From: Sam Norton (elizaphanian@kohath.wanadoo.co.uk)
Date: Sat Feb 26 2005 - 19:35:39 GMT
Hi Wim,
Omigosh a quick reply from me.
> I take the first point on which you expressed agreement with me 21 Feb
> 2005
> 13:10:19 -0000 as implying that:
> 'for [you] as [an Anglican] DQ is highest in the hierarchy of [your]
> values,
> followed by immediate recognition (as we discussed before) that DQ can
> only
> be experienced relative to old sq and requires constant creation of new
> sq.
> They're a "contradictory identity" in Scott/Nishida's wording.'
> Is that right??
Yes. That's what I think (bizarre as it might sound) a 'living tradition'
is. Building on the old, open to the new. If you don't have the old, you're
condemned to starting from scratch (and you end up seeing a baby's
experience of the world as the template for religion); if you don't have the
new, then the tradition has died.
> You also said that there seems to you to be a family resemblance between
> Quakerism and Christian mysticism rather than an identity, because
> 'standard
> Christian mysticism would be much more focussed on Jesus and the
> sacraments'.
> What if we would say that Christian mysticism WAS more focussed on Jesus
> and
> the sacraments than it is now, e.g. in Quakerism, that is to say that
> Christian mysticism doesn't require Jesus and sacraments as focus?
I don't think it would then be Christian mysticism. It might be of higher
Quality than Christian mysticism but I don't think it would be useful or
accurate to call it Christian, ie I think "Christian" definitionally
requires some attention to Christ. "Post-Christian" maybe.
> I'm fine with 'stimulating a person's awareness of DQ (a person's
> cultivation of the practice of the presence of God)', but still wouldn't
> call that theology.
OK.
> The two Quakers who joined your congregation now consider themselves
> "first
> a pilgrim, second a Christian, third an Anglican and ex-Quaker"?
Interesting how you have rephrased what I said. I think that reveals
something significant in your understanding. My words were:
One said "I am first a pilgrim, second a Christian, third a Quaker".
You seem to be saying you can't be an Anglican and a Quaker, which I'm
pretty sure they would deny (as I would, so far as I understand what being a
Quaker means). I think they sit very lightly to institutional boundaries,
but in so far as they still have a loyalty, they are probably more loyal to
being Quakers than being Anglicans. Or, better, I don't think that 'being an
Anglican' plays any part whatsoever in their self-description.
I'm also not sure about the 'now' in your previous sentence. I don't think
there has been a change in their understandings which has brought them to
the Cof E (my church certainly isn't their first experience of institutional
church).
> Why did
> they choose Anglicanism instead of Quakerism (even if only as a third
> layer
> of their religious identities? Has DQ come down in their hierarchy of
> values, have specific static patterns of value among Quakers come down or
> have specific static patterns of value among Anglicans gone up? (My
> knowledge of Quakerism and Anglicanism excludes the option that DQ going
> up
> in their hierarchy of values could make them choose Anglicanism instead of
> Quakerism. Anglicanism seems more focused on static patterns of value than
> Quakerism.)
I can't say. I've only just started getting to know them. What I did find
interesting was their comment that there is a lot of diversity world-wide
amongst Quaker communities, and that some have set liturgies for services,
and that some even - shock horror - have hireling ministers. That made me
smile ;-).
Best regards.
Sam
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 26 2005 - 19:38:52 GMT