Quakerism and NeWFism: A Comparison.

Quakerism and NeWFism: A Comparison by Alton C. Thompson

Table of Contents Quakerism and NeWFism: A Comparison ..................................................................................2 A.

A Brief Discussion of Quakerism .................................................................................3

B.

NeWFism......................................................................................................................4 1.

My Religious Development .......................................................................................4

2.

Now to Discuss “NeWFism” Briefly! ....................................................................... 13

C. Similarities Between Quakerism and NeWFism ........................................................... 14 1.

Social Problem Orientation.................................................................................... 14

2.

Simple Living.......................................................................................................... 14

3.

Equality as Goal ...................................................................................................... 16

4.

Meetings ................................................................................................................. 16

5.

Activities During Meetings ..................................................................................... 16

6.

Lack of Clergy ......................................................................................................... 17

7.

Degree of Uniformity ............................................................................................. 18

8.

“Salvation” an Important Concept ......................................................................... 19

D.

Differences Between Quakerism and NeWFism ........................................................ 20 1.

Christianity............................................................................................................. 20

2.

Theology................................................................................................................. 20

3.

The Existing Order ................................................................................................. 20

4.

Community-Family ................................................................................................ 21

5.

Authority ................................................................................................................ 21

6.

Holy Spirit .............................................................................................................. 22

E. Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 22

Quakerism and NeWFism: A Comparison Alton C. Thompson Comparing Quakerism and NeWFism involves comparing something that exists with something that is hypothetical—something “not yet” (not ever, perhaps!). Quakerism—more properly the Society of Friends—was created in the seventh century by George Fox [1624 – 1691], who began to preach publicly (in England) in 1647, and at some point (which is not clear) initiated the Society of Friends. Quakerism1 is generally regarded as a religion, whereas NeWFism is more difficult to label. At this point, however, let me label it as a philosophical society—one that has similarities with Quakerism, but that might also be usefully compared to Benjamin Franklin’s [1706 – 1790] “Junto.” Of the similarities2 that NeWFism has in common with Quakerism, the most important one may be that both place an emphasis on proper procedures—but rather different procedures! Most people have some knowledge of Quakerism, but because NeWFism is in a “not yet” state so far, it is virtually unknown. In introducing NeWFism here, however, it will be useful to precede such a discussion by describing the basic features of Quakerism—and not discuss NeWFism, as such, until Section B.2.! My reason for delaying a discussion of NeWFism to that point is that NeWFism itself did not develop “out of thin air” but, rather, developed out of my experiences with several Protestant denominations, and my reading over the years. For that reason, in Section B I begin by discussing that background (Section B.1.), and then proceed to a brief discussion of NeWFism per se. Thus, my “plan” here, then, is to: A. B. C. D. E.

Begin with a brief discussion of the nature of Quakerism. Followed by an elucidation of NeWFism (in two subsections), as I conceive in currently. An identification and discussion of the similarities between the two. The same regarding the differences between the two. Conclusions.

1

My principal source for Quakerism is Thomas D. Hamm’s The Quakers in America (2003). In addition, I have attended the local (i.e., Milwaukee) Quaker meeting place twice. 2

The matter of similarities is discussed at some length in Section C.

2

It is, I suppose, somewhat meaningless to compare something that exists with something that is merely hypothetical. And also difficult to make such a comparison, because Quakerism, having been in existence for several centuries, has, quite “naturally,” become rather diverse. 3 NeWFism, in contrast, in existing only “on paper” at present (so far as I know), has not had an opportunity to become diverse. If it comes into existence at some time, it will no doubt not only become more completely developed, 4 but will also increase in diversity.

A. A Brief Discussion of Quakerism As I indicated in my first footnote, my information about Quakerism comes from Thomas D. Hamm’s The Quakers in America (2003), and from twice attending Quaker meetings here in Milwaukee. A point that Hamm emphasizes in his book is that “Friends” are a rather diverse lot, having beliefs and practices that are “all over the map.” Still, Hamm asserts that there are some commonalities among Quakers, and at the beginning of his Chapter 4 (“Quaker Faiths and Practices,” pp. 64 – 119), the author states (p. 64): In this chapter, I will argue that, even conceding the wide range of beliefs found among American Friends [a range that surprised me, I must admit!], certain ones are still almost universally shared. Five stand out: worship based on the leading of the Spirit; the ministry of all believers; decision making through the traditional Quaker business process; simplicity as a basic philosophy of life; and a commitment to education as a manifestation of Quaker life.

Put in “bullet” format, there are these commonalities, the author claims: 

Worship—i.e., their meetings with fellow Quakers5—is (Holy) Spirit-oriented.



There is an absence of any special pastors/ministers, for all Quakers are regarded as equal with, and, therefore, each capable of “ministering”6 to, others—and also expected so to do!



Decision-making that affects a given congregation as a whole should involve all members of that congregation, and should involve a consensus rather than a mere

3

I like this quotation in Hamm, op. cit., p. 147): Most “liberal Friends celebrate diversity; as one said, ‘we fairly wallow in it.’” (!) 4

To develop more fully, NeWFism must exist for some period of time—to allow problems/questions arise, and then get resolved. Given the unlikelihood that they will be resolved to the satisfaction of all those associated with NeWFism, it’s highly probable that variants of NeWFism will develop—as has occurred with Quakerism. 5

I comment—negatively!—on the use of the word “worship” for Quaker meetings in Section C.5.

6

Different Quakers would, of course, give different meanings to this word.

3

majority. More specifically, a “sense of the meeting” is determined, and declared, by a respected member of the congregation. 

One’s everyday life should be characterized by simplicity rather than “ostentatious display” (a term associated with Thorstein Veblen [1857 – 1929]). One should, that is, strive to minimize one’s needs—and then use whatever “excess” income one has to support worthy causes, including helping other specific individuals in need.



One should value education, and therefore acquire whatever formal education one needs for earning one’s living in the world, support educational institutions, keep oneself wellinformed, 7 etc.

Again, Hamm emphasizes the point that individual Quakers vary greatly in their beliefs, and that different groups of Quakers also vary greatly in their practices. This variety is not surprising, of course, given that individuals vary in their genetic makeup, life experiences, etc.—and the fact that Quakerism has been in existence for several centuries.

B. NeWFism NeWFism is described in considerable detail, and from different perspectives, in three of my eBooks: 1. A Religion for Today (2013) 2. Addressing Our Uncertain Future (2014) 3. NeWFism and the Tradition (2014) Before giving a brief description of NeWFism here, however, it will be useful for me briefly to describe my religious development—given that NeWFism, although not a religion per se, has its roots in my religious past. 1. My Religious Development My parents were raised in a Norwegian Lutheran church in Mt. Morris, Wisconsin, that my ancestors had helped establish. Early in their marriage, however, they concluded that that church was too “dead” for their tastes and, with several other young couples, founded the Assemblies of God church in nearby Wautoma, Wisconsin. I was raised in that church, but while a teen we started attending a Conservative Baptist church in nearby Wild Rose, Wisconsin. 7

I assume that this means that one should not waste one’s time reading newspapers, popular magazines, or watching televisions!—but, rather, read the postings on certain internet sites, such as Counterpunch, Truthout, Truthdig, Dissident Voice, TomDispatch, Alternet, etc.

4

As an adult, I have been associated with the Presbyterian denomination (in which my wife was raised), and also a United Methodist church. What especially attracted me to the latter church was its excellent adult class—which I led from time to time. I have long had an interest in religion, and have done a great deal of reading—in the scholarly literature, especially—about religion per se and about early “Jesuanism.” 8 A book that has, however, especially shaped by perception of Jesuanism is Theodore G. Soares’s old (1915) The Social Institutions and Ideal of the Bible, a copy of which I acquired in 1975. Whether or not it was the author’s intention, that book contributing to me seeing the Bible as a record of sorts of a certain Tradition—a Tradition that began with the prophets of the “Old Testament,” was continued by Jesus, and has been alive to some degree ever since (but not so much in Christianity!). A Tradition which, because it warrants continuation—and even being extended—one should take on, as a part of one’s responsibility, to do what one can to do both. (See my NeWFism and the Tradition for further discussion of this matter.) As to the prophets themselves, I see certain passages in the prophetic literature as of especial importance—the following being some examples: 21

“I hate, I despise your religious festivals; your assemblies are a stench to me. 22 Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will not accept them. Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will have no regard for them. 23 Away with the noise of your songs! I will not listen to the music of your harps. 24 But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-failing stream! —Amos 5 6

For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings. —Hosea 6

1

Woe to those who make unjust laws, to those who issue oppressive decrees, 2 to deprive the poor of their rights and withhold justice from the oppressed of my people, making widows their prey 8

I prefer this term to “Christianity” because only some of the early followers of Jesus regarded him as a, or the, Christ, evidently.

5

and robbing the fatherless. What will you do on the day of reckoning, when disaster comes from afar? To whom will you run for help? —Isaiah 10 3

6

With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year old? 7 Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten thousand rivers of olive oil? Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? 8 He has shown you, O mortal, what is good. And what does the LORD require of you? To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God. —Micah 6

If we ignore the references to “God” and “LORD” in the above passages, the passages can be thought of as identifying what is—and is not— “true” religion. It does not involve: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.

Religious festivals. Assemblies. Burnt, grain, and fellowship offerings. Noisy songs. Harp music. (Or worship of God, I might add!)

It does, however, involve: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

The existence of justice in the society. Being merciful in one’s relationships with others. The creation of just laws. Non-oppressive decrees. Giving the poor their rights. Providing justice to the oppressed. Ensuring that widows are cared for. The same for the fatherless. 6

Neither list, of course, should be regarded as a complete list. From a Biblical standpoint, then, what “being religious” involves, in short, is orthopraxy, not orthodoxy. That is, having enough empathy to recognize that there are vulnerable, etc., people in one’s society (in the world, in fact!), and what “being religious” involves is doing what one can to contribute to their well-being—while refraining from doing anything to them that would reduce their well-being. In short, one should be self-oriented only to the extent that one must to be able to function as a human being; primarily, however, one should be other-oriented.9 Given that the prophets had more of a societal, than individual, orientation, today10—and with our current problem of being faced with the threat to our continued existence as a species posed by global warming11—one could very well argue that the prophets are of more current relevance than is Jesus! Many are likely to regard such an assertion as “heretical,” of course, but it is one that I sincerely believe. For global warming is not only not an individual problem, it’s not even a societal problem—it’s a global problem! (That’s why it’s called global warming!) A question that arises relative to the prophets’ views is: “Would a ‘religious’ individual, as conceived by the prophets, have an interest in meeting, on a regular basis, with other ‘religious’ individuals?” My answer—and specifically for today—is a decided “Yes!”—the bases for that answer being that (a) discussions with others can result in ideas as to what can be done to address current problems, and (b) those ideas can be not only of an individual nature (i.e., what one might do as an individual), but be ideas that would require group action—both of which would have importance. To return to the idea of a Tradition: An implication of my coming to perceive the above-referred to Tradition as of primary importance, is that I have, as a consequence, come to perceive Christianity as of but secondary importance! As, in fact, not even that, given that Christianity had done so little to continue, and further develop, the ministry of Jesus—insofar as that is known.12

9

Today, we recognize that one should not so much be other-oriented out of a sense of obligation but, rather, with the knowledge that one thereby contributes—paradoxically!—to one’s own sense of wellbeing as well. 10

That is, their primary interest was in societal system change—which they tried to accomplish with the means at their disposal, and within the context of the particular circumstances that existed in their society. 11

Discussed briefly in Section B.1.g. below.

12

The fact of the matter, I have learned from the pertinent scholarly literature that I have read, is that little can be known with certainty about Jesus. Although some scholars doubt that Jesus was an historical personage, the fact that a number of “Jesus movements” emerged in the early years

7

My conclusion that what is important is the Tradition of which Jesus was a part, rather than Jesus himself, was furthered when I encountered (in 2012), and then read, J. Elliott Corbett’s The Prophets on Main Street (1978). What Corbett did in this book was pretend that the prophets were still alive, and then put critical commentary on contemporary society in the mouths of several of the Hebrew prophets of old. In effect, then, he was stating—if but implicitly—that one should think in terms of a Tradition that may have originated with the Hebrew prophets, and then accept the premise that that Tradition has needed, and continues to need, not merely continuation, but extension. As one who (a) accepts the statement 13 by Elizabeth Watson14 that “I cherish the freedom to seek truth wherever it may lead,” and (b) who reads widely, I need to add here that I have come to perceive (alone?!) the old prophets as individuals who, rather than receiving messages from “God,” were among those rare individuals who were “in touch” with their natures as humans.15 A nature that became disturbed with the Agricultural Revolution, I would add. I would argue that in effect the prophets “recognized” that the development of agriculture was the “worst mistake in the history of the human race,” as Jared Diamond has put it (1999). That “Revolution” resulted in a “Discrepancy” (see my What Are Churches For?, pp. 6, 25, 37, 40, 41, 44, 47, 51, 61, 63, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83, 93, 121, and 155). Briefly, what the “Discrepancy” refers to is the fact that in the course of their evolution (but not via Darwin’s “natural selection”—which played no role whatsoever in human evolution!16) humans acquired certain “design specifications” (see pp. 47 – 117 in my “Churches” eBook). With the development of agriculture—i.e., the Agricultural Revolution—the various gatherer-hunter ways of life that humans had gave way to different—and changing—ways of life. The significance of those facts are that those involved in that Revolution were now being (a) exposed to different stimuli, (b) engaging in different sets of behaviors, and (c) using their brains (regarding which I will be commenting on shortly) convinces me that someone with the name Jesus (or Joshua) did actually exist. 13

Hamm, op. cit., pp. 131 – 132.

14

Hamm notes (op. cit., 132) that Watson is “a well-known Quaker author and speaker.” Hamm quoted this statement by Watson after stating (p. 131): “One common starting point is agreement that Friends do not have formal creeds, statements of beliefs that all must accept.” On the next page Hamm states: “One FGC [Friends General Conference] publication argues that creeds are inappropriate because they are static; they do not adjust to changing reality. Elton Trueblood condemned them because they are easy to repeat and become lifeless forms rather than statements of living faith.” See this for a discussion of Trueblood—the author of The Humor of Christ (1975). 15

For discussions of our nature as humans see, e.g., the writings of Frans de Waal and Dacher Keltner.

16

See my Ringing the Bell for Darwin, 2012.

8

differently. It’s highly probable—because of these changes—that virtually all problems that humans have experienced since that Revolution have, and have had, their ultimate roots in the Discrepancy that began to develop between the (a) way of life for which our bodies had become designed via evolutionary processes, and (b) the way of life that they actually lived—were forced to live in many cases. The prophets, however, were somehow able to escape, to a significant extent, these influences, and to “remember” what life in accord with our “design specifications” was like—and that “remembrance,” in conjunction with their current societal situation, was the basis for their “preaching.” Not only do I believe that the “preaching” of the prophets of old has a naturalistic—rather than theistic—explanation. It’s worth noting that “God” has also evolved! Initially, “God” was thought of in rather amorphous terms—as immanent in things, so that many things acquired, thereby, a “spiritual” dimension.17 Later, however “God” came to be perceived in transcendent terms—first as a series of gods (i.e., polytheism), later as a single God (i.e., monotheism). In Israel, for example, Mark S. Smith argues 18 that “During the Judges period [c1200 – 1000 BCE], the major deities in the territory of Israel included Yahweh, El, Baal, and perhaps Asherah.” He adds (p. 32): “The original god of Israel was El.” As to why monotheism developed in Israel, Smith states (p. 196): “The monarchy was one of many formative influences on the development of monolatry.” 19 Smith added (p. 197) that the purest form of Yahwism “belonged not to an early stage of Israel’s history but to the late monarchy”—the period of the monarchy being from 1000 – 587 BCE, when Nebuchadnezzar II put Judah under siege. From the fact that “God” has evolved (!), it does not follow, of course, that “God” was “created out of thin air.” Rather, “God” was used as an explanatory device, and as a stand-in for Mystery. For example, the ancient Israelis evidently had a storm god (much like Thor of the Vikings); and Yahweh—a “warrior-god”20—originally had his home in Edom/Midian/Teiman, and was later assimilated “into the highland pantheon, headed by El, along with his consort, Asherah, and populated further by Baal and other deities.” Later Smith asserts (p. 182) that during the Judges period “the sun, moon, and stars were [also] considered deities in Israel.”

17

The “Great Spirit” of some Native American tribes seems to have been largely conceived in this manner. 18

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel, 2002, p. 30.

19

In his review of Smith’s book, Marvin A. Sweeney states this: It was the “Davidic monarchy that utilized Canaanite imagery to present YHWH as a national deity who could unite disparate elements of the population and legitimate Davidic rule.” I clipped this review out of an issue of The Christian Century, but have been unable to find the review on the internet. By the way, Monolatry involves the recognition of there being multiple gods, but the worship of just one god. 20

Smith, op. cit., p. xxxvii.

9

Now, to move from some of my personal religious beliefs to some general comments on NeWFism, and a few other matters: a. NeWFism can be regarded as a religion, but need not be. Given that the only requirement, to be a NeWFian is acceptance of the procedures used in any given NeWF, the beliefs of NeWFians are likely to vary greatly, on a great many subjects—so that some NeWF participants may think of NeWFism as a religion, others may not. b. Insofar as one regards NeWFism as a religion, and despite the fact that I was raised in Christianity, I neither (a) regard NeWFism as Christian, nor (b) regard the Bible as an authority. I believe that authority resides in peoples’ decisions—if made in such a way that a virtual consensus arises. Again, however, an individual NeWFian may have rather different views on both of these matters. c. I agree with Burton L. Mack (Who Wrote the New Testament, 1996) that at least seven different “Jesuan” groups emerged in the early years after Jesus’s death: 1) The people of the hypothetical book of “Q”—to whom Mack gives most attention, and states (p. 47) “Q puts us as close to the historical Jesus as we will ever be.” 2) The people of the “pronouncement” stories. 3) The people for whom the Gospel of Thomas was central. 4) Those for whom the miracle stories associated with Jesus were most important— which Mack refers to (p. 45) as the Congregation of Israel group. 5) The “Pillars” in Jerusalem. 6) A “family of Jesus” group. 7) The Congregations of the Christ, which differed from the other groups known to exist in the early years, in that (p. 75) members of these groups gave significance to Jesus’s “death and destiny.” They engendered “an elaborate preoccupation with notions of martyrdom, resurrection, and the transformation of Jesus into a divine, spiritual presence.” It was these groups that gave rise to “Christianity” as we have come to know it. By implication, then, if any of these groups warrant the label “heretical,” it is—ironically!—them; for the members of these “congregations” borrowed virtually all of their theology from the pagan cults that were popular in the Mediterranean Basin at this time!

10

d.

e.

21

Related to the preceding point, it is worthy of note of those groups which came to form Christianity, as we have come to know it, that: 1)

Their coalescence into a unitary religion came about as a result of the Emperor Constantine I (“the Great”!21) calling the Council of Nicaea, which produced the Nicene Creed. What’s notable about that creed is that it completely misrepresents the “ministry” of Jesus (as, that is, presented in the “New Testament” gospels) by having an orientation to orthodoxy rather than orthopraxy.22

2)

Implicitly, Christianity developed in a political direction—one that would be supportive of the Emperor and his policies! From the very beginning, then, Christianity has made a mockery23 of the teachings of the Jesus of the gospels— and Christianity has never recovered from wrong path that it took in its early years!

3)

The early Christians persecuted the other24 early Jesuan groups out of existence. Obviously, the “love of neighbor” principle taught by Jesus meant nothing to these folks!

4)

The New Testament that they created drew from a small number of the manuscripts actually in existence in the early years—those works that (a) enabled them to bring slightly different groups together (groups that, individually, looked to the gospels of either Mark, Matthew, Luke, or John), and that simultaneously (b) suited their ideological needs. They created a political book, that is.

NeWFism itself has neither a “sacred” book (e.g., the Bible25), nor a theology. Those facts do not, however, mean that for individual NeWFians there is no book regarded as sacred, or certain specific theological tenets accepted as true (as, i.e., beliefs).

Called that because his killing of relatives?! And this man was sainted?!

22

What’s ironic about this is that (Smith, op. cit. p. 17): “The study of Israelite religion often involves studying practices more than creedal beliefs because the Bible more frequently stresses correct practices than correct beliefs or internal attitudes. Christian scholars [and other Christians], however, tend to focus more on beliefs or inner attitudes because Christian theology has often emphasized this aspect of religion.” This raises the question: Why have Christians been so blind?! Jesus is said to have healed people of their blindness; perhaps Christians need to ask Jesus to heal them of their blindness! 23

Mocked as surely as the soldiers who were said to mock Jesus!

24

My phraseology here suggests that I would categorize the early “Christians” as “Jesuans”—but I don’t!

11

f.

NeWFism, rather than being a God-centered religion, is a people-centered philosophy,26 whose central principle is that one should be a loving person—loving other people, other living things, and even natural features. NeWFism, in being non-theistic officially, is, therefore somewhat similar to Buddhism.

g.

If loving is the primary value associated with NeWFism, the primary (and only!) beliefs that I associate with NeWFism are that (a) global warming is occurring, and (b) is threatening our continued existence as a species—it likely being, in fact, too late to prevent this from occurring. (See my “The Ironies of Our Present Situation” for a discussion of the matter.) In a sense, then, the position of NeWFians is that we humans have been “sowing the wind” and will, within a few decades, if not years, “reap the whirlwind.” That is, we have been acting as if we are not a part of Earth System, and have, in consequence, been affecting Earth System beyond the point where the negative feedback mechanisms with which Earth System is “equipped” to fight change are about to “give up” (if they have not, already!), to be replaced by positive feedback mechanisms—which will accelerate change (what’s termed “runaway”).

h.

Given that it appears that “the end is near”—the “end” in question differing substantially, however, from that believed in by the “millennialists”27—NeWFians believe that they should use whatever “free time” they have available (during these “last days”) “doing good”—especially for fellow human beings. This would include at least trying to implement the 5-“wave” strategy that I refer to later (in Section D.3.)— both as a means of contributing to the well-being of others (especially if the “downtrodden” are recruited as a part of the vanguard), and of (possibly) “saving” at least a few humans from the ravages of global warming (given that we cannot know for certain, now, what the future has in store for us).

25

Thomas L. Thompson has made the astute comment that “the biblical texts are not, for the most part, religious texts themselves. They are rather philosophical critiques of religious tradition and practice.” The Mythic Past: Biblical Archeology and the Myth of Israel, 1999, p. 387. 26

One with an institutional basis, however.

27

I am referring to such beliefs as a (supposed) “second-coming” of Jesus (Hamm, op. cit., p. 160), the “saved” being “raptured” to Heaven, etc. Oddly, those who believe in a “second coming of Jesus don’t seem to recognize Jesus’s (supposed) resurrection as a “coming”! Or can’t they count?!

12

2. Now to Discuss “NeWFism” Briefly! I have made numerous references to NeWFism so far; it is now surely time to indicate at least briefly how I conceive NeWFism! Given that my development of NeWFism is a “product” of my contact, over the years, with a variety of Protestant denominations, 28 in conjunction with my reading, I have thought it best to discuss that background prior to commenting on NeWFism itself. The word “NeWFism” derives from “New Word Fellowship 29,” or “NeWF.” As the word “fellowship” suggests, NeWFism involves people meeting, and forming a fellowship. What makes the NeWF different relative to other fellowships is that it is a fellowship oriented to smallgroup discussion. That fact alone does not, of course, make the NeWF unique. What does make the NeWF relatively unique, however, is that the discussion that occurs is (a) structured, and (b) guided by a set of rules. Assuming initially here that the group in question is small (e.g., just 12 individuals), when the members of the group arrive at their designated meeting place on the designated day and time, the first step is to choose a leader—termed the “Prophet”—for that session; this is done using a random process—one “copied” from a first-century “Jesuan”30 named Marcus (see my Addressing Our Uncertain Future, pp. 53 - 56). The Prophet begins the discussion process, saying whatever “is on his or her mind”31 at the time—this despite the fact that NeWFians would be united in believing that global warming is occurring, and is a serious threat to our continued existence. When the prophet has completed his or her initial remarks, s/he passes the “talking hoop” being used (see p. 59 in Addressing) to the person on his or her immediate left, who then speaks, passes the “hoop,” on, etc., until the

28

In addition to the four mentioned earlier, I have attended “services” in a number of other Protestant denominations, and have also attended a few Roman Catholic services—our son having married a wonderful Catholic woman. 29

Note that the “new word” here itself suggests a connection to Quakerism: Quakers believe in present-day revelation, sitting in silence anticipating a “new word” from the Holy Spirit. The “new word” anticipated by NeWFians during their meetings is new ideas (and much more!). Some NeWFians might attribute the various positive consequences possible with NeWF participation to (like Quakers) the Holy Spirit; others, however, would attribute them to the dynamics associated with the interaction process—would, i.e., attribute them to natural causes. 30

As I explained earlier, I have come to prefer this term to “Christian,” given that only some of the early followers of Jesus came to perceive him as a, or the, “Christ.” 31

NeWFians are united in accepting a set of rules that guide their discussions rather than a set of beliefs. Were Roger Williams [1603 -1683] alive today, he might choose to be a NeWFian!

13

previously agreed-upon ending time is reached, or those participating agree to stop the discussion. The discussion process follows a definite set of rules (see pp. 59 – 61 in Addressing), the purpose of those rules being to (a) keep the discussion civil, and (b) give everyone present an equal opportunity to say what s/he feels “called upon” to say. I believe that discussions that are conducted under the rules specified can have a multitude of positive benefits for participants (and those with whom they have contact), these being identified and discussed at length on pp. 62 – 77 of Addressing. The “Appendix” on group formation on pp. 77 -78 of Addressing discusses how to handle situations where 16 or more individuals are present at a given meeting.

C. Similarities Between Quakerism and NeWFism In this section, then, I identify, and then discuss, similarities that I perceive between Quakerism and NeWFism; and because the interpretation that a NeWFian would often give to a given point would differ somewhat from a Quaker’s interpretation, I make note of that fact. The fact that considerable variation exists within Quakerism means, of course, that in referring to “Quakers,” I often mean some Quakers rather than Quakers per se. 1. Social Problem Orientation Quakers are known as a serious people—although the Trueblood book on the humor of Jesus referred to in an earlier footnote would certainly be an exception. In referring to a “social problem orientation,” however, I mean that Quakers have traditionally been interested in addressing social problems—most notably slavery (and now civil rights) and peace; and more recently such issues as abortion, homosexuality, and the environment. Although Quakers have always been numerically small, they have produced a large number of important leaders. NeWFians admire them for what they have done, for NeWFians also have a social problem orientation. However, although Quakers seem to have a “fix the problem” approach to problems, NeWFians recognize that most of our social problems have a common root—the (discrepant 32) nature of our society(ies). Given that conclusion, NeWFians believe that the only solution to our various problems is societal system change—of the right sort, of course. (Unfortunately, they also believe that such change is unlikely to occur—and that even if such change could be accomplished, it is now too late for it to “work.”) 2. Simple Living Everyone has certain survival needs, and those needs—along with one’s desire for a certain level of comfort—involve the use/consumption of certain material things for their 32

Alluding to my earlier discussion of The Discrepancy on p. 8.

14

satisfaction. One must, of course, give attention to one’s own basic needs, for the simple reason that one can only function effectively (obviously!) in serving others—something valued by both Quakers and NeWFians33—if one’s own basic needs are satisfied. The temptation in our society, however, is to engage in “conspicuous consumption”—to, i.e., engage in consumption for psychological and social, rather than survival, reasons— and to treat consumption as an end, rather than as a means to the end of survival (and a certain level of comfort). If, however, one values service to others and to one’s society/world, one will resist such a temptation, because one will recognize that excessive consumption is a “roadblock” to the realization of one’s goals: It focuses one’s attention in the wrong direction, and reduces one’s ability to serve others. In addition, because consumption requires production, and production usually involves the use—indirectly, if not directly—of polluting fossil fuels, consumption is unecological. In fact, the consumption activities by humans—“led” by us wonderful Americans!—in conjunction with the large population that the world now has (estimated to be over 7.3 billion at present), likely “add up” to the demise of our species within a few decades, if not years. For these various reasons both Quakers34 and NeWFians devalue consumption, and value simple living. The danger to which some have fallen victim (borrowing a pernicious idea from certain “evangelicals”) is that of becoming convinced that wealth signifies being in God’s “good graces”—which then provides one with a rationale for “blaming the victim,” and therefore not helping those in need.35 That is, there is danger in adopting an anti-Jesuan attitude while somehow convincing oneself that one is pro-Jesuan! Humans seem to have a unique ability to deceive themselves!

33

Mahatma Gandhi once advised people: “Live simply so others may simply live.” Implicit here, it seems to me, is that if one lives simply, one will be able to help others live—and should do so. That is, if everyone able, as a result of their simple living, to share with others would do so, everyone in the world could, and would, be able to live, and do so reasonably well. (Gandhi likely did not literally mean this, of course; more likely, he was trying to motivate people to help those in need.) 34

Quakers have a Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), whose members have as a mission statement: “We seek an earth restored.” Good luck! 35

Given that evangelicalism is an individualistic “philosophy,” it lends itself to a “success” version of Christianity.

15

3. Equality as Goal One value promoted by many (but not all!) Quakers is “simple” living. This goal is advanced for a variety of reasons, as I note above, one being that living simply is a means to bring about relative equality in situation. If one believes that everyone is equal in value—a belief common to both Quakers and NeWFians—and one also has empathy for one’s fellows, after one has satisfied one’s own basic needs, one will do what one can to help others satisfy their basic needs—thereby not only contributing to their well-being, but helping bring about a certain degree of “leveling.” 4. Meetings Like most religions with which we are familiar here in the United States, Quakerism involves meeting with like-minded others—unlike, e.g., Buddhism. Typically, religious meetings occur in a special place set aside for that purpose—commonly called a “church.” Recently, in watching a Rick Steves television program on touring Italy, I observed Rick gushing over the “beautiful” interiors of cathedrals in that country. Rick, being rather clueless about religion, evidently can’t fathom the fact that some regard the ornate interiors of cathedrals as diverting one’s attention from where it should be—as, in fact, being positively repulsive! Most Quakers seem to believe that their meeting places should be unadorned—so as not to divert their attention from their purpose in being there. NeWFians admire the Quakers for this, and fully concur with their insistence on plain meeting places. 5. Activities During Meetings Although NeWFians concur with Quakers on the matter that their meeting places should be plain, they differ greatly from Quakers in their ideas regarding what should occur during meetings. The traditional Quaker meeting (termed unprogrammed; also see this) involves those meeting sitting in silence, awaiting messages from God/Holy Spirit. Although the term “worship” is often applied to Quaker meetings (the title of Hamm’s Chapter One uses that word), when I think of “worship,” I think of an idol being present—which definitely does not describe Quaker meetings! In addition, in attending a Quaker meeting here in Milwaukee, in talking with one of the members after the meeting, I made the mistake of using the word “service”—and was quickly corrected: “Service is what we do after our meetings.” Good point! Hamm quotes (p. 70) a Quaker named John Punshon on this topic thusly: “Words, from whatever source, are human and inevitably adulterated by our worldly ways. Silence, on 16

the other hand, is a reflection of purity. . . . In worship [why use that word?!], it means that we wait, expectantly and patiently, for what God has to say to us.” However, other Quakers are not so sanguine about the virtues of silence. For example, Quaker Rufus Jones [1863 – 1948] had a rather different view on silence. He said (Hamm, p. 70) that “silence itself has no magic. It may be just sheer emptiness, absence of words or noise or music. It may be an occasion for slumber, or it may be a dead form.” Wow! In other words, just because something definite is supposed to occur during a period of silence, many other things may occur in addition—or instead! Thereby making a mockery of what silence is supposed to accomplish. If, on the hand, it is speech that is supposed to occur during a meeting, it is speech that will occur! And it so happens is that NeWFian meetings are dominated by speech, rather than silence. But controlled speech—speech that occurs following a definite set of rules (see pp. 37 – 61 in my Addressing Our Uncertain Future). The reasons for preferring controlled speaking (rather than silence) are discussed on pp. 62 – 78 of that eBook. Thus, although both Quaker and NeWFian meetings have a procedural orientation, the one features silence, the other controlled talking. Ironically, for those NeWFians who believe in the existence of a Holy Spirit, that Spirit may play three roles (!) during a given meeting: (a) choosing the Prophet for the meeting, (b) speaking to some of those present, and (c) “filling” some of those present (i.e., giving a “natural high”—as seculars would put it—to some of those present)! Thus, there are excellent reasons for preferring talking to silence! Especially given what Rufus Jones (see above) has said about silence!36 An additional point that needs to be made about meetings—one appropriate to make at this point—is that NeWFians believe that meetings must consist only of a small number of individuals. If the number present for a given meeting exceeds a certain number, subgroups would be formed—per the chart on pp. 77 – 78 of my Addressing Our Uncertain Future. 6. Lack of Clergy Both Quakers and NeWFians take the position that their meetings have no need for clergy. However, this principle is not followed by all branches of Quakerism; and NeWFism, being non-committal about, e.g., the existence of “God,” recognizes the need only for a temporary leader—called the Prophet. That is, for a given meeting one of 36

Additional negative comments on silence are given on p. 70 of Hamm!

17

those attending (or more, if the number present exceeds a certain number 37) is selected at random as the “leader” for that session, with another person selected at random to be leader at the next meeting.38 Another reason for not having a clergy is the conviction—with both some Quakers, and with all NeWFians—that whatever differences that exist between those present at a meeting are insignificant—too insignificant to regard some members as more important than other members. 7. Degree of Uniformity Although the members of a given Quaker congregation are likely to be in significant agreement about many things (those with deviant ideas, are likely to have left the congregation!), significant inter-group variation exists with Quakerism. Even within a given Quaker group within which relative harmony prevails, however, there will be some degree of diversity, given that individuals vary in their genetic inheritance, life experiences, etc. Given the nature of NeWFism, however, and specifically the fact that the members of a given group mainly agree on the procedures used for their meetings (rather than beliefs), variation is to be expected within any given NeWFian group. In addition, at the intergroup scale, groups would be expected to be similar—similar in being rather diverse, that is! Because of the diversity expected within NeWFian groups, NeWFism is likely only to attract a certain type of person—one who welcomes encountering views that differ from his or her own, realizing that such encounters would help one’s intellectual—and other— growth. Perhaps it is especially those who enjoy traveling, and the new encounters that traveling entails, who would especially be attracted to NeWFism. Insofar as NeWFians enjoy attending NeWFian sessions, they may convey that delight to others in their circle of friends. As a consequence, NeWFism, once begun, might grow in numbers—perhaps at an increasing rate! This subject of uniformity-diversity reminds me of a development that occurred here in Greendale, Wisconsin, where I live. Greendale was founded in 1939 as a part of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal program. One of the early residents was Minnie Frew (who just turned 100), who was bothered by the fact that the village had just two 37

Refer to point 5 above.

38

As I noted earlier, use of this procedure has been copied from a first-century Jesuan named Marcus. See Elaine Pagels, The Gnostic Gospels, 1979, pp. 41 – 43.

18

churches, a Lutheran one and a Catholic one. Being a community-minded person, and seeing a need for all residents of the community to have their religious needs met, she started a Sunday School in her living room in 1940, which grew into the Greendale Community Church. The current pastor of the church, Rev. David Gaeth, has said of her: “Minnie is the most gracious, most inclusive person I have ever met in my life—this woman has absolutely no judgment in her whatsoever.” Although I have never been in this church, and have therefore never met Ms. Frew, I have a great deal of admiration for her—despite the fact that I’m sure that my theological ideas differ rather substantially from hers. She seems to be the sort of person who would accept another person, regardless of their theological beliefs—so that she is one of the few people in our society for whom the “love of neighbor” command is not just something to mouth! 8. “Salvation” an Important Concept Insofar as “salvation” plays a role in Quakerism (it doesn’t with “universalist Quakers”), it is given a “fundamentalist” meaning39. That is, a “saved” person is one who “accepts Jesus as his or her Lord and Savior” (whatever that means, operationally!), and in doing so will supposedly be spared from existence in a very warm place (i.e., Hell) upon one’s death—instead spending a blessed eternity in Heaven. NeWFians, as people who accept the findings and theories of physicists, would argue that there is no solid basis for believing in the existence of either Heaven or Hell, and therefore reject both as real places. The concept of “salvation” is, however, important to them, for they believe that the continued existence of our species is in serious doubt (especially because of the “global warming” that is occurring). The question that arises with NeWFians is: “Can we humans be ‘saved’ from extinction, brought about by global warming? And the answer to this question appears to be “No!” As I will suggest in the next section, however, given that we cannot know the future with certainty, we should at least try to “save” ourselves—but doing so using procedures not likely to simply add to our problems. The next section, then, in a sense continues the previous one by bringing out differences between Quakerism and NeWFism, but has a more specific focus on the differences.

39

My perception of the “fundamentalists” is that they are fundamentally wrong!

19

D. Differences Between Quakerism and NeWFism In addition to the differences between Quakerism and NeWFism that I noted in the previous section, several others can be listed: 1. Christianity It appears that Quakerism is commonly thought of, by non-Quakers, as a Christian religion—and it appears that most Quakers do as well. However, “universalist Quakers” are an exception. So far as NeWFism is concerned, although NeWFism has its origins in Christianity, some NeWFians think NeWFism as not a religion at all but, rather, a sort of philosophy. And those NeWFians who do think of NeWFism as a religion, may not think of it as a Christian religion. However, given that NeWFism welcomes diversity, some NeWFians may very well identify with an existing religion—whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc. The point is that “officially” NeWFism is not a religion—and, therefore, not a Christian religion, of course. 2. Theology Although Quakerism lacks a theology, it appears that most Quakers identify themselves as Christians, and accept some sort of Christian theology; it also appears, however, that Quakers vary a great deal in the particular theology to which they adhere. NeWFism, having its primary orientation to the use of a certain set of procedures, would not be expected to have a theology—and does not have one. A basic difference between Quakerism and NeWFism (its “official” version), however, is that the former can be said to be God-centered, the latter people-centered. Again, just as individual Quakers differ widely in their beliefs, so do NeWFians—so that the relevance of this difference is open to question. NeWFians, though, do have as a fundamental purpose that of bringing people together, and its rules have that as an intention. Quaker rules, in contrast, are such as to (they hope) “induce” God/Holy Spirit to provide a message to one or more present. Thus, the purposes that Quakers have in meeting differ substantially from those that NeWFians have. 3. The Existing Order Quakerism has been notable for supplying much of the important leadership in social causes since its inception.40 However, the basic approach of Quakers has been to 40

It is noteworthy that George Fox’s first convert was a woman, Elizabeth Hooten, and that Margaret Fell (who became Fox’s wife) was another Quaker woman who became an important leader not only within Quakerism, but in the society within which they lived. Although Quakers have the reputation of

20

develop and apply “fixes” to the Existing Order. As I stated earlier, NeWFians, on the other hand, recognize that most of our societal problems have their basis in the nature of the social order itself, so that the only solution to those problems is societal system change—of the right sort. (Unfortunately, they also recognize that it’s now too late for any “fix”!) Following the lead of, e.g., Robert Owen [1771 – 1858], NeWFians perceive societal system change not in a Marxian light but, rather, as involving the creation of small communities, and working for their proliferation—until they “engulf” the entire society. In 1984 I published an article that proposed a 5-“wave” strategy for accomplishing such change—a strategy that has, however, merely “sat on the shelf” since then, unfortunately! Some Quakers have created and/or moved to “intentional communities,” but it’s not clear whether they have perceived these as “building blocks” of a New Society, or simply as a “refuge” from “the world”—an environment that permits them to live in a manner of their choosing. 4. Community-Family Quakers seem to be united in believing that the nuclear family is, and should be, a society’s fundamental unit (Hamm, op. cit., p. 194). NeWFians, in contrast, perceive the community as a more “natural” unit—one that got disturbed by the Agricultural Revolution of 10,000 years ago. However, despite the fact that NeWFians perceive the community as a society’s fundamental unit, they perceive a given community as a sort of alliance of individual nuclear families. 5. Authority For Quakers, authority resides in the decision-making of a given group—but for many, the ultimate authority is the Bible. For NeWFians, however, authority only resides in the decision-making of a given group—where “decision-making” is understood to involve at least a three-fourths majority, with consensus being the ideal, however. At times a decision will be made that is objected to by some—who may then leave the Fellowship. This is unfortunate, but at times cannot be avoided.

being progressive in their thinking, Hamm (op. cit., p. 161) notes that that the late (died 2009) Jack Powelson—an economist at the University of Colorado—“launched an online journal to combat what he sees as dogmatic anticapitalism among unprogrammed Friends.”

21

6. Holy Spirit Those Quakers who meet in silence do so with the expectation that during their period of meeting, God/Holy Spirit will “speak” to one or more individuals present—with that individual(s) then conveying the message received to the others present. Those NeWFians who associate themselves with, e.g., Christianity may (as I noted earlier) perceive God/Holy Spirit as performing three roles, not just one: (a) choosing the leader (“Prophet”) for that particular session, (b) speaking to one or more of the individuals present, and (c) “filling” some of those present—i.e., giving them what secularists would term a “natural high.”

E. Conclusions In conclusion, although Quakers and NeWFians have important things in common, they also have important differences—the most fundamental one seemingly being that Quakers, in meeting, practice silence, NeWFians, in meeting, practice controlled talking. Hamm (op. cit., p. 73) states that “Friends readily acknowledge that there is no infallible method for testing whether a leading to speak is real or a delusion. They are usually patient with each other. Some see corporate worship as a kind of group seeking after truth, in which some attempts to name or frame it are bound to be unsuccessful.” However, as I noted under “Activities During Meetings” above, Rufus Jones, among others, has commented on a number of problems associated with meetings that involve silence: Although they may have certain intentions, there is no guarantee at all that those intentions will be fulfilled. Insofar as Quaker meetings involve “seeking after truth,” NeWFian meetings differ from them not only in involving talking, rather than silence, but in that (a) the problems associated with the use of silence will not exist, and (b) the consequences associated with NeWF participation are potentially much more extensive and significant (see this chart41). NeWFians do seek truth, but especially truth that they can act on. I hesitate to engage in “invidious comparison,” but will admit that my preference is for NeWFism over Quakerism. My wish is that it would come into existence—for it might contribute to the “salvation” of at least some humans from the ravages of global warming!

41

It is on p. 103 of my A Religion for Today (2013).

22