Comments on: Mirror of Sin

By: Repost: Mirror of Sin @ Ales Rarus

Repost: Mirror of Sin @ Ales Rarus — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 17:42:05 +0000

[...] April 26th, 2005 by Funky Dung Inspired by Joe Carter at Evangelical Outpost, I have decided to recycle an old post. There are a few reasons for this. [...]

By: John

John — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"atheistic Quaker"?

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"Finally, even when the sin is in no sense public, it may still be divulged without contravening the virtues of justice or charity whenever such a course is for the common weal or is esteemed to make for the good of the narrator, of his listeners, or even of the culprit. "

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

"I'd love to hear your definition of atheist, so we're on the same page."

One who believes that no God exists.

I'm sorry if I offended you, but all I was saying is that each of the Quakers I knew disbelieved in God, backing up Eric here. And one didn't believe in the Inner Light either.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think I've been misunderstood. I'll just assume it's my fault and explain more clearly.

I definitely wasn't trying to say that modern Quakers are all atheists. I meant only that they are no longer required to be Christians, or theists at all.

"Faith and Practice" is a very apt title for a book on Quakerism, though perhaps not as the authors intended. There are two components to any religion (a word dervived from the Latin for "to bind"), Tradition and tradition. Tradition is the dogmatic component, i.e. faith. The other is comprised of the affects, i.e. practices. Generally, the official faith doesn't change (much), but the practices do. If the faith changes enough, the original name for the faith becomes misleading and another is used. This seems to not be true for Quakerism, as I perceive it.

Once upon a time, all Quakers held basically the same Tradition, namely faith in Jesus Christ and respect for the authority of the Christian Scriptures (and on paper they still do). Now, however, it seems that faith has been de-emphasized in Quakerism and the practices have taken prominence. Thus, it appears that faith in Jesus Christ is no longer a necessary condition to being Quaker. I compared modern Quakerism to Buddhism because Buddhism is a well-known set of practices without a faith.

On the other hand, your example of ChrEasters as representatives of Catholic faith (or lack thereof) may be appropos. If modern Quakerism is still "officially" orthodox and Tom and I have only witnessed the bad apples, we should indeed be sorry for having insulted you and other faithful Quakers.

It seems a bit problematic, though, to determine what constitutes orthodoxy in a religion that gives primary authority to individual consciences and whose gatherings are mostly autonomous from each other. I suppose I could read the equivalent to "Faith and Practice" put out by every yearly meeting, but that's a bit time-consuming. It sure would be nice if there was a Quaker catechism. Heck, even a simple creed would be nice. It's too bad rigid formulations of faith are kind of contrary to the very faith I'd like to see formulated.

Anyhow, with no central Quaker authority to which we can appeal, I hope you can see why Tom and I have found ourselves resorting to small-sample observations of individual Quakers in order to gauge modern Quaker faith.

By: Tom Smith

Tom Smith — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I think the original Quaker ideal speaks of an "Inner Light" inherent within each person. One need not believe in a deity to believe in an Inner Light. These days, however, one need not even believe in the Inner Light to be a Quaker. The few I knew in high school were all atheists.

By: Tom Folsom

Tom Folsom — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

I'm sorry, but that's a very small, terrible sample, and one that's an amazing generalization. In fact, almost insulting.

I frequently attend two different meetings. One in Pittsburgh, and one near Philadelphia. I have never come from either with a view that they were atheist, nor have I ever felt that they were encouraging that. Having seen the lesson plans for first day school, and what they are teaching their youth, I find that even more absurd.

Quakers believe in the Inner Light within everyone. That light can shine in many ways; this is one of the reasons why we are accepting of so many other religions, and variance in our own. It is that belief, a belief that each individual's views are tied back to that inner light, that connects us all together.

Now, I'd love to hear your definition of atheist, so we're on the same page. But at both my meetings (one rather Christ centered, one not), I have never felt anything but grounded in a faith and belief that was meaningful and integral to the service, and the people.

By: Funky Dung

Funky Dung — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Immediately preceding that:

"The determination of the degree of sinfulness of detraction is in general to be gathered from the consideration of the amount of harm the defamatory utterance is calculated to work. In order to adequately measure the seriousness of the damage wrought, due regard must be had not only to the imputation itself but also to the character of the person by whom and against whom the charge is made. That is, we must take into account not only the greater or lesser criminality of the thing alleged but also the more or less distinguished reputation of the detractor for trustworthiness, as well as the more or less notable dignity or estimation of the person whose good name has been assailed. Thus it is conceivable that a relatively small defect alleged against a person of eminent station, such as a bishop, might seriously tarnish his good name and be a mortal sin, whilst an offence of considerable magnitude attributed to an individual of a class in which such things frequently happen might constitute only a venial sin, such as, for instance, to say that a common sailor had been drunk. It is worthy of note that the manifestation of even inculpable defects may be a real defamation, such as to charge a person with gross ignorance, etc. When this is done in such circumstances as to bring upon the person so disparaged a more than ordinary measure of disgrace, or perhaps seriously prejudice him, the sin may even be a grievous one.

By: Jim McCarville

Jim McCarville — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

It is interesting that this thread carries a debate on two issues: detraction and the state of Quakerism. Ales Rarus made a statement about an atheistic Quaker, which he believed to be true and which others found to be damaging to their good name. Thanks to blogsphere, all of this was promptly communicated and Ales Rarus appears to have accepted an admonition.

How many times a day does this happen and we do not become aware of the consequences of our statements.

By: Alexa

Alexa — Tue, 30 Nov 1999 00:00:00 +0000

My old spiritual director gave me this example of "detraction": Suppose a new parishioner came into your parish from out of state. This person became very involved in the parish and was highly respected for all their good works and even their personality was something everyone enjoyed. Then you found out that this new parishioner had actually left the other state in order to start a new life in your state, in your parish…they were leaving behind something awful, like perhaps they left an adulterous relationship or they were in prison or they'd been a prostitute. They left that way of life and started a new one where you are and in your community. If you found out about this somehow, and told anyone else about it, it would be a sin of detraction.