The Will of God

RantWoman is so engaged by the discussion at mapHead about theists and non-theists submitting themselves to the will of God through group discernment that she just went and added mapHead to her blogroll.


RantWoman is adding it with a number of questions but no answers:


What is it about the process of worship, corporate worship that creates dynamics where the whole group submits to the direction a process takes even if individuals feel out of unity?


Consider a small example: RantWoman apologizes to the world for being stuck on her compost thread. However, as long as she is stuck there, she must see what it feeds. Both Dear Friend and RantWoman think what actually got written in the minutes of the October business meeting regarding a certain nomination much discussed but not yet acted on are an abomination unto all standards of concise expression. We heartily concur with the Friend who said so when the minutes were reviewed in November. Both RantWoman and Dear Friend have nevertheless submitted to the Meeting's lack of inclination to better distill the issue. As RantWoman read said text for the umpteenth time, she also came to think that the point of the lengthy text is partly to help her figure out a number of points that several people, not just Dear Friend see.



This point is a peculiar moment: RantWoman has had strong indications that many Friends would simply move on and let Dear Friend be recorded as out of unity. RantWoman could find herself aggravated to the point of distraction and could be first among those willing to move on. RantWoman is thus aware that further dialogue and discernment about Dear Friend's concerns is kind of optional.

Yet RantWoman is aware that for better or worse, Dear Friend knows her as well or better than almost anyone else in Meeting. If anyone is going to help RantWoman find either better connections with her own inner teacher or things standing in her way spiritually that she cannot detect for herself, a good case could be made that Dear Friend is the person. RantWoman still has a long and lurid list of beefs and quibbles related to this point and will undoubtedly be seasoning further



But back to mapHead

If one speaks about the theists and nontheists submitting themselves to the will of God, then two possibilities come to mind. Perhaps the non-theists are submitting themselves to the possibility of God. Is it equally possible that the theists are submitting themselves to the possibility that God is nothing more than some warm fuzzy manifestation that somehow has rational benefits? RantWoman once explained to her nice Presbyterian mother that Quakers at least think God can handle the questions.

This point came up on a bus, while RantMom was still living elsewhere and coming to Seattle to visit children. RantMom had come to worship with RantWoman. One message full of questions, querulousness, bordering on despair had particularly concerned RantMom. RantMom said in her church, if a person offered such a message (RantWoman would say, if a person managed to cram such a message into the few minutes allotted for prayer requests), one of the deacons or elders would be certain to speak to the person afterward. RantMom was wondering what our Meeting does in such situations.

RantWoman was a bit taken aback. For one thing, she was already on a bus away from Meeting. For another thing, the Friend who offered the message has a master's degree in theology and taught our Bible study. This was when RantWoman made the point that at our Meeting, Friends who can talk in God terms definitely think God can handle the questions. Well, RantWoman did not really explain about Friends who are not sure about God but come to worship anyway; RantMom still allowed as how she is glad RantWoman found Quakers.

Once or twice recently RantWoman's Meeting decided we could agree about something or other but that we did not have to agree about the why of the matter. To cite the example of chemical sensitivities and fragrance-free, RantWoman could be predicted to generate a whole tirade about the oppressive patriarchal nature of the beauty and cosmetics industry. RantWoman might toss in rhetoric about some rationalist throwback to earlier ages when fragrances were intended to mask certain facts of hygiene. Or perhaps the ability to scent oneself pleasantly is one of those markers of positive social and personal capacity that the evolutionists among us would cite as beneficial to individual and group survival. Other Friends might be clear that they simply do not want to cause attenders asthma attacks, a point RantWoman can also easily unite with.