Chris,

That interesting. There are those in my large and quite liberal
meeting who criticize politically charged messages, and feel that all
messages be something they call spiritual. I don't really know what
they mean by spiritual other than "not political." These criticisms
tend to come from the Friends who are the least broadly universalist
in their theology. Of the most clearly universalist Friends, a few
often give politically charged messages. Most do not, or do so only
rarely, when very powerfully moved to do so.

Some messages on both sides of this spiritual/political line appeal to
me; some messages on both side annoy me. I see this annoyance as
primarily my problem, not that of those delivering the ministry. Very
rarely do I hear a message so off-beam that I feel justified in
deeming it "not spiritual." This would feel quite judgmental to me. On
the other hand there are a fair number of messages that simply don't
care for. Again, my problem, not theirs.

However, your earlier post spoke about much more than spoken ministry.
Our meeting is filled with political activists, many of whom almost
never offer spoken ministry. So I don't equate a dearth of fighting
words, if you will, with fighting spirit. I don't think I have ever
heard a friend in my meeting suggest that Friends shouldn't be working
hard, even fighting, for social justice. That perspective is almost
unthinkable among most Friends I know. It is different among the
Friends you know?


b--
James Riemermann
Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota



On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:28 PM, Chris Burford<cburford@...> wrote:
> I attend a small unprogrammed meeting in London.
> Its centre of gravity is universalist.
> Meeting for worship verges on meditation.
>
> There are too few people who minister verbally so any call to spiritual arms
> would stand out.
>
> There is an assumption that ever to feel angry or impelled to do something
> is contrary to the spirit. Indeed within half an hour's silence one
> slips into personal harmony forgetting one's own inner conflicts
> and conflicts with the universe.
>
> Are the only promptings for us to heed are those of love and truth?
>
> Why does God, whatever that is,
> allow us to be dissatisfied and frustrated at times?
>
> If these are not sins, are they not perhaps also promptings?
>
> Chris
> North London
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "James Riemermann" <jamestr@...>
> To: <quf@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 2:15 PM
> Subject: Re: [quf] Re: Is there a place for me?
>
> | The general thrust of your post speaks to me, Chris, but your
> | statement that Quakers "predominantly now seem to be against fighting
> | at all even without weapons." I haven't found that to be the case at
> | all; I find the dedication among Friends to both modeling and fighting
> | for peace and justice to be quite strong. I'll confess that too many
> | of us--certainly I--do more talking than walking. But there are a lot
> | of very scrappy fighters for justice in Quakerism. Unless you are
> | literally talking about the evangelical wing of Friends, with which I
> | think the people on this list have very little connection.
> |
> | Beyond that, George Fox's first expression of the peace testimony was
> | largely an attempt to reassure the powers that be that we were no
> | threat to the political realm. The emphasis was clearly not on
> | fighting for peace and justice.
> |
> | Can you clarify? What suggests to you that contemporary Quakers are
> | against fighting at all
> | even without weapons?
> |
> | --
> | James Riemermann
> | Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota
> |
> |
> | On Sat, Jun 13, 2009 at 1:45 PM, Chris Burford <cburford@...>
> wrote:
> | > But George Fox's famous peace testimony, denied only fighting with
> outward
> | > weapons. But Quakers predominantly now seem to be against fighting at
> all
> | > even without weapons. Is this a legacy of Quaker quietism? Was the move
> from
> | > quietism to evangelical influences an improvement? I doubt it.
> |
> |
> | ------------------------------------
>
>