It's a Christian presentation this evening, led by Janet Perry, an Elder at the Friends Meeting House, Queens Road and a Spiritual Director of Leicester Diocese (that's Janet on the right in the photo above, laughing it up with Carol Sourbutts).
Janet expresses surprise that a Quaker has been asked to handle the Christian presentation, as Quakers are not exactly mainstream. She spends some time near the start of the session highlighting the points where Quaker belief and practice converge and diverge from a more generic understanding of Christianity. The openness of Quakers attracts all sorts. Currently in Leicester there are Buddhist Quakers, Hindu Quakers, Jewish Quakers; Janet identifies herself as a Christian Quaker. She opens the meeting proper by reading from John's Gospel:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. There was a man sent from God, whose name was John. The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe. He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light. That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
This is the theology of the incarnation: describing that which is of God in all of us. Janet calls this the Quaker gospel. Everyone has direct access to God through that which is of God in all of us. There's no need of church, of clergy, of "leaders".
For Quakers, the only authority is the Spirit - not the Bible, not any spiritual leader or teacher. They follow a step-by-step process of discernment that enables Quakers to identify and test out promptings of the Spirit. She illustrates this by describing a 22-year long process by which the Quaker community in this country arrived at a collective commitment to the celebration and recording of same-sex marriages. This process requires considerable discipline, recognising where the Spirit is leading - which may not be where the individual hopes or wants it to go (this caused us to reflect on some of the things we'd discussed in session 2, regarding being able to comprehend a higher level of moral judgement).
Quakers enjoy a paradoxical blend of living as primitive Christians did, in continuous consciousness of the presence of the Spirit and of living eschatologically, aware of this as the "end time". The Kingdom of God is here and now. There's not much emphasis on heaven, a world beyond or some kind of afterlife. Quakers make their commitment to God, to social action, to integrity and now, to the Earth. This is in keeping with what Janet considers distinctive about Christianity: an emphasis on social justice; bias to the poor and marginalised; emphasis on self-sacrifice; availability of redemption to all people - indeed, to all creation. Janet referred to the friends' Peace Testimony to Charles II on the restoration of the monarchy in 1660.
"We utterly deny all outward wars and strife and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever; and this is our testimony to the whole world. The spirit of Christ, by which we are guided, is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world."
Not until World War I did this bring Quakers into conflict with the State, when conscription was introduced. Quakers had to make individual decisions about their response to conscription. Some would have chosen to fight. Others would have chosen to serve in a non-combatant capacity. Others still would have had an absolutist objection to conscription.
Having set the context, Janet gives us our moral dilemma.
Jennifer's dilemma
Jennifer's best friend Ann has a chronic life-limiting illness, which she has suffered from some time. She no longer wants to live and plans to end her life in the Dignitas Clinic, Switzerland, some time in the near future. Ann is reluctant to ask family members to accompany her. Jennifer wonders if Ann will ask her.
We break into small groups to discuss this, before coming back as the whole room to share what we've thought and said about it. Contributions are plentiful enough to ensure that we run well over our normal finishing time. This week's dilemma is deceptively complex. One person in our group complains that there's not enough information for us to be able to respond properly. Of course, the more gaps there are, the more we feel we need to bring by ourselves and of ourselves, in order to fill in those gaps. We may not realise we're doing this, but we'll do it all the same. Most people don't like gaps.
Are we thinking about the dilemma from the viewpoint of the "faith of the week", from that of our own faith - or from none?
We don't know what Jennifer thinks of Ann's plan. Is she pro or anti? Does she actually want Ann to ask her? Or is she afraid that she will?
Should Jennifer inform Ann's family? Can we assume that Ann's family actually know what she intends to do?
We have to ask why Ann is reluctant to ask any members of her family to accompany her. If it's to spare them the emotional burden, why would she want to put this on her best friend? Similarly, what if it's to spare her family any legal repercussions? Or maybe she just doesn't want anyone to accompany her. If Ann is concerned that family members will try and talk her out of her plan, does she know that Ann won't try and do the same?
A Quaker would be advised never to condemn someone's hard decision bravely taken. The emphasis is on compassion and love.
If Jennifer is a Quaker, she could ask for a "Clearness Meeting" as an individual, spending some time trying to clarify make her path ahead. A meeting is not a discussion or debate. It depends on silence just as much as on speech, on listening as much as talking.
We discuss the difference between Quakers following their four-step process of discernment and Buddhists sitting with the problem and Christians praying for guidance and/or intervention. "Discernment" as it's being discussed this evening can be read as "mindfulness".
Some Quakers are members of the Sea of Faith Network, which adopts a non-realist position on the existence of God - what would they say it is then that they're "discerning"?
No comments:
Post a Comment