From: Wim Nusselder (wim.nusselder@antenna.nl)
Date: Sat Mar 05 2005 - 07:34:57 GMT
Dear Sam,
Do you agree with my interpretation of what we are discussing in this thread
as formulated in my post addressed 1 Mar 2005 07:44:14 +0100 at Max:
'It's about who can call themselves Dynamic and mystical and not about who
can call themselves Christian.'?
More precisely this thread was started by you 24 Nov 2001 12:03:17 -0000. It
originated in my criticism on a tradition employing hireling ministers to
interpret God's will, thereby disempowering the other believers.
On 24 Nov 2001 you replied enthousiastically to what I wrote:
'religious traditions, systems of education and books (taken as patterns of
value) differ from each other in the amount of freedom they leave for the
Dynamic.'
Your reply was:
'I agree quite strongly with this, and I think ... it is a very fertile
field for future discussion - really putting the MoQ to work.
...
In Christian terms, it would be possible to redescribe this point as saying
that some churches strangle the spirit, others let it breathe freely!'
Given this context I don't agree with your suggestion now (4 Mar 2005
14:34:49 -0000) to abandon the comparison of Anglicanism and Quakerism. How
can we put the MoQ to work on static and dynamic aspects of mysticism and
religious experience if don't compare religous traditions? How can the MoQ
be relevant for religion if we can't use it to discuss to what extent
Anglicanism and Quakerism strangle the spirit and let it breathe?
You wrote:
'I don't think that DQ is in and of itself of higher quality than SQ. I
retract what I said previously.'
So whereas I (as a Quaker) put DQ highest in my hierarchy of values, you (as
an Anglican) put them at equal height.
Would you agree that valuing DQ higher than sq makes one leave more freedom
for the Dynamic alias let the spirit breathe more freely than seeing DQ and
sq as equivalently valuable?
The origin of this discussion being my objections to calling Anglicanism
Dynamical and mystical (at least in comparison with Quakerism), I don't mind
a bit of sidetracking into the question whether Quakerism is Christian.
We agree that 'Christian mysticism' definitionally requires some attention
to Christ.
You don't reply to me on my suggestion that attention to 'a "cosmic Christ"
who can incarnate in everyone, as shown in Jesus' might do. Your reply to
David B. (4 Mar 2005 14:41:14 -0000) suggests a resounding 'NO' however:
'The Nicene Creed, accepted by the vast majority of Christians - churches
and people - explicitly denies [that someone can call himself "Christian"
without believing that] Jesus is the "only begotten" [etc.]. If someone
wants to call themself "Christian" on this basis [Jesus' life story is to
illustrate how each one of us to become a Christ], then fine, but it will
lead to confusion. Why not just use "post-Christian" or "semi-Christian" or
something like that (or even "follower of Jesus" etc)?
In other words, why would someone who denies the central tenets of
(historical) Christianity want to identify themselves with a group that they
disagree with, on such a fundamental thing as the nature of Christ? Just
seems odd to me. I would suspect that such a person is in a state of
self-denial.'
As long as there is a (recognized) minority of Christians that doesn't agree
that Christianity has central tenets one has to adhere to in order to call
oneself "Christian", calling oneself "Christian" without adhering to any
(which is not the same as disagreeing with them) doesn't imply self-denial.
In several countries (e.g. the Netherlands) Quakers are member of the
Council of Churches and as such recognized as "Christian" despite their
refusal to subscribe to any creed.
I doubt whether a majority of people calling themselves "Christian" (at
least in the Netherlands) really subscribes to every aspect of the Nicene
Creed in any meaningful and practical sense. Even my father, who is a
(retired) Protestant pastor doesn't take Jesus being the only-begotten son
of God literal. Has it ever been polled as far as you know?
You wrote 21 Feb 2005 13:10:19 -0000:
'I would say that there is family resemblance [between Quakerism and
Christian myticism] rather than identity. Standard Christian mysticism would
be much more focussed on Jesus and the sacraments
(as with, eg, Eckhart or Julian) than seems to be the case with the Quaker
approach.'
So (after countering your interpretation of "Christian") I also asked you 27
Feb 2005 09:03:53 +0100:
'What about the sacraments? Does Christian mysticism require them as focus
according to you?'
You now (4 Mar 2005) reply:
'Historically they have done; I would say they still do, yes.'
Historical association of mysticism, Christianity and valuing sacraments
doesn't seem a strong argument to say that either mysticism or Christianity
requires sacraments as a focus. Why do you say so?
With friendly greetings,
Wim
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 Mar 05 2005 - 07:34:40 GMT