I am, as regular readers will no doubt realise, a proponent of Quaker Universalism – the idea that a person’s underlying theology can take a wide range of forms, and still be a Quaker. This is not, however, a matter of ‘anything goes’. It can’t be.
For starters, it’s never a matter of “believe what you want”; it can only be “believe what you believe”. But while that is the most common error in talking about Quaker Universalism – often derisively – it is not the most fundamental limit. No, that most fundamental limit comes from the essence of Quaker practices.
Everything about how Quakers do things, especially in the Liberal part of our Religious Society, but not uniquely to it, is based on the idea of direct revelation – the idea that God, the Spirit, or whatever-you-call-it, can tell us things, give us guidance. Burning bushes are rare, but a still small voice is accessible to all. A personal theology, whether it involves a theistic God or not, must allow for this, or Meeting for Worship makes no sense. It is the usual centre of our spiritual life and the foundation for all other key Quaker practices and liturgy (yes, in practice we have liturgy, but that’s a matter for another day), and it is fundamentally based on the idea that we are prompted by something to speak, and that something is capable of doing something different from our ordinary, every day personal mind.
Naturally, Meetings for Worship are open to all, and anyone can get great value from them without ever speaking. It is even reasonable to say that the odd bit of ‘ministry’ from someone who doesn’t know how to test it and might not be speaking as led does the Meeting little harm, if any, and even someone who doesn’t know how to test it and doesn’t conceptualise ministry in a way compatible with any reasonable Quaker approach might be giving ministry that is led. Things are much more complex in Meetings for Church Affairs, also known as Meetings for Worship for Business (or, more concisely, Business Meetings), however.
In such a Meeting, we are not just sharing ministry without a focus; we are trying to make a collective decision. It is not simply a collective decision, though. It is an attempt to make the decision that the Spirit is guiding us towards – the will of God, for those who conceptualise it as such, though as I have explored on other occasions, there are other ways to conceptualise it.
What it is not, however, is everyone sharing their personal thoughts on the matter and the Meeting coming to some sort of consensus, even any form of modified consensus. The only consensus is that the decision is that which we are led to, not that the decision is ‘right’ in any other sense. Sometimes there is a reason we are led to a decision that will, in the fullness of time, become clearly and inarguably ‘wrong’, yet there is still a reason that we were led to it, unclear as it might be.
It is clear, therefore, that there is a clear limit to Quaker Universalism – a personal theology must allow that there be something that can prompt and guide us. This is easiest to understand if it is a theistic God, or even several gods, but that is not required. It might be a special part of us that is not normally accessible, not a conscious part of our mind, but it must be something that is not part of our mundane, everyday experience. In my view, it fits better if one views it as connected in some way to the same thing in other people, but that is not essential.
Many of our Liberal Yearly Meetings are open to all without any expectation of particular belief, but there must be some limit on this. If a person believes that all people are doing in Meeting for Worship for Business is sharing their own view and taking part in some form of modified consensus, they aren’t doing the same thing as everyone else. We must be careful to understand that people conceptualise things in different ways, and not necessarily take their expression of “what they think is happening” at face value; we shouldn’t be quick to police this requirement. At the same time, we should be clear that there are some requirements in common to our diverse theologies.
I don’t see this as a survival imperative; I don’t think there is any imminent threat to the integrity of our Meetings due to failing to understand this. I do think it causes the occasional problem, and most importantly I believe we need to be clear about it as a matter of Truth, or of Integrity, in our communication with the world and with those interested in the Quaker Way.
Written July 2021
