Continuing Revelation—Tradition as Discernment Touchstone

July 23, 2022 § 1 Comment

As a touchstone for Quaker discernment, historical tradition has some things in common with scripture. First, it’s not just useful, it’s necessary. We cannot afford to cut the tree of Quakerism from its roots. Notwithstanding its continuing evolution, the first Friends gave us truths that remain essential to our present faith and practice and our future as a religious movement.

That said, the tradition has been evolving over the centuries. Just ten years after George Fox convinced the Seekers at Firbank Fall in 1652, he inaugurated changes that completely reshaped the movement in “gospel order”. Within a generation, the movement had abandoned the Lamb’s War and cut the deal with the “establishment” as recounted in Douglas Gwyn’s The Covenant Crucified. We transformed from a radical militant movement believing itself the second coming of Christ to a withdrawn, self-contained, essentially quietist sect of dissenters. And that was only the beginning; we’ve been changing, sometimes radically, ever since.

And here we are today with four branches of the movement, each of which adheres to different aspects of the original truth, not to mention the sometimes significant differences within these branches. And we also variously reject some aspects of tradition in our distinctivenesses. We are picking and choosing our historical tradition’s various truths, just as we pick and choose from the Bible, while we either claim that we’re not doing that, or at least, that our choices are the right ones.

Which aspects of our tradition do we choose to touch as we test a new leading? What guides our choices for a touchstone, and what guides our choices for ignoring other parts of our tradition? Do we even ask ourselves these questions while we’re trying to discern the spirit of a new leading?

Furthermore, as we do with the Bible, we apply the touchstone of tradition in the context of the community’s power dynamics; ecclesiastical authority—and its relative lack—often trump tradition in our practice of discernment. Even in the branches that do not exercise the hierarchical ecclesiastical authority of the yearly meeting over monthly meetings, the subtle “political” dynamics of the community often shoulder out the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Like the Bible, tradition is an important, yet somewhat unreliable touchstone for testing new leadings.

Continuing Revelation—Scripture as Discernment Touchstone

July 16, 2022 § Leave a comment

In theory, the Bible is an obvious choice for a discernment touchstone. It’s held up for thousands of years as a vehicle for revelation. (And as a weapon by those who wield religious authority against their dissenters.)

But in practice, the Bible’s useful but not decisive, especially in areas that it does not directly address. And even then, problems always arise.

Continuing illumination. The conservative evangelical Quaker understanding of “continuing revelation” prefers to call it continuing illumination. They insist that innovations that cannot claim scriptural authority are illegitimate—heresy or sacrilege, in the language of Paul Anderson. Legitimate new testimonies rest on new illuminations of scripture. Think of Margaret Fell’s defense of women speaking in meeting in “Women’s Speaking Justified”, countering the clear prohibition of women speaking in First Corinthians. Along similar lines, several pamphlets and books have been published countering the apparent prohibition of same sex sex in the Bible.

Weaponizing the Bible. The problem with scripture as a touchstone is that it forces proponents and opponents to weaponize the Bible, and often, to pick and choose, and sometimes to torture its testimony, thus further undermining its authority. For liberal proponents of a new testimony, it just demonstrates how useless, or at least compromised, scripture is as a test. For conservative opponents, it takes the Holy out of the Bible by wielding it as a weapon. 

Picking and choosing. The reality is that everyone picks and chooses the passages that serve their interests and ignores the rest, Quakers included. We don’t practice the outward forms of the sacraments that Jesus explicitly commands, for instance. And almost nobody washes feet. So then it comes down to who gets to pick and choose; it comes down to power dynamics in the community. To stick with the signature example of same sex marriage, yearly meetings that oppose the practice have exerted their authority, and monthly meetings that embrace the practice and/or resent the exercise of ecclesiastical power leave.

Interpretation. After choosing your passages (and ignoring the rest), you then have to interpret the passages you’ve chosen, and the Bible is notoriously open to variant interpretations. To keep with our test case, whole books and pamphlets have been written to counter the interpretations of scripture that seem, at least on the surface, to condemn same sex sex. So, once again, it comes down to ecclesiastical authority, not scriptural authority. Meetings that exercise ecclesiastical authority against heresy or sacrilege under the aegis of scriptural authority are placing their ecclesiastical authority first, before the Bible—in other words, their interpretation—no matter what they say, given the reality of exegetical ambiguity and multivalence.

The book is not holy. Meanwhile, for Quakers, the Holy Bible isn’t “holy”, no matter that the word debossed on the front cover says. God is holy; the book is not. God is the ultimate authority; the book is not. 

The spirit in which it was given forth. Accordingly, we claim to try to read the Bible in the spirit in which it was given forth, which spirit early Friends understood to be the Holy Spirit, which inspired the book’s authors. I embrace this approach myself; as a spiritual exercise, seeking the spirit of inspiration behind the text is a truly powerful tool for personal and corporate spiritual openings. And I include the spirit of the times—the zeitgeist—in this exercise: what did the passage mean to those who wrote it and those who read or heard it first, in their cultural context, to the degree that we can understand that? But now we’re discerning spirits rather than interpreting texts, and that means we must turn to the community for confirmation. We’re back to where we started, in the field of ecclesiastical process and authority.

The Bible is an unreliable touchstone for discerning new leadings, though it is not, therefore, useless. You have to start somewhere with the conversation, and scriptural testimony is as good a place to start as any, in my opinion.

Continuing Revelation—Touchstones for Discernment

July 16, 2022 § Leave a comment

As I said in my previous post, in the struggle over same sex marriage in our meetings, continuing revelation came to mean a new “testimony”, in this case, regarding meeting practice, but with very important implications for the authority of the Bible in corporate discernment (and of the authority of yearly meetings over monthly meetings) and the understanding of the role of testimony itself in the Quaker identity. Approving same-sex marriage meant abandoning the (apparent) testimony of the Bible, which seemed to condemn same sex relationships, or at least, same sex sex, and therefore, rejecting the Bible’s authority more broadly. Even more broadly, it meant reinforcing the post-Christian shift in liberal Quakerism away from the Christo-centrism that arises from scripture’s testimony and which had defined Quakerism for centuries.

The struggle over same-sex marriage forced us to pay attention to discernment—what does it mean, and how is it to be done? I’ve encountered four touchstones as tests for discernment in my experience and reading. I heard them first from Joshua Brown in a workshop held at Powell House, New York Yearly Meeting’s conference center, but I have recently found them articulated again in an essay by Paul Anderson published in George Fox University’s Digital Commons, from 2007: “Continuing Revelation—Gospel or Heresy?

These four tests for discerning a new tenet of faith and/or practice are:

  • scripture,
  • historical tradition,
  • reason and common sense (Anderson calls this theological reflection), and
  • corporate accountability; that is, the sense of the meeting when truly led by the Holy Spirit.

All four tests have their flaws and the whole system has its flaws. Moreover, I believe the list is incomplete. I would add two more:

  • the testimony of the lives of those Friends who are already living according to the new testimony; and
  • the commandment of love.

Lives lived. A new testimony naturally arises in the prophetic voice of some Friend or Friends who feel led in some new direction and, inevitably, some who hear this call do not wait for the meeting to approve, for corporate discernment usually takes a long time. Think of the 75 years it took some yearly meetings to condemn human slavery after the first prophets arose.

Love. And where is love in the new revelation? Was love its first motion? Does it foster love? Does its opposition foster hate, or at least hinder love? And on the flip side, where is the fear? What do we fear when we contemplate a new revelation?

In subsequent posts, I want to look at each test.

Continuing Revelation—Expanding our Understanding

July 12, 2022 § 2 Comments

I believe “continuing revelation” to be one of the central tenets of Quaker faith, or rather, one of the more consequential experiences of the Quaker movement. But I fear that it’s come to mean something much narrower than it should, in both the liberal and evangelical branches. This is partly because of the divisive battle over same-sex marriage in the 1980s and ‘90s, in which “continuing revelation” was liberally invoked in the liberal branch and demonized by evangelicals.

In that struggle, continuing revelation came to mean a new “testimony”, in this case, regarding meeting practice. And I think that’s what most Friends think of when they hear the phrase, some new idea and practice that purports to take us forward in our moral lives, as individuals and as meetings. But I want to argue for a much broader understanding.

In this regard, I think of William Taber’s pamphlet The Prophetic Stream. If I remember correctly (I can’t find my copy), Taber sees God’s revelation as a continuing presence, a flowing forward into which we dip our ladles to serve up the truth that is always there.

I would expand this understanding further. I would go beyond truth, as important as that is. For the Holy Spirit is a spirit of love as well as of truth.

Continuing revelation is all of God’s new and present work within us and among us.

Continuing revelation thus includes forgiveness and healing; guidance and correction; openings, leadings, and the call to ministry, including especially, vocal ministry; renewal, strength, and courage in the face of adversity and trials of all kinds; inspiration and creativity in all its forms; acts of love and witness; and grace, the unexpected in-breaking of the Spirit to make us more fulfilled and whole, as individuals and as communities. 

And, of course, continuing revelation is creation itself, evolution, the forward direction of life’s advance on this planet, which is always bringing forth new life, and even new life forms. (I love the word for these “buds” in the tree of life—peduncle.)  My model for this aspect of continuing revelation is the way apple trees put forth, occasionally, a new variety of apple through a bud on a tree that is otherwise a honeycrisp or granny smith. One of these new varieties gets developed into a new offering in the market in roughly every human generation.

In subsequent posts, I want to explore the role of discernment in continuing revelation.

Hopes for Meeting for Worship

July 9, 2022 § 3 Comments

What do we hope for when we gather for worship? 

I hope that I will sink down into my depths where there awaits a promise of peace and fullness and wholeness, of openness to God’s calling, and of quiet and sublime joy in the presence of my Guide.

But I can have all of that in my private meditation. I join others in worship in the hope of something more. I hope for the gathered meeting. I hope that the wings of the Holy Spirit will cover us with its peace and fullness and wholeness, and fill us together with a deep and sublime joy.

I hope that, when I reach my own depths, I will be joined there by my fellow worshippers and we will find ourselves in the presence of—well, that is a Mystery, for all that it is also a Reality. 

I hope that we will find ourselves together beside the well of the Spirit that lies at the mystical center of our little gathering, and that we will share there the cup that quenches all our spiritual thirst.

In that holy communion, we will know. We will know that we do not hope in vain, that the Presence in our Midst is no phantom, however we might understand it or name it. And in that Presence, we will be present to each other; we will know each other “in that which is eternal”.

I will know that the promise has been fulfilled. You will know the same. And I will know that you know the promise has been fulfilled. And you will know that I know. And I will know that you know that I know. And you will know that I know that you know. And we will all know such joy!

And from this well of living water, someone may draw up some truth and pass the cup around in vocal ministry. And its sweet savor will sink us even deeper into the Truth.

The communion may remain until, reluctantly, we press each other’s hands in meeting’s closing; or it may fade somewhat before we close, as a dream does upon waking. But in that returning moment, we will look upon each other in wonder and amazement. Joy and gratitude will shine upon our faces as we confirm that, yes, I was there, too, and so were you.

We will find it hard to speak, for the silence will still lay upon us and the Presence will still be calling us from the depths. But the everyday will return anew, as it always does. Yet we will carry away that knowledge of each other and of the Spirit in which we were gathered. Our faith will be renewed, and we will carry a new measure of peace and strength and joy into the world from which we came and into which we step.

Abortion, Theology, and Human Personhood

July 4, 2022 § 3 Comments

The conservative Christian war against abortion is predicated on a false and unbiblical premise, in hypocritical contradiction to the fact that its warriors claim allegiance to the Bible’s authority in all other things. And now that a decisive battle against abortion has been won in the Supreme Court, the scope of the war will expand, but the enemy will still be the same: the enemy is women.

To defend women from this armed assault, we have to disarm the artillery, and that means exposing the deceit, perverse mind, and shallowness of the theology that holds it together. That theology derives from the story of the fall in the first chapters of Genesis, a story that nevertheless these Christians ignore when it comes to their basic claim regarding abortion.

The false premise

Conservative Christian condemnation of abortion rests on the claim that the fetus is a human person and that therefore abortion is murder. But the Bible clearly says otherwise. Genesis 2:7 reads:

Then Yahweh God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and the man became a living being.

Humans become human persons when they take their first breath, according to the Bible. 

It’s important to remember that in both biblical Hebrew and Greek, the word for breath and the word for spirit are the same—ruah and pneuma. According to Genesis, God’s spirit enters the human with that first breath; it’s not just inanimate air. The spiritual life of a human being begins with the first breath, just as the physical life does.

The Bible reinforces this spiritual anthropology with its understanding of death, the other end of human life. In describing Jesus’ death on the cross, Matthew follows Mark with this description (Matthew 27:50, Mark 15:37): “Then Jesus cried again with a loud voice and breathed his last.” Luke uses the same phrase, “breathed his last,” but expands on the cry: “Father, into your hands I comment my spirit.” John uses different wording for the same thing (John 20:30): “When Jesus had received the wine, he said, ‘It is finished.’ Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Remember, spirit = breath. “Breathed his last” = “spirited his last”—that is, God’s animating spirit left him. This is most clear in John: “Gave up his spirit” = breathed his last; he stopped breathing.

The physical and spiritual life of the human being begins with breath and ends with breath. Fetuses don’t breathe.

Thus, fetuses are not yet human persons, according to the Bible. They are not animated by God’s animating spirit; they do not yet have a spiritual identity conferred upon them by God. In fact, as far as I know, the Bible never mentions fetuses at all.

The fall of man, the curse of woman

Abortion has never been the enemy of the conservative Christian anti-abortion movement. Women are the enemy. They are the ones who “murder” their falsely identified “unborn children”. The sin is the woman’s, her actions are to be criminalized.

So has it been since the creation, or so they claim because of their belief in the Fall:

To the woman [God] said:

I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing, 

in pain you shall bring forth children,

and yet your desire shall be for your husband,

and he shall rule over you.

Genesis 3:16

And the men got God’s message: women’s bodies are yours to command, and women even want it that way. And baby it hurts! to quote the Mick Jagger in “Midnight Rambler”.

Giving birth is your curse, but you deserve that pain. You started it all by listening to that snake, which is your real desire. So for God’s sake, suffer.

These so-called Christian misogynist fascists are going to expand the war on women from the narrow field of abortion to the wider battlefield of pregnancy itself. In some places, they already deploy their reconnaissance drones to stand watch over pregnant women, so that natural miscarriages can be investigated as possible cover-ups for an abortion. And so on. Only now the gloves are really off, thanks to the mostly Catholic justices on the Supreme Court.

The mythic fallacy and hypocrisy

Meanwhile, of course, the Fall never really happened. The whole thing is a myth. There was no original couple, no original sin, no snake, no Satan, no tree, no garden, no curses. No mud formed into shape, no divine breath breathed in its nostrils, no rib-snatching, no man first/woman second, no tree of life conferring immortality whose fruit we must be denied, no flaming sword, no paradise to go back to. We evolved from primates and we have trouble giving birth because our craniums grew bigger faster than our pelvises could keep up with. If only some of us could put those bigger brains to better use.

The entire theology of the anti-abortion movement is built on a myth that has been selectively—and thus hypocritically—employed to shape the laws even for those of us who aren’t even Christians in the first place. 

Why are these believers in a sectarian reading of the Christian Bible allowed to ignore how their Bible actually defines human personhood and yet still force their anti-woman mythology on our laws in contradiction to the clear testimony of their own scripture and in violation of our constitution? 

For this looks like a violation of the establishment clause of the first amendment to me. Suppose Muslims succeeded in forcing sharia law upon the rest of us and required all Americans to go to Mecca at least once in our lifetimes, just because the Quran told them so? The idea is laughable.

Yet we don’t think twice about letting Christian theology define the laws that govern us all. And to make matters worse, they have twisted their own theology into a perversion that is deliberately blind to its own source. The Father of Lies is surely laughing his serpentine butt off in the choir lofts of the megachurches.

So what now?

Now, I’m not saying there aren’t other moral factors involved with abortion. Fetuses are living beings of some kind, and abortion does kill them. Its legal status is the question here, and how we determine that status. 

We have not yet come to a clear consensus as a society on when a fetus becomes a human person, and we’re not likely to do so anytime soon. We’ve been shifting our threshold of week-counts for “viability” forward based on advances in medical science, but is “viability” the way to determine personhood? 

I am sure we will keep being tempted to use “science” to determine the matter of human personhood—that is, when aborting a fetus is murder—but the scientific path to decision has already been a failure; or rather, the pseudo-scientific path. The anti-abortionists already use some peculiar kind of “theology” of embryology to claim that a fetus is a human person from conception—based on what? Science? The Bible? What? 

I don’t want to leave this question of a fetus’s personhood up to them, or to the embryologists, or to the politicians. 

Defining human personhood is, in fact, a spiritual or at least a philosophical matter, and therefore even harder to agree upon than some allegedly scientific approach. Furthermore, the spiritual or philosophical decision will depend on the spiritual or philosophical tradition behind it and upon the people who make it, and those people cannot be trusted to be faithful to their tradition, anyway, as we can clearly see already from the way some Christians ignore the clear testimony of their own holy scripture about the matter.

Which is why the law should stay out of it and leave the decision to the woman carrying this being, whatever its spiritual or philosophical status is. We are not going to agree on this as a society in any foreseeable future. So the moral decisions should be left in the hearts and minds and hands of the women whose hearts and lives and bodies are directly involved. 

If the fetus could decide for itself—which would be a clear indication of its personhood—then that might clarify the matter. But a fetus can’t; it isn’t a person yet. So somebody has to decide for it. But who? The closest a fetus can come to human personhood in the sense of choosing for itself under the law is the mother whose body it shares. The farthest a fetus can get from its own human personhood is a man in a black robe on the bench of the Supreme Court.

Acts, the Judicial Vow, and Early Friends

July 1, 2022 § 3 Comments

Listening to Ketanji Brown Jackson recite her judicial vow as a Supreme Court Associate Justice, one phrase jumped out to me. Here’s the generic text of the vow:

“I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

This is very close to the passage that early Friends used as a foundation for what we now call the testimony of equality. Back then, it inspired their practice of plain speech and non-practice of hat honor, in which they addressed all people, regardless of their social station whether above or below themselves, as equals, and refused to doff their hats to show subservient respect to those of higher station than themselves. Here’s the passage in Acts (10:34–35; KJV):

Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, “Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons: But in every nation he that feareth him, and worketh righteousness, is accepted with him.”

I can’t help but wonder whether the writers of the judicial oath did not directly borrow from this passage in their wording. The oath was established in the Judiciary Act of 1789, and so the King James would almost certainly have been the version read by the writers. I would love to know whether any Quakers were involved in the writing of the Judiciary Act or this vow. Or perhaps this language was quite widely known and used also by non-Quakers in this kind of context.

Anti-racism and the War of the Lamb

June 8, 2022 § Leave a comment

I want to pass on this post by Adria Gulizia on “anti-racist” efforts in our yearly meetings because I feel its message deserves wider exposure. I find Adria’s ministry to be faithful and consistently refreshing, so I encourage my own readers to check her blog out and to read this post, in particular.

In the Shadow of Babylon—Adria’s blog

Anti-racism and the War of the Lamb—Adria’s post on anti-racism

Evil, the Collective, and the New Lamb’s War

May 15, 2022 § 3 Comments

Evil becomes fully transcendental when it manifests as sin by the collective. It is in the psycho-social dynamics of the mob that evil becomes a spirit, a Power, a force that transcends the personal to animate individuals into acting as organs of the collective. In its transcendental state, evil is capable of attracting and infecting new members to the collective, sometimes just on contact, and of transforming even those who otherwise would resist evil into at least silent enablers. 

This spirit’s weapons are fear, which leads to hate, and the lie. Hence what I call ideological evil, the willingness to do evil in the name of what you believe—burning witches, mass murder of Jews, invading Iraq or Ukraine, storming the Capitol.

That’s the psycho-social face of collective evil. There’s also a structural and systemic face—slavery and Jim Crow and the new Jim Crow, wage slavery and the other oppressive structures of capitalism, personal and collective dependence on fossil fuels, campaign finance law and partisan gerrymandering.

How do you turn the mob around? How do you transform the dominion of a system? The traditional Quaker answer is the Lamb’s War, individual and collective witness to the Truth through the word/Word, through the good news of a viable alternative exercised in the hands of love.

But you need an alternative. Where there is no vision, the people perish (Proverbs 19:18); or, as my NRSV puts it, where there is no prophecy, the people cast off restraint.

Thus, the Quaker answer today, I believe, begins with the nurture of prophecy. It begins with efforts by meetings to foster mature spirituality in its members and in its collective worship, expecting that God will raise up servants in good time; to recognize and support the prophets that the Spirit raises up among us; and to surrender our own attachments to ideas and structures in favor of true revelation.

We have to go deeper than the facile turn to the ideas of “that of God in everyone” and of the “testimonies” as ready and settled outward guides for action. A sublime idea about human nature (“that of God in everyone”) or minutes of conscience unpacking the SPICES will not save us. Only the Holy Spirit can do that.

Presumably, the Holy Spirit is trying. Are we?

If Spirit-led prophecy is the vehicle for Quaker contributions to the struggle against collective evil, then every Quaker meeting should be proactively preparing the soil, teaching its members the Quaker traditions around Spirit-led openings, leadings, and ministry. Every meeting should be equipped to provide Friends who feel they may have divine leadings with discernment (clearness committees for discernment) and to provide support for those whom God has in fact called. 

This means meaningful religious education programs on Quaker ministry and an active and Spirit-led worship and ministry committee proactively building up the spiritual maturity of the meeting and its members. The obvious place to start with the nurture of Spirit-led ministry is with vocal ministry. 

Vocal ministry is the signature form of ministry in our tradition. It is the laboratory in which emerging ministers find their feet and in which the meeting learns to listen, discern, and support. And it sometimes is the launching pad for a Friend’s leading, the moment when they first hear the call. And in this regard, we should expand our view of vocal ministry to include programs outside the meeting for worship and any other speech addressed to the meeting. My own path into Quaker ministry came while I was preparing for an earthcare program for a meeting.

Finally, I believe we need to become much more open to what Friends in the elder days called public ministry: speaking Truth to the Powers where they are in their positions of power. I believe this means going beyond the writing of minutes of conscience and publishing them or sending them as letters to the powerful; it means sending people to speak in person.

But of course we can only send those who have been called. Do our members know to listen for the call? Are our meetings prepared to help them discern their call and give them the support they need, no matter what their calling?

Presumably, the Holy Spirit is doing its part. Are we?

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.