One of the things that first attracted me about
the Quaker approach to faith, at least as practised in Britain, was
the lack of dogmatism around belief. That people could have radically
different conceptions of what it is that we seek contact with in
Meeting for Worship, or what the nature of that contact is. That
there were Buddhist Quakers, Jewish Quakers, Muslim Quakers, Hindu
Quakers, Pagan Quakers, all as well as the “default”, original,
traditional Christian Quakers. To me that spoke of a tremendous
humility on the part of the community as a whole, as well as a
wonderful openness. It also told me there was an incredibly rich
range of experience and insight to draw on, that we could share our
different experiences of the divine and all learn, be challenged and
stimulated into a broader outlook and improve our consciousness of
the divine.
As I became more involved, started identifying as
a Quaker, and throwing myself into things with the enthusiasm of a
convert, my impression of humility and openness was largely borne out
– not perfectly or universally, but it was certainly the trend. Of
course, I learned that not all Quakers in the world were like Quakers
here in Britain; not even most of them, in fact. Britain Yearly
Meeting is a major liberal YM, but liberal Quakerism isn't the only
Quaker tradition. Detail about the different traditions is a subject
for another post, but suffice to say that the degree of openness
about theology is a particular characteristic of liberal Quakers, and
while it may be found in other traditions, here and there, it is not
a basic characteristic of any of them.
I have, however, been disappointed in my hopes
about the range of experience and insight to draw on. Not that it
doesn't exist, as it most certainly does, though not necessarily as
rich in one Meeting as another, nor even in proportion to the size of
that Meeting. Rather, it doesn't seem to be available. We all have
our own experiences, beliefs, impressions, views, and insights, but
we mostly keep them to ourselves. I
don't mean to say that Friends are backwards about coming forwards
when there are issues to discuss. It's hard to stop Friends from
sharing their views on practical matters, or matters of principle
when it comes to the actions of their Meeting, even when you're in
Meeting for Worship for Business, where good discipline and right
ordering generally mean that you don't have everyone who has an
opinion sharing it – often at length. When it comes to whether the
Meeting should extend reduced rates for room lettings for a community
group, or get involved in some local interfaith effort, or provide
support for refugees, you won't have any shortage of experience and
insight being shared. That isn't what I was hoping for, and what I
have found surprisingly rarely.
In Meeting for
Worship, or in afterword, or in plain old conversation, most Friends
seem to hesitate to say anything that reveals a specific theological
background, whether it be Christian or otherwise. My own impression
is that the hesitation is less when that background is Christian, but
I don't think I can take my own impression as convincing in this
case. Certainly, Christian Friends have expressed the fact they don't
feel able to freely express their Christianity in meeting, or among
Friends generally, though I'm not sure how that compares to similar
feelings among non-Christian Friends, especially for those with
specific faith backgrounds to relate it to. Christians may be less
able to express that Christianity than they were 50 years ago, but it
is possible that they are still more able to do so than a Jewish
Quaker is to express Judaism, or Pagan Quakers are to speak from
their particular Pagan perspective. However, this post isn't about
Christian privilege, so let's draw a line under that question, and
leave it for another time.
Why do we
hesitate? I have my own theories, though no real evidence to base
them on, beyond reason and my own experience. In the absence of a
thorough study, that experience will have to do me for now, and I
think it might be useful to others.
The fact that we
welcome people of many different beliefs has become a prominent
aspect of the profile of British Quakers, and something we are
generally acutely aware of. If anyone outside of the Society knows
much at all about us, that's one of the things they will almost
always know. People either value it, or are aware that other people
value it, and for the most part they therefore don't want to do
anything to damage it; those who think that this openness is a
mistake being the main exception, of course, but let us put those to
one side for a moment. Thus people might choose not to talk about
their own beliefs because they think it might bother people who don't
share them, or that other people will think it will bother people who
don't share them, and that the people who think so will disapprove of
people talking about their beliefs. Eventually this becomes a matter
of common practice and inertia; people don't see people talking about
their beliefs, so it becomes something that “isn't done”, and it
becomes self-reinforcing.
The problem with
this result of our awareness of our openness, and our reputation for
openness, is that, in trying to preserve that openness, it destroys
the greatest virtue of our diversity of belief – the opportunity to
learn from one another.
Yet we are not
completely closed off from sharing. I have experienced several times,
in different Quaker contexts, people being given permission, even
encouragement, to share their own beliefs. An environment is
carefully constructed to make this feel safe, that people are
protected from criticism for what they may say, or even from direct
reaction. The situations is crafted to give people permission to
share, and to make it safe to do so, and they do. They may be
trepidatious at first, but they get into it quite quickly. In my
experience, the reaction to such activities is near universally
positive, and people feel joy in sharing their experience and belief
– and joy and learning in sharing that of others.
Let's stop
brushing our beliefs under the carpet, whether they be Christian,
Pagan, non-theist, Buddhist, or even Satanist. Let's find a way to
give that permission and that safety more often. Maybe we can even
build up to people being able to feel safe, and to feel they have
permission to share, as a default state among Quakers. We owe that to
ourselves as a community, and we owe it to those who come to us
seeking spiritual growth.
