ABSTRACT
Anysocialsetting[shouldJbeviewedasself-organizingwith respecttotheintelligiblecharacterofitsownappearances. Anysettingorganisesitsownactivitiestomakeitspropertiesasanorganizedenvironmentofpracticalactivities, dateable,countable,recordable,tell-a-story-aboutable, analysable,inshortaccountable.(Garfinkel1967,p.33)
Speakinginapublicsetting,speakinginthesenseofhavingthe floor,representscontrolofascarceresource.Whenthatpublic settingisreligious,controlbecomesmorevaluedbecausethe speakerisinsomesenseGod'srepresentative,i.e.priest.The distancebetweenpriestandnon-priestisthesceneofamajor Reformationargument,andthatdistanceisbothsymbolisedand indicatedbytherelativeclaimsforthelegitimacyofreligious speaking.Theseventeenth-centurymysticJacobBoehmewrites (ApologytoTilken,ii,p.298)'IfIhadnootherbookexceptthe bookwhichImyselfam,Ishouldhavebooksenough.Theentire BibleliesinmeifIhaveChrist'sspiritinme.WhatdoIneedof morebooks?'RadicalProtestantsagreedthattherewasnoneed foraninterpreter:'thereissomethingnearertousthan Scriptures,towit,theWordintheheart,fromwhichallScripturescome'(Penn1726,p.782).SincetheWordwasimmanentit couldliterallymeanallthingstoallmen:'thenewwayofFaith meantmanyanddiscordantthingsaccordingtothepreparation oftheearsofthosewhoheard.Itspoke,asallPentecostsdo,to eilchmaninhisowntongue.'Qones1914,p.xxxix)ReligionprovidesthechannelbetweenGodandman.Themorereformedthe
religion the more public participation there is in the speaking roles during the rituals. Christianity in its reformed mode insisted that Logos, the Word, was within, not out there. It was inevitable, therefore, that the extreme seventeenth-century radicalism of the Seekers and later the Quakers should lead both to extreme positions: first, that everyone equally may speak in worship (i.e. not only the priest or other official) and, second, that nobody (at all) really should speak because saying, speaking, is creaturely, it removes us from God, and because speaking usurps (or lays claim to) the hierarchical priestly separation.
