Wo,wo,wo, bigdanbear-quote- "QUAKERS HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT EVERY MOVEMENT WE HAVE SUPPORTED OVER THE LAST 400 HUNDRED YEARS". In case you didnt know, quakers were almost single handedly responsible for wiping out the whale species from the Atlantic ocean, with their Nantucket and Milford Haven whaling fleets. So you were right about that were you.
People. What are you talking about? It is God within that speaks thru us. There is room to be a Jewish, Christian or Islamic Quaker. Many disagree. What is important is that we have DIGNITY! There is room in the Quaker for many forms of doctrine. The true Quaker sheds this dogma of rules. The Quakers have been right about every movement we have supported for 400 years. With Dignity. That is how we save the world. Day to day, moment to moment.
@bigdanbear If you are going to respond to my video, please make an attempt to post something that you have at least thought about. The over-generalisations that you make here is the kind of nonsense that brings liberal quakerism into disrepute. You cannot be a Jewish or Islamic Quaker. These are belief systems that are in many respects diametrically opposed to each other. This kind of nonsense merely serves to represent liberal quakerism as a series of simplistic plattitudes
Thank you for your response to Quakers: Wooly-minded liberals? I have added this video to the Quaker Thought playlist on the Bridge Film Festival channel.
Hello, this is one of several interesting vids on Quakers i have seen recently. Can I ask yourself and other Quakers here whether they attend fully unprogrammed or semi-programmed meetings, If they have bible reading, what Bible do you use? or do you use different versions?
God is Love. The Christ Light brings Peace, not divisiveness. Do you want proof that these people are in contact with the Light? Inclusiveness is the fruit you seek. Charity, healing, nonviolence.. these are the fruits. Belief in ancient mythologies is irrelevant. Be kind, be honest, be helpful. It's simple, and you know it.
@Silenus6 I agree with you. God is Love and Christ brings peace, but only to those who are willing to follow him. I think it's reasonable to expect those who profess faith to also possess it. Liberal Quakers are good at the former but are often poor at the latter. They do the Quaker faith and themselves, a great disservice by trying to justify it. Belief in God and Christ is not irrelevant, but again, in my experience, platitudes lack the power to enable people to live out authentic faith.
@allistairl "God is Love and Christ brings peace, but only to those who are willing to follow him. I think it's reasonable to expect those who profess faith to also possess it."
Makes sense. But faith is different for everyone. In some the light is strong, in others it's only beginning to be kindled. The winds blow and it's hard for the wood to burn. Christ wants us to have faith for our own comfort, but will love us just the same. To have Grace in Christ is to be dead to the law. Judge not.
That's the whole point though, "right-living" isn't black and white so therefore we need to find light and truth through the balance of opposite views or opinions of others. Trying to meld everything into one beliefsystem merely opposes truth or even the unity it tries to achieve. Just look at all the different religions with their "My truth is more true than your truth" mindset.
@TheVoidist I urge you to examine critically the assumptions you are making, rather than re-gurgitating the liberal quaker 'party line'. In my experience, the 'balance of opposite or opinions' doesn't lead to light and truth, but darkness and confusion. Following Christ's Light is not about 'belief systems' , but about faith. Faith should lead to action. I question those views that claim that their experience leads them contrary to Christ's Light. That is really what you are trying to justify
@allistairl No I don't feel the need to justify or judge anything other people believe. I do agree that people should try to turn faith into good action and get out of their comfort zones, as we all should. But your statement that not following Christ would lead to "darkness and confusion" seems awfully rigid, judgmental even. What kind of darkness are we talking about? I can't imagine beliefs contradicting so fundamentally to actually justify such a statement. Any examples?
@TheVoidist The Light only unites us, if we are obediant to what it teaches us. It leads to believe in Jesus Christ, and leads to right-living. It doesn't lead to moral-relativism and individualism. Nor does it lead people to hold diametrically opposite views; This is essentially what characterises liberal quakerism. It's easy to talk about the Light and sharing, but we need to able to point to our spiritual fruits as evidence that it is at work in our lives as individuals and meetings.
@gavinsstuff Please don't use foul language on my channel. Please try and respect others. If you do so, you may find they are more inclined to take you seriously.
For physical evidence of God.... To the calmly curious- For physical evidence of a second intelligence within yourself-Vivid Dreams onset, plus repeatable handtingles- search YouTube on LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE site truebluehealerDOTcom-Regardless of beliefs-Even atheist testimonials, including doctors from 4 countries. 10-12 mins gets you started. A growing list of triggered 12 month gnostic veterans contactable. And its FREE
I was interested to see this response. I think what you say has muc in it. I think the people who contributed to the piece under discussion wanted to talk about the cliche of Quakerism as a left wing relitivist ideology. I think they wanted to say that that cliche was inacurate, and to present a positive narative about inclusion and diversity within a tradition that is valuable. I think this was a worthwhile thing ot do. I certainly learned form it.
True Quakerism (Quakers are they who quake at the Word of God, the Friends of Christ Jesus) is NOT an ideology but is a Living Faith which transforms lives via the power of the Holy Spirit. It is Primitive Christianity Revived. Anything less is not Quakerism!
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to make a polite comment. I hope I can do the same without making you feel that I am personally attacking you.
I am sure you are right about the maker of the video trying to present a view of diversity in the liberal quaker community. I'm sure it was sincere and well meant. I had several issues with the original video. Firstly I think using the phrase "Woolly-minded liberal" trivialises whatis is a serious matter.
Whether or not we can know unity as a Church is an important aspect of the Quaker Faith, and I think anything that either deliberately or inadvertantly seeks to trivialise that process is unhelpful.Secondly, I still maintain that the video presents moral and spiritual relativism as the only viable option and subtly derides any position that claims an absolutist position.I still do not consider that approach to be intellectually honest.
I was, and still am, disturbed by the stridency in which one person presents their views. To deride certainty in matters of faith, in way which itself, seems to exclude the possibility of alternatives, seems to me self-negating. This is just as closed and narrow as the fundamentalism that was being dissmissed. I am sure that you are right, Wid85, that the orginal maker wanted to present a positive narrative about inclusion and diversity.
Again, as I suggested in my video response, I am sceptical that the kind of inclusion and diversity that I think you beleive the orginal video was presenting is possible or viable. I agree that it is much better to tolerate other people's views that be intolerant. But it does not change the fact that any Church that allows and encourages diametrically opposite views within itself will find it diffciult to come into unity on important issues, e.g. peace testimony and social justice.
Unity in Diversity is an oxymoron, it does not exist, the only unity that is possible in that situation is simply accept moral relativism which does not bring true unity. It is only by being brought into God's Power and being willing to lay aside our own 'truths' and accepting the Light of Truth from Christ that we can know true Unity in God, anything less than that is just plain old-fashioned confusion.
I'm sorry that this was a bit long but there was a lot I wanted to say.
I've been going to an Anglican/Episcopalian church (US), and actually I'm interested in Quakers/Friends. I know somebody online who is a Quaker, but also has no problems calling themselves an orthodox Christian on the major points (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, trinity, etc.).
Hi Magnulus76, you will find that Quakerism when it was founded was also called "Primitive Christianity Revived." We do believe in what the scriptures say- that Jesus was born to a virgin and that he did perform miracles and was resurrected, etc.. There is no disputing that. For more information I would refer you to Ohio Yearly Meeting's Web site. We are a group of Quakers who uphold the testimonies as always believed by Friends. You can also send me a message and I'd be glad to assist you.
Thanks Magnulus76, for posting your comments. The video I was replying to holds views which are typically held by liberal Quakers in the UK. Liberal Quakers are not typical of all Quakers, and we may found Quaker traditions, like conservative Friends who do not hold such views. As StampGuy01 has already said, true Quakerism is centred on the Living Christ and affirms the scriptures.
Well mainly from ordinary retailers. I do rarely order some things from Gohn Brothers in Indiana, US, but not much. If you shop around you can normally find plain clothes at a reasonable price.I don't think anyone should pay more than they should for plain clothing as that defeats the object of the testimony.
Well, I think you are right. However, it is also important to remember that if our clothes are too cheap, they not only look cheap but they also fall apart quickly. There needs to be a balance between quality and price. Alright, thanks very much for the info!
Thee is right about a need for balance. Dressing "plain" is more about maintaining a testimony of simplicity rather than dressing according to a certain time period. With Quakers, there is no set rules of dress, as with the Amish or many Mennonites. To Quakers like myself, dressing "plain" comes down to maintaining a simple wardrobe without a lot of ornamentation. Whether one wears black pants or brown pants or a wide-brim hat or a straw hat isn't something we get hung up about.
thankyou for your video response. You raise central issues that are in dire need to be addressed, especially the way with which 'liberal' Quakers shun those who disagree with thier waffle and beigness, and the need for 'truth' to not be lost in the egocentric relativism that eats at Quaker integrity.
That of God within too often is little more than I am God and whatever I think and do is the Spirit speaking. Such is nothing more than gross hubris and spiritual solipsism.
Like yourself, my discernment is that the sub-text of the orginal video is that the only real choice is their palatable moral relativism or fundamentalism. For a long time, I've tried to argue that is a false dichotomy. I was deeply disturbed by the stridency of some of the contributers, in their forceful denunciation of anyone who claimed to know truth. As you can see from the some of the comments here, some Liberal Quakers can be fiercely intolerant.
I noticed an earlier comment from bangura4uk stating that the video wasnt from theologians or such experts but a random group from a local meeting. Well. leaving aside my doubts of whether it was so random, such a selection clearly shows the relativism at play in contemporary Quakerism in that whatever and whoever speaks about a topic has merit . Truth has been made ridiculous by this woolly approach in which a blind faith led by self opinion takes precedence over one assisted by reason.
I'd like to call a halt to the posting of comments on this video. I don't want this discussion to degenerate anymore. It's not a good witness. If people want to carry with this discussion, could I please request that they choose one of the forums, like s.r.q or uk.religion.christian to continue. For my part, I'm sorry to say that the liberal quaker contributers have persisted the usual platitudes and prejudices against what they perceive as 'Christianity' See my next post for continuation
So far nothing has been said here, that has demonstrated to me that liberal Quakerism is any more tolerant or open than any other religion, or indeed, of any greater spiritual depth. Many of the comments here clearly show that its tolerance and inclusivity only extend to those points of view that accord with its own.
So I hope people will respect my request that this will be the last word on this issue.
I think respect should be shown before being demanded. In entering a dialogue on such an open platform as youtube you cant just shut it down with your own 'last word' when others fail to agree with you! Responding to dissent with pious intellectualised sneering is not representative of Quakers in any country at any time and I refuse to believe it is typical of you or your group either.
I'm sorry you've felt the need to come back with a response.
First, I have made a reasonable request, as I feel the comments now being made are generating heat rather than light. If you want to carry making comments, then you are free to do so, you'll notice I haven't stopped anyone commenting. It's just that I don't see anything further to be gained by this discussion. It's obvious from your tone, bangura, that you are not really interested in other peoples points of view, cont...
...rather, you seem to want a platform to express your predjudices against those Quakers who dissent from the liberal view. If you are not careful, you will simply end up demonstrating some of the worst excesses of liberal Quakers through your contributions here.
I found worth in your video reply allistair and said so in my first comment. Unfortunately your tone became increasingly provocative and intolerant beginning with accusations of "cheap propaganda" and "intellectual dishonesty" and descending via sweeping generalised distortions of 'Liberal Quakerism' to a point where that of God in either of us is trampled and continuing dialogue does become futile. I apologise for expressing my own exasperation but I am no less human or fallible than you are.
No, Themis, I did not know that. I am shocked to hear it, although it does illustrate what Allistair was saying in this video. I had written to BYM about modern Quakers embracing all religions except Christianity and a fear of being "politically incorrect" by mentioning Christ in discussions. They deny this is the case, but my experience at BYM differs. They have "thrown the baby out with the bath water."
"Further we say, Christ is our Way, who is the Light that doth enlighten you, and every one that cometh into the world, that with it you might see him, the Way, and come to walk in the way of Peace and Life, which is the Way of God, and which is the new and living Way, which the Apostles were in;"
"which Christendom hath gone out of, going from the Light in their own particulars, into their own Inventions and Imaginations, which is the cause there are so many wayes amongst them; changeable Wayes, and changeable Worships; I say, amongst them that are gone out of the new and living Way: So every one that cometh to the Light in their own particulars, they come to Christ, they come to the new and living Way,"
"and from and out of the old and dead Wayes, which are in the Fall from God, out of his Image and Power; So who come into his Image and Power, they must come to the Light, which Christ the Way hath enlightened them withal in their own particulars: For there is no other way to the Father, but Christ the Light, which doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, who is the Way, even the new and living Way,"
"and hear his Voyce and Teaching; so they shall love the Light, love the VVay, and love Christ; but they that hate the Light hate Christ the VVay." (George Fox)
Christ Jesus is the WAY for a Quaker. The ONLY way!
Do you know that Liberal "Quakers" (srekauq) have blocked me because they are afraid of people hearing the true Quaker Message?
For me these people are heretics and not Quakers. I am sorry but I do not recognize Liberal "Quakerism" at all. Neither would Early Friends. I am not afraid of stating this.
When YouTube asks me if I want to receive videos from someone I don't know I now decline, having been swamped in the past. You are, of course, free to post on YouTube and I am free to view your videos if I wish. I am interested in your views but they are not new to me - I have been hearing them for years. However, I am just me, not THEM. I don't represent any group or sub group. I am just a guy who asked some questions of people I respect and put the result on YouTube.
Be not afraid Themis. 'Liberal' (like 'internet')is not a concept Early Friends would recognise. They endured the intolerance and persecution of a religious and political establishment in a particular historical crisis. Fox spoke to the condition of people in 17C England seeking to renew their relationship with God. His words still inspire but we need our own language to speak to our own times conditions and peoples.
Well that's a new one on me. I have never heard that worshipping God is an "opt out"! I think too many people bypass the "God bit" and embrace the testimonies to meet their own personal needs. However the testimonies came from God and He cannot be bypassed without serious damage occuring either personally or to Quakerism. I have now come full circle. We are back to the social club of self congratulation.
Please try to answer what I have said rather than taking a single phrase, ignoring its context and negatively distorting it. It is not an opt out to worship God. It is an opt out, in my view, to isolate worship from seeking communion with and response to that of God in each other in every aspect of our lives. How will Peace on earth be built if we neglect this work? Seeking God in this way requires more of us than the seeking out and condemnation of heresy and apostasy.
"It is an opt out ...to isolate worship from seeking communion with and response to that of God in each other in every aspect of our lives."
Bangura4UK, that is worship isn't it? How would you define worship if not communion with the Lord? You are right in saying that we respond to that of God in everyone and in every aspect of our lives. Sadly some Quakers are professed atheists, so how can they be Quakers? Liberal Quakers embrace them.
You may judge me a heretic for saying this but from the examples of their lives I find more of God in some who call themselves atheists than in some others who call themselves Christians. I am not an atheist but would probably have called myself one when I first came to a Quaker Meeting so I am grateful to the Liberal Quakers who embraced me.
"Our Worship is in the Spirit and in the Truth, which the Devil abode not in, but is out of; who is the Author of Strife and Unrighteousness amongst People; which Truth makes the Devil to worship and to bow, and also destroyes him; and it is the Spirit which mortifies Sin, which makes a separation from God."
"Now we say, if all Christendom had Worshipped God in the Spirit and Truth, they had been in that which the Devil is out of, and had been in the holy Hill, and had felt the Spirit in their own particulars ruling them, and had felt the Spirit of Truth in their own hearts, guiding and teaching of them." (George Fox).
Are Liberal Friends worshipping Jesus Christ, the Light, the Word? If not they are out of the Truth. An atheist cannot be a Quaker. Period.
"Bleh", I do get a little concerned when the text posted is not as was written! I had already corrected this to say It is not "dividing" that NOT is from God but "confusion"!
It seems to me that liberal Quakers are turning into a rather select social club of self congratulation. The lady at the end of the "Wooly Minded" video has obviously not heard about the "two edged sword". It is not "dividing" that is NOT from God but "confusion"! Where there is confusion God is not present. Liberal Quakers seem to be a rather confused lot. This is only my own humble opinion I grant you.
Problem seems to be that the certainties that God reveals or divinely leads one prophet or group to are anathema to another. Or we can humbly accept a degree of doubt and confusion as part of the human condition. The ferocity of some certainties seems to arise from our fear of the other or the unknown. Openness and communion in silent worship is inseperable from the spirit of the Quaker Peace testimony , listening and looking for that of God rather than telling each other what God says.
I'll grant you, bangura, that some issues are difficult to discern, but some issues are black and white. The politeness of God puts things simply. It can't be wrong to kill for some some people, then right for others. There is nothing humble about encouraging confusion and disunity in a spiritual community. The fruits of the Spirit of God are unity and peace, not moral relatavism. Liberal Quakerism is frightened of certainty because it sometimes leaves no room for their relativism/individualism
This is a serious misrepresentation allistair. If Liberal Quakerism stood for moral relativism or moral individualism then I would dissociate myself from it and so would most Quakers in BYM. I feel you are confusing the search for unity (which does require humility) with the desire for mastery which may arise from the most firmly held conviction of moral or godly 'rightness' but which can so easily lead us (human beings in general) to intolerance, fragmentation, hatred and war.
I don't think I'm mis-representing BYM. Take the new poster for their national Quaker week. That is a real example of an invitation to moral relativism. I think it is you, bangura, that is confusing certainty with a desire to dominate others. The untruth that is peddled by some Quakers is that the two invariably go together. Not true. Take John Woolman, he was very clear that slavery was immoral, and in opposition to many in the SoF at the time, yet a most humble and gentle man. Go figure...
Woolman was indeed a fine example of faith in action who continues to inspire Quakers today. He made a powerful contribution to unity against slavery within and beyond the SoF. Slavery is also a good example of the need for openness to new light - a light that had not previously illuminated the thinking of white Christians (including Quakers) I understand 21C Quaker opposition to other forms of discrimination as part of the same tradition.
But it must be Light that we are open to and not darkness. Relatavism (my truth is not the same as your truth) avoids the hard work of discerning whether our light is really light and not darkness. Woolman's Light was entirely in the Christian context. His openess did not lead him to question the source of his Light, Jesus Christ, as liberal Quakers do. Diametrically-opposed views/moral relativism cannot be of God. God is the Author of peace and not disunity.
Before mass global communication and travel, before Darwin and before humans had the capacity for mass destruction of each other and the planet, Woolman's world was very different from ours. Can we be certain he would have been impervious to light from other than a Christian context if he was living in the 21C? It is seeing only diametrically opposed views and darkness outside this context that seems to me to avoid the hard work but invite the apocalypse. Can God author peace without us?
Perhaps you are protesting your humbleness a bit too much! But does humanity have to accept any responsibility or can we leave it all to God? I'm seriously puzzled now.
bangura4uk, there is a difference between being obedient to the leading of God and telling Him what we are going to do and expect His backing. However God is God and if He wanted to He can do anything without our help. He chooses to work with those who will do His work His way. Mankind likes to keep a hold on God and tell Him what to do. A W Tozer can explain this better than I. Hope that helps a little.
I very much agree that mankind often tries to keep a hold on God in the sense of claiming God's authority or his divine leading for many words and deeds that arise from their own purposes rather than those of God. Isn't this why Quakers decline credal statements and obedience to humans claiming authority from God? Answering to that of God within ourselves and every other person means (to me) that we cannot opt out by just worshipping God as a separate omnipotent being. We have to do the work.
It seems to me that liberal Quakers are turning into a rather select social club of self congratulation. The lady at the end of the "Wooly Minded" video has obviously not heard about the "two edged sword". It is not "dividing" that is from God but "confusion"! Where there is confusion God is not present. Liberal Quakers seem to be a rather confused lot. This is only my own humble opinion I grant you.
My experience bears out your opinion, Yentie1, the 'diversity' much lauded by liberal Quakerism is in reality, disunity. Liberal Quakers try to make out this is a strength. It isn't. It just leads to the kind of moral relativism, that the video is trying to promote.
diversity exists. it is not everything, but it is a part of the whole. Diversity should be lauded, and it only causes disunity if it causes alienation. In which case there is no balance. putting others first is important, but if everyone practices this, diversity will thrive in a uniform fashion.
Diversity is good, where it exists in the context of the community that knows unity under God. We can be diverse, yet share a sense of right and wrong that is God-given. All too often for 'Diversity' read 'Disunity'. 'Unity in Diversity' is a cop-out which avoids the hard truth of discerning of what is Light and what is Darkness. It leads to relativism and confusion. For example, many liberal Quakers support Abortion, yet claim to be pacifist. Confused? you bet...
I dont know any Quakers who "support abortion" in the simplistic sense used here. However I know many "pro-lifers" support capital punishment and war on (coincidentally?) Islamic peoples. I trust you would not want to be associated with their confusion/relativism either. Leaving aside the point scoring (-5 from youtube fundamentalists again?) we could consider how our faith and desire for unity is expressed in the way we lead our lives, not just our "absolute" or "relative" semantics.
"we could consider how our faith and desire for unity is expressed in the way we lead our lives, not just our "absolute" or "relative" semantics."
I attended BYM this year and was shocked by the similarities between attenders. There really was precious little diversity. As for how people lead their lives, it seemed the buzz phrase was "ecological resources". A very noble cause, until you ask them if they own a dishwasher! As for holiday homes abroad etc! Where has simplicity gone?
Fairish comment. I sometimes share your shock and confess to owning a dishwasher while (conveniently) finding it uses less resources than filling sinks with hot water. I also know one Quaker (among 100s in my Meeting and elsewhere) who owns a 2nd home. This doesn't stop me upholding Quaker testimonies and living them to the best of my imperfect abilities or being inspired by other Friends work for social justice, peace and the environment - little known but influential in proportion to numbers.
I would also add that your concern is often expressed among Friends and wonder if you shared it at BYM or in your local meeting or whether you see yourself more as a sceptical detached observer? I was attracted by the honesty of Quakers willingness to challenge each other and seek unity to act on issues (inc their own lack of diversity) that some others compartmentalise by claiming for example to keep politics out of their religion or vice versa.
No I do not consider myself a "sceptical detached observer", LOL! And as for the dishwasher issue - I have always been led to believe that they use far more water, electricity and detergent than washing up by hand, (family of 4-5, 2 bowls water per day for washing up, 1 soapy, 1 fresh to rinse) but I am happy to have got that wrong. As for 2nd homes, holidays abroad should be included as well. An unnecessary luxury in my humble opinion.
I am glad you have been able to challenge other liberal Quakers. My experience has been a very firm "we don't discuss these things" attitude. In fact I have found some very closed minded. I tried both at BYM and in my local Meeting. No go I'm afraid. So I do back Allistair and his comments. I have found liberal Quakers either rigid or afraid to speak out. However, they are a lovely, kind and caring bunch of people and I have no argument with any as individuals.
Well, you either think abortion is right or wrong. But dismissing that way of understanding as 'simplistic' reveals the way that liberal quakerism approaches issues. Some moral issues can be complex, but some aren't. Look, It's either right to kill or it's wrong to kill. Complicating clear issues can be a way of avoiding them. I've seen this intellectualising used as a form of disobediance. How we react to issues like abortion is just as important in 'how we live our lives' as ecological issues.
Sorry if the word 'simplistic' caused offence. What I mean is that I dont accept your use of the term "pro-abortion" as an honest or fair label for anyone who disagrees with the absolute anti-abortion position any more than I would describe someone who disagrees with absolute pacifism as "pro-murder". How can such polarisations and condemnations influence anyone's understanding or behaviour let alone reduce their "disobedience"?
Thanks Alistair, a valuable comment on the video and the limitations of a 'bite sized' format. Some of the contributors would probably agree with your views on liberal Quakerism. The strength of the film as an introduction though, is that the speakers are not hand picked as 'weighty friends' but as a sample of members and 'seekers' in a typical(ish) Quaker Meeting. Their answers lack preparation but come across as if they are replying to the kind of questions often asked by curious non-Quakers.
Overall, I think the way in which people are presenting their ideas is very good, and something I'm keen to emulate. I just didn't agree with what was said. The positing of liberalism as the only 'reasonable' alternative to counter 'fundamentalism' is common propoganda technique used by liberal Quakers. One of the key points that their video brought out was how closed and narrow some of contributers actually were, in contradiction to the message they were supposedly promoting.
I'm not sure that the video is doing any such thing as 'positing liberalism as the only alternative to fundamentalism'. The contributors are not theologians & would not recognise themselves as propagandists either. Friends have usually been so averse to propaganda that few know about them - something the video seeks to address. If the contributors seem closed & narrow then the effort is counterproductive but as an intro it's for anyone, not just those with existing firmly fixed convictions.
Like it or not, bangura, this video is a subtle form of propoganda. I assume the whole point of posting the video here, is to influence the thinking of others? Half that video is dedicated to the final contributor who makes a fairly strident critique of what they suppose to be fundamentalist thinking, positing that against the relativism of their own view. This is plainly in order to make liberal Quakerism seem more 'reasonable'. It is obvious that this is the main intent.
By this definition all human communication could be called propaganda. We address ourselves to others to influence their thinking and hopefully remain open to their influence on ours. I understand 'propaganda' as more of a one way process, a means of imposing a belief or system of thought. Friends are asked to remain open to new light from whatever source it may come. Heresy to a fundamentalist but perhaps part of what distinguishes Quakers in the history of violent conflict over religion?
You are not really answering my substantial point. The video is trying to present a liberal view at the expense of what is presented as 'fundamentalist'. This is a cheap propaganda technique. Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty in that? Is video meant to be propaganda? Ask the author. Pity about your comments about new light. One of my original points is that, ironically, some of the contributers appear to be even more closed than those they are criticising. But that's liberal Quakerism.
Allistairl, when you write with such conviction, it is better to write "MY reason for existence" not "OUR reason for existence". Why to have anything revealed at all? You write "reason for existence" - exactly! - reason! That is where my interest with Quakerism started "Age of Reason" by Paine. You see I'm afraid of having anything 'revealed' unless I know WHO reveals it. My question remains, what is the reason for top-down revelation? If "our reason for existence is...", so I ask, what reason?
The basis of all true religion is the divine revelation of Truth. This is what we call 'faith'. Mankind was not created to live outside of this experience.
Reason alone cannot be a basis for faith, although reason can be enlightened by faith. We cannot 'think' ourselves out of the human condition. If we try to do so, we merely have the arrogance to try supplant God with ourselves.
Why are you afraid of having Truth revealed to you, matmajer? Are you afraid of what it might reveal?
Yes allistairl, I'm afraid of what it might reveal, as I would have no possibility to verify this revelation using my 3-dimensional conditioned mind. However, I'm not against divine suggestions - but suggestions, not Truth. Top-down process might be necessary for pulling out of the human condition, ok, providing you want to stop being a human being. Right now, I'm more concerned about how to BE a human being in full sense, in this body, on this planet, and not how to get out of here.
You say: "no concept of divinely revealed truth that empowers human being to live as they should".
I would like to ask if there is any reason that humans necessairly have to live according to a truth top-down, so to say. That is the central message of a hierarchical religious institutions that transfer divine instructions to people through the medium of priests. Now, if you say that such truth may be revealed directly to someone's heart, well, too little space here to comment on this, but.......
But is'nt this the whole point? Our reason for existence is to live by this divinely-revealed Truth, after all that was what we were created for. To live otherwise is to deny this very truth, and is essentially what sin is. This is why Liberal Quakerism fails, because it tries to assert otherwise.
Quakers believe that this Truth can be revealed directly to the human consciousness. "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition..." That doesn't involve a priestly hierarchy.
Allistairl, when you write with such conviction, it is better to write "MY reason for existence" not "OUR reason for existence". Why to have anything revealed at all? You write "reason for existence" - exactly! - reason! That is where my interest with Quakerism started "Age of Reason" by Paine. You see I'm afraid of having anything 'revealed' unless I know WHO reveals it. My question remains, what is the reason for top-down revelation? If "our reason for existence is...", so I ask, what reason?
Am going to become a Quaker . Thanks
TheUktruth 3 months ago
Wo,wo,wo, bigdanbear-quote- "QUAKERS HAVE BEEN RIGHT ABOUT EVERY MOVEMENT WE HAVE SUPPORTED OVER THE LAST 400 HUNDRED YEARS". In case you didnt know, quakers were almost single handedly responsible for wiping out the whale species from the Atlantic ocean, with their Nantucket and Milford Haven whaling fleets. So you were right about that were you.
24414330 4 months ago
People. What are you talking about? It is God within that speaks thru us. There is room to be a Jewish, Christian or Islamic Quaker. Many disagree. What is important is that we have DIGNITY! There is room in the Quaker for many forms of doctrine. The true Quaker sheds this dogma of rules. The Quakers have been right about every movement we have supported for 400 years. With Dignity. That is how we save the world. Day to day, moment to moment.
bigdanbear 4 months ago
@bigdanbear If you are going to respond to my video, please make an attempt to post something that you have at least thought about. The over-generalisations that you make here is the kind of nonsense that brings liberal quakerism into disrepute. You cannot be a Jewish or Islamic Quaker. These are belief systems that are in many respects diametrically opposed to each other. This kind of nonsense merely serves to represent liberal quakerism as a series of simplistic plattitudes
allistairl 3 months ago
if you are a quaker why do you dress like the amish? excuse me if im out of order
gtube83 5 months ago
@gtube83 See what quakersonline said...
allistairl 5 months ago
Has the role of doctrine on "substitutionary atonement" changed in modern Quakerism to that from George Fox and if it has how?
TrickTom 6 months ago
@TrickTom Sorry, Tom, but what does your question have to do with my video?
allistairl 6 months ago
Thank you for your response to Quakers: Wooly-minded liberals? I have added this video to the Quaker Thought playlist on the Bridge Film Festival channel.
BridgeFilmFestival 6 months ago
@BridgeFilmFestival Thanks, Bridge...
allistairl 5 months ago
Hello, this is one of several interesting vids on Quakers i have seen recently. Can I ask yourself and other Quakers here whether they attend fully unprogrammed or semi-programmed meetings, If they have bible reading, what Bible do you use? or do you use different versions?
thank you.
maximuslaurius 1 year ago
Comment removed
maximuslaurius 1 year ago
God is Love. The Christ Light brings Peace, not divisiveness. Do you want proof that these people are in contact with the Light? Inclusiveness is the fruit you seek. Charity, healing, nonviolence.. these are the fruits. Belief in ancient mythologies is irrelevant. Be kind, be honest, be helpful. It's simple, and you know it.
Silenus6 1 year ago
@Silenus6 I agree with you. God is Love and Christ brings peace, but only to those who are willing to follow him. I think it's reasonable to expect those who profess faith to also possess it. Liberal Quakers are good at the former but are often poor at the latter. They do the Quaker faith and themselves, a great disservice by trying to justify it. Belief in God and Christ is not irrelevant, but again, in my experience, platitudes lack the power to enable people to live out authentic faith.
allistairl 1 year ago
@allistairl "God is Love and Christ brings peace, but only to those who are willing to follow him. I think it's reasonable to expect those who profess faith to also possess it."
Makes sense. But faith is different for everyone. In some the light is strong, in others it's only beginning to be kindled. The winds blow and it's hard for the wood to burn. Christ wants us to have faith for our own comfort, but will love us just the same. To have Grace in Christ is to be dead to the law. Judge not.
Silenus6 1 year ago
That's the whole point though, "right-living" isn't black and white so therefore we need to find light and truth through the balance of opposite views or opinions of others. Trying to meld everything into one beliefsystem merely opposes truth or even the unity it tries to achieve. Just look at all the different religions with their "My truth is more true than your truth" mindset.
TheVoidist 1 year ago
@TheVoidist I urge you to examine critically the assumptions you are making, rather than re-gurgitating the liberal quaker 'party line'. In my experience, the 'balance of opposite or opinions' doesn't lead to light and truth, but darkness and confusion. Following Christ's Light is not about 'belief systems' , but about faith. Faith should lead to action. I question those views that claim that their experience leads them contrary to Christ's Light. That is really what you are trying to justify
allistairl 1 year ago
@allistairl No I don't feel the need to justify or judge anything other people believe. I do agree that people should try to turn faith into good action and get out of their comfort zones, as we all should. But your statement that not following Christ would lead to "darkness and confusion" seems awfully rigid, judgmental even. What kind of darkness are we talking about? I can't imagine beliefs contradicting so fundamentally to actually justify such a statement. Any examples?
TheVoidist 1 year ago
Isn't the light in all of us what we share as quakers the very thing that unites us? Even though we may have seperate beliefs.
TheVoidist 1 year ago
@TheVoidist The Light only unites us, if we are obediant to what it teaches us. It leads to believe in Jesus Christ, and leads to right-living. It doesn't lead to moral-relativism and individualism. Nor does it lead people to hold diametrically opposite views; This is essentially what characterises liberal quakerism. It's easy to talk about the Light and sharing, but we need to able to point to our spiritual fruits as evidence that it is at work in our lives as individuals and meetings.
allistairl 1 year ago
gavinsstuff your confusing quakers with armish
foxthequaker 1 year ago
@gavinsstuff Please don't use foul language on my channel. Please try and respect others. If you do so, you may find they are more inclined to take you seriously.
allistairl 1 year ago
@gavinsstuff You are confusing Quakerism with the Amish.
EusaMoss 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For physical evidence of God.... To the calmly curious- For physical evidence of a second intelligence within yourself-Vivid Dreams onset, plus repeatable handtingles- search YouTube on LAY GNOSIS 1 BEGIN HERE site truebluehealerDOTcom-Regardless of beliefs-Even atheist testimonials, including doctors from 4 countries. 10-12 mins gets you started. A growing list of triggered 12 month gnostic veterans contactable. And its FREE
kimbo99 2 years ago
I was interested to see this response. I think what you say has muc in it. I think the people who contributed to the piece under discussion wanted to talk about the cliche of Quakerism as a left wing relitivist ideology. I think they wanted to say that that cliche was inacurate, and to present a positive narative about inclusion and diversity within a tradition that is valuable. I think this was a worthwhile thing ot do. I certainly learned form it.
wid85 2 years ago
True Quakerism (Quakers are they who quake at the Word of God, the Friends of Christ Jesus) is NOT an ideology but is a Living Faith which transforms lives via the power of the Holy Spirit. It is Primitive Christianity Revived. Anything less is not Quakerism!
thequakerchannel 2 years ago
Hi Wid85,
I'm responding in sections.
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to make a polite comment. I hope I can do the same without making you feel that I am personally attacking you.
I am sure you are right about the maker of the video trying to present a view of diversity in the liberal quaker community. I'm sure it was sincere and well meant. I had several issues with the original video. Firstly I think using the phrase "Woolly-minded liberal" trivialises whatis is a serious matter.
allistairl 2 years ago
(Part 2)
Whether or not we can know unity as a Church is an important aspect of the Quaker Faith, and I think anything that either deliberately or inadvertantly seeks to trivialise that process is unhelpful.Secondly, I still maintain that the video presents moral and spiritual relativism as the only viable option and subtly derides any position that claims an absolutist position.I still do not consider that approach to be intellectually honest.
allistairl 2 years ago
(Part 3)
I was, and still am, disturbed by the stridency in which one person presents their views. To deride certainty in matters of faith, in way which itself, seems to exclude the possibility of alternatives, seems to me self-negating. This is just as closed and narrow as the fundamentalism that was being dissmissed. I am sure that you are right, Wid85, that the orginal maker wanted to present a positive narrative about inclusion and diversity.
allistairl 2 years ago
(Part 4)
Again, as I suggested in my video response, I am sceptical that the kind of inclusion and diversity that I think you beleive the orginal video was presenting is possible or viable. I agree that it is much better to tolerate other people's views that be intolerant. But it does not change the fact that any Church that allows and encourages diametrically opposite views within itself will find it diffciult to come into unity on important issues, e.g. peace testimony and social justice.
allistairl 2 years ago
(Part 5)
Unity in Diversity is an oxymoron, it does not exist, the only unity that is possible in that situation is simply accept moral relativism which does not bring true unity. It is only by being brought into God's Power and being willing to lay aside our own 'truths' and accepting the Light of Truth from Christ that we can know true Unity in God, anything less than that is just plain old-fashioned confusion.
I'm sorry that this was a bit long but there was a lot I wanted to say.
allistairl 2 years ago
Quakers are very strong people in christ, God bless you my brother
ddot4321 2 years ago
I've been going to an Anglican/Episcopalian church (US), and actually I'm interested in Quakers/Friends. I know somebody online who is a Quaker, but also has no problems calling themselves an orthodox Christian on the major points (virgin birth, miracles, resurrection, trinity, etc.).
Magnulus76 2 years ago
Hi Magnulus76, you will find that Quakerism when it was founded was also called "Primitive Christianity Revived." We do believe in what the scriptures say- that Jesus was born to a virgin and that he did perform miracles and was resurrected, etc.. There is no disputing that. For more information I would refer you to Ohio Yearly Meeting's Web site. We are a group of Quakers who uphold the testimonies as always believed by Friends. You can also send me a message and I'd be glad to assist you.
stampguy01 2 years ago
Thanks Magnulus76, for posting your comments. The video I was replying to holds views which are typically held by liberal Quakers in the UK. Liberal Quakers are not typical of all Quakers, and we may found Quaker traditions, like conservative Friends who do not hold such views. As StampGuy01 has already said, true Quakerism is centred on the Living Christ and affirms the scriptures.
allistairl 2 years ago
Comment removed
9Fabian 2 years ago
Where do you get your plain clothes? Did you have to get them made? Simple but respectable.
ET740 3 years ago
Well mainly from ordinary retailers. I do rarely order some things from Gohn Brothers in Indiana, US, but not much. If you shop around you can normally find plain clothes at a reasonable price.I don't think anyone should pay more than they should for plain clothing as that defeats the object of the testimony.
allistairl 3 years ago
Well, I think you are right. However, it is also important to remember that if our clothes are too cheap, they not only look cheap but they also fall apart quickly. There needs to be a balance between quality and price. Alright, thanks very much for the info!
ET740 3 years ago
Thee is right about a need for balance. Dressing "plain" is more about maintaining a testimony of simplicity rather than dressing according to a certain time period. With Quakers, there is no set rules of dress, as with the Amish or many Mennonites. To Quakers like myself, dressing "plain" comes down to maintaining a simple wardrobe without a lot of ornamentation. Whether one wears black pants or brown pants or a wide-brim hat or a straw hat isn't something we get hung up about.
stampguy01 2 years ago
allistair.
thankyou for your video response. You raise central issues that are in dire need to be addressed, especially the way with which 'liberal' Quakers shun those who disagree with thier waffle and beigness, and the need for 'truth' to not be lost in the egocentric relativism that eats at Quaker integrity.
That of God within too often is little more than I am God and whatever I think and do is the Spirit speaking. Such is nothing more than gross hubris and spiritual solipsism.
Peace.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
Thanks for your comments, Aussie.
Like yourself, my discernment is that the sub-text of the orginal video is that the only real choice is their palatable moral relativism or fundamentalism. For a long time, I've tried to argue that is a false dichotomy. I was deeply disturbed by the stridency of some of the contributers, in their forceful denunciation of anyone who claimed to know truth. As you can see from the some of the comments here, some Liberal Quakers can be fiercely intolerant.
allistairl 3 years ago
I noticed an earlier comment from bangura4uk stating that the video wasnt from theologians or such experts but a random group from a local meeting. Well. leaving aside my doubts of whether it was so random, such a selection clearly shows the relativism at play in contemporary Quakerism in that whatever and whoever speaks about a topic has merit . Truth has been made ridiculous by this woolly approach in which a blind faith led by self opinion takes precedence over one assisted by reason.
aussiewasteland 3 years ago
i'm a quaker from Virginia, keep representing. good video.
Epimpin101 3 years ago
Thanks Epimpin101,
I'm planning some new videos, which I will hopefully upload soon. Keep watching the channel for new developments.
I do appreciate thy words of encouragement.
allistairl 3 years ago
Still waiting for thy new videos :)
Thy Brother,
Themis
ereuna 3 years ago
I'd like to call a halt to the posting of comments on this video. I don't want this discussion to degenerate anymore. It's not a good witness. If people want to carry with this discussion, could I please request that they choose one of the forums, like s.r.q or uk.religion.christian to continue. For my part, I'm sorry to say that the liberal quaker contributers have persisted the usual platitudes and prejudices against what they perceive as 'Christianity' See my next post for continuation
allistairl 3 years ago
So far nothing has been said here, that has demonstrated to me that liberal Quakerism is any more tolerant or open than any other religion, or indeed, of any greater spiritual depth. Many of the comments here clearly show that its tolerance and inclusivity only extend to those points of view that accord with its own.
So I hope people will respect my request that this will be the last word on this issue.
allistairl 3 years ago
I think respect should be shown before being demanded. In entering a dialogue on such an open platform as youtube you cant just shut it down with your own 'last word' when others fail to agree with you! Responding to dissent with pious intellectualised sneering is not representative of Quakers in any country at any time and I refuse to believe it is typical of you or your group either.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I'm sorry you've felt the need to come back with a response.
First, I have made a reasonable request, as I feel the comments now being made are generating heat rather than light. If you want to carry making comments, then you are free to do so, you'll notice I haven't stopped anyone commenting. It's just that I don't see anything further to be gained by this discussion. It's obvious from your tone, bangura, that you are not really interested in other peoples points of view, cont...
allistairl 3 years ago
...rather, you seem to want a platform to express your predjudices against those Quakers who dissent from the liberal view. If you are not careful, you will simply end up demonstrating some of the worst excesses of liberal Quakers through your contributions here.
allistairl 3 years ago
I found worth in your video reply allistair and said so in my first comment. Unfortunately your tone became increasingly provocative and intolerant beginning with accusations of "cheap propaganda" and "intellectual dishonesty" and descending via sweeping generalised distortions of 'Liberal Quakerism' to a point where that of God in either of us is trampled and continuing dialogue does become futile. I apologise for expressing my own exasperation but I am no less human or fallible than you are.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Incidentally, if you are keen to continue the dialog, I am also willing to receive comments via my Inbox
allistairl 3 years ago
No, Themis, I did not know that. I am shocked to hear it, although it does illustrate what Allistair was saying in this video. I had written to BYM about modern Quakers embracing all religions except Christianity and a fear of being "politically incorrect" by mentioning Christ in discussions. They deny this is the case, but my experience at BYM differs. They have "thrown the baby out with the bath water."
God bless you.
yentie1 3 years ago 10
"Further we say, Christ is our Way, who is the Light that doth enlighten you, and every one that cometh into the world, that with it you might see him, the Way, and come to walk in the way of Peace and Life, which is the Way of God, and which is the new and living Way, which the Apostles were in;"
See Next
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
"which Christendom hath gone out of, going from the Light in their own particulars, into their own Inventions and Imaginations, which is the cause there are so many wayes amongst them; changeable Wayes, and changeable Worships; I say, amongst them that are gone out of the new and living Way: So every one that cometh to the Light in their own particulars, they come to Christ, they come to the new and living Way,"
See Next
themistoklisp 3 years ago 7
"and from and out of the old and dead Wayes, which are in the Fall from God, out of his Image and Power; So who come into his Image and Power, they must come to the Light, which Christ the Way hath enlightened them withal in their own particulars: For there is no other way to the Father, but Christ the Light, which doth enlighten every one that comes into the world, who is the Way, even the new and living Way,"
See Next
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
"and hear his Voyce and Teaching; so they shall love the Light, love the VVay, and love Christ; but they that hate the Light hate Christ the VVay." (George Fox)
Christ Jesus is the WAY for a Quaker. The ONLY way!
God Bless!
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
Amen Themis.
God bless you.
yentie1 3 years ago 7
Do you know that Liberal "Quakers" (srekauq) have blocked me because they are afraid of people hearing the true Quaker Message?
For me these people are heretics and not Quakers. I am sorry but I do not recognize Liberal "Quakerism" at all. Neither would Early Friends. I am not afraid of stating this.
God Bless!
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
When YouTube asks me if I want to receive videos from someone I don't know I now decline, having been swamped in the past. You are, of course, free to post on YouTube and I am free to view your videos if I wish. I am interested in your views but they are not new to me - I have been hearing them for years. However, I am just me, not THEM. I don't represent any group or sub group. I am just a guy who asked some questions of people I respect and put the result on YouTube.
srekauq 3 years ago
Be not afraid Themis. 'Liberal' (like 'internet')is not a concept Early Friends would recognise. They endured the intolerance and persecution of a religious and political establishment in a particular historical crisis. Fox spoke to the condition of people in 17C England seeking to renew their relationship with God. His words still inspire but we need our own language to speak to our own times conditions and peoples.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Well that's a new one on me. I have never heard that worshipping God is an "opt out"! I think too many people bypass the "God bit" and embrace the testimonies to meet their own personal needs. However the testimonies came from God and He cannot be bypassed without serious damage occuring either personally or to Quakerism. I have now come full circle. We are back to the social club of self congratulation.
yentie1 3 years ago 4
Please try to answer what I have said rather than taking a single phrase, ignoring its context and negatively distorting it. It is not an opt out to worship God. It is an opt out, in my view, to isolate worship from seeking communion with and response to that of God in each other in every aspect of our lives. How will Peace on earth be built if we neglect this work? Seeking God in this way requires more of us than the seeking out and condemnation of heresy and apostasy.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
"It is an opt out ...to isolate worship from seeking communion with and response to that of God in each other in every aspect of our lives."
Bangura4UK, that is worship isn't it? How would you define worship if not communion with the Lord? You are right in saying that we respond to that of God in everyone and in every aspect of our lives. Sadly some Quakers are professed atheists, so how can they be Quakers? Liberal Quakers embrace them.
yentie1 3 years ago 4
You may judge me a heretic for saying this but from the examples of their lives I find more of God in some who call themselves atheists than in some others who call themselves Christians. I am not an atheist but would probably have called myself one when I first came to a Quaker Meeting so I am grateful to the Liberal Quakers who embraced me.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
"Our Worship is in the Spirit and in the Truth, which the Devil abode not in, but is out of; who is the Author of Strife and Unrighteousness amongst People; which Truth makes the Devil to worship and to bow, and also destroyes him; and it is the Spirit which mortifies Sin, which makes a separation from God."
See Next
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
"Now we say, if all Christendom had Worshipped God in the Spirit and Truth, they had been in that which the Devil is out of, and had been in the holy Hill, and had felt the Spirit in their own particulars ruling them, and had felt the Spirit of Truth in their own hearts, guiding and teaching of them." (George Fox).
Are Liberal Friends worshipping Jesus Christ, the Light, the Word? If not they are out of the Truth. An atheist cannot be a Quaker. Period.
God Bless!
themistoklisp 3 years ago 6
Excellent, I could not agree more with you. Please subscribe to our channel.
williamwieting 3 years ago 11
"Bleh", I do get a little concerned when the text posted is not as was written! I had already corrected this to say It is not "dividing" that NOT is from God but "confusion"!
yentie1 3 years ago 6
It seems to me that liberal Quakers are turning into a rather select social club of self congratulation. The lady at the end of the "Wooly Minded" video has obviously not heard about the "two edged sword". It is not "dividing" that is NOT from God but "confusion"! Where there is confusion God is not present. Liberal Quakers seem to be a rather confused lot. This is only my own humble opinion I grant you.
yentie1 3 years ago 6
Problem seems to be that the certainties that God reveals or divinely leads one prophet or group to are anathema to another. Or we can humbly accept a degree of doubt and confusion as part of the human condition. The ferocity of some certainties seems to arise from our fear of the other or the unknown. Openness and communion in silent worship is inseperable from the spirit of the Quaker Peace testimony , listening and looking for that of God rather than telling each other what God says.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I'll grant you, bangura, that some issues are difficult to discern, but some issues are black and white. The politeness of God puts things simply. It can't be wrong to kill for some some people, then right for others. There is nothing humble about encouraging confusion and disunity in a spiritual community. The fruits of the Spirit of God are unity and peace, not moral relatavism. Liberal Quakerism is frightened of certainty because it sometimes leaves no room for their relativism/individualism
allistairl 3 years ago
This is a serious misrepresentation allistair. If Liberal Quakerism stood for moral relativism or moral individualism then I would dissociate myself from it and so would most Quakers in BYM. I feel you are confusing the search for unity (which does require humility) with the desire for mastery which may arise from the most firmly held conviction of moral or godly 'rightness' but which can so easily lead us (human beings in general) to intolerance, fragmentation, hatred and war.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I don't think I'm mis-representing BYM. Take the new poster for their national Quaker week. That is a real example of an invitation to moral relativism. I think it is you, bangura, that is confusing certainty with a desire to dominate others. The untruth that is peddled by some Quakers is that the two invariably go together. Not true. Take John Woolman, he was very clear that slavery was immoral, and in opposition to many in the SoF at the time, yet a most humble and gentle man. Go figure...
allistairl 3 years ago
Woolman was indeed a fine example of faith in action who continues to inspire Quakers today. He made a powerful contribution to unity against slavery within and beyond the SoF. Slavery is also a good example of the need for openness to new light - a light that had not previously illuminated the thinking of white Christians (including Quakers) I understand 21C Quaker opposition to other forms of discrimination as part of the same tradition.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
But it must be Light that we are open to and not darkness. Relatavism (my truth is not the same as your truth) avoids the hard work of discerning whether our light is really light and not darkness. Woolman's Light was entirely in the Christian context. His openess did not lead him to question the source of his Light, Jesus Christ, as liberal Quakers do. Diametrically-opposed views/moral relativism cannot be of God. God is the Author of peace and not disunity.
allistairl 3 years ago
Before mass global communication and travel, before Darwin and before humans had the capacity for mass destruction of each other and the planet, Woolman's world was very different from ours. Can we be certain he would have been impervious to light from other than a Christian context if he was living in the 21C? It is seeing only diametrically opposed views and darkness outside this context that seems to me to avoid the hard work but invite the apocalypse. Can God author peace without us?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Can God author peace without us?
Yes He can! He doesn't NEED us. To think otherwise is very arrogant in my humble opinion.
yentie1 3 years ago 6
Perhaps you are protesting your humbleness a bit too much! But does humanity have to accept any responsibility or can we leave it all to God? I'm seriously puzzled now.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
bangura4uk, there is a difference between being obedient to the leading of God and telling Him what we are going to do and expect His backing. However God is God and if He wanted to He can do anything without our help. He chooses to work with those who will do His work His way. Mankind likes to keep a hold on God and tell Him what to do. A W Tozer can explain this better than I. Hope that helps a little.
yentie1 3 years ago 5
I very much agree that mankind often tries to keep a hold on God in the sense of claiming God's authority or his divine leading for many words and deeds that arise from their own purposes rather than those of God. Isn't this why Quakers decline credal statements and obedience to humans claiming authority from God? Answering to that of God within ourselves and every other person means (to me) that we cannot opt out by just worshipping God as a separate omnipotent being. We have to do the work.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
It seems to me that liberal Quakers are turning into a rather select social club of self congratulation. The lady at the end of the "Wooly Minded" video has obviously not heard about the "two edged sword". It is not "dividing" that is from God but "confusion"! Where there is confusion God is not present. Liberal Quakers seem to be a rather confused lot. This is only my own humble opinion I grant you.
yentie1 3 years ago 8
My experience bears out your opinion, Yentie1, the 'diversity' much lauded by liberal Quakerism is in reality, disunity. Liberal Quakers try to make out this is a strength. It isn't. It just leads to the kind of moral relativism, that the video is trying to promote.
allistairl 3 years ago
diversity exists. it is not everything, but it is a part of the whole. Diversity should be lauded, and it only causes disunity if it causes alienation. In which case there is no balance. putting others first is important, but if everyone practices this, diversity will thrive in a uniform fashion.
ultimategoobah 3 years ago
Diversity is good, where it exists in the context of the community that knows unity under God. We can be diverse, yet share a sense of right and wrong that is God-given. All too often for 'Diversity' read 'Disunity'. 'Unity in Diversity' is a cop-out which avoids the hard truth of discerning of what is Light and what is Darkness. It leads to relativism and confusion. For example, many liberal Quakers support Abortion, yet claim to be pacifist. Confused? you bet...
allistairl 3 years ago
I dont know any Quakers who "support abortion" in the simplistic sense used here. However I know many "pro-lifers" support capital punishment and war on (coincidentally?) Islamic peoples. I trust you would not want to be associated with their confusion/relativism either. Leaving aside the point scoring (-5 from youtube fundamentalists again?) we could consider how our faith and desire for unity is expressed in the way we lead our lives, not just our "absolute" or "relative" semantics.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
"we could consider how our faith and desire for unity is expressed in the way we lead our lives, not just our "absolute" or "relative" semantics."
I attended BYM this year and was shocked by the similarities between attenders. There really was precious little diversity. As for how people lead their lives, it seemed the buzz phrase was "ecological resources". A very noble cause, until you ask them if they own a dishwasher! As for holiday homes abroad etc! Where has simplicity gone?
yentie1 3 years ago 7
Fairish comment. I sometimes share your shock and confess to owning a dishwasher while (conveniently) finding it uses less resources than filling sinks with hot water. I also know one Quaker (among 100s in my Meeting and elsewhere) who owns a 2nd home. This doesn't stop me upholding Quaker testimonies and living them to the best of my imperfect abilities or being inspired by other Friends work for social justice, peace and the environment - little known but influential in proportion to numbers.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
I would also add that your concern is often expressed among Friends and wonder if you shared it at BYM or in your local meeting or whether you see yourself more as a sceptical detached observer? I was attracted by the honesty of Quakers willingness to challenge each other and seek unity to act on issues (inc their own lack of diversity) that some others compartmentalise by claiming for example to keep politics out of their religion or vice versa.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Dear Bangura,
No I do not consider myself a "sceptical detached observer", LOL! And as for the dishwasher issue - I have always been led to believe that they use far more water, electricity and detergent than washing up by hand, (family of 4-5, 2 bowls water per day for washing up, 1 soapy, 1 fresh to rinse) but I am happy to have got that wrong. As for 2nd homes, holidays abroad should be included as well. An unnecessary luxury in my humble opinion.
yentie1 3 years ago 5
I am glad you have been able to challenge other liberal Quakers. My experience has been a very firm "we don't discuss these things" attitude. In fact I have found some very closed minded. I tried both at BYM and in my local Meeting. No go I'm afraid. So I do back Allistair and his comments. I have found liberal Quakers either rigid or afraid to speak out. However, they are a lovely, kind and caring bunch of people and I have no argument with any as individuals.
yentie1 3 years ago 5
Well, you either think abortion is right or wrong. But dismissing that way of understanding as 'simplistic' reveals the way that liberal quakerism approaches issues. Some moral issues can be complex, but some aren't. Look, It's either right to kill or it's wrong to kill. Complicating clear issues can be a way of avoiding them. I've seen this intellectualising used as a form of disobediance. How we react to issues like abortion is just as important in 'how we live our lives' as ecological issues.
allistairl 3 years ago
Well said Brother Allistair.
Amen!
themistoklisp 3 years ago 4
Hey Brother,thanks for the sub,I tried to msg you but you have the Friendlock thing happenin'this guy is interesting,Friend of yours?
tezkingkong 3 years ago 6
Dear Brother in order to send me private messages you must first accept my "Friends Invitation".
Yes, Allistair is a Dear Brother and Friend of mine.
God Bless!
themistoklisp 3 years ago 5
Ok,Bro,I will.God bless you.
tezkingkong 3 years ago 6
Sorry if the word 'simplistic' caused offence. What I mean is that I dont accept your use of the term "pro-abortion" as an honest or fair label for anyone who disagrees with the absolute anti-abortion position any more than I would describe someone who disagrees with absolute pacifism as "pro-murder". How can such polarisations and condemnations influence anyone's understanding or behaviour let alone reduce their "disobedience"?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Thanks Alistair, a valuable comment on the video and the limitations of a 'bite sized' format. Some of the contributors would probably agree with your views on liberal Quakerism. The strength of the film as an introduction though, is that the speakers are not hand picked as 'weighty friends' but as a sample of members and 'seekers' in a typical(ish) Quaker Meeting. Their answers lack preparation but come across as if they are replying to the kind of questions often asked by curious non-Quakers.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Thanks bangaru,
Overall, I think the way in which people are presenting their ideas is very good, and something I'm keen to emulate. I just didn't agree with what was said. The positing of liberalism as the only 'reasonable' alternative to counter 'fundamentalism' is common propoganda technique used by liberal Quakers. One of the key points that their video brought out was how closed and narrow some of contributers actually were, in contradiction to the message they were supposedly promoting.
allistairl 3 years ago
I'm not sure that the video is doing any such thing as 'positing liberalism as the only alternative to fundamentalism'. The contributors are not theologians & would not recognise themselves as propagandists either. Friends have usually been so averse to propaganda that few know about them - something the video seeks to address. If the contributors seem closed & narrow then the effort is counterproductive but as an intro it's for anyone, not just those with existing firmly fixed convictions.
bangura4uk 3 years ago
Like it or not, bangura, this video is a subtle form of propoganda. I assume the whole point of posting the video here, is to influence the thinking of others? Half that video is dedicated to the final contributor who makes a fairly strident critique of what they suppose to be fundamentalist thinking, positing that against the relativism of their own view. This is plainly in order to make liberal Quakerism seem more 'reasonable'. It is obvious that this is the main intent.
allistairl 3 years ago
By this definition all human communication could be called propaganda. We address ourselves to others to influence their thinking and hopefully remain open to their influence on ours. I understand 'propaganda' as more of a one way process, a means of imposing a belief or system of thought. Friends are asked to remain open to new light from whatever source it may come. Heresy to a fundamentalist but perhaps part of what distinguishes Quakers in the history of violent conflict over religion?
bangura4uk 3 years ago
You are not really answering my substantial point. The video is trying to present a liberal view at the expense of what is presented as 'fundamentalist'. This is a cheap propaganda technique. Don't you see the intellectual dishonesty in that? Is video meant to be propaganda? Ask the author. Pity about your comments about new light. One of my original points is that, ironically, some of the contributers appear to be even more closed than those they are criticising. But that's liberal Quakerism.
allistairl 3 years ago
Allistairl, when you write with such conviction, it is better to write "MY reason for existence" not "OUR reason for existence". Why to have anything revealed at all? You write "reason for existence" - exactly! - reason! That is where my interest with Quakerism started "Age of Reason" by Paine. You see I'm afraid of having anything 'revealed' unless I know WHO reveals it. My question remains, what is the reason for top-down revelation? If "our reason for existence is...", so I ask, what reason?
matmajer 4 years ago
The basis of all true religion is the divine revelation of Truth. This is what we call 'faith'. Mankind was not created to live outside of this experience.
Reason alone cannot be a basis for faith, although reason can be enlightened by faith. We cannot 'think' ourselves out of the human condition. If we try to do so, we merely have the arrogance to try supplant God with ourselves.
Why are you afraid of having Truth revealed to you, matmajer? Are you afraid of what it might reveal?
allistairl 4 years ago
Yes allistairl, I'm afraid of what it might reveal, as I would have no possibility to verify this revelation using my 3-dimensional conditioned mind. However, I'm not against divine suggestions - but suggestions, not Truth. Top-down process might be necessary for pulling out of the human condition, ok, providing you want to stop being a human being. Right now, I'm more concerned about how to BE a human being in full sense, in this body, on this planet, and not how to get out of here.
matmajer 3 years ago
You say: "no concept of divinely revealed truth that empowers human being to live as they should".
I would like to ask if there is any reason that humans necessairly have to live according to a truth top-down, so to say. That is the central message of a hierarchical religious institutions that transfer divine instructions to people through the medium of priests. Now, if you say that such truth may be revealed directly to someone's heart, well, too little space here to comment on this, but.......
matmajer 4 years ago
But is'nt this the whole point? Our reason for existence is to live by this divinely-revealed Truth, after all that was what we were created for. To live otherwise is to deny this very truth, and is essentially what sin is. This is why Liberal Quakerism fails, because it tries to assert otherwise.
Quakers believe that this Truth can be revealed directly to the human consciousness. "There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition..." That doesn't involve a priestly hierarchy.
allistairl 4 years ago
Allistairl, when you write with such conviction, it is better to write "MY reason for existence" not "OUR reason for existence". Why to have anything revealed at all? You write "reason for existence" - exactly! - reason! That is where my interest with Quakerism started "Age of Reason" by Paine. You see I'm afraid of having anything 'revealed' unless I know WHO reveals it. My question remains, what is the reason for top-down revelation? If "our reason for existence is...", so I ask, what reason?
matmajer 4 years ago