Ploughing at Hlekweni in Zimbabwe |
'Bring all into the
worship of God. Plough up the fallow ground. Thresh and get out the
corn; that the seed, the wheat, may be gathered into the barn... None
are ploughed up but he who comes to the principle of God in him, that
he hath transgressed. Then he doth service to God; then is the
planting, watering, and increase from God.'
One of Lu's questions
for reflection is, 'What can I say of how Spirit has worked within me
and my meeting? Is the fallow ground plowed up?'
I have been busy with
coursework for a Masters in Organic Farming over the last couple of
months, so the details of ploughing, planting, and harvesting have
been very much occupying my mind. Thinking about Lu's question, it
occurred to me that British Quakers as a whole seem to be going
through this process of 'ploughing up the fallow ground' right now.
Fallow ground is land
that has been left uncultivated for a year or more. Letting land lie
fallow is a traditional farming practice - allowing the soil to
regain fertility between years of cropping and harvesting that would
otherwise leave it depleted of nutrients. The point of Fox's
metaphor, though, is that fallow ground has been left uncultivated so
long that it has become unproductive. As every gardener knows,
neglected land quickly becomes colonized by weeds. In a process known
as 'ecological succession', pioneer species such as grass and other
invasive weeds quickly establish themselves, and if allowed to flower
and set seed, will fill the soil with persistent weed seeds that can
remain viable in the soil for decades.
It is my impression
that Britain Yearly Meeting has been left fallow for far too long,
drifting in the organizational equivalent of ecological succession,
by which a vital and living movement becomes increasingly
inward-looking, focussing on its own institutional structures and
routines, and the needs of its own members. British Quakerism has
allowed itself to be colonized by invasive weeds from the surrounding
culture - a shallow secular liberalism, the smothering growth of
bureaucracy, and the creeping couch grass of complacency.
Cultivation interrupts
ecological succession by ploughing up the fallow ground. Among
British Friends, Quaker Quest, Experiment with Light, The Kindlers,
and the recent 'Whoosh' conference are some of the renewal
initiatives that are starting to break up the settled Quaker culture
of 'hidden-ness'. Quakers all over the country are starting to speak
openly and confidently about their faith and to seek out deeper and
more disciplined expressions of spiritual practice. Participants at
the 'Whoosh' conference this year called for a new emphasis on
spiritual leadership, preparation for membership, and a confident
teaching ministry. Our Recording Clerk, Paul Parker, is challenging
Meetings around the country to respond to the vision of a vibrant,
growing movement that can speak to the needs of modern society in
turbulent times. The Kindlers project is working with Meetings around
the country 'to rekindle the power of Quaker worship by renewing and
deepening our spiritual practices'.
Even the rather sterile
arguments about the place of 'non-theism' in the Religious Society of
Friends may be contributing to this ploughing up, by highlighting the
consequences of many years of presenting Quakerism as an
anything-goes 'Quaker Space' rather than a distinctive Quaker Way,
with its own challenging spiritual teachings and practices.
In farming, ploughing
incorporates the stored fertility in the leaves and roots of
vegetation into the soil, where it is broken down by a complex
community of bacteria, fungi, insects and worms, to make the stored
nutrients available for the following productive crops. British
Quakers too have a huge amount of fertility stored up in our
experiences and traditions. The quietly committed lives of Friends
throughout many generations have created a rich store of wisdom,
discernment and example to nourish the new growth of our movement.
We now need a vigorous, nutrient-demanding crop of new Quaker
prophets, teachers, accompaniers and ministers capable of drawing on
this fertility before it drains away below the topsoil. If we
genuinely want and intend to know the 'planting, watering, and
increase from God' we need this generation of British Friends, of all
ages, to put their hands to the plough.
Good stuff Craig. Reading has reminded me to look up where "What a huge harvest! And how few the harvest hands." comes from. It's in the advice to the seventy in Luke 10, of course - and what follows it is the instruction to pray that the One who makes the harvest will send the labourers to do the work. I have that sense of a harvest standing in the field - such a mountain of work to be done; but where are the labourers? It's good to be reminded that we have to ask God to send them, as well as being willing to receive them.
ReplyDeleteI have been asking myself the same question, 'where are the labourers?' for some time, but I am starting to get a sense that there are some around, who we have perhaps overlooked, because their message doesn't fit with the prevailing Quaker culture of extreme reticence and tentativeness. 'A prophet is not without honour, except in their own Meeting'...
ReplyDeleteI agree with most of the logic of this post but am disappointed to see terms like "a shallow secular liberalism" described as an 'invasive weed'. My experience has been that liberalism, as practised by Friends in Britain and elsewhere, is rarely shallow and far from secular. Let us not forget that while we plough the fields earthworms work around the clock helping the soil to mix, drain and assisting aeration. Perhaps some of these worms come from the field next door or even from the compost heap, but they do the job. Liberalism is part of Quakerism in Britain and has been for a very long time it is not an 'Invasive weed', but an earthworm that helps keep Quakerism fresh and involved with the world around it. PS~ I hope the coursework went well!
ReplyDeleteHi Ray, Thank you for this. I think the expression 'shallow secular liberalism' probably needs some unpacking to be meaningful. To be clearer, I don't mean the classic Liberal Quakerism of Rufus Jones etc, more recently championed in Felicity Kaal's essay for the Friends Quarterly essay competition (http://www.thefriend.co.uk/fq/074.pdf).
ReplyDeleteInstead I am talking about the very commonly expressed views such as 'you can believe what you like, everyone's perspectives are equally valid, no-one can tell anyone else what to think, there are no shoulds or oughts, that old religious language is out of date and off-putting to newcomers, we all have our own truth' etc, etc. This sort of 'Quakerism Lite' is, I believe, simply imported from the background assumptions of the dominant culture, and has nothing to do with the Quaker Way at all.
Thanks for your good wishes. In Friendship, Craig
Hi Craig,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply. I guess I get touchy whenever anybody identifies one branch of Quakerism as 'the true Quakerism' and dismisses the honestly held views of others. I might describe myself as a Liberal Quaker, but I am also a Christian Quaker and (in as much as I prefer unstructured and un-led 'silent' meetings) I might also, perhaps paradoxically, be described as a Conservative Quaker. I came to Quakerism many years ago as a fourteen year old who happened to walk into Croydon Friends Meeting House, and I fully admit that the fact I did not have to sign up to any set of beliefs was an enormous attraction to me. To sit in meeting with a traditional Christian Quaker on my left and a Universalist Quaker on my right is no problem to me, nor I hope to them. We are all Friends sharing in meeting and sharing in the peace and simplicity of worship and our lives in general.
I agree that we need to get 'ploughing', but by suggesting that this Quaker is of the 'Quaker Way' and this other Quaker is 'Quaker Lite' does not, to my mind, help in this process. To sharpen our ploughshares and harness our horses ~ I believe we need to do is exactly what you did in the post ~ go back to what those early Quakers had to say and take heed of it. Fox saw that what he had started had to be distinctively different from the forms of Christianity that then existed. Quakers still have to be different, that's an important point ~ and if being different means that each Quaker comes up with a personal set of beliefs that may not exactly match those of other Quakers then so be it.
I'm certain Friend that we have no major disagreement other than terminology and I look forward to following your blog and wish you well. Let us engage in a 'cyber handshake' of Friendship. Ray
ReplyDelete
Thanks for this gracious response Ray, and for your beautiful blog, which I have just discovered at hayquaker1.blogspot.co.uk
DeleteIn Friendship,
Craig
Very welcome sense of urgency and joy in your post, Craig. I'm on the Experiment with Light steering group and we are being inundated with requests from Area Meetings from teams to lead workshops on the Experiment. There's a hunger and readiness among Quakers - and one that can side-step all this divisiveness, because people want more depth, and know it when they experience it - although they may still use differing terminology to express it.
ReplyDeleteI do lament the social narrowness of the meetings that I know.
Hi Susie,
ReplyDeleteThis sounds very encouraging. I completely agree that it is the hunger for and the experience of depth that is important, not the language that is used to describe or explain it. Thanks for all you are doing with Experiment with Light.
In Friendship,
Craig
Very good! And heartening to read. I agree with most of what you write, Craig, and won't quibble about the rest. I was at the Whoosh! conference last year and it was a mix of wonderful and depressing, but mostly wonderful.
ReplyDeleteHi Imran,
ReplyDeleteThanks for this, it is good to hear from you.
Craig