Saturday, March 16, 2013

What’s up with Quakers and the Bible?



Last Sunday while on a trip, Hal and I attended a church unrelated to Friends. I enjoy opportunities to relate to the wider Christian community, but this visit made me squirm. (And when I squirm, it’s not pretty.) I entered into the worship, appreciating the mix of old hymns and new choruses, as well as the skill of the musicians, the beauty of the Powerpoint (with moving backgrounds—trees swaying, waves rolling in), and the emotional fervor. But when it came time for the preaching/teaching component, my body temperature went up several notches. (Yes, I’m getting older, but “this” was not “that.”)
Basically, the older ordained white men tell the rest of the congregation what the Bible says, what they are all to believe, and expect quiet submission in return. Am I being too harsh? Too ungraciously critical? (Lord, forgive me.) At any rate, it felt good to get back outdoors into the open air again. I thought to myself, “I’m glad I’m a Quaker.”
But later in the week I took part in a discussion of the leadership team of our Friends meeting. We were trying to set up guidelines for a sensitive discussion the congregation wants to have about human sexuality. In the course of the discussion, several people expressed concern that we not refer directly to the Bible as a guide in the conversation, partly out of fear of scaring people away (e.g., my reaction to the earlier non-Friendly experience) or to seem to rigidly determine the outcome. But the idea of minimizing reference to the written word of God alarmed me, and I’ve been tossing and turning every night since.
I deeply respect the other members of our ministry team and do not think that any of them are being subversive or unchristian. Yet this points to an area of ambiguity that Quakers both wrestle with and embrace. It has to do with authority (a nasty word, to some; a word all of us need to use carefully).
One thing I love about Friends theology (by “theology,” I mean the ways we as a community reflect about God) is the dual focus on the “living word” (Jesus as the present teacher and friend in our midst) and the “written word,” thus connecting us to the Christian movement down through the ages and across the globe. I realize this is the focus of the evangelical branch of Quakers (although not exclusively), but that’s the family I’m a part of. The “living word” takes precedent over the “written word” but never replaces or contradicts it (although it may seem to at times). Because of the dual focus, ambiguity is necessarily a part of our process.
Even though as a poet I love ambiguity, that doesn’t make it any easier when we face hard conversations and difficult issues. And I don’t ever want to sideline the Scriptures. They are “a lamp to our feet and a light on our path” (Psalm 119:105, not taken out of context). Even for Quakers.

9 comments:

  1. Jesus question to Peter: Who do you say I am?

    Margaret Fell: What canst thou say?

    I am not a good source of bibliography but what different understandings of the Bible and key stories or concepts might be reflected in the work of different scholars or writers?

    Would some of this work help till the soil for individual and community discernment?

    ReplyDelete
  2. The answer is not to avoid references to the Bible. The answer is to allow Friends to each share their own, hopefully Spirit-inspired, understanding of the Biblical references each deems appropriate to the conversation.

    One useful format for sharing about such a sensitive matter is worship sharing, where each can share what wells up in them about the subject without having to fear someone attacking them in response. This, of course, is a preliminary step which needs to lead to consideration in a form where there is dialogue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I think that what you call "worship sharing" will have to be part of our process. Having to work through this topic together gives us an incredible opportunity to be the church.

      Delete
  3. As someone who has a fairly checkered history with the Bible, this is a useful post for me, and I thank you for it. This year, I and some other Friends have embarked on a "read the Bible in one year" program. We are nearly three months in, and I'm pleased to report that I haven't given up yet (this is actually fairly shocking to me). I just decided that it was finally time for me to try to deal with my own Bible-related ambiguity, in my own way, and on my own terms (authority issues, anyone?). Some of it has been wonderful, some dead boring, some troubling, and some comforting. Kind of like life. Thanks again for speaking to my condition. --Mia

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are brave. I flounder at read-the-Bible-in-a-year programs. But I see the value in the broad overview it would give. Bless you.

      Delete
  4. You may want to look at these articles in Friends Journal:

    http://www.friendsjournal.org/homosexuality-a-plea-to-read-the-bible-together/

    http://www.friendsjournal.org/toward-a-testimony-of-intimacy/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you! I will make these resources available to others in our congregation. In fact, one of our objectives in this beginning part of the conversation is to gather important resources.

      Delete
  5. This is an issue that I have believed for some years to be a primary challenge for Friends today. Cheers for Douglas Bennett's contributions! I have become convinced that the earliest Friends did more than just take the Bible as a"secondary authority" -- they had a distinctive (but not unique) way of reading the Bible -- "with empathy" -- which was the source of some of their radical insights: women's ministry, "Lamb's War" peace testimony, etc. -- and which was lost to later generations. See my essays, "Early Friends and the Bible: Some Observations" (Quaker Religious Thought " 80 [Mar. 1993]) and "Did William Penn Diverge Significantly from George Fox in his Understanding of the Quaker Message?" (Quaker Studies vol. 11, no. 1 [Sept. 2006]) I am working slowly on a book that will deal at some length and depth on the history of Quaker Bible interpretations ("Friends, God, and the Bible" -- but that is still more than a year or two from completion. Outside of Quaker circles, "The Good Book" by Peter Gomes gives one example of how issues of human sexuality might be addressed from an empathetic-approach-to-the-Bible perspective. Daniel Smith-Christopher in "Jonah, Jesus, and Other Good Coyotes" helps us to see the Bible itself as an ongoing dialogue between varying perspectives on crucial issues. I think trying to read the Bible empathetically today would take place best in a context of open-hearted and -minded dialogue , Vail Palmer

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you, Vail, for these references which I intend to follow through on and make available in our meeting. I wish your book were finished. Blessings.

      Delete