IT’S COMFORTING TO FIND OTHERS ALSO INTRIGUED BY THESE HISTORIES

A common version of the rise of the Quaker movement has George Fox wandering north from the English Midlands, receiving a vision atop Pendle Hill in 1652, and soon after finding welcome among a radical group known as the Seekers. As his message then ignites them, the Society of Friends is born and spreads amid a flurry of controversy and persecution.

Many contemporary Friends are quite fond of the term, “Seekers After Truth,” another name for those English radicals, by the way – and that serves to reinforce this view of history.

I’ve leaned toward a somewhat different take, especially in regard to the Mennonite-tinged General Baptists in England who shaped Fox’s growth in the half-dozen years before his 1652 Pendle Hill epiphany.

While history can be quite fascinating on its own terms, my bigger interest is on the continuing impact on thought and action in the present, and that’s where I find myself quite intrigued with  Douglas Gwyn, Seekers Found: Atonement in Early Quaker Experience (Wallingford, Pa., 2000), now that I’m finally getting to it.

While I’d been influenced by some of his earlier writings, this one somehow flew past my must-read pile – in part because it was published just as I was entering my second marriage, along with all of its challenges, and in part because of the ways the title seemed to focus on the Seekers version of the story.

Ah! To leap ahead all these years!

Now that I’ve finally read the book, let me say, it’s far-reaching and profound – much different from my expectations of being focused exclusively on the Seekers. Along the way, he engages topics I’ve written about extensively, adding many welcome insights and prompting me to rethink some of my assumptions and conclusions.

The opening chapter, “A Looking-Glass for Seekers: The American Culture of Seeking Today,” looks at the counterculture of the ’60s and ’70s as parallels to the revolutionary upheavals of the mid-1600s in Britain, a position I’ve long argued. If anything, the conflicting differences in the kinds of hippies he identifies have grown in the 17 years since the publication of his book.

Gwyn then moves to a sequence of Spiritualists he identifies as “seekers” and the ways their thinking and practice evolves to a point that many key Quaker tenets are already in place before Fox and his colleagues. These chapters explore Caspar Schwenkfeld and Sebastian Franck in northern Europe during the Protestant Reformation of the 1520s and ’30s before shifting to England, with its own powerful voices in John Saltmarsh, William Erbury, William Walwyn, and Gerrard Winstanley, among others. To be candid, I was familiar only with Winstanley, along with a passing knowledge of the five Schwenckfeld churches in Pennsylvania.

From there he plunges into the more familiar chronology of the early Quaker movement itself and its rivals, albeit with his own insights and welcome details.

For one thing, he gives more information more on the short-lived General Baptists than I’d uncovered elsewhere, as well as on the Calvinist-leaning Particular Baptists, the kind who now exist widely throughout America.

While it is easy to perceive this work as a history, I’m more inclined to view it as an exploration of an emerging theology, especially as Gwyn tackles one of the thornier issues that’s long spurred critics of Quaker thought – atonement. Or, more broadly, the crucifixion, resurrection, and atonement. While I’ve long argued that early Friends did not dare to fully articulate their understanding in face of the Blasphemy Acts of the time and then declined to do so once they’d gained respectability, Gwyn sees them experiencing the historic events of Calvary within their own actions and suffering for faith. As I’ve contended, their failure to clearly state their alternative theology then set the trajectory for misunderstandings that would rip through the Society of Friends in the early 19th century, something that Gwyn confirms in his examination of the controversy surrounding George Keith in the 1690s as Gwyn turns to struggles that beset the Quaker movement as it coalesced into a disciplined organization out of its many radical, freethinking strands:

Clearly, there are major dangers on both sides of this schizoid split between orthodoxy (right belief) and orthopraxis (right action), between gospel and gospel order. For American Friends, the theological questions fended off in the 1690s would come back after 1800 to wreak havoc on them in the Hicksite controversy, leading eventually to separation in 1827.   

~*~

On a personal level, I’ve come to value Gwyn as a fellow traveler in arcane investigations, Quaker and counterculture. Turns out he lived in Bloomington, Indiana, the same time I did, and we have similar leaps to both coasts (seminary in New York, for him, while it was Upstate New York and then the yoga ashram in the Pocono mountains for me) and then the Far West (his Berkeley, California, as a Quaker pastor, while I was in the Pacific Northwest). We’re both in New England these days and have had close conversations with both Asian practices and Friends rediscovering the writings of George Fox.

I intend to draw much more from his Seekers Found volume over the coming months. His insights are too pertinent to be overlooked.

~*~

For my own reflections on alternative Christianity, take a peep at my new book, Religion Turned Upside Down.

 

WHEN OUR LIVES OVERLAP

I never intended for my blogging to take the place of personal journaling.

What I’m posting is, after all, far more public, drawing on a deep archive of writing on all fronts now augmented by current happenings in my life and the world around us. What’s emerged is a kind of collage roughly defining the boundaries of my life and thought. I was about to say “normal” life and thought, but not everyone would agree.

Over the past few years, the blog’s also evolved into a showcase for my literary writing, even during a politically overcharged year like the one we’ve just encountered. Remember, I live in the Granite State, which remains a political bellwether as well as the home for many well-known writers. After all the years of having to keep quiet about these concerns, it’s been a relief to be able to air my feelings.

That said, let me admit I’m never quite sure what will turn up here. Maybe that’s why your likes and comments, especially, are so welcome. It’s nice to know when our hopes and dreams and experiences overlap or when there are alternatives to what I’m thinking or even presuming.

Now, back to work …

CARPE DIEM

Among the historic divisions among Friends, none were more traumatic than the Hicksite-Orthodox separations, 1826-27. While New England and North Carolina were spared, most other American yearly meetings were torn in two. The reasons were deep and complicated – often along socio-economic and geographic lines. Subsistence versus commercial farming, artistan-craftsmen versus industrialists, rural versus urban, traditional versus forward-looking, tensions between having the polity of Friends lodged within the monthly meeting or at the yearly meeting level, even language itself, one holding to old expressions versus those wanting to embrace a new evangelical ecumenism.

We were not alone. The Puritan legacy, for instance, splintered into Congregationalists and Unitarians about the same time we Quakers split, theirs ostensibly over naming the president to head, first, Dartmouth College and then Harvard. The Dunkers (or German Baptist Brethren), meanwhile, managed to hold together, although their tensions would finally reappear in the 1880s, leading to a five-way split, producing the Church of the Brethren – about the same time many Friends began turning to pastor-led programmed worship. Curiously, the Brethren, laboring under a single yearly meeting, faced major tensions between the Eastern, old-fashioned members and the “Western” (west of the Appalachian Mountains) progressives – the same lineup that Friends would see in the quietist versus pastoral worship styles, with our Western Yearly Meetings going programmed and the Eastern ones largely holding to tradition.

These tensions were fueled by and reflected in many larger societal issues. In politics, the Jacksonians reflected the emergence of westward expansion. In religion, the Great Awakening first blazed through New England (sometimes as the New Lights movement) before igniting in Kentucky and the newly settled regions. In the economy, the industrial revolution was well under way.

For Quakers, the divisions essentially shut down the itinerant ministry from traveling Friends, which had kept the central messages of the faith and practice intact. That loss no doubt played into the emergence of the pastoral system in places where Friends were settling, rather than long settled. Another loss was a breakdown in the sharing of epistles and other written material. We no longer had a common vision to express or unite behind.

I reflect on these not so much as history but as a recognition that our larger society is in one of those watershed transitions – as our presentations and discussions on envisioning the future have suggested. How do we parlay what’s been entrusted to us into the future? Will Friends, as a whole, respond with radically new worship, organization, expression? Will we be sufficiently open to be led where we are needed? Of course, Israel under Roman occupation turned out to be another of those watershed moments, spreading both Judaism and the newly emerging Christianity across the empire. But that’s a much larger and more complicated story, except for the fact that we’re Friends as a consequence.

Or, as old Quakers would say, “Christ is come and coming.” It’s more than “Season’s Greetings,” after all.

BEYOND THE SUPERSTITION AND BLAME

How do we deal with a segment of the public that has no interest in factual reality? Where belief, unsupported by critical reasoning, crosses into outright superstition? Too often, alas, it’s even wrapped in religious trappings – tainting both church and state with irrational fervor or madness.

And that’s what we have in the aftermath of Donald Trump’s campaign. The lies and half-truths will be hard to wash clean. The stench will remain even longer.

Yes, the underlying hurt runs deep, but Bernie Sanders tagged the causes of the problems accurately and pointed to joint collective action to repair the damage and heal the common good. Not so Trump or his legions.

There was nothing pragmatic or even logical in Trump’s babbling, no matter how many were deluded by his initial snake-oil charm. He was not telling it like it was but rather how they imagined life that might have been had they not been passed by. And then, toward the end, he was denying so much of what he’d told them in the first place or that his words had been just a joke. Locker room banter, as he claimed, not that many of us white guys recognized anything of the sort.

Now, no matter the outcome of the election, the nation’s divided by what he’s encouraged.

It’s not just racism, though those who think it’s fine for police to murder unarmed citizens is justifiable go about stealing Black Lives Matter lawn signs and then are alarmed if blacks take up the right-wing’s interpretation of the Second Amendment in self-defense. Folks, what would you do in that situation?

I’ll return to Bernie’s to-do list. I don’t think he was the administrator to push the goals through, but he certainly did an admirable job in articulating them. May he continue, building a base to take both houses of Congress in 2018.

Meanwhile, I’ll lament for what passes for national debate these days in all the tumult. We need honest dialogue to advance. And that will include admission of fault where it’s dues, rather than more blaming others.

HOW ABOUT MAKING THIS A DAY OF PRAYER AND FASTING?

After reading a post by Jonathan Caswell of the blog, A Mighty Mumford,  I’m wondering about reviving a practice from Colonial America – a day of prayer and fasting.

The idea would be for people of faith in America, across religious denominations and faiths and political identifications, to set aside time to pray for the future of the country. Not in negatives, but in visions that call for greater love, justice, peace, and compassion throughout the land. (No “Smite My Enemies,” for starters.)

Prayer, as Caswell observes, is difficult, for many reasons. And done truly, it leaves each of us exposed and humbled. To which I would add, praying truly also means listening and waiting rather than ordering the Holy One what to do.

There’s much to be done, including turning swords into ploughshares. I’d say, Let us begin.

VOTING WITH SAM

Usually, I’m tight-lipped about how I’ve voted. But once, my now ex-father-in-law (the retired colonel) and I (still the hippie in the workplace) compared the ballots we cast. To our mutual surprise, we discovered we supported the same candidates – some Republican, some Democrat.

Our reasons were identical: we turned to individuals of character who were interested in solving problems rather than acting on ideology. It helped that we knew many of them – pro and con.

 

 

DIGGING INTO THE REAL DIRT

Woodpecker’s finding worms everywhere under the bark.

Every time Republicans accuse Hillary, the old bird’s find much juicier stuff lingering on the Republican tree.

She’s Little League by comparison. In that way, she hardly measures up to the rot.

Still makes one wonder about the partisan obsession and the witch hunts, all the same. Or Newt Gingrich’s hypocritical envy.

 

TALLY THE BODIES, NOT THE NOISE, IN THE END

Contrary to right-wing proclamations, today’s Silent Majority runs independent, in the middle, far to left of the GOP. The rabid right wing, in fact, is anything but silent. Just listen to AM radio, if you must, or the Fox News propaganda machine.

No wonder they decry independent survey results that fail to support their fantasies, even while they continue to bray loudly.

(Remember, Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote for president. The Electoral College, however, is the one that counts.)

I remain concerned that in focusing so much on the surveys, the mass media introduced one more variable to the equation. In a multi-party race, if you’re assuming one candidate will win, is there a chance that entice casting a “conscience” vote elsewhere? And if so, how many would it take to sway the actual outcome?

Or, might it even have an impact if you’re assuming one candidate will lose, and if so, might enough “conscience” votes seal the deal?

In other words, it’s a case where the experiment itself might alter the results. I’d love to hear of cases in the physical sciences where this has happened. Meanwhile, back to the social sciences, I’ve long wondered about this, but the current situation magnifies the impact – and potential devastation.