‘We are so fortunate that our predecessors worked on and developed the concept of Light, and made it the foundation of our Society.’ Photo: by Mikael Kristenson on Unsplash.
The coming of the Light: A ‘protean’ understanding by Derrick Whitehouse
‘Light is the foundation of our Society, yet these days we appear to be rather disordered in the way we think of and handle it.’
Walk in the Light, wherever you may be!
Walk in the Light, wherever you may be!
In my old leather breeches and my shaggy, shaggy locks,
I am walking in the glory of the Light, said Fox.
This joyful and well-known chorus is the song by Sydney Carter, which conveys George Fox and one way we might interpret Light. We know how George and others of the Valiant Sixty were healers in the Light as it was presented in their day, and many turned towards it. Since those days healing seems to have changed. In many ways we have become more knowledgeable, yet we seem less reliant on Light (especially with healing as a result of the progress in allopathic medicine). Yet there is something of a revival with spiritual healing in our Religious Society.
In George’s day spiritual healing was well known and widely used. When George talked of ‘that of God in everyone’ and ‘the Light of Christ’, it really meant something. Now, as one well-known US Friend said in conversation recently ‘You mean TOGIE [that of God in everyone], which many Friends trot out. It has simply become a cliché.’ By the same token ‘We will hold you in the Light’ has become another platitude for many. It has become so easy to say, ‘We will hold you in the Light’ because we do not know what else to say when it has little or no depth for us.
Light is the bedrock of our beloved Religious Society. But how well is Light understood? Why are people not staying with us? How should we understand the spiritual concept of Light in the twenty-first century, compared with how George and others understood and used it as a functioning metaphor during the sixteenth?
With today’s Light, is the metaphor the same or more complex than how it was understood by Fox and others long ago? Does the concept become more enhanced now even if the metaphor becomes related to the developmental nature of the internet, our social, environmental and health concerns, or the competitive world in which we reside? Can Light be expressed in greater complexity or is it still a basically straightforward notion? Today we contrast Light variations in colour and brightness and only rarely with complete darkness.
‘Hope is being able to see that there is Light despite all the darkness’, said Desmond Tutu. Does this enhance or diminish the healing or enlightening practicality of the spiritual concept? It is present when we consider the complexity and variations of Light in relation to the structure and nature of the internet (especially with Zoom and Skype). It can even deal with the tensions and understanding that pervade the subtlety of war and conflict. Could these practical concepts, which for Quakers raise unacceptable living concepts, possibly provide an improved metaphor and a more varied understanding of the notion of Light as it can be experienced personally in the twenty-first century?
For me, one useful approach could be what we might call ‘protean’. Proteus was a Greek god of the sea who changed his appearance and his line of thinking to confuse his audience. Consequently, ‘protean’ in the Oxford English Dictionary can mean ‘variable, versatile, taking many forms’. As a result I find myself considering whether that is the way in which some Quakers think about Light. The question is whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, or a variable confusion that some may either simply dismiss or warm towards?
Light is the foundation of our Society, yet these days we appear to be rather disordered in the way we think of and handle it. Maybe we all have our private notion of what the term asserts for us but how much time is spent in open and personal seeking and conversations with each other? What does our reading culture say on the subject and how far are we each prepared to share thoughts that emerge with others, especially newcomers who are probably wondering what it all means?
We are so fortunate that our predecessors worked on and developed the concept of Light, and made it the foundation of our Society. This underpinning is special and meaningful to the way we are and function. It must not be lost within the vibrancy of the way Friends think, communicate and work towards security, understanding and spiritual openness. Light is about recognising and trusting, it is not about intellect. Maybe this is why early Friends of Truth were able to heal people who were not particularly well educated.
So today why is Britain Yearly Meeting not growing numerically? Are we simply a load of middle-class intellectuals? Do people talk regularly with each other and truly understand our concept of Light? Something is there that prevents people from joining in with us and staying with us. Can we learn lessons from George Fox on how to work with folk who are not especially intellectual? How do we communicate in an acceptable manner so that folk can feel comfortable in our midst? Or do we accept who and how we are feeling, resigned to the fact that we may not grow numerically despite the fact that what we present is good and effective in so many ways?
‘From the beginning the Quaker Christian faith has had a universal dimension. George Fox saw the Light “shine through all” and he identified it with the divine Light of Christ that “enlightens every man that comes into the world” (John 1:9). He pointed out, as did William Penn, in greater detail, that individuals who had lived before the Christian era or outside Christendom and had no knowledge of the Bible story, had responded to a divine principle within them… Obedience to the Light within, however that may be described is the real test of faithful living’ (Quaker faith & practice 27.04). Are we still dazzled by the Light?
