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).
