Quakers and Authority- Is this an impossible combination?

The story of Samuel's warning about kings was very popular during years of English Commonwealth. Charles I had just been executed, so those army officers and members of the Long Parliament who were now in charge of the nation needed to justify the passing of their sentence. Despite military victory, it was necessary for these leaders of this rebellion to be very bold, creating an new inspiring republican identity for the country or else face widespread rebellion and lose control of the army. Typically for the time, members of the House of Commons looked back, hoping to re-create a very much older social order grounded upon precedent from a time when there were no Kings.

Since many early Quakers had served in the Parliament Army they already believed a tyrannical king had been removed from office and the reason for their military victory was because God was on their side. Surrounded by compelling propaganda which emphasised their own authority as Commoners, Quakers were not unusual in their willingness to embrace the English Revolution, consult the Book of Samuel to justify the loss of their King and turn the whole established social order effectively upside-down.

To those living in England at this time, it would have seemed Samuel's understanding of Kingship had proved remarkably accurate. Like all Old Testament prophets, Samuel did not simply pronounce God's judgements. Instead he was able to predict what would happen if there was to be no change from a particular kind of behaviour or the Israelites adopt the wrong kind of plan. His prophecies gave listeners an opportunity and a choice. Although the Israelites merely wished to copy a feature they had observed in other nations, for Samuel the issue of kingship and authority was not an easy decision at the time.

Samuel's life was far from safe or straightforward, since he already lacked the support of his own children. According to the Bible account,³ His sons walked not in his ways, but turned aside after lucre, and took bribes, and perverted judgement." Instead of being able to feel proud or confident about the future, there was instead a very painful reminder of what had already happened to the sons of Eli.

Despite these insecurities, a temptation to look for easy solutions, and the prevailing pattern among other nations, when asked to provide a King, Samuel told the Israelites,

 "This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots.
¹² And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.
¹³ And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.
¹⁴ And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.
¹⁵ And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.
¹⁶ And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work.
¹⁷ He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants."

Such warnings however failed to dissuade the people. Kingship seemed like the easy option, offering clear leadership and a sense of national identity. Following a somewhat thankless task in pursuit of some donkeys, the very tall charismatic Saul was selected by God as the best available candidate to be King of Israel. From this point it became necessary for a human being to predict what a nation required, exert their authority and use force if they need to. Human beings are susceptible to human weaknesses. Through the appointment of a secular ruler, instead of being satisfied with God's law, the Israelites also traded in their freedom.

Through beginning at a time of immense social upheaval it would seem Quakers retained a tendency to challenge rules, conform or fit in. In those early years we were ingenious in some of our methods and quite regularly created havoc. On the Restoration of monarchy as almost the whole country united to celebrate King Charles II's return to power, Quakers adopted a subversive peace testimony then went to prison rather than take an Oath of Allegiance. In opposition to the State church, we maintained our refusal to to fund its religious hierarchy through the payment of tithes. As if to compound our awkwardness, throughout history we have consistently resisted all the patriotic conformity associated with war.

At times we would seem to others more like anarchists than members of a religious group. It could be said that despite the passage of time, our Quaker identity still seems at times to act as a passport, allowing us to be as difficult as it is possible to be, stand apart from the rest of society and a law unto ourselves.

Being a prophet can be such a lonely business! It is always so much easier to say what people wish to hear. These days Samuel would undoubtedly prefer not to get up on his feet during Meetings for Worship or to talk about popular subjects such as daffodils and his handicraft activities among Friends. Perhaps he would also like to challenge the government, criticise certain rulers, refuse conscription, defy certain laws and put nothing in their place. Instead however Samuel presents us with a simple two-way choice. Either we should be realistic about the risk and consider ourselves subject to the political rulers on earth, or else aim higher, not rely upon the leadership of other human beings and be accountable to God.

Samuel's contribution would seem every bit as challenging now as it was to the Israelites. Instead of promoting the joys of independence, he is not misled by the different mechanisms by which we arrange and operate power. Instead Samuel emphasises our primary allegiance to the law of God and precludes the option of a third way.

Through loyalty to his understanding of the truth, there might well be times when no body comes up to Samuel after Meeting to thank him for his ministry. During coffee, well intentioned Quakers with experience of looking strategically around the room might note his isolation or that he seemed unhappy, speak to him for a few moments, listen patiently, then drift off with the customary alabi that "there's someone else I need to talk to."

To me it would seem Samuel is a particular Friends among Quakers. He may not always be a comfortable visitor to our Meetings and yet this stubborn loyalty to the Law of God still provides us with a challenge. In the wider would it is possible to see society simply as a matter of organised, self-disciplined allegiance. Among Quakers, (and other friends of the prophet) there is the choice. With hats on, eyes wide open, our customary plain speaking, and the support of an Old Testament prophet, it would seem we should ignore the opportunities for power among human beings. Instead we may be alert to the opportunity of working for God's Kingdom. Through having been given the best possible resource, we use love as our means of persuasion and continue to interact with the State.

"Children of Eli"- How much freedom should we give to our children?

 

Following my recent admission that I do not know very much about international affairs, perhaps it is a little unwise to now share the information that I do not read the Bible as often as I undoubtedly should. There are however times when I seek out friends from among its many prophets and teachers, then find something relevant to my condition. For days afterwards I will then ponder it over and then perhaps write something down.

One morning this week I decided to look again at the Book of Samuel. Although its first story about a childless woman called Hannah is relatively well known, I wished to find out more about what happened next. Through coming from a medical background, I noted how Hannah's infertility could not have been helped by lack of food and her self esteem was improved by talking to an old priest in the Temple. Since keeping that promise cannot have been at all easy, it was reassuring to see how Hannah maintained the relationship she had with Samuel in the best way she could, and had lots of other children.

The story of Samuel waking up in the night to hear the voice of God was also quite familiar. Since the priest Eli had done such a terrible job bringing up his own children, it did seem a bit irresponsible that a young child happened to be there in the first place. I also needed to consider why Samuel of all people was unsettled in the middle of the night with such devastating news. He was only a child and seemed so happy growing up in the Temple.

The advice Eli gave Samuel that he should go back to his bed and listen out for God seemed faultless by traditional Quaker standards. I wondered how we might react these days should a child come to us in the night with the same story. Perhaps we would get some Calpol, a glass of milk and dismiss it all as a bad dream. It was quite a puzzle to me that this elderly priest with the right response should be so deserving of punishment from God.

In marked contrast to Eli, there could be no doubt that his two adult sons were an absolute menace. Through having been brought up in a very privileged position, they were undoubtedly happy, having a great time, able to commandeer food intended for sacrifice and take advantage of visiting women visiting the Temple. Perhaps Eli concentrated on his sons' good points, such as their education, leadership skills or whether they could play the violin whenever the subject was raised among friends. To avoid facing up to this problem, he may have held on very tight to some memory of characters who were no longer the case. That wish to protect your children may seem instinctive but it leaves them even more vulnerable because those who do not know they are doing wrong do not have a choice.

Eli may have felt considerable relief at having been given a second chance through Samuel. Perhaps this child's character gave him the knowledge that he really did know how to bring up children. Despite this reassurance, as Eli was brought news of his sons misbehaviours, thoughtlessness and crime, it is not difficult to imagine the thoughts going over and over again in his head "Where did I go wrong?"

 It may seem strange that I should be writing about an Old Testament story as if this should have any relevance these days. Instead I would argue that the characteristic of being elderly with grown up children is now much more usual than at the time of writing. At the other extremity of our lives, there is often the isolation of old age, when there is no longer status through employment, that compulsive challenge of creating the perfect living environment, expensive holidays or the stamina for cruises. Is there some belief that at some stage in our lives, young people should now be supporting us? The cruel reality for many people is a question of whether those busy, important adults we raised now feel any obligation to see you. When you talk about the old days and the things that still matter to you, is it still possible to respond to the challenge? Is anybody listening?

These days our growing up can also be misleading. We may adopt adult fashion, vote at a very young age, and, through changes in the structure of family life, do not need to wait very long before passing on all our sour grapes to a new generation. Do we perhaps grieve like Eli about the selfishness of today's society, a community in which we feel unsafe, violence against women, young people in search of meaning who sign up to become terrorists and wonder where did it go so wrong? Do we ever ask ourselves why there is such a high suicide rate among young people, why the tiny screen they carry about all the time is so addictive, mental illness is so prevalent among children, why the culture of celebrity holds such an attraction, why anyone should ever wish to buy drugs and their families cluster round soap operas to avoid experiencing their own lives. Most young people grow up with a belief in the importance of winning. People will only respect them if they succeed and love will always come with conditions. Within our Meeting's for Worship, do we ever question the Pied Piper who presents our children with so many other priorities and then takes them all away? It does not take much imagination to find Eli and his children.

At this point in the story I found it helpful to remind myself that whenever God communicates a message, it is always for a reason.  Instead of merely predicating the future, this was about an inevitable fate should the present course of action remain unchanged. Whereas Eli might well have been looking back on the past with regret, there was now an opportunity very firmly grounded in the present to turn the situation around. This elderly priest needed to assert his authority and tell his sons what was needed. Samuel's message from God provided a very stern message about the responsibilities of being a parent. At no point in our lives are we entitled to consider that process of guiding, supporting and letting our children know what we think should ever be considered done.

So what does Samuel offer for today’s world? To me this message is about hope. Our world of listening out for God involves maintaining the relationship with have with every new-born baby for the whole of their lives. You do not just give up when they seem more independent, reach a certain age, it all seems anyway to be going wrong, or through happy coincidence, along comes a distraction to make you feel better.

it does seem to me as being so important that we are clear about our understanding of right or wrong. It may not always be possible to influence people directly, discipline or even say what you think, but that does not take away the responsibility of being a good example and a pattern.

"To be or not to be?" Should Quakers get involved in Politics?

 Unlike other members of my family and a considerable number of Quakers, I will own up to not being very well informed about international affairs. These days I do not get involved in discussions. Each morning I read a range of newspapers on line, and see the news no more than once a day on television.

Ironically some of this unwillingness to get involved comes from the time when I was most active in politics. Having just been elected to the local Council, I was working with some thoroughly good people, all wishing to contribute and with some very strong opinions. This was an incredible learning experience, exhilarating. and because of the responsibility, scary. Learning how to represent just one ward was hard, so it seemed best to focus firstly on those who were trusting me to act on their behalf. If one resident asked me to deal with graffiti on her walls, stop drug dealers in her road or simply remove the rubbish, that tended to take up most of my effort and concentration.


Shortly after my election I was told that political skill is almost entirely about presentation. In this process, our role was to flirt with the electorate so as to attract votes.  Since bad news needed to be carefully sandwiched, I was told off when the first concern I raised just happened to be about drugs. 

With each challenge there were so many points of view. Whenever a concern is raised, I still think of those police officers injured during a demonstration and obliged give up their career. I think of families worrying about a son serving in the armed forces who do not need my views to undermine his commitment. It would seem we all have our priorities and opinions. To me, practical support is so much more important than just having a Quaker presence or getting our voices heard.

In fairness to my colleagues, they never questioned or criticised my attitude to war although some of the implications of a Quaker peace testimony may have bemused them. Since trust in politics is usually based on a sense of common purpose, being an awkward Quaker could be uncomfortable at times. Political parties are to me a bit like systemic weed-killer, not always kind, likely to affect the innocent, but also an effective device to maintain a democratic state. When you do not have an efficient way of informing the electorate, the risk of creeping bindweed may be very much greater than the risk.

At one time, every adult Quaker in my town went to prison rather than swear an oath of allegiance. To me such loyalty to the truth is still a fundamental priority for Quakers. Although it was reassuring to think of Quakers who made a contribution to society through politics, I personally found it hard. There seemed little point in representing other people if I could not first be honest about me. It still troubles me when I see Quakers taking sides, as if one perspective is all it takes. As untrained enthusiasts for the most part, do we honestly believe we have sufficient knowledge to tackle complex international problems? In my community it is so easy for us to preach and pontificate. We are so fortunate in our freedom, in our comforts and our security. Those of us who have nothing to fear or forgive, do not I believe, have the right to make judgements about others.

Whether it be through the use of arms, a mass protest movement, in discussion, or even through winning an election, there is a certain attraction about winning. It can be very satisfying to look back on the things you were able to do and politics is no exception. If we are sincere about peace and the worth of other human beings, sometimes it is necessary to lose. Whenever I meet up with former colleagues I am impressed with their stamina and commitment. At the same time I have no regrets, knowing that standing down at the end of my term of office was the right decision for me.

Considering all the potential hazzards, perhaps it would seem a very good idea for Quakers to assume a somewhat monastic role in the world, engaged in harmless activities linked to a particular type of culture. We might choose not to hear about the dilemmas and suffering of others. In this way we could avoid being divisive, making mistakes, living out our testimonies or being particularly useful.

When I heard a few days ago about the brutal assassination of a young woman in Benghazi because she had been campaigning for human rights, was it really appropriate to think this had anything to do with me? I had once been a woman in politics and the worst anyone threw at me was an egg overnight at the front wall of our house. To be honest, I felt shamed by my own ignorance. It seemed the whole world was suffering and I had chosen to know nothing about it.

Strong opinions may result in young people being sent away to fight. Is this really what I want as a Quaker? Countries such as Libya which have suffered from the wrong type of foreign intervention over the years, might well feel entitled to tell misinformed do-gooders such as myself to just go away.

To me, resolving any dilemma needs to begin on solid ground. I know my own ignorance but am also guided by my beliefs about God and the human race. Just as I would ask someone trustworthy for directions if lost in the street, prayer should really be my first step. Do Quakers pray? If we are honest about ourselves there would seem no question that we need to.

This year as Muslims throughout the world celebrate the holy month of Ramadan, I am aware of the need to remember that we are all God's children. Whatever our religious backgrounds, or the form of words we use, it seems appropriate to remember communities that are not so fortunate as my own and pray with them for reconciliation and peace.

When Quakers get Tangled Up - Healing our divisions.

One of the questions I am frequently asked is "What do Quakers believe? As with almost all questions involving Quakers, this usually results in a pause. Instead of being able to provide anyone with a manifesto about Quakers, or pretend that I will ever be in a position to speak for them, it seems more honest for me to talk about how I see them, and, as part of that process, have chosen to identify myself as being one.

There is the almost irresistible temptation to begin by saying, "Well of course we differ widely," Rather a lot depends on who writes what and where you happen to be (left or right of "the Big Pond". Those of us in Britain Yearly Meeting might well resort to Wikipedia before meeting up with any American Quakers, having absolutely no idea what all those groupings are about. Among ourselves we have a tendency to use the terms "Liberal" "Orthadox" and "Universalist" (At this point I should probably apologise to Quakers for leaving some of these definitions we give ourselves out.)

In recent years there has been a growing tendency get double-barrelled faith identities such as Jewish-Quaker, Quaker-Unitarian, Christian-Quaker, Buddhist-Quaker. For those of us engaged in interfaith, where there is so much diversity and choice, this very specific approach may result in changing your religious identity more times than the names of your average prisoner on the run! (unless it is possible to set up in the first place a more accurate and inclusive definition of "Quaker").

 

Whenever we claim a view is held by Quakers, it would seem unlikely everyone signed the form stating this to be their belief. Instead what we claim as representative is more usually a majority verdict, leading to a problem now of what to do with the rest. Should these individuals be now considered on the peripheral of Quakers? Are such views so upsetting as to constitute a threat? Perhaps we should encourage anyone who is not happy with our opinion, to worship where their presence will no longer provide a challenge?
Even when that view has been agreed by a number of Friends in a reputable place, and could be seen as resulting from our ancient testimonies, it seems to me that somewhere during this process something very important has been lost.

 

 These dilemmas have been with Quakers for a very long time. It would seem likely to me that if anyone had asked James Naylor what was the hardest outcome of his trial and sentencing for blasphemy, he would have said the response of other Quakers.

So what about our differences? For as start, I find it a little hard to imagine the likes of William Penn beginning his defence before an English court with a plea to be treated on an individual basis, he was a very much nicer guy than all the rest, and "of course we differ widely." Right from our very beginning, Quakers have been perceived as a job lot. You either liked or loathed them. You either put them all in prison or waited a few years, looked with appreciation at that picture of Elizabeth Fry on an English five pound note, fondly imagining that in some mysterious way every other Quaker might be like her. To those outside Quakerism we have always been one people, one insidious group of troublemakers, one stubborn set of Seekers after Truth, one group that resisted the role of priests, used silence in their worship, one group that placed such emphasis upon love in all our dealings and persisted in seeing the human race without exception as being children of God. It does seem to me as being so illogical that we should see ourselves as being divided when there has always been so great an emphasis on unity from everyone else.

 To me, it is important that Quakers should not all looking be looking at each other. Such judgements with their associated hierarchies have always been irrelevant because we believe Christ speaks to us direct. Since we are all individuals with unique needs and expectations, how we hear that message will quite naturally differ widely.

This morning I am thinking in particular about kites. As with Quakers, these need to remain attached and guided or else they are in danger of getting lost. When Quakers get entangled with each other, it is generally because they are not looking in the right direction. We can get in a right mess sometimes and then come crashing down.There will be those times when it is necessary to unravel and untangle our perception of the truth. It is important not to pull the knots tighter because this process is not about power. The line is constant, the wind an endless possibility, Like kites, we have long brightly coloured tails of experience which can help stabilise us in the sky. Who is capable of judging which way the wind will blow? Who can predict our pattern?
It would seem to me that we all need to be humble about our understanding of the Truth, concentrate upon our own spiritual journeys and refrain from judging others. At times it helps to remember that life is not an easy process. We are all Quakers doing our best to fly.

However bad the situation, there is always something we can do.

Over the last few weeks there have been some horrible images conveyed through the television news. Religious extremists blowing themselves up in a crowded market-place, kidnapped school-girls and the brutal consequences of an advancing army, are all examples pertaining to the human race. At times such as these, perhaps I am not alone in seeking some way to make the world a better, safer, fairer, happier place despite enormous odds.

Most of us contribute to good causes. Such gifts are subject to our means and undoubtedly make a difference. I would like to think of them as symbolic of a much deeper level of commitment. The kind of support I am thinking about right now, can happen at any time and it is something anyone can do.

1-We can act first.
 Those who resort to violence do so through a belief that this is the only or the most effective option. As Quakers we have an opportunity to pre-empt this choice, by showing that we are prepared to listen, that we can be respectful of different situations and perspectives. Acting first often requires courage. We may choose to be compassionate and forgiving, taking care not to lose sight of the potential and worth of another human being. In the words of William Penn, we can
"See what love can do."

2-We can set a good example.
This is a very big commitment. By setting a good example we provide individuals and communities that may be very much less fortunate than our own with an alternative way of living, perhaps a different set of priorities, and consequently a choice.
In the words of George Fox, we have the option to
"Be patterns, be examples in all countries, places, islands, nations, wherever you come, that your carriage and life may preach among all sorts of people, and to them; then you will come to walk cheerfully over the world, answering that of God in every one."
George Fox, 1656

3-We can pray
For those Quakers brought up in the tradition of programmed meetings this may seem a very predictable suggestion. Others might own to being totally mystified by some of the language Quakers use, wondering whether "Holding anyone in the Light" says as much about our wish to seem proactive and important, and, in comparison to "proper prayer", more of a compromise arrangement.

Quakers believe that anyone can approach God directly, so perhaps it is understandable that at times we can feel a little awkward to step in, doing something those in need of support might just as easily do themselves. Instead of being proactive in our prayer, many of us prefer to wait.

It would seem to me that prayer might just as easily begin with an understanding of the human condition, as through any expectations we have of Divine Guidance or intervention. By praying, we accept our own inability to solve a situation on our own, that we can be sufficiently humble to ask for help and we are open and responsive to guidance. Instead of acting as an intermediary, I see this act as being essentially about our own relationship with God. By communicating our concerns through prayer, we demonstrate our trust in God's love.
Since God is all-powerful, prayers are never wasted. Although this may be in ways we do not expect, or through a wider perspective than we can possibly imagine, our prayers will be answered in some way.
We do not know the solution to many of the world's problems, so will never be in a position to present God with a list of alternatives that we would like him to do. Instead, I think through worship we gain clarity, and in our response to all the worlds' suffering, a renewed responsibility to communicate God's love directly and practically in which ever way we can.

The Role of Jesus 

"Consider now the prayer-life of Jesus. It comes out most clearly in the record of St Luke, who leaves us with the impression that prayer was the most vital element in our Lord’s life. He rises a great while before day that he may have some hours alone with His Father. He continues all night in prayer to God. Incident after incident is introduced by the statement that Jesus was praying. Are we so much nearer God that we can afford to dispense with that which to Him was of such vital moment? But apart from this, it seems to me that this prayer-habit of Jesus throws light upon the purpose of prayer.

I think of those long hours alone with God. Quite obviously petition can have had a very small place in our Lord’s thoughts. We cannot suppose that He whose chief desire was that God’s will should be done in all things could have been incessantly asking, asking. There must have been a sacred interchange far deeper than this. Especially are we sure that He was not praying for material blessings to be enjoyed by Himself alone. On the only occasion recorded in which He asked (in perfect submission) something for Himself, at Gethsemane, His request was not granted.

My own belief is that outward circumstances are not often (I will not say never) directly altered as a result of prayer. That is to say, God is not always interfering with the working of the natural order. But indirectly by the working of mind upon mind great changes may be wrought. We live and move and have our being in God; we are bound up in the bundle of life in Him, and it is reasonable to believe that prayer may often find its answer, even in outward things, by the reaction of mind upon mind. Prayer is not given us to make life easy for us, or to coddle us, but to make us strong … to make us masters of circumstance and not its slaves. We pray, not to change God’s will, but to bring our wills into correspondence with His."

William Littleboy, 1937

Quaker Faith and Practice  2.24

Remembering Paul Eddington on his birthday.

"A journalist once asked me what I would like my epitaph to be and I said I think I would like it to be 'He did very little harm'. And that's not easy. Most people seem to me to do a great deal of harm. If I could be remembered as having done very little, that would suit me."

Paul Eddington 1927-1995

Quaker,   

English actor best known for his role as politician Jim Hacker in Yes, Minister and later in Yes, Prime Minister.

"A Life Well-Lived"- BBC Documentary on the life of Paul Eddington

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Those whom we choose to love make us who we are.

Each morning I am reminded through watching the television news of how terrible human beings can be to each other. At times perhaps we are misled over what all our different beliefs are for, even through pride associating them with power. To me all our religions are about navigation, helping us define priorities, live with each other in a world of finite resources and make us better at being human.

Suffering appals me, especially when the terrible things we do to each are done in the name of religion. To me, this is blasphemy. I can see how easy it must be for strong forceful characters to persuade others down the wrong paths. There is also that human characteristic that if you are doing something wrong, it never seems quite so bad if you can get others to support you. Through knowing how bad and divisive human beings can be, how we get so narrow minded in our perspective and preoccupied with power, I am very glad that Quakers have always emphasised the importance of communicating with God direct.

This morning I am thinking of Iraq, in particular the many images distributed through national media of so many young men being led away to execution. One of them was wearing a football shirt, with an well known player's name on the back. It seemed only a few days ago he would have been following his team, using the example of this player as a role model. Yesterday he died for religion. Whilst families in this country were celebrating Fathers' Day, I was thinking of families not so very different to my own which through war were now steadily becoming smaller.

Although so much of the suffering that takes place goes unnoticed or unmarked, we are all I believe, loved and known in all our abilities, situations, thoughts and deeds through being without exception Children of God. It is a quite remarkable opportunity being human. When confronted however by the evidence of what we can do to each other, I think Quakers should find themselves challenged. We are not entitled to create divisions and disharmony among ourselves through holding different perspectives on the Truth. Where there is conflict, we have a responsibility to look at it honestly, and then, in the words of William Penn,
"See what love can do."
 Whilst kids in football shirts are being shot in the name of religion, I do not think we should ever believe ourselves entitled to take our peace testimony as a soft option. Instead we have a massive responsibility to live our lives as a pattern, showing absolute confidence that the Source and power of all love is supreme.

A few days ago this news story captured my attention.

This initiative by ordinary Libyan people to picture the best and most beautiful aspects of their country and then share these images with the rest of the world, meant a great deal to me. I was brought up in the country. It has been very sad for me to see all those childhood memories steadily destroyed through military rule and the recent uprising. There were many evenings in which I spent searching for news through the internet and it seemed that almost all of it was bad. At times I would see images of places that I remembered on the news only this time it was because some atrocity had just been discovered. Thanks to this initiative I was reminded of the country’s natural beauty, an amazing culture, the history, jewellery made with tiny beads and leather in the desert, the Tripoli Souq with its narrow lanes lines with merchandise and houses built around courtyards, Fezzan dates (stuffed with almonds and shaped into a block), Italian ice cream after swimming on Kilo 13 beach, The International School where there were 23 different countries represented in my class, the fun of bartering for everything when you shopped, the horse drawn taxi service which was such a treat for a child, riding my new scooter back from Nicola's toy shop, which kept getting stuck in the sand. There was a local supermarket with its own dough-nut making machine, and (because I am English and get very sentimental about animals!) my friends the goats. Some things you can get wrong as a child. There was a place we all called "George-in-popoli" I have no idea who "George" was or what he was doing in "Popoli" and can find no record of this place on the web!

Through #MyLibya I can understand what George Fox meant by describing how

"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."

George Fox

Perhaps those of you reading my blog will feel able to support those living in communities that are not so fortunate as their own. Wherever our starting point might be, I would like to think we are prepared to set an example of the values we consider important, our religion in all its diversity is sincere, and that whatever situation we are in, love has the final say. 

These days it does not seem all that important that I write as the "Secret Quakers". Names are given to us at birth, usually by our parents. The reasons for their choice could well seem quite random, something they liked the sound of, to honour a relation, the prevailing fashion, or even the actual meaning. Most of us have the uncomfortable knowledge that you have been named after someone else, ideally a reputable person! However hard expectant couples scan the dictionaries in search of ideas, none of our names are unique. Some of us have an unfortunate tendency to forget names the moment you are introduced, almost as if other characteristics about that person matter more. Even among those closest to you, names can get confused. I remember at one time my four year old getting very cross with me because I had just called her and instead the dog came running!
Instead of relying upon our names, I think it would be more honest and more accurate to accept that those whom we choose to love make us who we are.