Good vs Evil: Nontheism and Dualism

Some expressions of Christianity are what is termed dualist: they are concerned with the adversarial nature of a divine Lord of good, in the form of God (and the Trinity), and a diabolical lord of evil, in the form of the devil, Satan, Lucifer, or the adversary, to give it a few of the more common names it is known by. All, or almost all are dualist in at least a purely moral sense – there is good and evil, even if there is not a personification of evil in opposition to a personification of good.

Quaker non-theists take a range of positions on the nature of that which our theistic Friends generally (and some non-theists) call ‘God’. Generally speaking, those who consider themselves non-theists (or who might be analytically classified as such) do not accept the idea of God as an entity with personality or personhood, but we recognise something in ourselves which we identify to some extent with what others call ‘God’.

Likewise, theistic Christian Quakers (neither Christianity nor theism inevitably follows from the other in practice, among Quakers) have a range of views about the devil, though among liberal Friends the identification of it as an adversarial persona with true power in opposition to God is relatively unusual. Yet we all recognise the concept of evil, that there are acts that are evil, that we all have the potential for evil within us – just as we all have the potential for good, and that we all have ‘that of God’ within us. We, Quakers, tend to be dualists to that extent, even if the degree of Christian dualism found in some other churches is (in my experience) extremely rare.

The Limits of Quaker Universalism

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.

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.

What the Light Isn't

When we talk about our different conceptions of the Divine, we tend to speak in positive terms. That is to say, we talk about what we can say the Divine, Light, God or whatever you want to call it is, what characteristics it has. This is understandable. This is how we usually think about things in life, and if we try to list everything any given thing isn't it tends to take a lot more time than describing what it is.

However, in the case of the Light, perhaps we should talk about that more. That's why I'm going to try doing so – talking about what I think the Spirit is not, as I conceive it and in my experience. This is actually a tool, a theological approach, that is as old as organised Christianity. Apophatic theology, or theology of denial, also known by the Latin expression via negativa (“negative way”, perhaps better thought of as “route of negative expression”, was applied by some of the Church Fathers based on an intellectual tradition that long predates Christianity. It reached its non-Christian philosophical peak among Pagan Neo-Platonism, a school that flourished for over a century in Roman (and later Byzantine) Greece – until Justinian cracked down on Pagan thought as well as Pagan religion.

Repentance and Forgiveness

Like much of our spiritual experience, the Quaker
confessional is inward.

Once upon a time, I habitually listened to Radio 4. For the Americans, this is broadly similar to NPR – I don't know a good point of comparison for any other countries. Basically, it's one of the nine “mainstream” national radio stations from the BBC (there's also a tenth specifically focused on British Asian communities, and local stations for the nations and regions), and it's focussed on talk content. Comedy, drama, in-depth current affairs, that sort of thing. It's very popular with Quakers. If your Quaker community has a trope about ministry coming from a radio station, we have the same thing with Radio 4.

In the last few years, I've listened to Radio 4 less and less. While it has some wonderful content that isn't related to current affairs, there's a huge amount that is – and current affairs has gotten rather depressing lately. It would be quite bothersome to put it on just for the programmes we want and change station every time a news bulletin comes on. Not that we avoid all news; we follow a lot of news online, consuming it when we want to, on our terms. Managing mental health is very important.

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.

What Are "The Things Which Are Eternal"?

“Seek to know one another in the things which are eternal”. It's a popular phrase, made particularly well-known by it's inclusion in Britain Yearly Meeting's Advices and queries, number 18. It falls easily from our lips, and a lot of people seem to put a lot of emotional investment in the idea, but what does it mean?

In my experience, Friends often seem to use the phrase in a way that is rather non-specific. Much like “that of God in every one”, its meaning seems to be in the moment, in whatever form is useful to the speaker. Usually, it seems to add a sort of warm fuzz to the idea of getting to know one another, that it means getting to know one another in a deep sense, rather than a superficial one. You might know what someone does for living, but it is knowing them in a deeper way to find out that they paint landscapes, or write poetry. This is a reasonable distinction to make, and the idea that we, as Friends, should know one another well is a laudable one. Is this really “the things which are eternal”? Certainly, there's a degree to which meanings change with time and context, especially as society changes – or as our Religious Society changes.

On Quaker Universalism and the Unchanging(?) Nature of the Divine

There are those who say that Truth, or the true Light, or God, is eternal and the same, unchanging, at all times and all places, among all peoples constant.

I do not know if that is true. I do not know the underlying nature of the Divine, but even if it is somehow a product of humanity, it is possible that it is constant, a product not of our changeable and evolving natures but of some common, constant core of what makes us human.

What I can say, however, is that an eternal, unchanging constancy need not be reflected in how the Spirit is revealed to us. It comes upon us in manners suited to our varied natures, in ways appropriate to our different situations. It is in this way that actions, principles and beliefs may severally be inspired by the Spirit, despite their differences. They may be different in small ways, even so small as to seem trivial, or in large ways, even so large as to seem fundamentally incompatible.

Theology and "Notions"

Water baptism: a ritual Quakers have traditionally considered
an empty form, based on notions, rather than any true leading
of the Spirit.

A fair amount of my writing could be described as theology. Not high, formal, academic theology, perhaps, but it's theology – questions (and, to be fair, rarely answers) about the nature of God, or at least of what-you-will. I've known some to quibble with the idea of calling it “theology” if there's no theos involved, but there's no better term, so I'll use this one. Indeed, I'm hardly the first person to talk about theology in the context of a non-theistic worldview. So, if you are a purist in the meaning of that term, insisting that it only applies to theistic (some would say only Christian) contexts, I ask your forbearance. Also, to not argue with me about it on this post – as will become clear, a large part of what I will be discussing here is in the Christian context, indeed in the context of early Friends, and in any case it would be rather missing the point of the post overall. If you prefer to think of the wider idea as hierology, you may do so, but this isn't the place for a debate on what counts as theology and what as hierology.

The context of early Friends is important here, because one of the great criticisms of those early Quakers was against notions. All the haggling among the Church and its divisions, in the first millennium, over the nature of Christ, the question of the Chalcedonian formulation versus Miaphysitism – that is, whether Christ incarnate was of two natures, human and divine, united in a single hypostasis, or whether he was of one nature, wholly human and divine – is one example. Another, far more contemporary with the early Friends, would be detailed questions over the nature of the Trinity and the relationship between its members. The early Friends were, of course, strongly bible-believing Christians; though this was tempered by reliance on “the Spirit that gave them forth”, the bible was still important and a key tool of the early Friends. Because of this, they did not consider the basic idea of the Trinity to be a notion – it is clearly pointed to in scripture. Indeed, one of the members of the Trinity is of particular importance to Quakers, for it was said from quite early days that what moved them in worship was the Holy Spirit (among other terms). Precisely what the relationship is between the members of the Trinity, however, would be a notion.