Friends as a "Chosen People" - Continued -- 4
IV. A Peculiar People–again?
In this section we’re supposed to get at what the Quaker version of being a chosen people might look like. To do this, though, I need to take you on what will at first seem like a detour, but really isn’t.
I want to begin by pointing out that much of what I have been exploring here, about the concept of election in the Bible, is pretty mainstream stuff. The idea that Israel was a people specially chosen and shaped by God, and the suggestion that this notion of chosenness evolved considerably in the work and writings of Paul and others who shaped the early Christian communities–these are pretty conventional, even orthodox pieces of biblical scholarship that are widely shared in both Christian and Jewish communities. I’m known as a rather liberal Quaker, but I think few evangelical Quakers would quarrel with that much of this presentation.
However, there are many things having to do with the Bible on which various Christian churches and Jewish sects differ. This should be obvious, but it’s a point worth emphasizing. After all, there are large institutions, like the national and international Bible societies, that churn out tens of millions of copies of the Bible in scores of languages and ship them all over the world. These groups clearly believe that if everybody studied this book, at least in the right way, that most or all these people would have similar religious conversion experience which would have predictably positive results for them and for the world.
But I’m here to suggest that their work may have just the opposite effect. Because the record of Christian history over the last 600 years indicates to me that the more people study the Bible, the more religious diversity, conflict, and even warfare, we can expect. Certainly that’s the pattern which followed the translation of the Bible from Latin into popular languages, its wider distribution by the new printing press technology, and the personal study made possible by the slow but sure spread of literacy.
Indeed, looking at Christian history since Gutenberg invented his press, I think a case can be made that maybe the Catholic popes had a point when they made translating the scriptures a capital offense, for the sake of "peace, order and good government," as they say in Canada, if nothing else.
You may know the story of William Tyndale, who was burnt at the stake for translating the Bible, or of John Wycliffe, who was sentenced to death for the same thing. Wycliffe managed to frustrate the church hierarchy by dying a natural death before they could catch him; but as soon as they got a chance, the church authorities dug up the poor man’s bones and had them burned at the stake, as a warning to others who wanted to put this dangerously divisive document in the hands of the unwashed.
Now, as one who was raised Catholic in the pre-Vatican II dark ages, I’m as happy as anybody that Roman censorship is largely a thing of the past. No, as a matter of fact I’m happier about it than a lot of people, because I remember when it was still a real thing. And maybe that’s why it chilled me down to my bones when Salman Rushdie was forced to go underground by the Ayatollah Khomeini’s death warrant. He’s still underground, you know, and it still chills me when I think about it.
But I digress. The point I want to start with here is that churches differ widely, and most of their differences are reflected in their interpretation of scripture. Put another way, most churches which come out of the biblical tradition can find a basis for their "peculiarities" in the Bible. This is possible because the Bible is a large and rich and complex document, much like a tapestry that’s so large we can’t see it all, and which contains many different threads and colors. From this tapestry the churches select out certain threads, or passages and make them privileged or authoritative, at the same time ignoring or downplaying other passages.
All churches I know anything about do this. And Christians, or Jews, who think they don’t do it are, in my observation, either fooling themselves, or being fooled.
The way I’m putting this here may sound cynical, but I’m heightening this process to make it visible, and I don’t mean it cynically. Many of these divergent and selective interpretations have come out of deeply felt religious experience and devoted study. But just the same, they still involve emphasizing some passages or books of the Bible while downplaying others.
Let me quickly give a few examples. If you’re a Lutheran, for instance, you are big on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, and especially verses like Romans 2:28: "For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law."
Justification by faith, not works; that’s the Lutheran doctrine.
Or suppose you’re an evangelical. You will be especially strong on verses like John 3:3, and 3:6: "Jesus answered and said to him, ‘Truly, truly I say to you, unless a man is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God...do not marvel that I said to you, you must be born again.’"
Or if you’re Catholic, one of the most important sayings of Jesus is Matthew 16:19: "And I also say to you that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." This is their biblical justification for the papacy.
Or if you’re a Presbyterian, you’re big on Romans 8:29-31 & 33:
"For those whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his son...(33)Who will bring a charge against God’s elect? God is the one who justifies."
Incidentally, this doctrine of predestination was one the early Friends strongly rejected. And I’ve heard a story about this that involves two farmers, one a Quaker and one a Presbyterian. They were neighbors, and were known to argue about predestination, with the Presbyterian defending it and the Quaker denying it. And one day the Presbyterian farmer was driving his carriage toward a country crossroads, when he saw his Quaker neighbor coming from the other direction on his horse. And just as they were converging he called out, "Hey, Quaker, Do you realize that God in his infinite power and wisdom has predestined from the very foundation of the world that you and I were to meet at this crossroads today at this very hour?
When he heard this, the Quaker reared his horse, wheeled around, shouted, "Then by God, I won’t do it!" and galloped away.
So you get the idea.
Now I’m not mentioning all this to beat up on other denominations. These examples are merely for the purpose of pointing to the fact that when it comes to selective Bible interpretation, Quakers are no different from any other church. Fox and Fell and Penn and our other forebears all had their favorite, and determining passages of scripture, and they also ignored or dismissed others.
And it’s by looking at the way they used scripture that I think we can begin to get a sense of what they felt Quakers had been raised up as a people to do.
Take women’s equality for instance. Lucretia Mott was once confronted by a clergyman who insisted her campaign for women’s rights was wrong, because the Apostle Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 14:34, "Let the women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak, but let them subject themselves, just as the Law also says. And if they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home, for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in church." (Note that he doesn’t say who women who are single or widowed were supposed to ask.)
Lucretia listened to the man patiently and then answered, "Ah, but thee must understand something. The Apostle Paul was not a Friend."
Now that’s a wisecrack, and a good one, but when Margaret Fell took on such critics, she answered by quoting the Apostle Peter, in the second chapter of Acts, when he was giving one of his first public sermons, in which he in turn was quoting the prophet Joel (Acts 2:16-18):
"But this is what was spoken of through the prophet Joel: ‘And it shall be in the last days,’ says God, ‘that I will pour forth my spirit on all flesh, and your sons and your daughters will prophesy...even upon my bondslaves, both men and women I will in those days pour forth of my spirit and they shall prophesy.’"
What Paul was talking about, Margaret Fell insisted, was women who were chattering and gossiping in church, disrupting the worship. But women could and should prophesy in the churches, and that’s what Quaker women were doing, so get off their case.
So that’s one. An even more important passage, I think, maybe the central one, was in John Chapter One, verses 4,5 and 9:
"In him was life, and the life was the light of men, and the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overpowered it...This was the true light that enlightens everyone coming into the world."
Next to this is one we read earlier, John 4:24: "God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and in truth."
If I had to pick one Bible verse to sum up Quaker peoplehood, I’d refuse, because I don’t think I could let go of either one of these.
In other words, these verses suggest to me that the Religious Society of Friends is a people raised up to bear witness to the universality of the divine light in all, and the priority of the spirit and truth as the basis of religion over forms, hierarchies and doctrines.
By themselves, there’s nothing really new in any of our specific points of witness; it’s all there in scripture. But it is the combination, our particular take, our selective interpretation, under the leading and calling of the spirit, that shows our character as a peculiar, chosen people.
If we had time, we could go through in detail how our testimonies likewise reflect this particular reading of scripture:
Matthew 5:9–"Blessed are the peacemakers."
Other churches see in that a nice sentiment, but an impractical, irrelevant ideal; for us, it’s a peace testimony.
Later in the same chapter, Matthew 5:34, & 37: "Swear not at all...But let your yea be yea, and your nay be nay." Others see no bar to oaths in that; Quakers find a testimony of integrity and simplicity.
And in Matthew 20:25 is the root of our business Quaker process, and our answer to the Catholic claim about Peter:
"But Jesus called them to himself and said, ‘You know that the rulers of the gentiles lord it over them and their great men exercise authority over them. It is not so among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant."
Remember that in the Hebrew scriptures, with being chosen comes gifts, an inheritance. For Israel, these were above all the Torah, and the Promised Land. I believe our unprogrammed worship, Quaker process, and the testimonies are our equivalent of the Torah. They form a canon for us as much as the Bible is, if not in the same bound form.
I also believe we too have been given a promised land: It’s called Pennsylvania. It was perhaps the freest society on earth in its day, with no witchhunts; decades of peace with the Natives; a legacy of rights that has been a positive influence on all later American history. We’ve also been exiled from it, even within it, for a long time. But I believe we can reclaim that heritage in creative ways, without having to worry about taking it over again in any political sense.
All this might be just another quirky Bible interpretation; there’s certainly no shortage of these. But to me it adds up to the signs of a calling, not just of individuals, but of a people, a peculiar people, a chosen people.
Again–we’re not the only chosen people, and like the Israelites we weren’t chosen because of our righteousness; but for purposes we don’t fully understand, the spirit formed this people, gave them/us a distinct character, even if part of that is a refusal to pin it down into a creed. It’s still something that new attenders can recognize, and in which some can hear a divine calling to them as well.
Also like the Israelites, even our very imperfect living out of this vocation has been productive; as was true for Abraham, so also in us, maybe not all, but quite a few families of the earth, have indeed been blessed. The legal end of slavery in America; progress on women’s rights; peace work; the advance of universalist religion.
It’s inappropriate to get very self-congratulatory about this, but we can give ourselves some credit. Through the people called Quakers the spirit has accomplished some specific and remarkable things. And our work is not done.
<<< Back to Theological Resources Page
QUEST, P.O. Box 82, Bellefonte PA 16823
E-mail: quest@quaker.org