This is the third post in the series Quaker Business Method and Theological Diversity.
If you haven't already, you will get the most out of this post if you read the opening post
in the series. That post will also include links to all other posts in the series as they are
posted. Reading the second post as well would be an advantage, but it's the opening post that's important, as it sets the context.
This does not mean any
disregard for the Divine, of course. It would be hard to be any sort
of faithful Quaker without a keen regard for the leadings of the
Spirit. However, these Friends often consider such questions
unresolvable, sometimes even seeing contention over them as simply
projections of the egos of those involved.
In a sense, this is a
highly practical conception. It doesn't so much matter why our
methods work, it matters rather that they work. We know from
experience that our methods work, and perhaps this tells us something
about the nature of the Spirit – but the only reason to make those
inferences are in terms of working out what other things might work,
if we feel the need to do things differently. However, if it turns
out that something works, it doesn't so much matter – in such a
conception – that its working might seem to contradict something we
thought we knew.
I have known many
Friends with such a view of the Divine, and of Quaker practice, and
almost all of them have been those raised among Friends. That is not
to say that I haven't known those raised among Friends who have more
specific or precise views, but in my experience a tendency towards
this practical, mystery-tolerant view is fairly prevalent among
lifelong Quakers.
Some even take this to
the extreme of disapproving of any attempt to understand the Divine.
The movement of the Spirit is a mystery, and its power and beauty is
linked to that mystery, so it is uncouth or offensive to attempt to
take that mystery apart.
What does this mean for
how such Friends conceive of business? Well, it's hard to go into
much detail, because the essential mystery and lack of detail in this
conception rather renders that fruitless. We come together in silence
to make a decision, and the Spirit, whatever it might be, moves some
to speak to the matter at hand. From this, and maybe with aid from
that Spirit, the clerk(s) discern a sense of the meeting. No more
detail is forthcoming, because the mystery of the Divine admits no
further detail.
A weakness of this
approach is that it is not amenable to analysis. If we have some
understanding of what is going on in a business meeting, we can apply
that understanding to possible variations or supplements to the
business method. We can work out ideas of what we might get out of
some variation, try it, and compare it to expectations. Those
results, combined with our understanding, can provide a sort of map,
or the beginnings of one, in how to refine those new ideas. If we do
not analyse what is happening, then any variation or new experiment
is tried completely blind. The only guide to what might work is what
has worked in the past.
There is a social
advantage to this conception, however. It denies conflict by removing
consideration of that which conflict might arise over. This is a
mixed blessing, of course. If we were to somehow enforce the outward
confession of this conception, we would not be eliminating other
conceptions. Differences would still exist, but they would be hidden,
underground. Conflict that is hidden is not conflict that is
resolved. If we were to eliminate conflict by mass adoption of this
conception, it might work better than doing the same with any other
conception – but it would still be highly unsatisfactory.
My own views are
sympathetic to this view as well, but I find myself unable to have
such lack of regard for details; my own experiences have led me to
have some sense of the nature of the Divine, and while I accept that
such matters are beyond comprehension, I cannot deny my own
experiences. However, this inscrutable nature of the Divine means
that I do not deny the experiences or conceptions of others, even
when they seem to be contradictory; if we are all reaching for the
same incomprehensible something, we are likely to see different
things, and contradictions between them say nothing for the
possibility of them pointing to the same thing.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
