… through my backwardness I sat under the burden of the word so long that the proper time slipped in which should I have stood up which was a hurt to both myself and the meeting and I believe made hard work for my companion, for where there is not a keeping our ranks each in our own line of duty, it flings the whole out of joint and the meeting seldom if ever recovers when thus the gospel property is invaded.
I have oft compared the ministry to a fountain or spring of water and ministers to pipes through which the water is conveyed to diverse parts of the city, some greater some lesser, according to the distance the stream is to be conveyed ... and very frequently we see one pipe so fixed as to be in some sort dependent on another and if any impediment happens to either it frustrates the grand design of conveyance, and no pipe so small or minute but there is some service or part to act and it’s not acting that part may possibly so disconcert the whole as to incommode a great part if not the whole of the city. The excerpt above is from the diary of Elizabeth Hudson, a Friend who traveled extensively in colonial America. She’s quoted in Brian Drayton’s Midweek Meditations. https://library.haverford.edu/finding-aids/files/MC975-01-047.pdf ~ submitted by Richard Russell
2 Comments
During the decades of the 50’s and 60’s Hollywood cranked out biblical epic after biblical epic, most of them being mediocre or bad. Two films of this type that I’ve seen and believe to have artistic merit are Ben-Hur and Barabbas although I certainly don’t place either one on my “Best 10” list. Both rely heavily on violent, action scenes. In Ben-Hur there’s the naval battle and a chariot race. In Barabbas there’s the earthquake that destroys a sulfur mine, gladiatorial combats, and the Great Fire of Rome.
Well, there’s nothing particularly wrong with action scenes; but if you like character development and insight into the human psyche, an action film will seem shallow and unrewarding. I’ve already mentioned that Barabbas has plenty of action, but it also has psychological merit in its examination of Barabbas’ vacillation between faith and doubt. Moreover, in the gladiator Torvald we have a convincing portrait of a psychopath. Sometimes Barabbas is criticized for its pacing, for scenes that drag on too long. I think such critics are focused on the excitement of the action scenes and just not interested in the psychological and philosophical interludes that elevate Barabbas above the typical biblical epic. Oh, I’ve forgotten to tell the reader that Barabbas is about the thief and revolutionary of the same name—the one who was released instead of Jesus by Pontius Pilate. The Gospels don’t give us any details of Barabbas’ subsequent life; but the film—based on Pär Lagerkvist’s 1951 novel—follows Barabbas as he returns to a life of crime, is sentenced to the mines, becomes a gladiator, and is crucified as one of the Christians blamed for the Great Fire of Rome in 64 C.E. Of course, the focus of the movie is Barabbas’ divided soul as he sometimes accepts, sometimes rejects “The Way” of the Christians. Peter, the Apostle, tells Barabbas, “There has been a wrestling in your spirit, back and forth in your life, which in itself is knowledge of God. By the conflict you have known Him.” I find Peter’s words reassuring as I myself have vacillated between religious faith and skeptical doubt. Perhaps other Friends in Old Chatham Meeting have experienced a similar tension. Well, do I recommend that the reader see Barabbas? If violence troubles you, perhaps “no.” If you rather like grand spectacles but also enjoy character development, perhaps “yes.” ~ Richard Russell Do you think that, of your own free will, you chose to become a Quaker? If so, you’re wrong. Your becoming a Friend was pre-determined long before you even knew that Quakers existed. At least, that’s the argument of Robert Sapolsky, distinguished professor of neurological studies at Stanford University. Here’s a quote from Chapter One of Sapolsky’s latest book, Determined:
Once you work with the notion that every aspect of behavior has deterministic, prior causes, you observe a behavior and can answer why it occurred; as just noted, because of the action of neurons in this or that part of your brain in the preceding second. And in the seconds to minutes before, those neurons were activated by a thought, a memory, an emotion, or sensory stimuli. And in the hours to days before that behavior occurred, the hormones in your circulation shaped those thoughts, memories, and emotions and altered how sensitive your brain was to particular environmental stimuli. And in the preceding months to years, experience and environment changed how those neurons function, causing some to sprout new connections and become more excitable, and causing the opposite in others. ~ submitted by Richard Russell According to the gospels, Jesus claimed to be the Messianic Deliverer of Israel. He predicted his own death and resurrection, events which he believed would lead to the establishment of a literal Kingdom of God on earth. He himself would rule that kingdom as the Messiah, the “Son of Man.” Thus, Jesus challenged the authority of Rome by going to Jerusalem, entering the city like King David, and wreaking havoc on the merchants who did business in the Temple. At the request of the priestly elite, he was executed by the Romans, who rightly saw him as a political revolutionary wanting to overthrow their Judaean collaborators and end Roman rule. This is the interpretation of Jesus’ ministry according to many scholars, with whom I agree.
Some writers argue that Jesus’ claims and actions were signs of a delusional or psychotic personality, of a man who suffered from megalomania, paranoia, or schizophrenia. They often point out that Jesus was even accused by his family, his followers, and his contemporaries of being insane and possessed by demons. Mark (3:20-21) tells us, “Then Jesus entered a house, and again a crowd gathered, so that he and his disciples were not even able to eat. When his family heard about this, they went to take charge of him, for they said, ‘He is out of his mind’” (NIV). The family must have been alarmed by Jesus’ challenge to the Jewish ritual purity system, in which they had been reared. No doubt they didn’t comprehend how Jesus’ ethic of love was superior to the system of sacrifice and ritual cleansing maintained by the priestly class. And they were taken aback by the adoring crowds that followed this scion of a humble family. Well, I certainly don’t agree that Jesus was psychotic. The hall mark of psychosis is a disconnect from reality, particularly social reality. Jesus well understood the reality of Roman oppression—which was why he attracted crowds of poor, downtrodden people. Moreover, his emphasis on love, forgiveness, and compassion was part of a Jewish prophetic tradition that lived on beside the dominant ritualistic religion of his day. And many first century Jews—not just Jesus—believed in a Messiah who would free Judaea from Roman rule. In other words, the messianic idea was a religious-cultural reality that Jesus embraced. As to his supposed megalomania, that quality was actually a profound sense of mission and a loving service to God and the Jewish people. Schizophrenics are characterized by their withdrawal from, and lack of connection to, other people. Certainly, Jesus frequently wanted to get away from the crush of a crowd, but he was extremely sociable. He loved parties and the companionship of women. Although I doubt its historicity, in the Gospel of John Jesus performed his first miracle at a wedding feast. He became mentor to twelve disciples with whom he had a close, intimate relationship; and he was followed by a larger group of unnamed men and women. After Jesus’ death, his disciples could not forget the warmth of his friendship and his dedication to the greater good. They refused to let his memory die. No, Jesus was not crazy. He was a mature, mentally healthy person. And—I dare say—he was a prophet sent by God. ~ Richard Russell Well, my wife has laid down the law. I’m supposed to throw away the trash in my office and organize the rest either for the office or a garage sale. So, I’m going to take an October vacation from blogging in order to have more time to complete this challenging task.
In my absence, I hope other Old Chatham Friends will post their own thoughts on the Meeting Blog. See you again in November. ~ Richard Russell This book by Jennifer Kavanagh is a short and accessible introduction to the topic of prayer from a Quaker perspective. In a matter-of-fact, yet inspirational style, Kavanagh explores such questions as “What is prayer?”, “Who or what do we pray to?”, “Do we pray together or alone?”, and “How do we pray?”
The book draws on the author’s personal experience as well as the insights and testimonies of other Quakers from different backgrounds and traditions. It also includes examples of prayer practices from various faiths and cultures. Here you will find meditation, chanting, gratitude, and silence as ways to encounter the Divine. In fact, Kavanagh presents the idea that Meeting for Worship is essentially prayer. She examines St. Paul and Thomas Kelly’s notion of “prayer without ceasing,” and speculates that just living well is a form of prayer. The book is part of the Quaker Quicks series, which offers brief and engaging introductions to various aspects of Quakerism. It will be available for purchase from Amazon and Kindle on October 27, 2023. I highly recommend that Old Chatham buy a copy for our library. In fact, this short, but comprehensive, title should be on the bookshelves of every Quaker Meeting. ~ Richard Russell The 2016 film Hacksaw Ridge is based on the true story of Desmond Doss, a conscientious objector who served as a combat medic in the US Army during World War II. Doss refused to carry or use any weapon, but he saved the lives of at least 75 soldiers during the Battle of Okinawa and was the first person ever to receive the Medal of Honor without firing a shot.
With our Peace Testimony, Hacksaw Ridge should be a “Quaker film,” right? Certainly, the scene between Doss and an Army psychiatrist presents a simple but compelling account of a conscientious objector’s thought process. However, the violence of the war scenes in the film undercuts the conscientious objector philosophy. The film is incredibly violent, showing body parts strewn over the battlefield and showcasing soldiers set on fire by flame throwers. It’s as if director Mel Gibson were saying, “My film supports the conscientious objection to war, but let me show you the thrilling blood and gore of war.” In fact, Hacksaw Ridge is the most violent film I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen some doozies. Friends who are interested in Desmond Doss may want to see Hacksaw Ridge, but not all the film’s biographical details are accurate. Moreover, I would have liked to learn more about Doss’s Seventh Adventist faith and the role it played in forming his conscientious objection. Considering the sickening nature of the movie’s war scenes, I honestly can’t recommend Hacksaw Ridge. Most Friends would be well advised to stay away from the film, particularly young, impressionable Friends. ~ Richard Russell I never saw a moor,
I never saw the sea; Yet know I how the heather looks, And what a wave must be. I never spoke with God, Nor visited in heaven; Yet certain am I of the spot As if the chart were given. —Emily Dickinson (edited version) More than fifty years ago I decided I wanted to see an English moor. I saw a road sign that said something like “Aylesbury Moor 40 km.” I took a bus from London to what I imagined would be a wilderness spot covered with heather. Imagine my surprise when I arrived at Aylesbury Moor and discovered that it was a town! Will we likewise be surprised when we make the journey to Heaven? Heaven is often imagined as a place where we share the mind of God and intuitively, passively understand everything there is to know about the Universe; but what if Heaven is a more dynamic place or—more accurately—a dynamic, changing state of Being? What if we continue striving and learning even after entering the Celestial Realm? Perhaps we would have to learn Calculus to better comprehend a Heaven in constant change. Maybe some celestial computer uses heavenly software to monitor and direct that change. I do want to learn how to program computers. I believe an Old Chatham Friend would be available—at some point—to tutor me in coding although I have no idea what system Heaven uses. It must be more complicated than Python or the various AI languages. And I could use someone with a doctorate in Physics to explain dark matter and energy. That person could also confirm or disconfirm the reality of String Theory and help me navigate Quantum Mechanics. Even though I’d now be a free spirit “floating” around in Heaven, I’d like to acquire a thorough knowledge of the world’s religions, especially Buddhism. There are several Old Chatham Friends, future residents of Heaven, who could teach me Buddhist fundamentals. Who knows? Eventually, I might qualify for a master class under Siddhartha Gautama himself. And I’d like to explore Christianity in depth. I can imagine studying Christian Ethics under Jesus of Nazareth. The very thought gives me chills. I’d also like a tete-a-tete with Moses about the Burning Bush and the Ten Commandments on Mt. Sinai, not to mention the plagues of Egypt. Of course, it’s possible that Emily Dickinson is wrong. Maybe Heaven’s not on any map. Maybe it doesn’t exist. Maybe our consciousness doesn’t survive death. Belief in Heaven requires belief in God and God’s power. I remember what the father of an epileptic son said in the Gospel of Mark. When Jesus remarked that anything was possible for someone with faith, the man replied, “Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!” (NKJV) I pray for that kind of trust in God’s power. With such a faith, I can look forward to one day arriving in Heaven in spite of the crude earthly maps at our disposal! ~ Richard Russell Based on Crossno and Brent’s Pendle Hill Pamphlet #460, I’ve constructed an example of over-politicized vocal ministry. I’ve used real names and real issues, but I recognize that some Friends would agree with the message and others would disagree. I don’t mean to take sides in the matter. I do mean to illustrate a way of speaking that is inappropriate in Meeting. Suppose someone delivered the following remarks during Worship:
I’ve been watching Fox News and I’m horrified by the way President Biden is enabling his son to peddle influence. Biden is selling us all out, which is typical of the Democrat Party and the economic system they are ramming down our throats. The energy economy is being destroyed, and workers are losing their jobs. As Friends, I know we’re all on the same page about this issue. Everyone here should get on the phone and call your congressperson about the maddening rush to alternative energy. According to Crossno and Brent, the above message is not grounded in spirituality and is ideologically divisive. Why? Well, political action is advocated before education and dialogue about the issue. An individual politician and specific political party are named. The speaker assumes that everyone has the same opinion about the matter, and an economic system is named without unpacking exactly what that system is. Crossno and Brent argue that …the most powerful vocal ministry will generally reference principles rather than particular public figures; will include personal life experiences; will illustrate the universality of the issue; will invite prayer, contemplation, dialogue, and possible unified action rather than presupposing unity; and will call the gathered community to working with Divine assistance to bring about a better world. However, Crossno and Brent conclude their discussion with an important caveat: …while we have perspectives on what we believe makes for more effective and powerful vocal ministry, the real test of whether something is vocal ministry is whether you feel compelled by Spirit to speak. Faithfulness to Christ, to our Inward Teacher, to the Divine, to the Light is always the final arbiter when it comes to vocal ministry. With the qualification expressed in the above quote, it seems very possible that genuine vocal ministry could violate Crossno and Brent’s guidelines. If spirit-led, it’s possible that specific names could be mentioned and specific political action could be recommended even though the issue had not been previously discussed by members of a Meeting. However, I’d argue that—before violating these guidelines—speakers should very carefully test their leadings. If there is the slightest inward doubt about delivering a political statement in Meeting, vocal ministers should refrain from giving such a message. Well, in an effort to clear up confusion about politicized vocal ministry, I may only have muddied the waters. Such is life, such is Quakerism. ~ Richard Russell First off, I never know with absolute certainty that I’m being called to speak in Meeting. In discerning when to speak—for me—flow charts with the criteria for vocal ministry are not particularly helpful. Instead, I attend to emotions and physical responses.
Some Friends feel a fast heartbeat when Spirit moves them. My heart doesn’t beat faster, but I have a hollow feeling in the pit of my stomach and a premonition that I’ll feel depressed after Meeting if I don’t speak. Also, I often ask myself one question: “Is this message likely to resonate with at least some Friends who are present?” After delivering my vocal ministry, I usually feel a sensation of relief that the “ordeal” is over. Certainly, vocal ministry is never to be taken lightly, but I hope that Friends who rarely or never speak will be moved to do so in Meeting. After all, speaking in the Spirit is a service to the community and a fulfillment of duty. May God grant that vocal ministry be a cherished part of Meetings at Old Chatham! ~ Richard Russell |
This blog was set up to post content of interest to Old Chatham Quaker members and attenders. Posts related to one's own personal spiritual journey, reports based on interviews with others, and reflections on Quaker-related topics are welcome. Posts by individuals are personal expressions and do not necessarily reflect those of the Meeting as a whole.
Guidelines for posting on website blog:
Submit to member of Communications committee; committee has editorial oversight over all content posted on the Meeting website. Be respectful of the nature of vocal ministry given in Meeting for Worship or other settings and any private conversations about spiritual matters. Cite source of any image or other external content submitted. Archives
April 2024
Categories |