponents in power?" Source.
The Democrats are the party of Abdul Mohammed El-Sayed. He got very upset because I called him Mohammed. I just felt like it. Somebody said, “how did you do that?” I said, “I’m the president. I can call him whatever the hell I want.” And then they sent me his full name. And, actually, his middle name is Mohammed. You can believe it? It’s true. One good thing, if you call somebody from that part of the world Mohammed, you’re about 65% sure to get it right. So if you have any problem with names, just call the guy Mohammed.
. . .
You have Ilhan Omar. How about her? She comes from maybe the worst country in the entire world, Somalia. They have no government. They have no—they have nothing. All they do is shoot each other. And she comes over here and starts quoting I have constitutional rights, the Constitution. This country—and she hates our country. She is so pathetic.
Rashida Tlaib, how about that beauty? Rashida Tlaib, AOC, AOC. I like AOC better. You know she's doing her thing. James—how about who is now losing, by the way. Ken Paxton is winning in Texas. Because people got wise to James Talafreako. You remember Elizabeth Pocahontas Warren. How about her? Remember the—the ad she did with—her husband walked into the house? "Oh, hi." "Hi, darling." It was like she hadn't seen him in about 20 years. "Oh, hi. Would you like a beer?" Do you remember that crazy ad? Was that the worst? How about this low IQ person, Maxine Waters, low IQ? Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, they're all bad. How would you like to have them representing all of the fraudsters, thieves and thugs driving around in luxury cars? You go up to Minnesota, number one place in the entire country for the sale of Mercedes Benz. Think of it. And Somalians are buying. They come here with low IQs and no money and they get rich.
. . .
So Roger’s opponent [Adam Hamilton]… I did a lot of work on this because, again, I was the number one vote getter whether you call… Whether you say Christianity, whether you say evangelical… I have them all. Whether you say Catholic. How about Catholic?
But the number one, by far, was… I don’t believe there was anybody even in second place. There was nothing left. But… So I understand what I’m saying.
Adam Hamilton used to say bad things about me, really radical left things. I mean, he would talk… I said, “this guy’s a radical left lunatic.” And… But he would say bad things about me. And all I did is fight to get rid of the Johnson amendment, to do all of the things I’ve done, so many different things. But he’d… I’d see him. I didn’t know. I never thought he’d be running for office. But I used to hear about this lunatic up here. I said, “what the hell is he doing in Kansas?” But he'd say bad crap about me. And I don’t like people that do that, but he’s a radical left phony who’s pretending to be a moderate because he does not have the courage to tell Kansas the truth about his belief and really who he is.
Hamilton opposed my travel ban to keep terrorists and extremists out of our country, and he was vicious about it. What kind of a president would want to keep killers, thugs, lunatics, but he didn’t say that out of our country. He supports flooding Kansas with unvetted refugees who go around killing people literally for no reason. And they come in. He says it’s okay for people to come in from the most dangerous places on earth they can pour into Kansas. Adam Hamilton used church dollars to fund anti religious transgender activities. I mean… And so he used a lot of church money to fund all of this transgender crap that you’re reading about, who openly mocks Jesus, and he openly mocks Jesus. He promotes a document listing 125 different genders.
Adam Hamilton stated that he believes America is systemically racist. He said that white people must repent. Repent all of you white people. [Laughter] Terrible, terrible—terrible, terrible white people. But for being white, they want you… He wants you to repent because you’re born white and that Kansans should also repent for eating beef because you’re causing global warming. No, but—but think of that. He wants the cattle gone not for—for some reason, because he says they create—you—you know what that means by global warming, right? You know what they're talking about? Next will be human—next will be human beings. When's he going to get into the human being stuff?
. . .
Canada’s been ripping us off for so many years. People got used to it. I didn’t get used to it. We got it under control. No. They’re all leaving O Canada. What do we need their cars for? We… He said, “we’re going to…” Only in Kansas can you get away with it. No. But I do like their national anthem. And I promised them if they become a fifty first state, which is actually what they should do. I said, “I will let you keep ice hockey, and I will let you keep your "O Canada" national anthem.” I like it. So they can have it as a state anthem. No. We’re only kidding. We’re having a good time, but they have been screwing us, really, and they don’t… They’re not doing it anymore. They say, “let’s make a deal. How about a deal?”
See, the thing is they do 95% of their business with us. We do very little with them, and we lose 90 billion a year. I would say that’s a little too much for the privilege of having people live through very cold weather. They do live through cold. Did you ever see the line they drew? They drew years ago. They drew just a line. Some guy with a ruler. Dead straight lines. Not pretty at all. Just a drape. They said, “let those people have that cold air. It’s too cold.” Well, they shouldn’t have done that, but I understand. But Canada’s… They have really… I don’t think… Maybe I’m wrong. I don’t think they have a choice if you want another chance. But we’re not going to lose $90 billion to carry another country. Just like we’re not going to lose a $150 billion with Mexico. And Mexico and Us are very close to a great deal, which will get that number way down, maybe down to… What do you think, Roger, if I told you maybe down to zero? Because we’re losing a lot of money with these. We’re carrying all these countries, and I don’t want to carry these countries. That includes Europe, by the way. Lots of places in Europe. No. We got it. We got it under control, everybody. I love doing this crap. I love it.
. . .
But the Trump dividend, which is the 5,000, just to show you how it does work, it’s approximately $1 trillion. But we have a record setting $22.2 trillion that’s being invested in the United States right now in just fifteen months. So it’s not really… Because we have growth the likes of which no country has ever seen before. That’s what I meant by the pundit. “Do you know what’s happening?” There’s never been growth like this ever.
So the only caveat on the $5,000 is that the Trump dividend, you must spend the money in the United States of America. Okay? We don’t want you saying to your husband, Jim… Oh, because you each get a check, by the way. You don’t want… We don’t want you saying to Jim, “Jim, let’s go to China and spend time on. Let’s go to Japan. Let’s go to South Korea. Let’s go to some beautiful place like France. Let’s go to France. We can join the revolution, Jim, and then come home to sanity.” We don’t want to go to France. I would think that France’s recreation climate is not too good right now. No. But I don’t want you to go to France. I don’t want you to go to The United Kingdom. You got to spend the money in the United States of America. That’s alright.
. . .
So the choice in this election is very simple. You can vote for the radical left Democrat communists to loot your wealth, raise your taxes by $5 trillion, annihilate your borders, decimate Kansas farms, mutilate your children, and give 25 million illegal aliens amnesty to vote. That’s why they let them in. They want to have them vote. Cheating is not good enough. They cheat like hell, but that’s not good enough. They want to destroy our country. Or you can defeat the Democrat communist and vote for more money in your pockets, bigger paychecks for your families, lower taxes, less crime, a booming Kansas economy, and no amnesty for illegal aliens. No amnesty. No amnesty.
I thought about including his fascinating description of his cognitive tests, but thought better of it. You're welcome.
Don't accept this as normal!
Helen Cox Richardson on Trump and Putin, Ramaswami vs Acton, "fear porn," and other pre-election notes.
Richard Beck has been posting an interesting series on Substack, "Transplant Shock and Spiritual Formation in Protestant Spaces." Here's part seven, "Grace Is Not Opposed to Effort."
This is why Dallas Willard had to say, over and over again, that grace is not opposed to effort. It is, rather, opposed to earning. Willard’s line has become one of the most quoted sentences in evangelical spiritual formation precisely because of what I’m calling transplant shock. Within a synergistic context, Willard’s clarification is unnecessary. Of course, effort and grace are not competitors. Prior to the Protestant Reformation no one imagined that fasting or contemplation would threaten grace.
Mimi Marstaller on "extended worship" at Portland (Maine) Friends, and the hospitable example of Jean Zaru.
Finally, back to election season USA. Kristin Du Mez on what history tells us about contested elections. And from the Public Religion Research Institute: Political implications from their 2026 American Values Survey.
Yesterday I walked over to St Olave's Church to hear Swedish pianist Katarina Ström play a recital program she entitles "An Equal Music," demonstrating how jazz and classical music blend together with no hard boundary.
Her program included Chopin, Ryuitchi Sakamoto short pieces paired with Bach, three Gershwin preludes, Duke Ellington, and Beethoven. She asked us to listen for Bach's and Sakamoto's shared understanding of the silence between notes.
Judy and I spent much of yesterday visiting the "Revolution 250" exhibit at the National Archives in London. The presentation was thoughtful and balanced. What made it extraordinary for me was the inclusion of such vivid first-hand materials as a British officer's personal description of the Boston Tea Party, actual stamps printed for the notorious Stamp Act, a sample of encrypted correspondence, transcripts of negotiations between British representatives and indigenous leaders, and the two Treaties of Paris that bracket the period covered by the exhibition.
The inclusion of a newly discovered copy of the Declaration of Independence, in relatively good condition, gave me an opportunity to read it once again—this time in light of our current state of affairs in the USA. Its clarity is startling:
We're cutting our political ties with a monarchy, and here's why.
Statement of principle: we believe human beings are entitled to certain "inalienable rights" and governments are supposed to make them real, or else people have a right to rebel and institute new arrangements.
The government we're separating from didn't keep faith with us, and here's a list of 27 specific grievances.
Our humble appeals have been ignored.
We're saying goodbye and setting off on our own course as an independent country.
The power of the Declaration's structure and rhetoric reminded me of the 34th chapter of Ezekiel. Here we see:
Statements of principle: Should not shepherds take care of the flock? (from verse 2)
The so-called shepherds didn't keep faith with their flocks; and here's a list of grievances (all through chapter 34).
You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock.
You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured.
You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost.
You have ruled them harshly and brutally.
...My shepherds did not search for my flock but cared for themselves rather than for my flock...
Is it not enough for you to feed on the good pasture? Must you also trample the rest of your pasture with your feet?
Is it not enough for you to drink clear water? Must you also muddy the rest with your feet? Must my flock feed on what you have trampled and drink what you have muddied with your feet?
...You shove with flank and shoulder, butting all the weak sheep with your horns until you have driven them away...
Therefore the LORD will abolish the government of the shepherds and govern them directly, with justice:
This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.
For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. ...I will shepherd the flock with justice.
As different as these two cases are (the Declaration of Independence and Ezekiel's presentation of indictments and remedies), and in view of the upcoming U.S. midterm elections, can we draw any analogies and conclusions about the MAGA occupation of our country? Have our country's shepherds cared for us, or have they cared rather more for themselves? Have they ruled harshly and brutally? Have they muddied our waters and trampled our pastures? Have they shoved with flank and shoulder? Have they failed to strengthen the weak or to heal the sick?
The USA was a nation founded on ideals of government of, for, and by the people. For many generations, we gradually strove to realize those ideals. And what now?
(I thought about searching for an insults tracker, but, sadly, considering how much slander and false witness is happening on all sides, it would be a hopeless task! However, I think I'm safe in saying that at no time in modern U.S. history has the nation's president and his closest allies flooded the country and the world with such a flood of abuse, invective, contempt, bombast, and vulgarity as we witness now.)
Remedies ...
--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
— The Declaration of Independence.
For USA citizens, remedy number one, the right of the People to alter...: Vote November 3.
So I thought bringing the message today would be relatively straightforward. But it hasn’t been. I feel like I’m encountering this passage for the first time, and it’s making me uncomfortable. I find myself identifying more with the Hebrews, making their golden calf, than I do with Moses and God up on the mountain. Every other time I’ve read this passage, it’s felt obvious to me how wrong the people were in making the golden calf and how obviously just God was in his fury. But for some reason, this time around, I am sympathetic to the people.
Happily, we have a thoughtful and well-prepared co-navigator for this adventure, Stuart K. Masters.
The first audience for the presentation of Tangled Roots: Navigating the Complex Legacy of Early Quakers, were those attending his Swarthmore Lecture 2026, at Britain Yearly Meeting's most recent sessions. The lecture in book form has been available ever since, published by the sponsor of the Swarthmore lectures, Woodbrooke. Stuart has put together a useful Web page with links to the lecture in video form, several related videos, and excerpts sampling each of the book's main themes.
The Quaker movement has not lacked for drama, conflict, divisions, and variety across the many generations since the mid-seventeenth century when we got underway. But Stuart Masters proposes a set of themes—creative tensions, as he calls them—that were present from the very start and that help us understand that complexity. In his words,
... I will attempt to describe the diverse mix of characteristics visible in the early Quaker movement that have produced four important creative tensions for subsequent generations to navigate.
1) Inward experience and received tradition – Friends have practised a Spirit-led faith based on continuing revelation, making them cautious of human traditions. However, since they have established a tradition of their own, how should Quakers balance the inward guidance received in the present with the beliefs and practices inherited from the past?
2) Communal order and individual freedom – There has been a long-standing creative tension between communal order and individual freedom. Sometimes Friends have enforced uniformity through systems of corporate discipline, while at other times they have promoted freedom and a permissive attitude to individual belief and behaviour.
3) Quietist and charismatic – The first Friends combined a contemplative spiritual practice of inward surrender with a strongly embodied charismatic response which was physical, emotional and visible. Subsequent generations have struggled to hold these two apparently conflicting characteristics together.
4) New creation and the world – Quakers have always found themselves caught between the world as it currently is, and a vision of a new creation of peace, justice and truth. How should they balance the desire to play a constructive role within the world with the need to resist its violent, unjust, and destructive ways?
Each chapter of Tangled Roots traces these tensions and the attempts to resolve them (or not) early in Quaker history and in subsequent generations and locations, right up to today. Masters recognizes that he himself and his most immediate readership live in secular liberal societies, but he always invites readers to take into account the global Quaker movement, and how different parts of that movement made or make different choices in resolving those tensions.
My hope is that this material will help Friends learn from Quaker history and their spiritual heritage, nurture their self-awareness, prompt a greater sensitivity to global Quaker diversity, and think deeply about their current faith and practice as they discern what this might look like in future.
The careful organization of this book—applying each major theme/tension across time and across the major Quaker divisions of each time period—would, I believe, make this an ideal book for group study. I can imagine a discussion forming around such questions as "what aspects of our varied legacy was I unaware of, and which of them seem undervalued in my corner of the Quaker world," and "what conversations would I like to open with Friends who made different choices in resolving these tensions, and how might those conversations start?"
Early in his first chapter, "Inward Experience and Received Tradition," Masters states,
Friends have always practised an experimental and Spirit-led faith based on continuing revelation, making them cautious about the value of the received tradition and doctrines of the Christian Church.
First of all, it's important to consider what "caution" means. The founding generation of Quakers evidently saw themselves as returning to Christian roots. They were cautious about second-hand teachings, mediations, and ceremonies, not the raw reality of New Testament Christianity and the immediate headship of Christ.
The word "always" ("Friends have always practised...") is a strong word. Are most rank and file Quakers in their daily lives and their meetings for worship aware that they are practicing an experimental faith based on continuing revelation, and are most other Christians, by contrast, in some kind of rut? It's worth considering whether such awareness of the experimental and Spirit-led nature of our faith, and the resulting caution about second-hand Christianity, depend somewhat on our own gifts and temperaments, as would also be true in any other religious fellowship. I think the author's assertion is a valuable invitation to discuss the Quaker contribution to global spirituality, but my own caution is that some of us are overly fond of Quaker specialness. Maybe this implies another tension: the importance of knowing and cherishing our particular hard-won legacy of discipleship vs the danger of elitism, and eventual isolation and stagnation.
Working on that tension would be helpful in correcting the biases in our outreach efforts. Liberal Friends often seem to me to be appealing to the skeptics in the wider culture, signaling that among us you won't find obnoxious reminders of Christianity and the Bible. (I'm exaggerating for effect, but not much.) Little or no attention is paid to the needs of people who are joyful and enthusiastic in their faith but want to be in a trustworthy community that doesn't manipulate or dominate them, and does connect the dots between faith and ethical discipleship in the real world. Why would we not yearn to attract some of them as well?
Evangelicals often try to tease skeptics and seekers with promises of certainty (and sometimes with threats of eternal consequences for those who resist certainty). Those skeptics would be better served by our communicating readiness to listen (to them as well as to God), to let them know that their skepticism can be useful in a community that truly values accountability, and that their doubts do not disqualify them from participating in the beloved community. Skeptics and refugees from authoritarian religion don't get to veto things that they don't like, but they should be able to count on our hospitality, our deep listening, our own commitment to transparency and healing, and our undefensiveness when we've been guilty of watering down the Gospel and counting on the now-expiring privileges that Christendom has claimed in many cultures. Just as with liberal Friends, skeptics should see that evangelical Quakers really want to connect faith with ethical discipleship. And everyone needs to understand how a newcomer can become a full participant and, as their gifts blossom, a minister and leader.
A related question: Does the "always" actually refer to a specific subgroup among us—Friends who feel called to be particularly attentive to these continuities and discontinuities across the varieties of Friends? Is there another tension or divergence evident among three groups ...
those who are deliberately reflective about these issues (including those who produce valuable scholarship),
those who are eager to defend one or another tendency or priority, and
those who just want to attend church weekly in a familiar and trustworthy setting?
I see that third group as the warm-hearted majority among us who rarely think about the tensions and cautions that ultimately led to the formation of their own regional and local congregations, but trust that they are simply gathering together in the presence of God, bringing their hopes and cares into God's Light.
What might the historians and theologians among us owe that third group? By "owe" I mean (a) serving the needs of that third group without condescension, and (b) also making the spiritual insights gained in such reflections accessible to that third group. I don't mean telling them that they are the products of tensions and compromises, and that maybe others made better or more sophisticated choices because they were more cautious about Christianity and more open to continuing revelation.
In that context, I believe Tangled Roots provides a genuine service to that group I envision as the warm-hearted majority.
Another question: As we consider the twists and turns of Quaker history and the larger context of church history, are we commenting from inside a believing community, or observing it from (at least aspirationally) an objective or phenomenological stance? If we are believers, that means we don't have to limit ourselves to dissecting recurring themes in reformation history mechanically, deducing or guessing who might have read whom (useful as that can be!), but can also attribute insights and breakthroughs in various eras to a shared influence of the Holy Spirit, Whose anointing doesn't have to follow our denominational chronologies and conceits.
My Friends meeting, Reedwood Friends Church, has a program providing grants for student research, Reedwood Research Grants on Quaker SPICES. Recent grant recipients from Reed College (across the street from Reedwood) gave two remarkable presentations:
Xavier da Silva: "Sincere Faith: On Modern Lois and Timothys" (referring to 2 Timothy 1:5)
Parrish Johnson: "Study of the Sophia Christi Catholic (Womenpriest) Community."
Here's a video of their presentation:
Elderchaplain: Wonder, belovedness, and "kisses from the sun."
I have been writing about New Right intellectuals since 2019. The most common response I get when I mention this to liberals is something along the lines of “Trumpy intellectuals? Now that’s an oxymoron!” or “Hahaha, I think you mean dumb fascists!” While the impulse is understandable, it’s also mistaken and counterproductive.
Many on the left assume that the only serious reason to support the GOP has to do with finance and tax returns, and that right-wing voters are racists. But people’s motives are mixed, and America’s reactionary intellectuals are armed with more than greed and prejudice. They also have reasons and arguments that they appear to care about, whole epochs and libraries full, ready-to-hand. What the writer Matthew Rose says about the radical right is true of the New Right, too:
Almost everything written about the “alternative right” has been wrong in one respect. The alt-right is not stupid; it is deep. Its ideas are not ridiculous; they are serious. To appreciate this fact, one needs to inquire beyond its presence on social media, where its obnoxious use of insult, obscenity, and racism has earned it a reputation for moral idiocy. The reputation is deserved, but do not be deceived. Behind its online tantrums and personal attacks are arguments of seductive power.
When we went on vacation to Maine this past summer, I brought along Laura Field's compilation and guide to the intellectuals who inform and defend the MAGA occupation of the USA, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. I spent more time with the book than just about any other activity. The result: a book with maybe more highlighting than untouched text.
"Key people and institutions of the MAGA New Right"
The book mentions several hundred individuals, publications, podcasts, and organizations, and I'll never remember them all. I had heard of some of them—20% or so, based on a quick scan of the index—but most were new to me. They hold (and clash over) a variety of specific priorities, and indeed change their views at times, but the majority seem to agree on several basics.
Michael Anton, who was one of the first to defend Trumpism in intellectual terms, defined it in September 2016 as “secure borders, economic nationalism, and America-first foreign policy.” This is a useful shorthand that captures some of the fundamentals. The New Right is indeed, with very few exceptions, anti-immigration. It stands against free trade and globalism. And it represents a turn against the neoconservative interventionism in foreign affairs that characterized the first part of the twenty-first century. But if those are the ribs of the New Right’s politics, Anton’s formulation hides the spine, which is a staunch social traditionalism and rejection of liberal pluralism and egalitarianism; in other words, the various New Right policy prongs are organized around a traditionalist (usually white, Christian, and patriarchal) social vision and homogenizing nationalism meant to counter and replace pluralistic liberalism. The New Right views mainstream liberal America—the “woke” America that embraces plurality and equality, including across various formerly marginalized identities—as an all-encompassing, monolithic “regime” of elite oppression (which they often also refer to as the “enemy”). Culture warriorism—which we might define as an excessive emphasis on rhetoric and media performance over policy formulation and real-world political negotiation—plays a major role on the New Right because at bottom this is a movement driven by reactionary social values and principles, not specific policy concerns.
The movement also varies in its political extremism, but a frequent point of agreement is that the New Right must not count on winning elections. One way or another, it must take over and establish permanent rule. There is no place for pluralism in these visions.
Field's ability to deliver intense research, made more readable with lively bits of humor and self-disclosure, and with allusions to classical literature, reminded me of the Quaker classicist Sarah Ruden. I appreciated the ways Field lived up to her Chapter One pledge to approach her subjects seriously and with fairness, conceding the point when New Right commentators made valid criticisms of today's liberal failures and intellectual laziness. She also recounts the role conservatives such as Leon Craig and the influence of Leo Strauss had in her own education.
I don't feel qualified to give her book a full and competent review, though I can testify that it is absorbing reading. The coverage of religious influences—Catholic integralism, Calvinists, the New Apostolic Reformation—is well done. In lieu of a more complete assessment on my part, here are links to a positive review in The Atlantic, a very negative review in the Claremont Review of Books written by Michael Anton, one of the people she wrote about, and her lively reply to that negative review. Enjoy ... if that's the right word.
But wait, there's even more!
Ellerie Brownfain had some helpful comments on last week's post, But wait!... With her permission, I'm posting those comments here:
Your blog post is spot on. It is light and lovely and beautifully written. I especially enjoyed how it begins with the Bible and that joyful refrain of "But wait, there's more!" From there you carry the reader through the whole story of the church to where Friends find ourselves today. That is a great deal of ground to cover with such a gentle touch.
Your "But wait, there's less!" made me smile and then gave me much to think about. I appreciate writing that does both.
I was recently in Germany walking around in Reformation history. So I could not help noticing a few points you may wish to consider.
Your list reads as though each movement waited politely for the one before to finish. They did not. Luther posted his 95 Theses in 1517. Within a few short years the Radical Reformation was already underway right alongside him. These movements grew up together like siblings and squabbled like them too. The first Anabaptists were Zwingli's own students in Zurich. They decided their teacher had not gone nearly far enough. Teachers everywhere will sympathize.
Poor Zwingli seems to have been left off the guest list. He came before Calvin and did a great deal of the "less." He became the people's priest in Zurich in 1519 and started preaching straight through the Gospel of Matthew. No set readings. Just the Bible in plain Swiss German. His reform really took off in 1522 over a plate of sausages. Some of his friends ate them during Lent. Zwingli was there and did not eat but he defended them from the pulpit. That may be the only time sausages started a reformation.
From there things moved quickly. The city council held public debates and sided with Zwingli. In 1524 the church walls in Zurich were whitewashed of all images. The organs were silenced as well. By 1525 the Mass was gone and the Lord's Supper became a simple memorial meal served at plain tables.
Luther was not about to let that go. In 1529 Prince Philip of Hesse invited them both to his castle at Marburg. Philip was a Protestant prince with a Catholic problem. The emperor Charles V wanted everyone back in the Roman fold, and Philip hoped a united front might change his mind. So he gave the two reformers room and board and hoped for the best. Luther and Zwingli agreed on fourteen points and parted over the fifteenth, which was the Lord's Supper. The story goes that Luther chalked "This is my body" on the table and kept pointing at it. Friends would say they never found the sense of the meeting. Philip was left without his alliance. One can only imagine how dinner went.
Zwingli's end is a sobering one for Friends. In 1531 he rode out with the Zurich army against the Catholic cantons and was killed at Kappel. His own students the Anabaptists had already refused the sword. So the removal of sacred images might sit more comfortably in your section with Zwingli and Calvin. And the peace testimony has an older family tree than we sometimes remember.
Luther also kept more than we tend to remember. The Lutherans held on to altars and images and vestments and much of the old liturgy. Some of them even kept their bishops.
The early English Baptists did write confessions of faith. The best known are from 1644 and 1689. As you say, "soul competency" came later. It was an American Baptist named E. Y. Mullins who gave it that name in 1908. The English root of that idea is Thomas Helwys. In 1612 he wrote to King James asking freedom of conscience for everyone. The king answered by putting him in prison where he died. Many early Friends came out of the General Baptists who followed Helwys. So in a way they are our cousins.
I was especially moved by your closing. Meeting seekers with open and searching conversation.
— Ellerie Brownfain
Added Friday: A "Big Read" online book conversation with Defying Tyrants author Matthew Taylor on October 8 (two days after the book is released; you get a free excerpt when you register). I commented on his previous book, The Violent Take It By Force, in this blog post: Enthusiasm and politics.
Naomi Klein and Astra Taylor on a secular vision of end times, courtesy of the mega-rich. Serious question: is this a fair article?
