cms@gatech.edu (01/25/91)
I'm not sure why I'm posting this during the Persian Gulf War, but, I have a few minutes before heading off to class, so here goes. Anne Hutchinson, a Puritan in the 16th century, taught in her home in private group meetings what we basically call the heresy of antinomianism. In this belief, she taught a covenant of grace, as opposed to a covenant of works, challenging the ministers (and the authority thereof) in her community that they were preaching heresy, and she was preaching the truth. She said she was guided by an "inner light" of the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit dwells in the justified and that no sanctification is evidence of justification. The Puritans who opposed her preached Sola Scriptura and felt that her understanding of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit within her challenged this belief. The issue was one of authority (politics) as much as religion. The way I see it, this indwelling of the Holy Spirit caused two problems: 1. She made herself, effectively, the Pope of her community, and not only that, made every believer a similar Pope; in other words, one who receives direct revelation from God and preaches the Word accordingly without error, as long as you remain in the light. This would result in chaos. 2. If you believe that you have this "inner light" (and I by no means deny that people have it, my understanding is different), then you have the Holy Spirit dwelling within you; if anyone opposes you (as they opposed Anne Hutchinson), then they must not have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. In Winthrop's (I think) journal of the trial, the committee prayed and felt assured that the Holy Spirit was guiding the committee. This pitted the dispute into an us versus them mentality. Either we have the Holy Spirit, and you don't, or you have the Holy Spirit, and we don't. You see the problem. Anyway, the issue of salvation is the point I wanted to bring out. Anne Hutchinson seemed to be the Puritan's Puritan and helped the Puritans realize just to what extreme some of their beliefs could be taken. She separated grace and works to the point where, if you're talking about grace, you're talking about grace, and works having absolutely nothing to do with it, and if you're talking about works, you're talking about works, and that's an entirely different animal. It seems to me that some of the people with whom I've been conversing on this issue are taking the position of Anne Hutchinson on this particular issue of "faith and works" or "grace and works." Hutchinson might have said that even our faith does not justify since faith requires an action on the part of the believer, and any action on the part of the believer cannot justify you, only God can justify you by his grace. If your faith is a gift from God (which I think it is), then your faith justifies, but no action on your part does so. This leads to all kinds of problems, such as, this list of people will be saved, this list won't, and it doesn't matter what you do or how you really feel, you were either on the list in the beginning or not. But if you act like you're on the list, then everyone will know that you're on the good list, but even that seems to me to violate Jesus's prohibition against doing things or praying in synagogues or whatever just so people will see you and say, "Oh, look what a good Jew he is." At any rate, Anne Hutchinson, who I think was a faithful heretic (as defined by Catholics, one searching for the truth but in error), was eventually exiled, later killed by Indians along with six of her seven children, and is regarded by the Society of Friends as the first true Quaker. I brought this out to discuss the issue of faith and works once again, and I hope I'm not beating it into the ground, but I really want to understand this issue, and I just don't yet. Do those who have disagreed with my position that good works is an essential part of the salvific process but that our salvation ultimately depends upon God alone agree or disagree with the extreme position of Anne Hutchinson? By my understanding of Hutchinson's position, I have the "inner light" that guides me like all believers; thus, if I am facing "north," to use a rather concrete example, I am walking in the direction of my inner light, but I move east or west, then I sin, and I am no longer walking within the light, although the light is still in me; I need to repent, find my compass (the Bible) to help me get back on the right track, face north, and begin walking within my inner light again. I might be wrong about the Quaker understanding, but that's how I see it, and it's a beautiful concept; I simply feel that the Church produced the Bible as part of its Tradition and is a safeguard against heresy, to make sure that people's compasses help them follow their real inner light and not a different inner light of their own making. Well, I'm off the class. Hope I've given some food for thought. Our Fearless Moderator, who knows much more about Quakerism than me, (you used to attend Quaker Meetings, didn't you?) can help us understand this better, I'm sure. I wouldn't keep bringing it up if I weren't still struggling with the issue myself. Yours in Christ, Cindy Smith SPAWN OF A JEWISH CARPENTER A Real Live Catholic in the Episcopal Diocese of Atlanta [I did attend a Quaker meeting for a year or so in college. While that gave me some feeling for what Quakers are about, you've got to remember that it's been over 20 years, and that at this point I'm a Calvinist, which is about as far away from the Quaker position as possible. As far Anne Hutchinson, from the brief summary I just looked at, I think I agree with some of her points and disagree with others, and that the same would be true of Quakers (though not necessarily the same points). The Calvinists at this time were desperately trapped in the whole issue of finding signs that would show whether someone is elect, and it's hard to separate Hutchinson's comments from this context. I think the whole quagmire is the result of a dangerous wrong turning in the Reformed tradition, and that once in the quagmire no response is really good. Calvin himself warned that if one is not careful, it is easily possible "to enter a labyrinth from which he can find no exit." I fear this had happened to much of the Reformed tradition at this point. I feel rather queasy about the whole faith/works business. I see Paul's emphasis on faith as opposed to works as part of his whole "Christ-mysticism", the concept that any righteousness we have is not properly speaking ours, but Christ's, which we get only by participation in him. I think people are often getting the emphasis on the wrong word. When we are told that we are saved by putting our faith in God, it's not the faith that is saving us but God. We are being told to rely on God, not to ourselves. The moment we ask whether *our* faith or *our* works save us, we have moved the focus from God to us. Either possible answer is wrong. Of course we do need to respond, and there's nothing wrong with asking what kinds of responses are appropriate. But when we start looking at that I think we're no longer in the same context where Paul contrasts faith and works. We now discover that faith has a quite broad definition. Faith in the Bible, OT and NT, is one of those words that is full of overtones. It means not just belief, but faithfulness, obedience, and trust. It really characterizes all aspects of commitment to God. As such, it implies doing things in response to God, i.e. works. So in summary, I think you'll find some places where faith is contrasted to works, and some where it is not. Where it is contrasted to works, we are talking about where salvation comes from, and emphasizing that we can only rely on (i.e. have faith in) God for our salvation. Where faith is joined to works is when we are looking at our response. Then it is seen that our response must be obedience to God. And obedience means that we must actually obey. Failures in obedience *are* failures in faith. --clh]
bill@emx.utexas.edu (Bill Jefferys) (02/06/91)
Cindy Smith asked some questions about Quakers; mindful that Quakers are a very diverse group, and that no one can speak for all Quakers, I'll try to answer her as best I can. Cindy wrote (concerning Anne Hutchinson): #1. She [Anne Hutchinson] made herself, effectively, the #Pope of her community, and not only that, made every believer a #similar Pope; in other words, one who receives direct revelation from #God and preaches the Word accordingly without error, as long as you #remain in the light. This would result in chaos. 2. If you believe #that you have this "inner light" (and I by no means deny that people #have it, my understanding is different), then you have the Holy Spirit #dwelling within you; if anyone opposes you (as they opposed Anne #Hutchinson), then they must not have an indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Ann Hutchinson was not a Quaker (contrary to what Cindy says, neither of the two Quaker histories that I looked at considered her to be the "first Quaker," and one did not mention her at all). If these two points were part of Anne Hutchinson's doctrine, then there are significant differences between Quaker belief and hers. Quakers regard the Inward Light "that enlightens every human being" [Jn 1:9], or the Christ Within, or the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, as the primary source of religious experience, from which all else springs. They believe that EVERY human being, WITHOUT EXCEPTION, experiences the Inward Light. For a Quaker, to regard some individual as "not having an indwelling of the Holy Spirit" would be nonsense. Also, Quakers make NO CLAIM that the Inward Light guarantees that one speaks or acts without error. It is quite common for Quakers to find that their leadings conflict. When this happens, they believe that with the aid of the Holy Spirit they can find a deeper level that will resolve the conflict. The Quaker response to such conflicts is to labor tenderly with one another, with everyone attentive to the Inward Light in others, until that deeper level is found. It is for this reason that Quaker business is conducted by the method of consensus. When an issue arises on which there is disagreement, no action will be taken as long as even a single person is opposed. Quakers are unwilling to override the Inward Light as experienced by even one individual, just to get something done. Sometimes it takes a long time, even years, to reach a consensus on an important issue. Frequently it turns out that the leading of a lone individual, who originally was a minority of one, ends up being the nucleus around which the consensus is built. Quakers are very aware of the dangers of going off on a tangent with a sincerely held, but false leading. The days when the Quaker movement was founded were yeasty, heady times where groups, like the Ranters, behaved in just this way. The early Quakers understood the dangers of such action, and their caution has persisted to the present time. The Quaker way to test all leadings against the Inward Light as others experience it, and against Scripture, to see whether they are genuinely of the Inward Light, or are merely individual notions or whims. Quakers are leery of both the Inerrancy/Sola Scriptura position as well as of a view of the Bible that would regard it as mere literature. They view Scripture as secondary to, but confirming of their direct experience of the Inner Light. The Quaker theologian Robert Barclay (1648-90), described the Scriptures as "a declaration of the fountain but not the fountain itself". The importance of Scripture is not in its words, or in proof texts divorced from their setting, but in the living experience of the Light from which the Scriptures sprang. That is, Scripture gains its authority for Quakers because the people who wrote it themselves dwelt in that Light, and because Quakers today recognize the Light, as seen in Scripture, from their own experience. Quakers regard neither faith nor works, but the experience of the Inward Light, as primary. If one truly lives within that Light, Quakers believe, then both faith and works will necessarily follow. The aspects of Quakerism that are most familiar to non- Quakers, such as their commitments to peace, social justice, and simplicity, and their refusal to take oaths, are for Quakers not rules to be followed, but instead grow out of their experience of the Inward Light. Bill Jefferys -- If you meet the Buddha on the net, put him in your kill file --Robert Firth