Showing posts with label barclay. Show all posts
Showing posts with label barclay. Show all posts

25 January 2024

Pure intention, part three: Fox, Penn, and deconstruction

(The ecstasy of worship is connected to pure intention.  Pure intention, part two).


Source.  

Do not satisfie yourselves with out-sides, with a Name, a Profession, a Church-membership, &c. For 'tis not what you say, but what you do. But Turn In, and examine your own Hearts, see how they stand affected towards God and his Law and Truth in your inward Parts. Be Strict and True in the Search, as you would save your Souls. If your Minds be set on Heavenly Things, and that Holiness and Charity be the zealous Bent thereof, well will it be with you for ever.... 

Isa. 51. 6. Jer. 31. 33. Heb. 8. 10, 11, 12. Phil. 1. 12. Psal. 144. 15. 

—William Penn A Key... (1693)

Last year, when the "word of the year" for Camas Friends Church was curiosity, I was curious about how many friends (Friends) I knew whose faith journeys were in a time of deconstruction.

(For the year 2024, our church's word of the year is repair, a word I link more or less closely with all sorts of other re- verbs: restore, renew, renovate, resurrect, resuscitate, rejuvenate, regenerate, revitalize, reanimate ... reboot. They all have corresponding nouns, too, and let's not forget renaissance, rebirth, and so on. A fertile word!)

Last year, in part two, I thought about why, as an adult convert, I hadn't felt a similar desire to deconstruct my understandings of faith. I'm sure part of the reason was that I was an adult convert. At times, when I heard people's positive stories of growing up in the church, I regretted not having the supportive family that church had been in those people's experience. But when I heard stories about the church's shadow side—from fear of damnation for petty misdeeds, all the way to outright abuse—I could see that my late entry had its pluses. As I became more involved in Quaker institutions, I began to realize that I had some responsibility for church systems that wounded others, even if they hadn't directly wounded me.

This was part of why I began to think about what it meant for a church to be trustworthy. One step in that journey was my participation in a group of Friends who had gathered around a former student of a residential Friends school who had been molested by the headmaster. That case became a centerpiece of a special issue of Quaker Life. (A Mennonite periodical's article on a similar theme had encouraged us to take this step, despite Quaker Life's ancient avoidance patterns for anything controversial.) Another step was the experience of reading Gordon Aeschliman's book Cages of Pain, which I wrote about here.

Lately I've been reading some writings of early Friends, in connection with my last three blog posts on why Quakers might prefer the term Quaker or Friend to refer to themselves and their churches/meetings. Today I've been re-reading William Penn's brief tract with a long title, A KEY, Opening the Way to every Capacity; How to distinguish the RELIGION professed by the People called QUAKERS, from the Perversions and Misrepresentations of their Adversaries, With a brief Exhortation to all Sorts of People to examine their Ways, and their Hearts, and turn speedily to the Lord.

Back in 1974, as an enthusiastic new Quaker, I was eagerly immersing myself in the journals of George Fox and John Woolman, the book of discipline of London Yearly Meeting, Barclay's Apology, and William Penn's Key, along with the other writings and tracts that I mentioned here. Something in this material struck me in a new way today. Maybe it occurred to you a long time ago! But here's what I realized: the early Quakers might strike us now as staunch defenders of Christian faith, but they themselves did an enormous amount of deconstructing. And they did so at great cost and risk.

Consider these famous lines from George Fox:

Now after I had received that opening from the Lord that to be bred at Oxford or Cambridge was not sufficient to fit a man to be a minister of Christ, I regarded the priests less and looked more after the dissenting people…. As I had forsaken all the priests, so I left the separate preachers also, and those called the most experienced people; for I saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition. And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, oh then, I heard a voice which said, ‘There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition’, and when I heard it my heart did leap for joy. [1647]

I've always been impressed by his vivid recollection of that "voice"—but look at what preceded it. After bitter experience, he had to leave the religion industry and all its management structure behind. It's not surprising that his first imprisonment—for blasphemy—was just a few years away.

And then here is his future wife Margaret Fell reporting on the sermon that he gave at Ulverston steeplehouse in 1652:

And then he went on, and opened the Scriptures, and said, ‘The Scriptures were the prophets’ words and Christ’s and the apostles’ words, and what as they spoke they enjoyed and possessed and had it from the Lord’. And said, ‘Then what had any to do with the Scriptures, but as they came to the Spirit that gave them forth. You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?’

Talk about deconstruction! He neither dismisses the Bible nor gives it a magical superiority that the Bible itself never claims. He honors the Bible but also challenges his audience by linking the Bible's rootedness in the Spirit with the people's innate capacity to hear the same Spirit, if they will do so.

Barclay's full-length Apology and Penn's short Key both purport to defend Quakers from charges of heresy by showing how our every apparent peculiarity is directly tied to the Bible, or plain logic, or both. Even so, in their own ways, they are textbooks of deconstruction. A typical argument from Penn: 

(a) the Quakers' opponent's "perversion" says that Quakers don't believe in X, 

(b) but (says Penn) nothing could be further from the truth. The opponents hedge that X with human inventions, but we Quakers take a simple and direct approach. Look at a few of the "perversions" he cites in A Key, and see what I mean.

None of this is to suggest that the Quaker movement turned out to be immune from corrupting influences. At times we've tolerated pride, self-mythologizing, social prejudices of all kinds, cultural blind spots leading to colonialism, doctrinal rigidities among liberals and evangelicals alike, the twin addictions of affluence and individualism, and the struggles of technocrats and spiritualizers who fight over "what" and "how" and forget to ask "WHY?

Friends who once admired William Penn now must deal directly with his ownership of slaves, and even Fox himself now seems unclear—perhaps ignorant, perhaps resigned—about the slavery he encountered in the colonies. More recently, I know that scandals equal to those reported by Gordon Aeschliman have happened in Friends organizations.

However, at their best, our founding parents were able to model the deconstructing power of returning to the Center. It's important to recognize what they did; it's more important to do likewise ourselves.


Ron Worden on George Fox's use of the Bible.

Friends World Committee for Consultation, Section of the Americas, seeks a new executive secretary. Robin Mohr's very productive service for FWCC ends in July 2024.

Judy Maurer interviews Windy Cooler for our Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends newsletter.

We [Quakers] have a need to belong to each other—and to belong to that identity. For us, to allow shame into our lives and into our communities is incredibly threatening. It’s things like interpersonal violence or substance abuse or having too much money or too little money. These are all taboo in the broader society but I think inside of our little emotional pressure cooker, which is this tiny little Quaker world that we share with each other, being open about the shame of these things would be completely off limits.

Living Histories: A Past Studies Journal. Looks very interesting. Unfortunately, the next deadline for submissions (February 2) is almost upon us.

Woodbrooke hosts Paul Anderson, March 13, for an evangelical Quaker perspective on George Fox.


Angela Strehli with the Aki Kumar Band with a Muddy Waters classic, "I Love the Life I Live."

29 October 2020

God's sweet revenge

Hell as interior decoration. BBC's Andrew Graham-Dixon in the TV series The Art of Russia.
Grayson Gilbert wants us to know that "There Are No Atheists in Hell." 

Is this the kind of good news that Pope Francis means when he reassures a grieving child that the child's unbelieving father will not be rejected by God? (In other words, that atheists are not automatically condemned to hell?)

Not exactly. Judge for yourself:

At the end of all days, every knee shall bow, every tongue shall confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord. They [that is, atheists, with their "concealed hatred of God"] will not confess that He is Savior then because He will not be a Savior to them then. There is nothing they can be saved from. They squandered away a lifetime of opportunity to repent and believe the gospel; there are no second chances. It is assigned once for man [sic] to die and meet judgment. There is no hope for the one who dies under the consuming wrath of God, but just as there remains no hope for those who do not believe upon Christ prior to their death, there will be no lingering skepticism. There will be no doubt. There will be no unbelief. All will believe and will either go away to eternal death or eternal life, for there will be no atheists in Hell.

In my ongoing attempts to find out why certainty about eternal torment plays such a central role with some Christian thinkers, I took Gilbert's approach and the Pope's approach and let them play out in my imagination. I imagined the atheist father of the child whom Francis consoled in the video linked above, and, on my mind's stage, had him appearing before God's judgment seat.

Gilbert's God: "What are you looking at me like that for? See, I'm real, you damned atheist. You had a lifetime of opportunity to repent and believe the good news, but you squandered them away in (a) riotous living, or (b) helping other people to the best of your secular self. Go to hell and fry forever!"

(I know we're supposed to imagine them roasting or broiling, or as the vivid icon in Ivan's the Terrible* office shows, boiling in oil, but my mother used this specific curse when she was really angry: "Go to hell and fry forever!")

(* That punctuation is an inside joke.)

The Pope's God: "Surprise! Maybe now you'll believe me. Beloved, welcome to my house!"

Yes, I'm having fun now, but actually I'm angry. What evangelist in his or her right mind thinks that we can build a case for a loving and merciful God by insisting on God's final revenge on those who cannot cross the threshold of faith, not because their atheism masks a "concealed hatred of God" but because (1) they can't work it out intellectually, despite genuine efforts, or (2) they've never heard a coherent and credible presentation of the Gospel offered without hidden agendas, or (3) most members of God's fan club they know seem to revel in malice, racism, xenophobia, violence, or greed.

I'm not the only angry one. When early Quaker theologian Robert Barclay, in writing his Apology for the True Christian Divinity, got around to dealing with this damnation business, he had nothing but scorn: 

As for that doctrine which these propositions [Propositions 5 and 6 of his Apology] chiefly strike at, to wit, absolute reprobation, according to which some are not afraid to assert: That God, by an eternal and immutable decree, hath predestinated to eternal damnation the far greater part of mankind, not considered as made, much less as fallen, without any respect to their disobedience or sin, but only for the demonstrating of the glory of his justice; and that for the bringing this about he hath appointed these miserable souls necessarily to walk in their wicked ways, that so his justice may lay hold on them: and that God doth therefore not only suffer them to be liable to this misery in many parts of the world, by withholding from them the preaching of the Gospel and the knowledge of Christ, but even in those places where the Gospel is preached, and salvation by Christ is offered; whom though he publicly invite them, yet he justly condemns for disobedience, albeit he hath withheld from them all grace by which they could have laid hold of the Gospel, viz.: Because he hath, by a secret will unknown to all men, ordained and decreed (without any respect had to their disobedience or sin) that they shall not obey, and that the offer of the Gospel shall never prove effectual for their salvation, but only serve to aggravate and occasion their greater condemnation.

I say, as to this horrible and blasphemous doctrine, our cause is common with many others, who have both wisely and learnedly, according to Scripture, reason, and antiquity, refuted it.
Gilbert's God: Johan, you're in for it now. Robert Barclay is roasting or frying (take your choice) with all those others who tried to gain followers for me without warning them about the awful consequences should you fail to convince them. Turn or burn!



In one of my previous attempts to deal with hell's advocates, I granted that, theoretically, it is possible for someone to become aware of God's grace and mercy and deliberately reject it, but is that the real situation of everyone who finds themselves outside the camp of certified Christians? And, as long as we're imagining this vain and hypercritical God who says, "Love me or else!", what fate awaits those Christians whose anger, hunger for power, or imperial enmeshments repel potential believers?

I have a gentle question for these pro-hell Christian intellectuals:

If you and I were to go into a quiet corner where colleagues whose approval you crave, the buyers of your books, and your media audiences all can't hear us, would you agree that God's mercy might extend to those in Matthew 25 who unknowingly fed Jesus when he was hungry, clothed him when he needed clothes, and visited him in captivity, without doctrinal conditions? I suspect many of them would say "yes." What keeps them from proclaiming this? (Or are they really all beyond hope?)

Jesus mentions the outer darkness and the flames of eternal torment more than once -- perhaps most vividly in describing the fate of the rich man who did not open his gate to Lazarus. He says or implies that committing evil acts, abusing children, ignoring his explicit invitations, and blaspheming the Holy Spirit, all put us in spiritual danger of going to the bad place prepared for the devil and his angels. But where does it say that a person of good will who cannot believe in God will only find out his or her error when it's too late to escape eternal torment?

I'm serious. If you really believe this, try to persuade me. Please try to make your persuasion consistent with a holy and all-merciful God; no lesser God will do.



Related posts: God's sweet revenge, part two;  More heat than light (in which we see Al Mohler utterly misunderstand and misrepresent the reasons why some Christians reject his concept of damnation); We will never see another non-ChristianHell, holiness, and Jerusalem.



Will I be in danger of eternal torment for linking to this Bible study on hell?

A somewhat more pro-hell summary. And another.



Oregon's e-sticker: "I voted."
On Tuesday, USA's national election day, Judy and I plan to spend the day on a visit back to the zoo.

The U.S. House Judiciary Committee's majority staff report on the administration's family separation policy.

Russia's annual commemoration of the victim's of Stalin's purges was held online this year. (And here's why I will be very careful in the future when considering linking to rferl.org and its Russian-language service, svoboda.org.)

Vasilii Vereshchagin: A Russian artist who painted the true face of war.

Once again, Heather Cox Richardson summarizes another day in U.S. politics.



Kim Wilson and Rick Estrin enjoying each other's musicianship: