Friends, as you can no doubt tell, this is a subject near and dear to my heart. I have been wanting to comment on this, in conversation with the convergent Friends movement that is afoot, and in further conversation with my own F/friends in Baltimore Yearly Meeting, as we struggle in our being part of Friends United Meeting.
The Christianity Today Article and the subsequent responses have touched something deep within my inner being, and called me out of my silence, perhaps because of the publicness with which I feel the disparagement of liberal Friends:
Nate, thee speaks my mind. The Religious Society of Friends does not ever deny the sacraments given to us by Jesus. Rather, we experience them as a real and now-occurring event, of the indwelling Light of Christ. What we call this experience is not so important as the experience itself and what it leads us to do in the name of the Light in our daily lives.
Bror, and others who are not members of the Religious Society of Friends, I would refer you to http://www.hallvworthington.com/sacraments.html
where you can read directly George Fox’s dialogue with a Jesuit priest over the claim that Quakers denied the sacraments. Perhaps this will lend more understanding to the position of the Society of Friends.
Liberal Friends do not differ on this from other branches of the Society. When we marry, come into membership, embark on a spiritual calling (similar to ordination as it is called in other denominations), or experience the direct moving of the Light in our lives in any way, it is sacramental, or consecrated by God. The confirmation of this we experience by the direct act of sitting in worship and waiting on the Light to speak through one of us or to direct our lives specifically.
One way that we are primarily different from some of you who have commented here, is that we are most definitely focused on the inclusivity that Jesus modeled, or that other spiritual leaders model, no matter what their religion. We are focused on “that of God” in every person, no matter their creed, sexual orientation, religious belief, color, race, or culture.
The love of God is big enough to encompass all of this and more. This is the only way to peace, in my understanding. We do not seek to water down our faith or accept cheap substitutions in order to draw members. We seek true conversation between all members of God’s creation on Earth, in the name of peace among us all.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You said:
ReplyDeleteWe are focused on “that of God” in every person, no matter their creed, sexual orientation, religious belief, color, race, or culture.
The love of God is big enough to encompass all of this and more. This is the only way to peace, in my understanding. We do not seek to water down our faith or accept cheap substitutions in order to draw members. We seek true conversation between all members of God’s creation on Earth, in the name of peace among us all.
======
This is lovely, and thank you for posting it.
I noticed a comment on the Christianity Today site directed at me, stating that my comment there showed that I was a pagan. Oh dear, why am I the last to know! LOL
cath
In attempting to quote the New Testament to argue against the taking of the bread and the cup, early Quakers had to ignore the clear fact that the apostolic church and the church up to the time of Quakers clearly practiced it. There was never any form of "primitive Christianity" which didn't, and practiced the way Quakers came to. I think there is a lot of sophistry in the early Quaker arguments.
ReplyDeleteIf it is "until He comes" then how is that coming to be reckoned? If it was the resurrection or Pentecost, clearly the disciples practiced it after then so those who heard Christ originally at the Last Supper did not hear it that way. There are some hints in early Quaker writing that it may have been at the fall of the Temple, but clearly much of which Christ foretold about the Second Coming did not happen then, and the early church continued to practice the fellowship of the bread and the cup.
Early Friends had great anger at what they saw as corruption in the Church of their day, and probably rightly so. But is it possible there was some throwing out of the baby with the bath water in their reaction? That use of the Eucharist may have been abused and associated with some unChristian practices does not prove the Eucharist itself is wrong.
That the Eucharist doesn't save or purify us in itself is true, but not a proof that the Eucharist is wrong. It is valuable if it is a part of deepening our abiding in Christ, and false if it is done as an empty ritual.
In trying to get away from the errors of the church, I believe the early Friends over-spiritualized things. They got away from all the outward practices thinking this would bring purity. But purity is a matter of the heart, not of partaking or not partaking in outward practices. Certainly Friends have proven that, often stumbling over the years despite their avoidance of outward practices.
I think Friends fail to really grasp the meaning of the Incarnation. God came down in human form, a dramatic demonstration that it can't just be spiritualized but a recognition that we humans were created to need the tangible, physical ways of experiencing God. The Incarnation was not abandoned by God, and the giving of the Eucharist to the Church is a means of followers of Christ to directly experience the Incarnation today.