God is of the essence

29 May, 2014.

Dear X

I have had the letter you wrote to me (4 December 2013) on my desk all these months and have commenced a reply on several occasions but find it difficult to write.

I’ll try again…

Firstly I am very grateful to you for taking the time etc to write it, and for the loving concern that it shows.

However my immediate reaction was close to despair due to you having so misunderstood me, for which I have only myself to blame.

The starting point was the Bideford statement with which I heartily agree. It justifies or re-iterates the position which I have had for the past few years. At the time it was given to me at the Area Meeting I had already read it. I thought it was given to me to ‘put me right’. In other words I thought that once again here was evidence that Friends misunderstand me in thinking that it would influence me for good, when in fact it simply said what I had been saying. How could people think it could correct me? So the content of your letter was re-assuring in its explanation that you were not in fact trying to ‘put me right’.

However you go on to question my use of the phrase ‘standard orthodox modern Quakerism’; you question whether it exists. I would agree that maybe it is a clumsy phrase, and I realise that many recoil from the word ‘orthodox’, but what I was trying to say was that my position vis a vis religion is not heretical – it is entirely consistent with our current edition of “Quaker Faith and Practice” (QF&P).

Quakerism is not only about behaviour (‘practice’), though obviously it is a vital part of it. Quakerism is also a Faith, a religion. In the first paragraph of QF&P, Section 1.01, we assert that all our testimonies come from our religious practice – that of allowing God to teach and transform us.

You go on to question my emphasis on QF&P 10.04 which had been read during AM. Again – it reinforces my position, in that it calls on us to be united with God. Re-reading it I see it says what I said in the previous paragraph – that although the ‘outer garments’ of our religious society have their own importance, the essence of Quakerism, which it truly says often escapes recognition, is ‘the vital union of the members of the society with God…which is its strength’. This sums up my concern – that if we continue to relax our union with God the strength of our society will wain. I am only repeating what Braithwaite wrote.

You say attempting unity is like trying to herd cats. It is because of this difficulty that we all work together to revise QF&P every generation. It is subtitled our book of discipline. (I realise that ‘discipline’ is a word that many abhor, but no organisation can survive without it to some degree. Especially the discipline of agreeing with – or at least not opposing – its core purpose.)

You then go on to say ‘Love is God’. I believe that that Love is one of the aspects, effects, or attributes of God.  God is even more than Love. We tend to worship one or more aspects of God – it would be impossible to worship all. Because we are Christians we emphasise Love (and Truth). Were we of another Faith we would emphasise other values, such as Mercy, or Compassion, or Bravery, etc. Love is an effect of our religion, not the object of it. This is not just a matter of words.

You say “…’God’ is right for you, ‘Love’ is right for me” as if it did not matter. It does. Our Society is God-centred. This is not an opinion, but a fact. Any objective researcher, looking into Quakerism, would come to that conclusion. One is entitled not to agree, not to accept this, but I submit that in rejecting it one is mistaken. I am very firm in this because I believe that our degeneration into non-theism is in part due to our Elders and our Quaker Life department not being clear about this. Newcomers to our religious, God-centred Society are not clearly informed about us. They continue to attend for a variety of reasons but the centrality of God is not one of them. Were we selling our religion we would be in trouble with the Trades Description Act. Is maintaining our membership numbers more important than our religious essentials?

What also hurt me was your assertion that I am dominated by a yearning for certainty and clarity. If you were to accompany me as I travel as a spiritual traveller in India or Britain, if you saw the books I’m reading, if you were to engage in deep conversation with me, you would soon find that I am not. Like you I value uncertainty, and distrust the certainty of the fundamentalist. What I am yearning for is greater closeness to God. The reason I am a Quaker is that in a meeting for worship, when gathered by the Holy Spirit, I can feel this closeness, as indeed I can in some other religious environments, especially Anglican, Hindu or Sikh. I am also yearning for the friendship which the title of our society professes. I am also wishing for our AM (i.e. our Elders) to engage us in meaningful, deep discussion about the issues I have mentioned here, instead of papering over the cracks with a wall of silence. (Your letter being an exception.)

You finally plead with me to ‘Let it be’. Well, no! Too many of my inclination simply slip out of membership. Just as I feel a duty or obligation to work for a better world by being politically active, so I feel I have to make an effort to save our beloved Society from losing its way – becoming just another meditation group, or philanthropic reformist association. I am also in such organisations, but liberal Quakerism has a niche position in the world, one that is religious but avoids religiosity, one whose members are committed to a form of worship which allows God to teach and transform them, with the result that they have achieved extraordinary effectiveness for good in the world.

You finally refer to my ‘God’, as opposed to your ‘Love’. You do not know what ‘my God’ is!  I have not tried to describe my beliefs. But I’ll say now: I do not know who, what, why, when or where God is. I am not even sure God exists. But I am willing to accept the exhortation of Advice 1, that is, to TRUST that good things, especially love and truth, are the leadings of God. The ‘God’ in which I have decided to trust is as frequently referred to in QF&P. It is one whose Light shows us our darkness and leads us to a new life. I believe ‘our darkness’ is not deliberate sin but ignorance, such as acceptance of some beliefs and practices that are widely held in our culture. The (liberal) Quakers’ God is lovely. Not the jealous, angry, male control freak which the non-theists in their arrogant ignorance reject. 

When I was abroad in 2001 (actually, on a South Sea island) I had time to ponder, and I decided I was an atheist. I resolved to leave the Society when I returned because I felt it would be dishonest to remain nominally a Quaker. I am glad that a few months later, at the Bede Griffiths Ashram in India, I was suddenly convinced, not necessarily that God exists, but that I would accept Advice 1. I believe that liberal Quakerism’s success in the past was due to Friends doing likewise. Long may it continue!

In Friendship,

Stephen

P.S. I hope the forgoing was not boring!

Coping With Atheism. A plea to fellow-Quakers

Coping With Atheism

 

A spiritual director whose sessions I attended recently surprised his audience by seeming to advocate atheism. He declared that, “atheism is a kind of fire which purifies the God of history. It shows the limitations of the images of God by religions [in the past].” But he did not explain how one could grow from atheism to an understanding of what he called ‘the God of Eternity”.

 

Certainly the ‘God of history’ needs purifying – even rubbishing. This metaphor of God as an authoritarian, masculine, often angry and jealous control freak may have been what was needed in primitive collective societies, backing up the the laws of human rulers with complementary moral codes ascribed to the Lord of Heaven, and backed up by rewards and punishments – heaven and hell, or rebirth at a higher or lower comfort level. 

 

This ‘God of history’ has long been absent from liberal Quakerism, as indeed it is from most other mainstream Christian denominations. It remains only in prayer books and hymnals, regarded as mere poetry and metaphor. Were that they all accepted the Quaker practice of revising their books every two or three decades!

 

But, tragically, the God of history image persists in the minds of many simplistic or ill-informed Quaker members and attenders. Quakerism assumes the Holy Spirit will inform newcomers, but only if they allow it. Our aversion to any form of induction or training means that amongst the many who join and leave, a large proportion assume that when a Quaker speaks of God he or she is referring to that old ogre.  There is widespread ignorance of the dozens of books published since “Honest to God” which try to explain the concepts of God which Quakers realised generations ago, and which Eastern religions discovered thousands of years ago. 

 

The problem is that the ‘Eternal God’ is much more difficult to explain than is the image of a crochety old man with a fetching white beard. It requires the raising of on’s level of consciousness. At a low level we are like animals or infants. Our consciousness grows as we become adults and learn how to associate with others in community. It is at this level that the God of history may be helpful, especially to the ruling class. Hell can be a greater deterrent than the gallows.

 

Those whose level of consciousness and social awareness advances to a higher level find the authoritarianism irksome and unnecessary. Atheism provides a quick escape from the God of history. But so should Quakerism. 

 

What is Quakers’ image of God? There’s no attempt to make a detailed description – such an exercise is impossible. But throughout ‘Quaker Faith and Practice’ many references to God imply an answer – or at least that part of an answer that is relevant to us in our normal life. An analysis of just two Sections provides a big step in the right direction. Section 1.01 speaks of God effecting us only if we allow it. Section 1.02.1, the first Advice, speaks of God’s ‘promptings‘ and ‘leadings‘. It asks us to ‘trust‘, not ”obey’ or even ‘believe’. These are very different attributes from those of the God of history. 

 

Probably Quakerism’s remarkable popularity in its early days was due to the sudden relief from a sin-centred religion to one emphasising Jesus’ gentle leadership and his radical message of love and forgiveness. No more the threat of hell, nor even the improbable promises of heaven, but simply finding joy in voluntarily heeding God’s leadings. 

 

Why do so many Quakers turn to atheism when this very acceptable image of God is so plainly described in their book of Christian discipline? Ben Dandelion has conducted research, as has Quaker Life recently, which indicates that very few Friends are familiar with QF&P. Why should this be? We suffer from a bombardment of an enormous amount of written and verbal material, to much of which we have become immune. To get a message across requires more than pushing a leaflet into someone’s hands, or pointing to a library. We need to speak out frequently and plainly to inform Friends of our understanding of God.

 

Book Review: “Integral Dynamic Monotheism”, by John Martin Sahajanananda.

Submitted to The Friend or Quaker Quarterly, 3 April, 2014

 

Book Review

“Integral Dynamic Monotheism – A meeting point between the Vedic Vision and the vision of Christ”,  John Martin Sahajanananda.

 

John Martin, a Benedictine monk, visits Britain frequently to give talks and hold dialogues, as he does at Shantivanam Ashram in Tamil Nadu, where he has followed Bede  Griffiths as a spiritual director. The Ashram was founded to establish a way of contemplative life based on the tradition of Christian monastism and Hindu Sanyassis. 

 

In this, the latest of his seven books, Brother Martin demonstrates in an accessible manner how the Gospel story of Jesus is consistent with the ancient teachings of Hinduism found in the Vedas and the Gita. 

 

For instance, three stages of spiritual development in the Hindu tradition are exemplified by three statements attributed to Jesus at significant times of his life. First, “My Father is greater than me”, which implied that his relationship with God was as Creator – creature (created); two separate entities. Secondly, Jesus later said, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me”, implying mutual in-dwelling; Jesus as a manifestation of God; both are of the same essence. Brother Martin likes the analogy of water and ice, in that each is separate, in different forms, but of the same essence. This could be likened to the Quakers’ “that of God in everyone”. Thirdly, when Jesus said, “The Father and I are one”, he had reached a level of super-consciousness in which he apprehended the total unity of all creation, because all creation is God. According to Brother Martin, we also can reach this level of consciousness. He disputes the Christian doctrine which claims that only Jesus could be fully human and fully divine. 

 

The book includes an overview of the development of Hinduism in six stages, all of which are monotheistic, differing in their understanding of humans’ relationship with God, and the nature of reality.  These stages were followed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries by radical reforms due to Ramakrishna, Vivekananda, and Aurobindo. What had been lacking in Hinduism was advocacy of love of one’s neighbour, as taught by Jesus. What Christianity lacks, says Martin, is appreciation of God within, though Martin draws attention to exceptions, such as Meister Eckhart [check spelling].

 

Brother Martin is inclined to make rather startling assertions, such as “Christianity has failed Christ”. One’s surprise that he has not been sanctioned by the Church is perhaps indicative of one’s ignorance of the true nature of Catholicism.

 

Also startling, to me, was his suggestion that “atheism is a kind of fire that purifies the God of history”, in that it shows up the misleading effect of the historical images (metaphors) of God. A person who has got beyond the lowest levels of consciousness has no need for images. He or she goes from believing to knowing. But Martin does not explain how one could move on from atheism to unity with God. 

 

What frequently amazes me is the closeness of Quaker understandings and practices to those which Hinduism developed from the Vedas. How did George Fox discover these, unknown then, and largely still unknown, by Christianity?

 

I found the book interesting and very helpful to my spiritual development. I would recommend it to anyone interested in radical religion and personal spirituality, especially those whose progress from religion based on the ‘God of history’ or other Christian roots has been side-tracked into non-theism.  Don’t throw out the baby with the water! While rejecting a simplistic, erroneous image of God, there’s no need to reject God itself. 

 

Stephen Petter

Shantivanam, March 2014. 

 

Copies may be obtained from this reviewer, or from the publisher: K John Martin, Saccidananda Ashram, Thannirpalli, via Marudur 639 107, Karur, Tamil Nadu, India.   Free, but a donation of between 5 and 10 pounds, plus postage, would be appropriate.