First, I hope
that we can all be bold in this process. We should not be constrained
by the structure or even the inclusion philosophy of the last full
revision. Source material could now come from a much wider range of
sources, and the ease of self-publishing blurs the line between
‘properly’ published material and things that have been done by
one person on their own. Not that things done by one person on their
own should necessarily be excluded, as the ease of sharing things
online means that some profound wisdom can now be found on blogs, or
even on social media. I hope the committee will start, in some
senses, from a blank piece of paper and work out what needs to be
said, and then carefully and will then daringly seek out, commission
or produce appropriate material.
However, while
being bold, I hope that the committee remembers that they are working
on behalf of all Friends in our Yearly Meeting. Their job is not, to
my mind, to decide on significant changes, even though significant
changes may well be necessary. Their job is to make sure that we, as
a Yearly Meeting, decide on changes – without necessarily referring
each one to Yearly Meeting in session. If we are to make clearer
statements regarding expectation of belief, if we are to codify a
presumption of Christianity or make clear any limits (or lack
thereof) on our theological pluralism, then it has to be something
that involves the widest possible community of Friends. I hope that
there is an ongoing process of consultation on matters large and
small, on the parameters of any search for material or on major
theological or organisational questions, on how the new book or books
are to be structured. We are all responsible for this revision
process, though the legwork is being done by an appointed committee
(and their staff support).
Then there are
hopes that seem little, but must be thought about early in the
process. One of the criticisms I have heard again and again about
Quaker writing – and most of mine is as guilty of this as anything
modern – is that it is inaccessible. We include seventeenth,
eighteenth and nineteenth century writing without explanation, and
even the modern content is written at a very high reading level.
While of course we do not want to lose the wisdom that has stood the
test of time (though we shouldn’t be too bound to include
everything old that was in the last version), we should want that
wisdom to be accessible. While poetic language can speak to us in
ways that bald and straightforward descriptions cannot, you sometimes
need both in order to be clear. Whether this is done through
companion volumes or more editorial content accompanying the
anthology sections, it is something we should aim to improve.
The same drive
also applies to the sections describing our current practices and
structures, the sections most likely to be rewritten entirely, or at
least in large part. We can’t make the complex simple, but we can
at least avoid making the simple complex. Being careful of
vocabulary, keeping sentence structure straightforward, yet not
seeming to talk down to readers, is not only possible but very
important.
The elephant in
the room of this revision is, of course, theology. Must someone
believe in God to be a Quaker? What do we mean by ‘God’ when we
ask that question? Though perhaps we call it the elephant in the room
despite the fact that people will happily acknowledge it – and the
fact that it may turn out to be a small model elephant rather than a
genuine ponderous pachyderm. This must be confronted, but without
assuming we need a final or definite answer. We’ve lived with
tension for a long time, and while it would be good for it to be
somewhat lessened, that we find ourselves with less of a feeling of
stress from that tension, it would be rather unexpected for it to be
fully resolved. This applies to other points of tension and
disagreement; not all questions will be fully answered. Remember it
is only about 25 years since the last revision finished. The revision
is not producing work to stand for all time, but to best capture
where we are now. This
may mean resolving some things that are up in the air, but you are
unlikely to resolve all of them.
That said,
however, I would be disappointed if the only resolution of hard
questions was to include all points of view with no editorial comment
and no synthesis. It may be, and it is my feeling that it will be the
case that our resolution will be finding a way to live creatively
with the tension of theological diversity. However, that will mean
new ways, or acceptance of existing ways, of framing the variety of
thought in our Yearly Meeting. Those need to be presented as a way of
framing the different points of view reflected in any relevant
anthology sections. We may not have a unified theology for all,
indeed I consider that highly unlikely, but we may have a way of
holding them together, a clear and easily communicated theoretical
way of explaining how and why we have such variety. I really hope
that we might have something in that way, anyway, and it should be
presented.
I hope, as one
might after this year’s Yearly Meeting, that it will better address
social issues like those tied up in privilege. I hope that there is
more in there on disability, to address one particular point that
affects me, and that what there is reflects the social model. Really,
I hope that the process – as I discuss below – will allow Friends
in general to learn about things like the social model of disability,
and other principles of privilege and oppression, inclusion and
diversity, and see that they are natural positions given what I see
as the Quaker view of equality.
My biggest hope,
though, is very much about process rather than results. As I
mentioned above in relation to changes and representing the current
state of our Yearly Meeting, I hope there will be consultation. More
than that, I hope there will be broad and deep involvement of Friends
at many levels, helping to guide the work. This can even go some way
to helping resolve some questions, by having this interactive process
of revision acting as a form of renewal, driving engagement with
difficult subjects as well as joyous ones, and leading to the new
book, or books, reflecting not only where we were and where we are
(by then, will be), but also presenting a fantastic reflection of the
journey we have taken together. The process can be part of the
journey that the book it produces reflects.
We have, as I
have said many times, this fantastic opportunity. We have together
set out the first step, and a small group of dedicated Friends has
come together to carry the work forward. We should now expect to
continue together, guided and facilitated by that group, and make
this revision a journey for us all, that allows us to clearly express
our unity and our diversity, that enables or even requires us to
learn and grow, and that gives us a result that clearly and
understandably expresses our faith as we move into the middle part of
the twenty-first century.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
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.
