The Goal of Quaker Meeting

July 9, 2025 § Leave a comment

I’ve just read Building the Life of the Meeting, the Annual Michener Lecture for 1994 presented to Southeastern Yearly Meeting by William and Fran Taber, published as a pamphlet and available from SEYM. In it (page 11), Fran Taber defines “the goal of Quaker meeting” this way:

“to open each participant to the ongoing work of God, which is to renew within me the image of the Divine in which I was created; to draw all present into a sense of unity in which the living presence of the Holy Spirit is enjoyed together; and to lead us individually and corporately into faithfully carrying out the varied ministries and service to which we are called.”

I could paraphrase it thusly: the goal of worship is inward spiritual transformation, gathering in the Spirit (the gathered meeting), and the activation and support of ministry. This seems both succinct and thorough to me, and inspired truth.

Thank you, Fran. I remember you with warmth and deep gratitude.

Quakers and Theology

June 10, 2025 § 1 Comment

I’ve been editing a submission to Pendle Hill Pamphlets on the faith behind the gathered meeting. It would be sequel to my earlier pamphlet The Gathered Meeting, which focused more on the experience, the history, and the practice of the gathered meeting, and on what might foster the gathered meeting. This new essay is more about the faith side of the faith and practice duo regarding the gathered meeting. 

It’s about what’s going on when we are gathered in the Spirit, and how we talk about what’s going on. It’s a theology of the gathered meeting.

Theology—yikes. Let’s not talk about that. I suspect that many Friends in the “liberal” branch of the movement will react negatively to this topic, perhaps quite viscerally. Haven’t we fought each other enough over theology? But I’m here to make a case for theology, for doctrine, for what we have to say. 

Not dogma! Not something you have to believe to save your soul or to be one of “us” on the inside of an exclusionary religious community. I’m talking about what we think and how we think about our Quaker history, practice, and experience. I’m talking about what we have to say, to seekers, to those folks checking us out to see if we’re their spiritual home, what we have say to our kids, to each other—to ourselves.

So I am an unapologetic Quaker theologian. But what do I mean by that? What is a Quaker theologian? 

For me, it’s trying to think of the best questions I can ask about my religion’s faith and practice, its history and experience. About my own Quaker religious experience, the spiritual experiences I’ve had in the context of meeting for worship and as I practice the Quaker way understood more broadly. Being a Quaker theologian is trying to ask the best questions about my community, its history and tradition and future prospects. And then I try to answer them, with integrity and creativity, while trying to remain grounded in experience.

Why? Why ask these questions; why pursue such answers? 

Because what we think and how we think about these things do affect our religious experience. What we think and how we think about our practice, our history and traditions affect the course of our religious movement. Mindset, worldview, frameworks of thought—these do matter. They’re not the most important thing; no, actual experience remains paramount—“What canst thou say?” 

But experience takes place in context, and part of that context is mindset, worldview, frameworks for understanding. They help to shape our experience, and experience helps to shape our understanding. It’s a feedback system: faith and practice, in dynamic relationship with each other over time, evolving and emerging in real time, sometimes, right before our eyes, as the promise of continuing revelation continues to be fulfilled. For revelation has content.

One more pushback against a certain kind of resistance to “theology”. I have been eldered for being in my head, which is a condition presumed to be at the expense of my heart and my spirit. Isn’t that just like a man, that person said, in so many words. And ain’t I a man, to coopt Sojourner Truth.

As if the very many transcendental experiences I’ve had in this blessed life could not have happened to someone who’s too much in his head, like me. As if the life of the mind and the life of the heart and soul could ever be separated. As if a spiritual path, let alone a religious path, with its history and traditions and testimonies and distinctive practices, could not be one holistic, holy whole in someone’s life. And as if gender necessarily defined one’s spiritual and religious potential.

But to be fair, one can get out of balance. I do get out of balance. We all do. But the heart is arguably better than the mind at unbalancing a person. Or perhaps I should say the unconscious mind, which often has the heart in its secret capture.

That’s where Quaker discernment comes in. With her or his mind, someone asks some questions and then offers some possible answers. Continuing revelation is now on the table. Time for the community to test these ideas and see if they stand in truth and beauty and usefulness. Is it from the Light, or not?

That’s the role of the Quaker theologian: to be a servant of continuing revelation, at the prompting of and accountable to, the Holy Spirit in discernment.

Some Definitions

May 9, 2022 § 2 Comments

Christine and I participate in a spiritual support group that meets every month to explore some idea or practice offered by one of our members and then to meditate together. The last time we met, the conversation prompted a writing that has been forming in my mind for decades and suddenly poured forth with coherence and clarity—a set of definitions and speculations about the life of the Spirit, which follows.

What is God?

For me, God is the Mystery Reality behind our spiritual and religious experience, whatever that experience is.

We have spiritual experiences and they are real. We know they are real because they have changed us.

But these experiences are also transcendental. They transcend the personal. They transcend the sensual. They transcend the normal consciousness.

Thus these experiences are also mysterious. They transcend our understanding. They transcend our capacity to express them fully in words; we can express them partially in words—I am doing so right now. But beyond what we can say about them lies more that defies expression or explanation.

Behind these experiences, underneath them, at their deeper center, lies a Mystery. We know there is more to them than we can consciously apperceive, and that Real Mystery I call God. That Mystery I also call Spirit.

What is Spirit?

Spirit is the transcendental dimension of human experience.

What then is the spiritual life? What is the life of the Spirit for?

The life of the Spirit is made up of those aspects of life with which we reach for the transcendental in order to transform ourselves for the better, to become more whole and more fulfilled, more loving and more compassionate, more creative, more inclined to right thought, word, and action.

Spiritual experience takes place when, by this active reaching, or by blessing or grace, we do touch this transcendental dimension and are remade in ways both great and small, both life-changing and incremental.

What then is religious experience?

Religious experience is spiritual experience that takes place in the context of a religious tradition. Sometimes religious experience results from religious practice; sometimes we make sense of spiritual experience that takes place outside a tradition with the help of a tradition. Paul’s conversion on the road to Damascus is a good example of this latter. The gathering in the Spirit of a Quaker meeting for worship is a good example of the former.

What then is religion?

Religion is the spiritual practice of a community that has been gathered in the Spirit. Religion is a community reaching toward the transcendental dimension of human experience on behalf of its members and also on behalf of itself.

For just as individual spiritual experience is both real and mysterious; just as individual spiritual experience brings personal transformation for the better through the transcendental; so religious experience reaches past, or behind, or into the center of normal community life toward collective transcendental transformation, achieving greater wholeness as a community, a unity in the Spirit, in the Mystery Reality, either through practice or through blessing and grace. Through its religious experience, a community becomes more loving and compassionate, more creative, more inclined toward collective right action, in a process analogous to the experience of the individual.

Just as individual spiritual experience reaches into the foundations of our personhood, beyond the reach of our senses, and past the apperceptions of our usual conscious selves, to transform us for the better, so collective religious experience reaches back to the foundational Spirit in which the community was originally gathered, transcending the personal to become wholly communal, and therefore a holy community, and this lifts up the individual consciousnesses of the communicants into a unity that passes all understanding.

The formation of the people of Israel as Yahweh’s people at the Exodus, and the subsequent practice in Torah as the operating system for her covenantal relationship with Yahweh, and the historical evolution of her tradition until the present day, is the classic example of religion as the spiritual practice of a people who have been gathered in the Spirit.

What then is religion for?

Religion’s purpose it to provide the living context for religious experience—nourishment for individual religious experience and a vehicle for collective religious experience. This context—the community with its fellow travelers, its traditions, the collective memory of what has worked in the past, the stories, the explanations (theology), the disciplines and practices, the history, the guidance both moral, mental, and physical—the religious tradition context allows the individual to go deeper, farther, and faster in the life of the Spirit than they might have on their own.

However, the unique value of a religious tradition is this: beyond the reach of most individual spiritual practice, religion provides the vehicle for collective spiritual experience.

Collective spiritual experience—that is, religious experience—is harder to come by than individual spiritual experience. The community needs a critical mass in several dimensions, most of them transcendental, in order to experience holy communion. This requires a living tradition.

The contemporary drift away from religion toward spirituality reflects, I think, the fact that many of our religious traditions today have lost the life that first animated them or had renewed them in the past. They no longer enjoy the forms of critical spiritual mass that collective religious experience requires.

Collective religious experience requires a critical mass of individuals who are steeped enough in the tradition to enrich it, advance it, and pass it on. Enough people must really know “how to be a Quaker”, for instance, for Quakerism as an operating system to work in a meeting.

Collective religious experience requires a critical mass of individuals whose own spiritual maturity is advanced enough to radiate beyond their persons to seed the collective in the transcendental dimension.

And it requires a critical mass of individuals who are willing and fertile soil, whose own deep yearning is for transcendent communion, whose faith in its possibility is rooted in their own past experience.

And it requires collective religious practices that work, that have not yet been hollowed out by rote repetition, or practices that have been revitalized by prophetic inspiration.

What is Spirit–God?

So perhaps we can name the Mystery Reality behind and within individual spiritual experience the Spirit, and name the Real Mystery behind and within collective spiritual experience God.

Are they the same, the Mystery behind my own experience and the Reality behind my community’s experience? Is the Spirit behind and within all persons’ spiritual experiences the same Spirit, by whatever names we individuals might give it? Is the Spirit behind and within all collective religious experience the same God, however our various communities might name it?

This is itself a mystery. It’s an appealing idea. I suspect that they are both the same and not the same, across any of these levels of experience. I suspect they are the same at the pure level of Spirit, that is, in the medium in which such transcendental experience transpires, as different waves will form in one body of water.

But I suspect that, to the degree that Spirit manifests differently, even uniquely, for each individual and for each community, then the Spirit, and the God, are different, also. I think of them as separate wave forms, if you will, in a spiritual medium, which we might call the ether, or the astral plane—something immaterial, yet “viscous” enough to hold a standing spiritual wave. But this is pure metaphysical speculation, and thus, not much more than farting in a windstorm, however intellectually satisfying.

I believe these differences matter and should not be decried. They are what gives rise to our various traditions as communities, and to our various spiritual journeys as individuals. Furthermore, in my experience, these distinctive manifestations of the Spirit or of God border on the sentient and homeostatic. They are capable of relationship, even though I suspect that they are in important ways dependent on human consciousness, if not actual projections of our consciousness.

I am fascinated by the nature and the role of what I call the spirit of the Christ in this regard. So many people have a real relationship with something they call Christ, over millennia, and across traditions. But what is that spirit? Are all these people experiencing the same spirit? And what is its relationship, if any, with the real person of Jesus whom we encounter in Christian scripture? These people inevitably testify that they are experiencing Jesus Christ, but how do they know that? If they had been brought up in Buddhist Japan, or among the traditional Mohawk, would they still call it Jesus Christ? And would it function the same as Jesus Christ does in Christian communities, as a savior from sin, for instance?

I think of such spirits, from the devas of Findhorn to the spirit of the Christ, as emergent phenomena. Not quite separate entities, but neither are they merely slavish projections of ourselves, even of our collective selves. They emerge and evolve much the same way an organism does as its DNA manifests in relationship with its environment to produce a unique ecosystem of cells, tissues, and organs all communicating with each other as they develop, and even after they reach homeostatic maturity as a unique creature.

Ah—more farting in the windstorm, that. But fun.

What really matters is the Mystery Reality, the Real Mystery calling to us from the transcendental—whatever that actually means—both as individuals and as communities, and how we can successfully answer its call in ways that make us more whole and fulfilled, more creative, and more inclined toward right action.

From the Particular to the Universal

October 15, 2019 § 2 Comments

A Friend commented on my previous post and my reply got so long that I decided to make it its own post. I had started out focused on what different people want from the life of the spirit, but soon found myself in deeper territory.

An awful lot of Friends, in my experience, are not in the life of the spirit for the radical personal transformation Ellis Hein describes (though I am myself). They want religious community, meaningful companionship in their journey. Or they want a spiritual grounding and a tradition from which to work as transformers of our world. Or, even if they are “mystics”, they want to engage with the world and with other seekers after truth, rather than to withdraw from the world—they are attracted to the Quaker way of “practical mysticism”; and, again, they want religious community in which to deepen their relationship with whatever they are experiencing. And most, I suspect, do not want someone to preach at them about how they must do all this or someone demanding that they name their experience a certain way.

This is the genius of liberal Quakerism, it seems to me, that we recognize that there are a lot of totally legitimate desires, temperaments, or even desiderata, for anyone on spiritual journey. In fact, these are the impulses that have shaped Quakerism from the beginning. I suspect that George Fox wanted some of the things I list in the paragraph above himself, maybe all of them. But I think he got ahead of himself.

Fox was a genius, but he fell into the same trap he sought to escape: he didn’t want anybody to tell him what he should do with his soul, then he turned around and started telling others what they should do with theirs. He demanded faith in Jesus Christ, and not just any Jesus Christ—his understanding of Christ.

I would love to ask Fox and Burrough and Penington how they knew that what they were experiencing was Jesus Christ. And why they took the leap that Don Badgley alludes to in his comment on my last post, the leap take by traditional Christianity itself, from the proclaimer to the proclaimed. Jesus pointed his disciples toward the Father; now we point to the son. How did we get from the universal to the particular, and why is the particular more precious, more deserving of worship, than the Deeper Truth and Source of Love that the Galilean mystic had found the way to.

This narrow gate to heaven was built almost immediately, certainly by the writing of John’s gospel: no one cometh unto the father but by me. Really? One might claim that hundreds of millions of Buddhists (for instance) are writing with a cheap Bic pen—though that’s a very arrogant thing to say—but to claim that they can’t write at all is just ridiculous.

Don’t get me wrong. I love the particular. Airy, lofty statements about the absolute and universal and eternal God, who is too transcendent to put into words, seem to me to be speculation that meets some kind of need for the importance of our own way of believing and worshiping, but not very spiritually satisfying in the life I’m living. Yes, some of us get hints about how cosmic “God” is. But where do you go from there? Most of us want something more relevant to our lives. Hence the experience of Jesus Christ.

But my question is, what about the experience of “Jesus Christ” suggests, let alone proves, that the spirit we’ve encountered inwardly is the risen spirit of Yeshua, the Galilean we encounter in Christian scripture? (And which Jesus are we talking about—John’s preach-the-long-sermons Jesus? the Lamb of Revelations? Mark’s much more accessible and “human” Jesus?) And why would we leap to the conclusion that this particular spirit is, in fact, nothing less than God God’s self?

The answer to the first question—how do we know we’re experiencing the Yeshua of Christian scripture resurrected?—or put another way, where does our experience get its name tag?—pretty much has to be the cultural context in which we live. Would a Babylonian mystic in 585 BCE have named the spirit he encountered Jesus Christ? Or are we claiming that she either did not have a legitimate spiritual experience at all or that the spirit she experienced was some kind of demon, a false god. That’s the traditional exclusionist answer I was taught as an evangelical Lutheran child.

The answer to the parenthesis—which Jesus are you experiencing?—is also, I suspect, a matter of accident and subjective preference: which tradition are you drawing from, which Jesus appeals to your own temperament? Quakers have always loved the Jesus of John’s gospel, never mind his relentless anti-Semitism and wordy theologizing. I happen to prefer Mark’s Jesus. My point is that they are not at all the same. They have all been filtered for us already by the cultural contexts and subjective preferences of the evangelists, Paul, and the other writers of the books of Christian scripture.

The tradition claims, of course, that God, or God’s spirit, inspired all these writers and therefore their Jesuses are all the same, even though they talk and act differently. But how do we know that? Objective observation contradicts the idea. This is just a canonical decision made by the tradition for doctrinal reasons.

The answer to the last questions—how do we conclude that, in experiencing Jesus Christ as risen spirit, we are at the same time experiencing God God’s self—again, this conclusion seems to me to depend on culture. The trinitarian idea of the Son’s equality with the Father wasn’t even settled at the Council of Nicea in 325, whatever the writers of the Nicean creed would like to have hoped. In fact, it was still in debate in George Fox’s time.

On top of this cultural accident of whether we are Quakers or Baptists or Catholics—or Buddhists, or traditional Hopi—we add our own need to make our religious lives as significant as possible. At least, Christian communities do. In practice, actual individuals seem quite content to talk about universals and absolutes, but what really matters to them is a sense of personal relationship, a meaningful and coherent way to understand their experience, and a community with which to celebrate and explore their experience.

But back to the Quaker particular. The spirit of Christ—my name for whatever spirit answered Fox’s condition and gathered the first Children of Truth into a people of God, which assumed a name more or less determined by cultural accident—is not a figment of cultural imagination, in my opinion. I believe the spirit of Christ is real.

For I am not saying that our forbears and contemporary Christian Quakers are wrong about their experience of the Christ; I am saying that they and we have usually overlaid that experience with interpretations that go beyond our own personal experience and come to us through our culture, the legacy of the tradition through which we attempt to understand our experience.

Nor is that overlay wrong, either, just because it’s essentially an accident of birth place, time, and culture. It’s just that we cannot with integrity make universal and absolute claims about it. We can only testify to its value for us, as individuals and as communities.

In my next post I want to get into why I believe Jesus Christ is “real” and why I think it matters to Quaker meetings.

The Spirit

June 30, 2018 § 1 Comment

I have been reading Marcus Borg’s Meeting Jesus Again for the First Time, and the book really speaks to me. One of the reasons is that he begins with his own personal journey as a religious person, and my story mirrors his quite closely. Also, the “theology” that follows this autobiographical chapter retains this personal feel and is quite accessible. I’m used to reading dense theology and detailed biblical commentary, but it’s refreshing to read something so direct and yet so full of truth.

Borg’s book also builds an elegant bridge between our root Christian tradition and the religious sensibilities that now characterize the liberal Quaker movement. He offers an understanding of God, Jesus, and the religious life (he calls it the Christian life) that I think would appeal to many of us. Not, perhaps, to the dedicated non-theists among us, though his understanding does not require a traditionally theistic faith. The book’s Christian language may be off-putting to some, if they’ve come to experience it as toxic, but the ideas—the ideas speak to me, just as Borg’s personal story does. This book is for those of us who are not willing to jettison the core of the Quaker tradition, as non-theists must, but who still can’t buy the traditional theistic understanding of God that dominated our tradition until the maturing of the modern liberal Quaker movement.

In his initial broad outline of who Borg thinks the pre-Easter Jesus is, the Jesus we can glimpse from the gospels who is still unburdened by what the tradition has subsequently added or reinterpreted, he defines “the Spirit” in a way that I suspect might resonate with many liberal Friends.

First, he describes Jesus as a “spirit person”, “a ‘mediator of the sacred,’ one of those persons in human history to whom the Spirit was an experiential reality.” (p 33) Then, in a note, he talks about “Spirit”:

I use the phrase the Spirit in as generic a sense as possible, and not the specifically Christian sense of the (Holy) Spirit. By the Spirit I mean the sacred, understood as that nonmaterial reality or presence that is experienced in extraordinary moments. Religious traditions name it various ways. In Christian terms, Spirit is synonymous with God, so long as God is understood as an experiential reality and not as a distant being. (p. 42, note 26)

Borg goes on to talk about the implications of such a view for the Christian life: “It shifts the focus of the Christian life from believing in Jesus or believing in God to being in relationship to the same Spirit that Jesus knew.” (p. 39)

God as an experiential reality rather than as a distant being—to me, that is simple and elegant, and, for me, it’s true. My own definition of God for a long time has been the Mystery Reality behind our religious and spiritual experience—whatever that experience is. It’s real; we know it is real because the experience has changed us for the better. But it’s also mysterious. It transcends normal experience, normal consciousness.

And it’s transpersonal—it comes to us from beyond the boundaries of the self. At least it does sometimes, for example, in the gathered meeting, which has a psychic dimension of communion with the other worshippers. That dimension, that medium for the communion between the worshippers, that transcendental, transpersonal sharing of consciousness that takes place in the gathered meeting, is the sacred, the Spirit, for me. It’s not a distant being; it’s an experiential reality.

Many spiritual and religious experiences are solitary experiences, utterly internal and subjective, and so perhaps merely projections of our own inner workings, our subconscious minds, if you will. But we should not say “merely”. For there is nothing “mere” about it. These solitary experiences are also mysterious and real, and for the same reasons that the collective experience of the gathered meeting is real and mysterious. To say that the same Spirit we encounter in the gathered meeting is also that which we experience in these solitary experiences is a statement of faith; or more accurately, it testifies to a feeling of inward—and therefore unverifiable—knowledge.

Finding the Quaker path has integrated these two levels of experience in my life—my personal spiritual experiences, many of which have taken place outside the Quaker tradition, and the shared experience of Quaker community. The Quaker faith has given me a way to understand both in common terms. Quaker faith offers a common framework for meaning between my personal experience and our collective experience. And Quaker practice, especially, of course, the meeting for worship, has given me a way to renew that experience, to return to that dimension where the sacred mystery waits, waiting for me and for us to wash in its baptism again.

Where Am I?

You are currently browsing the The Life of the Spirit category at Through the Flaming Sword.