Letters - 27 January 2017
From experience and belief to humanity and animals
Experience and belief
We had several ministries today but two stood out: a Friend described how a patient in hospital, faced with imminent death, decided the most caring thing he could do at the end of his life was to use his estate to set up a home for the homeless. She told of another patient who, nearing death, received a visit from a soldier and how he mistook the soldier for his son. The soldier continued to visit and when asked, after the patient died, revealed that he had been sent to bring news of the late patient’s soldier son’s death in action. These actions, our Friend said, were evidence of action of Spirit or God in people.
A second Friend later ministered that a difference between experience of God or the Spirit, and belief in either, was that it was almost impossible to speak of the experience of the Spirit; belief, however, is easy to speak of and write about – even to fight over! Experience of a relationship with God or the Holy Spirit mostly expresses itself in certain types of actions and behaviour towards others, especially in becoming more compassionate and loving. One can only speak of a spiritual relationship in terms of its effect upon one. But, they added, beliefs can also have the same effect.
Name and address supplied
The gift of leadership
I think it is generally agreed that as Quakers we benefit from and continue to need good leadership, including within our Local and Area Meetings. Equally often I seem to hear Friends say: ‘We have a problem with leadership.’ I wonder if it might help if we can see leadership – or leaderful behaviour, if that feels a less loaded phrase – as a function or activity, rather than fixed to a particular person? That way any of us can offer authentic leadership depending on the circumstances or the issue. It also means that we can learn to be good followers, knowing that each of us is likely to occupy each role at different times. We can also use our structures and processes to uphold and equip those whom we ask to exercise leaderful behaviour on our behalf.
John D Gray
Death and afterlife
Harry Underhill (16 December 2016) says ‘perhaps it is time for us to wake up to the vast amount of evidence for the continuity of life after physical death’.
Paradoxically, studying the afterlife and its implications can have a tremendous impact on how you live your life ‘here and now’. Advices & queries 5 and 7 say: ‘do not be afraid to say what you have found and what you value… are you open to new light, from whatever source it may come? Do you approach new ideas with discernment?’
The following extracts from the Quaker Fellowship for Afterlife Studies’ (QFAS) current journal, Reaching Out, are reproduced with permission.
‘QFAS, [Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies] CFPSS and [Unitarian Society for Psychical Studies] USPS met together in 2016 to consider the theological, philosophical, scientific, practical and personal approaches to psychical research… many people interested in psychical studies feel marginalised, criticised and unfairly judged within their religious organisations by people who have no knowledge of the subject… In 2016 QFAS participated in a Quaker Life Central Committee conference looking at issues around death and dying. Other groups included Quaker End of Life Issues Working Group, Quaker Concern on Death and Dying and Quaker Funerals Campaign.’
Joan Mary Fry, in Quaker faith & practice 21.56, said: ‘It is of real value to our earthly life to have the next life in mind, because if we shut it out of our thoughts we are starving part of our spiritual nature.’
Susan Highwood
Theism and nontheism
Jens Steensberg (20 January) considers himself classified as a nontheist, but all that he says indicates to me that he is a modern-day theist. Quoting Keith Ward: ‘Most religions [including Christian theists] believe that there exists a Supreme Value of wisdom, compassion and bliss’, which historically we have always called ‘God’, and that human fulfilment lies in achieving harmony and unity with that Supreme Value. That God, that Supreme Value, is Spirit and should be worshipped ‘in Spirit and in Truth’ (John 4:24).
I remain puzzled as to what nontheism is supposed to stand for, other than an apparent unwillingness to countenance that there is anything beyond this human life. Maybe that’s the only difference?
Gerald Drewett
Maybe any discussion about fundamental reality should be in ordinary, everyday language, free of the emotional prejudices of traditional religious language, free for honest exchange with anyone of whatever view.
Different styles of language for different conditions. In church traditional religious language is more suitable. There, as part of worship, people are honouring their ancestors, however different their own concept of reality to that of their predecessors; unless by refusing to see what they do not wish to see they understandably strain to continue within a myth.
Tradition has its essential, though not too dominant, place in any healthy society, though everyone needs to be communicated with in terms of their own understanding.
Kenneth Walch
Swarthmore Lecture 2017
Edward Burrough wrote in 1659 that: ‘We are not for names, nor men, nor titles of government, nor are we for this party nor against the other’ (Quaker faith & practice 23.11). It is, therefore, with some surprise that I learned that this year’s Swarthmore Lecture is to be given by Catherine West – Labour MP, supporter of Jeremy Corbyn, and Quaker [news, 2 December 2016].
The Swarthmore Lecture has two purposes: firstly, to interpret to Quakers their message and mission, and, secondly, to make the wider public aware of the spirit, aims and fundamental principles of Quakers. Catherine West’s will focus on addressing inequality, tackling poverty and promoting social justice.
As warm words about such issues are on the lips of politicians of all parties, including the prime minister, a concern for social justice cannot be the distinguishing mark of a Quaker. This calls into question whether the Swarthmore Lecture is the proper platform for what sounds, to me, like an address to voters. No doubt what Catherine West has to say will be of interest to those Friends and others with a secular and civic concern about socioeconomic equality (see Advices & queries 34) but whether it fits within Burrough’s rubric and the purposes of the Swarthmore Lecture is less clear.
Mark Frankel
Peace and sacrifice
Neil Simmons writes (6 January) that ‘in Syria in 2013… a bloody tyrant, supported by his Russian allies, was using chemical weapons’. This is a mirror-image of the long 1980s Iraq-Iran war, when Saddam Hussein, supported then by the West, used gas against the Kurds in Halabja, killing 5,000, and pleas to Margaret Thatcher were ignored.
When Neil rightly adds a call for ‘some urgent support to how to confront powerful aggressive forces if we are not to… sacrifice others for the sake of peace’, he should make it clear to whom the pronoun ‘we’ refers. Readers of the Friend? The armed forces of the UK and US? At eighty-nine I can’t even consider offering physical force, but I commend the prayer of the church every morning and evening: ‘Give peace in our time, O Lord, because there is none other that fighteth for us, but only thou, O God.’ Greater support for the UN as world authority with law and police services is needed, but not mercenary armies formed from others whom we pay to risk sacrificing themselves in hostilities. I, personally, have never felt called to be a mercenary in defiance of Jesus’ word that all who take the sword will perish thereby (Matthew 26:52).
Frank McManus
Humanity and animals
Most people would agree with the sentiments expressed by Ken Veitch in ‘Hopes for a brighter year’ (13 January), but they are homocentric. They do not include an example of the systematic or wanton pain and misery meted out to animals by humans.
Ostensibly, we may not have hunter-gatherer views of our environment or a pre-enlightenment belief that because animals don’t have souls they don’t count – but we might as well have. The scale of the abuse is staggering and dwarfs what we do to each other. Essentially, homo sapiens treat the planet, including its sentient life, as being here for its own utility.
Daunting though this is for caring people, as individuals it is open for us to reduce the suffering by changing our lifestyles. We can, for example, adopt plant-based diets; not buy wool, leather and fur; and avoid cosmetics, toiletries and cleaning materials that have animal content or have been tested on animals. We do not have to take part in or support horse-racing, shooting and angling and we can get our companion animals from rescue centres.
Quaker Concern for Animals, Viva!, PETA and Animal Aid will provide comprehensive information and support for people prepared to break out of the cultural norms and inconsistencies, such as treating our dogs as family members but having no compunction about eating pigs!
Barrie Sheldon
