Sheffield Quakers

A place for C.O,'s

2008-07-18T14:56:00.001Z

I found this on the Ohio Conservative site

http://www.conservativefriend.org/onlinecoform.htm

it may be of interest/of use to potential C.O.'s in Meeting
Peter

An easy death?

2008-07-18T13:58:00.001Z

From looking at the Ohio Conservative Friends' e-mail discussion about abortion I can across a mention of euthanasia and it brought back to me my mother's recent death. Myself and my two sisters' were unanimous when told by her doctor about what we should do. There was no discussion, though we had all obviously been thinking given that she had survived for longer than expected. She had cancer of the pancreas and secondaries had formed, one blocking her bowel. Having been taken into hospital they had to operate urgently because of this blockage. As they went in her bowel ruptured. They cleaned up as best they could and we were called to the hospital for the death watch - I'm sorry but I can't put it any other way.She revived in terms of her heart and, at times, could speak though I would ask her questions and she would grip my hand to say yes when I asked if she needed more morphine etc.. However her kidneys failed to work. We were given the possible outcomes. As I had an old lover die in a few weeks with cancer of the pancreas only 4/5 months before I knew the speed it grew.My sisters and myself were presented on the Sunday evening with the choices: take away all but palliative care, try dialysis but that would involve them finishing the operation they had begun on the Friday night and waiting until they could put a bag in plus dialysis. This meant 3/4 days a week travelling across town for treatment and she would not have been able she could do all she had before in terms of going to the market, visiting my sisters and coming to 'run me round' - she should have bought the 'tooit'. We opted to wait until the Monday morning to see if her kidneys did work. They didn't. They waited until the three of us were there and started to turn off the equipment except palliative care. She lived for nearly thirty six hours longer with her children and grandchildren around her as much as possible.I'm telling this story because I got the distinct impression that all should be done to maintain life and too a point I agree with this but where does maintaining life become the issue of keeping life for your own sake/wellbeing and when is it the best course of action for the sick person.This is not the 1st time I've been involved in this but the 1st time involving someone so close. No matter what others' think I am convinced that we all showed our mother the greatest form of love even though it created tremendous pain for us.No matter what arguments are presented I can only feel happy about what we did and how without discussion we had agreement - would anyone do anything other?In Friendship and memory of Edna Lawless 24/1/1926 - 22/1/2008.Peter

'Thought for the Day' on why not to judge people on their sexuality

2008-07-18T12:11:00.005Z

Today's BBC Radio 4 'Thought for the Day' was John Bell talking about the need for tolerance/acceptance of the diversity of human sexuality. I recommend 'listening again' to it.

(I have also posted this as a comment on Gordon's piece below, but thought I'd put it here too for greater visibility.)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/programmes/thought/index.shtml

Sin, Sexuality and Relationships

2008-07-17T07:23:00.002Z

I have been dismayed and, yes, disgusted, by some of the correspondence in The Friend in recent weeks on "same sex relationships", following the report on the Woodbrooke conference on committed partnerships and same sex marriage on 13th June. Fifteen years ago I left the Church of England, and I though I had put this sort of stuff behind me when I joined Quakers. Then the big issue was the role of women in the church in general, and ordination of women in particular. No problem there for Quakers, but homosexuality seems to be stirring up a hornet's nest.

Why is it that otherwise open-minded, liberal, intelligent people who actively profess to "seek that of God in everyone" get stuck here? What is the nature of that place deep in people's soul/psyche that they cannot come to terms with same-sex relationships?

There was even a letter in The Friend saying we should 'love the sinner, not the sin'. This was a common rallying cry from my evangelical Christian days, and I used it myself - to get round the problem that I am required to love my enemies, but I still want to be able to keep my prejudices. 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' is the last refuge of the bigot.

After a comment made in our meeting for reflection last Sunday, I realised that the problem arises when we define people by their sexuality. We have quite rightly stopped defining people by their race or disability or intelligence or class, but there seems to be a sticking point with sexuality. 2000 years ago Paul spelt it out: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Galatians 3:28). However, like us all, Paul was an ordinary human being with failings and prejudices and did not carry this profound insight into everything he said. We can hunt around the bible for anything to support our views, but this one is utterly simple and to the point. There is indeed that of God in everyone, and woe betides anyone who tries to find wriggle room.

Race, disability, intelligence, class and sexuality are political issues - we have fought hard over the centuries to create an equal society, at least in law, and the final hurdles are before us. There are no doubt political groups within Quakers who seek their agenda, and who can blame them - I have no idea what it is like to be in a marginalised group, but I bet frustration figures high in their emotions, and if it was me, I reckon I would be banging the drum for political action as well.

But we are a religious society, and religion/spirituality are above and beyond politics. For when the political battles have been won, we still have to live with one another. The only sound basis for living together is Paul's resounding comment: absolute mutuality and equality. Sins are forgiven instantly. Differences are celebrated. What loving couples do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is utterly irrelevant.

Reflections on the Lord's Prayer

2008-07-13T20:37:00.002Z

Suzanne has asked me to share this with you, as it includes reflections on her experience among Sheffield Friends this past year. She will be giving this as a sermon at her Mennonite Church next month.

As we look at the question of peace in our time, I thought it would be interesting, and perhaps helpful to look at the Lord's Prayer as a cultural blueprint of a way of life that naturally expresses peace-making and pacifism – a blueprint that lays out the human and spiritual qualities of living simply, practicing forgiveness, humility, and offering gratitude and affirmation which are foundational to genuine peacemaking.

I will share my thoughts and experiences today on these four lines of the Lord's Prayer and the four themes they embody. I will conclude each section with a few queries or questions for us to ponder in silence. One thing I learned to appreciate from the Quakers is silence out of which grows new understanding of things eternal as we explore each other's truths and realities together.

A culture of simplicity. "Give us this day our daily bread." I love this image. It's vegetarian, it's living – until it is baked! It can be broken and shared. It is symbolic of the basic things we need. We don't need much, really.
When we were on our sabbatical leave in England this past year, we considered carefully what we really needed, and what we could do without. Here is what we learned.
We had a tiny flat, with two bedrooms, the second of which could not fit two single beds. The windowed closet, which fit a narrow air mattress became Naomi's room – at her request, I should add! She found refuge there when the flat became too crowded with the rest of us. On the other hand, Naomi was confident our flat was large enough for sleep-overs, which we had several times! So we didn't "need" a big house – although coming to back to more space has been welcome and much enjoyed!
We lived without a car. Sheffield is trying to reduce traffic by making parking very difficult, changing some streets to bus only, and adding many one-way streets. So walking everywhere was a pleasant alternative to battling traffic. We walked and talked together, even in the wind and the rain -- and even in the cold -4 degree weather we had in March. We had time because we had a very pared down schedule. For shopping, four arms could carry quite a bit. We had strong nylon bags that could carry a lot. We also used buses for places further than 30 minutes by foot. If we wanted to visit the countryside, there were several bus options to take us there and back. And visiting other cities was so convenient by train – and cheap with our family rail card, as long as our 12 year old was along. When you walk, and travel by public transport, you do have to plan well – or you miss your train! But the travel is stress-free once you are going, and there is opportunity for interaction with each other and with strangers. We have a lot of train stories to tell, but I will save those for some other time.
We also lived without a toaster and a microwave (our flat came furnished, which didn't include dishes, except for the requisite electric tea kettle, so that we had!) We went as long as we could without a sieve, but eventually broke down and bought a cheap one at Poundland! That way I stopped wasting pasta trying to drain it with the lid!
We lived without an electric mixer. We took turns whisking egg whites and whipping cream by hand! It was great exercise and very satisfying. We also baked only for special occasions!
We lived without a piano. Now that was hard. But I found a communal one to play on now and then. And we lived without a TV. It is interesting to watch TV after you haven't for an extended period of time. The commercials are so bold and loud, and some of the programming -- well! But we did enjoy the semifinals of “Britain's Got Talent” for a few days when we were in Ireland!
We got a box of locally grown food at our doorstep once a week. I left the money in an envelope and they left the surprise box. Parsnips got a little old by the end of March, but cooking with seasonal vegetables with little notes explaining why the potatoes didn't look so good that week and recipes for the strange looking vegetables we didn't recognize was a refreshing reminder of our connection with the earth and our daily bread.
Unless you are Amish, there is no blueprint for living simply. It's not an easy “this is good and this is bad.” But it is an interesting exercise to do without some things to see what effect it has on us, how we see things differently, what we do instead. Then we can be more conscious and more intentional in how and what we consume. PAUSE
"Give us this day our daily bread." What is this daily bread for you? Could we consider every time we plug something in whether we can do it on our own steam ,or every time we get into our car whether we could instead walk together and carry the load together? Could we live more gently and seasonally, at peace as conscientious stewards of what we choose to use?

A culture of forgiveness
“Forgive us our debts. " The word "debt" is sometimes translated as trespasses, or sins, but I like the concreteness of debts. And I think especially of the huge debt we westerners owe the earth and future generations for the taking of resources far beyond what we need. One Quaker friend I have in Sheffield feels that working for peace was a 20th century priority. The priority, if not urgency for the 21st century, according to Simon, is to relearn simplicity -- to stop consuming and consuming and feeding greed and fueling violence to satisfy greed. As a socieiy, we have become like compulsive gamblers wanting more, measuring economic success in terms of sales and more sales, and profits, worrying about our investments. Economic indicators can seem so skewed if you stop and think about it in human community terms. It is all a type of violence -- to the earth, to the workers, to ourselves as we stress about things that should be in the hands of God. We can ask for forgiveness for what has gone before -- our debts from the past. Acknowledging our debts can give us wisdom and courage to embrace a new way and to challenge policies that promote consumption at the expense of shared co-existence.
“As we forgive our debtors” The assumption here is that we are a forgiving people who give others another chance, who give room for dialogue and coming together, who restore relationships. Sometimes, we take on the debts of others. For example, in England the government policy is to treat asylum seekers – what we call refugee claimants here -- as if they were pawns to be moved around from city to city, to be deported at any time, to have no accomodation nor stipend nor the right to work if they are refused asylum, even as the government admits it is unsafe to return to their home country. A group of mostly ecumenical faith-based people got together to form ASSIST which supports asylum seekers in various ways to avoid homelessness among this population and to give as much dignity back as the UK government takes away. The debt owed asylum seekers is being repaid by Robert and Margaret and Myra and Tendero.... and through this, there is the possibility of forgiveness.
In a culture of forgiveness, it doesn't matter who is in debt to whom. Through prayerful thought, we react, seeking guidance from the Holy Spirit, and we work at making things right with the world that is all around us and we work at restoring relationships– all parts of spreading peace. PAUSE
Do we recognize our own debts, many of which may not be monetary? Do we respond to debts owed and grievences and harm done to us out of a culture of forgiveness?

A culture of humility
"Lead us not into temptation BUT deliver us from evil."
That God would lead us into temptation has always been a puzzle to me. Why would a loving God do such a thing? One alternative translation to the word “temptation”, apparently, is trial or crisis. In fact, in our pew Bibles, the word is translated as trial. I am borrowing liberally from two Anglican Archbishops here, The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams and David M Gitari Archbishop of Kenya and Bishop of Nairobi.
In praying "Lead us not into temptation but deliver us from evil" we acknowledge that we do not know how we will respond in a time of crisis or trial, and we ask God to give us what we need to face a crisis when it comes. A loose paraphrase may sound something like this: “God, do not lead us into crises before we are ready but, rather, set us free from all those things, the fears, the sins, the selfish habits that keep us prisoner and that make us unable to face crisis.”
Is it not during times of crisis that violence erupts in our human relations and our global national relations? To pray for freedom from those very negative human responses to threat is foundational to paving the way to peace.
Understood in this light, this line of the Lord's Prayer is full of humility – that quality that shows we know our limits, our boundaries, our challenges. In praying this line, we are humbled by the forces of life around us, humbled by the acceptance of our own frailness, and humbled in the presence of a God who can deliver us from evil. Of course, this does not mean that trials and crises will not test us, but we are assured that if we remember to draw on the Power of God, we will not be prisoners to fear, but rather free in God's infinite wisdom and love to respond to whatever trial presents itself – feeling at peace and promoting peaceful outcomes. PAUSE
Do we cultivate a culture of humility? Are we aware of the bondage of fear within us? Do we acknowledge that those fears keep us from experiencing God?

A culture of graditude and affirmation

“For Thine is the Kingdom and the Power and the Glory forever and ever!” This final line conveys joyful gratitude and affirmation. One thing the Quakers in Sheffield were very good at was affirmation of each other. I noticed this because I felt like such a stranger at first, with my funny accent, my unquakerly way of saying things – yet they affirmed me! They seemed never to miss an opportunity to affirm what someone said in meeting, what someone wrote in the newsletter... And being a part of a culture of gratitude and affirmation makes one want to sing praises to the universe -- the Kingdom and the Power and Glory that is God! Affirmation is foundational to community, which is foundational to lasting peace. PAUSE
Do we express joyful gratitude and affirmation to God and to each other? Does this gratitude and affirmation extend to all those we encounter no matter the faith or culture?

The culture in the Kingdom of God is basic and simple, forgiving, tempered with humility, and filled with joyful affirmation of our God and of each other. Out of this flows a lasting peace that permeates us, our relationships and our faith and the world around us. Let us nurture and cherish this culture – our true inheritance! Amen.

Failed Asylum seekers

2008-07-10T16:44:00.002Z

Hi all

Just got back from Geneva where I was doing a (very short!) presentation to the UN Human Rights Committee on peace tax. Incidentally I got to overhear the committee taking British government officials to task over the destitution of failed asylum seekers. The officials' response (which I've heard before) was that failed asylum seekers are entitled to accommodation and vouchers until deportation. How does this square with the apparent destitution of many failed asylum seekers? Is it just that asylum claims are unfairly rejected so often that people "voluntarily" disappear out of the system for fear of deportation, and so choose not to claim the limited benefits offered? Or are the officials simply wrong in what they're saying? It'd be worth knowing the answer, since the government trots this line out so regularly.

News from Edmonton

2008-07-06T20:22:00.002Z

Dear Friends:

Suzanne, Miriam, Naomi, and I arrived safely back in Edmonton late Monday night, after your warm send-off the day before. We're settling back in, reconnecting with (small f) friends. Miriam is doing a summer school module in chemistry, I've reclaimed my office at the university, and Suzanne starts back to work next week. Tonight we're MC'ing a celebration for some close friends having their 25th wedding anniversary.
I (Robert) attended the Edmonton Quaker meeting today. There were about a dozen people, which is larger than I was expecting: a good size, I think -- not too small, but still intimate. I recognised several acquaintances. The meeting room is not quite as cheerful as Sheffield's, but the Spirit felt comfortingly familiar. They use (I suppose I should start saying "we use") the same Faith and Practice, and Advices and Queries, as BYM, so I don't have to go out and buy a new one. Speaking of Yearly Meeting, it turns out that the CYM conference is just around the corner, in August, at Camrose, Alberta (about 45 minutes outside of Edmonton by car ... I had been assuming I'd have to travel across the continent to get to any yearly meeting), so I'm very much looking forward to attending this, and meeting many new Canadian Friends.
Further updates available upon request.

In friendship,
Robert

Love and Marriage

2008-06-18T15:01:00.002Z

I just heard from a good friend of mine that his wife and daughter have been refused permission to return to their home in Britain. My friend, a Quaker attender who writes a blog under the pen-name ‘Jeremiah’, is married to an African woman who was refused asylum in the UK. They have a two year-old daughter together, but the UK government wouldn’t allow Jeremiah’s wife to stay unless she went back to her own country to apply for a visa. Under the threat of arrest and deportation she finally agreed, after arranging a safe house where she and her daughter can stay in relative anonymity, as it is still unsafe for her to be recognised there. Mother and daughter have spent the last four months in hiding, waiting to get the necessary documents and then an appointment with the British embassy. And then they refused her.

“We married for love, but that carries no weight with UK Immigration”, writes Jeremiah.

It seems to be taken for granted by the British government that asylum-seekers’ marriages are always ‘bogus’. One of the less well-known Home Office innovations of the last few years now actually prohibits asylum-seekers from getting married. (Jeremiah and JoJo married before these rules were introduced in Feb 2005).

Ironically, through some bizarre loophole in the apparatus of the established Church, the Church of England is still able to marry asylum-seekers who are eligible under its own criteria. These include being a baptized Christian of course. Tough luck if you’re of another faith. Another friend of mine, who is also a ‘failed asylum-seeker’, was able to marry his British partner in an Anglican church through this route, as they are both from Christian backgrounds. They are also in a long-term, committed relationship with a child, so either my experience is very unrepresentative or there is something wrong with the assumptions behind this whole system.

Jeremiah and JoJo are going to appeal the government’s decision.

“In the meantime,” he writes, “we wait and wait. I go to work, come home to an empty house, call my wife every evening. I try to talk to Kébé too, but it's hard to have a conversation over the phone with a two-year-old, especially when she's angry at being separated from her daddy and her home and doesn't find a voice coming out of a machine a satisfactory substitute.”

But Jeremiah did manage to speak to her today. “Kébé talked mostly about her Shirley Hughes picture book, Annie Rose. But she knows something is up. At the embassy she burst out crying, saying ‘I want to go on a plane, I want to go home.’”

You can read the latest news on Jeremiah's blog by clicking here.

Questions

2008-06-15T11:31:00.001Z

The Conservative Friend sitehttp://www.conservativefriend.org/famousquakers.htm which it appears is the outreach site of Ohio Yearly Meeting gives the following:Daisy Douglas Barr. Prominent Quaker minister and Imperial Empress of the Indiana Women's Ku Klux Klanas
she was a prominent Quaker have I misunderstood something about the nature of the KKK or Quakerism?In confusion.
Do similar issues esist about ?NF, BNP etc here?
Peter

Academic freedom

2008-06-12T13:54:00.000Z

The current edition of 'The Friend' in the UK contains an article entitled 'Protests over academic freedom' by Roger Sanderson relating to 2 students who accessed open source material about al-Qaeda for legitimate research work - the material was from an open access official US govt. version of a training manual for al-Qaeda. As a result they spent 6 days in police custody before being released without charge though one was immediately re-arrested and fast tracked for deportation. After protests this led to suspension of that deportation for judicial review.This raises some very interesting issues for Friends particularly in terms of freedom of speach and access to materials which might allow the creation of understanding of a significant world issue and its resolution.The following address was given for more information about the case for those who are interested.
http://freehichamyezza.files.wordpress.com
In Peace and Friendship
Peter

Conflict - an aside

2008-06-09T19:55:00.003Z

I think it's great that Quakers are serious-minded folk but that we can also have a good laugh, including at ourselves. Did anyone else notice, at a recent business meeting, that the only, brief, moments of 'conflict' arose when the issue was - What to do with some correspondence about 'Responding to Conflict'? It was the end of the meeting, people were probably tired, hungry, and a wee bit tetchy. It made me smile though!

Quakers and internal conflict

2008-06-09T14:47:00.001Z

An observation that emerged from my recent membership visitation was that the Quaker business model requires us to deal with and transcend personal conflicts. Yet all too often, Quakers shy away from this: it's much easier, and, to outward appearances, "Quakerly" (aren't we good peacemakers?), to sweep personal conflicts under the rug. But anger that has been pushed into shadow has a way of sneaking out and sabotaging our ostensibly peaceful intentions.

I'd like to offer some tools for dealing with personal conflict, which I've learned of through my involvement in the Mankind Project, an organisation of men's groups (see http://mkp.org, or http://uk.mkp.org). (People with counselling or conflict resolution experience may find this old hat: I encourage you to take anything that seems new or useful and leave the rest.) I will first describe some MKP processes and groundrules, and then point out what I see as their applicability to life in the Quaker commmunity, particularly business meetings, and their consonance with Quaker faith and testimonies.

In MKP, we try to create safe space for men to discover and speak their own personal truths, to work out their own missions of service to the world, to identify and work on obstacles to those missions, and to support each other in this work. We've learned that, to create this safe, supportive space, personal conflicts within the group -- even trivial ones -- must be taken seriously, and directly dealt with. To this end, we do "clearing" processes between a "clearer," a man holding some emotional charge (usually anger) towards another man in the group, the "clearee," which might keep the clearer from fully supporting the clearee in his work. The clearing is an opportunity for the clearer to state his feelings and judgements about the clearee to his face, bringing them out of shadow and into consciousness.

The crucial assumption is that the clearing is all about the clearer. The clearer's charge may be prompted by some real, present harm that the clearee did to him, or the clearee may simply trigger some strong emotional memory in the clearer. Either way, the point is for the clearer to "own" the feelings and judgements going on inside himself, not to establish the rightness of his position. Nor does the clearer have to apologise for his feelings and judgements: he just has to recognise them as his own. The clearee has no obligation to respond to anything the clearer says, though if the clearing brings up a charge in the clearee, he can then proceed to do his own clearing, switching roles. To the extent that the clearing process focusses on the clearer's discovery of deeper personal truth, rather than argumentation, it resembles that of a Quaker clearness committee.

The process begins with the clearer saying, "I am not clear with ___." The clearer chooses a facilitator, who invites the clearee to participate (the clearee may say no). The facilitator then prompts the clearer to state to the clearee:
1) the relevant, objective facts (e.g. "You were 30 minutes late") (keeping feelings and judgements separate. If the clearee can't agree to the facts as stated by the clearer, the clearing stops).
2) feelings (basic emotions: glad, sad, mad, scared, ashamed -- no stories here).
3) judgements (e.g. "I judge that you're self-centred. I judge that you don't give a **** whether other people have to wait around for you.")
The facilitator then asks "Whose behaviour does this remind you of?" This invites the clearer to consider whether the charge is, at least in part, a projection of, e.g., unresolved anger towards a parent, or perhaps anger at the clearer himself (often I am triggered by behvaviour in others that reminds me of shadow traits that I dislike about myself). If so, the facilitator then invites the clearer to withdraw this projection from the clearee (this by the way does not mean conceding that the original judgements were necessarily wrong). If the clearer's shadow traits are involved ("How is this like your life? Are you ever self-centred?"), he is invited to consider the consequences of these shadows for himself and those around him. Finally, the clearer is asked, "Now that you see this more clearly, what do you want for yourself? What do you want for your relationship with the clearee (which you might not get)? Are you now clear?"

Paradoxically, in my experience as a clearee, I feel closer and more trusting toward a man who has the courage to speak directly to me about his negative feelings and judgements of me. I know that this man is showing his authentic self to me; that he cares enough about supporting me to risk incurring my (or the whole group's) disapproval; that he's aware of what's going on inside himself, not unthinkingly projecting his issues onto me. The clearing process is thus a form of confrontation that actually strengthens the personal bonds within the group.

I believe the values underlying the MKP clearing process are entirely consonant with the Quaker way. In Quaker meetings for worship for business, as in MKP -- but unlike most other organisations -- the primary goal is not to get through the agenda and reach decisions with maximum efficiency, but to be "led into unity" (A&Q 14). This means we must view our relationships with each other as being at least as important as any decision that the meeting might make. If our "emotions, attitudes and prejudices" are getting in the way of "reconciliation between individuals, groups and nations," we are advised to not to hide them, but to "bring [them] into God's light" (A&Q 32). Historically, Quaker "plain speech" was not merely about thee and thou-ing: it was about dropping superficial conventions of politeness that got in the way of true Friendship. It was about speaking bluntly. "Do you cherish your friendships, so that they grow in depth and understanding and mutual respect? In close relationships we may risk pain as well as finding joy" (A&Q 21). This risking of pain to find joy in friendships is precisely what the clearing process is about.

Here, I would like to tentatively suggest some ways the clearing process might be adapted to the needs of a Quaker business meeting (bearing in mind that I'm going back to Canada very soon and so I won't be involved in implementing any of this in Sheffield.) Let's assume there's some issue of contention on the business meeting agenda. If a Friend feels some personal charge towards another Friend in connection with this issue, perhaps the two parties could seek out a third Friend to facilitate a clearing between them, along the lines of the MKP clearing process described above. Ideally, the clearing should be done before the meeting starts. But if the charge comes up unexpectedly, or for some other reason the parties haven't had an opportunity to clear, and the meeting's discernment is getting snarled up with individual Friends' charges towards other Friends, one of the parties might request a clearing on the floor. Indeed, it might even be within the province of the Clerk to suggest a clearing if the discussion seems fraught with personal charge.

I am not suggesting here that there's anything wrong with bringing strong feeling into a business meeting. The goal is not dispassionate discussion of the issues. Rather, the passion should be about the issues themselves, not about the personalities of the proponents or opponents.

Quaker Identity and the heart of our faith

2008-05-17T11:00:00.003Z

Quaker Life annual conference 2008

‘Perhaps the defining feature of Quakerism is that it cannot be defined’, was Barbara Windle’s opening comment on the subject of this conference, which is part of a process of re-examining the identity of British Quakerism for our time initiated by Quaker Life.

Just what our identity as Friends consists of seems to be a continuous problem, and in the weekend’s first session Alex Wildwood gave a convincing presentation of how this has come about. He described the development of British Quakerism from a distinctive and universalist understanding of Christianity in the 17^th Century, to the very broad movement of today. This includes both liberal Christianity and what he calls the ‘new spiritualities’, ranging from eastern religions and growth psychology, to pagan, ‘New Age’, feminist and Green movements.

Alex urged us to embrace our unique position as a ‘bridge’ between traditional Christianity and the new spiritualities, and to recognise it as a ‘Spirit-led’ process in which all the aspects of contemporary Quakerism are essential. ‘For us to cut ourselves off from our Christian roots would be catastrophic,’ he argued. But equally he calls for us to recognise and welcome the growth in consciousness that is expressed in the new spiritualities. Alex also offered his own contribution to expressing ‘the heart of our Quaker faith’ as ‘a life lived under guidance’.

Our own attempts in discussion groups to express the distinctive identity of British Quakers were predictably inconclusive. There was the usual list of ‘Quakerly’ characteristics: acceptance of diversity, being comfortable with uncertainty, being ‘seekers’ who recognise the inadequacy of words to define our experience. There was an assertion of the rootedness of our faith in personal experience and the indivisibility of faith and practice, which still begs the question of what our ‘faith’ consists of.

For me, the most challenging aspect of this discussion was the contribution of David Boulton, a well-known and much-published ‘non-theist’ Friend. He gave an articulate and persuasive account of his ‘religious humanist’ convictions, which exclude a belief in any spiritual reality. For him religious language is poetry that expresses purely human values, and belief in a spiritual realm ‘even when smuggled in under the guise of transcendence or mysticism’ is akin to believing in ‘goblins, ghosts and Gandalf’s magic staff’.

I don’t think I was alone in finding this expression of Quaker diversity stretching the limits of any conceivable shared faith or identity. While I understand and recognise the force of David’s arguments for an entirely rationalist and materialist world-view, there is a fundamental difference not just in our language and symbolism but in the nature of our experience. This doesn’t make me ‘right’ and him ‘wrong’, but it does challenge the existence of any shared faith or identity for a Religious Society that can include such radically incompatible experiences of reality.

On the final day there was a dramatic shift in gear, with a presentation by Rex Ambler on ‘the prophetic message of early Friends, and its relevance for the 21^st Century’. Rex began with a close reading of some rather obscure early Quaker writings. As an academic historian he is clearly in his element interpreting the texts and contexts of 17^th Century Friends. He is also a speaker with a gift for Ministry, which could be felt throughout the room as he summarised his understanding of the original Quaker message:

“The early Quakers did not teach a belief. They did not urge people to believe the statement that there is ‘that of God in everyone’. Instead they directed people to look within themselves, to the Truth of their own experience as revealed by the Light in their consciences.”

They turned people away from outward authorities and rituals, to a practice of ‘waiting in the Light’, which enabled them to gain ‘a sight of themselves’; to wake up to who they really were. This enabled them to see the world without illusion, deceit or pretence, and to recognise the presence of the Light within each person. The ‘Unity in the Light’ which results from this shared experience of awakening is not a ‘unity of opinion’, but a sense of communion based on acceptance of themselves and of other people as they are.

In the final session Beth Allen responded to some disquiet from Friends about our seeming inability to find common statements of faith with the reminder that ‘we are not a People of the Book’. We do not put our confidence in structures and statements, but in a shared practice – ‘a way of worship that teaches and transforms us’. Alex Wildwood also drew our attention to the contribution that Quaker spirituality has to offer in the rapidly escalating ecological and economic crisis that we are beginning to live through, if we can rediscover its prophetic power to reshape lives and communities.

One of the strongest messages from many contributors to the conference was the need for Friends to talk more openly about our beliefs and our experiences; not to sidestep our differences in the convenient silence of Quaker worship. Quaker Life is planning to help with this process by producing a study pack for use by Local Meetings to use in exploring our Quaker identity.

Waiter, do you have frogs legs?

2008-05-06T15:57:00.003Z

The answer it seems is not 'No, it's the way I walk,' but worry not now you can get Vietnamese ones on London Road - 10% discount for students. Given that recent history says that this is the only part of the frog harvested, usually alive, I presume no Friends have asked the waiter to hop over the bar to get them some!

Sorry wrong address for persecution

2008-05-03T17:23:00.002Z

The address should be www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org/forum
Peter

Persecution in the modern day

2008-05-03T17:16:00.006Z

I offer a posting for consideration from www.quakerfaithandfellowship.org/forum from one of the members Floyd. It seems that the days of persecution are not over in the USA.

Contemporary Persecution of Quakers « on: May 02, 2008, 08:29:19 PM »

Although Quakers are no longer being publically hanged or dragged and whipped through the streets as they were in 17th century Massachusetts, they are still being persecuted and discriminated against because of their religious beliefs in 21st century America. I came across a story in today's news that I wanted to pass along to the Friends online. Wendy Gonaver, a Quaker and pacifist, was fired from her job as an instructor of American Studies at California State University Fullerton for refusing on religious grounds to sign a loyalty oath swearing to "defend" California and the U.S. "against all enemies foreign and domestic." Gonaver offered to sign the oath if she could attach a brief statement explaining her religious convictions against war and violence but Callifornia State Fullerton rejected her statement and insisted that she either sign the oath or be fired. In February of this year, another California State Fullerton Quaker instructor, Marianne Kearney-Brown, a math teacher, was fired because she inserted the word "nonviolently" when she signed the oath. Her case received widespread media attention, however, and she was soon rehired. Wendy Gonaver hasn't been so fortunate. The California loyalty oath was adopted in the 1950s to root out Communists, but today it mostly is used to deny employment to religious believers such as Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses who have convictions against oath taking and the use of violence to resolve social problems. Sometimes one is required to pay a price, today even as in George Fox's day, for obeying the leadings of the Light. Persons wishing to read the full story should go to: www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/05/02/8675/

In Friendship
Peter Lawless

Simplicity

2008-04-29T01:11:00.003Z

Having just been to Rob ert Kirchner's screening of "What A Way to Go," I thought I'd post a few thoughts before turning in.

Basically the film expressed a sense of coming crisis - a toxic mix of peak oil, overpopulation, consumerism in spiritual crisis, and greenhouse effect.

Not to comment in detail on the film itself, but it made me wonder if Peace was the testimony of the 20th century, and if we were moving into a century where Simplicity will be what we're best known for.

If so, there's a reading of the Bible which will back us up. You can see the Garden of Eden story as a myth (one among many early myths) of a hunter-gatherer Golden Age, where farming wasn't necessary (food just grew on trees). Agriculture is a consequence of the Fall (Gen. 3:19) and so are the basic trammells of civilisation, like clothes (Gen 3:11). In the early days of the old Covenant, the Israelites are nomadic pastoralists, and after they arrive in Palestine, the effects of a settled life aren't seen as being all that great: kingship (Sam. 8:7 - 21), idolatry and what have you. The best of the bunch appear to be the Rechabites, a group who kept up the old nomadic pastoralist ways (Jer. 35:7 - 19). And arguably the climax of the Old Testament narrative is the supremely disillusioned prophetic book of Daniel, the plot of which can be summarised more or less as "Just one empire after another, and another, and none of them are any good; world ends and Eden is restored." Revelations takes a similarly jaundiced view of the Roman empire which confronted the early Christians.

This gives a context to the frankly caveman-like (or maybe Rechabite-like) John the Baptist (Mark 1:6). In this context, Jesus often sounds quite similar: someone looking in on civilisation from the outside, and not much liking what he sees: he is homeless and nomadic, has few or no possessions, rejects the idea of hoarding wealth or owning private property or planning or providing for the future, prizes community and sharing above most things, and harshly rejects the current settled elites, such as the Jerusalem priesthood, the use of money, and the rule of the Romans (and worship of their emperors as gods). To this extent, despite his involvement in the farming economy of his day, and his attachment to the very settled city of Jerusalem, Jesus reminds me of what little I know about actual hunter-gatherer societies, which tend to live at a subsistence level, have fairly flat hierarchies, and often a strongly developed sense of collective ownership and community. Interestingly, during the same centuries, the religious historian Karen Armstrong points to broadly similar moves across the tropical belt of global civilisation. There are the forest sages of Chinese Taoism and the India of the Buddha and Upanishads to Greek philosophers like Socrates and Diogenes who achieved notoriety by living in barrels, dressing in rags, and ignoring or challenging the norms of the hierarchical civilisations surrounding them. The Upanishads are the closest thing I've read to a Gospel in terms of form and content (like the Gospels, they're basically instructive stories and dialogues featuring wise teachers), and the Greek philosophers' dialogues also aren't a million miles off either. They all date from the same few centuries. There appears to have been no such widespread "reform" movements in the previous stage of world civilisation, from (say) Egypt to Biblical Assyria.

Early Quakers took up some of these ideas, such as flat hierarchies, simplicity of material and cultural life, spontaneity of conduct, and a community ethos, particularly in the arena of church government. They were (admittedly) happy with private property and wealth accumulation, but they were definitely against excessive and wasteful consumption (vanity as they'd probably have called it) on the specific grounds that there were better, more equitable and more responsible uses for accumulated wealth. Penn's "No Cross, No Crown" (Ch. 18) makes this clear in a very modern-sounding way. Early Quaker preachers like George Fox were as notorious as Jesus for dressing very simply, living nomadically, and refusing to plan for the morrow (QF&P 19.19). Fox, with his long hair and leather suit, must have appeared almost as much of a caveman as John the Baptist, and Fox's Journal is another example of "instructive stories and dialogues featuring wise teachers"-type literature (quite a lot different from later Quaker writings, such as those of Penn and Barclay, which were basically essays by educated men from the elite).

In some sense these are arguably the values which underpin the drive towards sustainable development and the avoidance of ecological catastrophe. We need to cut back on our consumption, revise our understanding of economic growth and quality of life, and rediscover immaterial wealth. If capitalism doesn't need to be entirely abolished, it definitely needs to be thoroughly reshaped on the basis of better and saner values.

Maybe therefore there are lessons for us in the spiritualities of the remaining indigenous peoples, as well as in our own Quaker heritage and the Christian and other traditions which underpin it.

Doubtless I'm idealising everything I've been talking about up to a point, but I think there is a cluster of ideas here worth exploring as we discern our future. Maybe Quakers need to be at the forefront of moves toward a sustainable life, as they were in the move towards peace in the last violent century. And just as the Peace testimony was there for us then, ripe for revival as the world was engulfed in war, so in the immediate future we have a heritage of Simplicity as the world chokes on superfluous overconsumption by a privileged minority (which currently includes a lot of us!)

At a Meeting for Worship is a person ‘compelled’ to one’s feet, by a power greater than oneself, or is ministering an ‘ego’ activity?

2008-04-28T13:45:00.002Z

Maybe the answer is:- 'both' or ‘neither’ !

However if I had to come down on one side or the other, I would go with the latter. It seems to me that if someone is waiting for a more mystical or ecstatic ‘compulsion’ from outside of oneself, then it is likely that he/she will wait for a very long time. I would argue that the notion that vocal ministry arises from ‘an action of God, over and beyond inner promptings’, adds further confusion to the action. As I see it verbal ministry in the first instance, arises from a human experience, guided by 'that of God' within.

Many people believe in a 'God out there', who directly intervenes in the affairs of people. I believe that it is neither productive nor wise to sit and wait for a ‘God out there’ to intervene directly in the affairs of people. I also believe that the important thing for Quakers is to trust that when a group of people, trusting in the reality of God, choose to meet in silent worship, they can in truth, discern God’s will. By remaining faithful to the process of silent worship and by remaining open to being guided from within. In this way the community remains open to discerning God’s will and to receiving guidance regarding the lives we live.

If some people are waiting for God to intervene, ‘at a future time’, then it is little wonder that they do not trust what is going on within them ‘currently’. Perhaps some people are waiting to get an ‘all clear’ signal or the proverbial ‘kick in the backside’. Other people, however may be focused on the present rather than on the future, and so are more likely to experience inner promptings of love and truth, and such people are surely more likely to take heed of their inner promptings as the leadings of God, and as a consequence more likely to have the courage to stand to offer verbal ministry.

Meanwhile a person waiting for ‘a mystical or ecstatic experience’ may well, from the very absence of trusting ‘inner promptings’, judge any ‘current inner promptings’ as coming from a lesser place, sometimes called the ego, and so be fearful of sharing any inner promptings in verbal ministry. A big problem arises wherever there is an emphasis on the 'ego' as a negative element of the personality. In such situations their arises a fear of being judged as an ‘egocentric’. In my understanding the ego is more properly understood as the positive 'choice-maker' which each of us, needs to respect and come to terms with, if we are to engage in anything really challenging.

The healthy making of ‘an ego choice’ is of course to be distinguished from 'egocentricity' which is what happens when someone ‘acts’ as if they were 'the Centre', or alternatively ‘refrains from acting’ because of a fear of ‘appearing foolish’ or ‘out of step’ with the group. People who perceive much ministry as 'egocentric' will, as a consequence, more likely 'fear' the trusting their own inner promptings. Paradoxically the consequence,of not trusting inner promptings, and of consequently refraining from ever ministering is more likely to be 'egocentric'.

The situation where a person accepts the challenge of ministering, even when aware that the content might be perceived by some as being 'less than brilliant’; and when the ministry may even be criticized is something different again, – such a person is brave, and I certainly would not call the person 'egocentric'. I’m reminded of St. Paul’s words:- ‘God’s gift was not a spirit of timidity but the Spirit of power, and love, and self-control.’ (2 Tim. 1:7).

Can I add here, that I fully accept the validity of the fact that many people who come to a Quaker MfW do not, for a variety of reasons, wish to offer verbal ministry, and I am not suggesting for a moment, that everyone who attends, even regularly, should offer verbal ministry. I fully accept the wisdom and the practice of offering Quaker Space to the newcomer, the troubled and in fact to anyone who desires just such space, but this is slightly beside the point. The question I'm addressing concerns the place verbal ministry plays in a Quaker understanding of MfW.

I believe that verbal ministry that genuinely comes from one’s inner promptings, is likely to be desirable, especially when the one ministering has the sense of the content being relevant to more than just one’s own personal living, and when one has the common-sense, to be aware of and sensitive to, the overall ministry offered within a particular meeting.

I believe that ‘shared worship’ should have a real element of the sharing that which comes from 'that of God’ in the lives of those gathered. I feel strongly that worship is about more than just ‘drinking in' and ‘privately valuing’ what comes to each person individually. It surprises me when I hear people describe verbal ministry as being something exceptional; and it also surprises me that some people do not seem to have a sense that sometimes ‘God’ may be calling them to share something of their insights ‘with the gathered community’. Please do not hear me suggesting, for a moment, that silence is not important, that it should be ignored, or that the hour should be filled with verbal ministry. Hear rather my belief that what comes out of the silence is also important, and that verbal ministry from a wider range of people should be truly welcomed.

I know that it is challenging for some people to stand up and offer verbal minister. However this is quite a different thing from reacting to the fear, or of being silenced by the fears which may be about the inadequacy of one’s efforts. I believe it is incumbent upon all of us to be ‘people of encouragement'. Expressions life 'daffodil ministry', with negative overtones, should be carefully avoided. I would argue that a single verbal ministry arising from the leadings of God might well be ‘the word’ to help another. We might all leave the Meeting House more refreshed and more determined ‘to do God’s will’ not only during MfW but also ‘out there’ in Sheffield and beyond.

Let’s not sit waiting for the ‘mystical or ecstatic experience’; but let each one of us trust the more ordinary inner promptings of love and truth. This applies not only in Worship but also in the rest of our lives. At MfW:- ‘Let us trust such promptings as the leadings of God, who’s Light shows us our darkness and brings us to new life’. (A&Q 1). I agree with Simon, as mentioned in “The Nature of the ‘Inner Light’”, (24^th April), that it has been the Quaker Experience that the trusting of the ordinary everyday experiences, may lead to the more ‘mystical or ecstatic’ experience following on in its trail. But the extraordinary experiences are not the important thing. I believe that this has been my own experience of Quaker worship, as I believe it has been Simon’s experience, especially in the area of the ‘peace-tax’ in its relationship to ‘conscience’. Deo Gratias.

The nature of the "Inner Light"

2008-04-24T12:23:00.002Z

Looking over the writings of early Quakers, I'm struck by the sense in which they associated the Inner Light with the boring old personal conscience. It's not a link which seems to be made explicitly much these days.

We have inherited a number of strands from early Quaker thinking. One was definitely mystical or ecstatic and associated with heightened religious experience. Another was rational and reflective and associated with the ordinary everyday consciousness and the sense of right and wrong. This blend created the enduring quality of Quaker action, which seems motivated at once by plain common sense, and at the same time by some wild and primitive irrational impulse which not even the Quakers fully understood.

The blend is clear in Quaker thinking on conscience. It's reasonable that Quakers might have objected in conscience to tithes and hat honour and so forth, but the punishing lengths to which they went in bearing their testimony suggests something beyond the strictly rational, as they themselves were aware (hence William Penn in "No Cross, No Crown"). The early Quakers assumed that the one drive could never contradict the other, because they had the same source and drew people towards the same objective. What united the rational and irrational conscience (so to speak) was the sense that the individual was acting in response to the sacred, that is, in response to an external drive, which may have manifested deep within the individual consciousness but did not originate there.

This puts classical Quaker thinking somewhat at odds with the modern liberal consensus which most British Quakers probably otherwise inhabit. In secular, liberal terms, "conscience" seems to involve a personal decision or preference (with the secular, liberal freedom to follow it as of right). Hence, those acting under conscience, on things like peace tax, are often accused of acting self-indulgently, irresponsibly, etc. - as if, in fact, they were causing trouble by doing whatever they liked in the secular, liberal sense. Rightly or wrongly, this is not the Quaker understanding of conscience, according to which, those bearing their testimonies are doing what reality compels them directly to do.

But one internal problem for present-day Quakers may be that we have lost some sense of the identity of the boring old conscience with the ecstatic Inner Light. I speak from experience. I often find it hard to achieve any sense of what the Light requires, and when I do, I'm starting to wonder if it's because I'm relying too much on the mystical, ecstatic, heightened understanding of what the Light is. I'm waiting for the blinding headrush of compulsion to go off and do something extravagant. I'd probably die of fright if I actually felt any such compulsion, but half the time I wonder if the problem isn't more prosaic - I'm neglecting the more commonsense thread in Quaker understanding, which suggests that what the Light requires is simple, practical recognition of the ingrained sense of right and wrong which is so much part of my everyday consciousness that I can effectively take it for granted, but which I often fail to respond in my actual conduct. The Quaker understanding seems to be that the blinding, ecstatic sense of the sacred, and the humdrum demands of an everyday life conscientiously lived, are the same thing. The thing they both are is the Inner Light, and if you plug fully into the one, it brings the other along with it. And if not, not. Living in the Light may sometimes mean charging up a mountain to do a lot of shouting, but it also means being in the habit of confronting everyday situations with the question, "Well, what's REALLY the right thing to do?" and then doing it.

Phew. Tough call!!

Quaker Worship for the un-cool?

2008-04-23T15:24:00.002Z

I've just been on a Quaker Life conference exploring 'the heart of our Quaker identity' - more on this soon. But this quote from Douglas Gwyn's Apocalypse of the Word: The Life and Message of George Fox just leapt out at me (came across it on Chris M's blog):

There is a popular notion, even among some Friends, that the Quaker "brand" of worship is not for everyone; that it requires a cool, detached, middle- to upper-middle class Anglo-American temperament. Not only is this notion implicitly classist and racist, it constitutes a terrible misunderstanding of what Quaker worship means. What makes this worship difficult for people of all races and temperaments to accept is the way it brings the experience of the cross into worship itself. No one takes up this cross easily. Yet it is in this quiet, sometimes desperate, prayerful attitude that one may give up one's self to God and say, "nevertheless, not my will, but thine, be done" (Luke 22:44).

What do you think?

The value of research

2008-03-23T17:41:00.000Z

Posts: 71Location: UNITED KINGDOM

Medical research « on: Today at 10:37:35 AM »

As a person with a possible genetic propensity to nuerological disease I cannot condone the trans-genetic creation of life, both human and animal, to mutate and then destroy after 14 days - do we believe that?Yes the scientists have the tools but to use them breaks the Commandment about not killing and I would rather live an authentic life, i.e., that I was born to,than gain anything from this aboration of morality/society.Yes I know I stand to gain but let the medics etc spend the money for the majority now and not the Noble Prize later.
Report to moderator 79.68.82.35

How Many Quakers Does it Take to Change a Lightbulb?

2008-03-13T11:17:00.003Z

"That depends. If the lightbulb is in the meetinghouse, then it takes the whole Meeting, and 3-9 months.First, property committee has to notify clerk that a lightbulb is burned out. It will then be put on the agenda for the next monthly meeting for business. When it comes up on the agenda, clerk will ask how Friends respond to the notice from property committee. Then, clerk of property committee will be asked for that committee’s recommendation regarding the burned out bulb, and we will learn that property committee was merely notifying meeting of the state of the bulb, and it did not reach the point of trying to make a recommendation. The matter will then be referred back to property committee to come up with a recommendation regarding the bulb, and the matter will be put on the agenda for the next monthly meeting for business, four weeks later..."

From The Quaker Agitator blog, read the whole thing here.

Abuse

2008-03-09T12:30:00.002Z

Whilst I am sure that no one would condone the abuse of a nurse in or out of uniform I fail to see how the Government and Opposition cannot see the implications of this and related events. There has been a major publicity drive which seems to imply that to show disrrespect to the uniform is to be unpatriotic however does it not show something deeper than this? Does it not possibly indicate that the current engagements in which the UK armed forces are involved increasingly lack public support?
Coupled with this is the growing body of legislation which is removing the right to voice such disapproval of policy. It appears from reading 'The Independent' yesterday that the coming planned peaceful protests at Aldermaston at Easter are now falling foul of the law. As the right to show dissent is removed discontent will find other outlets and is likely to provoke, rather than prevent, abuse and violence or could that be part of the agenda in order further erode civil liberties and the right to publically express dissent?
Why have I posted this on a Quaker site? I have done so because in 'Advices and Queries' we are told about our responsibilties with respect to peace and the law, with a strong emphasis on equality and justice, but what do we do when we feel that the law is being used to prevent justice. In effect what do we do when we feel our freedoms are effectively being undermined by the state?

Prince of Pieces(s)

2008-03-02T15:12:00.004Z

So we now have a prince of peace. Why don't his family set a real example, consult The Archbishop of Canterbury about and have some lessons from the Ten Commandments and the New Testament, and then set an example by putting them into practice? Or is that too much to ask?

Silence and Ministry

2008-02-05T18:31:00.000Z

Recently, someone again reminded me that they prefer silent meetings. I think the remark may have been a kind of challenge to the substance of what I had written in June last year in ‘Reflections of an Attender’. I feel drawn to return to the issue, but first I wish to make clear that I respect the right of each person to personal choice. I have my preferences and no doubt you have yours. That’s the way things are, but isn’t there more to the movement of the Spirit, (just as there is more to life itself), than my preferences or yours! Having considered further the issue of Meeting for Worship, I return to the theme, even at the risk of being boring.

We are told that one day the Buddha was sitting with his disciples when an angel appeared to him and asked: ‘how long would you like to live? You can ask for a 1000 years if you like’! Without hesitation the Buddha answered; ‘80 years’. When the angel had gone some of his disciples admonished the Buddha, and said, ‘think of all the good you could have done if you had asked to live for a 1000 years. The Buddha replied, ‘If I lived for 1000 years, people would be interested only in how to prolong life. I am far more concerned that they focus on enriching the life they are actually living in the community in which they live.

I wonder if there could be something of a parallel between this story and our lives as Quakers. We are Friends. We are community. We have so much to give and so much to receive from one another. We are all interested in silence, as a way to prayer, and to life. However silence is not an end in itself. Could it be that sometimes we seem to settle for the length of silence, rather than the quality of silence and what it is that arises from the silence? Couldn’t we all discover more from the silence and from each other if we shared more generously what it is that arises within us during the silence. Quakers lay special claim to what is called ‘the priesthood of all believers’. To me, priesthood is ‘a reality’ that calls for action; it calls us to be more for each other. Priesthood is not ‘an ideal’ in our heads, or just a thought to be cherished. So no matter how much attachment we have to our personal preferences, our role as priests calls us to serve one another.

I rejoice each Sunday when our Meeting for Worship has a balance of silence and ministry; especially when the ministry emanates a) from a deep silence and b) from a wide range of members or attenders who feel moved and are willing to take the risk of stepping outside of their ‘comfort zone’ of personal preference and respond in spoken ministry to what has traditionally been called the ‘little voice’ or ‘the light’ within.

It may well be that some people, up to this point in their journey, just do not have the sense of an inner voice? If this is so then of course just trust the reality of what is happening and feel comfortable to sit in the silence and enjoy the space offered to all.

However, to those who do have a sense of an ‘inner voice’ the issue is about whether we ‘take heed of the promptings of love and truth in our hearts and trust them as the leadings of God’, (A&Q,1). If we do trust the promptings then surely to share what emanates from within, during our time of silence, is for the building up of our Religious Society and the enriching of all our lives. To hold back on ministering, when one is prompted to do so is surely just as egocentric as someone ministering without an inner prompting to do so.

As a consequence, of silence and ministry we all go out into Sheffield and beyond, more inspired and committed towards the building of a more just and loving society. Surely this is what we are called to, the building up of the Kingdom of God on earth! My plea is that we respond ‘to the leadings of God who’s Light shows us our darkness and brings us to life’. Each of us is called to trust that my ‘feeble’ ministry is for the building up of the Meeting, and consequently ‘the Kingdom of God’ on earth.