Keeping Our Past Close

My video game and media station. Visible devices, including those
barely visible are: an original SNES (top left), an original NES (top
middle), a Nintendo Gamecube (top right), a Nintendo Wii (bottom
right), a SNES Classic Mini (bottom right of centre), an N64
(bottom left of centre), a PlayStation 2 (bottom left), and a DVD
player (centre). Also present but not visible are a Steam Link and a
Nexus Player, and various switches and adapters behind the TV.

I recently finished a personal project. I got all my old-generation consoles and some bits of newer game-playing kit hooked up to our spare TV, on a trolley stand in our spare room/library/study (picture included for those interested). It’s got me thinking.

The oldest bit of kit I hooked up was originally released, in Japan, in 1983, not too long after I was born (although the particular item I have is from the European release, so can’t be any older than 1986, and is most likely from a later production run). I also have one that could date back as far as 1992, the original Japanese release being 1990, and a much more modern piece of kit that provides a selection of games from that platform in a modern, easy-to-use, small device. Successive devices from the same and other manufacturers span my childhood and teenage years, and into early adulthood; the only things newer than 2006 are a simple Android TV device that has some free or cheap games that are fun to play, and the much-maligned Steam Link, to play PC games on my TV over the network.

Thoughts on Revision

So, Britain Yearly Meeting has decided – nearly a year ago now – to start the process of revising our Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice. As I have previously written, I am very much supportive of this process, seeing it as an opportunity. The revision committee has been appointed, with several people on it being well known to me, and showing quite a range of diversity – as had been requested of nominations. As they slowly and thoughtfully begin their work, I wish to offer them – and the wider community – some thoughts. I suppose this might be considered an ‘open letter’, but I do not intend it in the way that most open letters are used; they are generally in the context of campaigning, and I do not consider it appropriate that anyone campaign for anything in the context of the revision process. This is not about lobbying and defending interests, but about coming together to reach the right decisions for our Yearly Meeting at this time, just as in all of our spirit-led decision-making. This post is just my unasked for advice, or perhaps a statement of my own hopes. Members of the committee, and of the wider Quaker community in Britain, can take it as they will.

Coining a New Name

I am indebted in writing this piece to several friends (not all of whom are Friends) helping me puzzle out the nuances of a dead language. Special mention must go, however, to my sister-in-law, and to the helpful folks of the Latin Stack Exchange. I am no scholar of ancient languages myself, though I dabble (as I do in many things). Any errors in how I have made use of Latin are my own, and as I've had to be a little creative I expect there are some.

Much conversation goes on among liberal Friends, at least recently in Britain, concerning our range of names for the Divine. This is why there's a tag for it on this blog, and has become a startling focus of conversation around our theological diversity. Some of the worry – and some of the excitement – about the upcoming revision of Britain Yearly Meeting's Book of Discipline even relates to this. Some of the differences in name reflect the different ways we have of thinking about the Divine, and sometimes using the same name conceals that difference.

We have the old names – God, the Father, Christ, and more esoteric terms early Friends were fond of, such as Seed. Then we have names that are old, but new to Quakers, as other faith traditions feed into our own, and they are too many and varied for it to be easy to pick out a few. We have names that reflect theological liberalism and universalism, delightfully non-committal like my own go-to name, the Divine. We have terms that were used by early Friends and are used today with different nuance, like Light (for early Friends it was often the Light of Christ, or Inward Light; today it is often Inner Light, and for both it would just be shortened to “Light”). Maybe it's time for something new. Something that reflects what we are united on, or at least as united as we ever are, without claiming anything else.

Revision: What Next?

So, Yearly Meeting has decided. British Quakers will begin the long, thoughtful process of revising our Book of Discipline, the same process (more or less) as was begun in the 1980s to produce our current book, Quaker faith & practice, eventually approved and published in the mid-1990s.

Okay, you might be thinking, but what next?

Let me explain what I understand of what will happen, and my own thoughts and suppositions about what them might happen. I think it's going to be quite an interesting time to be a Quaker in Britain, if you want to be engaged in the process. If you don't, I suspect you may get bored in a year or two and wish people would shut up about it. Either way, it's going to be a lot of work for some people.

Revision: A Reaction to the Decision

As readers of my blog, or indeed those who keep up with Quaker matters in Britain at all, will be aware, this weekend Britain Yearly Meeting met in session, with the principal matter on the agenda being the proposal to revise the YM's Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice. This was proposed at Yearly Meeting Gathering four years ago, but Friends were unable to come to unity; instead, it was decided that a group be appointed to help prepare the Yearly Meeting to be better able to take the decision in either direction, and to lay the groundwork for future revision whenever it might occur.

This group, the catchily-named Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group (BoDRPG is how I abbreviate this; it seems that BYM decided the appropriate revision would just be RPG, which I suppose is not too ambiguous in context – even if it makes me think of Final Fantasy or Dungeons & Dragons), has been working hard for over three years. They have been working out logistics, engaging in explorations of theology, and running the Reading Quaker faith & practice programme to encourage Friends to be more familiar with the existing text before trying to make the decision again.

That preparation has borne fruit, with – by all reports that have come my way – an amazingly positive and constructive approach to the question at Yearly Meeting. The decision was taken, with suitable commentary in the minute instructing Meeting for Sufferings, and the to-be-appointed revision committee, about the approach that Yearly Meeting feels they should take.

(Buckle up, this is going to be a long one)

Revision: Hopes and Fears

Well, the time is almost here. Again.

Britain Yearly Meeting, taking place this coming weekend, has managed to draw a little press attention, both specialist and general (paywall), regarding the question of whether to revise our Book of Discipline. So I thought I'd take another little look at the whole matter.

Firstly, both of the linked pieces put an unreasonable focus on specific elements of change that Friends think might happen in a revision process. One focuses on environmental matters and gender & sexuality; the other focuses on the suggestion that we might remove “God” (or, they acknowledge, maybe just reduce the use of the term). These are all things that will be live issues if the revision goes ahead, to be sure, but they miss the key point of revision.

God, Words and Us: A Reaction

The most procedurally important output of the Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group (BoDRPG) is probably their report to Meeting for Sufferings; the most important in terms of the wider conversation, and of direct lasting impact, may well be God, Words and Us. This book is a record of some of the output of the “Theology Think Tank” that the BoDRPG set up to help prepare for the inevitable “theism/non-theism” question that would arise in any future revision. I have previously written some of my own reaction, on specific points – most notably my recent post “Theism vs Non-Theism”? – but this post is to record my own reaction to the book as a whole, having now finished reading it.

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).

Looking Forward to Revision of the Book of Discipline

As previously mentioned, Britain Yearly Meeting is in the process of deciding whether to start a process of revision of our book of discipline, Quaker faith & practice. The Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group (BoDRPG), tasked with laying ground work for the next revision – whenever it might occur – and preparing Quakers in Britain for taking any decision regarding revision, reported to Meeting for Sufferings in December 2017, recommending that they (Sufferings) recommend to Yearly Meeting in May that the process of revision begin. It's not a done deal, by any stretch of the imagination, but there's a decent chance the process will progress.

I'll be quite honest – I'm looking forward to it.

"Theism vs Non-Theism"?

Within liberal Quakerism, and particularly concerning theological diversity, an area of particular tension has been what some have described as “theism/non-theism”, or even (as in the rather provocative title of this piece) “theism vs non-theism”.

For those of you not involved in British Quakerism (or, if you are, have been living under some sort of rock), I should say that, a couple of years ago, Quakers in Britain started a process of considering revising our book of discipline, Quaker faith & practice. This involved appointing a group to prepare us for making a decision about revision, and to lay some groundwork and preparation for any such revision – knowing that there will have to be a revision at some point in the future. The “Book of Discipline Revision Preparation Group” (BoDRPG) recently reported on their work with a recommendation to Meeting for Sufferings that Sufferings, in turn, recommend to Yearly Meeting that a revision process begin. Their recommendations had a lot of specifics about how this might be done, the order to do things in, and reflections on perceived risks (the meeting papers in question are available online, if you'd like to look at them yourself).

One of these perceived risks was related to theological diversity – particularly the question of non-theism. In order to help address this, they set up a “theology think tank”, with suitable Friends asked to be involved in discussions around theological diversity in Britain Yearly Meeting. They produced a reasonable volume of material published in the recent volume God, Words and Us (which is one of the various books I am currently working my way through – but I'm finding it very good so far), and also gave their own concluding notes that are included in the BoDRPG report to Sufferings.

Religious Privilege and British Quakers

Being typically middle-class and educated, and with a strong interest in equality, Quakers (at least in the global economic north) are probably more likely than the average person to be aware of the concept of privilege and oppression. This is, however, a fairly academic concept, with reasonably precise and specialised meaning, and my own conversations with other Friends, both online and in person, have illustrated that understanding of it is far from universal. In this post, I will be discussing the idea of religious privilege, both in wider society and its impact within the Religious Society of Friends – particularly in Britain Yearly Meeting.

Privilege

Before we get into religious privilege, it's probably a good idea to make sure we're on the same page about “privilege” in general. When used in this context, the discussion of social advantage, it takes a particular sociological meaning. While the everyday sense of the word means some particular advantage, such as the franking privilege in relation to some legislatures, and there is a legal meaning related to the ability to compel evidence, or even whether evidence is admissible at all, this sociological meaning is both broader and more subtly specific.

I am aware that some people don't like the term, or even the concept. However, in order to discuss the actual underlying idea in this post, it's necessary to use language that makes the point efficiently and without repetition of explanations. So I ask those of you who struggle with this language to push through it to try and understand the underlying point, rather than reject it based on the premise of the language and theory itself.

Belief, Experience, Conception, Communication, Understanding

In an excellent blog post, Craig Barnett (no relation) recently wrote about the limitations of thinking of faith in terms of belief; rather than a conventional, simplistic view of belief leading to action, a better description – especially for Quakers – is of a cycle, practice leading to experience leading to community leading back to practice. Personally, I think that cycle should be bi-directional, but generally I think this is a good model, as far as it goes.

People, however, have a habit of thinking about things, not to mention talking about things (even if sometimes they don't do it in that order). It is when we talk about our experiences that our language, our choice of words and what we mean by them, our choice of phrases and references, brings something else to the fore, which we tend to refer to as “belief” – how we refer to God/the Divine/the numinous/the Spirit/whatever, the characteristics implicit in the terms we use, create the picture of what the speaker believes in.

For many liberal Quakers, however, theology – questions of the nature of the Divine – is a nebulous thing. I have heard many take a partially agnostic view, that whatever the Divine is in incomprehensible to us, fundamentally unknowable, which is a position with which I agree. The words we use don't reflect the kind of certainty that “belief” implies, when used in a religious context; rather, they are our groping after meaning that reflects our experience and attempts at understanding, indefinitely provisional. They are the shadows on the wall of the cave. So, if they don't reflect belief, what do they reflect?