illuminaria

OK I'll admit that illuminaria (see below) are not really Quakerly. A true Quaker Christmas is devoid of symbolism, no trees, no lights, no anything that represents God or puts symbols into it that come between us and God. In a strictly Quaker community, no one day is any different from another, and in a kind of austere way, we all try to live as godly a life on Christmas day as on any other day.

I could never live like that, probably, though I like the idea that the symbolism is pretty much culturally generated and does nothing for our relationship with God. But I think that, living in this culture, and having lots of kids, it's necessary to partake in some of the symbols in whatever form suits you. I'm also by the way ok with mixing religions and leaning on Buddhist or other symbols and practices if that's what it does for you. I think we shouldn't scoff at symbols that people use to try to get closer to God because if you think about it, it's much better than symbols that we use to get farther away.

Around here there's been a huge rise in Halloween symbolism to the point that many houses had skeletons on their porch from around September first to maybe December first. Having a three-month run on skeletons gets close to what happens at Christmas when this vast town of decorations keeps its lights up for maybe four or five months. And then there's Hannukah; a lot of people even non-Jews got into the candles this year if maybe because of the war. Is God going to come closer to them through those candles or through the lights on the angel on their porch (as I saw this morning)? I think God is not operating through the symbols although people are demonstrating their need to reach out.

And that's how I feel about the illuminaria (below). Once a year I demonstrate my seeking of God; I show my kids and the world that I am reaching out. I'll be the first to admit that doing it symbolically is not the same as doing it, and not as good, not genuine as it were. I feel that as well as know it. But I do it anyway, and we do a lit tree that shines through the window. They don't have white Christmases anymore around here, but trying to recreate the feeling of seeking in the middle of winter is what we're after. It doesn't matter if the neighbors notice.

heaven and hell

A friend of mine and I were discussing what we thought happened when we died. She said something about heaven being a perfect remote island but she would be miserable there, since she always loved people.

Well, that didn't sound right; maybe I misrepresented her ideas. But it got me to thinking. If heaven is such a perfect place, wouldn't everyone be perfectly suited for wherever they were put? In other words, if she loved people so much, she would have perfect people around her all the time, right?

According to her, the only perfect people she knew were people she couldn't stand. This made me laugh because it reminded me of the old joke about how one's friends are more likely to be going in the other direction.

But what really bothered me about it was just the general belief that there is a perfect place, and a similar place, perfectly bad, and that somehow these places were created and used for people who as far as I can tell are all a combination of good and bad, with nobody a hundred percent one way or the other. In other words, having a heaven and hell as they have been generally defined (perfectly good and perfectly bad) requires God to put all people in inappropriate places: God must either ignore the good in you, and send you to hell, or ignore the bad in you, and send you to heaven. If you're 50/50 then God really has a problem, right?

In my life I have seen karma work in miraculous ways. I have seen karma as a law infused in every living thing and every living situation. Therefore I rejected this theory. The God I know works in karma, not in ignoring whole swathes of your life. I decided it was safer to bet that I'd pay one way or another for every mistake I made, and that as well every good deed I did would be rewarded in some way. I'm willing to accept that some of this karma would happen in another lifetime, in another place, but I'm not willing to accept that some of it would be simply ignored, in the interest of having a place that was perfectly good or perfectly bad.

She said something about her ideas coming from the Bible. But in fact I don't remember the Bible ever laying out what people thought heaven and hell really were, or where they were, or how God would go about making these decisions. I asked her what she thought would happen to two different people: one, a serial killer who found God at the last possible moment, after a lifetime of horrific killing; and two, someone like Mother Teresa, who spent her entire life saving children, only to find she'd lost faith in God by the time it was all over. The Bible does mention something about belief being the main requirement, which would put the serial killer in the good place. Does that mean that all of good deeds of Mother Teresa will simply be ignored? I think this theory would give God a headache He would have no intention of taking on for Himself. Why would He set up a problem like this? If He got to the first round of people and encountered this, He would be expected to change the system and start over.

On the other hand, if the whole thing is like karma, only possibly spread out over multiple lives, then God wouldn't have to worry about a thing. Both the serial killer and Mother Teresa would get their just desserts, and we'd all be better for it. God wouldn't have to do a thing, just step aside and let karma do the work. This is beginning to sound more like the God I know.

There you have it. Let me review: There is a miraculous order to the universe which we can attribute to God, but its order is mostly based on karma, and we can see the laws of karma in everything. We know that energy can be neither created nor destroyed, so we suspect that something happens to us after we die. If we just have faith in the ubiquitousness of karma we can rest and know that we will go somewhere and get whatever we deserve. And this will look more like the world we know than like what traditional punters have called "heaven" and "hell." If we imagine that there's a heaven and hell out there, we have to say that karma no longer matters, and that you will either be improperly rewarded or inappropriately punished one way or the other. This would be true for the vast majority of humanity and possibly not true for a single, 1 out of 1000 case where someone is either completely bad or completely good. I'll be the first to say, I doubt even the Dalai Lama and besides, he doesn't believe in the traditional sense. I'm not sure what the Bible says about such people but I can assure you that the writers of the Bible were much like modern people in that 1) they needed to assure themselves that there was a heaven and hell but 2) after that they hadn't really given it much thought.

I have, however, heard some people point out that if heaven were really a place that was 100% perfect, that would be a little boring. Well, YES. We would all have to simply be changed so that we could get used to it. So we would lay all this on God: you change me so I wouldn't go nuts wherever you send me, and then you make that place so that it has perfect variety of people like what I like. So that perfect is perfect for everyone who is there. And we'll assume that someone is doing the same for that other place.

I suspect that the God I know, will act like the God I know.

opportunity knocks

We are selling our house in New Mexico, which is in essence my wife's retirement, and although she has spent much of the proceeds already, she is receptive to the idea that 1) I need to get out of here part of the day, 2) we could put some of the money into land or a small house, as a kind of investment that we couldn't touch; and 3) there are lots of small little parcels (<$20k) around.

One of the items on my bucket list is to have a small bookstore, but the town already has one, and I know and like the people, so pure competition there would be somewhat pointless. My goal would be not so much to make a lot of money but rather to not lose too much, and have a place to finish my books, which require extended concentration which I'm not getting at home. My wife can handle the racket here which is mostly of her own making, and she actually sees the value of getting my whole unable-to-retire self out of the house. So the various plans: a house with no other purpose, a bookstore, or a Quaker bookstore....

Hey wait a minute. I need a place to print and make my pamphlets; we don't have enough room here and I can't even get the big printer out because there's no place to put it. So with a little house I could start out each morning and print a few dozen pamphlets, and advertise because I'd have a few in stock. It would be Quaker printing house and a place where I could print a few dozen, make a nice dark cup of coffee, and sit and watch the trains. At about $130 a month, it might be worth it to both me and her.

One option of course would be to fill it with Quaker books (and shelves) and just make it a Quaker bookstore. I figure that I could supply a small house with good Quaker books for about five or six hundred and a good set of shelves to fill up the entire place might cost about the same. If it's got a purpose within the Quaker world I might be able to get co-investors or people who are at least willing to watch the place once in a while, dusting the shelves and making themselves a nice dark cup of coffee to watch the trains by. This place I have my eye on is right by a very strange train intersection, roads and a big train going northwest, I think, but I would set out as my goal making it clean, open, presentable, and simple, Quakerly. It's already gray. But it looks a little <20k dilapidated.

The thing is, if it was Quaker, it wouldn't be technically mine. My wife is thinking, we could put wayward sons there if necessary. Or we could use it as a kind of retreat from here, each going and shutting ourselves off. I want to grow a garden (not sure if the place is too close to the train). I have personal uses for the place.

So right now I'm leaning toward keeping it a personal second house, and then a gradual building it up until it's ready. A local carpenter making shelves, for example, or a trip to Philly to bring back a few boxes of good books. If it were to open then it would just be my bookstore, and it would open when it was ready. It doesn't have to open tomorrow; we just have to raise $130/mo., or whatever. All this seems pretty cheap and reasonable. Doable.

Of course, if the Quakers owned it, we might get out of the taxes on it. That might be something to consider. I know the area has Quakers but also know they don't have a set place to meet. Maybe I could change that. No better place than right by a railroad track, as we used to say in southern Illinois.

It would be wild to have a Quaker bookstore in western Illinois. I'm not sure how many Quaker bookstores there are. It would give me a reason to get out of my chair in the morning.

pamphlets cont'd

The pamphlet saga continues. I decided that by only being able to print and make four or eight at a time, I'm actually slowing down the process of getting these pamphlets out there, when I know there are printers out there who will just make a hundred and be done with it. So I went out to try to get estimates.

I got one - $130 for 100 - which is significantly higher than the $.80 * postage that I now charge. I could just make a hundred, pay $130, and charge $1.30 + postage and it would almost double the cost. I might do it though. I literally don't have time to run four or eight through our little home printer every day until I get a back stock of a hundred.

They are popular in St. Louis - they keep asking for more. If they get around (and I have done literally NO marketing really) I could very easily find orders piling up and myself unable to keep up with them. I have not put the word out on the Facebook Quaker sites although Cloud Quakers are familiar with them and they appear on the CQ site every once in a while. What I'm saying is that this idea of being backlogged is not that far from reality. One order of fifty from St. Louis and I'm already backlogged.

The other possibility is becoming more efficient here at home. I've actually got a better printer than the one I use - it's bigger and faster, but it takes "noncontinuous ink" and I haven't figured that out yet - somehow I have the wrong ink in it and it's stalling on me. It can crank out ten or twenty in the time the other one cranks out four. But we don't really have room for it here in the house. And, I haven't solved that nasty ink problem.

One way or the other Maurine's pamphlets will get back out there and enjoy the fame they have coming to them. She worked hard on it, and this is what I have to remember her.

I missed the Scattergood reunion tonight, because a personal tragedy has sapped me of all strength not to mention ability to drive up to Iowa, though it is only about an hour and a half these days. My thoughts are with the Scattergood people as they are enjoying an evening concert and a happy reunion.

I remember meetings in the Scattergood meeting house, where there was a wood stove, maybe a candle or two, and wooden benches. The windows were of the very old style and well taken care of. The high school kids were restless and snickered occasionally. One could hear the trucks in the distance, downshifting in order to make it up one of the few hills on interstate 80 in Iowa.

Having been on the road for a long time, and camped beside many an interstate, I kind of liked the sound of those trucks.

Now that a personal tragedy has struck I need the strength of that silence, the wood stove, the fine old meeting house. God was there. I made my son an apartment, set it up for him to recover upon his return, and I made sure God was there too. In silence we will find a way.

We are lucky, actually, that he is alive. And I am lucky that I am, as well, given some of the experiences that interstate reminds me of. One thing I learned out there on the road is that while you may control where you go, and how you get there, and sometimes even when, you are not in control of the big picture. In the case of the recent tragedy, only a fine set of circumstances determined that we would all be in the right place at the right time, so that the boy could be saved and live to see another round. That's all I'll say. By the grace of God, I can still hear those trucks.

They have built a wall now, to protect the meeting house from the sound of the trucks. That's just as well, I suppose. The whole reason they had to make the interstate go around the curve in the first place, was to go around Scattergood and a graveyard near it where some of Nixon's ancestors were buried. That cursed them, though, to the sound of the downshifting gears. If the interstate had gone straight, it never would have had to curve around or go up a hill.

Such is the nature of fate. Once the new pathways are made, curved around and up a slight rise, the endless downshifting of trucks fill the winter mornings, and the cold crisp air cracks with the logs in the fireplace. Somehow I also remember, that the time of this particular memory was the middle of winter. The other times, you could just walk out the door.

Scattergood Reunion

Scattergood Reunion Aug. 3-6

It's an art-focused reunion, and that's good for me, as I taught one of the organizers the banjo, and became an artist of sorts. It's a busy time with family and I'm not absolutely sure I can go. But one thing's different: I'm only about seventy miles away.

It brings up a lot of memories for me. I actually became a Quaker because of my experience at Scattergood. I was a little at sea about how to bring up a daughter on my own. And here they were, handling teenagers with love, wisdom, and patience. That's what I wanted for my children. I didn't need help with diapers, teaching her to ride a bike, or taking her out to Plato lake to make a little earthen pot. I needed assurance that when she was a teen, I wouldn't lose my bearings.

Apparently most of the students who were there when I worked there turned out alright. Many of them will be there. I really hope I can be among them.

Ten Quaker Closet Plays

 

For reflection and discernment
and for adult education and quarantine zooms...
read about Fox, Nayler, Rufus Jones, Hoover, Nixon, and even Smedley Butler (Nixon and Butler grew up Quaker, but weren't Quakers as adults).

On Amazon
Paperback $5.40 + shipping
Kindle $1.99, or free on Kindle Unlimited
Hardcover $12.80 + shipping

Profits go to Cloud Quakers or Quaker Voluntary Service

Put Off Thy Hat

 

Put Off Thy Hat

 

This is a closet play. That means it can be performed without a stage – around a table, or on zoom. If you perform it on stage, follow the directions in italics – there is minimal movement or interaction, but you can always increase it yourself.

 

 

HISTORIAN

THEOLOGIAN
JAMES (NAYLER)

GEORGE (FOX)

PASTOR

OFFICIAL

MARGARET (FELL)
MARTHA (SIMMONDS)

 

(In this part each person can come to the center, from the right, and speak directly to the audience. If they have trouble with scripts, a podium can be used and then they can read. Have each finish and leave before the next one comes on. If you have two podiums, put the HISTORIAN in one and the THEOLOGIAN in the other, and have JAMES and GEORGE speak from center stage)

 

HISTORIAN:

James Nayler was born in 1618, six years before George Fox, in the town of Ardsley, Yorkshire, England. It was important that he was older than Fox because, when the English Civil War came around in 1642, he was expected to serve and did, while Fox was still too young. He served for eight years in the Parliamentarian Army and then went back to his farm in Yorkshire. In 1652 he experienced the Voice of God, and, soon after, met Fox.

 

JAMES:

I came back from the war, and Oliver Cromwell had won. And yet, things had not changed. The pastors were making money from the people, and there was unfairness everywhere. One day, the Voice of God commanded me to go out amongst the people, and I did.

 

HISTORIAN:

George Fox was born in 1624, in Drayton-in-the-Clay (now Fenny Drayton), Leicestershire (LEST-a-SHIR), a strongly Puritan town, the eldest of four children of a successful weaver. He was of a serious, religious disposition since childhood.

 

GEORGE:

When I came to eleven years of age, I knew pureness and righteousness; for, while I was a child, I was taught how to walk and be kept pure. The Lord taught me to be faithful, in all things, and to act faithfully two ways; viz, inwardly to God, and outwardly to man.

 

HISTORIAN:

George Fox saw that some people in that era were “professors” (followers of the Church of England), but by the age of 19 he was disillusioned with their behavior, particularly the consumption of alcohol.

 

GEORGE:

At prayer one night, I heard an inner voice saying, “Thou seest how young people go together into vanity, and old people into the earth; thou must forsake all, young and old, keep out of all, and be as a stranger to all.” The Lord taught me to be faithful in all things…and to keep to Yea and Nay in all things.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

It was important that these two people had basically come to the same conclusions: That all people were equal; that all people had access to God and the Living Christ; that those in charge of the Church of England at that time were vain, and abusing their power, and not speaking from a place of righteousness.

 

GEORGE:

The Lord showed me, so that I did see clearly, that he did not dwell in these temples which men had commanded and set up, but in people’s hearts…his people were his temple and he dwelt in them.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

If one person went out into England at that time and claimed those things, he might simply be considered mad and thrown in prison. But in fact many people agreed with them, and soon each had a group of followers who would follow them around and hear them talk. They were aware of each other, and aware of the similarity of their messages.

 

HISTORIAN:

Driven by his inner voice, in 1643 George moved to London in a state of confusion. The English Civil War was raging, and soldiers were stationed in towns along the way.

 

GEORGE:

I had forsaken the priests, so I left the separate preachers also, and those esteemed the most experienced people; for I saw there was none among them all that could speak to my condition. And when all my hopes in them and in all men were gone, so that I had nothing outwardly to help me, nor could tell what to do, then, I heard a voice which said, “There is one, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition,” and when I heard it, my heart did leap for joy. Then the Lord let me see why there was none upon the earth that could speak to my condition, namely, that I might give Him all the glory; for all are concluded under sin, and shut up in unbelief as I had been, that Jesus Christ might have the pre-eminence who enlightens, and gives grace , and faith, and power. Thus when God doth work, who shall let it? And this I knew experimentally.

 

JAMES:

The old man worships a God at a distance, but knows Him not, nor where He is, but by relation from others, either by word or writing…The new man worships a God at hand, where He dwells in His holy temple, and he knows Him by His own Word from His dwelling place, and not by relation of others.

 

HISTORIAN:

Inevitably, they met each other.

 

A table is at center stage with two chairs, George and James in them. They are drinking from glasses of water.

 

GEORGE:

You are saying that you left your farm?

JAMES:

I felt like I was told to come out into the world, to speak to my condition. I just walked away. My family is back there, and they will manage it. It will not be easy, but I had to do what I had to do.

 

GEORGE:

You were called to do it?

 

JAMES:

Yes. The Lord said, Go out among people.

 

GEORGE:

That is what happened to me as well!

 

JAMES:

And I see, by these times, it was necessary. As a soldier in the Parliamentary Army, I fought to overturn the king, because he was corrupt, and the rich were using his edicts to steal from the poor. And now I see that the new regime is no better. People are using their connection to the divine to steal.

 

GEORGE:

Yes, that is true. It is a time of great inequality, and of people using religious connections to profit for themselves.

 

 

HISTORIAN:

England at that time was a wide-open marketplace of religious turmoil. For years, everyone had been dissatisfied with the Church of England, headed by a corrupt king, a system of tithes, and blatantly hypocritical underlings. Some Puritans simply went to the colonies, while others joined the Parliamentary Army to overthrow the king, which they did. But many people saw Cromwell and the Puritans as little better, since they too got a chance to run the country, and things were not any better under them. It was a time of many groups of dissenters, and those who would become known as Quakers were among them. There were also the Shakers, and the Ranters, and the Levellers. Soon Fox and his following would become known as the Quakers.  But Fox at this time was traveling alone, and sometimes being thrown in jail. Nayler and his assistant, Martha Simmonds, led another group.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Fox went around the countryside, disrupting church services.

 

(This scene happens at a church. If you have the background, or an altar, you can use it).

 

PASTOR:

My good people, it is known that the King demands complete loyalty, and as we know from scripture, Christ sayeth, “Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me.” And as Matthew says, “Jesus said to us, “Follow me, and leave the dead to bury their own dead.” And it appears, that, as I am the priest of the Church of England, and a representative of the King himself, that, it is my general responsibility…

 

(GEORGE, having entered from the back, gets close enough to interrupt, and does)

 

GEORGE:

Excuse me, kind sir, but I am quite stricken by your speech, and you speak as though your words come from Christ himself.  Christ may in fact speak through you, or through the King, or the Deacon. But you will say Christ saith this, and the apostles say this; but what canst thou say? Art thou a child of Light, and hast thou walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is it inwardly from God?"

 

(We go back to the previous situation, where speakers are at corners or taking turns from a podium)

 

HISTORIAN:

It was a violent time politically. Cromwell had deposed the King, but then the monarchy was restored, and people on both sides were being killed.

 

GEORGE:

A sad day it was, and a repaying of blood with blood. For in the time of Oliver Cromwell, when several men were put to death by him, being hung, drawn and quartered for pretended treasons, I felt from the Lord God that their blood would be required, and I said as much then to several. And now, upoin the King’s return, several that had been against him were put to death, as the others that were for him had been before by Oliver. This was sad work, destroying people; contrary to the nature of Christians.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

The movement was based around peace, social justice, and equality. Fox and Nayler felt that church leaders, being aligned with the government, were often the most violent of people.

 

GEORGE:

I did, in the presence of the Lord God, declare that I denied the wearing or drawing of a carnal sword, or any other outward weapon, against him or any man, and that I was sent of God to stand a witness against all violence, and against the works of darkness; and to turn people from darkness to light; and to bring them from the causes of war and fighting, to the peacable gospel.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

But the money issue was important too. Church leaders were gathering wealth, while the common man was suffering. George and James were, in a sense, clearing the moneychangers from the temple.

 

GEORGE:

The prophets, Christ, and the apostles declared freely, and against them that did not declare freely; such as preached for filthy lucre, and divined for money, and preached for hire, and were covetous and greedy, that could never have enough, and that they that have the same spirit that Christ, and the prophets, and the apostles had, could not but declare against all such now, as they did then.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

It was also a time of high fashion and so-called “finery,” but Fox, Nayler, and their followers renounced that as well.

 

GEORGE:

I was plain, and would have all things done plainly; for I did not seek any outward advantage to myself.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

They often spoke in terms of darkness and light.

 

GEORGE:

I saw also that there was an ocean of darkness and death, but an infinite ocean of light and love, which flowed over the ocean of darkness.

 

JAMES:

Art thou in darkness? Mind it not, for if thou dost it will feed thee more. But stand still, and act not, and wait in patience, till light arises out of darkness and leads thee.

 

GEORGE:

The light checks you, when you speak an evil word, and tells you that you should not be proud or unrestrained, nor fashion yourselves like the world; for the fashion of this world passes away.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

They spoke to increasingly large crowds, who wore plain dress and followed them around the countryside.

 

MARGARET:

I have met George Fox, and he has revealed to me the Divine truth of the Almighty God! He spoke at our church. He asked us if we walked in the Light, and if we had received the Spirit. You know, the Pastor, he is a little bit false, in the way he presents the scripture. And this opened me so, that it cut me to the heart, and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat down in my pew again and cried bitterly: and I cried in my spirit to the Lord, 'We are all thieves; we have taken the Scripture in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves.'

 

HISTORIAN:

Meanwhile, the authorities were becoming increasingly concerned about the threat to order.

 

In this scene the PASTOR and the OFFICIAL are standing together at center stage.

 

PASTOR:

These people are disrupting church services. They are walking into them, interrupting, and insisting that their way is right.

 

OFFICIAL:

Who would you say is the worst of them?

PASTOR:

Oh, George Fox, for certain. But James Nayler, he is bad, too. They are walking around, everywhere, praying in the street, and insisting that they are just as holy as we pastors are.

 

OFFICIAL:

I assure you, something will be done. We cannot let this continue.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its hope is to outlive all wrath and contention, and to weary out all exaltation and cruelty, or whatever is of a nature contrary to itself.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

One big concern was that the followers of any group would see their leader as a kind of messiah or a great prophet. Both Nayler and Fox were clear on the equality of all people, and did not want to be seen that way. But the problem was that in a country as small as England was at that time, Fox had to rely on what he heard was happening over in Nayler’s group. And he came to the conclusion that Nayler’s group was perhaps over-enthusiastic and erratic, and that there was a kind of messiah complex developing.

 

(This scene takes place in a prison in Exeter. A sign or a painted window with bars will show that)

 

GEORGE:

They have thrown you in prison?

 

JAMES:

Yes, again. They do not like it when we point out the hypocrisy of the pastors of the Church.

 

GEORGE:

It has happened to me as well. We disrupt services. People get mad.

 

JAMES:

I have a number of followers, and they attend when I speak.

 

GEORGE:

That’s why I have come to you. I understand that they may see you as a prophet or messiah, and that path is dangerous.

 

JAMES:

I have done nothing to encourage that.

 

GEORGE:

It is a path of pride, and will turn light into darkness. James, it will be harder for thee to get down thy rude company than it was for thee to set them up.

 

(GEORGE exits, MARTHA enters)

 

MARTHA:

So things did not go so well with your meeting with George Fox?

 

JAMES:

He spoke of how the path of pride was dangerous, and how it was terrible to turn light into darkness.

 

MARTHA:

But that is not what we are doing! We are bringing the truth to people!

 

JAMES: I

 tried to make a show of my love and respect for him, but he would not accept it. He has come to feel that I am prideful.

 

MARTHA:

It has become a movement of Friends. These days many people gather to hear you and George Fox speak. It is very important that you work this out.

 

JAMES:

I shall go to Swarthmore, as George Fox is apparently staying with Margaret Fell for the moment.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Both Fox and Nayler preached wherever they went. People would come from the countryside to hear them. Their arrival in a town was an event.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. It sees to the end of all temptations. As it bears no evil in itself, so it conceives none in the thoughts to any other. If it be betrayed, it bears it, for its ground and spring is the mercies and forgiveness of God.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

In this era Fox developed what we now know as the central tenets of Quakerism: that people are equal; that the right to minister is given by the Holy Spirit, not by the qualifications of the state, so women and children are equally able to share in them; that we all have access to God, understanding God and knowing the Truth; that vanity stands in opposition to Truth; that the traditional rituals of the Church were not the path to righteousness, but rather genuine conversion; that religious experience is not confined to a building, nor confined to Sundays. These were shared by Fox and Nayler and others who followed them.

 

HISTORIAN:

His followers, including Nayler and Nayler’s group of followers, adopted these ideas to different degrees, though they often argued about them. One issue concerned the wearing of hats. Nayler’s followers wore hats even when they prayed. The problem was that they also believed in democratic decision-making: each group was doing what its members had decided was right for them.

 

GEORGE and MARGARET are talking to each other at center stage)

 

GEORGE:

The Lord sent me forth into the world, He forbade me to put off my hat to any, high or low.

 

MARGARET:

Yes, but what about God? James’ followers do not put off their hat to God.

 

GEORGE:

They have decided that God does not require it. I will not change their decision.

 

(GEORGE and MARGARET exit)

 

THEOLOGIAN:

This turned out to be a fateful decision, as it was an issue that remained unresolved long after George and James were gone.

 

HISTORIAN:

 Nayler was also very political: he said that the King had no divine right to rule. He spoke out against the slave trade. He was against the rich taking common land from the people.

 

JAMES:

God is against you, covetous and cruel oppressors who grind the needy and the poor.

 

HISTORIAN:

Quakers would not take off their hats to government officials, and would not swear oaths of allegiance to the King or the government, so they found themselves in trouble with the law often, and would sometimes lose their property as a result. James would often write letters to George Fox; they tried to keep each other apprised of their work.

 

(In this scene James is at the table with a pen in hand, working on a letter which the audience can see (as it is in his hand, not on the table). He is reading it in such a way that the letter does not block his voice.)

 

JAMES:

Dear Brother, the work of the Lord is great in these parts; there was a meeting in Swaledale as I came, and a great people came to it, and a mighty power was seen which did amaze some and tender the hearts of many; and greet meetings there was, and at Barnard Castle an exceedingly great meeting, and all silent and much convinced, so that the enemy cries out that the major part of the town is Quakers.

 

HISTORIAN:

The late 1640s and 1650s saw the steady rise of Quakers, with both George Fox and James Nayler leading significant groups of people. Fox was getting arrested frequently. In 1649 Fox was arrested at Nottingham. In 1650 he was arrested in Darby for blasphemy; here he told the judge he trembled before God, and the judge called he and his followers “Quakers” for the first time. In 1653 he was arrested in Carlisle; In 1654 he was arrested in London; In 1656 he was arrested in Launceston; In 1660 he was arrested in Lancaster; In 1662 he was arrested in Leicester.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Nayler looked up to Fox, and sought his approval. But in many ways, he was more radical. He sought to upset the status quo and the ruling clergy. To him everything was black and white, right or wrong, and the church and government were the bad guys.

 

HISTORIAN:

At one point, in 1655, Nayler arose heading to heal the rift with George Fox, to the prison where he was in Launceston. But Nayler was arrested at Exeter. Both men were arrested often; Fox was probably arrested more, if only because he was identified by the government as the leader. But if they were both in prison, they were both unable to work on healing the rift and uniting Quakerism.

 

JAMES:

What came of it, when our followers met George Fox’s followers?

MARTHA:

Mostly it went well. Quakerism is a huge movement nowadays. We are everywhere, in every city. There was only one problem.

 

JAMES:

What was that?

 

MARTHA:

Well, you know how our followers don’t remove their hats, even when they pray?

JAMES:

They have always been like that. They do not mean to disrespect God.

 

MARTHA:

Tell that to the people who were offended. Everyone knows that Quakers do not take their hats off for the king, or for the tax collector, or for any of the authorities. But to not take your hat off when you are praying?

 

JAMES:

This is what we have decided, and we will continue with it.

 

HISTORIAN:

Finally in late 1656, an incident changed the situation dramatically. James developed a plan in which he would ride a horse into Bristol. We will watch them plan it.

 

JAMES:

I am sick of the church leaders acting like they own Christ and his image. Christ lives inside of us and belongs to every one of us.

 

MARTHA:

Yes, they feel like Christ and His image is their own property, like they can decide what to do with it.

 

JAMES:

Here’s my plan. We ride a horse into Bristol, to reenact Christ’s Palm Sunday ride into Jerusalem. It will show people that all of us have the living Christ within us.

 

MARTHA: And who will ride on the horse?

 

JAMES:

I will.

 

MARTHA:

Won’t people accuse you of having a Christ complex?

 

JAMES:

They will know that I am not pretending to be Christ. They will know what I have been saying and preaching. What I am saying is that all people can experience the divine directly. That the living Christ is within each of us.

 

The ride can be enacted or shown in various ways. JAMES is dressed as Christ and on a horse, though we know that could be tricky on a stage. Crowds can be shown reacting strongly to his appearing to be Christ.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

 The ride was a disaster in terms of public relations. People did misunderstand. Unfortunately, word had gotten out that some of his followers had been referring to Nayler as “Prince of Peace,” or “Lord.” This and the ride were all officials needed to arrest him and torture him.

 

OFFICIAL:

Blasphemer! We’ll arrest him!

 

THEOLOGIAN:

He was sentenced to be put on a pillory and have a red-hot iron bored through his tongue. He was also branded with the letter B for blasphemer, on his forehead, and imprisoned for two years of hard labor. But most people considered him lucky for escaping death.

HISTORIAN:

Nayler was released in 1659, but he was a broken man. He had now lost all his followers, and decided to walk home, but he was robbed on his way home.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. Its crown is meekness, its live is everlasting love unfeigned; it takes its kingdom with entreaty and not with contention, and keeps it by lowliness of mind. In God alone it can rejoice, though none else regard it, or can own its life. It is conceived in sorrow, and brought forth without any to pity it, nor doth it murmur at grief and oppression.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Fox, on the other hand, married Margaret Fell in 1669, and embarked on tours of North America and the low countries; he was now a celebrity as founder of the Quakers. The movement expanded dramatically starting in around 1680, but Nayler was no longer part of it.

 

HISTORIAN:

One huge difference between them was that Margaret Fell was consistently there for George Fox; she lent money and aristocracy to the issue, and whenever he was in prison she bailed him out. She ultimately paid the price by losing her landholdings at Swarthmore, but the fame that was bestowed on him by both being connected to aristocracy, and being a rebel celebrity, was enough to sustain him and give him huge audiences when he got out of prison. This could not be said for Nayler.

 

THEOLOGIAN:

Nowadays we forget that the movement was really founded by both of them. We can still hear their words as they traveled the countryside, urging followers to “walk the walk,” dress plainly and follow the light.

 

GEORGE:

To query and search out all such, as live not as becomes the truth of the gospel, and yet do profess it, so that they all may walk in it, as well as talk of it; for none have the heavenly comfort of it, but who do walk in it. For all the talkers of Christ and His gospel, that do not walk in him, dishonor Him.

 

JAMES:

There is a spirit which I feel that delights to do no evil, nor to revenge any wrong, but delights to endure all things, in hope to enjoy its own in the end. It never rejoiceth but through sufferings; for with the world’s joy it is murdered. I found it alone, being forsaken. I have fellowship therein with them who lived in dens and desolate places in the earth who through death obtained this resurrection and eternal holy life.

 

THE END

CURTAIN CALL  ?

 

 

 

Purver's Bible

 

PURVER’S BIBLE

 

This is a closet play. That means it can be performed without a stage – around a table, or on zoom. If you perform it on stage, follow the directions in italics – there is minimal movement or interaction, but you can always increase it yourself.

 

NARRATOR (61 lines)

ANTHONY (Purver) (32 lines)

CRITIC #1 (Michael Marlowe) (41 lines)

CRITIC #2 (McClintock & Strong) (4 lines)

RACHELL (5 lines)

JOHN (Fothergill) (11 lines)

 

Characters enter from right and speak at center. If they have trouble with lines, use a podium.

 

NARRATOR: Anthony Purver was born in 1702, in England, son of a Hampshire farmer. As he grew up he became a shoemaker’s apprentice, but in his free time he studied the Bible and read other things.

 

ANTHONY: We lived in a Quaker community. One day I asked my teacher about the Bible, and why it used old language. He said that the Old Testament was translated from Ancient Hebrew, and the New Testament was translated from Ancient Greek. I asked him how we knew it was the truth, if it was translated. He said, you can find out yourself, but you would have to learn those languages.

 

NARRATOR: Quakers at the time had come out of the George Fox era, but there were many communities of Quakers spread throughout Britain, Scotland and Ireland as well as the colonies. From the days of Fox, they believed in equality and peace. They wore simple dress, and they addressed each other as “thee” and “thou;” this distinguished them and separated them from their neighbors. Like their neighbors, they believed in the Scriptures as the Divine Word, written by men but inspired by God.

 

ANTHONY: I accepted the idea that the Scriptures were the truth, and were written by men, but inspired by God. But one day I found this book by Samuel Fisher, Rusticus ad Academicos, which claimed that the King James Version of the Bible was full of errors. I read it and reread it, because I couldn’t believe it. I wanted to know the truth myself. In fact I would say I was called and commanded by the Divine Spirit to translate it myself. But the only way to find out was to learn Ancient Hebrew, and then some other languages, the hard way. So I set about trying to learn Ancient Hebrew.

 

NARRATOR: After three or four years of teaching in Hampshire,  he moved to London, where they had better libraries and where he could contact other Quaker meetings. In 1727 he published “The Youth’s Digest,” for boys, but that would be the only other thing he would publish. He started his translation of the entire Bible in 1733. This was a laborious process and would take him most of a lifetime. Purver was clear about why he was undertaking his own translation of the Bible. He felt that the King James Version was in antiquated language and that it contained some errors. He set about translating his own version and writing notes to justify what he wrote.

 

ANTHONY: Axiom One: A translation ought to be true to the original. Axiom Two: A translation should be well or grammatically expelled, in the language it is made in.

 

NARRATOR: Two things happened from his learning of Ancient Hebrew. One was that he got a reputation as a learned man, and soon was able to become a tutor and schoolmaster in his local district. The second was that he learned that, although Fisher was not an expert on Hebrew himself, he was right about one thing: translation is difficult and complicated, and can misrepresent the original. Sometimes he labored over each sentence.

 

ANTHONY: God created Heaven and the Earth at the Beginning. The Earth however was vacant and void, and Darkness overwhelmed the Deep; but the Spirit of God hovered atop of the Water.

 

CRITIC #1: The notes attached to the first twelve verses contain about three thousand words of commentary, in which there is much curious and crotchety material. The note on “Datkness overwhelmed the Deep” in verse 2 fails to mention that “overwhelmed” is quite interpretive and not a proper literal translation of the Hebrew word, which means simply “upon the face of.” The same Hebrew phrase is translated “atop of” later in the same verse.

 

NARRATOR: In other words, because we don’t like to repeat ourselves in English, we would use synonyms for one of these situations. But in Hebrew, these words are quite different. His work was cut out for him. He ended up learning Hebrew, Aramaic, Syriac, Greek, and Latin, and read a huge amount of Biblical criticism, and studied all the English translations of the Bible. His project would take most of his life.

 

In this scene they are talking together, as if they share the same kitchen.

 

ANTHONY: In 1739 I married Rachell Cotterel, mistress of a girls’ boarding-school at Frenchay, Gloucestershire, and moved there to teach.

 

Rachell enters from left.

 

RACHELL: You seem to want to spend a lot of time alone, working on that Bible. Why are you silent, and not just working on the translation?

 

ANTHONY: I am waiting for inspiration.

 

RACHELL: God must tell you how to translate it?

ANTHONY: Translation is difficult. There are many ways to say things. I believe that the Scriptures were written from inspiration in the first place, so their translation must also have the support of divine inspiration.

 

RACHELL: I will try not to interrupt you. I know how important this project is to you.

 

(they exit)(Characters again come to front or speak from a podium)

 

NARRATOR: Scholars scorned the idea that divine inspiration would help his translation efforts. Some have pointed out that in some cases, rather than making it simpler and more direct, he made it more complex. But in any case, he thought carefully about what he did and justified it in his notes. He was among a group of people, now called Augustan, who cared a lot about making language more refined and eliminating “uncouth” aspects of it, that they felt were from the previous century – they felt they could say it better.

 

ANTHONY: Language was anciently rude and unpolished, and it was proper even for the inspired writings to be delivered in that of the times.

 

NARRATOR: By 1740 he had some of his Bible finished, and John Fothergill, a prominent Quaker, encouraged him to publish it.

 

(in this scene they are also sharing a stage, but as if they have just met on a street. JOHN enters from left, ANTHONY from right)

 

JOHN: Hello, Anthony! Hey Anthony, when will you start publishing that Bible you’ve been working on?

 

ANTHONY: I’d like to get a little more done on it if I can. My progress is slow, but I’m carefully organizing my notes and comments so that it will be complete.

 

JOHN: I know a publisher in Bristol who will try it, if you give him a few chapters. His name is Felix Farley. If you take the manuscript to him, he’ll publish a couple of chapters at a time. Here, let me write his name on this piece of paper.

 

(He writes it out, hands paper to ANTHONY, who accepts it)

 

ANTHONY: I think I’ll try that. There are many chapters that are finished already. They can start on the ones I have finished.

 

NARRATOR: Anthony did as John suggested, and Farley agreed to take it on. But it did not meet much success in the marketplace. Anthony continued working on it, and ultimately moved back to Hampshire.

 

CRITIC #1: It begins with an essay entitled “Introductory Remarks on Translations of the Scripture in General,” in which he criticizes the King James Version for being less than perfectly literal in some places. He appends long lists of alleged faults in the KJV, nearly all very trivial, sorted into various categories. But he then goes on to speak, rather inconsistently, of the need for a translation to be “well or grammatically expressed, in the language it is made in,” “accommodated to the present Use of speaking,” and so forth, unlike the King James Version, whose style he characterizes as unidiomatic, ungraceful, and “uncouth,” partly  because of its literal manner of rendering Hebrew idioms. Moreover, when Purver’s version itself is closely examined, it seems to have little connection with the complaints and principles put forth in the “Introductory Remarks” – for it is obviously much less literal, less accurate, and less graceful than the KJV.

 

NARRATOR: In the New Testament, his work was translated from Ancient Greek and from the languages it was in before that. In his notes, he spends a lot of time citing Daniel Whitby, who wrote Paraphrase and Commentary on the New Testament in 1703.

 

CRITIC #1: In his notes he even seems to think that he owes his readers some explanation for any disagreement with Whitby. But this Whitby, who seemed to be someone at the time, never deserved so much attention. By the middle of the next century, Whitby’s whole manner of interpreting the biblical text was seen to be theologically contrived and illegitimate, and his work was ignored by competent scholars.

 

NARRATOR: In 1763 he had completed the whole project. It was the only independent English translation of the Bible in the eighteenth century. But he could find no publisher. Finally John Fothergill heard about this.

 

(Again, they meet on the street, JOHN entering from left, ANTHONY from right)

 

JOHN: Hello, Anthony! I understand that you have finished your Bible.

 

ANTHONY: Yes, it is done.

 

JOHN: But nobody will publish it?

 

ANTHONY: No, I’ve tried everywhere. It’s quite long.

 

JOHN: I tell you what. I’ll give you a thousand pounds for it, and I’ll publish it myself. We’ll put it on the market, and I’ll make copies for all my friends. I have a thousand pounds, believe me. I’ve traveled to the colonies and have friends everywhere. Believe me, I can make this work.

 

NARRATOR: Fothergill did just that: he gave Purver a thousand pounds; he had it published; he printed many copies for himself, inscribed them and gave them to family and friends; he sent quite a few to the colonies. Today these are among the only copies that can be found of it. It never really sold many copies on the open market. Over the years many critics have panned it.

 

CRITIC #1: The eccentricities of the version are partly due to the fact that, in Purver’s day, there was a feeling abroad that some recent advances in biblical studies should be expected, or must have been made already, when in fact there had been no very solid or significant advances in biblical studies among English scholars for nearly a century.

 

CRITIC #2: The style is crude and bombastic, the very reverse of what might have been expected from a member of the society whose language is so simple; while the notes, though containing much valuable matter, abound in contemptuous expressions about the labors of others in the same department.

 

CRITIC #1: The version and its annotations are a testimony to what a self-taught man, who never had the supervision of a competent scholar to guide him in his studies, might produce by himself at home. It contains a strange mixture of things good and bad: good enough, where he follows the opinions of sound and learned authors; but often remarkably bad, where he is deceived by the pseudo-scholarship of Whitby, repeats the lore of the Jewish Rabbis, hazards original interpretations, or ventures to criticize authors much more learned than himself – which he often does with a very inappropriate air of authority. Perhaps the most serious fault of the version is its uncommonly bad English style, which was quite out of keeping with the “Augustan Age” of great literary refinement in which Purver lived. A reading public that enjoyed the works of such excellent writers as Addison and Pope could not have seen much value in Purver’s version.

 

NARRATOR: The fact that some copies found their way to the Americas is due mostly to Fothergill, who had traveled extensively in the colonies and had friends everywhere. It was called “The Quaker Bible” for many years, as Purver was a member of the Society of Friends, but the Society never sponsored it or took it on as their own version in any way. It remained somewhat obscure, but in August of 2011 it was republished in electronic form on Google Books.

 

THE END (CURTAIN CALL?)

 

SOURCES:

 

McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia. (n.d.) Purver, Anthony. Online: biblicalcyclopedia.com.

 

Shannon, Edgar F. (1912, Oct.). The Vitality of the King James Bible. The Sewanee Review, Vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 470-484, online.

 

Marlowe, Michael. (2012). Purver’s Bible (1764). Online. www.bible-researcher.com.

Quaker Bible

I am writing a play, which I may put here (as I've done with most of my plays) about the Quaker Bible. That is not really a good term for it, so I'll probably call the play Purver's Bible. It was written in the 1700s by Anthony Purver, an English Quaker who basically spent a lifetime writing, translating, and making notes about the translations. It is available today on Google Books although a few people have found bound copies, often signed by John Fothergill, in various places around the U.S.

Fothergill was a wealthy Quaker who traveled extensively in the 1700s. When he came back to England he noticed that Purver had finished writing his Bible, but had not gotten anyone to publish the whole thing. He put down a thousand pounds to publish the whole thing in a single volume, and sent several to his friends, who were scattered worldwide. Those copies are what remain of it. It never sold very well.

It also wasn't sponsored or taken in by the Society of Friends, which is why it is probably not good to call it the Quaker Bible. Purver was unquestionably a Quaker, as was Fothergill, but there is nothing especially Quaker about the way he translated, or the language that he used. There is also nothing especially revolutionary about his interpretations of the original texts. Biblical scholars have analyzed the differences and haven't really come up with much that is profound or important.

The key was that it didn't offer a better way of putting things than the King James Version, which became prominent in that era and which still has a huge position in the market. When he started writing it, he was mad about the archaic forms of language in the KJV and was determined to put it in a more modern expression. His changes were not considered by most to be worth changing versions, though; it never sold extensively. It could be that his notations and comments about the translations weighed the whole thing down so much that it made printing and distributing prohibitive.

He learned a number of lessons about translation which, obvous though they may be to translators, are still relevant to those who consider the Bible the absolute truth or even the rock upon which the entire religion sits. When you get down to word correspondence things get a little tricky.

This gets compounded when you realize that the Ancient Hebrew version was itself translated from earlier languages, with the New Testament apparently coming through Ancient Greek. He had to learn about seven languages to get to the bottom of it. He was self-taught and many say he really could have used some good guidance from scholars on his path.

Watch this site for the play. It's very interesting.

Improving the pamphlets

Some people have pointed out that the rustic nature of the pamphlets actually works to our favor. But the more I make them, the more I wish I could be a little more professional with them.

The main problem to me is that in enlarging type I made it a little less clear. I want each letter to be a bold black against the page. It has several other problems: sometimes the color doesn't show very clearly on some kinds of cardstock; sometimes it's too large to fit into a standard envelope (though they don't seem to mind or charge for a slightly larger envelope), and, there is a mark on one page and a possible typo on another. If I were to redo it I could address each of these problems but redoing it is a huge amount of work.

I had said that I would get a quote from a local printing company, but I haven't found one. This option is still on the burner. I'm not sure how much it would be.

After months of inaction/paralysis, I am finally able to get to this. Stay tuned because I'm on it now. I will keep at it until I get the best solution.

Pamphlets are back

---

That's right - it's a pamphlet, the size of a quarter sheet of paper - 20 pages, all personally printed, folded, trimmed and stapled. I have kept the price (below) down in Quaker fashion without making any deals for amount or other things. You simply pay the costs of putting it together and getting it out there.

It's kind of a labor of love to crank these out and send them out, but that's for another post. Here I'll say that the cover was intended to be black and white, but still has several versions, similar to this, and is now being printed in color. Color used add significant cost to the operation, but it no longer does. Here are the prices.

send orders to Tom Leverett, 919 No. Broad St., Galesburg, IL 61401, or use Paypal (tlevsp @ gmail.com).

They are $.80 each + postage. Even if you get 100, they are $.80 each, but postage will change. Postage is
$.63 for 1-2 (first class)
$3.49 3-10 (media mail)
$4.29 11-30 (media mail)
These prices are subject to change as I find out more; all prices are for Domestic.
Use paypal or send check to given address.
tlevspress.blogspot.com

Updated info on Quaker press page: http://tlevspressquaker.blogspot.com"

Pamphlets, cont'd

 

I'm a little frustrated with the pamphlets; I've been short of time, and then a printer crash devastated me.

It's partly that it's a brand-new printer. It has plenty of ink. It keeps printing blank paper. You go and try to figure out how to deal with such things, and it says, "clean the jets." But the jets are clean. And, when it goes to print the report (the one that might say, this jet is not producing ink; after all, I only need the black one), the report is blank. It prints only blanks.

So the choice is, take it back and demand a new printer (I am on the verge of this), or keep going back and figure out how the ink somehow does not reach the paper. What exactly is happening?

My main customer is a lifelong friend, but she needs her pamphlets yesterday, and I simply cannot figure this out.

It is the scourge of technology. Very low tech, but nonetheless, what am I to do?