2019/09/28

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers | The Australian Friend

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers | The Australian Friend

Life in the Light: the challenge of belief and language for 21st century Quakers

Print pagePDF pageEmail page

Geoffrey Ballard, Canberra Regional Meeting

This article stems from the workshop looking at the non-traditional Quaker colours, that I co-facilitated with Peter Williams at the 2015 YM Summer School.
We attended a Share and Tell session on Non-Theism at the 2014 YM, our first Yearly Meeting. It was great to be among people who shared a range of views, were open to non-traditional beliefs, and wanted to have a conversation about Quaker beliefs. As a follow-up to that session, Peter volunteered to develop a proposal for a Quaker survey, to find out more about Australian Quakers and what they believe, the final results of which are now available. So now we have some data (that can be found on the Quaker website), none of it at all surprising perhaps, but interesting nonetheless.
I introduced the Summer School with these words:
Almost at the same time as the experience of George Fox and the founding of the Religious Society of Friends, Isaac Newton, in 1665, discovered that light is made up of many colours. Like light, 21st century Quakerism is made up of a spectrum of beliefs (colours).
In religion and science, views have changed since the 17th century. Since Fox and Newton’s views on religion, we have had the religious views of scientist Albert Einstein, and now Stephen Hawking; as well, religious thinkers, from the Christian tradition, like Selby Spong, Don Cupitt, Karen Armstrong, and non-theistic Quaker David Boulton, express various views on current religious thought. Their thinking has evolved.
No doubt there are Muslim, Jewish and Buddhist thinkers as well as Humanists who could add much to this arena.
What do you think and believe? The challenge of the Quaker survey was to think about the “god” word. Is Quakerism Christianity without beliefs? Is it Humanism within a Christian culture? Is Quakerism Humanistic Christianity? Does it matter what Quakers believe? I have heard some Quakers say “no” to the last question.
In essence, 62% of Australian Friends believe in “G/god”, 13% do not, and 25% are uncertain or unable to answer. Of those who believe in “G/god”, most describe this term as The Inward Light, A Life Force or Spirit, and not a being. Those who do not believe in “G/god” have developed a range of alternative words to substitute when traditional religious terms are used. Words are metaphors so it is important that when they are used we understand their common meaning so that we can communicate.
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord, Who was conceived by the holy Ghost, Born of the virgin Mary, Suffered under Pontius Pilate, Was crucified, dead and buried. He descended into Hell, The third day he rose again from the dead. He ascended into Heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, The holy Catholick Churche, The Comunion of Saints, the forgiveness of sins, The resurrection of the body, And the life everlasting. Amen.
From the 1662 Book of Common Prayer.
Is this the God that George Fox believed in?
Can I make a bold assertion and say that most 21st century Australian Quakers do not believe in this God, and that most people would see Quakers as non-theists if a conversation took place. David Boulton says,
Nontheism … is …the absence of any belief in a deity or deities, in the existence of God (where ‘existence’ is understood in a realist, objective sense), and especially belief in one God as creator and supreme ruler. (p.6, Godless for God’s Sake, edited by David Boulton)
Some Quaker nontheists have wholly abandoned ‘God language’ and hope for a progressive relinquishment of such language within the Society. Some choose not to use the word ‘God’ themselves but are happy to “translate” it when it is used by other Friends in written or spoken ministry or in conversation. Some have no problem using traditional Quaker Godspeak – “God”, “that of God”, “the Spirit”, “the divine”, ‘”the inner light” – understanding these hallowed and resonant terms metaphorically, symbolically, poetically, instrumentally, signifying the sum of our human values, the imagined embodiment of our human ideals, the focus of our ultimate concern: no more, but, gloriously, no less than all that makes up the wholly human spirit. (p.7-8, Godless for God’s Sake, edited by David Boulton)
Unfortunately experience is so hard to put into words. Yet we need to use words to communicate. As my husband pointed out to me: trying to describe beautiful music to another person is almost impossible. It has to be experienced. Yet everyone will experience something different. When I first heard Mimi and Rodolfo express their love for each other in La Boheme, tears came to my eyes. Someone else may be left without any emotional reaction, or a different reaction.
Quakers are experimental and experiential. They don’t accept being told, or behaving according to a formula. Quakers are bit like cats. Ever try herding cats?
So what is the problem? Quakers have meetings for “worship”. Some would call them just meetings, or meetings for silence and stillness, or meetings for contemplation and insight. And when you look on the Australian Quaker website, and start reading the material, a different picture is revealed about Quaker belief, at odds with the results of the Quaker survey. ‘God’ language is used that needs explanation for good communication. Making assumptions can lead to big misunderstandings.
For example, at the end of a press release by the YM Clerk, put out after the 2015 YM, it states:
About Quakers: ………Quakers believe everyone is endowed with something of the divine; and one can strengthen awareness of it and obedience to it by silent worship, mutual support and activity together, and by trying to live according to our testimonies……
I believe this statement is not a true reflection of all Quakers in Australia in 2015. If the statement had said: Most Quaker believe….. then it would have used inclusive language and been accurate.
This is the challenge for 21st century Quakerism. How to describe Quakerism that allows for the many colours of belief, at the same time not denying the historical Christian tradition, but using inclusive language that does not exclude those who are non-theist. Advices and Queries is a very useful tool for meditation and reflection, but for many non-theists it has many roadblocks because of the language used and the assumptions made about modern day Quakers.
It is often said that Quakers believe that there is something of God in everyone. They don’t, you know! Many do, but not all. And that is after a conversation to decide what is your experience or definition of God.
What would George Fox, with a 21st century mindset, say about Quakers now? Would he say, “Of course we believe in God – make it very clear to everyone”. (Which God would that be George?) Or would he be saying. “We are many years past the age of Enlightenment. We have scientific discoveries and understanding about the Universe. Update!” In the recent film The Theory of Everything, Stephen Hawking says in one of the opening scenes, to Jane, his future wife, that he is a cosmologist. “What’s cosmology?” she asks, and he responds, “Religion for intelligent atheists.”
How do Quakers now present themselves to the world as people of many colours (beliefs)? How do Quakers speak about themselves to each other? How can a theist and non-theist listen and accept each other, without the fear of change and a loss of historical tradition and heritage?
In particular, the current language, especially in written form, is not inclusive of all Quakers today. Diversity can bring strength, but Quakers must drag themselves into the 21st century, and truly represent the makeup of all members.
In 1656 the elders at Balby released Quakers from complete adherence to original writings, (the letter killeth”), as is seen in other religious traditions, and established the principle of continuing revelation”. The challenge is to make the principles and the practice of early Quakers meaningful to us by using language and practices that are relevant in the context of today’s culture.
I am not rejecting the use of religious language. I am asking for relevant and inclusive language.


Children of the Light
Come in all ages and sizes
One shape does not fit all.
Haiku by Margaret Woodward

Further reading
Books and articles
Bolton David (ed) 2009. Godless for God’s sake. Nontheism in contemporary Quakerism. Dales Historical Monographs; Hobsons Farm, Dent UK;
Epstein, Greg M. 2010 Good without God. What a billion nonreligious people do believe. HarperCollins: New York, NY.
Geering, Lloyd 2002  Christianity without God.  Polebridge Pess, California. 
Vosper, Greta 2012. Amen. What prayer can mean in a world beyond belief. HarperCollins: Toronto;
Maguire, Daniel C. 2014 Christianity without God. Moving beyond the dogmas and retrieving the epic moral narrative. State University of New York Press: Albany, NY.
Harris, Sam 2014. Waking Up. A guide to spirituality without religion. Simon & Schuster: New York, NY
Holloway, Richard 1999.  Godless morality.  Canongate Books, Edinburgh.
Cressin, Os 2014. Quaker and naturalist too. Morning Walk Press: Iowa City, IA.
Raymo, Chet 2008. When God is gone everything is holy. The making of a
religious naturalist. Sorin Books: Notre Dame IN.
Rush, David 2002. They Too are Quakers: A survey of 199 nontheist
Friends. Available at http://universalistfriends.org/pdf/rush.pdf
Wright, Michael (2014). Being Quaker now. A different way of being open
for transformation. Available at: http://www.nontheist-quakers.org.uk/documents/Being_Quaker_now.pdf
Websites
Nontheist Quakers. Nontheist Friends Network for British Quakers of an atheist, agnostic or nontheist persuasion interested in modern theology. http://www.nontheist-quakers.org.uk/index.php
Quaker Universalist Voice. A forum for exploring diverse spiritual paths.
http://universalistfriends.org/
Sea of faith network http://www.sofn.org.uk/ “Exploring and promoting religious faith as human creation”

儒教 - Wikipedia

儒教 - Wikipedia



近代[編集]

アヘン戦争の敗北により西洋の科学技術「西学」を導入しようという洋務運動が興った。洋務派官僚の曽国藩朱子学を重んじて六経のもとに宋学・漢学を兼取することを主張し、さらに明末清初の王夫之を顕彰して実学の必要を説いた。張之洞康有為の学説に反対して『勧学篇』を著し、西学を導入しつつ体制教学としての儒教の形を守ることを主張している。

孔教運動[編集]

一方、変法自強運動を進める康有為は、『孔子改制考』を著して孔子を受命改制者として顕彰し、儒教をヨーロッパ風の国家宗教として再解釈した孔教を提唱した。康有為の孔教運動は年号紀年を廃して孔子紀年を用いることを主張するなど従来の体制を脅かすものであったため、清朝から危険視され『孔子改制考』は発禁処分を受けた。変法派のなかでも孔教運動は受け入れられず、これが変法運動挫折につながる一つの原因となる。しかし、辛亥革命が起こると、康有為は上海に孔教会を設立して布教に努め、孔教を中華民国の国教にする運動を展開した。彼らの運動は信仰の自由を掲げる反対派と衝突することとなり、憲法起草を巡って大きな政治問題となった。その後、1917年張勲清帝復辟のクーデターに関与したため、孔教会はその名声を失うことになる。康有為が唱える孔子教運動には、弟子の陳煥章が積極的に賛同し、中国及びアメリカで活動している。この他に賛同した著名人として厳復がいる。

現代[編集]

新文化運動[編集]

1910年代後半になると、争いを繰り返す政治に絶望した知識人たちは、文学や学問といった文化による啓蒙活動で社会改革を目指そうとする新文化運動を興した。雑誌『新青年』を主宰する陳独秀呉虞魯迅らは「孔家店打倒」をスローガンに家父長制的な宗法制度や男尊女卑の思想をもつ儒教を排斥しようとした。一方、雑誌『学衡』を主宰する柳詒徴呉宓梅光迪胡先驌学衡派は、儒学を中心とする中国伝統文化を近代的に転換させることによって中西を融通する新文化を構築することを主張している。
清末から隆盛した今文学派による古典批判の方法論は古籍に対する弁偽の風潮を興し、1927年顧頡剛を始めとする疑古派が経書や古史の偽作を論ずる『古史弁』を創刊した。顧頡剛は「薪を積んでいくと、後から載せたものほど上に来る」という比喩のもと、古史伝承は累層的に古いものほど新しく作られたという説を主張し、堯・舜・禹を中国史の黄金時代とする儒教的歴史観に染まっていた知識人に大きな衝撃を与えた。さらに銭玄同六経周公と無関係であるばかりでなく孔子とも無関係である論じ、孔子と六経の関係は完全に否定されるに到った。

中華人民共和国時代[編集]

マルクス主義無神論を掲げる中華人民共和国が成立すると、「儒教は革命に対する反動である」として弾圧の対象とされた。特に文化大革命期には、批林批孔運動として徹底弾圧された。多くの学者は海外に逃れ、中国に留まった熊十力は激しい迫害を受け自殺したといわれる。儒教思想が、社会主義共和制の根幹を成すマルクス主義とは相容れない存在と捉えられていたためとされる。なお毛沢東三国志を愛読し、曹操をとりわけ好んだといわれるが、曹操は三国時代当時に官僚化していた儒者および儒教を痛烈に批判している。

再評価と「儒教社会主義」[編集]

だが、21世紀に入ると儒教は弾圧の対象から保護の対象となり再評価されつつある。
孔子を、その思想を別論として、国際的に著名な教育者と評価し、2004年、中国国外の大学などの教育機関と提携し、中国語や中国文化の教育及び宣伝、中国との友好関係醸成を目的に設立した公的機関を孔子学院と名付け世界展開を進めている。また、2005年以降、孔子の生誕を祝う祝典が国家行事として執り行われ、論語を積極的に学校授業に取り入れるようになるなど儒教の再評価が進んでいる。文化大革命期に徹底的に破壊された儒教関連の史跡及び施設も近年になって修復作業が急速に行われている。
ほかにも改革開放が進む中で儒学や老荘思想など広く中国の古典を元にした解釈学である国学が「中華民族の優秀な道徳倫理」として再評価されるようになり国学から市場経済に不可欠な商業道徳を学ぼうという機運が生まれている。国家幹部は儒教を真剣に学ぶべきだという議論も生まれている[12]
ダニエル・A・ベル(Daniel A Bell)北京清華大学哲学教授によれば、近年、中国共産党は「儒教社会主義」または新儒教主義(宋の時代にもあった)を唱えている[13]