Wess Daniels - Latest comments on Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Richard Roberts [Visitor] — Mon, 30 Aug 2010 02:38:35 +0000

Thanks for taking this opening to talk about this, I feel strongly about it and I benefit from learning about this subject.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

hemroids [Visitor] — Thu, 26 Nov 2009 12:32:01 +0000

What Quakers were against wasn’t forms but rather things that became objects and ultimately obstacles for our belief. Anything that takes the place of or “prevents us from experiencing the true reality” of our social situation or the reality of the kingdom of God was to be questioned by the church. Two assumptions play into this reading, first in every generation we have to ask this question again, “what is preventing us from experiencing the reality of our social situation, from the reality of the kingdom of God?” It’s not enough to simply duplicate a black and white copy of everything the first generation of Friends did – that requires no faith and betrays yet again a faith fixated on something else. But neither can we simply dismiss their keen insights either. As Pink Dandelion has argued silence itself has become a form, a fixation, that can lead to disbelief but neither can we get rid of this because we know that rituals, pastors, etc. can also become obstacles to faith.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Rod Pharris [Visitor] — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 17:03:47 +0000

Reading your essay immediately reminds me of something Buechner wrote, that while there are really few atheists who truly live their lives evincing their conviction that there is "no God",there are many self-proclaimed Christians who do live their lives as if there were "no God". Evangelism has been turned into a process of taking care of the "God problem", in which an individual accepts the free gift of salvation, and then never has to give God another thought.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

benny soto [Visitor] — Mon, 17 Aug 2009 23:20:22 +0000

remember me --it's good to see you. i was just surfing around- one thing lead to an other - bonda bing bonda boom -- and there you are --

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Wess Daniels [Member] — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 21:14:15 +0000

Hi Bill -
"Furthermore an honest look at the gospeals shows a Jesus who was not opposed to form and ritual, but to empty form and ritual where the heart was not turned to God. The very fact of the Incarnation shows the meaning of the physical in the spiritual life.

So Friends shouldn't be fixated on particular practices or avoiding particular practices. They shouldn't say to God "I'll follow you as long as it includes X (historical Quaker practices)" or "I'll follow you as long as it doesn not include Y (the bread and the cup, or anything else Quakers have not traditionally practiced)."

Friends should be looking for how today in their setting they can be faithful in following Jesus, which was the root of what early Quakers sought to do."

yes, yes, yes. Thanks for adding this.

I think the thing I want to hang onto is the critique, the deconstruction, of these particular forms and/or assumptions that may be standing in our way. Which is what I'm hearing you say as well.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Bill Samuel [Visitor] — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:56:04 +0000

Wess, I'm generally in unity with the thrust of your post. But I think a distinction needs to be made between the motivation for the anti-form stance early Quakers took and the theology/ideology they expressed about it.

They were responding to an environment where forms were often used in a way that definitely did not honor Christ. They sought to remove all distractions of forms in order to open themselves to a radical listening to Christ. This is all good, and the experiment proved itself in real spiritual power being evident among them.

But their arguments universalized their own experience inappropriately IMHO. They argued that using physical symbols (they loved symbolic language and the contradiction implicit in that compared to their view of physical symbols never seem to have dawned on them) was necessarily a rejection of the spiritual reality they were supposed to represent (well some argued this while some others were not so totally condemning).

This view seems rather clearly to be mistaken, when taken as a universal. Clearly in Christian history some of those who seem to have been most in the spirit of Christ found the rituals to which Friends objected to be very meaningful.

Furthermore an honest look at the gospeals shows a Jesus who was not opposed to form and ritual, but to empty form and ritual where the heart was not turned to God. The very fact of the Incarnation shows the meaning of the physical in the spiritual life.

So Friends shouldn't be fixated on particular practices or avoiding particular practices. They shouldn't say to God "I'll follow you as long as it includes X (historical Quaker practices)" or "I'll follow you as long as it doesn not include Y (the bread and the cup, or anything else Quakers have not traditionally practiced)."

Friends should be looking for how today in their setting they can be faithful in following Jesus, which was the root of what early Quakers sought to do.

As far as paid staff, they should neither rigidly oppose any use of such or simply adopt particular forms, like the Protestant pastoral model. Both of those errors are very common among Friends today.

They should be seeking as faith communities to discern how to be faithful, and if that involves releasing someone to serve, fine, and if not, fine. If it does they should be discerning what the role of a paid staff person should be in their community, sensitive to not displacing the proper role of other members of the congregation. There shouldn't be a model held up, but they should regularly discern what is appropriate. It might or might not involve special preparation for vocal ministry.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) [Visitor] — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:08:03 +0000

Wess, thank you for your clarification. I am ashamed to admit that your point, in those two sentences, slid past me the first time.

In response to: Repetition and A Non-Liturgical Liturgy

Jim [Visitor] — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 20:34:19 +0000

I'm a little hesitant to comment. But for what it's worth, here are a few thoughts. I wonder if all that questioning will leave time for simple, quiet, contemplation. There's a time for questioning and there's a time for settling in with what one has.

I'm not sure of this, but it seems to me that some of the standard forms of Quaker worship are still radical and daring to all those outside of the Quaker tradition. I'm speaking as someone who was raised in a secular household. From the perspective of someone brought up in the Quaker tradition certain practices may seem to need questioning, but from the perspective of those outside the tradition and seeking for a place of communal worship that very practice may be exactly what attracts.

Best,

Jim