As
I understand it, the purpose of the think tank was to support the
BoDRPG, and thus the whole Yearly Meeting, in looking at different
ways of approaching the “question” of theology and theological
diversity. This is in part because of a perception that became
apparent, that many Friends responding to consultation and
conversation, or indeed in ministry at Yearly Meeting Gathering, were
concerned that the degree and nature of that diversity would lead to
strife within the Yearly Meeting were we to engage in a revision
process. Of particular concern were that some might seek to remove
any reference to God from the Quaker
faith & practice,
or that others might seek to introduce an acid test of theistic
belief in the process of revision. Of course, others see a revision
as an opportunity to diversify our language – not to remove
Christian and otherwise theistic language, but to supplement it with
other expressions of understanding of the Divine so that our
“handbook” text reflects the diversity that is already there.
There are also a few I've come across who would like to use the
opportunity to solidify theistic – usually specifically Christian –
underpinnings of the book; likewise, I cannot claim there are no
Friends who would like to remove all traces of “God language”
from the Book of Discipline, but this is not a significant current of
thought that I am aware of, even in non-theist circles (an impression
that finds support in some of David Boulton's contributions to the
book, as noted below).
The
think tank worked largely through online conversations, as well as an
in-person meeting at Woodbrooke,
attempting to work through a range of issues around language about –
and understanding of – the Divine. The membership consisted of
respected and learned Friends with a range of theological positions,
and they shared their views, experiences and reactions frankly, by
all accounts (at least, all accounts I've come across). A selection
of their exchanges, and collective writing from workshops, is
presented in God,
Words and Us.
I understand that BYM is recommending that Friends read it in
preparation for Yearly Meeting this year, when the question of a
possible revision will once again be raised. I'm not sure how well
this will work, given that people will have to acquire the book;
complimentary copies have been sent to each Meeting, but that
involves spreading it around quite a few people in some Meetings.
Issues
around using it as preparation for Yearly Meeting notwithstanding, I
do recommend Friends read it; it's probably relevant to the
experiences of many liberal Quaker Yearly Meetings, and likely
somewhat informative – if slightly obscure – for Friends of other
traditions. It is an exploration from respected and educated Friends
about their experience and understanding of the Divine (or God, or
the Ultimate, or whatever). I'm not going to try and give a potted
summary so that people can get an idea of it without reading – that
would not do it justice. If you want to understand the book, read it.
I
will, however, give some of my thoughts in reaction, which will
naturally give some impression of what the book contains. Please do
not take it to be a fair summary of the whole book; it's not, and
it's not meant to be.
Once
the introductory matter is past, the book begins with several members
of the think tank's introductions to their own “Quaker story”,
how they came to Quakers and how they experience belief and Spirit.
Naturally this ends up covering language as well, in a very personal
way, and attitudes to the theological diversity in our Yearly
Meeting. David Boulton, apparently seen by many as the arch-nontheist
of liberal Quakerism, makes his own lack of supernaturalist belief
quickly clear – and I can tell you, he is far less inclined to the
mystical than I am – while simultaneously celebrating and urging
the continuation of the diversity of belief in our community. Many
other contributors share similar sentiments, and I do not recall
seeing any disagreeing with it. Perhaps this is a result of how the
think tank members were selected.
The
book moves on through several sections, generally comprising largely
of these excerpts from the writing of individuals during the work of
the think tank, covering experience of Quaker practices –
particularly Meeting for Worship and prayer – and how they relate
to belief, looking at the language of theism and non-theism, looking
at other vocabulary, illustrating some other models and ways to think
about our diversity (these thoughts take up a significant portion of
the book, and possibly some of its most useful food for thought), and
some ideas and materials for how Friends might work on these ideas
themselves, alone or in groups. As well as the contributions from
individual members of the think tank, these sections also contain
syntheses, and collective writings from “Open Space”
collaborative working groups.
I'm
afraid I can't quite get on board with the eventual thesis of
discarding the language of theism and non-theism; it is based on an
accurate assessment of a problem (which I will get on to in a
moment), but it throws the baby out with the bathwater. It is not
necessarily effective to say that terms have been misused and gained
connotations beyond what is appropriate or useful, and thus must be
abandoned. Indeed, it is entirely fruitless if there is no
alternative terminology to take its place. I do agree that talking
“theism/non-theism” as an issue is something we must move beyond,
however, because it is a reductive simplification of the situation in
our Yearly Meeting that increases the confrontational presentation of
the matter and obscures significant nuance that demonstrates that
these differences are much further from being irreconcilable than
some would have us believe.
The
problem is that we speak of theism and non-theism as if they are two
distinct, coherent positions. If we have a little more nuance than
that, we might speak of them as opposite ends on a spectrum. This is
not the case, neither practically nor theoretically. Theism is a term
denoting belief in a deity (or possibly several) with certain
characteristics, yes – except it is hard to find agreement, even
academically, on exactly what those characteristics are. Different
authors and different contexts lead to different understandings; I
have my own, which is essentially based on that given by my Religious
Studies teacher at school – there are other sources that agree with
this, fortunately, which I'm sure has saved me embarrassment in
serious conversations about religion. There are other, equally valid
sources that disagree in various ways, small or large. Thus, while we
might use these terms to categorise people's conceptions of the
Divine, or of religion in general, we can only do so if we make clear
how we are using the terms, and that we have sufficiently elucidated
a person's beliefs to be sure that they do fit into the
categorisation we have given them.
As
these definitions rely on a series of characteristics of the divinity
that a person might believe in, they are only said to be a theist if
they ascribe the Divine all of those characteristics. If not, then
they are a non-theist. This is a matter of analysis, not of identity;
some confusion arises because these terms are used as terms of
self-identification (both of them, despite the assertions found in
God, Words and
Us
– though one rather more often than the other), and that usage does
not always match the formal definitions. That's okay, so long as we
know in what sense a term is being used in any given context. After
all, there are many Quakers in Britain who identify as Christians yet
deny several things that most Christians around the world consider
essential elements of Christian faith; I have even met those who so
identify while denying the historicity of the Gospels. For them, it
is the literary character of Christ who is their teacher, and they
acknowledge him as such, without feeling any requirement to actually
believe he existed, never mind being the Son of God, being
resurrected, or his initial death atoning for the sins of humankind.
A person might believe in a personal God, and still be a non-theist,
if they do not believe that God to be willing and able to directly
interfere with our world. They are not likely to identify as such,
because of the picture of non-theism they have built in their mind.
That is also okay. It simply illustrates why we must not fall in to
the trap of using terms like this as catch-alls, as things that tell
us anything more than what they really indicate. We might present the
definition of theism, without using that term, to every Quaker in the
country, and ask if they agree with it. We could give them time and
support to unpack it so, as much as possible, everyone understand it
the same way. We could then say that all of those who say yes are
theists, and all those who say no are non-theists, and we would be
right – within the limits of our usage of those terms. The peril is
not in using the terms at all, but in using them too much or too
simplistically.
Yet
even with theists agreeing with all of a series of propositions, and
non-theists being those who disagree with one or more of them,
creating a perfect logical dichotomy, we have not properly described
the variations in belief or conception of the Divine among Quakers.
Even if those terms were identically understood and properly applied
by all Friends, a goal that I do not believe even faintly attainable,
they still would not describe everything. Not only do those
categorised as non-theists by such a system vary as to which of the
propositions they have denied, there is a fantastic range of
variation of belief that is entirely orthogonal to – that is to
say, capable of varying entirely independently of – the
propositions of theism. One might be a theist or a non-theist, and
believe in the substitutionary atonement of Christ. Likewise the idea
of karma
in the South Asian religions need not be precluded by a belief in a
theistic God (or gods) – and does not require it. Questions of
immanence or transcendence, supernaturalism, the validity of
intercessory prayer, the value of spoken prayer, the meaningfulness
of prayer as a concept – all of these things can vary quite
independently of agreement with the theistic propositions. There are
likely to be correlations in practice, but they are not terribly
tight (especially among Quakers) and not theoretically essential.
This
is where I agree with the overall thesis of God,
Words and Us.
Theism/non-theism should not – as I have explained – be thrown
out, for misunderstanding or any other reason; it should, however, be
thrown out as a
description of the nature of theological diversity in British
Quakerism
(or wider liberal Quakerism). As we move forward as a community to
consider the questions of theological diversity, we must be ready to
deal with the full range, and not restrict ourselves to the single
dichotomy that we see as most visible, and most apt to be reduced to
a simplistic oppositional situation when it is neither
simple nor necessarily oppositional.
Particularly if we do move forward to revise the Book of Discipline,
we have the opportunity to better reflect the range of experience and
understanding in our Yearly Meeting, and beyond, and we have to be
prepared to understand this in the full breadth of variation that
exists.
I
am sure the suggestions for further study and reflection, and group
work, made towards the end of the book will prove to be valuable; I
have sufficient trust in those presenting them that I would be
astonished were they not. The really thought-provoking part, however,
are the alternative models and comparisons presented. Boulton
compares his understanding of non-theism within the Religious Society
of Friends with non-pacifism; thought-provoking for sure, though I
don't agree with the tightness of the comparison. We might hope that
a non-pacifist is a clear case of “wear it as long as you can”,
and while I know that some non-non-theists have expressed the view to
me that this is how they see my non-theism, I do not think that all
non-theism is something that should be seen that way. Perhaps the
most non-supernaturalist, strict materialist sorts – which we might
consider Boulton to epitomise – might be regarded as such, but I
would hesitate even there. However, those worried about non-theism
and “creeping secularisation” might be reassured that it is David
Boulton, accused of so much (if in dry academic language) by Derek
Guiton, who states clearly that it is not his experience that
non-theist Friends wish to see the Society remade in their image.
There
is much food for thought in this book, and I must say again how much
I recommend it. It is available from the Quaker Bookshop at Friends
House London, and can be bought from them online in hard
copy, as well as mobi
and epub
ebook formats (the ebook formats may show up as “out of stock”, which obviously makes no sense; when I bought mine, I was told to just order it anyway, and it worked out). It will be invaluable in preparing Quakers in Britain
for the question of whether to revise, and in the actual revision
itself. Provided we do not take it as the last word on the subject –
which would be a strange thing for liberal Quakers to do – it will
do well in helping manage some of the difficulties we are sure to
face, and help to produce a positive outcome for all Friends in our
Yearly Meeting.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
