 |
Young Friends |
Tena koutou katoa! Welcome to the anarchistic blog of Aotearoa/New Zealand YFs!
Sunday, 25 February 2007 | |||
|
Spirituality session at YF Camp | |||
|
Ok, given this has somewhat dominated grouphug for the last few days here is what has happened so far, feel free to continue the discussion using the comments!!!
Subject: Re: [group hug] YF Camp Sessions I'd like to do a session on Quaker Spirituality. Along with the focus on YF structure, climate change and the work we do out in the world, I think it's important to look at how we focus inwardly, how our spiritual journeys inform our outward actions. Just off the top of my head this could include things like:
This would be a fairly introspective session rather than a lot of intellectual debate. It probably won't involve chanting, candles or kaftans, but would include some silence and self reflection. Depending on time and enthusiasm this could be a main session or an interest group. Anyone keen to help let me know by direct email, anyone who doesn't like the idea and thinks it's far too religious let me know directly, or via grouphug. Julian Subject: [group hug] Spirituality (or lack there of) at YF :) Date: Wed, 21 Feb 2007 04:03:57 GMTAhh Julian, I know you're just waiting for this so I'm gonna surprise you lol. By all means have your crazy religious session (even the post modernism isn't enough to win me over tho)! At the World Gathering we did this kind of thing in a 'worship sharing' format, which is like a normal Meeting except that each person speaks (if they want to) just once at some point during the silence. This rules out the possibility of discussion fairly effectively and encourages each person to add their bit of wisdom. My experience of worship sharing was that it was also very moving as there is very much a personal focus (i.e. you speak YOUR truth, don't try and generalise to everybody else).Is there any chance we could come up with a more inclusive title for the session tho? Something without any reference to religion or spirituality? Words like 'beliefs' or 'values' spring to mind. Perhaps something about living them :pArohanui, Leith
Posted Justin Flitter Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 08:35:01 +1300 (NZDT)Morning all Perhaps its being born on the same day of the year or something but I totally agree with leith's concept. I dont feel im a very religious person yet (i hope) my faith guides my actions and beleifs. Sharing those and hearing about how others action their faith in a modern society is interesting and motivating. The meeting for worship setting with structured topic and formate is a great idea. Marion here,Well this has set the cat among the pigeons....Of course Julian asked those who agreed to contact him directly, so it hasn't been out there on grouphug.... I also like the idea of some worship sharing, but I think it should be complimented by maybe an introduction about Quakers and spirituality and maybe some discussion also. Worship sharing works well in place of discussion or ministry, as it actively encourages people to speak but also allows them to speak into silence and not have their views challenged or rubbished. Speaking 'our' truth rather than generalising is a difficult skill to master. It comes not only from learning to speak from an 'I' position, but also from learning to put aside our ego and listening for 'the' truth. It's not just about opinion or even just about sharing our experience. It's about listening carefully to others, and to ourselves and trying to discern where the spirit moves in and amongst all of us. I don't think it's something that comes easily, or will be there all the time, and one of the good reasons for doing worship sharing is to keep practising and to be ready and open when the spirit does move. It is also called 'worship' sharing - which suggests we are worshipping something..... whether that is god, light, spirit, that which is beyond us, that which is within us or whatever, it is not just us espousing our opinion or ego. One of the commonest hurdles in ministry in meeting for worship is getting beyond ego and reaching for something else. It is often not achieved and I think we have all sat through meetings like this. I don't think we're looking for this perfect ideal to be there all the time, but we are searching for it and being open to it.I would be disappointed if we removed the word 'spirituality' from any title as we are after all Quakers, and not a bunch of people who get together just because we share common values. Having a faith (whether it is tied to religion or not) involves believing in something for which there is no proof... for me this is my spirituality. I have grown over the years from a fairly athiest stance to one which is a little more forgiving of the unknown, and I think one of the reasons it was able to grow was by being around people who used words which were uncomfortable for me but talked about them in a way that was comfortable - this allowed for me to discuss them with people and grow (slowly) myself. Quakers are a religious body and most have a faith. I think it is special that we can talk about and work with lots of different views especially among young people as we start our own search, but to get rid of any reference to the spirit removes some of the core values that Quakers worldwide are bound together by. If the only thing that binds us is tolerance then I think we run the risk of watering down Quakerism and never striving for the high ideals which attracted me in the first place. There is definately a place for atheism within Quakerism, but it is within, and for me I don't want to lose the other stuff as well. However, I also think it's wonderful that these discussions are going on.... does that mean us YF's are leading the way in philosophic and ecclesiastic discussion among NZ Friends..... Lots of love to you all Marion Posted 23 Feb 2007 21:42 by Chris Gourlie Thank you Marion :) Posted 25 Feb 2007 18:26 by Joanne Hallwell it sounds like we have a session in any case:)perhaps it could start with some passages read from the grey book of nz quaker writings, or similar text, then could move to worship sharing, ending with some discussion. ? Posted 26 Feb 2007 08:29 by Julian Carver (short link) “Do we, in Friends, spend so much time leaning over backwards to shun anything that smacks of ‘doctrine’ that we leave our children without a basis for a living faith?” Norman Bennett 1970 (quote from the back cover of Quaker Faith & Practice in Aoteoroa).To me, each person’s journey inward is unique. The path to truly knowing ourselves, to connecting with all that exists, is totally individual, and completely right. It is very difficult to convey in words, it can really only be experienced directly. But the path can be hard and confusing, so we share it with others in faith communities to learn from and support each other in those things that are eternal. Thank you all for the feedback on the session on spirituality, both on grouphug, and directly (of which there has been waaayyy more than I expected). There seems to be a strong desire to have a session on spirituality, and if we're going to do so, to call a "spade a spade". I think it's really important that we can accept and include everybody's views and experiences. I also think that if we become so politically correct that we can't use the term 'spirituality' at a Quaker gathering, we risk losing that which really defines us as a community. There was a strong sense in your responses that YF camp should be a place where it's safe and comfortable to talk about what god/spirit/light means to us in a mystical sense rather than an intellectual one, and that this was quite different to exploring values and beliefs. Marion has offered to help me plan the session, and I've asked Leith to review the plan to make sure we're being as inclusive of atheist/agnostic/non-theist views as possible, and that we're not risking the majority being too influential on those who are less confident about their faith/beliefs. If anyone else would like to help plan the session please let me know directly. The suggestions so far on worship sharing, readings, and some discussion sound great, and any other ideas about format and methods are most welcome, so please do send them to Marion or I. If there is anyone else who is challenged or really feels uncomfortable about us using the term 'spirtuality' in the title of the session, please do let me know. I look forward to seeing you all at YF. Julian Posted 26 Feb 2007 11:44 by Leith Pugmire (short link) Or do we, as Friends, simply find the whole 'no creed or doctrine' thing pretty hard to live up to, and so make use of rhetoric devices (like Norman Bennet's quote) that serve to let us off the hook? lol Excuse the following social constructionist analysis Julian :) I know it will just make you laugh. The assumption I see as underlying these words: "if we become so politically correct that we can't use the term 'spirituality' at a Quaker gathering, we risk losing that which really defines us as a community" is that spirituality is something that defines as a community. The use of the term 'politically correct' is pretty effective at forstalling argument because, in mainstream New Zealand being 'politically correct' has fallen very much out of favour. Similarly, the suggestion that the alternative is to avoid using the term spirituality at a Quaker gathering makes objections seem mean-spirited and intolerant. (please note that this is an analysis of the language, not of Julian's intentions . . . although he's certainly wily enough to have forseen the consequences of the discourses he draws on :p) So . . . a few clarifications and a further plea . . . My experience at the World Gathering convinced me that there are NO beliefs, traditions, or pratices that are 'essential' or 'eternal' or 'universal' within Quakerism. Even the term 'Quaker' is contested (as are aspects of pacifism, process issues, religious beliefs, and virtually every piece of terminology you can think of). My evidence for this comes from discussions where one element of Quakerism after another would be brought forward as something which binds us all together, and then challanged by somebody who felt strongly that this didn't 'fit' with their version/path/religion/spirituality/philosophy/whatever. It strikes me that this is not really surprising when you consider that Quakerism emerged out of a challange to the (then) orthodoxy of early Catholocism. I returned from the World Gathering with the uncomfortable feeling that, because of my experiences, it falls to me to speak up on this issue. Because otherwise, the small voices of Quakerism will be drowned out or squashed or lost when they are driven away by the well-intentioned tide of Friends who seem able to imply some versions of Quakerism are wrong while simultaneously proclaiming we have no doctrine/creed. At times this process can be subtle, as when terms like 'spirituality' are prioritised at the group (rather than individual) level simply because a majority are comfortable with the term. Mostly this is down unintentionally, with little thought for how different words can have strong and very personal meanings for different people. Nevertheless, this is a kind of generalising that does privilege some voices over others. I would like to gently challange the idea that spirituality is something that defines us as a Quaker community. To make this claim disregards the legitimacy of Quakerisms that are not, even a little bit, spiritual. As an atheist and non-spiritual Young Friend I would like to clarify that my objection is not to spirituality in general, but simply to using it in the title of a session that should be equally accessible to all, and that for me and others will have nothing to do with spirituality. I have no objection to anybody else using the term, and I happily acknowledge that for many of you the word is important and appropriate. I look forward to hearing of your spiritual journeys during the session :) However, I am deeply concerned that for other non-spiritual Quakers, this is one more in a long line of instances when their personal beliefs have been demeaned within groups that should be safe for everyone. I would like to think that ANY word which might potentially have a negative effect on our diversity and open discussion could be avoided simply on those grounds. What does it matter if we end up leaving the session nameless, or calling it 'an exploration' or 'the discussion' if that will enable the discussion itself to take place? So, for me this is very much about calling a spade a spade. My Quakerism is not about spirituality, and I'm uncomfortable when this is implied. Certainly our discussion is likely to involve spirituality, but let's have a title that acknowledges alternatives. For me this is about living our tolerance, and valuing people over words. We can all save up our own special words to use when speaking our personal truth during the session. We each have wisdom to offer and aspects of Quakerism that we hold in trust, and if we are very very careful, we can support each other to share these gifts. Arohanui, Leith p.s. oh, and my plea is this: please don't ever let anybody convince you that you haven't the right to your view. Nobody has the ultimate Truth. Posted 26 Feb 2007 17:43 by Anna Dunford (short link) Kia ora e hoa maMy understanding of a sesison on spirituality at YF Camp was that it would be a chance for those interested in disussing this, in whatever format, to do so. This is in the same way as a session might be held on environmentalism & being carbon neutral, on rollerblading techniques or crocheting plastic bags. It would be for those for in which this is something they have an interest or leading to explore (or who are just too tired to leave the room when it starts...!). My understanding is it is not an attempt to define Quakerism or whatever but a safe and comfortable environment where people can share and explore their spiritual journeys without feeling as though they are going to be laughed at or belittled for using words like G/god/de/ss, being led, finding/seeking a calling, being held in the light, experiencing the love of Christ or whatever. There are precious few opportunities to do so outwith YFs and even within for most of us there are not many opportunities for a deep and semi/structured exploration of this. Leith is right when she says there is nothing out there that unifies Quakers worldwide, that speaks to everyone's condition and experience of Quakerism. But what has been found from the experience of WGYF was that what we did have in common was a wish to listen, learn from each other and hold each other in love. Given the evident amount of interest in this, and debate it has caused, rather than clogging up everyones inboxes can we maybes move over to the blog site? I'm happy to start cutting and pasting the emails so far there so we don't (heaven or anywhere else forbid!) end up starting it all over from scratch again! It's at http://netmail.co.nz/blogs/youngfriends/ in case any of you don't know or have forgotten! love & hugs Anna (and so I have!!! Sorry about the random formatting, I've tried, can anyone fix it?) ps wee historical note - it was the Church of England that the early Friends were dissenting against mainly - the Catholics weren't exactly popular at the time eitherAll yours.... | |||
|
Profile |
Hi. This is God. I thought you guys needed a modern medium with which to enhance your spirituality. Flaming bushes are so last month (and also pose a fire hazard . . . not to mention being irresponsible in times of drought). Remember that there is that of me in you. Don't be freaked out, that's not meant literally. Please note that disrespect will result in damnation, hellfire, and mildew. Later. |
Blog Posts |
Archives |
|
|
SurgeMail - Blog Server Software |
Windows Mail Server Software |
UseNet News Server Software
anna d latest addition to the discussion...
I am moved to put forward the title "The session previously known as Spirituality"...
But seriously, I can't claim to have read all the emails, but I'm kind of flummoxed (experimental spelling) as to why we can't just call the session something else, so that we can have these wonderful discussions in an environment where everyone feels welcome?
What's the big deal here?
And I don't aim that question at Leith (I've had enough long discussions with her to know what her big deal is) - I am interested in the strong responses of those who consider it a big deal to simply change a name to leave room for different viewpoints...
Absolutely the session should go forward (we all seem to agree there), it's just a matter of a name. And it does matter to those who are excluded. For example, how does the "new mothers' coffee group" or "paid maternity leave" feel to the fulltime dad? It is just a word, but when you want to be involved and it excludes you, it excludes you.
Arohanui, Avon :) (02/26/07)
anna d (ta for fixing my dodgy cut n pasting Fran! )
Ok, here's Quentin's tuppenceworth...
Kia ora Leith
It's no good I just cannot resist a reply to your email/s, even though I am not convinced if we get stuck into a binary form of discussion, we are unlikely to go anywhere new. One group will thing they are right and the other will think they are right and rehash the same arguments.
Is possible to have a passionate argument without using rhetorical devices?
"it falls to me to speak up on this issue. Because otherwise, the small voices of Quakerism will be drowned out or squashed or lost when they are driven away by the well-intentioned tide of Friends" - this seems to pit the lone true voice against the uninformed majority.
I wonder if one of the differences between the World Gathering and Young Friends is that it could be possible to come to a local defined set of principles and language use that has meaning. The group is not so large and because we live in community (virtual or otherwise) it might be possible to construct that reality. It would be helpful to ask - Who does or does not have voice in this? Who does or does not have power? How does the group come to know things collectively (epistemology?).
I wonder if one one way forward might be to use Quaker process - be it a Threshing meeting, Meeting for Clearness or otherwise. In this way it might be possible to come to "know" in George Foxes words "experimentally". Is it possible for YFs to meet, leave aside their egos and try and discern something that is beyond themselves (a not-knowing stance) ? How exciting is that! In my experience this is not a group norming form of consensus. One person might be blessed with the "truth" and the group will come to know this through discernment. In my experience this has been different from knowing intellectually or emotionally but a spiritual kind of knowing for want of another word. It might be that YFs do come to discern that use of words such as God, Quaker etc are no longer helpful in the way you have been moved to witness. Then it could be taken to another forum to see if other Friends hear this "truth" and finally to Yearly Meeting. This does seem like a long process but from my reading of Quaker history, John Woolman did take 100 years to patiently persuade Friends and others to give up slavery.
OK, I have successful procrastinated from my Te reo Maori homework
Ka kite ano
Quentin (02/26/07)