~ May 2008 ~

Dear Friends,  Welcome to the QFAS Newsletter. Forthcoming events The next QFAS event will be a residential weekend at Claridge House from 7 – 9 November, cost: £170. (Bursary help is available, please contact the Treasurer, David Britton). John Poynton, a past President of the Society for Psychical Research, will speak on the life and vision of his friend Michael Whiteman who built a philosophy largely out of his own spiritual and psychic experiences. In a session entitled What Canst Thou Say?, introduced by members of QFAS, we will look at examples of day to day contact with other dimensions and share our experiences, as a whole group and in small groups. There will also be a reading of a Angela Howard’s play ‘Encounter with the Psychic Force’ about William Crookes, the well-known psychic researcher. Contact: The Manager, Claridge House, Dormans Road, Lingfield, Surrey RH7 6QH. Phone 01342 832150. Website:  www.claridgehouse.quaker.eu.org . Future Events In 2009 the residential weekend will be held at Woodbrooke from the 17-19 July. The theme for the weekend will be “The Afterlife: how good is the evidence?” The one-day conference will be held in the Autumn on 26 September at Friends House. Treasurer’s Report from David Britton After the expenses of this Newsletter, our funds will stand at £1,150. Our Membership stands at 90 – with some 25 people still to renew their subscriptions. For next year we are encouraging members to take out a Standing Order Mandate, payable from 1st of February at the latest. I have the blank forms already, so please write to me, or phone me, if you would like one. Those who are kind enough to send donations as well, can continue to do so by cheque. QFAS Spring Conference held at Friends House on 10 May The Spring Conference this year had no overall theme. The first talk was given by Roger Straughan  on  “A   Matter  of  Communication : the 1939 Report on Spiritualism to the Archbishop of Canterbury.” The following is his summarized version of the talk: “The main instigator of the report was Francis Underhill, later Bishop of Bath and Wells, who, moved a resolution at the Church Assembly in 1935 requesting their Graces the Archbishops to appoint a commission to investigate spiritualism in the light of its growing popularity among both laity and clergy. The then Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Lang, did not want a formal commission but instead appointed a small body of ‘prominent Anglicans’ under Underhill’s chairmanship ‘to investigate the subject of communications with discarnate spirits and the claims of Spiritualism in relation to the Christian faith.’  The correspondence between Lang and Underhill suggests that they were not on the same wavelength.  Lang, for example, condemns spiritualism for its ‘dubious methods’ and speaks of the dangers of ‘dabbling’ in it (that favourite term of abuse that critics so often resort to – why don’t we ever hear anything about dabbling in Anglicanism, or Catholicism or even Quakerism?). Underhill on the other hand had researched the subject, and had had some sittings with mediums.  3 invitees to the committee declined and a 4th,  Evelyn Underhill, who was a cousin of Francis Underhill, resigned rather dramatically after the first meeting. The committee first met in 1936 and finally reported to Lang in 1939.  Their report contained 4 parts. Part 1 lays out the origins of the committee and includes Evelyn Underhill’s letter of resignation, in which she condemns, as she sees it, the ‘utterly sub-Christian, anthropocentric, and hopelessly unsupernatural [?] character of the spiritualist outlook’ and insists that the Church of England should never be seen to have anything to do with it. [Editor’s note: I believe this prejudice may have arisen from her own superficial and unfortunate experience of “dabbling” in Spiritualism at one time –Cherry Simpkin.] Part 2 tries to define spiritualism, asks whether it can properly be called a religion and looks at its then current position and its relationship with the Christian faith. It sets out the characteristics of various spiritualist organisations and their basic beliefs, and describes different types of psychical phenomena and mediumship. Finally there’s a brief and rather confusing discussion of facts, evidence, hypotheses and revelation. Part 3 summarises the evidence of witnesses given to the committee.  It is not clear how these witnesses were chosen. Most of them were either spiritualists or psychical researchers and their evidence is often contradictory. The overall impression is one of entrenched positions and irreconcilable disagreements. The committee also attended at least one séance, but say little about that. After hearing this so-called evidence, the committee remained divided in its own opinions. Part 4 sets out the conclusions of the majority report, followed by a minority report signed by 3 members. There are contradictions even in the conclusions of the majority. For example it is claimed at one point that spiritualism adds nothing to the understanding of Christianity. Yet in the very next paragraph we’re told that spiritualism can enhance our belief in the Communion of Saints’ and that there is no reason at all why the Church should regard this ‘vital and personal enrichment of one of her central doctrines with disfavour …’ Yet some of the majority’s conclusions are quite bold.  They admit that some communications probably do come from discarnate spirits and that spiritualism contains a truth which add knowledge and experience to faith. However, they also state that it should not be treated as a substitute for religion as there is a danger that it might have man at its centre rather than God. The Church itself is also accused of not proclaiming and practising its faith strongly enough and of being too cautious in its references to the departed and in its prayers for them. Intriguingly,  the majority report recommends that Church representatives should keep in touch with ‘intelligent persons who believe in spiritualism’ but add a footnote advising that no publicity be given to this. The minority report advises against the Church having any truck with spiritualism and calls for more literature about its dangers. In the booklet on the whole report by the Churches’ Fellowship for Psychical and Spiritual Studies (CFPSS) Garth Moore in his very good assessment of the whole report describes the conclusions of the minority as ‘utterly predictable and containing nothing but the familiar indictments of what its authors would no doubt have regarded as the occult.’ When he received the report, Archbishop Lang said that he was ‘somewhat disappointed’ and wished that the majority report ‘had laid greater stress upon the dangers awaiting individuals who may be inclined to dabble in spiritualist methods.’ The bishops then decided by a large majority that the report should not be published. However, some 7 years later, an unknown member of the committee felt so aggrieved at the whole affair that he invited Maurice Barbanell, the editor of the spiritualist magazine, ‘Psychic News’, to his office, told him he was going out for an hour and that, if he were to look in a certain drawer, he might find something of interest. A copy of the majority report duly appeared in ‘Psychic News’. Even after that, successive Archbishops tried to maintain the Church’s official silence on the matter, and it wasn’t till 1979 that the full text was released and published in the journal ‘The Christian Parapsychologist’. So what should we make of this report?  It is much like the curate’s egg – or, rather, the Archbishop’s egg. It limits itself to examination of spirit communications and spiritualism and doesn’t distinguish this from the much wider area of psychical research. Its theology is dogmatic and often confusing; and its overall style is often rather dense, convoluted and hard to follow. On the other hand it did air some important issues and the majority report is open-minded and brave enough to admit the possible value of spirit communication. I want now to move to some broader questions that the report highlighted and which we still need to think about in a group like QFAS as to where religious, spiritual and psychical matters overlap. If we believe that our psychical experiences are valid and not a delusion, as I imagine most of us here do, how do we fit these into our religious and spiritual understanding? Is spiritualism a religion in its own right? Is it compatible with other forms of religion? What does it add to them? That all depends on how you define spiritualism and how you define religion. One big problem is that it’s impossible to generalise about spiritualism, as the report tries to do, as if it were a single coherent movement or church. In fact there are a bewildering array of different groups and organisations calling themselves ‘spiritualist’, which vary and disagree enormously. Some are specifically Christian, while others are humanistic and aggressively non-Christian. Controversy over whether spiritualism should see itself as Christian or not goes back a very long way. Many spiritualist churches hold to 7 basic principles, which were derived not from any religious scriptures but from an early medium, Emma Hardinge Britten. What all spiritualist organisations have in common, though, is what the report described as ‘a belief, with attendant practices, that the spirits of the dead can hold communication with the living, through mediums and in other ways’. One of the witnesses wanted to add to this a reference to ‘the intelligent progressive principle which underlies the whole of creation’ and to ‘continuous individual progressive spiritual life in the hereafter.’ Spiritualism is certainly concerned with questions about the essential nature of human beings and of spirit, our spiritual progress and ultimate destiny and how the conduct of our lives here can supposedly affect our future experiences after death. All that seems pretty close to what religion is about. Some writers believe, contrary to the report, that spiritualism is very much a part of accepted Christian tradition. They point out, with some justification, that the earliest Gospel records are full of psychical and spiritualistic goings-on, which reflect the original essential nature of early Christianity. That opens up another huge area for debate, but at the very least the report should not dogmatically assume that spiritualism by definition is not part of accepted Christian tradition. My own view here is that, rather than being a separate religion, spiritualism is compatible with most if not all religions. Believing that we survive death and can communicate with those who have died does not in itself constitute a religion. You can hook that on to all kinds of belief systems and ideas about God. Where spiritualism does come closer to being a religion is in claiming that spiritual wisdom can be revealed and transmitted by guides and higher spirits. However, that part of spiritualism does not have the same sort of backing of factual evidence that the more down-to-earth communications can have. Whether we accept a particular example of spiritualist teaching will depend on the same factors that apply to many other forms of religious teaching eg. what sort of authority does it rely on; can we trust that authority; does it, as Quakers would say, speak to our condition in some way? So that aspect of spiritualism – the transmission and acceptance of spiritual teaching - seems to require some kind of faith, like any other religious system of belief. The report contrasts faith with reason and knowledge but surely faith always rest upon reason and knowledge of some kind? Our reasons for our belief might not be very good or scientific ones, but then very little of what we think we know is based on hard science. A lot of it comes from personal experience, not laboratory experiment. Unreasoning faith can be very dangerous. Spiritualism is more than a belief in spiritual teaching. It purports to offer a different kind of factual evidence that other religions don’t ie. of our survival of death, and the possibility of communication. That is very important because nowadays the dividing line is so much between religions but between materialism and non-materialism. Are we just a collection of particles or is there a spiritual dimension to life, which means, among other things, that an important part of us can survive the death of our physical bodies? Spiritualism and psychical research in general have such a crucial role to play in that they offer very compelling evidence that materialism should be rejected on rational grounds, and not just on grounds of faith. Many people have moved from non-belief by becoming convinced by the evidence of spiritualism and psychical research. One such was Reginald Lester, who founded the CFPSS. He described how he lost his faith after the death of his first wife, found the Church totally inadequate in helping him, and so embarked on a long and rigorous investigation of many mediums, which finally lead him to accept the fact of survival and to found the CFPSS. I have myself received information from a medium which meant nothing to me but which I passed on to a friend whom it referred to. It convinced her and her daughter, neither of whom held religious beliefs, that her deceased husband, a friend of mine, was able to communicate and still support them at a time of crisis. That’s why I would reject the accusation that having dealings with mediums has to be a self-centred activity – it can be a way of bringing great comfort and benefit to others. The Report shows a kind of spiritual snobbery in indicating that those with faith do not need evidence. But surely the point is that many people don’t have faith, and that’s even more true today than it was in 1939. I’d like to leave you with one final question to ponder upon.  What links do you see, if any between spiritualism and Quakerism? They are both located some distance from the centre of the orthodox Christian church, though they could both claim to represent the original roots of Christianity. Neither relies on a hierarchical systems and they don’t have sacraments and rituals. They both emphasise the importance of personal experience in spiritual matters, and they both believe that we can have a personal relationship with a spiritual dimension that exists both within and beyond our everyday lives. Even more interestingly, they both place great importance on groups of people coming together to sit reverently in a circle and wait for whatever may be given to them, which is often unpredictable and tailored to our individual needs. If all that is ‘sub-religious’, to quote Evelyn Underhill, then I for one am very much in favour of sub-religion!” The second talk was given by Rosalind Smith on Life between Lives. Rosalind suggested that if we can accept the concept of re-incarnation, then there must be a time when our soul actually finds itself between lives. In the Tibetan Book of the Dead (written approx 12 centuries ago) this state is referred to as the bardo. Some psychiatrists – in particular Dr. Whitton of Toronto – have found that under hypnosis, or past-life regression, clients not only explore their previous earth lives but also this state of life between lives. Some, like Michael Newton, have developed a therapy which concentrates on this time. He claims that this therapy is ‘a spiritual quest for better self-understanding.’  In this therapy the client is regressed back to the womb and then straight back into their most previous life. This is so that they can experience their death scene naturally before they entered the spiritual world and then what it was like to be in the bardo. Those who go through this experience say that they cannot do justice to the richness, intensity and beauty of the bardo. The Tibetan Book of the Dead states: ‘one’s environment in the disembodied state is largely a reflection of each person’s thought-forms and expectations. It would seem, therefore, that it is important that we die in a state of peace; Catholics have the sacrament of Extreme Unction, also designed to bring peace to a dying person.   Research suggests that the length of earth time one spends there varies widely.  The shortest Whitton encountered was 10 months and the longest about 800 years.  He found the average to be is about 40 years. Some people spend this time resting while others spend it learning and growing spiritually and preparing for the next life. Michael Newton has found that, on average, we need about 80% of our own spiritual energy to re-incarnate, but may therefore leave about 20% of our essence so to speak, behind in the spiritual world, which may be still contactable by mediums etc. There is a more comprehensive account of this theory in Michael Newton’s book ‘Life Between Lives’. It seems that here, in this state of consciousness between lives, one is brought before a sort of panel of judgement, where the soul looks back on and confronts the truth of the life just lived. The next life is then selected to create the conditions for growth. According to Whitton, each of us sees what we are getting into before we are reborn. We may not like the new life but from the heightened perspective we can recognise its value as a learning device. It is said that these karmic scripts are developed in consultation with other souls who will take part in them. For example, the choice of one’s parents is critical in establishing the themes of one’s life. The time and place of each birth is vitally important. Suffering and hardship in a life does not mean punishment. It can be that as a soul nears the completion of its journeys it elects to experience more difficulties in order to speed up the completion of its course of study. In his book ‘Lifecycles’, Christopher Bache quotes many incidences of how people have come to understand why certain patterns repeat in their lives and why they appeared to choose to experience certain events.   One person said: ‘I have been allowed the barest glimpse of levels of creation that are far above anything I can even begin to put into words.  I was made to feel that everything we do has meaning at the highest level.  Our sufferings are not random: they are merely part of an eternal plan more complex and awe-inspiring than we are capable of imagining.’   It seems that the message from all which those who have experienced the planning of their lives in the bardo is that we are solely responsible for who we are and for the circumstances in which we find ourselves at every point in our lives and that no matter how difficult or seemingly inexplicable our lives may be, everything in them is there for our own benefit.” The following are samples of evaluations of the day: “The day went very well and the subjects very interesting – this was my first meeting and came up to my expectations!  It’s good one can share QFAS subjects with Friends which was not so easy many years ago when it was then much more ‘taboo’!” “It was as interesting, inspiring and valuable as ever and, as always, lovely to be with like-minded people. Many thanks for the work and preparation involved.” “This was my first day and I am not a member of the Fellowship. I have enjoyed it very much. It was fascinating to hear so many points of view and stories and I would hope to come again. Thank you for the good organisation. Everyone was friendly and helpful.” The QFAS AGM was also held after the Spring Conference. Copies of the minutes of the AGM are enclosed with this newsletter. Also, enclosed is a questionnaire on what members would like from QFAS and  a s.a.e. for returning it. Elizabeth Angas has sent me the following poem by John Hemming, a Quaker poet, who passed over a few years ago. He used to receive his poems during his sleep at night. He would wake up with a fully formed poem in his head.                                                                                     When death appeared and said, ‘it’s time to die,’ I, having all my life my God denied, Began to wonder who would be the I Who lived forever on the other side. Had I been so selfish all my days That my True Self I’d always failed to show? I never thought to sing God’s praise, How, after death, would I my True Self know? Then, in perplexity, at last I died; And O what comfort, Friends, it was to see The one I found upon the other side Was still the person I had felt was me. Now, beyond all Time, I realise I’m smaller than I thought, up Here above, But gone are all my vanities and lies And what is left (Praise Be!) is Holy Love So, when I’m born again with choice Of being less selfish, my True Love to prove, I know I’ll listen to that small Voice, Which says, ‘If you’d be me, be wHoly Love!”   Review of Professor Don Mason’s book ‘Science, Mystical Experience and Religious Belief’  (William Sessions Ltd. 2006) by David Britton Don Mason is a member of Witney Meeting, and is Emeritus Professor of Cellular Immunology at Oxford University. The first third of his book gives a concise account of the basis of Science, and of the main 20th Century theories and discoveries. This includes an account of the limits of Science. While Science may present us with laws, “ the origin of the laws themselves is questionably in the realm of Science. It is immediately apparent that the phrase ‘scientific explanation’ has a particular and limited meaning .” Also, it cannot be assumed that these laws will have invariable application, for “one can never be sure that the observed phenomenon will invariably occur.” And thirdly, the fact of consciousness eludes scientific explanation. Max Planck is quoted – ‘ We cannot get behind consciousness.’ Don Mason’s validation of mysticism rests very much on his own life-changing experience, feeling enfolded in deep love during a personal tragedy. The death of his young son re-awakened, by his own account, his religious sensibility and curiosity. He gives a lovely quotation from Tagore – ‘The truth of our death comes as a conqueror only because we have lost the art of receiving it as a guest.’  The question of death and what comes after it, leads him into the realm of the paranormal in its many aspects. ( Both of Don Mason’s parents had psychic gifts.) He does not go ‘over the top’ in this area. It is indeed good to have in this book his openness to wherever the facts may lead, and at the same time a carefully preserved scientific honesty and detachment. He accepts that, in strict principle, the super-ESP explanation may cover many instances of supposed mediumship, and that fraud and unconscious self-deception have both occurred. But his main emphasis is positive as far as survival of death and of mediumistic gifts are concerned. On Re-incarnation he is scrupulously objective. It is something to be investigated, and requires hard evidence. Naturally he is interested in the work of Ian Stevenson, (who has recently died), and like him thinks the best evidence involves children whose earthly lives were cut short. He also gives a timely reminder that Upanishad philosophy sees the harvest of our deeds on earth as being reaped in the heavenly worlds, not in the next incarnation on earth. I would add myself that Sri Aurobindo  takes the same view. Many of us in the West have drawn too freely on popular Hinduism, without going to the acknowledged wisdom-sources. Altogether, this is a most stimulating and rewarding book, large in scope but modest in tone throughout. Don Mason is now a member of QFAS, and will be one of the speakers at our Woodbrooke Conference in July 2009. We can all look forward to hearing him there.