tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post6590996592378785155..comments2024-01-07T09:34:44.086-05:00Comments on What Canst Thou Say?: Holiness: The Soul of QuakerismRobin M.http://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comBlogger15125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-85720621510170566642010-04-20T00:40:45.622-04:002010-04-20T00:40:45.622-04:00Hello Friends, it's taken me a while to respon...Hello Friends, it's taken me a while to respond properly here because last week was just one of those times when other things took precedence over blogging. But I've been thinking more about this quite a bit. <br /><br />Brenda, I agree that true holiness is above rules and human language, and that desiring holiness is not the same as living it. <br /><br />Thank you, Chuck, for both the links to the very interesting journal articles and your personal reflections. <br /><br />I still don't know enough about the history to have an opinion about what REALLY happened in the 1800s, but I appreciate the opportunity to hear more from Hamm and Spencer directly. I do know that Hamm would not be the first (or the last) historian, Quaker and otherwise, to downplay the role and status of women in history, even without intending to (referring to Whitall Smith). I agree that Spencer only covered the positive heritage of Quaker revivalism and ignores the negative impacts on Quakerism today (but perhaps she's right that people already know quite a lot about that and it was time for a corrective in the other direction). I think it is possible for both of them to be right, in that the holiness revival spirit appealed to the longstanding theme in Quakerism AND that the revivalists got too carried away with Methodist means and lost track of Quaker balances to the holiness movement. I've never met Chuck Fager in person, but I suspect that part of his angle in his review was to stir up more controversy between Hamm and Spencer than really exists. <br /><br />I still don't see the clear distinctions between Spencer's eight points. I suspect they were necessary to develop data points for her dissertation research, and may not have much use beyond that. And I agree that social justice should be on the list. But I think her synthesis of what holds Quakerism together is extremely valuable.<br /><br />In Fager's review, he quotes Kenneth Boulding as saying that the number of saints in any generation is what determines the vitality of that period. What is a saint but a person who exemplifies holiness? Which in my mind includes both listening for God's direction and carrying it out into the world. Mysticism in this sense is not necessarily dramatic earthstopping visions, but the gentle guiding hand of knowing right from wrong. I would say that divine guidance IS the rule rather than the exception. This is the Inward Light. It is one of the keys to Quakerism.<br /><br />I think all of the types that Chuck Fager lists in his comment can illustrate the three core elements in differing measures, but without any one of them to some degree, the Quaker stool is wobbly.<br /><br />I think Spencer is on to something, even if her first book isn't perfect. As Hamm and Fager have both pointed out, it's gone a long way towards raising new questions and opening new fields of thought. For them and for me.<br /><br />I wish I had more time to work on this theory. If anyone would like to support my family so that I could spend more time reading and writing and praying and discussing these topics, please let me know. As it is, it is going to take me a long time to work out the right way to articulate the glimpses of Truth that are floating in and out of view in my mind.<br /><br />Chuck, I hope you will continue to comment here, to stir up more thinking, to offer more resources for consideration and edification!Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-71172155529730084702010-04-16T09:32:34.961-04:002010-04-16T09:32:34.961-04:00Hi
I did not find Carole`s version of holiness in...Hi<br /><br />I did not find Carole`s version of holiness in accordance with that of Fox or scripture. Nor do I find that of the great revivals in Evangelicalism scriptural. Fox`s version was the same as that of the early fathers and Christian mystics who taught a 3 step way not a two step one. The ones teaching the 2 step one say that they are not teaching sinless perfection whereas the others are like Fox. <br /><br />The three step way is purgation illumination and then union and we are not in Christ till we are united and share the same nature which is holy. This is not about rules, this is something that is above human language. You must be in the same spirit to understand and Fox was in the same spirit as the apostles but many teaching holinss are not and desiring holiness is not the same as living in it.<br /><br />blessings <br />BrendaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-21356623658512152032010-04-16T00:44:36.391-04:002010-04-16T00:44:36.391-04:00Chuck, thank you for your explanation. I think you...Chuck, thank you for your explanation. I think you're right that there are different ways to be faithful, I will think if I have others to add to the list, and where I fit. And I printed out the Spencer/Hamm/Fager articles, but I haven't been home in the evening yet this week, so I'm hoping to read them this weekend.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-87869927421880336302010-04-15T11:17:29.153-04:002010-04-15T11:17:29.153-04:00Robin wrote:
<< I am curious about whether...Robin wrote:<br /><br /><i><< I am curious about whether you see the concept of Quaker holiness as useful (in any way) to Friends today? >></i><br /><br />Not much overall, Robin. Spencer's notion, as I said, seems incomplete and skewed to a definite theological agenda, an approach which has a very tragic (& long) record of making trouble for Friends (one Spencer glosses over). "By their fruits . . ." So it doesn't appeal to me. <br /><br />(More on this in the articles I mentioned; hope you'll check them out.)<br /><br />Generally, though, what passes for "holiness" seems to reflect a certain kind of temperament among Friends (& others), which works for them, and that's fine. But it does not thereby qualify as a template for "true" or "authentic" or "normative" Quaker spirituality, something we should all aspire to, or be judged by.<br /><br />This temperament fits a number of the archetypal Conservative/Wilburite folks. Some of them have projected it back onto earlier Quaker history as the "authentic" model of Friends spirituality. <br /><br />My study suggests a more pluralistic version. As my time in the RSOF lengthens, I'm more impressed with the truth of John 14:2 "In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you." <br /><br />Or, in the Contemporary Sylvester Stewart rendering, "different strokes for different folks."<br /><br />Among the faithful Quakes I've known, some are:<br /><br /> - like sages (from the Wisdom books); <br /> - or intellectual in their religious sentiments (as in Ps. 119:97: "O how I love thy law! it [is] my study all the day." Such "laws" can be the physical "laws" of the universe as well as specifically religious commandments); <br /> - or prophets, raising holy hell; <br /> - or quiet mystics (Spencer describes her "holiness" as a variety of mysticism); <br /> - activists, who worship by doing; <br /> - even skeptics. <br /><br />And, not least, many of us are kind of a mixed bag; I think that's where I find myself.<br /><br />I don't think any one of these is the "right" way to be Quaker; which "room" fits thee best?Chuck Fagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049779603153152188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-3872256624163713822010-04-12T22:34:50.056-04:002010-04-12T22:34:50.056-04:00Juju, while it's good to be aware of how we fa...Juju, while it's good to be aware of how we fail to be holy, it's also good to be reminded that others are looking up to us.<br /><br />Chuck, thank you very much for the link to the journal articles. I will take more time to read them before I comment further, but it's helpful to see how other people have understood this book. Especially since I don't have enough historical knowledge of the 19th century to have a valid opinion one way or the other about Spencer's historical analysis. <br /><br />I was disappointed (but probably shouldn't be surprised) by the short discussion of holiness among contemporary Friends. I am curious about whether you see the concept of Quaker holiness as useful (in any way) to Friends today?Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-85623479591097742742010-04-12T12:10:03.844-04:002010-04-12T12:10:03.844-04:00Robin, I read the book and did not find her analys...Robin, I read the book and did not find her analysis persuasive. Her 8 features of holiness seemed incomplete and to some extent arbitrary, and the interpretation of the impact of the holiness movement on American Quakerism particularly skewed and sanitized.<br /><br />I'm not alone in some of this response. If you look at the online issue #16 of the journal Quaker Theology, you can find both a review of the book and an exchange between her and Tom Hamm. <br /><br />Hamm in my view is just about the best active Quaker historian in the US, and his account (in his prize-winning book "The Transformation of American Quakerism") of the impact of the holiness movement -- which Spencer tries hard to debunk -- is still more convincing to me. Tom is about the most gentle guy around, but as you'll see, he isn't buying her version.<br /><br />You asked about Everett Cattell. I've read a lot of the relevant items, and have a sharply ambivalent response. It seems clear he was more irenic in his approach to some other Friends than many of the Evangelical leaders of his day. He was also prepared to speak openly and critically of corruption in foreign missions, which most evangelical leaders sedulously avoid mentioning. Props to him for that.<br /><br />Yet, on perhaps the most important occasion for showing this, the 1970 St. Louis Conference of all the branches, he took a very hard line against anything non-christocentric among Friends. It read to me like drawing a line in the sand, and that apprehension has been corroborated many times since then by similarly situated leaders. Not much "convergence" there.<br /><br />Carole's book is important, though, if only because of its broad sweep and depth of research. Few US Quaker scholars, certainly among the unprogrammed, have tried anything similarly ambitious; alas, I think that's because too few of them take Quaker history and institutions seriously enough to put in the necessary work.<br /><br />Here's the link to the "Quaker Theology" issue, and its Table of Contents:<br /><br />http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue16-contents.htm<br /><br />It's free.Chuck Fagerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14049779603153152188noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-76402747486767022212010-04-12T02:12:06.746-04:002010-04-12T02:12:06.746-04:00That reminds me of something that happened when I ...That reminds me of something that happened when I was a 14-year-old teacher in the Mormon Junior Sunday School. One of my students said to the Sunday School president, "I love my teacher, because... uh, because Sister Moberly is a very holy lady." <br /><br />That 7-year-old girl made me want to live up to her exaggerated evaluation of my inner qualities!jujuhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00872461566231723270noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-57430120208698467482010-04-07T15:23:31.199-04:002010-04-07T15:23:31.199-04:00So, from the comments here and a couple of emails ...So, from the comments here and a couple of emails I've received separately, I'm hearing that the word holiness is really a problem for people. I personally find it a beautiful word, but maybe that's because I don't have much history with it, so it's not so tainted for me.<br /><br />Gregg, Chris and Linda, I'll be curious to hear your impressions of Spencer's take on holiness whenever you're ready.<br /><br />Little Spirit, thanks for your kind words. This post and book have given me a lot to think about too.Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-22721070353089085512010-04-06T09:46:15.072-04:002010-04-06T09:46:15.072-04:00Hello Robin-
I have so thoroughly enjoyed this po...Hello Robin-<br /><br />I have so thoroughly enjoyed this post. It has given me so many thoughts, feelings.<br /><br />I guess the thought I will express is I hope you know your own holiness. How beautiful, wonderful, sacred you are.<br /><br />Next I would add that all Creation is Holy because It all is God/Spirit. The only time it isn't holy is when some one is in denial. Then it is all just a matter of how far down the hole you are.<br /><br />There are many things I could say about Carole Spencer's book. I liked the book. It gave me an aspect of historical Quakerism that I had not really seen. And I am working on rereading to try and get some of that 'technical' stuff down.<br /><br />I wish you Gratitude!<br />Little SpiritLittle Spirithttp://creationsquest.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-44463978706199375802010-04-06T07:50:37.466-04:002010-04-06T07:50:37.466-04:00Friend, thee speaks my mind, and I too shall take ...Friend, thee speaks my mind, and I too shall take a turn to read this book!<br />Blessings,<br />LindaLinda J Wilkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04307531394723506106noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-77648100885013649722010-04-05T16:53:08.505-04:002010-04-05T16:53:08.505-04:00I'm sorry to have to miss Carole's talk. S...I'm sorry to have to miss Carole's talk. San Francisco Meeting is opening its neighborhood food pantry that day, and I'd like to be there to help. Later on, Eight Year Old has a baseball game he'd like to play in. <br /><br />I do hope to make the after-talk potluck, though.<br /><br />And now it's my turn to read the book!Chris M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/05125825966802002625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-73388000507966826602010-04-05T15:57:45.405-04:002010-04-05T15:57:45.405-04:00I'll have to read the book before I can answer...I'll have to read the book before I can answer about Cattell. In the 80's, when I was a college student, many people were passing around Cattell's "The Spirit of Holiness". I haven't read it for a long time. <br /><br />As for the word holiness...it does bring up some very difficult connotations for me. In our YM, for a long time, there were opposing "camps" that could be labelled "holiness" vs. "Quaker".Gregg Koskelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02413312070226184054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-39859310295953071812010-04-05T15:15:18.491-04:002010-04-05T15:15:18.491-04:00Martin and Gregg, I really wish that both of you c...Martin and Gregg, I really wish that both of you could be here on Saturday so we could talk about this more directly. But thank God for the internet that gives us an opportunity to share our ideas anyway. <br /><br />Martin (and others who will read this too), do you think that liberal east coast Quakers can get over the word holiness? I'm afraid that it's in the same category with righteousness, that has been saddled with the overtones of self-righteousness, rather than sounding like a positive thing. And that it's too closely aligned with some of the more hateful forms of Christianity.<br /><br />Gregg, I'm curious whether Spencer's interpretation of Everett Cattell is a common one or a brand new one among evangelical Friends. I'm also curious whether the word holiness has some of the same effect on progressive evangelicals as it does on liberals? Or is this a word we can reclaim from the historical bin to use to mean something important to us today?Robin M.https://www.blogger.com/profile/10336915224193704866noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-60206685677512062912010-04-05T14:12:42.230-04:002010-04-05T14:12:42.230-04:00This is an insightful post! You've done more t...This is an insightful post! You've done more than a review, you've added your own very helpful and thoughtful insights.<br /><br />I've got to read Carole Spencer's book. I'm embarrassed that I haven't already. But I think you are definitely on to something with holiness and convergent Friends. You are on to something with (my words) authentic faith that both lives what it says and calls society to account.<br /><br />Robin, you have so much to offer to this conversation, and I truly see you as offering insights that apply to many different parts of the Quaker family tree. Thank you.Gregg Koskelahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02413312070226184054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13642801.post-20228376994570263592010-04-05T12:45:10.146-04:002010-04-05T12:45:10.146-04:00I'm interested in your take on unprogrammed Qu...I'm interested in your take on unprogrammed Quaker holiness. I should reread the book with those eyes. I had gotten bogged down by some of the earlier chapters, esp some historical episodes which felt pretty revisionist. It might be more productive for me to start from the back, with Holiness in the Twentieth Century. <br /><br />I see a lot more evangelical influence among liberal Friends than we're comfortable talking about. Ironically, I think those most turned off by EFI Friends on a political/cultural level are the ones most influenced by some of the underlying theology. Then I think there are those of us, like yourself and I think myself, who are increasingly comfortable talking with at least some evangelical Friends. It's interesting to wonder if holiness is part of that glue.Martin Kelleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06999620933648327663noreply@blogger.com