CHAPTER 3 The Light Within
as Thought About
That the Light first
appeared to Friends in terms of feeling and experience is best
shown in George Fox's epistles. It was inevitable and necessary that, before
long, this experience should be rationalized and fitted in with other accepted beliefs. What
relation has the Light to Scripture, conscience, reason, the historic Christ,
the Fall of Man, and his salvation?
The task of rationalization fell mainly on two of the younger converts, Robert
Barclay and William Penn. Both had been trained in theology in France. Both
could bring to the defense of Quakerism a wide knowledge of Christian thought
and history. Barclay was the more systematic thinker in the realm of theology,
while Penn excelled in political thought and government. Both insisted that thinking
about religion was far less important than immediate experience of it.
To take two examples of this attitude, Barclay writes in his treatise called Universal
Love:
Friends were not
gathered together by unity of opinion or by a tedious and particular
disquisition of notions and opinions, requiring an assent to them, and binding
themselves by Leagues and Covenants thereto; but the manner of their gathering
was by a secret want, which many truly tender and serious souls in divers and
sundry sects found in themselves which put each sect in search of something beyond all
opinion which might satisfy their weary souls.
William Penn writes similarly
in A Key Opening the Way:
It is not Opinion or
Speculation or Notions of
what is true; or assent to or Subscription of Articles or Propositions,
though never so soundly worded, that . . . makes a man a true believer or
a true Christian.
[31]
[32] Yet, in spite of
assigning a secondary role to doctrine, Barclay and Penn were fully aware of
the importance of a
consistent system of ideas, without which religion is vague, and
incapable of propagating itself. The Inward Christ is not only the Power of God, but also the Light
of God, and Light is knowledge.
The following outline of
Quaker thought is, in some of its parts, an interpretation as well as an exposition. The
conflicts of the nineteenth century were produced by some extreme positions which are not described in
this chapter.
a)The Scriptures
The relation between the
Light Within and the Scriptures was
Xmatter of continued debate
between Quakers and Protestants. r the Protestants, the Scriptures were primary
and the Holy Spirit
secondary as an aid to their understanding. The Bible was the Word
of God. Nothing could be added to it nor subtracted from it by any further revelation
of religious truth/For the
Quakers the Light Within or the Spirit was primary a1d the Scriptures a word of
God, that is, secondary, confirming and clarifying the revelations of
the Light Within.
According to Quaker doctrine, the
Light or the Christ Within was, as in John's Gospel, the Word of God
which could reveal further truth according to the words of Jesus: "When the Spirit of Truth comes, he will guide
you into all the truth" (John 16:13).
Revelations through the
Spirit are progressive in scope according to man's ability to receive them. The Old Testament cannot be
accepted now as a full revelation of Truth for, though it came from the
Spirit, it reveals only what man was prepared for according to his measure, at
a time when he was emerging out of the ways and thoughts of primitive life.
No Christian accepts all of it.
l We accept "Thou shalt
not steal" but we do not accept "Neither shall a garment mingled of
linen and woolen come up6n thee" (Lev. 19:19).
l Did not Jesus himself have
one message for the multitude and a deeper, though not a different, message for
the inner circle of his disciples?
l God speaks through symbols
and figures, and the parable which the multitude takes literally reveals to the
enlightened soul a profound spiritual truth.
l If, as all Christians
agree, the Bible was produced by the [33]
spirit of God, could not the same Spirit be trusted as a source of ,Truth
today?
Friends might tend to agree
with the commentator on the Bhagavadgita, "To the illumined one who hath known the Indweller, all the Sacred books are as
useless as a reservoir in time
of flood."
Barclay points out that the
Bible we now have was
produced by a process of selection on a basis of spiritual discernment
subsequent to the writing of the various books. How did it come about, he
asks, that we have this particular selection of canonical books rather than a
different selection, or these particular renderings of Greek and Hebrew texts
rather than others, except for the spiritual insight of those who made the
selection? What is there in the Epistle of James, for instance, to indicate
that it is Authentic? Does it not contradict Paul on the primacy of faith?
Nowhere in the Scriptures
is it declared that the canon is complete. It is not a new gospel we plead
for, says Barclay,2 but a new revelation of the old gospel. "As
for the Scriptures being a filled Canon, I see no necessity in believing
it."'
Samuel Fisher wrote several
hundred pages to show that all
versions of the Bible were corrupt and uncertain .4 Such a
critical view of the Scriptures is common today, but it was a bold innovation in the seventeenth
century.
To the Protestants of that time this doctrine of the
primacy of the Spirit over the Scriptures appeared dangerous and anarchical,
opening the way for almost any heresy or idiosyncrasy to be proclaimed as divine
truth. But the Quaker logic was irrefutable. How, they asked, is any Truth sincerely accepted
except on the basis of an inward willingness to accept? If there is no such inward acceptance,
inspired by the Spirit of Truth, then acceptance is formal and may be
hypocritical. Isaac Pen-ington writes:
If I receive a
truth before the Lord by his Spirit makes it manifest to me, I lose my guide
and follow but the counsel of the flesh, which is exceedingly greedy of
receiving truths and running into religious practices without the Spirit.'
Yet the Quakers were fully
aware of the dangers of pure individualism and subjectivism. As we shall
see, apparent revela‑[34] tions of the Light need to be checked and rechecked
by the Scriptures, by revelations to other persons, and by the writings of
authors who are accepted as sincere lovers of the Truth.
There are three ways of
dealing with Biblical events and doctrines which often follow one another
in personal experience in three consecutive stages.
1.
The first is a naïve, uncritical acceptance of every
statement at its face value.
2.
This may be followed by a critical appraisal in the light of scientific facts
and historical research. The result of such an analysis is usually a
rejection of parts of the Bible and sometimes an attitude of complete
skepticism regarding Biblical religion in general.
3.
A third stage may then follow which, while retaining the critical
attitude, makes possible a return to belief with an understanding of the deeper
meanings inherent in the words of the Bible. At this stage we are not so
much concerned with historical validity or rational consistency with our
scientific or philosophical outlook as we are with the inner significance
of history, myth and symbol.
Symbol is a language of
religion but it must never be a substitute for religion. All living theology
grows out of personal experience. Accordingly, each Biblical text, to be of real value, must have
spiritual relevance to the inner religious experience of the reader or hearer.
This third stage may be
understood as interpretation of the Bible through the Light Within.
The importance of this to Friends is illustrated by Catherine Phillips
in her account of a sermon which she heard on shipboard while on her way to
America in 1753:
The parson,
observing that in our ministry we spoke extempore, told me that he could preach
extempore and we should hear him if we pleased the next Sunday. Accordingly,
when the day came we were all seated in the great cabin and he preached without notes.
His subject was the transfiguration
of Christ which he found a wonder (miracle), expatiated upon it as a
wonder—and left it a wonder; without entering into the spirituality of the
text; indeed I doubt he did not [?] understand it.
b) Conscience
The Light Within is not to
be identified with conscience.
Conscience is not the Light
in its fullness but "the
measure of [35] Light given us." The Light illumines conscience and
seeks to ¶ransform an impure conscience into its own pure likeness.
Conscience is partly a
product of the Light which shines into it and partly a product of social environment.
Therefore conscience is fallible.
But conscience must always
be obeyed because it reflects whatever measure of Light we have by which to
form our moral judgments. This measure of Light in the conscience may be increased;
as this occurs conscience becomes more sensitive to moral Truth.
Spiritual growth was often described by
Friends as a process of becoming more "tender." The word
"sensitive" did not then bear its modem connotation. One object of the meeting for worship
was to make the conscience more tender, or sensitive. As the measure of
Light in the conscience increases, we are, in Fox's words, "guided up
to God." We become more and more able to see Truth with the eyes of
God.
To use an analogy from
science, the physical world is not known to us completely, but, as our scientific instruments
become increasingly sensitive, we can learn more and more about it;
similarly, moral truth may not be known to us completely, but as our
consciences become sensitive, we can learn more about it. The Light is the Absolute to
which man's relative conscience gradually approaches as the physical
world is the Absolute to which our relative scientific knowledge gradually
approaches.
c) Reason
The same considerations
hold in respect to the relation between the Light and reason. As conscience gives us our
judgments about good and evil, so reason gives us our judgments about truth and error.
Friends did not give
attention to the relation between the Light and aesthetic judgments. Probably
the same considerations would hold true in this realm as in the case of
conscience and reason.
There is an illuminated
reason and a darkened reason. Barclay shows" that the worst persecutions in Christian
history were based on careful reasoning.
Reason must start with
certain premises which it does not itself produce. If these premises are bad
and are carried to their logical conclusions, the worst evils result.
An example can be [36] drawn
from the doctrine of the
supremacy of the state as can-led out by Hitler. An enlightened
reason as contrasted with a darkened one will start with the right premises,
and the Light itself, being the Truth, will guide reason into further truth.
As Barclay says,
"Because the Spirit of God is the fountain of all truth and sound
reason, therefore, we have well said that it cannot contradict either the
testimony of Scripture or right reason."7
A great deal is said in
Quaker writings about the inability
of reason to reach religious truths unless the Light, or the Scriptures Or other
writings inspired by the Light, furnish it with the right premises on which to
work. The same is true in science. Scientific truths are not produced by reason alone, but by
reason operating on physical facts previously ascertained through experiment.
d) The Universality of the Light
No Quaker belief aroused
more opposition than the doctrine that the Light of Christ has been given to all men everywhere,
since the beginning of the human race.
This concept was especially
repugnant to those Protestants who believed that only the elect would be saved.
Fox, writing in his Journal
for the year 1656, makes this comment: "Great opposition did the
priests and professors make about this time against the Light of Christ Jesus,
denying it to be universally given." He puts out a leaflet showing that
the prophecy is being fulfilled: "I will pour out
my Spirit upon all Flesh and your sons and your daughters shall
prophesy." (Joel, quoted by Peter in Acts 2:17).
A wealth of Biblical texts
follows, including these favorite Quaker quotations:
l "For the Grace of God
has appeared for the salvation of all men" (Tit. 2:11).
l "1 will also give thee
for a Light to the Gentiles that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of
the earth" (Isa. 49:6).
l This Light is the inward
gospel "preached to every creature under heaven". (Col. 1:23), a
statement clearly untrue of the outward gospel.
l Paul, who did not know
Christ "after the flesh," was converted by the Inward Christ.
l The same possibility is
open to every man. Paul clearly held that the Eternal Christ was known long before the historical Christ.
l He says of the Israelites
in their wilderness journey, "For they drank from
the [37] supernatural Rock which followed them, and the Rock was 'hrist" (I Cor. 10:4).
To the objection of
opponents that "there is no other name under heaven given among men by
which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12), Barclay replies: "I confess
there is no other name to be saved by, but salvation lieth not in the literal but the experimental
knowledge."8 He goes on to show that many persons who have never heard of
the historic Christ have had experimental knowledge of the Christ
Within. William Penn goes furthest in defending this doctrine which was
sometimes referred to as "Gentile Divinity." In his Advice
to his children Penn concludes with the words:
That blessed
principle the Eternal Word . . . by which all things were at first made and man
enlightened to salvation is Pythagoras' peat light and salt of ages;
Anaxagoras' divine mind; Socrates' good spirit; Timaeus' unbegotten principle
and author of all light; Hieron's Cod in man; Plato's eternal, ineffable and
perfect principle of truth; Zeno's maker and father of all; Plotinus' root of
the soul;
- . the divine
power and reason, the infallible, immortal law in the minds of men, says Philo;
the law and living rule of the mind, the interior guide of the soul and
eveIasting foundation of virtue, says Plutarch.
Penn holds that, with Christ's coming, "The Spirit that was more
sparingly communicated in former dispensations began to be poured forth upon
all Flesh.""
'This principle of
universality was undoubtedly derived, not Only from Scriptures, but also from the tender
sensibilities of persons who could not endure the thought that any man should
be condemned by a God of love because of unavoidable ignorance. Were not the
Protestants hardhearted and inconsistent in attributing Adam's sin to every man, even though
many had never heard of Adam, while failing to attribute Christ's saving
grace to every man, even though many had never heard of Christ? It was not
difficult for Quaker writers to
find in pre Christian writings many statements about an inner,- divine Guide and
much that supported the chief Christian virtues. Barclay"
quotes Justin Martyr, Clement and Augustine to show that they believed in a pre-Christian
Christianity.
History clearly shows [38] that
the measure of Light given
to men was greatly increased after the coming of Christ, but.
it also shows that the great men of antiquity were
not without some measure of it, as can be ascertained from their
writings. What we recognize in the case of those who were articulate must also
have been true of the unlettered faithful.
This doctrine of the universality
of the Light was also
based on Quaker experiences with non-Christians. J
osiah Coale writes,
"We found these Indians more sober and Christian-like toward us than the
Christians so-called."1' Fox, by questioning an Indian,
proved to the governor of an American colony that the Indian possessed the "Light and Spirit of God."12
Elizabeth Newport, in visiting the Indians in the Cataraugus
Reservation, found them divided into "Christians" and
"Pagans." The
"Pagans believed," she said, "in Quaker worship and the guidance
of the Spirit while the Christians seek information of the missionaries."3
The Biblical concept of God
as Creator was in itself sufficient to support the universality of His Light.
In the Bible there are two accounts of creation.
In Genesis it is written,
"The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters," and
John's Gospel begins with the Word through which all things were made. This Word is God Himself as Creator.
"The Word was with God and the Word was God."
As Creator, God is also "the true Light
which lighteth every man that cometh into the world."*
(John 1:9). Barclay calls this "the Quaker text." Taking the chapter
as a whole, even in a more modern translation, it is still possible to use this
verse in defending the universality of the Light. The Light which enlightens every man, since it is
the creative principle in the Universe, was coming into the world personified
in Jesus Christ.
It is fair to comment that
the theology of the Society of Friends is essentially Johannine
theology. As Creator, God is the Spirit through which man is born again so
that in reality a new Life is created in him (John 3:8). But before Christ
came, the full nature of this Creative Word was not known. "He was in the world and the world
was made through him, yet the world knew him not" (1:10). And then,
says John (1:14), "the Word became flesh and
0 The Standard Revised
Version reads, "The true light that enlightens every man was coming into
the world."
[39]
dwelt among us full of
grace and truth. We have beheld His Glory." The world process reached its
goal when the Word became fully revealed in a person, though it had been
partially revealed since the beginning in every creative act.
e) The Eternal Christ and the Historic Jesus
Taking the Bible as a
whole, we can detect three
main stages in
the creative or evolutionary process through which God gradually reveals
Himself.
1. When "the Spirit of
God moved upon the face of the waters," the world of nature came into
being;
2. when God breathed his
Spirit into Adam, man came into being; and
3. when the "Word became
flesh," there was then and there a new mutation, a new dispensation of
the Spirit which lifted man up to a higher level of life.
Christ is, therefore,
l more than a revelation of
the nature of God,
l more than a teacher,
l more than an example for us
to follow.
l He is a source of saving
power.
The history of mankind
since his coming shows that "to all who received him . . . he gave power to become children
of God." (1:12).
But even before Christ's
coming, God had never been without a witness. He has appeared in nature—"ever
since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity has
been clearly perceived in the things that have been made" (Rom.
1:20).
He has appeared in man, as is shown by the great
insights into Truth in the pre-Christian philosophers and the writers of the
Old Testament.
Finally, He has appeared, as the
consummation of this long process of ascending revelation and the release of
new creative power, in Christ Jesus.
It was largely through the
Gospel of John and the later Epistles of Paul which resemble it in their
theology, that the Friends worked out their conceptions of the relation between the person, Jesus,
and the Eternal Christ, the Inward Light, God as engaged in creative
activity directed toward this world of space and time.
'The problem which seemed
so difficult to early Christian thinkers and which occupied the best thought of
theologians for more than five centuries—how can the divine nature and the
human nature of Jesus exist together in a single person?—did not trouble the early
generations of the Society of Friends.
They knew by [40] experience
how the divine Light was related to their own human consciousness. They
conceived of the relation
between the divine Spirit and the human. mind in Jesus as following the same
principle, except for this important difference: "God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto
Him" (John
3:34). Fox quotes this verse in his long letter defending the universality of
the Light.14 This was as near as the early Quakers came to an
explicit theory regarding the
difference in nature between Christ and themselves.
It was a simple Christology
based on experience. Because
they had themselves experienced a measure of the Spirit they realized
what it might be to experience the Spirit without measure, that is,
completely.
If they, like the Greeks,
had attempted to think in terms of metaphysical substance, they would have
encountered the same difficulties as did the early Christian theologians who were under Greek
influence.
l How can two different
substances, a divine and a human substance, exist together in one person?
But, like the Hebrews,
the Quakers usually thought in terms of will.
l They knew from experience
that sometimes their own
wills were united with God's will and at other times their wills were
opposed to God's will.
l It was not difficult to go
from that perception to the realization that the will of Jesus was wholly the, will of God, not
parallel to the will of God but the very will of God.
Jesus was completely
human, he "was tempted like as we are" otherwise the incarnation
would have been an appearance and not a reality.
He was also completely
divine-, because he resisted temptation and permitted the divine Spirit to
possess him entirely.
The Light is one. It is not
divided so that part is in one person and part in another.
When the Light shone in
Jesus completely it was not withdrawn from other men. It can, therefore, be
said that since Jesus
possessed the Light without measure he was the Light. The. Light
Within is the Christ Within.
This does not mean that
Jesus differs from other persons in degree. Persons do not differ from one
another in degree. Every person is unique. That is a primary characteristic of
personality as such.
l The uniqueness of Jesus,
according to the Christian faith, consists in the fact that he was the
supreme revelation of God in human terms.
l Since the Light Within is
God revealing Himself to man, Jesus of Nazareth [41] was God revealing
Himself in history. Without the historical revelation the inner revelation
would be incomplete. Each revelation requires the other for its fulfillment.
The timeless requires the temporal and the temporal requires the timeless.
f) The Atonement
The Word or Light
proceeding continually from God to create whatever is good in the world dwelt
fully in Christ and by measure in men as human beings. For this reason the
Quakers did not take pains to distinguish between the Eternal Christ and the
historic Jesus. It is often difficult to tell of which they are speaking. Every
event has its inward and its outward, its eternal and its temporal aspect.
l The same can be said of the
life of Christ on earth, including his sacrifice on the cross for the sins of
the whole world.
l That sacrifice has both a
temporal and an eternal significance
l Each is incomplete without
the other.
l Eternally, Christ is the
"Lamb slain" in the book "written before the foundation of the
world" (Rev. 13:8).
It is the very nature of
God eternally to sacrifice Himself for His children, paying the penalty for
their sins and receiving them back to Himself as the father in the parable
received his prodigal son.
This had been going on
before the sacrifice of Jesus as is declared by the prophet Hosea, who,
speaking for Jehovah, says, ,,I drew them [the erring Israelites]
with bands of love" (Hos. 11:4).
In the sacrifice of Jesus we have, as it were, a temporal transverse section
of an eternal process, an emergence into time and space of the Heart
of God, eternally pierced for His children.
l This sacrifice was not made
simply to show men on earth the way to reconciliation with God, though that was
part of the meaning.
l It occurred also as an
essential part of the eternal process itself.
l In itself, as history
shows, the crucifixion possesses a saving and redeeming power. As one
might look through an aperture into a furnace in which iron is melted to be
molded into new forms, so the
crucifixion serves as a cleft through which we behold the molten center of
existence.
There, through pain and
sacrifice, a new and higher form of life is molded.
The Quakers did not apply
to the sacrifice of Christ the Old Testament concept of a blood sacrifice
offered to appease an [42] angry God.
The blood sacrifice
commanded by the Mosaic law was for them an external form belonging to
the old dispensation.
l They believed that the word
"blood" was used metaphorically in the New Testament as a figure of
speech natural in view of the cultural background of the Hebrew people, but not
one which could have the same meaning for themselves.
l They more characteristically
considered the "Blood of Christ" to be the Light Within
in its redeeming and sanctifying capacity.
George Fox in 1648 writes
at the beginning of his ministry:
Soon after there
was another great meeting of professors, and a captain, whose name was Amor
Stoddard, came in. They were discoursing of the blood of Christ; and as
they were discoursing of it, I saw, through the immediate opening of the
Invisible Spirit, the blood of Christ. And I cried out among them, and said,
"Do ye not see the blood of Christ? See it in your hearts, to sprinkle your hearts and
consciences from dead works, to serve the living God": for I saw
it, the blood of the New Covenant, how it came into the heart. This startled
the professors, who would
have the blood only
without them, and not in them."
This is the usual Quaker emphasis on the inward life rather than on
the outward event.
In his letters Fox
sometimes refers to the
Light Within as "blood" when he speaks of it as a cleansing power.
After speaking of the Light as
a Spring of Water "which waters the plants and causeth them to grow up
in the Lord, from whom the pure living Springs come," he goes on to speak
of it as performing another function:
And here is the
water which is the Witness in the earth, which doth wash; and here
comes the Spirit to be known, the Witness which doth baptize and the Witness,
the Blood, which doth cleanse. [Ep. 155, 1657}
The Light as blood is also life.
And now, being
gathered in the name of Jesus . . . whose blood you have drunk, yea, even of
the heavenly man's, which is his life. [lip. 279, 16701
This identification of
blood and life indicates that we are regenerated, not so much by the death of Christ, as by
his life [43] ,in our hearts.
Here we may have a clue as
to what Christ meant when he said at the Last Supper, "This cup is the new
covenant in my blood" (I Cor. 11:25).
The mention of the new
covenant brought to the minds of the disciples the ancient covenant which, as
Jews, they knew so well, the covenant between Jehovah and Israel in the
wilderness of Sinai. Here was sealed a contract by which the people of Israel adopted Jehovah as
their God and Jehovah adopted Israel as His people. That contract was
sealed by Moses in an age-old ritual (Exod. 24).
The people stood before
Jehovah who was represented by an altar. Animals were sacrificed and their
blood poured into bowls. Part of the blood was sprinkled over the altar and
part over the people with the words, "Behold the blood of the
covenant."
In its symbolic meaning blood represented life
(Lev. 17:11, 14). Two parties formerly independent of each other were united
into a single living organism by sharing the same blood or life. A blood
kinship was thus established between Jehovah and Israel, like that within a
tribe or a family. To seal
this relationship, the life of a living creature was sacrificed in order that
its blood, imparted to others, might unite them into a single life.
Other Semitic tribes felt
themselves united to their deity by ties of lineage. These people were not
chosen by their god, nor had they chosen him.
In the case of the
Israelites the union was a deliberate choice, sealed by the blood of a third
life in order that an organic relationship might be established.
What was more natural than
that Jesus, knowing that his own blood would be shed on the morrow,
should refer to the blood of the new covenant foretold by Jeremiah (Jer.
31:31) which was written in the heart. Like the blood of the old covenant, his
blood would create a living bond between God and man.
His was to be that third
life which would bridge the gap between the divine and the human, overcoming
the isolation and estrangement of the human individual. This would be an at-one-ment,
a uniting of that which had been separated.
So Paul writes:
"But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off
have been brought near in the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who has made
us both one, and broken down the dividing wall of hostility" (Eph.
2:13, 14). This is the peace-creating
and [44] uniting power of the Eternal
Christ, the Light of the World, the only Christ that Paul knew.
More explicitly, "God is Light. . . . If we walk in the Light as he is in
the Light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus, his
Son, cleanses us from all sin" (I John 1:5, 7). This verse may
appear to present a non sequitur.
What is the blood? But if we identify blood
and life as the Hebrews did, the meaning becomes clear. Fellowship is
created by Light or Life (John identifies the two, John 1:4), which, like the
life of the Iamb sacrificed by Moses, is a third life uniting two separated
lives into one. The Light
Within not only unites man with God, but also, as we have seen so
explicitly expressed in George Fox's epistles, it unites men with one another in a fellowship of the Spirit.
For this reason we seldom
find the Friends referring to the unifying power of the Light without
indicating that it unites
them both to God and to one another. "This," says
Barclay, "is that cement whereby we are joined as
to the Lord, so to one an-other."16
John Burnyeat writes: ". . . the openings of the power that was daily amongst
us and wrought sweetly in our hearts, which still united us more and more unto
God and knit us together in the perfect bond of love, of fellowship and
membership, so that we became a body compact."17 The union with God becomes a union of men with one
another, the branches become united in the Vine and the prayer of Christ
becomes fulfilled "that they may all be one;
even as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be in us" (John 17:21).
g) Man's Responsibility for Good and Evil
On two important
religious doctrines the Quakers differed from their Protestant opponents
and were closer to the Catholics.
1] They believed that righteousness
could not be imputed
to man by God unless man was actually righteous, while the
Protestants believed that God, because of the sacrifice of Christ, could impute Christ's righteousness to
man even though he continued to sin.
2] The Quakers also
believed that perfection and freedom from sin was possible in this
world, while the Protestants believed that all men, [45] even the
saints, continue to sin in "thought, word and deed."
These two doctrines are
still subjects of acute controversy in religious thought and have important practical consequences in terms
of behavior.
Catholicism was a preindividual
religion, existing long before the Renaissance tendency to individualism.
According to such a religion, lives closely united with one another can share in one another's
righteousness and guilt in some such way as the head suffers for the sins of
the stomach or profits by its accomplishments. This conception, based
on the close interrelatedness of men in a tribal society, is characteristic of all early
religions including the religion of the Hebrews up to the time of the
exile.
In Catholic doctrine a member
of the Church shares in its supernatural righteousness an in its store of grace, accumulated particularly
by the-sufferings and death of Christ, but also by all the martyrs and by the
prayers and penitence of all the devout in all ages. Accordingly, a person
who.by the nature of his duties in life is compelled to become involved in what
is evil, as a soldier for example is compelled to kill, can make up for his
lack of
His by sharing in the
accumulated goodness of the Church. This is not an imputed goodness,
but a real goodness, affecting man internally through his organic relationship to the Church and
through the Church to Christ.
But Protestantism did away with this organic
interrelatedness and substituted an individualistic, almost a mechanistic, conception.
l It was no accident that
Protestantism and modern mechanistic science arose at the same time.
l Imputed righteousness
became accepted as the only possible means of salvation for a sinner.
l Since on this evil and
depraved earth there was no store Of righteousness on which the sinner could
draw, he had to receive his righteousness through a supernatural
transaction.
l This was envisaged, in terms
of an act carried out long ago, with which man, as an individual, had nothing
to do.
l As this transaction was
external to himself, it did not affect him internally.
l Even the willingness to
accept it as a means of salvation came from without as a gift of grace.
l God could, however, account
man to be good, just as a judge might remove the penalty for a [46] crime,
while leaving the criminal as much a criminal in character as he was before.
The Quakers revived the Catholic
principle of -interrelatedness, but in a different way.
As is shown by Barclay,18
man, by uniting himself,
not with the Church, but with the Eternal Christ, shared vicariously in God's goodness
and suffering for sin.
The whole work of redemption,
as once performed in Judea, must be repeated in each human heart if it is to
be effective.'9
Man must be crucified with
Christ, as Paul said, and be raised with Christ to newness of life.
By this means man might
acquire undeserved goodness, but it was a real internal virtue, not an
imputed goodness which might even countenance further sin.
The Old Testament ends with
an impasse. It cannot answer the question, Why do the righteous suffer?
Slowly through a thousand years the religious insight of the Hebrews had become
clarified until Jehovah, first known as the primitive tribal war god, was
realized as absolute ruler of the universe. Then the Deity, who had in earlier
times appeared as a God jealous of other gods, could say through the mouth of
his prophet, the Second Isaiah, to a people in exile, "I am the Lord and
there is none else. I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and
create evil" (Isa. 45:6, 7). The religion of ancient Israel here reaches
its climax. Exaltation of Deity can go no further.
Israel returned from exile,
but not to freedom. Persian, Greek and Roman ruled and persecuted. Prophet,
seer and priest inquired, "How can these things be when God is both
just and omnipotent?" In the book of Job the solution of the problem
is placed beyond man's finite mind though it is felt to be somehow solved in
God's infinite wisdom. The writer of Ecclesiastes gives up in pessimism. The
author of Daniel prophesies that God will intervene by a catastrophic act
through which those who suffer unjustly shall receive their recompense. But
these answers fail to satisfy the agonized cry of the soul, "Why hast
thou made me suffer?"
The answer is attained by
one of those strange spiral movements of history through which man returns to an earlier belief
but on a new and higher level.
The primitive sacrificial
system of Israel was built upon the doctrine that an innocent victim [47]
could be offered and accepted for the people's sin. The account
of Abraham's attempted sacrifice of Isaac indicates that this victim, who had
once been the first-born son, was now replaced by a symbolic offering.
To ancient Israel such
vicarious suffering appeared
reasonable. Early man is not individualized. To him all life appears bound
together in a living whole.
But, as Israel became more civilized, the tribal
blood brotherhood dissolved. In its stead we have a swarm of individuals.
Now, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel declared, each man must suffer for his
own sin. "The soul that sinneth it shall die"
(Ezek. 18:20). On such an individual basis the problem of suffering is
insoluble. Job was right. There is no reason why a righteous individual should
be the innocent victim who suffers for the sins of others.
In the New Testament the ancient drama of sacrifice is reenacted,
not within a tribal setting, but on a cosmic scale.
The Son of God offers
himself for the sins of the whole world.
To modern individualistic thinking such a
doctrine appears impossible, perhaps absurd, or it is mechanically construed
according to some legalistic scheme, such as the doctrine that Christ Allows
himself to be punished by an angry God as a substitute for man.
But to those who become
aware of the unity of all life in God the doctrine of Atonement is
pregnant with meaning. Because he has made Himself one with them, God must
needs suffer for men's sins.
The tribal concept of the
interrelatedness of life within the tribe is replaced by the doctrine that all life is one in God whose suffering
for sin is redemptive and creative.
But not all suffering is
redemptive and creative. Pain and loss and want may be degrading and
destructive. So it was for one of the three who hung on the crosses outside
Jerusalem.
But for Another there was resurrection and a - new incarnation in His church. So all suffering is sacrificial in
so far as it becomes one with the suffering of the Eternal Christ seeking to
draw mankind into a living and related whole.
Is the suffering of our
time redemptive and creative? When Abigail met the outlaw David she said,
"The soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle of life with the Lord
thy God and the souls of thine enemies them shall He sling out" (I Sam.
25:29). This "bundle of life" with God did not then include enemies.
[48]
But in the New Testament enemies also are included. Even the Samaritans, between whom and
the Israelites there existed a racial tension, were singled out by Jesus as neighbors whom we
should love as ourselves.
If the suffering of the world
today is to be creative and bring redemption, it must be suffering in behalf
of all without exception. So it was on the day of the crucifixion which released
among men the power of resurrection.
h) Perfectionism
The Quakers believed that
this process of redemption and regeneration might go so far as sometimes to
free man completely from sin and leave him at least temporarily in a state of
perfection.
It is easy to misunderstand
this doctrine. Perfection
is not a static state of self-satisfaction. It not only permits growth,
it requires growth.
Did not Christ grow in
wisdom and stature (Luke 2:52)?
As Barclay says, a perfect
boy can become a perfect man and he is not a perfect boy unless he is on the
way to becoming a man.
The man who had one
talent in the parable was nearer perfection than the man who had five
because his talent was growing through interest.20 Perfection means simply living
up to the measure of light that is given, (our one talent),2'
and if we are faithful to that, we shall be given more.
Job Scott writes in his Journal,
"If we attain all that we can we are perfect, for nothing which we cannot
is required. . . by our God."22
This doctrine is important because it made an inner state
of peace and serenity possible, even in this imperfect world, provided man made
full use of whatever talents he had.
The Protestant of that time was continually disturbed by in
inner sense of guilt and original sin. His life was a series of choices
between-sins. This is essentially the position taken by some prominent
theologians today. They are right in holding that we are organically united to an evil society, but
this does not make all our acts evil. We are also organically united to
Eternal Goodness.
For the Quaker the doctrine
that complete freedom from sin was impossible was pure defeatism.
George Fox, in arguing with
some who "pleaded for sin," said, "If your faith be true, it
will give you victory over sin and the devil and purify your hearts and
consciences" ;23 and to others who said, "We must always
be [49] striving," be replied, "It is a sad and comfortless sort of striving to strive with a
belief that we should never overcome."
In the First Publishers of Truth
we find it recorded that the Independents, finding happiness and peace not
possible in life, "gave up to sit down short. "24 Of
course, the state of "perfection," in the Quaker sense, may be lost
as well as gained.
The presence of inner peace was the main Quaker test of right
guidance. It had nothing to do with the results of an action. The
outcome was in Cod's hands.
Peace comes to him who lives up to the divine requirement, even though that
requirement may not take him very far at first.
Where there is no fear of
failure and no sense of compromise, the soul is at peace.
Man can be internally free and at peace even though
God may lay upon him the burden of the world's suffering.25
He may, as Fox often
expressed in his epistles, "keep his head above the waters. . . in
which there is a tempest," even though the rest of him be caught in the
storm.
The problem of consistency
and compromise faces every thoughtful man.
The soldier feels compelled
to do many things contrary to the code of morals which he has accepted from
childhood.
The pacifist finds it
impossible to extricate himself from all connection with war. Each is uneasy.
For both there is a sense of frustration and failure.
The problem may be stated
in this way:
1.
Should men try to live up to the highest they know,
squarely facing the probability of failure? or,
2.
Should they direct their efforts toward a lower goal
with some likelihood of attainment? Most persons accept the second
alternative, believing that some gain is better than none at all.
Yet, in accepting the lower
and more attainable standard, there are few who do not preserve some area in
life in which they can pay homage to the highest. This is especially true of adherents
to the great religious faiths which all began by repudiating compromise,
though, as the number and variety of their members increased, they gradually
came to accept it. Even so they tried to retain a way by which consistency
could be somewhere saved in spite of general compromise.
The Catholic Church has its priests, its
monks, its nuns who strive to fulfill literally Christ's commands in regard
to hate and [50] strife and love of possessions. Their merits help to redeem
those who are involved in compromise.. Historic Protestantism believed
that in this world all must sin, but, through a miracle of grace, perfection
would be attained, at least by some, hereafter.
The Hindu view of life tolerates compromise in the
earlier stages of a man's career. After he has fulfilled his duties as
householder he may in old age realize the detachment which opens a way to the
ultimate goal.
The Buddhist admits compromise because
of ignorance, but sometime, in a future incarnation, every individual will
achieve enlightenment. This epitome is too brief to be truly representative,
but it shows that in no one of the great religions is there complete surrender
to compromise.
The Quaker is charged with
Utopian tendencies and is called a perfectionist because he does not limit
freedom from hatred and strife to a special professional class or to a future
state in this life or the next.
He is, indeed, a perfectionist in the sense
that he believes that every man has within him the possibility and the duty to
be wholly obedient to the will of God as inwardly revealed, but even
such complete obedience does not mean that the goal of life has been reached.
The divine Light is a principle of growth. In this Light the perfect seed grows into the perfect
sprout, which in turn develops into the perfect plant. Compromise consists in
deliberate failure to choose the way which leads toward the highest.
i) The Fall of Man
The story of the Fall of
Man belongs to the class of myths which record in highly symbolic form a
genuine occurrence in human history.26
The early Friends
were influenced by the doctrine of the-Fall but, as was the case
with the Catholics, the
Fall was not as complete for them as it was for the Calvinists. Man was
not a total ruin. There was still left in him a Seed of the divine which
in the end would bruise the serpent's head (Gen. 8:15).
Although it is easy to be
misled by figures of speech, yet sometimes we have no other recourse but to use
them. A common form of the doctrine of the Light Within seems to have been
envisaged in such a way that the divine Light appeared to shine in from
above [51] man causing the divine
Seed in man to germinate and grow. The Seed will grow if it is not too
heavily overlaid with hard earth. But the ground can be tilled and watered by
the preaching of the Truth and by worship and prayer.
"Natural" man,
like all other natural things, is the creation of God. There remains in him,
however low he falls, something of that divine Word by which all things were
created and are being created.
Man's fall from the superhuman to the human can be partially
understood, Barclay believes, by comparing it to a further fall from the human to the subhuman.
In the first case man falls from life in the Spirit
to dependence on law and reason, and
in the scond case he falls
from dependence on law and reason to a condition of sensuality.
He distinguishes the three
realms by saying:
As nothing below
the spirit of man as the spirit of brutes or any other creatures) can properly
reach unto or comprehend the things
of a man, as
being of a ... so neither can-the spirit
of
man, of the natural man. . . receive nor discern the things of God.
Which enlightened
reason, in those that obey and follow this true light, we confess may be useful
to man even in spiritual things as it is still subservient and subject to the
other; even as the animal life in man, regulated and ordered by his reason
helps him in going about things that are rational.28
This brings us to the heart
of Quaker theology as it grew out of actual experience. -Man
finds himself in the twilight zone of reason, poised between two
worlds,
1.
an upper world of Light, and a lower world of
Darkness,
2.
a Spiritual world which is superhuman and a
material world which is subhuman.
He is free to center his
life in one of the three;
l he can live by the Light,
l he can live by human reason,
or
l he can live at the mercy of
his sensual cravings.
His body is animal, his
mind rational and the Light Within him is divine. He is never without all
three, though the three are so intimately related that it is impossible to distinguish
between them sharply. Much depends on their relationship. The Light of Truth should be a
guide to reason and reason should help instinct in a properly ordered life.
This is a simple empirical theology, but it sums up much of early
Quaker thought.
It is considered further in
the final chapter.[50]
j) The Relation Between the Divine and the Human
The Quakers did not concern
themselves to interpret the
metaphysical character of the relationship between God and man.
It was to be felt rather than understood.
There have, however, been
variations of-thought and attitude upon it which have had important
results in Quaker history.
1.
Quaker Quietism,
2.
the conflicts and divisions of the nineteenth century,
and
3.
the revolution in Quaker thought which took place about the
beginning of the twentieth century,
are all concerned directly
or indirectly with this problem.
About the beginning of the
twentieth century nearly all Quaker writers were critical of Barclay's Apology
which had up to that time largely expressed the character of Quaker
thought. William Charles Braithwaite, for example, in The Second
Period of Quakerism accuses Barclay of dualism in too sharply separating the Light as divine and
the human mind as natural. This, he says, not only makes inexplicable
the union of the divine and human in Christ, but leaves no trace of goodness.in
man by which he can reach out toward God. According to Barclay, man, after
Adam's fall, is "natural" and depraved. All he can do is to wait passively for the coming of the
Light which is wholly other and avoid resisting it when it comes. In such a
system man has no positive part in his own salvation. He has only the
passive function of not resisting the saving power of the Light.
This sharp separation of
the divine and human Braithwaite attributes to the influence of Calvinism on
Barclay, who was brought up in the atmosphere of Scotch Presbyterianism. It
was, he maintains, one of the causes of the later decline of Quaker-ism,29
for it led the Quakers to
wait for divine guidance rather than to seek for it actively. Today,
says Braithwaite, we think of the divine and human as akin to each other. "We seek expression for
the truth in terms of life unified in God."30
"The spiritual belongs of right to our natures."31
"The blue heaven of the larger life may seem beyond our present reach, yet
its very air is on our faces.1132
Here we have before us a
fundamental issue which has been debated throughout Christian history. It
first appeared in the [53] controversy between the Greek and Latin forms of Christianity, and it
has reappeared today in the debate between liberal theology influenced
by Hegelianism and the various forms of Neo-Calvinism or Barthianism.
It appears in another form in the long and never-ending philosophical
debate between those who see the universe in terms of internal organic
relations and those who see it in terms of external mechanistic
relations.
1.
In the first view the divine is an essential internal
element in man, a constituent part of human personality.
2.
In the second, the divine and human are wholly
separate, yet able to -interact, as it were, externally.
If the dualism between the
"natural" man and the Light were as absolute as Barclay appears
sometimes to make it, man would hardly have enough goodness even to accept the
Light. Yet Barclay's distinction is moral and practical rather than metaphysical.
At the beginning of his
religious journey, the human being must look on God as wholly other. If
man does not realize that he is himself unregenerate he cannot be reborn
into a higher life.
The first function of the Light, as Fox so often
points out, is to reveal sin. Man, thinking of himself as akin to God, may be
so puffed up in his own estimation that he will never seek regeneration. Yet Barclay's dualism is
provisional. It can be overcome. The Light, which at first sight appears
external, may eventually become harmonized with the human will in genuine
organic union with God.
Barclay's critics take his
figures of speech too literally. A. Neave Brayshaw says33 in
reference to Apology, page 147 (italics his): "This Principle or
Light in man was compared to a candle in a lantern illuminating it for a time, but
leaving its essential nature unchanged."
Rufus M. Jones says34 in
reference to Apology, page 140: "The supernatural Seed lies as a
'real substance' hidden away and dormant in the natural soul as naked grain
lies in barren stony ground." The lantern is a mechanistic figure which is
not wholly applicable to a living organism, but it does help to illustrate the
difference between the Light and conscience by comparing the latter to a
lantern. The figure of the Seed is probably taken from the parable of the
Sower. The Seed of the Kingdom may lie in ground so stony that it never
[54] takes root, but it may
also lie in fertile ground and grow. Barclay says that it lies many times in
stony ground implying that it may sometimes lie elsewhere.
Barclay's Apology was
written mainly to refute
Calvinism and particularly The Westminster Confession of Faith.
Its author concedes to his opponents in order to find a common ground from
which to win them over, but the externalism of the Calvinistic theory
finds no place in the internalism of Barclay's Quaker.-ism. Barclay
opposes the doctrine of election as attributing sin to God. Man is
"natural" as contrasted with "supernatural" (words for
which, fortunately, we have little use today), but he is capable of making a choice between
accepting or rejecting the "supernatural." If he accepts it,
the dualism between God and man begins to be overcome with the ultimate result
of union, or at-one-ment. Thus Barclay speaks of the possibility of
becoming one with the Seed ;35 "union" is "the manner of Christ's being
in the saints" but not as he is in all men: 36
as man is wrought upon, there is a will raised in him, by
which he comes to be a co-worker with the grace; for according to (the
doctrine) of Augustine, "He that made us without us, will not save us without
us."37
By this also comes that communication
of the goods of Christ unto us by which we come to be partakers of the
divine nature, as saith Peter (II Peter 1:4), and are made one with
him, as the branches with
the vine, and have a title and right to what he hath done and suffered
for us; so that his obedience becomes ours, his righteousness ours, his death
and sufferings ours.38
This is far from Calvinism, which leaves man so depraved and so far
outside of all that is divine that he is wholly dependent on that which is done
for him toward his regeneration.
The fundamental question, "Is man by nature in union with God or does he
attain union as the goal of a long upward climb on a mystical ladder
toward perfection?" has important consequences in terms of
behavior.
1] Some assume that
"the practice of the Presence of God" is always possible provided we
simply realize that God is
continually in us and around us. This is called the "sacrament
of life." Every action according to this view [55] is really sacramental
and we need only become
aware of this fact in order that, for us, it may be valid. In such a view there is no real
difference between the religious and the secular; there only appears to
be a difference due to our lack of insight.
2] The other view holds
that the continual practice of the Presence of God, being difficult of
attainment, becomes possible only to persons of saintly character after a long
period of preparation through spiritual exercises. The well-known case of Brother
Lawrence, who felt in the kitchen the same degree of God's nearness that he
felt in the presence of the holy sacraments, is explained by the fact that he
had attained to this state
by a life of search and endeavor.
Life as a whole can be
sacramental, but this is the
goal of the spiritual journey not a stage on the way.
According to the first
view, that which is religious is brought to the level of that which is secular;
according to the second
view, the secular is
slowly and by striving raised up to the level of the religious.
The Quakers have, for the
most part, taken the second point of view. The authors of the Journals, who
write from immediate experience, have all gone through a struggle from darkness up to the world of
Light.
They have never remained
wholly and continually in the Light. They experience periods of dryness. Yet for most of their lives,
once the self-centered will is by a great struggle subdued, there is a
continued consciousness of the guiding hand of God.
In the history of Christian
thought divergence in the answers to this problem of the relationship of
man to God are not only due to psychological differences in men but they are
also inherent in Christianity's
two roots, the one in Hebrew religion, the other in Greek philosophy.
Christianity originated in
Palestine. It spread rapidly into the Graeco-Roman world absorbing much of the
thought pattern which was Platonic in origin. This is evident in the New
Testament.
The Synoptic Gospels are Hebraic and
strongly ethical. They are concerned primarily with good action. The
writings of Paul and John, although also largely Hebraic, show the emphasis
of Greek thought and are concerned to a greater degree with understanding
the philosophical and theological significance of the Incarnation.
---
In the Hebrew religion the relations between God
and man are like the relations be‑[56] tween
one person and another, separated to be sure in space and time. But sometimes
the Spirit of God may seize upon a man and use him to convey a special message
to other men. Such a man is a prophet who speaks as a mouthpiece for
God. This emergence of the
divine in the human is temporary. It has occurred in order to
accomplish a particular divine purpose. At other times the prophet speaks for
himself. The Spirit may
descend on any person at any time. Man must be careful to make the most
of these times of visitation not knowing when they may occur again.
In Greek philosophy of the type we are here
considering, the union of
God and man is not a temporary circumstance to carry out a particular purpose
but a continuing condition due to the very nature of human existence.
Man's sin consists in ignoring this unity; his virtue consists in
realizing it. God is the
ground and source of all Being and can, if searched for, always be found in the
depths of the soul. God is Eternal Goodness, all else is evil. God is
Eternal Reality, all else is appearance.
----
In the Hebrew conception
man is saved by doing;
in the Greek, he is saved
by being.
In the Hebrew, the goal is
obedience to the divine will;
in the Greek, the goal is
right knowledge "You will know the Truth and the Truth will make you
free" (John 8:32).
The Hebrew, therefore,
seeks for a change of will;
the Greek, for a change of
nature.
As the Hebrew emphasizes action
in this world in obedience to God's will,
so the Greek emphasizes contemplation
and withdrawal from this world as the way to Eternal Life.
For the Hebrew, unity with
God results from an act of God the Creator in time;
for the Greek, unity with
God is a timeless fact to be realized as eternal Truth.
For the Hebrew, the perfect
divine-human society, the Kingdom of God, will come at a certain time in human history
in this world;
for the Greek, the Kingdom is already in our hearts
in a spiritual world different from our material existence.
For the Hebrew type of mind
the Incarnation is a
miracle. It is not to be understood.
For the Greek, it is a natural and inevitable
culmination of the long process of divine revelation.
For the Hebrew, the Messiah
appears in history to introduce a new social order;
for the Greek, the Son of
God is eternally being born and seeks continually to [57] become incarnate
against the resistance of the flesh.
For the Hebrew, inspiration
is occasional and to be waited for;
for the Greek, inspiration
is continuous and to be searched for.
For the Hebrew, evil is
real and results from the acts of persons opposed to God;
for the Greek, evil is less
real than goodness and results from the nature of the lower world of sensuous
desire as contrasted with the higher world of spiritual life.
For the Hebrew, religion is
this-worldly;
for the Greek,
other-worldly.
This comparison could be
carried further—the subject is a large one—but perhaps enough has been said to
indicate the nature of these two distinct sources of Christian thought.
The Christian theologian, by confining himself to one or the other, can arrive
at a fairly consistent system of theology. However, difficulties arise when, as in Paul's case, both
are followed to some degree.
In general and with many
exceptions it may be said that Catholicism tends toward the Greek concept and
Protestantism toward the Hebrew.
Plato and Aristotle strongly
influenced the religious thought of the Catholic Middle Ages. The theology of
Thomas Aquinas, which became ascendant in Catholicism, tended to be
Aristotelian.
Protestantism was an
attempt to get back to a more Hebraic form of Christianity. Luther and Calvin
regarded Plato and Aristotle as heathens to be avoided and refuted.
Quakerism might be said to combine
the two concepts but without any attempt to work out a consistent system.
The distinction between
Substance and Shadow, Power and Form, Reality and Deceit made by Fox and
Penington tends to be Greek in character.
So is the doctrine of the
Universality of the Light Within as an essential element in all human beings.
The admonition heard in
Quaker meetings to
"center down," to "dig deep," to seek for the revelations
of the Light in the depths of the soul is characteristic of the great
mystics of the Church who followed the path earlier explored by Plato and
Plotinus. The silent waiting in the divine Presence of the meeting for
worship and the cultivation of contemplation and sensitivity to inward
leading is more Greek
than Hebrew.
On the other hand, the
ministry in Quaker meetings stems from Hebrew prophetism rather
than from Greek mysticism.
The [58] first Quakers thought of themselves as prophets in the Hebrew
sense. Sometimes they imitated the Hebrew prophets in word and act.
l The Quaker emphasis on action as a necessary and
inevitable consequence of inward revelation is more Hebrew than Greek.
l Quakers today are known
more for their works than for the depth of their spiritual life; more for doing
than for being.
l For many Quakers worship
and contemplation are valuable, not in themselves, but as the means to right
action.
That Quakerism has not worked out a consistent system of
theology is not an important criticism, for its ancestry is both Greek and
Hebrew, contemplative and active.
Logical consistency tends
toward a static system of ideas which can easily become a fixed creed and a
formal test of membership in a church or a political movement.
Logical inconsistency tends
toward growth, development, new revelations of truth which approximate the one
consistent system of ideas which is Truth. No fixed creed is therefore possible; the indispensable factor is a
sincere search for truth.
In Quakerism there are two
complementary movements,
l withdrawal to an inward Source of
Truth and
l return to action in
the world.
l The first is Greek
in its religious emphasis,
l the second, Hebrew.
Quakerism is
l both contemplative and
active,
l both metaphysical and
ethical,
not because it has combined
the two in a consistent system of thought but because it has combined them through experience.
CHAPTER 4 The
Meeting for Worship
The discovery of the Light Within was followed by a determined and
uncompromising effort to act in accordance with the discovery; It was in
realizing the revolutionary character of their religious experiences that the
Quakers were unique. That God reveals Himself directly within man is accepted
in most branches of Christianity and in some sects of all religions of the
world. The Quaker meeting in its waiting upon the Lord in silence carries this
doctrine to its logical conclusion. If Cod reveals Himself, then worship can
be nothing less than reverent waiting in His Presence. If He speaks to man,
then it is man's highest privilege to listen.
