QUAKER ELIGIOUS R HOUGHT T A Friendly Apology for the 21st Century No Apology Required: Quaker Fragmentation and the Impossibility of a Unified Confessional Apologia. . . . . 5 David L. Johns An Apology for Authentic Spirituality . . . 20 Paul Anderson Responses to Johns and Anderson . . . . . 38 Arthur O. Roberts; Stephen W. Angell Responses to “Quakers and Levinas,” QRT #113 Levinas, Quakers and the (In)Visibility of God: Responses to Jeffrey Dudiak and Corey Beals...... 53 Rachel Muers An Appreciative Response to Corey Beals and Jeff Dudiak...... 57 Richard J. Wood

Cumulative No . 114 April 2010 QUAKER RELIGIOUS THOUGHT Cumulative Number 114 April 2010 Sponsored by the Quaker Theological Discussion Group (http://theo-discuss.quaker.org/) The purpose of the Quaker Theological Discussion Group is to explore the meaning and implications of our Quaker faith and religious experience through discussion and publication. This search for unity in the claim of truth upon us concerns both the content and application of our faith. Paul Anderson, Editor ([email protected]) Howard R. Macy, Associate Editor ([email protected]) David Johns, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Arthur O. Roberts, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Gayle Beebe, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Phil Smith, Business Manager ([email protected]) Wess Daniels, Website Manager ([email protected]) Advisory Council: Carole Spencer, Ben Pink Dandelion, Ruth Pitman, John Punshon, Max Carter, Stephen Angell, Jeffrey Dudiak, Corey Beals, and Susan Jeffers Address editorial correspondence only to: Paul Anderson, Box 6032, George Fox University, Newberg, OR 97132 Quaker Religious Thought is published two times each year; the Volume numbers were discontinued after Vol. 30 in 2002, continuing with the issue # system only since 2003, beginning with #s 99 &100. Send all business and subscription matters to: Quaker Religious Thought c/o Phil Smith, Religion Department, George Fox University, Newberg, OR 97132 Subscription rates: Individuals/meetings — per year $16, two years $30 Students — per year $12; Institutional libraries — per year $20 Lifetime subscription $300-500 European distribution: Friends Book Centre Euston Road, London, NW1 2BJ, England International Standard Serial Number 0033-5088 ABOUT THIS ISSUE

his issue features two papers by David Johns and myself, presented Tat the Barnesville QTDG meetings last June addressing the topic, “A Friendly Apology for the 21st Century.” As Robert Barclay’s masterpiece outlined a constellation of Quaker convictions for the intelligentsia of Europe to consider theologically a quarter century after the movement began, the question for Friends now is: “What sort of message are we prepared to declare to the world today?” That is a topic worth thinking about in every generation, and at the beginning of a new century and millennium, as well as a third of a millennium (as Stephen Angell points out) after Barclay’s original Apology for the True Christian Divinity, that venture is a timely one, indeed! Johns and I, however, approach the issue in rather different ways. Johns questions whether a Quaker apology is possible on behalf of Friends today because of the huge diversity among us. His question is well taken. Who speaks for Friends in the world today, let alone in North America? A second question follows: who is the audience needing to be addressed, given that we live in not only a post- denominational era, but a largely post-Christian one? Johns offers some important ways forward, even if Barclay’s project seems out of sorts with today’s situation and need. My approach, however, is to stay with Barclay’s general outline and to ask how many of the Scriptures he cites might be relevant in today’s world. That being the case, I argue an apology for “authentic spirituality,” rather than “the true Christian divinity,” as the former seems of greater and broader interest for today’s audiences. These papers are responded to by Arthur Roberts and Stephen Angell in what becomes a lively and fruitful exchange; David and I may want to respond to these responses in the next issue of QRT, as the issues raised are significant ones. The other two responses in this issue engage the essays of Corey Beals and Jeffrey Dudiak on Levinas and the Quakers, appearing in QRT #113. They are contributed by Rachel Muers, an emerging British Quaker theologian, and Richard Wood, a leading Quaker philosopher, educator, and cross-cultural leader in America and Japan. Responses by Beals and Dudiak may also be serviceable, so keep your eyes open for QRT #115 this fall, as well! I want to say a big THANK YOU to Susan Jeffers for developing and maintaining our website over the last several years; she will continue

3 on the Advisory Committee, but the managing of the website will be assumed by Wess Daniels, to whom we are also grateful! Wess blogs and writes a good deal about Quaker interests and concerns, and he is pursuing a Ph.D. in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary while also serving as pastor of Camas Friends Church in Washington state. So, thanks, Wess and Susan for your helpfulness, and to so many others, who keep the venture of Quaker theological discussion and thought a lively interest and pursuit! — Paul Anderson

Post Script: Several months ago we learned the sad news that Ted Perkins, the former Business Manager of Quaker Religious Thought, had passed away. I appreciate Arthur Roberts’ preparing this brief statement of appreciation for Ted Perkins in memoriam.

In Memoriam: Theodore Perkins (1917-2010)

Theodore (Ted) Perkins, a North Carolina Friend, passed away January 14, 2010, at the age of 93. From 1987 until 1997 Ted served as business manager for Quaker Religious Thought, faithfully attending to details of publishing, subscriptions and mailing. A recorded Friends minister, he had a varied ministry—librarian, teacher, and pastor of several North Carolina meetings. His autobiography, This I Remember, tells the rich story of his life; our condolences are extended to his wife Eugenia and the rest of the family. The March- April, 2010 issue of Quaker Life carries a more extensive account of his life and ministry. In deep appreciation, —Arthur Roberts

4 NO APOLOGY REQUIRED: QUAKER FRAGMENTATION AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A UNIFIED CONFESSIONAL APOLOGIA

David L. Johns

Introduction

Quaker Apology for our time is both impossible and unnecessary, A at least in the spirit of the Apology that comes immediately to mind when we say, “Apology.” Robert Barclay’s work has taken on mythic proportions in the Religious Society of Friends, if for no other reason than that it has no peer in the wider Quaker theological tradition. A number of other substantial works were published in the early decades of the movement by Isaac Penington, William Penn, Elizabeth Bathurst, and others. But nothing has paralleled the longevity and wide-spread impact of this particular book. Whether out of appreciation or hubris, others have fancied writing its sequel. In 2007, Patricia Williams’s Quakerism: a Theology for Our Time was heralded by the publisher as “the first substantial work of Quaker theology since Robert Barclay’s 1 Apology of 1676.” While her work has some merit, it is disappointing on several levels, not the least of which is in its lack of familiarity with subsequent theological work and its inability to dialog creatively with 2 contemporary Quakerism. As we know, many Quaker theological projects have not been as ambitious as Barclay’s; however, important theological engagement has been and continues to be published, both in book length treatments, university theses, and in journals such as Quaker Religious Thought, Quaker Studies, Friends’ Quarterly, and Quaker Theology. To write something akin to the Apology is a project besieged on several fronts. As Quaker theologians and Quakers interested in theology, there are other projects that require attention. Secondly, rather than conclude that Quaker theological reflection is impossible or that it has come to an end, I will outline what I believe is possible 5 6 • david l. johns and necessary as indicated in some directions I am pursuing in my own work.

Part I: No Apology Required

Generally speaking, an apology can be developed along two trajectories. These are not mutually exclusive but may be differentiated as a matter of emphasis and for explanation. The first is an apology as a defense of, in favor of, or for a particular faith or a particular view. Most theological dictionaries or encyclopedias offer some variation on this definition as the primary function of an apology or the practice of apologetics. A second trajectory, however, that may be developed is an apology as an articulation of the merits and or intelligibility of a particular faith or particular view in a specific context. In other words, its intention may be the convincement of the unconvinced, or it may be simply to establish intellectual credibility and to relate its claims in terms comprehensible to a contemporary audience. In either case, the perceived urgency of such an undertaking increases when there are significant shifts in the cultural and intellectual landscape which, whether intentional or not, present a challenge to that faith. In the broadest sense, every act of proclamation functions thusly, that is, as an apology, as an effort to bring a Christian vision into vigorous conversation with and within the present context. “It is theology that seeks to express itself in contextual terms so that the gospel will be heard and understood.”3 Tillich stated this clearly and directly: “…systematic theology is ‘answering theology.’ It must answer the questions implied in the general human and the special historical situation. Apologetics, therefore, is an omnipresent element and not a special section of systematic theology.” Apologetics is the “art of answering.”4 In the more restricted and literal sense, an apology is a defense of a view point against something else, whether that something else is real or whether it is imagined. This enterprise is apparent in the biblical texts. Paul’s discussion with the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers at the Areopagus is a classic New Testament example (Acts 17), as is the book of Hebrews. Paul placed the emerging Jesus movement in a contextual conversation arguing for its intelligibility within the wider Greco-Roman philosophical traditions, while the writer of Hebrews made sense of the emerging movement within Jewish theological categories. Several quaker fragmentation • 7 patristic writers directed their attention to this work: Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, in particular. Additionally, every student of philosophy or theology has pondered the arguments for the existence of God advocated by Anselm of Canterbury or the five-ways of Thomas Aquinas. Each of these writers was, in his specific context, arguing for Christianity’s intelligibility and relevance or defending it against critics. In the late 20th century, apologetics was often associated with conservative and fundamentalist Protestantism: Josh McDowell, Norman Geisler, John Warwick Montgomery, Francis Schaeffer, C.S. Lewis. Each defended traditional Christian belief’s reasonableness against some contender, whether the contender was logical positivism, claims of scientific materialism, or historical relativity, or, more recently, against the increasingly public challenges by atheists. However, as noted in connection to Tillich, correlational theological approaches also function apologetically, and these are frequently associated with mainline, liberal, and some Roman Catholic theological systems. For example, when Schleiermacher wrote to religion’s cultured despisers, he was defending the reasonableness of faith by situating it within and interpreting it through intellectual and affective categories accessible to his readers. A similar dynamic is in play in Gordon Kaufman, Catherine Keller, Douglas John Hall, in process theologians such as Marjorie Hewitt Suchocki and John Cobb, and in John Polkinghorne’s vigorous engagement of theology with the natural sciences. Apologies of either type, however, are directed generally to those outside the particular faith community or who are not fully convinced, at least initially. Yet, apologies clearly provide encouragement and intellectual support to those inside inside the particular community of faith. Barclay’s work was designed initially, or so it seems, to function principally as the first, that is, to defend the movement from misunderstanding and to situate it as a corrective to dominant theologies of his time (an “explanation and vindication”). In his preface to clergy, he writes: Unto you these following propositions are offered; in which, they being read and considered in the fear of the Lord, you may perceive that simple, naked truth, which man by his wisdom hath rendered so obscure and mysterious, that the world is even burthened with the great and voluminous tractates which are made about it, and by their vain jangling and commentaries, by 8 • david l. johns which it is rendered a hundred-fold more dark and intricate than of itself it is: which great learning, (so accounted of,) to wit, your school-divinity, (which taketh up almost a man’s whole life- time to learn,) brings not a whit nearer to God, neither makes any man less wicked, or more righteous than he was. Therefore hath God laid aside the wise and learned, and the disputers of this world; and hath chosen a few despicable and unlearned instruments, (as to letter-learning,) as he did fishermen of old, to publish his pure and naked truth, and to free it of those mists and fogs wherewith the clergy hath clouded it, that the people might admire and maintain them. And among several others, whom God hath chosen to make known these things, (seeing I also have received, in measure, grace to be a dispenser of the same Gospel,) it seemed good unto me, according to my duty, to offer unto you these propositions; which, though short, yet are weighty, comprehending much, and declaring what the true ground of knowledge is, even of that knowledge which leads to Life Eternal; which is here witnessed of, and the testimony 5 thereof left unto the Light of Christ in all your consciences.

Barclay here refers to “truth” and “true” three times, he accuses clergy of obfuscating the simple truth of God out of vanity, and he denounces formal theological formation as incapable of assuring spiritual maturity. He elevates his fellow Quakers as being contemporary apostles, and announces his own obligation to correct his readers’ theological misunderstanding. Without a doubt, Barclay aims to persuade; he is missing only a reference to John 20:31, “I write these things to you that you might believe.” There are significant difficulties in pursuing an (A)apology in this spirit. I will delineate two. The first is internal to the Religious Society of Friends itself; the second concerns the wider cultural context.

Internal Challenges

For an apologetic to function more or less effectively, particularly an apologetic of the defense type that Barclay articulates, one needs a reasonably identifiable group on whose behalf one is arguing, and one requires something against which the group is being defended. quaker fragmentation • 9 Early Quakerism was not a monolith; this is well understood. Diversity and dissent were present long before the 19th century separations. However, in our own era it has become increasingly difficult to identify any particular religious group as Quakerism. I will stop short of arguing that Quakerism does not exist. Of course it exists in monthly and yearly meetings and other institutional agencies, not to mention in the minds and practices of individuals. However, apart from the most local and most restrictively focused collective, it does not exist as a sufficient unity for which one might offer a defense or into which one might catechize. Maurice Creasey noted that Friends lacked a “widely shared sense of purpose, a common vision of what the Society of Friends exists to be and to do.” This state was not, in his view, a “glory and strength” of Quakerism. In fact, various projects and conversations concerning mission, ministry and renewal had little meaning or value “unless [they] proceed…from a clear and uniting vision of the Society’s vocation.” Friends are not as diverse as they are fragmented. Creasey voiced over forty years ago the exasperation still felt today: “Why should we encourage people to come into our 6 fellowship unless we are pretty clear as to its nature and purpose?” The challenges of articulating a sufficient and reasonably coherent Quaker-identity is apparent in the sometimes contentious and strained relationship between yearly meetings and their member monthly meetings. It is particularly evident, for example, in Friends United Meeting, which has for years struggled with a reason for its own existence and with how to express the identity and vision of the Religious Society of Friends in a manner acceptable to its constituent 7 members. Quakerism, as it were, dies the death of a thousand qualifications when one tries to describe it. Nearly every assertion of a characteristic or a belief or a commonality may be qualified with the statement, “Yes, but there are other Friends who…” Quakerism is, so it seems, what Quakers do and Quakers do whatever they like. This might be the pinnacle of religious freedom, or it may be the end of the movement—perhaps it is both. To the degree, however, that this explication bears any resemblance to reality, an apology in the spirit of the Apology is not possible. 10 • david l. johns Cultural Challenges

I have stated that for an apologetic to function more or less effectively, particularly an apologetic of the defense type that Barclay articulates, one needs a reasonably identifiable group on whose behalf one is arguing. I am suggesting that this is problematic in the case of Friends. But secondly, I noted also that one requires something against which the group is being defended or over-against the group is being situated. Consider that Barclay wrote within not only a predominantly Christian context, but a particularly Puritan one. Clearly, this predominance was not absolute nor without its own diversity, but it was significant. Barclay, to some degree, structured his Apology upon and in response to Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion and the Westminster Confession of Faith. It was reasonable to do so. Such was the religious context against which to evaluate one’s own thinking and against which to push. Religiously speaking, in the western world it would be difficult to name something in our present era that exists so dominantly. Consequently, to whom and for whom and within what do we formulate an apologia? Against what or whom must Friends defend themselves? Secularism, or religious indifference? Perhaps. Zealous scientific materialism, or religious triviality? Possibly. Consumerism? Militarism? Absolutisms? Any of these may be seen as influences, or even as ultimate concerns. However, it is unlikely that any has the degree of cultural dominance equal to the Puritanism in which Barclay situated his own work, and most of these would require a very different kind of response than is evident in the Apology or any of its offspring. Thus: no Apology required. An apology in the spirit of the Apology is neither necessary, nor is it possible.

Part II: What is Required?

Having said this, I want to make it clear that interesting and useful theological work is possible within the Religious Society of Friends at this time, even if that is not the creation of an apology (in the spirit of the Apology) for the 21st century. It may be less ambitious than Barclay’s, in one sense, but it can be important and vital for our own quaker fragmentation • 11 time if we accept its challenges and eschew the self-congratulation that is a particular Quaker temptation. I am finding the work of Maurice Creasey and Harold Loukes to be enormously helpful in my (re)visioning of Quakerism, and their influence will be evident in the following remarks. Creasey was correct in his assessment of the philosophic and linguistic error of early Friends. This has set Friends along a trajectory that is theologically unhelpful and, at worst, one that perpetuates a sectarianism resistant to the other and resistant to a full appreciation of created reality. Loukes, likewise, understood well that Quakerism is unintelligible apart from the wider Christian movement. The Religious Society of Friends does not have a life of its own and should not. In fact, Friends are a corrective, and ought not to exist beyond their usefulness to the Church catholic. For Quakerism to defend itself (as in an Apology) might miss the point of its own existence. Whereas some liberal Friends argue for a post-Christian Quakerism, both Creasey and Loukes challenge them as completely inverting the situation. Following their lead, I am arguing in favor of a post-Quaker Christianity, one wherein Quakerism is free to let go of itself and allow its vision to animate the entire Church catholic, rather than to defend a peculiar sectarian collective. There are many themes, I would surmise, that might be pursued and clarified in our theological work. Since many of them are widely understood as being necessary, however, I shall not elaborate by expounding upon the Holy Spirit, importance of the gathered community, the role of experience in knowing, the testimonies, and 8 so forth. I will outline very briefly two general emphases and two specific issues that are in my view are essential and will be the focus of my own theological efforts. These were not fundamental to Barclay’s Apology; nevertheless, it is my contention that they do need to be a principal focus of contemporary Quaker theological work.

Ecumenicity (1st Emphasis)

The first is ecumenicity. Quakerism does not exist on its own; it did not come into existence on its own, and has no future apart from the future of other religious bodies. As I have argued elsewhere, Quaker beginnings were not based upon unmediated, direct revelation, but 12 • david l. johns were connected to tradition, history, and a fresh understanding of 9 already present realities. Loukes elaborates by stating that religion comes “as all our life does, from others: from the language we learn, the way of behavior we unquestionably acquire, the habits of thought which we accept as inevitably as we wear our clothes. Our most intimate and personal religious experience takes its shape from the beliefs and attitude of those among whom we are born. Even at the greatest moments of dynamic religious movement, the work of tradition is powerful, for the most original criticism takes its form 10 from what it criticizes and cannot be understood without it.” This is so with the Religious Society of Friends, as well. To a significant degree, Quaker identity has been one of contrast and critique. It is not the whole of the gospel, “but a commentary on it and an emphasis within it.”11 This illustrates all the more the importance of the other for Friends. Stated somewhat differently: just as atheism cannot exist without theism, so Quakerism exists, as von Hügel noted, only because “…this real world has not always been, has at no time predominately been, a Quaker world.”12 More importantly, the disestablishment of Christendom has permitted various family groups within the Christian tradition to acknowledge areas of commonality and move away from the nuanced specificity of communal separatism.13 Quakers, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, participate in local, national, and international ecumenical organizations. Such interactions have the potential of affecting all participants, if all are open to discerning the measure of grace present in the other. Participants may bear witness to aspects of truth, holding in trust elements of the Church catholic’s historic faith and practice. But this runs more than one direction. For Friends to be ecumenical with integrity, they need to be open to receiving the witness, critique, and, perhaps correction of others, as well as sharing their specific vision of religious truth.14 It has long concerned me that Quaker rhetoric sometimes takes a form that is both spiritually arrogant and dismissive of the legitimacy of the wider religious world. Popular categories of Quaker self- description regard the religious experiences and worship practices of others as implicitly inferior: what Quakerism offers is genuine, authentic in contrast to imitation, inauthentic; Quaker practices are meaningful versus the meaningless or rote practices of others; Friends focus on the inward and living spirit rather than the outward dead letter. Quaker worship and sacramental practice is of the substance, quaker fragmentation • 13 not the shadow of other practices.15 On one hand, the enthusiasm of Friends evident in such characterizations is admirable; on the other hand, it is inexcusably naïve. It betrays a lack of deep encounter with the religious other, an unreflective understanding of the concept of “meaning,” and a limited vision of the magnitude of God. As Harold Loukes states it, “We feel we have one or two things to say and that may be true: but do we know the language of God well enough to hear all that he has to say?”16 In listening deeply to the expressions of spiritual meaningfulness experienced in non- Quaker fashion, Friends might better discern their role in the larger whole rather than rhetorically posit themselves as the apex of spiritual evolution.

Global (2nd Emphasis)

The second emphasis necessary for contemporary Quaker theology is an interaction with the global manifestation of Quakerism. The demographics of Christianity in general have been shifting for the past half-century. This is as true for Quakers as it is for Roman Catholics, Pentecostals, and Anglicans. It is well known that Friends in the two-thirds world outnumber those in the United States and England, and the rate of expansion by these Friends counteracts the rate of decline among early geographic strongholds of the movement. There have been published works about specific missionaries and particular groups of Friends in specific locations (India, China, and so on), but I am not aware of a serious treatment of or theological interaction with global Quakerism. An interesting project would be an internationally collaborative one, where Friends thinkers not only state their respective visions, but where they actually work together on a constructive statement—a consensus response to a specific theological or social question. This would be ambitious, but the foundation for this work is underway, in an important sense, in the work of Friends World Committee for Consultation/Comité Mundial de Consulta de 17 los Amigos. How are North American and British Quakers formed by Guatemalan, Bolivian, and Kenyan Friends? Is there openness for a mutual formation? Is the Christology of Quakers in the United States wrestling with and challenged by Honduran Quakers? Are Kenyan Quaker worship practices considered and explored in Britain Yearly Meeting? These questions are not as easily answered as they may seem. 14 • david l. johns Global Quakerism is for some an unspoken embarrassment. It is a sign of Quaker success, but this success is the result of missionary effort, and there continue to be misgivings about the imperialism and religious colonialization of such activity. Additionally, it can be troubling for some Friends because, by and large, Quakers outside North America and western Europe are theologically and socially conservative with an orthodoxy rivaling any Gurneyite from the American heartland. Nevertheless, while large portions of the Religious Society of Friends suffer substantial numerical decline and a crisis of identity, other groups of Quakers are thriving. Yet, the global Friends reality is more than the numerical salvation of Quakerism; it may well reintroduce the Religious Society to the spiritual vibrancy and prophetic witness of the early generations of the movement. In addition to these two emphases—ecumenism and the global reality of Friends—I believe further elements are necessary in any of our contemporary theological efforts. I shall mention very briefly two specific issues in my own work, which suggest further examples of the work that is to be done, even if an Apology is not a viable option. A . Dualism at the heart of Quaker thinking (sacraments and Christology, mediated reality)18 The literature of early Friends, their manner of expression, and their perspective on reality is replete with dualism, with a spiritualization of reality. Whether this emerged as a result of the philosophical influence of Descartes, whose Discourse on the Method (1637) was published only fifteen years prior to Fox’s Pendle Hill experience, or whether it was principally mined from the dualisms of the Johannine texts, is not clear. However, what is clear, according to Maurice Creasey, is that “…particularly in the hands of Barclay…Quakerism became wedded to a prevalent and quasi-Cartesian dualism and, as a consequence, set its feet upon paths which, for many a year, led it into the barren places 19 of quietism and formalism.” I am convinced this dualism has affected and continues to affect Friends’ theological efforts. As I have stated elsewhere, “[This] spiritualization…is inexorably linked to a dualistic view of existence: shadow and substance; form and reality; cultic practice and ‘the real thing’; mediated and unmediated; inner and outer. This perspective creates difficulties with regard to worship, to liturgical practices, to Christology, to theological anthropology, to language, to human imagination and culture, and of course to the sacraments and 20 sacramental living.” Additionally, this has fueled the egregious quaker fragmentation • 15 notion of unmediated revelation, that knowing may take place apart from history, language, and physicality. This leads to a second issue that is emerging as important in my own theological work. B . A Truncated Doctrine of Creation Given the social dynamics at play in the beginning of the movement, Quakerism did not, I am convinced, develop a thoughtful doctrine of creation. More attention was given to the world’s unraveling than in its unfolding. In fact, at the level of spiritual rhetoric (the testimonies function(ed) as a corrective to this), the outer physical world—which was corrupted through sin—was of lesser importance than the inner spiritual one. Fox’s vision of returning through the flaming sword into a pre-Fall state of creational purity is a blessed vision and aim for the Church. However, a doctrine of creation based upon this alone does not move us closer to understanding human culture. I want to be mistaken about this, and I realize there is much study necessary to clarify what is at the moment a suspicion more than a verifiable fact. However, a restored creation is restored to a statebefore culture and the many works of human hands. However, creation is not only about pristine perfection; it is about the messy compromise of politics, the beauty and ambiguity of modern art, the violence of war and the belligerence of free moral agents, the raw edges of literature 21 and music, the tragic. It is about pastures and fields, yes, but also about planted fields and the genetic modification of the seed in those fields. In short, a doctrine of creation places us in conversation with ourselves about humanity and about human effort. I do not deny for a moment Quaker affection for creation and the attention many have given to environmental concerns as a 22 principle of commitment to justice. I merely wish to suggest that the ambivalence Friends have traditionally felt toward the arts, creativity, imagination, humor, color, ornament, as well as physical sacraments and patterned corporate worship practices, may well be rooted in a doctrine of creation that has not yet been thoroughly developed. Like the previous theme of dualism, the inner/outer typology present in Friends spirituality and certainly in Barclay’s Apology, does little to help us when applied to thinking about creation and about human 23 participation in the world. 16 • david l. johns

Conclusions

I am not convinced that an apology for the 21st century is possible, particularly in the spirit of the Apology. That time may come, but it is not now in sight. We Quaker theologians have much work to do, but I think it best if we allow the Apology to be what it is and move forward with the work our particular moment in history requires (which is not, in my view, a defense of the values and virtues of Quakerism qua Quakerism). It is a constant temptation of groups that have attained a certain measure of success to congratulate themselves and, before long, to have their principal success be little more than their own existence. This would be a sad conclusion to the Religious Society of Friends. However, our work, as I have briefly noted here, is to find our way into the wider stream of God’s movement among the faithful and to animate this body with the particular charisms with which we have been entrusted, not for our own sake as a group, but for the sake of humanity. Our work will also include bringing into full partnership Friends from around the globe and facing, when necessary, the theological and institutional imperialism that has kept these Friends at a “safe” distance. It will mean thinking carefully about the structures of our denominational agencies and asking questions about the distribution of leadership in view of shifting membership demographics. It will mean addressing together the challenges of the world-God-so-loves. Already Friends have done much in order to live without national borders as obstacles to cooperation and fellowship. But we need to address the theological boundaries that prevent the wider family of Friends from seeing the Spirit of God in the other and that prevent Friends from discerning the passionate movement of God in other expressions and practices of faith. I have named Quaker dualisms in vision and spiritual practice and a doctrine of creation—along with their implications—as particular concerns of mine (among others, of course). I have also confessed that I am considering the idea of a post-Quaker Christianity, one wherein Quakerism is freed from the burden of self-preservation and self- defense and freed for sharing its gifts to the wider faith community, while receiving reciprocally the gifts this larger family has to offer. These matters continue to form the work I do as a theologian within this tradition. quaker fragmentation • 17 A hegemonic christendom in the United States and in western Europe has been in rapid decline throughout the twentieth century and shows no sign of returning. Disestablishment, as we know, may drive some separatist groups, including Quakers, into a deeper, more isolated and peculiar sectarianism. It may fan the flames of utopianism. Such a reaction may give rise to sufficient over-against-ness to birth an apology on the order of Barclay’s. However, the internal fragmentation of the Religious Society of Friends, along with the dismantling of a reasonably dominant and unified religious context, suggests that other theological work is required. I do not despair this reality. The work we have to do will be on one hand less ambitious than Barclay’s, but on the other hand, it will be more appropriate for our own time and more ambitious than that which many of us have yet to undertake.

Endnotes

1 Patricia A. Williams, Quakerism: a Theology for Our Time (York, England: William Sessions Ltd., 2007). This claim is printed on the book’s back cover. 2 “Although this book concentrates on the Quakerism of the seventeenth century, the Quakerism I describe is alive and well in the twenty-first.” (1) The book cites very few contemporary Quaker scholars and, in addition to offering an account of 17th and 18th century Quakerism, argues principally for the compatibility of Friends thinking to bibli- cal criticism and contemporary science. “Science offers a world-view to replace the ficti- tious orthodox Christian one….Core Quaker theology fits into this…” (140). 3 Global Dictionary of Theology, s.v., “Apologetics,” by W. A. Dyrness. 4 Paul Tillich, Systematic Theology I (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), 31; Tillich, Systematic Theology III (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963), 195. 5 Robert Barclay, Apology for the True Christian Divinity (1678; 1827 edition), 2. 6 Maurice A. Creasey, “A Frame of Reference for Friends,” Quaker Religious Thought #16 (Autumn 1966): 15. More recently, Mel Keiser writes: “no one can speak with certainty of where Quakerism in general is in our present time.” “Figuring the Future: Where is Quaker Theology Going?” 73-80. Celebrating Quaker Theology: a Symposium for the New Millennium (Birmingham, England: The Quaker Theology Seminar in association with Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre, 2001), 73. 7 Ben Dandelion presents a concise summary of four characteristics more or less consistent and pervasive in The Quakers: a Very Short Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 2, 118. 8 Keiser outlines several important points in his “The Quaker Vision and the Doing of Theology,” Quaker Religious Thought #88 (January 1997): 21-37. His brief exposition of what makes theology Quaker is evocative and full of possibility. 9 David L. Johns, “Historically Ungrateful? Baron Friedrich von Hügel’s Critique of the Quakers,” Friends’ Quarterly 31 (October 1998): 165-174. See also, Richard K. Ullmann, Between God and History: the Human Situation Exemplified in Quaker Thought and Practice (London: George Allen & Unwin, Ltd., 1959), 58-70. “Fox did not rec- ognize any of the influences which had worked upon him, neither those of the spiritual 18 • david l. johns

reformers of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries nor those of such contemporaries as created for him, and together with him, the historical climate for this ministry.” Ullmann, 59. 10 Maurice A. Creasey and Harold Loukes, The Next 50 Years (London: Friends Home Service Committee, 1956), 36. 11 Harold Loukes, The Discovery of Quakerism (London: Friends Home Service Committee, 1960), 200. 12 Friedrich von Hügel, Selected Letters: 1896-1924, edited with a memoir by Bernard Holland (London: J. M. Dent and Sons, 1927), 235. See also, Loukes, The Discovery of Quakerism, 201. 13 In view of these shifts, it will be important for Quaker thinkers to evaluate certain Quaker language and public witnesses for their intelligibility. Sacramental non-practice, plain speech, peculiar nomenclature, are ripe for this consideration (see also, Creasey & Loukes, The Next Fifty Years, 56). 14 “When it began, Quakerism was an emphasis on a neglected aspect of the Christian faith; now it must assume a wider responsibility, and seek to transmit the faith in all its fullness and depth. If it cannot do so, if it cannot sustain the Christian tradition and transmit the richness of the Christian experience, then it has no right to exist at all, a stumbling block to would-be Christians and a source of weakness to the Church.” Creasey & Loukes, The Next 50 Years, 39. 15 See my, “(Re)Visioning Sacramental Theology: a Response,” Quaker Religious Thought #109 (December 2007): 56-61. Martin Davie has delineated what he understands to be three obstacles to Friends’ full engagement in ecumenical efforts. He notes, rightly in my view, that these Quaker positions are unconvincing and in need of serious reconsidera- tion: 1) unwillingness to subscribe to any form of creedal orthodoxy; 2) unwillingness to accept the need for the celebration of the sacraments or for a distinctive threefold order of ministry within the Church; 3) widespread rejection of the belief that there needs to be greater uniformity of Christian faith and practice between the various Christian churches. Martin Davie, “Reflections on an Ecumenical Pilgrimage,” in The Creation of Quaker Theory: Insider Perspectives (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2004), 187-205. 16 Creasey & Loukes, The Next Fifty Years, 48. 17 I have in mind here something on the order of the consensus documents produced by the Faith & Order Commissions of the National and World Council of Churches. 18 See also, Tony Adams, ed., Dualism: Immanence and Transcendence in Quaker Theology, Proceedings of the Quaker Theology Seminar (Birmingham, England: The Quaker Theology Seminar, 1999). 19 Maurice A. Creasey, ‘Inward’ and ‘Outward:’ a Study in early Quaker Language, Presidential Address: JFHS Suppliment 30 (London: Friends Historical Society, 1962), 11-13; 20. Creasey argues that Barclay took the idea of levels of apprehension and trans- posed them into distinct modes of revelation and organs of reception. 20 Johns, “(Re)Visioning Sacramental Theology: a Response,” 58. 21 I want here to avoid the extremes of utopianism on one hand and cynicism/ despair on the other. I address this in more detail in, “A People of Unclean Lips: Reclaiming an Anthropology of Complexity,” in Jackie Leach Scully & Pink Dandelion, eds., Good and Evil: Quaker Perspectives (Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007), 121-129. 22 See, Virginia Schurman, “A Quaker Theology of the Stewardship of Creation,” Quaker Religious Thought #74 (December 1990): 27-41. quaker fragmentation • 19

23 Ullmann sounds this note as well, and adds to his critique a Quaker misuse of and irre- sponsibility toward history and tradition (which I understand as an implication of the dualistic thinking in the RSF). Ullmann, Between God and History, 64ff. AN APOLOGY FOR AUTHENTIC SPIRITUALITY

Paul Anderson he foundational theological document of the Religious Society Tof Friends was written by Robert Barclay (1648-90) in 1675. It was first published in Latin and distributed internationally (1676) as a means of addressing the intelligentsia of Europe; Barclay later translated it into English in 1678. Following from his Catechism and 1 Confession of Faith (1673) constructed upon his Theses Theologicae (1674), Barclay’s An Apology for the True Christian Divinity lays out fifteen theological propositions, beginning with God’s disclosure to humanity and concluding with practical standards for Christian living. 2 While Barclay’s Apology has gone through 60 different printings and 3 is made accessible by Dean Freiday’s readable paraphrase, its content deserves a fresh engagement in every generation. Thus, the goal of this essay is to pose “A Friendly Apology for the 21st Century,” building on Barclay’s original work while introducing present audiences to the historic testimonies and doctrines of the people called Quakers. Finding the right way to approach this task, though, forces one to choose between several options. First, one could sketch the religious and political situation Barclay and early Friends were addressing, perform an analysis of our current environment, and pose a contextual message in a parallel way. Such an approach, however, would view Quaker faith and practice as reactionary developments rather than timeless convictions. Second, one could select an alternative apologetic form—say, a testimonial narrative rather than a set of propositions—as a more personalized form of witness. This would be of value, but the theological and biblical features of the argument would be lost. A third approach is to build on Barclay’s original outline, expanding upon the scriptural passages he cites and applying them to the contemporary situation. My reason for choosing this option is that as I review his various proposals, they still seem so robust—and relevant—that they deserve to be considered today every bit as much as they did in Barclay’s day. In doing so, a consolidation of his fifteen propositions into twelve provides a way forward, applying 4 some of his biblical references and insights to today’s world.

20 an apology for authentic spirituality • 21 No apologetic work, however, is levied in a vacuum. Even seeking to restore a movement to its original character implies a perceived 5 departure needing to be amended. In Barclay’s day, several religious and political issues were afoot that he sought to address. First, for a century and a half the Reformation had challenged the authority of the Roman Catholic Church with the authority of Scripture, leading to a variety of proof-text approaches to doctrine. This resulted in Catholic emphases upon papal authority and creedal and sacramental leveraging of spiritual promise, followed by doctrinal disputes over reasoned interpretations of Scripture and the political leveraging of religious loyalties. This was a century before the separation of church and state in the American experiment; religious adherence was both a pawn and a target of political investments. Within this situation, Barclay sought to develop a systematic presentation of authentic spirituality (the “true Christian divinity”), and in doing so, he appealed directly to the plain meaning of Scripture, introducing also the thought of leading theologians and philosophers. Today, however, our situation is different. We live in something of a post-Christian era, with a greater sensitivity to other religions than at any time in human history. It is also a fact that modernism has sought to supplant religion—especially Christianity—with secularistic messianism leaving people hungry for spirituality despite assaults on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Therefore, An Apology for Authentic Spirituality may be the most fitting parallel to Barclay’s original work. In the postmodern era, however, spirituality is making a comeback, although neither biblical nor orthodox expressions of spiritual concern command the authority that they once did. Even a Judeo-Christian approach to the life of the Spirit is a case that must be argued today, while alternative traditions are welcomed uncritically; such is the ethos of the times. That being the case, appealing to people’s general sense of spirituality meets people where they are. In this outlining of each of the twelve subjects below, however, the timeless message of Scripture will be connected with timely concerns of today. As Barclay engaged both Scripture and experience, so does the present essay, collapsing six of Barclay’s propositions into three, resulting in a dozen topics to be addressed. We begin thus with the first conviction: the immediacy of revelation. 22 • paul anderson

1. The Immediacy of Revelation

What is the character of authentic spirituality? It involves attending, discerning, and minding the ever-present leadings of God. Seekers today are often more open to revelation than some religious people; they just don’t know how to discern what God might be saying, or even if there is a God. While the existence of God is impossible to prove, the pilgrimage of faith begins with believing that he exists and that he rewards those who authentically seek him (Heb. 11:6). For all seekers everywhere, the Good News is that the same God who has spoken in history—at many times and in many ways—has now spoken in his Son Jesus Christ (Heb. 1:1-2); and, because God is still speaking, people can encounter the Power of the Living God if they will but open themselves to the spiritual embrace of God’s Love and Presence. Whereas many voices in the world claim to speak for God, with some even claiming to possess exclusive access to the Truth, Scripture reminds us that no one has seen God at any time, except the Son of God, Jesus Christ (Matt. 11:27; Jn. 1:18; 6:46), and that he is the one who makes God’s Love accessible to the world (Jn. 3:16). We have no need of human or religious intermediaries; Christ himself is our High Priest, and he is come to teach his people himself. He restores humans to relationship with the Creator, and within that relationship we experience life itself. As Jesus prayed in John 17:3: “And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.” As our Present and Inward Teacher, Jesus promises to lead us by means of the “Spirit of Truth,” who abides with and in believers (Jn. 14:17). Just as Jesus is described as “an advocate with the Father” (1 Jn. 2:1), the Holy Spirit is a continuing advocate, comforter and helper, sent by the Father (Jn. 14:16, 26) and the Son (Jn. 15:26; 16:7), bringing to mind the teachings of Jesus for his followers (Jn. 14:26; 15:26) and continuing to lead believers into all Truth (Jn. 16:13). Therefore, the Holy Spirit is indeed the Spirit of Christ, whose character is disclosed in the ministry of Jesus. As “the Way, the Truth, and the Life,” providing unique access to the Father (Jn. 14:6-7), Jesus is also the inclusive “Light of the World” (Jn. 8:12). As we abide in him and he in us (Jn. 15:1-13) we come to know Christ intimately, and his commandment to love one another as he has loved us becomes part of the very fabric of our being. All who know the loving work of Jesus from the inside, and who carry it out an apology for authentic spirituality • 23 as his partners in the world, are given the privilege of being called his “friends” (Jn. 15:14-15).

2. Scripture as the Inspired Word of God

How does God speak to humanity? In addition to the directly mediated and spiritual Word in our hearts (Is. 54:13; Jn. 6:45), God also speaks through his handiwork (Ps. 19:1), through prophets and other faithful emissaries (Deut. 18:15-22), and through his written Word, which provides sustenance for the world (Deut. 8:3; Matt. 4:4) and a Light for our paths (Ps. 119:105). Because the “prophecy of Scripture” is no mere factor of human interpretation, coming not “by human will, but men and women moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God” (2 Pet. 1:20-21), it speaks with authority to matters of faith and practice, providing an objective referent by which to check subjective leadings. By it we become wise unto salvation; “All Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work” (2 Tim. 3:15-17). Valuing the inspired writing of the biblical text, however, must be accompanied by its inspired reading. Therefore, interpretation must be prayerful as well as thoughtful—employing spiritual gifts as well as intellectual ones; this is different from both critical and dogmatic readings of the Bible. A literal meaning of a text cannot be inferred without also appreciating its literary form, and meaningful applications in later generations are best conducted having considered the contextual aspects of the passage being interpreted. Indeed, immersing oneself in Scripture becomes an invaluable spiritual resource for those with spiritual hunger and intellectual thirst.6 The Bible, however, does not point to itself, but to Christ as the Living Word of God made flesh (Jn. 1:14). Readers of Scripture err if they fail to see its central thrust: pointing to the One through whom the Father continues to speak, through the Written Word and also beyond it (Jn. 1:1; 5:39-40). His Spirit leads authentic believers into all Truth (Jn. 16:13), and “all who are all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God” (Ro. 8:14). In that sense, while the inspired Written Word of God declares that God’s Spirit continues to speak through and beyond the Scriptures, it is the same Spirit at work. Therefore, authentic immediate leadings will not go against the clear teachings of the inspired text. As the Holy Spirit is the inspiring fountain and 24 • paul anderson source of Scripture’s revelation, prayerful and inspiring readings of Scripture insure its fullest disclosure and authority.

3. The Human Condition and the Need for God

How are humans different from other species of being, and what does it mean to be created in the image of God? Whales communicate in the ocean, and monkeys improvise in reaching for food with a tool; is human intelligence qualitatively different from other animals or just quantitatively distinct? Physically, many animals are stronger than humans, and many species demonstrate both emotive features and social organization. Is the primary human distinctive the ability to stand up straight, enabling us to use our hands with interposable fingers and thumbs, or is it something more profound? Anthropologists and biologists will explain human behaviors on the basis of animalistic drives, but have they really assessed the true character of the human condition? The one qualitative difference is that humans can ask the question, “Why?” We search for meaning and have the capacity for self transcendence. These are features of spirituality; they are markers of being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27). However, humans are also fallen—estranged from God and within ourselves (Gen. 2:4- 3:24) and treacherous to one another (Gen. 4:1-24). In Adam’s sin so sinned we all, and the wages of sin is death—spiritually and otherwise (Ro. 5:12). And yet, the fall of humanity is not the end, but simply the beginning of the divinely initiated story of redemption. God’s first action in the Garden, following the first experience of human shame, was to make clothing for Man and Woman to cover their nakedness— itself an act of redemption (Gen. 3:21). Humans were created for fellowship with God, and our only hope lies in God’s saving/revealing action toward humanity. In extending us the outward and the inward Law, God graciously provides direction for humanity, yet we also become aware of how short we fall regarding God’s perfect standards (Ro. 1:16-2:29). God’s gift of grace through Christ Jesus is extended to all humanity in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us (Ro. 5:8). It is not that we have loved God that matters; it is that God has first loved us that counts (1 Jn. 4:10). “But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many.” (Ro. 5:15) To an apology for authentic spirituality • 25 recognize our true condition—as humans fallen-yet-beloved by our Creator—is to open ourselves to receiving God’s gift of grace, leading to eternal life (Jn. 20:31).

4. The Universal and Saving Light of Christ

7 How does God reach out in saving love to the world, and how is God’s grace conveyed? As God called out to estranged humans in the Garden, “Wherefore art thou?” (Gen. 3:9), the rest of biblical history shows a God who is on the move, seeking to restore the relationship between the Lover and the Beloved, which suffered on account of human rebellion. The God who has spoken through prophets, Scripture, nature, and the Law has now conveyed the gift of Divine Love in the only appropriate form—a living, breathing person, the onlybegotten Son, full of grace and truth (Jn. 1:14-18). As the Light shines in the darkness, so the Revealer that enlightens all humanity was coming into the world (Jn. 1:9). He came unto his own, but his own received him not. Yet, all who respond to the divine initiative in faith receive the power to become the children of God—as many as believe in his name (Jn. 1:10-13). While the Light of Christ is universally accessible, however, this does not mean it is universally received. Some misunderstand the Light (Jn. 1:5), while others prefer the security of darkness over convicting exposure to the Light (Jn. 3:18-21). Still others only catch a glimpse of God’s Truth, tending to reduce the Power of God to a idolatrous forms, or to recreate the Divine Being in their own image (Is. 44:17; Ac. 17:22-31). While the Truth is always liberating (Jn. 8:31-32), it is also experienced as judgment. This involves an existential crisis. Therefore, some reject the Light lest it be exposed that their lives are built upon scaffoldings of human origin rather than the Divine Initiative (Jn. 3:19-21). Thus, human-made religion is ever scandalized by Revelation! As the only way to the Father, though (Jn. 14:6), Jesus’ being the gate to the sheepfold (Jn. 10:10:1-5) is not a matter of divine exclusivism. God desires for all to be saved (Ezek. 18:23; Is. 49:6; Jn. 3:16; 1 Cor. 15:22; Ti. 2:11; Heb. 2:9) and for the entire world to be blessed through the seed of Abram (Gen. 12:1-3). The tension between John 14:6 and 1:9 is clarified by Jesus’ words in John 6:44: “No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day.” It does not say “no one may come”—a stipulation of what God requires; rather, “no one 26 • paul anderson can come”—a factor of human incapacity to reach God’s Love and Grace by means of human initiative. The only hope for humanity is the Divine Initiative—what God has done, and is doing, to restore the human-divine relationship. And, that saving/revealing action is carried out in world-changing, time-changing, space-changing ways in the flesh-becoming Word, whose ministry continues even now through the Spirit of Truth—leading us into all truth. While the saving Light of Christ is accessible to all, it also requires a human response of faith; that is the existential and pivotal human decision.

5. Justification and Redemption

How is it, then, that humans are reconciled to God, to one another, and within themselves? God’s saving grace is received solely through faith (Ro. 1:17), although its reception is manifested in our faithfulness. The Cross is a stumbling block to the religious, and while it is foolishness to the world, to those “who are being saved it is the Power of God” (1 Cor. 1:18). As the Apostle says, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death” (Ro. 8:1-2). While the Law of God was given to humanity in love, revealed through Moses and the Scriptures— and also naturally in the hearts of the non-religious (Ro. 2:12-14), revelation is also experienced as judgment. Indeed, both justice and grace are two sides of God’s love. Justice reflects the deserved side of love; grace is undeserved love. It is precisely because humans cannot imagine undeserved love that it must be revealed. God’s saving grace is not required as a divine regulation; it is necessitated because it goes against our conventional ways of operating in the world. The tendency of religion, as a platform based on human initiative, is to devise a transactional mechanism by which we work out the means to attain a blessing from God—such are sacrificial systems and ritual constructs. Yet, the blood of bulls and goats cannot take away human sin but represent God’s loving provision on our account (Heb. 10:4); rather, the sacrifice of Christ has done away with all human instrumentalities and approaches to God. As it is impossible to attain the righteous standards of God on our own (Ro. 3:10), the only hope for humanity lies in what God has done toward us. Thus, “if anyone is in Christ, there is a new creation: everything old has passed away; see, everything has become new! All this is from God, who an apology for authentic spirituality • 27 reconciled us to himself through Christ, and has given us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting the message of reconciliation to us” (2 Cor. 5:17-19). Therefore, humanity is saved “not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” (Ti. 3:5). To receive God’s loving provision by faith is to be justified by divine grace; there is no other hope for humanity.

6. Sanctification and Perseverance

Is the Gospel about our eternal destiny alone, or does it make a difference in our lives in the here and now? On one hand, receiving the Righteousness of God by faith involves the covering of our sins and being deemed righteous apart from works (Ro. 4:1-8); on the other hand, the One who knew no sin became sin that we might become the righteousness of God (2 Cor. 5:21). Therefore, the victory over sin that we receive in Christ Jesus is to be freed from its dominion and liberated to become servants of righteousness rather than sin (Ro. 6:14, 18). “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death.” (Ro. 8:2) Just as saving grace is received by faith, so is empowering grace. Works are not a precondition for receiving grace, but they do represent the genuine evidence of faith; faith without works is dead (Jam. 2:26). No one who abides in Christ continues in sin (1 Jn. 3:6), and to receive Christ is also to be filled with his empowering Spirit (Ro. 8:8-27). While God’s divine embrace is steadfast, it is also possible to depart from grace (1 Tim. 1:6) and to deny one’s faith by one’s unfaithfulness. Some sins are especially death producing (1 Jn. 5:16- 20), and those who have “tasted the heavenly gift, and have shared in the Holy Spirit…and then have fallen away…are crucifying again the Son of God and are holding him up to contempt” (Heb. 6:4-6). Therefore, the full Power of the Gospel not only involves receiving the gift of eternal life; it also involves receiving the gift of Abundant Life, which begins in the here and now (Jn. 10:10). Paul declares that wrongdoers will not inherit the Kingdom of God, but he also proclaims to the Corinthian believers, “But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Cor. 6:11). Just as the gift of salvation 28 • paul anderson is received by grace through faith, so is the power of sanctification. Grace is received by faith alone, and faithfulness is empowered alone by grace.

7. Inclusive Ministry

Is Gospel Ministry limited by age, gender, or training, or is it open and available to all? Indeed every follower of Christ is also called to serve him and to minister in the world on his behalf (Jn. 20:21-23). Just as Jesus commissioned his followers to “cure the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons,” he also commanded them to minister without payment—to freely give just as they had freely received (Matt. 10:8). The yearning of Moses was for all God’s people to be prophets and to be empowered by the Spirit (Nu. 11:29), and at Pentecost the prophecy of Joel was fulfilled regarding the Spirit being poured out upon young and old, male and female, slave and free person (Joel 2:28-32; Ac. 2:14-21). Every follower of Jesus is called also to minister on his behalf; a non-ministering Christian is a contradiction of terms. While preparedness for ministry involves study and labor (2 Tim. 2:15), it also enkindles the gifts of God (2 Tim. 1:6) and instruction rooted in love, which results in “a pure heart, a good conscience, and sincere faith” (1 Tim 1:5). Empowered ministry is a function of the gifting of the Spirit, and the Spirit gives particular gifts as needed for the edification of the church (1 Cor. 12:11). Just as there are many parts of the body, but one Head—Jesus Christ, different members of the body are to exercise their roles effectively, but coordinated with others whose roles differ—in service to the overall Head and the unitive work of the body (1 Cor. 12:12-31). Likewise, a diversity of gifts is given for the complementary edification of the whole church, and “the greater gifts” are exercised for the benefit of the many over and above the edification of the individual. Followers of Jesus thus take heart in his promise that they will receive words to speak from the Spirit in times of trial (Mk. 13:11; Lk. 12:12), bringing to mind the teachings of Jesus needed for that very hour (Jn. 14:26). By their love will authentic followers of Jesus be known (Jn. 13:35), and by divine love has Christ overcome the world (Jn. 14:31; 16:31). Such is the essence of Christian ministry: it is inclusive in its involvement, compassionate in its character, and inspired in its empowerment. an apology for authentic spirituality • 29

8. Authentic Worship

What is the character of authentic worship? Authentic worship is neither a function of form nor place—neither in Jerusalem nor Samaria—it is ever in Spirit and in Truth (Jn. 4:21-24). It stands neither in the use of forms nor in their formal disuse; where two or three are gathered in the name of Christ, he is there in their midst (Matt. 18:20). God’s Temple is one not made by human hands (Ac. 7:48), but God actively seeks those who will worship him authentically and joyously as the “place” of divine abode. The peace of Christ indwells the hearts of authentic worshipers, who embrace the Word of Christ and who celebrate with spiritual songs of joy and thanksgiving his working and instruction among them (Col. 3:15-17). Just as Ezekiel’s prophecy enlivened the dry bones in the desert, those who hear the word of the Lord will spring to life (Ez. 37:4), and the fires of Pentecost will be 8 experienced anew (Ac. 2). Therefore, transforming worship is both expressive and impressive; in worship we express our love for God and receive God’s love for us. With the Christ events, the veil in the Temple was torn in two— from top to bottom (Matt. 27:51), allowing for all access to the Holy of Holies. The same Shekinah-Glory of the Lord that appeared to gathered Israel in the wilderness (Nu. 16:19) is now encountered in the presence of Christ Jesus (Jn. 1:14), who extends to his followers the Glory he received from the Father since the beginning of time (Jn. 17:5, 22-24). There is no need to bring Christ down from heaven or bring him up from the dead; rather, he is as near as our hearts and mouths, for with our hearts we believe, and with our mouths we confess our faith in him—in gratitude for what he has done for us (Ro. 10:6-10). They that wait upon the Lord renew their strength (Is. 40:31); in quietness and trust is the believer’s empowerment (Is. 30:15). The Psalmist invites us to “be still and know” that God is God (Ps. 46:10); the resurrected Lord instructed his followers to tarry, to wait, in Jerusalem until they were “clothed with power from on high” (Lk. 24:48), and that invitation still abides. Receiving the empowerment of the Holy Spirit transforms believers into effective witnesses in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the remotest parts of the earth (Ac. 1:8). Such is the effect of authentic worship, which from age to age and place to place is ever experienced in Spirit and in Truth. 30 • paul anderson

9. Baptism and Transformation

How are believers baptized with the baptism of Jesus, and what difference does it make in their lives? John came baptizing with water, but the One coming after him baptizes “with the Holy Spirit and fire” (Matt. 3:11; Mk. 1:8; Lk.3:16; Jn. 1:26, 33); John said of Jesus’ ministry, “He must increase, but I must decrease” (Jn. 3:30). Just as John’s message and purification in the wilderness challenged ritual cleansings in the temple precincts of Jerusalem as a protest to religious forms, Jesus cleansed the temple of its vices (Jn. 2:13-23) and spoke of inward purification. Jesus’ followers refused the ritual washing of hands before eating (Mk. 7:2), and he himself never baptized with water (Jn. 4:2). The baptism of John called for repentance (Mk. 1:4; Ac. 13:24), and while some knew the baptism of John they did not know there was a Holy Spirit. Only after being filled with the Spirit, though, were followers of Apollos in Ephesus truly “baptized” (Ac. 18:24-19:7) pointing to the essential baptism, which ever is spiritual and transformative. Disputes about the baptismal ministries of different leaders therefore arose in Corinth, with some claiming to be “of Paul,” “of Apollos,” “of Cephas,” and even “of Christ.” For this reason Paul exclaimed, “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one can say that you were baptized in my name” (1 Cor. 1:12-15). As a result, the Apostle emphasized the singular unity of spiritual baptism, transcending the outward forms: “There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism” (Eph. 4:4-5). Therefore, spiritual baptism—in the early church and today—is ever the priority over outward rites and forms. Such are devised by humans, they are not required by God. The essence of baptism, therefore, is a spiritual immersion in Christ, whereby believers are filled with the Holy Spirit and imbued with transforming Power to live above the ways of the world. Therefore, transformative baptism involves not “a removal of dirt from the body, but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Pet. 3:21). To participate with Christ in his baptism involves the willingness to go with him to the Cross (Mk. 10:38); to be baptized with him into his death is to also walk with him into the newness of life (Ro. 6:4); to be baptized into Christ is to clothe oneself with the character of Christ (Gal. 3:27). Being baptized into Christ thus involves a transformation of moral character rather than submission to an outward form. Just as spiritual circumcision of an apology for authentic spirituality • 31 the heart is the only type that is of value, being spiritually buried with Christ in his baptism is the only way to be “raised with him through faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead” (Col. 2:11- 12). When the Lord commanded his followers to make disciples in all the world, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit (Matt. 28:19-20), the emphasis was not on water but upon schooling them in the teachings of Christ. Indeed, Paul also distinguishes baptism from evangelism: “For Christ did not send me to baptize but to proclaim the gospel, and not with eloquent wisdom, so that the cross of Christ might not be emptied of its power” (1 Cor. 1:17). Adding anything to Christ diminishes Christ accordingly. Authentic baptism thus involves transforming immersion in the Spirit of Christ, which may be associated with water but is never determined by it.

10. Communion and Fellowship

What does it mean to eat the flesh and drink the blood of Jesus and to share in the communion of Christian fellowship? As the bread which Jesus offers is his flesh given for the life of the world on the Cross (Jn. 6:51), to ingest his flesh and blood is to be willing to embrace the Cross; such is the only way to be raised up with him on the last day (Jn. 6:53-58). Like baptism, when Jesus asked James and John if they were willing to share his cup with him (Mk. 10:38), the invitation was not to a religious rite but to a martyrological witness. Indeed, at the last supper the Lord is remembered as displacing the focus on the Passover lamb with the significance of his own suffering and death. As such, though, he was not instituting a new ritual; he was supplanting all rites with the Christ Events—the pivotal fulcrum of history itself. As often as believers participate in the Passover meal, they are to remember not the sacrificial lamb of the days of Moses, nor even to focus on the contents of their plates; they are to focus on the Lamb-slain-for-the-life-of-the-world—Jesus, whose sacrifice displaces the need for all others. Mark emphasizes “my blood of the covenant” at the last supper (Mk. 14:24); Luke ritualizes the emphasis, shifting it from the content (the blood) to the container of the contents (the cup): “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood” (Lk. 22:20). It was only after table fellowship meals were abused by Christians in Corinth (1 Cor. 11:17-22) that Paul instructed believers 32 • paul anderson to eat at home and instituted a symbolic meal of remembrance (1 Cor. 11:23-34). The witness of the Beloved Disciple, who leaned against the breast of Jesus, omits the institution of a meal of remembrance at the last supper; rather, the emphasis in John is serving one another, symbolized by the leader washing the feet of others (Jn. 13:1-17). Ironically, the focus on sacramental means to unity often divides groups from one another, when their intended purpose is to instill 9 unity and loving fellowship. God’s loving presence is expressed and experienced incarnationally—by means of living, breathing persons rather than inanimate rites and objects. As a physical manifestation of a spiritual reality, God has spoken most fully through a person—his Son, who makes God’s love known to the world (Jn. 1:14). In him we behold the exact representation of the Divine Being (Heb. 1:3), as the fullness of God in him dwells (Col. 1:19). And, just as God dwells not in temples made with human hand (Ac. 17:24), but in the hearts of believers, Jesus promises to abide with his disciples and also within them. While the veil in the temple was torn asunder in the Christ Events, it is too readily stitched back up again by well-meaning folk, who supplant one overturned religious system with another. As a sacramental reality, Christ is fully present in the gathered community of believers, and attempts to symbolize that reality by inanimate means actually detract from the true evidence of his Real Presence— the fruit of the Spirit: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, generosity, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control (Gal. 5:22-23). If one were to ask how Jesus’ followers are to be known in the world the answer is an incarnational one, not a ritual one: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn. 13:35). There can be no truer sign of the Divine Presence, which is why God sent his Son as the embodiment of his love for the world; likewise, Jesus sends his friends as extensions of his love and as sacramental balm for the healing of the world. The operative question is not whether believers will partake of the church’s sacraments; it is whether we will become living sacraments in the world as furtherers of the incarnated presence and love of God.

11. Liberty, Conscience, and Governments

What is the relationship between power, authority, and truth? God indeed works through governments and institutions (Ro. 13:1-7), but an apology for authentic spirituality • 33 no human leader or organization is to be worshiped; that honor is reserved for God alone (Rev. 13:1-18; 4:1-11). Jesus came proclaiming the Kingdom of God (Mk. 1:15), calling for humanity to take note, tune in, and turn around. Humans are invited into partnership with God in healing and restoring the world; the active Leadership of God is here, and it is now. All people everywhere are thus invited to attend, discern, and mind the Divine Will, calling others to do the same. Jesus’ Kingdom, however, is one of Truth, and this is why his followers do not resort to violence or force (Jn. 18:36-37). To abide in Jesus’ Word is to know the truth, and the truth is always liberating (Jn. 8:31-32). Even in his own teaching, Jesus issued neither intimidating threats nor incentivizing bribes; his teaching was compelling on the basis of its authenticity and conveyance of the Truth. Therein lay his authority (Matt. 7:29; Mk. 1:22; Jn. 7:46), and so it is within every culture. Likewise, the Holy Spirit convicts by leading people into Truth (Jn. 16:8), and authentic conviction is ever a function of being convinced of the Truth. Therefore, leaders are empowered to lead as a factor of their responsibility, and the authority they exercise is always a function of their serving and furthering the Truth. We are not to be conformed to the world but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds— our understandings (Ro. 12:2). When facing adversity, followers of Jesus are instructed to bless those who persecute, to live at harmony with others, neither being haughty nor overcome with evil, and to live peaceably with all. The Apostle declares, “Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good” (Ro. 12:14-21). Thus, the exhortation to submit to authorities is hemmed by admonitions to love one’s enemies and to love one another (Ro. 12:20; 13:8). Being willing to suffer for the sake of conscience is the calling of every believer (1 Pet. 3:14-17). We must also work for the triumph of truth and liberty of conscience in society and within organizations, for openness and sensitivity to the Prophetic Word serves well the Truth and all who are served by governments and institutions alike. All expressions of perceived truth are a gift to be appreciated by leaders, even if uncomfortable. Likewise, critical input is contributed as a factor of love and helpfulness, believing that the Spirit’s Truth-furthering work is both convicting and liberating. The Spirit of Truth guides the meeting for worship in which business is conducted and likewise liberates the structures of society if we will but attend, discern, and mind the Divine Will. 34 • paul anderson

12. Living with Integrity

In the light of authentic spirituality, how ought we live? While neither salvation nor sanctification are obtained through works—Divine Grace is ever received through faith—their truest markers are the works and character of those whose lives are being transformed into the likeness of Christ Jesus. By the fruit is the tree known (Mt. 12:33), and by the fruit of the Spirit is authentic spirituality to be judged. There can be no counterfeit to love, patience, goodness, and the like; to be immersed in the One in whom we “live and move and have our being” is to cultivate an embodiment of the ways of the One whose offspring we are (Ac. 17:28). Indeed, the Kingdom of God can never be furthered by any means contrary to the Way of the Kingdom; therefore, those who have been liberated by the Spirit of Truth are called to live with integrity and authenticity with relation to God, to others, to self, and to society. Authentic spirituality always involves abiding in the Truth and living out of it: not ordered by calculated outcomes, but by faithfulness to the Way of Christ, whatever the cost or reward. In doing “nothing from selfish ambition or conceit,” but in humility regarding others as better than ourselves, we look not to our own interests, but to the interests of others (Phil. 2:3-4). We seek not conformity to the world (Ro. 12:2), but transformity into the mind “that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave,… he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death—even death on a cross.” As God raised him from the dead, he is also raised up in our lives as he becomes for us an Inward Center by which we work outwardly our own salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. 2:5-12). Authentic relationship with God implies an ongoing “Yes” to God’s decisive YES to the world—living receptively and responsively to the Love and Initiative of God. We do not take the name of God in vain or detract from its authority by swearing (Ex. 20:7; Jam. 5:12), but we rejoice in the Lord always (Phil. 4:4) that our lives might be unto him a sacrifice of praise (Heb. 13:15). The fear of the Lord isthe beginning of wisdom, and intimacy with the Holy One is the well- spring of understanding (Prov. 9:10). Authentic self-appraisal involves abiding in the truth—convinced of both sin and of righteousness (Jn. 16:8). What is the source of wars and violence in the world? It is lust, and coveting, and striving to rise above others whom God also an apology for authentic spirituality • 35 loves (Jam. 4:1-3). Therefore, living and speaking plainly, acting and dressing modestly, foregoing the seeking of honors, and letting one’s “Yes” be yes and one’s “No” be no (Matt. 5:37) becomes a living testimony to the Truth we profess. We seek to dwell on whatever is pleasing, commendable, excellent, worthy of praise—being content in every circumstance—believing that God thereby supplies our needs according to his riches in glory (Phil. 4:8, 11, 19). Authentic regard of others involves doing unto others as we would desire for ourselves (Matt. 7:12; Lk. 6:32), extending the same grace and forgiveness as we would like to receive from God (Matt. 6:12; Lk. 11:4), loving God and neighbor (Lk. 10:27) and loving others as Christ has first loved us (Jn. 13:34; 15:12, 17; Ro. 12:9; 1 Thess. 4:9; 1 Pet. 3:8; 1 Jn. 3:11; 4:7-12). Authentic relation to society shows neither favoritism and flattery nor threats and coercion. It speaks the truth in plainness and love, appealing to conscience for the sake of Truth. It takes no part in “the unfruitful works of darkness” (Eph. 5:11) but exposes them to the Light, seeking the redemption of all and the prevailing of justice in the land. It addresses the needs of the poor, the captives, the hungry, the homeless—energized and empowered by the Love of Christ (Matt. 25:31-46). On the Lord’s Holy Mountain shall the lion and the lamb dwell together in harmony (Is. 65:25), and his requirement is “to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God” (Mic. 6:8).

Conclusion

As an appeal to the reader, there is nothing personal in this apology for authentic spirituality; one has no personal investment in what others do with the Truth, other than seeking to represent it well and desiring the prospering of Love, Joy, Peace, and Goodness for the reader. On the other hand, the appeal is totally personal, in that the concerns herein expressed arise from experience and have everything to do with the most important of relationships and their experiential restoration. While these convictions arise out of the Jewish-Christian tradition, the universal work of Christ Jesus extends beyond Judaism and Christianity alike. They fulfill God’s promise to Abram, that through his seed the world should be blessed (Gen. 12:1-3), and this promise extends to all peoples, lands, faiths, and the lack thereof. In that sense, the heart of Christian (and Quaker) faith and practice is not adherence to a particular religion; it has everything to do with living receptively 36 • paul anderson and responsively to the present work of Christ, through the Holy Spirit, leading us into the Truth, which ever sets us free. Indeed, the God who has spoken in many times and in many ways continues to speak, and those who wait upon the Lord find evil diminishing and the good within raised up. As Caroline Fox has said, “Live up to the Light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.”10

Endnotes

1 First published in 1673, A Catechism and Confession of Faith (see A New Edition Edited in Modern English, by Dean Freiday and Arthur O. Roberts, Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, 2001) sought to pose an alternative to the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) as well as the Longer and Shorter Catechisms (completed in 1647). Barclay’s Confession, however, is addressed to Roman Catholic and Protestant audiences, distin- guishing the doctrines of Friends from Socinians (Unitarians), Pelagians (those denying the fall of humanity), and Arminians (those claiming perfection). 2 Licia Kuenning, “Editor’s Introduction,” p. iii in An Apology for the True Christian Divinity, by Robert Barclay (Glenside, PA: Quaker Heritage Press, 2002). The original title in the 1678 printing was: “AN APOLOGY For the True CHRISTIAN Divinity, As the same is held forth, and preached by the People, Called, in Scorn, QUAKERS: Being a full Explanation and Vindication of their Principles and Doctrines, by many Arguments, Deduced from Scripture and right Reason, and the Testimony of famous Authors, both ancient and modern, with a full answer to the strongest objections usually made against them, Presented to the KING. Written and Published in Latine, for the information of Strangers, by ROBERT BARCLAY. And now put into our own Language, for the ben- efit of his Country-men.” 3 Dean Freiday, Barclay’s Apology in Modern English (first published in 1967; Newberg, OR: Barclay Press, 1991). 4 The first two, on “the True Fountain of Knowledge” and “Immediate Revelation” are combined into “the Immediacy of Revelation”; Propositions 5 & 6, on “the Universal Redemption by Christ” and “the Saving and Spiritual Light wherewith every man is enlightened” are combined into “the Universal and Saving Light of Christ”; Propositions 8 & 9, on “Perfection” and “Perseverance and the Possibility of Falling from Grace” are combined into “Sanctification and Perseverance.” Just as Barclay expanded his Apology upon the Theses Theologicae, the present essay builds upon the biblical passages listed in Barclay’s Theses Theologicae and expands upon them (limiting treatments of each topic to two paragraphs or so) drawing in other concerns and applications that seem relevant to the day. 5 For instance, George Fox’s Book of Miracles endeavors to show that the miracles of Jesus and the Apostles narrated in the canonical Gospels and Acts were continuous with his own ministry as a means of showing the rebirth of Apostolic Christianity (see “Forward” by Paul Anderson in George Fox’s Book of Miracles; Philadelphia & London: Quakers United in Publication, 2000, xviii-xxvii). Likewise, William Penn produced a short his- tory of the Friends movement in 1696, fifty years after its beginning, in his Primitive Christianity Revived in the Faith and Practice of the People Called Quakers. 6 William Penn said of George Fox that in his opening of the Scriptures, he “would go to the marrow of things, and show the mind, harmony and fulfilling of them with much plainness, and to great comfort and edification.” The Rise and Progress of the People an apology for authentic spirituality • 37

Called Quakers (reprinted with an introduction by James Newby; Richmond, IN: Friends United Press, 1976), 58. 7 I follow here and in the title of this section Arthur Roberts’ admonition to include the word “saving” with reference to the Light of Christ. He is right; it is not simply illumina- tive and guiding, but the Light of Christ is also salvific in its effect. 8 Indeed, Barclay’s own experience in a Friends meeting for worship is described as follows (Apology, Prop. 11:7): …when I came into the silent assemblies of God’s people I felt a secret power among them which touched my heart, and as I gave way unto it, I found the evil weakening in me and the good raised up, and so I became thus knit and united unto them, hungering more and more after the increase of this Power and Life whereby I might feel myself perfectly redeemed: and indeed this is the surest way to become a Christian, to whom afterwards the knowledge and understanding of principles will not be wanting but will grow up so much as is needful, as the natural fruit of this good root, and such a knowledge will not be barren nor unfruitful after this manner. 9 The word “sacrament” is from the Latin word sacramentum, which is a translation of the Greek word mystērion. In none of the New Testament references to the “mystery” of God is there any reference made to a ritual, or even baptism or communion. In most of the references, Paul is describing the “mystery” that God has united the Jews and the Gentiles by means of the Christ Events (Ro. 11:25; 16:25-27; 1 Cor. 15:51-52; Eph. 3:1-15; 5:31-33; Col. 1:25-27; 4:1-4; 1 Tim. 3:16). On one hand, God’s working through Christ in making all things new is described as the mystery which Paul pro- claims: his work is all sufficient. On the other hand, the main effect of Christ’s work is the breaking down of social division and enmity in the world: Gentiles are reconciled with Jews, slaves are reconciled with masters, and husbands are reconciled with wives. These are spiritual realities, and their truest manifestation is incarnational: God’s revealed love is expressed in the person of Jesus; God’s loving presence is felt in the community of believers. 10 Caroline Fox, as written in her journal in 1841 (Quaker Faith and Practice, 3rd edn.; London: Britain Yearly Meeting, 2005), 26.04. A RESPONSE TO DAVID JOHNS AND PAUL ANDERSON

Arthur O. Roberts

hank you, David Johns, for an evocative paper! You may be right Tthat Friends are in too great a disarray to present a deliberated, conciliar apologetic. Perhaps aspiring to write one has merit, nonetheless: to feed intellectually hungry members or inquirers, to establish Quaker credibility among other Christians, to defend against “pugnacious challenges by atheists.” Like other rational systems, clear theology enhances freedom. Maurice Creasey’s call of four decades ago for a common vision rings with prophetic urgency today. Truth and love go hand in hand. Clear proclamation is an essential part of the Christian witness, along with fellowship and service. Let’s face it squarely; our cluttered Quaker house could use some intellectual tidying up! Especially if done within a context of penitence and prayer. (Hope nudges me to look for the Holy Spirit to choose the tools and oversee the project.) Ecumenical and global perspectives are important preparatory stances. At the same time, seriously interacting with the truth content of Barclay’s Apology, not just as prideful custodians of a classic theological statement, might be helpful to a generation acculturated widely, but not deeply. Yes, Barclay can be, and in certain eras of our history has been, read through dualistic lens, but one can also read him through the lens of a holistic understanding of human nature. As noted more specifically in my response to Anderson, early Friends interpreted and acted upon scriptural teachings as consonant with the full range of epistemic modalities: sense, reason, and intuition. The “truncated doctrine of creation” is being replaced in our times by a more coherent blend of creation and redemption theology, yielding a fuller, more biblical, understanding of salvation—both earthly and heavenly. I like David’s emphases that offer alternatives to a full-blown apologetic, at least for now. The first is a call to conscientious ecumenicity, acknowledging common Christian bonds, spurning elitism in respect to divine revelation, transcending a sectarian stance of “contrast and critique,” wiling to receive as well as to give insights, 38 a response to david johns and paul anderson • 39 open to accept correction. A die-hard separatist might surmise Friend Johns has been contaminated by fraternization with the “world’s” people! A case can be made, however, that Friends demonstrate their ecumenicity at the most mutually beneficial levels when they are clearest about their doctrines and their testimonies, and are faithful to them. The second alternative is a call to global collaborative theological dialogue. David states: “An interesting project would be an internationally collaborative one, where Friends thinkers not only state their respective visions but, where they actually work together on a constructive statement—a consensus response to a specific theological or social question.” Friends, could we accept this as a prophetic call to action? The Quaker Theological Discussion Group may well be one group that, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit, could give impetus to and direction for a world-wide and representative gathering of theologically and spiritually prepared Friends. Perhaps the Friends World Committee for Consultation would consent to provide logistic support, as it did for North American Friends several decades ago in the “Faith and Life” conferences. The “Global South” has much to offer the rest of us. Let us ask the Living Christ to renew us, so that with clear and impassioned words we may communicate more ably a normative Quaker understanding of the Christian faith. I conclude my response to Johns’ essay with excerpts from a prayer by Robert Barclay, concluding a sermon “From Death to Sin to Life in Christ” (May 16, 1688): O blessed powerful Lord God! that those that are not convinced and persuaded of thy way and blessed truth, that are not come into it to partake of the life of it, that are not yet come to live to thee, and to live in obedience to thy blessed Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who are not come under the power of his cross, may be crucified to the world, and have the world crucified to them: Lord awaken them, utter thy voice that shakes the mountains, rend the veil, and draw in their hearts, and minds, and affections, from earthly and fading objects; that they may come to breathe after thee, and feel the Spirit in them. (Quaker Homiletics Online Anthology) I commend Paul Anderson for preserving an apologetic form—a rational ordering of belief—and for expanding Biblical textual support while building upon Barclay’s propositional outline. Whether 40 • arthur o. roberts “authentic spirituality” is a “fitting parallel” term to “Christian divinity” might be debated, given its person-centered rather than God-centered orientation, but at least it conveys meaning credibly within our 21st-century culture. My responses to certain propositions reflect a concern for greater faithfulness in our Friends’ witness. I appreciate also those propositions to which I have not responded, and hope that they, too, will elicit thoughtful discussion. My greetings to all of you! “The Immediacy of Revelation .” (#1) Barclay challenged a religious priestly monopoly doling out salvation and its blessings. We face and must challenge secular dispensers of the good life, skilled in sensory manipulation and rational dogmatics. In this context Friends’ emphasis upon Christ as present teacher should extend beyond appeal to in-group guidance, to encompass leadings in respect to all significant decisions, personal and corporate, recovering our testimony for intuitive discernment of truth for every-day choices as well as for occasional prophetic leadings. And, to keep normatively authentic, let us re-emphasize our testimony that it is the Risen Christ who is the present and inward Teacher, not some mythic inner concept illustrated by an exemplary Galilean long ago. “Scripture as the Inspired Word of God .” (#2) Paul aptly summarizes historic Quaker understandings of the Bible’s place within God’s revelatory work: “an objective referent by which to check subjective leadings.” He rightly stresses a need to read Scripture with Spirit-guided discernment. If “all truth is God’s truth,” then we ought also to look carefully to the book of nature, not only for its bounty and beauty, but for what God can show us about his creation and our stewardship. Thankfully scientists such as Francis Collins, The Language of God, are helping renew a unified concept of revelation, so badly broken in past decades. Friends have a heritage that accepts revelation at all levels of life. Let’s be faithful to it. “The Human Condition .” (#3) Historically, religious renewals are preceded by a wave of penitence. Perhaps penitence for sins of arrogance will presage a renewal elsewhere among the world’s Quakers, as it has amongst many of our African brothers and sisters. “The Universal Light of Christ .” (#4) This formulation is a major contribution to theology. Paul, please restore the omitted modifier: “and saving”! Barclay successfully challenged exclusivist doctrines that touted God’s light sufficient to condemn everyone but a response to david johns and paul anderson • 41 salvific only for the elect. Barclay’s conjoining of the Incarnate and Inward Christ guards against Gnostic heresies—new as well as old. It is a biblically authentic and culturally timely universalism that joins the particular and the universal in acknowledging God’s full revelatory power. May Friends regain clarity on this doctrine and articulate it effectively. “Sanctification and Perseverance .” (#6) In the past century this was a powerful testimony that, unfortunately, degenerated into legalism. Now it suffers from neglect or outright antinomianism. Our culture extends tolerance beyond limits of virtue, and in response the church stretches the meaning of grace to let it cloak sin. As a result the “empowering Spirit” is blocked. In his introduction to the Journal of George Fox, Penn lamented such abuse, calling it “sinning more easily” at Christ’s cost. I pray the Quaker Theological Discussion Group will help Friends renew a doctrine of holiness. Let it be an inclusive doctrine, embracing conversion experience, spiritual discipline, artistic insight and expression, and conduct. Yes, and let it embrace ecstasy—mystical, physical, and intellectual. The Spirit blows where it will! I commend for your reading Carole Spencer’s Holiness, the Soul of Quakerism (Paternoster, 2007). “Inclusive Ministry” (#7) I’d like to see more emphasis upon ordinary vocations, including “blue collar” jobs, as ministry. I think both Martin Luther and George Fox would say amen! Thanks for listening and discussing thoughtfully! WHITHER QUAKER THEOLOGY IN THE 21ST CENTURY? A RESPONSE TO DAVID JOHNS AND PAUL ANDERSON

Stephen W. Angell t is delightful to have the chance to revisit the issue of a Quaker IApology on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Quaker Theological Discussion Group, and the one-third millennium (or 333-year) anniversary of the original publication of Robert Barclay’s Apology for the True Christian Divinity in the Latin language. Anderson and Johns, like Barclay, are striving for depth of spiritual experience, clarity and well-informed scholarly excellence in the exposition of Quaker doctrine—this is a splendid combination that has not always been fully evident in Quaker discussions of theology. Also, it is quite evident that David and Paul have adopted two very different approaches, which creates a particular challenge for the respondents; we cannot simply compare the two presentations, outline point by outline point! Yet, it is something that the work of the Theological Discussion Group, in the aggregate, has accomplished well over its half-century of existence.

David Johns

Turning first to David’s essay, I think David offers us some vital points of caution, even if I might end up endorsing a somewhat different twist on each of the points that he raised. With his remarks on dualism and ecumenism, one of the vital cautions he raises is for us not to idolize the theological thought of early Friends. Even for someone as capable as Barclay, there are areas where the thought of early Friends, and of Friends since, has been “inexcusably naïve.” That is all the more reason that we need Friends of the caliber of David and Paul to re-examine the foundations of Quaker thought, and to re-articulate the experiences of Friends in a way that advances beyond the too-easy answers offered by previous generations of Quaker thinkers. And it really doesn’t matter whether you call this exercise of theological re- thinking an Apology or not. 42 a response to david johns and paul anderson • 43 I will deal with the issue of “dualism” first. I would agree with David that if Friends are truly stuck in dualism, this would “betray a lack of deep encounter with the religious other.” But while our language, especially in many of our earliest publications as a religious society, has often been dualistic, our collective spiritual experience—our testimonies—our message to the world has usually not been dualistic, certainly not the extreme dualism of Manichaeism, for example. And in fact, Quakers have often found ourselves in deep encounters with the religious other. So what’s going on here? Look at Fox’s language of the “eternal” and “external,” to which I referred earlier. That sounds dualistic, and in some contexts, it may have been. But what Fox was really getting at—and I think Margaret Fell and Samuel Bownas and John Woolman understood this well—was the need in religious experience to go deep and deeper. Now, this is not at all a dualism. To plunge in is good; to go deeper is even better, but remember to come up for air from time to time! The reason that the Religious Society of Friends has put such emphasis on discernment and developed fairly sophisticated forms of discernment is precisely because we recognize that spiritual experience is not dualistic. Woolman reminds us that reaching for the eternal is a lifelong task. Expressing all of this in terms of a systematic theology is extremely daunting; that is probably why most of the accounts of what seem to be the deepest spiritual experiences find their way into journals rather than books of Quaker theological doctrine. There is something of a reinforcing dynamic, as we then value those journals more and are more reluctant to compose more works of Quaker theological doctrine. I would agree with David that we need to get away from, or drastically limit, the use of terms such as “inward” and “outward;” but we can still do that and meet the challenge of articulating spiritual experience in a vital and compelling way in a more systematic format. Now I will come to David’s point relating to ecumenism. My view is that Quakers have interacted well in ecumenical and interfaith formats. I am certain that we could do more than we are now doing, but we also have no reason to be at all ashamed of what we have done in the past. It is important both to be open to the divine influences coming through the witness of others, and to allow ourselves to be channels of the divine to others. My experience is that Quakers are often highly valued in ecumenical settings, and others are keen for us to share authentically from our spiritual experience. The reasons that this is so are hard to articulate, but it may have something to do with the fact, that although we are few in numbers, we preserve aspects of the 44 • stephen w. angell core Christian vision, perceptible from the earliest Christians onward, which are not seen frequently enough in other denominational or non-denominational expressions of Christianity. We need not to keep our light under the bushel, but to place it on the lamp stand. I think that is what we are being led toward and asked to do. I would enthusiastically concur with David about the need for more global engagement. It is incredibly difficult, in part because of sheer physical distance, in part because of the importance of political, social, and cultural factors to which we, even through the Holy Spirit, are reacting to, as Paul mentions in his introduction. Nevertheless, in the large tasks of building unity among Friends and encouraging a vital witness, this is one that I hope we grasp, and work diligently on, and do not allow to fall through the cracks. We could certainly assuage any “misgivings about the implicit imperialism” associated with the missionary movement that gave birth to global Quakerism and Christianity were we to invite more Friends from the two-thirds world to provide leadership to North American and British Friends, as Yearly Meeting or Broader Friends Organization speakers and as retreat, workshop, and revival leaders and in other capacities. David’s concern to flesh out a doctrine of creation for Quaker theology is a worthy one. It is true that seventeenth-century Quaker theology tended to downplay embodied aspects of Christian theology; the critique of at least one recent Quaker scholar that seventeenth- century Quaker theology had Gnostic tendencies is well taken.1 Fortunately, the possible Gnostic trajectory was not the one that Quaker theologians have taken. The embrace of most forms of art, literature, music, sports, dance, and other endeavors our seventeenth- century ancestors might have considered “worldly” leaves us in a place where a more robust understanding of the place that the created order plays in our appreciation of the divine as we interact with it in the world-God-so-loves. David may not be quite so innovative as he thinks he is, in this context. I am especially mindful that Rufus Jones with his “affirmation mysticism” has plowed at least some of this ground before. Anderson has consciously decided not to undertake the task of examining how the religious and political situation affects the theological task, either for Barclay or for ourselves. Perhaps I can be allowed the liberty of one brief note on Barclay. Barclay’s publication date of 1676-78 means that he has missed out on some of the distinctive emphases of the earliest Friends. Particularly striking is the a response to david johns and paul anderson • 45 complete lack of emphasis on the eschatological themes of the Day of the Lord that was so typical of Friends in their first decade of existence. Nor, speaking of “authentic spirituality,” does Barclay display the depth of spiritual discernment of a John Woolman or Samuel Bownas. Consequently, I would advise a little more hesitation prior to adopting his theological outline. There should be other choices considered. For one thing, following Barclay so closely does not allow Paul to utilize effectively the insights into Quaker eschatology developed by Ben Pink Dandelion, Doug Gwyn, and others. Barclay’s publications were all written from 1672 until 1679, in other words, from his 24th until his 31st year of age. His fifteen theses, published in 1674, showed that by age 26 he was already working on what would become the Apology. He wrote nothing for publication after 1679, it is suggested, because persecution of Scottish Quakers had ended, and his publications were not needed. This lends considerable support to David Johns’ point that the writing of an Apology was needed precisely in order to counter serious opposition. Barclay’s writing for publication, like much of early Quakerism, was the result of a youth movement. Robert Barclay was “convinced” to Quakerism partly as the result of the influence of his father, David, so there would seem to be some honor extended to the elder generation by his work. When Robert was convinced at age 18, it was said that he immediately showed a gift for articulating the experience of Quakerism. I differ somewhat from David Johns on the issue of whether an Apology is desirable or necessary, but I would locate the desirability or necessity of Quaker apologetics in a somewhat different intellectual spot than those he considered. Quakers say we don’t have creeds; in some important respects, that statement is true. I would maintain that we have doctrines. The reason that Barclay’s Apology had such a long-lasting influence among Friends, well beyond the persecutions of Scottish and English Friends that had made the writing of the Apology so critical, is that it has articulated those doctrines more clearly and comprehensibly than any competing Quaker work, in the judgment of generations of well-read and thoughtful Quakers. We don’t say that it articulates Quaker doctrines well because we don’t want other Quakers to think that we are wanting to have a creed. We are definitely not looking to enforce these doctrines within the Quaker world; we want and believe in a society where truth prevails by convincement, not by anything that resembles coercion. 46 • stephen w. angell Is there a need to articulate Quaker doctrines anew after 333 years? That may well be true! In other words, what is being sought is a work around which 21st century Friends may coalesce; the goal of writing a Quaker apologetic would be to help to encourage that reasonably identifiable group to cohere. If the Society of Friends is to havea future, we must know who we are. This would be, I believe, in accord with the desires and plans of the dear Friends who gathered 50 years ago to start the Quaker Theological Discussion Group. A Quaker “apology” today can supply a concise statement of Quaker beliefs (or doctrines) coupled with a description as to the difference that these beliefs make in Quaker practice. There were at least three fine “apologies” of this sort published in the twentieth century: Wilmer Cooper, A Living Faith: An Historical and Comparative Study of Quaker Beliefs (Friends United Press, 1990, rev. 2001); Jack Willcuts, Why Friends are Friends: Some Quaker Core Convictions (Barclay Press, 1984); and Rufus Jones, The Faith and Practice of the Quakers (Methuen, 1927, many reprints). In the course of a conversation after picking up an incoming student at the airport, I asked him how he had become convinced as a Quaker. His answer was: by reading Wil Cooper’s A Living Faith. These works still can make a difference!

Paul Anderson

In his cover letter to Arthur Roberts and me, Paul apologized for a paper that is very long. I find it mercifully brief, briefer of course than Barclay’s Apology itself by a factor of about 40 and almost exactly the same length as, although both more readable and more consistently styled than, a work it occasionally echoes, The Richmond Declaration of Faith of 1887. Paul’s first section on “the Immediacy of Revelation” speaks eloquently of what certainly has been a core doctrine for Friends, and it preserves Barclay’s emphases well. One question that I have had for Barclay, which applies equally well to Paul’s writing, is what is the relationship of the Holy Spirit and the Light of Christ? If they are both divine, do they function differently as aspects of the godhead? As I read Barclay and Paul both, I think that they are wanting to make a distinction, but in Barclay’s case, I find that whatever distinction he makes tends to break down every so often throughout his work. a response to david johns and paul anderson • 47 By way of contrast, William Penn in Primitive Christianity Revived is quite clear in stating that the Light and the Spirit are just ways of designating one and the same divine reality, and he does not find meaningful distinctions between them. Paul, where do you stand on this question? Paul’s second section on the “Scripture” deals with one of the issues that has been most divisive among the various branches of Friends over the past two centuries. Like Fox, Penn, Barclay, and Bathurst, Paul speaks eloquently of the depths of meaning that are to be found in Scripture; Scripture is an “invaluable spiritual resource,” and one that is of great benefit if used “prayerfully.” I would challenge all Friends if they would not find Paul to speak to their condition at that point. However, I would also point out that Paul revises early Quaker theology on the authority of Scriptures, in a way that many other Friends are not aware that the early Quakers need to be revised. Fox put the point very simply: Scripture is not the “Word of God” (or the Inspired “Word of God” or the Written “Word of God,” as Paul modifies that familiar phrase); rather Christ, the Christ who lived in Galilee 2000 years ago and the Christ who lives in our hearts, is the “Word of God.” The Scriptures thus can only be the “Words of God.” At one point Fox explains that the words of the Scriptures “end in 2 Christ the word, who fulfils them.” As diligently as Fox, Barclay, and other Friends studied the Scriptures, and took their message to heart, it was Christ the Inward Teacher who was the ultimate authority. Barclay writes that Scripture is not the “principal fountain of all truth and knowledge,” it is only the “declaration of the fountain.” Paul is clearly alluding to this passage when he writes that “As the Holy Spirit is the inspiring foundation and source of Scripture’s revelation, prayerful readings of Scripture insure its fullest authority.” Some Quakers, one such having been Lucretia Mott, would want to elevate Reason alongside of Scripture as helping the Holy Spirit to attain its fullest authority, but that debate is probably not amenable to definitive settlement on this occasion! It should also be noted that Paul’s designation of the Scriptures as the “Written Word of God” is at variance with the “Letter to the Governor of Barbados,” of which George Fox was the principal author. An excerpt from that letter is often found as an authoritative statement of doctrine in the books of discipline of Orthodox Yearly Meetings, including that of Northwest Yearly Meeting. In the Barbados letter, Fox wrote that “we call the Scriptures as Christ and the Apostles call’d 48 • stephen w. angell them, and as the Holy Men of God call’d them, namely The WORDS of God.” In quoting from Revelation 22:18 in this same letter, Fox glossed the Scriptural text as follows: “if any man shall take away from 3 the WORDS (not Word) of the book.” With that gloss, Fox’s intention was to show that, in his view, the title of “Word” should be reserved to Christ alone. In regard to “the Human Condition and the Need for God,” Paul makes the interesting move of comparing humans to other species of animals. I would take a more sanguine view than Paul, I think, in estimating the ability of animals to partake in authentic spirituality; for instance, I have seen companion animals take part meaningfully in Quaker worship. I think waiting worship, or reverent silence, can communicate across species. I’m not sure if it is accurate to distinguish definitively between these different parts of God’s creation in regard to our spiritual abilities. Turning to human beings, Paul’s second paragraph deals sensitively with the experience of sin and grace, which are at the heart of the early Quaker message. My one question there is how the Holy Spirit can illuminate for us, relative to our human condition, referenced to one of the central Scriptural texts that Paul cites, namely Rom. 1:16-2:29. That is a large chunk of text, including many verses much beloved by Quakers over three-and-a-half centuries (e.g., Rom. 1:16-19; 2:14- 15; 2:27-29), but also three verses, Rom. 1:26-28, that unfortunately have been recently wielded in certain Quaker circles as a possible spiritual weapon against other Quakers. Rom. 1:26-28, and the other verses that Paul cites, indeed should garner (as Paul advocates) a prayerful reading, and our seeking guidance together under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in order that we may find helpful insights that can be meaningful across the various branches of Friends. Paul captures well the inclusivist nature of Quaker salvation in his section on “the Universal Light of Christ.” He cites the Apostle Paul’s speech at Athens as an example of the danger of “reducing the Power of God to an idolatrous form.” Paul, I’ve re-read that chapter of Acts, and isn’t that chapter also conducive to an interpretation in support for the positive message of Friends concerning the Light of Christ? What the Apostle Paul is saying, it seems to me, is that the Greeks themselves were acquainted with the Light of Christ (they had after all an altar “to the unknown god,” and he quoted approvingly from Greek poets) and the Greeks had saving knowledge from it even before he, the Apostle, showed up in their city. So, in some sense, a response to david johns and paul anderson • 49 was not the Apostle’s message intended to remind them, to call them again to, what they had already known? In any case, there are Quaker works like William Penn’s Christian Quaker that make this point at great length, and would be worth citing in a section like this. Paul, how do you define “Church”? Barclay gives a definition in his chapter on “Ministry” that is still appealing to many Friends (Apology, X, ii). Paul’s section on “Justification and Redemption” seems to move Barclay’s discussion in a more Protestant direction. What Barclay had in mind, it would seem, was a happy medium between the “papists” and Luther. Barclay was concerned about Luther’s denial that good works was necessary for salvation, and he wondered whether Protestants “have opened a door for the Papists to accuse them as if they were neglecters of good works, enemies to mortification and holiness.” The debate between the pope and Luther built upon previous debates on the issue of atonement, between Anselm’s emphasis upon the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf and Abelard’s emphasis on the need to follow Christ as saving for us. Barclay’s key statement (Section VII.viii) seems to incorporate both Anselm and Abelard: I do boldly affirm, and that not only from a notional knowledge, but from a real, inward experimental feeling of the thing, that the immediate, nearest or formal cause . . . of a man’s justification in the sight of God, is the revelation of Jesus Christ in the soul, changing, altering, and renewing the mind. . . . For it is as we are thus covered and clothed with him, in whom the Father is always well pleased, that we may draw near to God, and stand with confidence before his throne, being purged by the blood of Jesus inwardly poured into our souls, and clothed with his life and righteousness therein revealed. I like the inward (we might say today, psychological, as well as spiritual) insight that Barclay showed with this passage. Paul, is there any way you can enhance this section to get more clearly at the inward transformation of mind and soul that take place in the person being justified? I am sure that you don’t mean for justification to be perceived as an externalized transaction between God and human beings, so getting more clearly to describing the internal transformation would be helpful! Paul’s “Sanctification and Perseverance” is a better title for how, then, we shall live the life of faith in Christ than Barclay’s “Perfection,” especially since Barclay admitted that he himself had not achieved perfection, although he believed it to be possible. Paul hits the right 50 • stephen w. angell notes on sanctification with his mentions of “empowering grace” and “abundant life.” Similarly, Paul’s section on “Inclusive Ministry” presents the case that Friends have always favored for a robust “priesthood of all believers” in a convincing and inspiring fashion. Paul’s characterization of authentic worship as standing “neither in the use of forms nor in their formal disuse” departs somewhat from Barclay but echoes the Richmond Declaration of Faith. There is some wisdom that has been granted to the position advocated by Paul and the RDF across the branches of the Society of Friends; in my unprogrammed monthly meeting, there has been expressed recently great appreciation for the practice of reading a query from Faith and Practice at the beginning of meeting for worship on the first First Day of the month. This is a form, albeit a peculiarly Quaker form; Friends were in full realization of this when they enthusiastically affirmed the practice. When Barclay, on the other hand, advised against doing anything in worship that humans have “set about in [their] own will and at [their] own appointment,” is he saying that the Holy Spirit cannot lead anyone ever to engage in anticipatory contemplation as to what they might want to say or do in an upcoming worship? Paul sidesteps this kind of challenge, and, from my perspective, appropriately so, but others may want to differ. Paul’s statements on Baptism and on Communion cover ground recently covered in a recent QTDG conference. Paul adds useful perspectives as to how one might justify the Quaker practices of spiritual baptism and communion from a biblical perspective. One of George Fox’s favorite word plays was on “eternal” and “external;” he supported an “eternal” salvation, not an “external” one; he heeds the “eternal” word, and does not recognize an “external” word; also, he advocates for us to worship in the eternal, not to follow external rites. Here Paul focuses clearly on what is transformative in our understandings of the Sacraments, what builds community—in Fox’s term, the parts of our life together when we partake of the eternal. We should note that there is nothing in Paul’s presentation that precludes a voluntary participation by Friends in outward sacraments, if I interpret him correctly, but he makes clear that the priority must always be on the spiritual sacraments; perhaps both his emphases and nuances on these two topics could unite all Friends. The section that Paul has fashioned on “Liberty, Conscience, and Governments” seems to be well in line with the recent work of the QTDG, which has included examinations of the witness of Martin a response to david johns and paul anderson • 51 Luther King, Jr., and William Penn, among others. There are strong lines of continuity between Barclay’s work on this issue and Paul’s, with the major difference being that suffering was then an imminent and pressing and present reality with most Friends, and it is probably more remote for most Friends today. Still, Paul states that “being willing to suffer for the sake of conscience is the calling of every believer,” citing 1 Peter 3:14-17, and that is very much Barclay’s message as well. “Living with Integrity” (as a title for the closing section) is more inspiring and comprehensible to the modern ear than Barclay’s anticlimactic “Vain and Empty Customs and Pursuits.” In terms of sources for his approach, here I particularly recall Wil Cooper’s contribution, especially with his Pendle Hill pamphlet on “Integrity,” and I believe an article on the subject for QRT as well. Paul brings out the Holiness/Sanctification emphasis of Friends’ theology very effectively in this section, appealing among other things to the Scripture passages on the Peaceable Kingdom which most other Christian denominations seek to relegate to a far-off future. Paul provides a clear testimony to the universalist principles of Friends in this closing section; our convictions arise from Christian and Jewish traditions, but aren’t by any means limited to truth found in those religions. Rather, we seek truth wherever it is to be found. Barclay, reflecting faithfully early Friends’ practices, gives much emphasis here to externals, such as sports, plays, dress, and so forth, while Paul, I would argue, properly focuses here on the eternal, the orientation of one’s mind and soul. This section successfully integrates his whole essay, beyond some of the nagging particulars of earlier sections of the essay. I am glad that Paul is publishing this work; with its compact yet very rich content and insights, this essay could have wide usefulness within the Society of Friends and beyond.

Conclusion

These two essays have given us a tantalizing glimpse of the riches to be had by revisiting Quaker theology from the viewpoint of a more holistic vision. Hopefully, the promising, but still fragmentary, approaches modeled by David Johns and Paul Anderson here will lead to additional efforts in this area, and the twenty-first century will see a new flowering of Quaker theology. 52 • stephen w. angell

Endnotes

1 Glen D. Reynolds, “George Fox and Christian Gnosis,” in Pink Dandelion, ed., The Creation of Quaker Theory (Aldershot, England, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2004), 99-115. 2 George Fox. The Great Mystery of the Great Whore Unfolded. In Works, III, 171 (Philadelphia, New York: Marcus T. C. Gould; Isaac Hopper, 1831). Available at: esr. earlham.edu/dqc. 3 George Fox. To the Ministers, Teachers, and Priests (So Called and So Stileing Your Selves) in Barbadoes (Wing F1957. London: s.n., 1672), 68. Emphases are in the original. I have developed a Quaker view of Scriptural authority more fully in Stephen W. Angell, “Opening the Scriptures, Then and Now,” Quaker Theology 8:1 (Summer-Fall 2007- 2008): 1-18. http://www.quaker.org/quest/issue14-angell-01.htm. LEVINAS, QUAKERS AND THE (IN) VISIBILITY OF GOD: RESPONSES TO JEFFREY DUDIAK AND COREY BEALS

Rachel Muers was sorry at the time not to be able to attend the discussion of the Ipapers by Corey Beals and Jeffrey Dudiak and am even more so, having read the papers themselves. I have long agreed with Dudiak, and others, that Levinas’ account of responding to the face of the other has resonances with the Quaker summons to “[answer] that of God in everyone”. Dudiak points us towards an account of God that begins with, and never departs from, the face-to-face encounter with the other, for whom I am always-already responsible. As Dudiak so clearly explains, for Levinas “knowledge” of God begins in bearing witness to, responding to, the “traces” of God’s glory in the world— primarily, in the summons to ethical responsibility. In other words, God is answered, responded to, when we answer our fellow human beings in their need. Dudiak convincingly demonstrates that this does not domesticate God. Indeed, as Corey Beals also notes, it can be seen as Levinas’ way of remaining faithful to the biblical injunctions against making images of God. God Godself never becomes graspable; what is perceived in the face of neighbor is, not directly God, but the “glory” of God, or the command of God. There is no risk here of reducing God to a property or characteristic of persons. For myself, I would argue that Levinas might point us back to the original context and import of the well-loved expression, “that of God in everyone,” which was not an indicative statement about where God is to be found, but a proposal about how God is to be responded to, and witnessed to, through action that transforms social relationships. For this reason, I would want to be a little more cautious than is Beals about seeing Levinas’ work as describing a way of seeing God in the face of the other—of seeing “that of God in everyone”—and even more cautious about making the further move to “God […] directly present in all things” (my italics). On my reading of Levinas, he would be reluctant to use the language of visibility and presence 53 54 • rachel muers here, precisely because of the risk of conceptual idolatry, to which Beals alludes. For Levinas, working within Jewish tradition, glory does not need to be about visibility or knowability; glory is kabod, weight, the “impact” of God in the world, which is encountered as much or more when we follow or obey God as when we contemplate God. (Thus, note a common interpretation of Exodus 33:17-23, when Moses asks to see God’s glory and is shown the “back” of God—the part that is seen by the one who follows.) The glory of God does imply “relations”—see the quotation from Levinas with which Beals begins his discussion—but these relations are not necessarily appropriately described in terms of vision. I suspect that when Levinas writes of “a ‘seeing’ that does not know what it sees,” his extreme caution around the language of seeing is intended precisely to dissuade any move towards specifying the nature of God’s visibility. Interestingly, I suspect that Levinas (or at least some of his Jewish interpreters) might have a way to make sense of Beals’ reflections on the presence of God “in all things,” in the idea that the command of God, and the invitation to respond to it, accompanies people in everything they do. In other words, while Levinas’ primary focus is undoubtedly on the “face” of the human neighbor, the wider religious context on which he draws might suggest a wider—perhaps an indefinitely wide—range of contexts for witnessing to God’s “glory,” as any ordinary activity or event may carry with it the injunction to fulfil a mitzvah.1 Perhaps this, in turn, might resonate with aspects of Quaker thought—for example, with the insight that one’s “walk,” one’s manner of everyday life, is both a witness to the reality of God 2 and a means of deepening one’s relationship with that reality. That would not, however, be the same as saying that we could see or know the presence of God in everything. Gregory Palamas’ theological and spiritual framework is, of course, radically different. Palamas speaks from the experience of the contemplative life, and out of an Orthodox tradition for which deification, the transformation of humanity into the very likeness of God, is a central concern. I would agree with Beals that we can—and indeed may need to—learn something from Palamas in order to make fuller sense of Quaker tradition. We probably cannot settle, as Levinas might, for an account of God’s “glory” in human life that remains focused on the encounter with the neighbor. We need to speak of how we are ourselves transformed by God’s indwelling in us, enlightened by the inward Light. Palamas’ work may indeed offer rich resources responses to jeffrey dudiak and corey beals • 55 here—see for example the suggestive quotation used by Beals about how the “spiritual light” is “not only the object of vision, but also the power by which we see”. I would merely wish to express caution about the extent to which, or the ease with which, we can make Levinas and Palamas talk the same language or inhabit the same conceptual world. This caution of mine could, admittedly, cause some problems if we want to say that both Levinas and Palamas are expressing insights that are crucial to Quaker thought and experience. Beals is probably right to say that the “visibility and invisibility” of God (to use his terms) is a dilemma for Quakers, even though I (and perhaps also Dudiak?) would contest his claim that it is a dilemma for Levinas. One hunch—which I confess is at this time untested—is that way through the dilemma might be found through a rereading of, and reflection on, the Fourth Gospel. This, the source of so many of the key terms for Quaker thought, is a text both profoundly Jewish and profoundly Greek, in which becoming-present of the invisible God is narrated and reflected upon in ways that both use and break apart an earlier theological and philosophical vocabulary. I wonder whether (what I felt to be) the missing central ground in Beals’ article might be found through a re-engagement with the biblical roots of some of our Quaker vocabulary. Taking this hunch one step further, I end by offering a modest proposal for further work in this fruitful area. One category that might be particularly valuable in interpreting and developing Levinas’ thought for Quaker theology is that of testimony (which is also, of course, a Fourth Gospel term—see for example Jn. 1:7-8). Dudiak, in his article, emphasises Levinas’ references to “bearing witness” to God’s glory by one’s actions in response to the neighbor. In Quaker thought, also, “testimony” is thought of primarily, or at least significantly, in terms of action (and one’s “walk” as a way of life). To call our actions testimony is to say that they are a way of witnessing to, responding to, our encounters with God. Taking Levinas’ understanding of “bearing witness” seriously may have significant implications for a Quaker theology of testimony. For example, as Dudiak suggests (particularly in his example of the incident of sudden illness), the compassionate and responsible action that “bears witness” to God is not mediated by beliefs about God—this would in fact turn God into an idol. So Quaker testimony, if it is anything like Levinassian “bearing witness,” is not just about “acting out what we believe,” nor about imposing an alien religious 56 • rachel muers or ethical ideal on recalcitrant reality. It is, rather, about being utterly realistic about the world and the neighbour, responding to their calls to us—and speaking of God only after being summoned to give this practical testimony. Is it possible to say that Quakers, like Levinas, begin with ethics, and what would this mean for how we conceptualize “testimony”? I look forward to further conversations, on this and related topics, with Levinas and his contemporary Quaker interpreters.

Endnotes

1 Thus Midrash Rabbah on Deuteronomy 21:10-23:9 (III): “R. Phinehas b. Hama said: ‘Wherever you go, pious deeds will accompany you…. If you have made for yourself a door, the precepts accompany you, as it is said, And you will write them upon the door-posts of your house (Deut. VI, 9); if you have put on a new garment the precepts accompany you, as it is said, You will not wear a mingled stuff’ (ib. XXII, 11).…God said: ‘Even if you are not engaged on any particular work but are merely journeying on the road, the precepts accom- pany you’.” Midrash Rabbah: Deuteronomy, Lamentations, J. Rabbinowitz trans. (London: Socino Press, 1939), p. 123. 2 Thus, for example, “you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in everyone” (George Fox, Journal, ed. J.L. Nickalls; London: 1952; p. 263; my emphasis). AN APPRECIATIVE RESPONSE TO COREY BEALS AND JEFF DUDIAK

Richard J. Wood n Gilead, Marilynne Robinson’s novel that is an amazing extended Iletter from the Reverend John Ames to his young son, he says something about love that directly touches on Cory Beals’ and Jeffrey Dudiak’s helpful reflections on the invisibility and/or visibility of God. Speaking of the fifth Commandment, to honor mother and 1 father, he says: …I believe also that the rewards of obedience are great, because at the root of real honor is always the sense of the sacredness of the person who is its object. In the particular instance of your mother, I know that if you are attentive to her in this way, you will find a very great loveliness in her. When you love someone to the degree you love her, you see her as God sees her, and that is an instruction in the nature of God and humankind and of Being itself. That is why the Fifth Commandment belongs on the first tablet. A key word in this paragraph is “attentive,” which is also the central term in Iris Murdoch’s persuasive (to me, at least) account of love in The Sovereignty of Good. Jeffrey Dudiak is right to emphasize that there is something deeply wrong in ethical theories that put God between oneself and the other person. Not only is “I love you because God loves you” outrageous after the Holocaust; it was deeply condescending before. John Ames’ interpretation of the Fifth Commandment avoids this mistake, for like Iris Murdoch, he understands that love is a form of undivided attention to the other. (I am resisting the temptation to capitalize “Other” here, though I understand the pull.) Ames’ thesis, here, does not require that the person loved be loveable, though he believes this one is. He does not suggest that the validity of the Fifth Commandment turns on parents being worthy of love. To see her as God sees her must include everything she is. In his dialogue, Meno, Plato argues persuasively that good (or The Good) cannot be defined by God’s (or the gods’) love, because it always makes sense to ask why God loves it. Plato, like Levinas, insists on removing God from the radical duality of the ethical relationship. 57 58 • richard j. wood In Jeffrey Dudiak’s language, “God, in setting the ethical scene, removes himself from the scene, must himself be unseen. God, having left a trace of his glory across the responsibility that we bear for one another, is no longer he to whom, or of whom, we speak, even if in speaking to the other in responsibility we bespeak, with or without acknowledgement, the glory of God.” (p. 15) Here is where I encounter a little difficulty with Jeffrey Dudiak’s language. He speaks of God setting the ethical scene and being required to remove himself from that scene. But the language of attention gives us another modality. God doesn’t just set an ethical scene; God loves radically and completely. (For me, as for many Friends, the Cross is central to this view of radical love, but my point doesn’t require that interpretation of Jesus’ suffering.) God’s presence or absence in the ethical obligation I have to the other is not prior to that obligation, as Levinas and Dudiak rightly insist. The obligation does not depend on God’s love, any more than the Good is defined by God’s love. I began with Gilead because I believe that Marilynne Robinson’s character John Ames turns “I love you because God loves you” on its head: To really love someone is to see her as God sees her. But that is not, emphasize “not”, to see her as other than she is, as though God’s seeing her put some kind of halo around her. I prefer to interpret Dudiak’s “trace of glory” in John Ames’ terms—full attention to the other, really seeing the other, requires and reveals Love. It does not do so easily or unproblematically. Shusaku Endo’s great novel, Silence, set in 17th century Japan during a horrific persecution of Christians, ends with the missionary priest deciding the only way he can honor Christ’s love for others is to betray Christ by public denial of Christ. All our perception is structured by categories, often unconsciously present. Seeing, really perceiving, the other is not simple. Cory Beals rightly stresses the danger of idolatry in relationships among people as well as things. As a Japan specialist, I have spent some time (though not enough!) in Zen training, in which enlightenment is very close to really seeing. Training is largely shedding preconceptions, ways of seeing. But that training, in the Mahayana tradition of Buddhism, presupposes something like the presence of divine Love. Any religious practice, including the traditional sacraments and ways we approach the Meeting for Worship, can become idolatrous. But they can also be preparations for the effort of seeing clearly, “on being present where you are,” to us an old Zen phrase. response to corey beals and jeffrey dudiak • 59 Iris Murdoch also stresses the effort it takes to see another person clearly and accurately. She sees love as focused attention. The ethical situation is, indeed, as Cory Beals and Jeffrey Dudiak, following Levinas, describe it—radically dual, between me and another. If God is present at all, as John Ames says, it will be in the clarity and accuracy of the seeing, in Love.

Endnotes

1 Marylinne Robinson, Gilead (New York: Picador, 2004), 139. CONTRIBUTORS

DAVID JOHNS is Associate Professor of Theology at the Earlham School of Religion. Over the past four years he has traveled in ministry among Friends in Mexico and Central America and has taught courses in theology, Bible, and Quaker thought at the Colegio Bíblico de Jorge Fox in Honduras and the Instituto Teológico de los Amigos de El Salvador. PAUL ANDERSON is Professor of Biblical and Quaker Studies at George Fox University. His third printing of Christology of the Fourth Gospel just came out (2010), as did John, Jesus, and History; Vol. 2 (2009); his Fortress Press introduction, The Riddles of the Fourth Gospel, will be published later this year. Paul is co-chair of the John, Jesus, and History Project; he will serve as Scholar in Residence at Reedwood Friends Church in Portland, OR this spring, featuring public dialogues on the Gospels and Jesus with Marcus Borg. He will also lecture in Europe this summer at the Universities of Mainz, Nijmegen, and Tübingen. ARTHUR O. ROBERTS, a past editor of this journal, resides with his wife, Fern, in Friendsview Retirement Community, Newberg, Oregon. He continues to engage in theological dialogue with scholars and student researchers, in occasional lecturing and preaching, and in writing. His most recent Barclay Press books are a 50th anniversary edition (revised) of Through Flaming Sword, life and legacy of George Fox (2008), and Heavenly Fire, a book of poems (2007). STEPHEN W. ANGELL is Leatherock Professor of Quaker Studies at the Earlham School of Religion. He has recently published The Foundations of Liberal Quakerism (Walton Lecture) and is preparing Black Fire: The Writings of African-American Quakers on Spirituality and Human Rights for publication (with co-editors Hal Weaver and Paul Kriese, scheduled for 2011). RACHEL MUERS is Senior Lecturer in Christian Studies at the University of Leeds, UK. Her publications include Keeping God’s Silence: Towards a Theological Ethics of Communication (Blackwell, 2004); Living for the Future: Theological Ethics for Coming Generations (T&T Clark, 2008); and (with David Grumett) Theology on the Menu: Asceticism, Meat and Christian Diet (Routledge, 2010). She is a lifelong Quaker, and is currently a member of Leeds Area Meeting (Britain Yearly Meeting). RICHARD WOOD is Dean and Professor Emeritus of Yale Divinity School and a recorded minister in Indiana Yearly Meeting. Earlier he served as Vice President for Academic Affairs at Whittier College, and President of Earlham College. Most recently, he was President of the United Board for Christian Higher Education in Asia, and then President of the Japan Society in New York. He and his wife Judy live in New York City.