Virtual Meeting Evaluation

March 22, 2020 § 2 Comments

Well, I take it all back. Virtual meeting for worship this morning was actually quite wonderful. We were joined by folks who could never have been there otherwise—a very sick member from her hospital bed, a distant Friend from Albuquerque, and another from Beirut, several from Pendle Hill.

We started the Zoom session at 10:30 and were almost all sorted out technologically by meeting time at 11:00. Sixty-seven people by my count at the peak; that is, 67 windows, but a number of windows included couples.

The vocal ministry was quite satisfying to me, and I am the most judgmental person I know when it comes to vocal ministry (though I withhold judgment of my own).

As for my own, here it is, somewhat expanded:

I’ve been reading Spiritual Nurture Ministry Among Friends by Sandra Cronk. Sandra is no longer with us. She was one of the founders of The School of the Spirit and the author of a great Pendle Hill Pamphlet on Gospel Order and of a book on The Dark Night of the Soul, which condition I would define as when all the things you thought were essential to your spiritual life, or even your being as a person, are taken away, leaving you bereft and naked before your own reality.

Sandra had been through a dark night of the soul herself and had nurtured ministers who were going through it. She knows that such times can crack you open and let in a new flood of the Light, a powerful breakthrough deepening of the life of the Spirit. (George Fox went through this himself, famously, which William James describes and analyzes in his classic The Varieties of Religious Experience.) But the nurturer of someone on that journey can’t fix it. All you can do, really, is be prayerfully present, to accompany them, to be a light in that darkness yourself, in the faith that God will eventually be more fully revealed and encountered.

I think our nation, and indeed, our civilization, is about to go through a collective dark night of the soul. The moment is fraught with danger; people get weird when they get really scared, especially when they’ve been taught to blame it on someone else. But it holds great possibility, as well, and will certainly call many people into Spirit-led service of all kinds.

It’s hard to be “present” to a nation, except for staying informed and then voting, and supporting the institutions that define us as a people, while at the same time looking for that in-breaking Light, for opportunities to really transform the system on behalf of the least of us.

And we can be present more locally. A restaurant around the corner from us here in Philadelphia offers take-out now at 20% discount. We got a great dinner night before last. They say the response has been good—they’ve got payroll for at least the next two weeks.

And we can be present to each other, virtually, as we did this morning, if not in person. It’s not as good as in person, it’s not the same. But it is way better than nothing. The meeting is beginning to organize Virtual Quaker 8s, which I think is a great idea. I plan to start holding virtual Bible study.

We still have much to be thankful for.

Virtual Meeting Resources — A Resources Page

March 21, 2020 § Leave a comment

I have created a page on this blog here on which I am pulling together all the resources I can find on holding virtual meetings and meetings for worship.

Virtual Worship — A Resource

March 21, 2020 § 2 Comments

Here is a great resource for meetings hosting virtual worship or virtual meetings from Woodbrooke study center in Great Britain:

A-Quakers-guide-to-online-worship-and-meetings-19-03-2020

Virtual Worship

March 21, 2020 § 9 Comments

My meeting (Central Philadelphia) is experimenting with online worship starting tomorrow (Sunday, March 22, 2020) using Zoom. I plan to participate; in fact, I will be part of a “tech support” team to help Friends who are having trouble joining the meeting. I think the virtual meeting is a good idea. However, I wonder whether we should call it worship.

What is worship?

A virtual meeting like this raises an existential question of just what are we doing when we worship? Not what do we think we are doing, but what is our goal and what is actually happening?

For me, the goal is the gathered meeting, the direct collective experience of the presence of God among us. By God I mean the Mystery Reality behind our experience of being gathered in the Spirit, however we might name that as individuals.

If the collective communion with the transcendent Divine is our desire in worship, then the act of worship is personal and collective alignment toward, attention to, attunement with, the Holy Spirit, with that ineffable link between the Light within each of us and our collective capacity for transcendental communion as a worshipping body, what Paul called the body of Christ.

How are we to be gathered into communion via the internet? I doubt that it’s possible, for several reasons.

Obstacles to a virtual gathered meeting

First, just what is the medium through which the Spirit is corporately manifest? I think there are two such media, one physical, the other metaphysical. The physical medium is vocal ministry. A virtual meeting for worship will have vocal ministry, albeit distorted by the technology. But at least, everyone will probably be able to hear the speakers, and the same discipline of discernment will theoretically apply for each minister. Or will it? How much is that discipline dependent on the physical presence of the listeners? Will the remote aspect of the technology encourage relaxed discernment, as it notoriously does with email, texts, and social media?

The metaphysical medium can be defined only through speculation, though we know it’s real because we’ve experienced gathered meetings. Communion really does take place, sometimes—but how? I think the metaphysical medium for the Holy Spirit in meeting for worship is our human auras and, by extension, the “ether”, or whatever you want to call the medium in which psychic events take place between people.

My study of auras points to two kinds of auras, an etheric and an astral. The etheric aura is a shade of “white” that emanates from the body. The astral aura is a rainbow of colors that emanates from the mind and, if you will, the soul, the spiritual self that knows right from wrong, makes choices, feels emotions and has intentions—and that is capable of psychic experience. These subtle invisible vibrations (to most of us most of the time)—what we used to call “vibes”—manifest with apparent physical limits to those who can see them, but they exist in an apparently nonphysical “space” that has no such limits. I believe this “space” is what the ancients called “heaven”, that is, the dwelling-place of the gods, of spirits, of Spirit.

In theory, then, this apparently limitless region for psychic experience could work with the internet and we could have a gathered virtual meeting for worship. But in practice, in the reality of reasonable expectations, we need to sit together in the same space where our auras can intermingle, creating a “network” of individual psyches that is greater than the sum of the parts. This is one of the reasons why sitting close together seems to foster the gathered meeting.

There are other obstacles to a gathered virtual meeting.

Central Philadelphia is urging participants to mute their microphones unless and until they speak, then to mute their mics again. This prevents the ambient noises in each participant’s environment from cascading with everybody else’s and potentially overwhelming the technology and the collective experience. For each participant, muting will create an artificial silence that is nothing like the silence in a meeting room full of worshippers. You will hear your own environment, but not one shared by the other worshippers. Can this disparate, individual scattering of personal artificial silences feed the gathered meeting? I doubt it.

Can fussing with the technology—logging in, solving connection and device problems, muting and un-muting mics, watching the screen flip from one speaker to the other if you’re in Speaker View, and the sudden intrusion of someone speaking out of that artificial silence—can all this outward business draw us deeper into the depths? I doubt it. Though we will probably get better at it with practice.

Conclusion

It will be good to see each other’s faces in this time of crisis. It will be wonderful to be together in some fashion, rather than stuck in isolation in a time of fear. But I don’t think it will be worship.

On the other hand, much of our worship is increasingly not the worship I have been describing, anyway. It usually is more like worship sharing, and often not even that. It is disturbed by latecomers. It is rarely gathered in the Spirit. We have lowered the bar for what constitutes worship and we no longer have a collectively agreed-upon understanding of what worship is, what it’s for, or whom—or what—we worship, if that last idea works for us in the first place.

So my final concern is that calling virtual worship “worship” reinforces this trend toward embracing something that is not true worship, practicing something that is not alignment toward God, however we might define that, but rather group meditation and an in-person blogging platform. So virtual worship will really be what we have already—group meditation with worship sharing added. So why not “worship” virtually? What’s the difference? In fact, why go back to meeting in person, once this is all over? We could all just sit at home in our jammies and worship.

So I think we should call this something else. Maybe “Meeting for Virtual Community”. And be deliberate in our characterization, that this really is not worship, but worth doing anyway.

Christ-centered worship

A side note here: For Christ-centered Friends, the object of worship is much more discreet and “tangible” than it is for us who are not Christ-centered. That is, (though I generalize) Christ-centered Friends worship a divine Christ, and by extension, God the Father, a theistic being possessing absolute attributes like omnipresence and ultimate power. For God so defined, anything is possible. Theoretically. So maybe Christ would choose to gather a virtual meeting of his present-day followers, just because he can and he wants to. No media required, physical or metaphysical. (Though metaphysical dynamics are still involved—how does Christ gather gathered meetings?)

I look forward to hearing from these Friends if they begin experimenting with online meetings for worship. Do they still program their meetings (if they were programmed before)? Does singing with each other remotely carry the same feelings of joy and presence to one another as singing in the same room? And so on. And will the Conservative meetings try this, who are centered in Christ but do not program their meetings? Somehow, I doubt it. But if they do, I hope to hear how it goes.

Supporting Quaker Ministry – Resources

March 11, 2020 § Leave a comment

As a follow-up to my previous post on Supporting Quaker Ministry, I offer the model that my meeting (Central Philadelphia Meeting) uses for supporting ministry.

A page with other resources—click the link to go to a new page of Resources for Quaker Ministry.

The Central Philadelphia Meeting model

My meeting (Central Philadelphia) has a Gifts and Leadings Committee set up to supply this ministry of eldership. So Friends who feel they may have a leading or a call to some ministry have a place to go where Friends are waiting and ready to provide discernment, support, and oversight. Between their occasional appeals for financial support of the handful of ministries under their care, their occasional reports to the meetings for business in worship, and adult religious education programs on Quaker ministry by our ARE committee, I think the members have a fairly good idea that such support is available and they know where to go with their own leadings.

The meeting has a clear process for taking a ministry under its care, which includes a clearness committee for discernment, which reports back to the Committee, which then sends a recommendation to the meeting for business in worship. Once a ministry has been taken under the meeting’s care, a spiritual accountability group is formed to support the minister. This can be either a Dedicated Spiritual Accountability Group (SAG), as the one I serve on is, or a Mutual SAG in which two or more ministers meet together with the group, when the ministries are similar in nature and/or the ministers feel ready to hold one another’s work in their care.

The Gifts and Leadings Committee has also set out guidelines for this eldership work in documents available on the meeting’s website and from the Committee:

  • Nurturing Faithfulness to the Leadings of the Spirit in Central Philadelphia Monthly Meeting, which describes how the members of the meeting try to “support one another in faithfulness in every phase of the life of our community.” It’s akin to the faith part of the meeting’s faith and practice of supporting ministry.

Supporting Quaker Ministry—Thoughts & Queries

March 2, 2020 § 1 Comment

One of the fundamentals of Quaker spirituality is the faith and practice of Quaker ministry—watching, waiting, listening for when we may be called into some service on God’s behalf, and answering that call with faithfulness. One of the most important roles of the Quaker meeting is to nurture this faith and practice in our members, to help members who have some prompting of the spirit with discernment—is this a true leading or not?—and to support the minister when we are clear that they have in fact been called.

Every ministry faces obstacles. Every minister has moments of doubt, confusion, worry, and/or frustration in the face of outward obstacles and inward vagaries. So it’s really important that a meeting have a faithful culture of eldership, embodied in corporate systems of discernment and support, in the hands of earnest and caring Friends. The benefits are many:

  • Supports the ministry. Structures and processes in the meeting for the eldership of ministry answer that of God in the minister, they protect and further the work, and they serve the motion of love in the world which the minister serves. They serve the the work of the Spirit in the world.
  • Supports the life of the meeting. These structures and processes integrate the minister and the ministry into the life of the meeting, bring the meeting into the work, and deepen the spiritual life of the meeting as a whole.
  • Supports the elders. These structures and processes also deeply enrich the spiritual lives of those who care for the minister and her or his work. I have served on a couple of support groups for Friends who carry a ministry, and I want to testify to how important and rewarding this service is. I’m serving on one now, and literally every time our little group meets, we feel the Spirit moving within us and among us in love; it’s been one gathered meeting after another.

The spiritual nurture of Quaker ministry is a profound blessing all the way around.

Queries

So, some queries:

  • What do you and your meeting do to share the faith, practice, and history of Quaker ministry, so that members really understand this aspect of Quaker spirituality, know how to approach the meeting when they feel they might have a leading or ministry, and feel confident that they will receive the support they need?
    • Do you sponsor religious education programs on Quaker ministry, for both adults and children?
    • Do you have members who know this tradition well enough to teach it or who are willing to study it and then teach it when they feel ready?
    • Do you have members who are following some leading or carrying some ministry already, who could share their experience with the rest of the meeting and/or who might need your support?
  • Does your meeting have a committee that is prepared to provide corporate discernment and to support of leadings and ministries, with Friends experienced in this kind of eldership, or Friends eager to learn by studying and doing? This need not be a dedicated committee with this charge only, but if it is your ministry and worship committee, or some other committee with a broader charge, is the eldership of ministry on its agenda and receiving proper attention?
  • Do you have readily available resources that can guide these elders and inform your ministers in the faith and practice of Quaker ministry?
    • Does your meeting library have some essential materials on Quaker ministry?
    • Has your worship and ministry committee gathered the many resources available online into your institutional memory somehow, especially if you don’t have a meeting library or it’s not complete?

In my next post, I plan to offer these kinds of resources to make this part of the meeting’s job easier.

Supporting Ministry

February 2, 2020 § Leave a comment

I love exploring “theological” themes that I think are important to Friends, and I do this quite a bit in this blog. And I do think “theology” matters. It matters what questions we are asking ourselves and what are the answers that speak to us. It matters how we answer the questions of others, especially newcomers and our children. It matters how we approach our faith and practice and how we understand and express our religious experience.

But I have increasingly felt led lately to be more useful, to share resources that could enrich the spiritual formation of individual Friends and the religious life of our meetings. So I’m going to begin posting new material along these lines, and develop some resource pages in the pages section of this blog.

I have carried a ministry of seeking to recover and revitalize the faith and practice of Quaker ministry ever since my own first (negative) experience with seeking meeting support for a leading that I thought might challenge my spiritual well-being and the work to which I felt called. It’s a ministry on behalf of Quaker ministry. So this is where I would like to start.

Support groups for ministry

One of the fundamentals of Quaker spirituality is the faith and practice of Quaker ministry—watching, waiting, listening for when we may be called into some service on God’s behalf, and answering that call with faithfulness. One of the most important roles of the Quaker meeting is to nurture this faith and practice in our members, to help members who have some prompting of the spirit with discernment—is this a true leading or not?—and to support the minister when we are clear that they have in fact been called.

Every ministry faces obstacles. Every minister has moments of doubt, confusion, worry, and/or frustration in the face of outward obstacles and inward vagaries. So it’s really important that a meeting have a faithful culture of eldership, embodied in corporate systems of discernment and support, in the hands of earnest and caring Friends. The benefits are many:

  • Structures and processes in the meeting for the eldership of ministry answer that of God in the minister, they protect and further the work, and they serve the motion of love in the world which the minister serves. They serve the work of the Spirit in the world.
  • They integrate the minister and the ministry into the life of the meeting, bring the meeting into the work, and deepen the spiritual life of the meeting as a whole.
  • They also deeply enrich the spiritual lives of those who care for the minister and her or his work. I have served on a couple of support groups for Friends who carry a ministry, and I want to testify to how important and rewarding this service is. I’m serving on one now, and literally every time our little group meets, we feel the Spirit moving within us and among us in love; it’s been one gathered meeting after another.

The spiritual nurture of Quaker ministry is a profound blessing all the way around.

Queries

So, some queries:

  • What do you and your meeting do to share the faith, practice, and history of Quaker ministry, so that members really understand this aspect of Quaker spirituality, know how to approach the meeting when they feel they might have a leading or ministry, and feel confident that they will receive the support they need?
    • Do you sponsor religious education programs on Quaker ministry, for both adults and children?
    • Do you have members who know this tradition well enough to teach it or who are willing to study it and then teach it when they feel ready?
    • Do you have members who are following some leading or carrying some ministry already, who could share their experience with the rest of the meeting and/or who might need your support?
  • Does your meeting have a committee that is prepared to provide corporate discernment and support of leadings and ministries, with Friends experienced in this kind of eldership, or Friends eager to learn by studying and doing? This need not be a dedicated committee with this charge only, but if it is your ministry and worship committee, or some other committee with a broader charge, is the eldership of ministry on its agenda and receiving proper attention?
  • Do you have readily available resources that can guide these elders and inform your ministers in the faith and practice of Quaker ministry?
    • Does your meeting library have some essential materials on Quaker ministry?
    • Has your worship and ministry committee gathered the many resources available online into your institutional memory somehow, especially if you don’t have a meeting library or it’s not complete?

In my next post, I plan to offer these kinds of resources to make this part of the meeting’s job easier.

Hurt by the Meeting

January 28, 2020 § 12 Comments

I know quite a few Friends who feel wounded or betrayed by their meetings. In the incidents in which this wounding occurred, it was individuals who hurt each other. Yet, whatever these Friends might feel towards the individuals involved, they still feel betrayed by the meeting, as well. This is the shadow side of the extraordinary corporate character of Quaker meeting life.

This transference of blame, hurt, and anger to the meeting calls for a special kind of pastoral care that we don’t seem to do very well or even talk about much. I am not at all clear about what’s called for myself, but I grieve for the people I know who have been hurt in this way and also for the meetings in which this pain and tension lives as a shadow on the fellowship. So I’m going to explore it here, in the hope that thinking and writing about it will bring some kind of opening and/or elicit some insights from my readers.

First, why do we transfer to the meeting hurts we suffer at the hands of individuals?

In some cases, I think we do so because a number of individuals were involved, and there seemed to be some kind of consensus among them about what they were doing. Some spirit was at work, some sense of the gathering.

Friends also have a perverse tendency sometimes to minister to the perpetrator in a fraught situation, rather than the victim. I’m not sure where this comes from. Maybe it comes from a perverse desire not to take sides, as though siding with the perp isn’t taking sides, but providing some kind of balance instead. I don’t know. But I want to name it, and I know it figures in some of these situations.

Very often, I know the hurt stems from the fact that other Friends let it happen, that a group or the meeting as a whole stood by while the wounding took place. These witnesses may not have agreed with what was going on, but they were paralyzed by fear, awkwardness, or indecision, or a failure of insight into what to do and/or courage to do it. This is a large part of why so many Catholics who have been abused by priests are so angry at the church: the church did nothing to stop it.

Very often, we’re not talking about just one incident, but rather an ongoing situation in which the principals seem stuck in their patterns and the meeting as a whole either doesn’t know what’s going on until it’s too late or doesn’t know what to do. Here, our culture of silence is our enemy: we tend not to talk to each other forthrightly about such things (though we may do so behind cupped hands in the parking lot), and our passive quietist tendencies suppress active involvement.

Also, in the Catholic case, the institution was more important to those in power than the people who were being victimized. We Quakers don’t have an imperial institution with that kind of embedded power, but we can still favor the institution over the individual. For us, the “institution” is “Quaker process.” I have seen Friends insist on Quaker process when the process was clearly hurting someone. Usually, this manifests as delay: it takes so long for the meeting to come to clarity and decision that those involved feel betrayed; their needs or concerns seem to have no value in the face of the slowly moving machine.

I have a phrase for this: To hell with Quaker process when hell is where it takes you. I feel quite strongly that people are more important than principles and institutions most of the time. My signature example of this is the way conservatives want to protect “the institution” of marriage rather than protect same-gender couples. On the other hand, I’m not sure what we can do about this. Our process for corporate discernment sometimes takes a while.

I’m not sure what we can do in any of these cases. We have the “gospel order” of Matthew 18:15–20 to guide us when things go bad between individuals: speak to the one who has sinned against you, then take one or two others with you, then take it to the meeting. Early Friends adopted this framework explicitly. I’m not sure how long the practice continued, but modern-day Friends hardly even know it exists. I hear it talked about (there’s even a Pendle Hill Pamphlet), but I’ve never seen it done. For one thing, this process lays the impetus for action on the wounded one, whose vulnerability makes it hard to do. And it doesn’t work at all when you feel betrayed by the community.

Very often, Friends who were not part of the incidents and groups originally involved in the situation sense the tension and go to the aggrieved people to express their sympathy and to invite them to come back (for these Friends often leave us when they see nothing is being done to address their concerns). But the aggrieved want to hear from the principals, not from third parties. And I think they want something from the meeting, too, which the meeting does not know how to give, even if the meeting is inclined to do something collectively.

I have seen individuals who caused some such hurt speak publicly to the meeting of their error and their anguish at having made such a mistake, and this does help the meeting some; but it rarely helps the aggrieved, because they usually weren’t there to witness the contrition and feel some answering movement of forgiveness within themselves.

Perhaps a minute of exercise from the meeting would help, in which the meeting admits its failure to act, or whatever.

Or perhaps the meeting could have some kind of called meeting for atonement whose goal is to become clear about what happened and then to decide what to do. It might urge those involved to speak to each other, especially those who had caused the hurt or had not intervened, rather than the other way around.

This is a level of corporate self discipline that I have rarely seen among us. When I have, it’s been a spontaneous emergence of grace in a gathered meeting for business that resolved a conflict in the moment, but I don’t know how those who felt aggrieved going into the meeting felt when they left those meetings. The body might have felt better while the individuals did not.

Perhaps meetings could have a called meeting for speaking whose purpose is just to create as safe a space as possible for everyone to name their pain and grievances. I would model this on Quaker dialogue, known to some as Claremont dialogue, after the California meeting that published a pamphlet outlining how it works. It’s simple: It’s like a worship sharing—Friends speak what’s on their mind when they feel ready. No one interrupts or answers or debates what has been said, or tries to correct it. Everyone gets to speak their own truth and then everyone goes home. No discussion. No decision. No sympathizing or reassurances. Just honest speaking and deep listening.

I would love to hear from my readers what they think. I know that this is a widespread, even universal experience among us. Perhaps you have some insights or experience that the rest of us might find helpful.

The Senators’ Oath of Impartial Justice

January 17, 2020 § 1 Comment

I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god (sic)?

Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.

 

Our president took an oath several years ago. Ninety-nine of our U.S. senators took an oath yesterday. (One was absent due to illness and will take the oath soon.)

Oaths. Taking an oath casts a magico-religious spell. In this, it is like a sacrament: perform an outward ritual, effect an invisible but real spiritual outcome; take holy communion, receive God’s grace. An oath binds our words and actions and fates to a covenant of truth, a three-way agreement between the oath-taker, the witnesses, and a Power as the guarantor of the pledge.

Full-blown oaths have three components and three magico-religious aspects. The three components are verbal, somatic, and material. The aspects are: invoke a Power, declare the promise, submit to the Power’s punishment upon breaking the promise.

The simple oath we used to take as kids was stripped down to some essentials: Cross my heart and hope to die. This just has the verbal component, the speaking of the oath, and the somatic component of making the sign of a cross over the heart. The promise: I’m telling the truth. The punishment, death, heart failure, presumably.

The vow of marriage involves the verbal, somatic, and material components of vows, standing before the officiator, and rings, plus a kiss for sealing the promise. The promise: fidelity. The punishment: violation of the vow is breach of one of the ten commandments (two, actually) and cause for dissolution of the covenant—divorce.

The senators’ oath to “do impartial justice” in the impeachment of Donald Trump

Components.

Verbal. The verbal component of the senators’ oath is the oath itself, of course. It’s worth noting that “solemnly” here does not denote a mood but rather the religious character of the oath; for “solemn” my Webster’s 7th Collegiate Dictionary reads: “1 : marked by the invocation of a religious sanction 2 : marked by the observance of established form or ceremony; specif : celebrated with full liturgical ceremony 3 a: awe-inspiring : sublime b : highly serious c : somber, gloomy.” Note that the religious meaning is the first one.

Somatic. The somatic components were: standing before the seat of judgment, raising the right hand, placing the left hand upon a Bible, and signing a book or record.

Material. The material component is the signature in the book of record.

Aspects

Invocation. The Power invoked as the guarantor of the oath in the senators’ oath is the God of the Bible—“so help you God”, they solemnly swear.

Promise. The promise they made, the general terms of the covenant, are obvious in the phrasing: “do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws”. Adjudication of the specifics of a breach—whether the oath has been broken or not—rests with the Power invoked and with the Power’s human agents at the judgment bench. His (sic) representative at the swearing was Chief Justice Roberts. His representatives at a trial of the senators for breach of oath would be the rest of the senators.

Punishment. The punishment for violating these oaths is not explicitly specified, but the punishment under human agency, for the president, is impeachment; for the senators, it is expulsion from the Senate and presumably, rescinding of the title. This leaves the huge question of what punishment the president and the senators will suffer at the right hand of the Power invoked if they break their oaths. That Power is God (the Christian, or at least, the biblical God). What will God do to a senator who fails to “do impartial justice”?

He (sic) has explicitly promised not to hold him or her guiltless, so they are not getting off. In the biblical context, oathbreakers are cast out of the divine covenant. Deuteronomy (the version of the commandment I’ve quoted is in Deuteronomy 5) lays out an extensive list of blessings for faithfulness to the covenant and curses for unfaithfulness. But that covenant binds Israel as a people to their god and presumably, Christian senators don’t fear those particular curses, which are specific to a people and a time and place and cultural context they do not share.

But there’s no doubt that, in theory, breaking their oath is a sin for which God will hold them accountable. This reveals the weakness of the sin-salvation paradigm of traditional Christianity: what is there to fear? Some vague threat of suffering in the afterlife? Is God really going to send them to hell if they break their oath? For those handful of senators who truly are devout Christians, this might have some weight—but all you need is a confession to get clear. If you’re Catholic or high-church Protestant, confession and the eucharist. The threat of divine spiritual punishment is a threat without teeth.

And why the Bible, anyway? Well, we know why—America in its mythical rhetoric thinks of itself as a Christian nation, never mind all the citizens who are not Christians and the guarantee of the First Amendment that the nation does not actually have an official state religion. And, anyway, how many of these senators are religious in the first place? Are any of them avowed atheists? Are any Jewish or Muslim or something besides Christian in their religious profession?

All of these arguments are part of why Quakers don’t take oaths—or didn’t. (I wonder how many of us do these days, how many of us take this particular testimony very seriously.) But we should remember that the primary reason Friends don’t—or didn’t—take oaths is that Jesus expressly told us not to in Matthew 5:33–37. “Swear not at all. . . . Simply let your yea be yea and your nay be nay; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.” Wow—straight from Satan. Did you hear that, Mitch McConnell?

Meanwhile, all these factors help to explain why some senators have already declared their intention to break their oath. I hope they suffer some kind of spiritual curse if they do break their oath. Nothing so bad as hell; but something. And I hope they repent before they do, not after.

Reclaiming the Christ

January 13, 2020 § 8 Comments

For years I have carried a ministry of seeking ways to reconnect liberal Friends to our root tradition. A recurring concern in this ministry has been to reconnect us to the Christ.

Now a lot of Friends are allergic to the word Christ, in most cases, I suspect, because of its connotations in traditional Christianity and its focus on sin and salvation, the cross and atonement, on Jesus’ divinity and the trinity. But traditional Christianity has redefined the Christ into something quite different than what Jesus himself meant, at least in the Synoptic Gospels.

In the Synoptic Gospels, Jesus unambiguously claimed to be the Christ and explained what he meant by this claim in Luke, chapter four. In this passage, he has just been baptized, during which the holy spirit descended upon him. The spirit then drove him into the wilderness, and after forty days he emerged and went home to his home town. There, on the sabbath, in the synagogue, as the “visiting rabbi”, he was invited to read from the prophets. He chose Isaiah 61, verses one and two, which read as follows:

The spirit of Yahweh God is upon me, because Yahweh has anointed me [a clear reference to his baptism]; he has sent me to proclaim good news to the poor . . .

Now that word “anointed” is the word “christ” in Greek, “messiah” in Hebrew. He is saying, “the Father has christed me”.

For Jesus, being the Christ meant being anointed in the spirit of God. Being the Christ meant having been called by God and empowered by His spirit to do His work in the world. For him, that work was ministering to the suffering and the condition of the poor.

The Christ is the consciousness of having been called by the Spirit and empowered by the Spirit to do the Spirit’s work in the world.

That is as good a description of Quaker spirituality as any I have ever heard.

Post-script: I am not saying that the Christ is limited to this one understanding. Certainly Friends have come to know the Christ in a variety of ways in their own direct experience, and I take their testimony at face value. For many Friends, in fact, their experience of the Christ accords well with the understanding that “traditional Christianity” has given us, or at least with the Quaker version that we see in the testimony of early Friends, which rests more on the gospel of John and the writings of Paul. I am simply trying to recover the Christ whose ministry we see being born in the gospel of Luke.