"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.

What I Can Say About Sex and Gender

I've been disappointed in some discussion I've seen in British Quaker circles recently. I shan't go in to what prompted the discussion, because that's not relevant right now. What I can say is that it's about trans issues, and feminism.

I'm disappointed because I see attitudes expressed that, while not outwardly hostile to trans people, they are denying their experience. They hold up an attitude that the rights of one marginalised group are inherently in tension with the rights of another, at least at this time, and do not seek to find ways to resolve that tension to the benefit of all. That hesitate to be critical of those that advocate the idea that trans women, however well they pass, should use men's toilets. I might not reasonably hope that all Friends would support the reform of legal gender recognition, making it easier to access, but I would hope that they would not participate in scaremongering that it would somehow lead to insincere, casual changes of legal gender for frivolous or malicious purposes. That it would allow such things to be done with impunity.

I'm a cisgender, heterosexual, white man. I hope to be a good ally, just as I hope to find allies, especially among Friends, in support of my experiences and efforts as a disabled person. I know that being a good ally doesn't mean being entirely uncritical of the positions of those in another marginalised group – but also not to deny their lived experience. Their wisdom in such matters is not flawless, but will be deeper than my own. My own views are not without merit or relevance, but it is secondary to theirs.

And yet, I am heartened that we can share our opinions, even those I am disappointed by, in what is largely a loving way – certainly by comparison to discussions in many other communities. That those who know their views are not conventional for British Friends can, at least in this context, share them without feeling hemmed in by our social dogma. Even if I might hope that they change their minds, I know that it is by allowing dialogue – as well as the illumination of the Divine – that such a change will occur. It will not occur by verbal warfare or the discourse equivalent of a bludgeon.

Inappropriate Silence

Silence is important to Quakers. Yet there are times when it isn't appropriate. We are at peril of taking the peace and silence of our Meetings for Worship and extending that silence into places and situations in which it does not belong.

We have no problem speaking out, as Meetings and organisations, and as individuals, when we see things wrong in the world. Friends have opposed apartheid in South Africa, many support BDS in relation to Israel. Friends organisations have lobbied governments in many countries on many issues, from same sex marriage to tax and social security (welfare) policy. Friends are out every week protesting arms sales, fracking, and military escapades of all sorts. We have no problem confronting what we see as wrong out in the world.

Why, then, are we so slow to confront problems among ourselves?

Dogmatic Non-Dogmatism and Rituals of Non-Ritualism

Why the flowers?

Quakers, at least of the liberal variety, are generally considered to have no dogma; Quakers of all stripes reject creeds, even if they have been known to organisationally endorse documents that look a lot like them. Unprogrammed Quakers eschew ritual.

But do we really? Are there not ways in which our non-dogmatism becomes dogmatic, and our non-rituals become ritualistic? In this post I will be exploring these questions, what I have learned from Friends in many places, what I have experienced myself – and what I think we should take from that.

Safe Spaces

You hear a lot these days about “safe spaces”, be it from those who are advocating them or those who decry them as an assault on free speech. We hear about “no platforming”, and just recently the UK's Universities minister has warned that Universities could face a fine over such policies, as they should be seen to have a duty to uphold freedom of speech.

This is a really complicated issue, with intertwining concerns and subtle variations of meaning in terms like “safe space”, “no platform”, and “free speech”. It's also a concern for Quakers, as there have been, from various quarters at various times, suggestions that some Quaker spaces should be safe. So, let's take a look at some of the meanings given to these terms, which will also give an overview of the overall politics of the situation, and see what they mean for Quakers, both in our own spaces and in terms of our approach to wider society. Buckle in, it's a long ride.

What Happened to Quaker Missionary Zeal?

How do we, how should we, share our gift of Light?

In the early years of the Society of Friends, there was a strong focus on evangelism, of proselytising with a missionary zeal. While this is still found in parts of the pastoral and evangelical branches of the world family of Friends, over here in the liberal branch it has died away, pretty much completely. What happened, and should we be concerned? I shall attempt to answer this, for myself at least, with something of a whistle-stop tour of some relevant Quaker history. This will, by necessity, be somewhat light on detail, and will generally avoid making caveats around the different interpretations and versions of events that different factions hold to. This should not be taken as my version of events, or my preferred interpretation, just what I have managed as a fairly quick summary, covering the key points without attempting to make sure every little detail is included. Please do not use this as a source in your own learning about Quaker history – but the names and summaries may work as a jumping off point for your own reading.

Like many liberal Quakers, the lack of proselytisation is associated in my mind with some of the characteristics of liberal Quakerism that I most value: uncertainty about traditional religious “big questions”, universalism, theological liberalism. The idea that there is no “one true way”, that we can all find the spiritual path that is suited to us, and that this might be found in any number of different faiths. Of course, these are also factors that would seem pretty strange to many Friends in the earliest days of the Society; they were absolutely and definitely Christian, even if that Christianity was fairly orthodox. Universalist sentiments arose not too long after, from Friends such as William Penn and Mary Fisher, but they weren't about integrating different theological backgrounds into the community of Friends; rather, they were about respecting and valuing other faiths, rather than dismissing them – but they remained entirely separate and other, if not entirely “other”.

Comprehending the Incomprehensible

There is a Power that is an unending source of love and light, a Light that lives in each of us and lifts us up, and joins us together. Some know it as the Light of Christ, the Holy Spirit, and that is well. Some know it as a nebulous, numinous force pervading our lives and our beings, and that is also well. Some know it as a precious and divine part of our own being, that we must work to know well, to be aware of and guided by – and that too is well.

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.

Raising Barriers

Why are you so fond of boundaries, of divisions? Of creating groups and definitions, of knowing who is within the same walls as you.

You raise them everywhere. She speaks differently, he dresses strangely, they have strange and unfamiliar beliefs. Countries and parties, faiths and communities. It seems you cannot meet new people without assessing how much they differ from you.

The Trouble With Membership

There are few matters in British Quakerism that seem to excite as much disagreement as the question of membership. Theological diversity is certainly one, but in my experience membership is certainly up there among the most contentious, though probably still somewhat behind the concern over non-theism.

Membership was not an idea that seemed to matter much – or necessarily be thought of at all – in the early years of the Religious Society of Friends. Accounts vary somewhat as to why it became important, whether it was in order to know who should get material support from a Meeting when they were in hardship, or in order to demonstrate bureaucratic structures to satisfy the secular government (if the government could be said to be secular at that time), or various other explanations. Whatever the reason, it became necessary to identify who was a member, and procedures for bringing people into membership – or indeed removing them from membership. For a long time, in Britain, those born to parents in membership were considered to be in membership themselves, from birth - “birthright membership”; the possibility of only one parent being a member wasn't often a concern, given the fact that marrying someone not in membership was cause to be removed from membership, and society in general being such that children born to unmarried parents were, at least visibly, unusual. I suspect that where a widow came into membership during her pregnancy, the child would be considered a birthright member; I don't know what happened with new members who brought small children with them – it would make an interesting bit of research, but not one I have time for at present.

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?

Judging Acts of Love

The “physical act of love”, howsoever it manifests and between whoever engages in it, should be judged on only 4 things:

• Does it flow from open honesty and common interest?
• Is it freely chosen by those involved, and mutually consented to, with all capable of true consent?
• Does it improve the well-being of all involved, providing a positive experience – or at least an honest attempt at one?
• Does it promote love?

On Scripture

Do you really think that any text can encapsulate all that could be said of the Divine? Do you think that any text mediated by human thought and human hands is the unsullied word of God? You have reason and intelligence to address the world, and the divine spark itself to guide you. You reject these gifts when you abdicate your judgement to a text, however old and wise and beautiful it might be.

Poppies, Patriotism and Power

And so it is November. The annual pomp and ceremony of Remembrance bears down upon us, and the Royal British Legion's annual Poppy Appeal takes centre stage. Public figures – especially those who don't look properly “British” or who have ever expressed political views deemed not sufficiently patriotic – face the poppy test, as self-appointed arbiters of appropriate remembrance-related behaviour take aim over social media, letters pages, forums, and even broadcast media.

I don't know if I was just shielded from this as a child, or whether it has changed. When I was growing up, in the 80s and 90s, in the south-east of England, poppies were ubiquitous, certainly. There was a clear expectation that they be worn. What there wasn't, that I could see, was the vitriolic attacks on those who weren't wearing one, even without knowing the reason. There wasn't the association of the poppy, whatever the stated significance from the RBL, with support for current troops, and generic patriotism. It didn't have the connection, apparently despite the intentions of the RBL, with positive attitudes towards war now. To the best of my recollection, the meaning they seemed to signify was simply the honourable remembrance of the fallen, or at least the military fallen, in all wars, while being agnostic as to whether the wars were good or not.

Look Beyond

You are not a Quaker because you are special.
It does not take any special ability or quality to live among Friends.
If your expressions of the Spirit are hard to understand,
That says more about you than it does the Spirit.

Everyone can understand the Light within,
Even if they cannot understand your description of it.

Everyone can learn to heed the prompting of the Divine,
Even if they cannot describe it in the terms you think proper.

The Quaker Way is not for all, but it is for all sorts.
No formal education or intellectual development prepares you,
To better apprehend what Love requires.
If your Meetings cannot show that power,
To the factory worker and street sweeper,
That is your failing, and not theirs.

But quiet your protestation.
Nor should you rush to guilt.
This is not to call you to tear down your house,
To build a new one that is without fault.
It is not to shame you
Or diminish you.

This is a call to wake up,
To look beyond your comfortable world,
Of people like you.

Written October 2017

Tolerance, Acceptance, and Celebration

We often speak of tolerance. Of tolerating difference, of tolerating what is strange to us, of tolerating things that make us uncomfortable.

Often, the spirit calls us to be more than tolerant. Sometimes it calls us to acceptance. To tolerate something is to allow it to exist, to be near you, to be visible, despite your reservations or discomfort. To accept something is to recognise its existence and value, its validity as equal with your own.

Sometimes, the spirit calls us to be more than acceptant. It calls us to celebrate. While acceptance recognises the value and validity of a thing, celebration affirms it, openly rejoicing in its presence.

Celebration allows you to learn more than acceptance, as it requires openness to see more.
Celebration is an act of love, and love given and returned is love increased.
Celebration of difference opens the heart to the spirit in new ways.

Celebrate one another, and celebrate your differences. Celebrate the different people and cultures around you, that you may know them and love them and learn all that can be learned. Celebrate that we share our world, our neighbourhoods, our Meetings and our lives with such richness.

It is better to celebrate than to mourn.

Written September 2017

The Wise Child

There was once a village. The village sat on a road, and there was much traffic through the village as people travelled along that road. This brought wealth, as travellers stayed at the inn, and sometimes a traveller would decide to stay in the village longer, setting up a home and establishing a livelihood. Most of the villagers came from families who had lived in the village for generations, or who had married in from nearby villages.

In one of these families, there was a child. The family, and the child, were walking through the village one summer's day, greeting other families as they passed them in the street or walked past their houses. They passed the house of the local minister, and exchanged pleasantries as they were working on their garden. They passed the cottage of the teacher in the village school as they were hanging laundry, and complimented them on their work. They passed an elderly couple who were taking a similar walk, and respectfully exchanged greeting. They stopped at a village shop, and bought bread and cheese and fruit for lunch, and stone bottles of various drinks, and packed them in a basket they had brought, with a brightly coloured cloth they used for picnics; and the parents bought their child a wooden toy, and they exchanged news and gossip with the shopkeeper.

Then they passed a dyer's house, with great tubs in the yard, and the family stirring the cloth to be dyed, and they said nothing. The child asked, “why do we not greet them, as we go about our business and they go about theirs, and compliment them on the vivid colours and patterns they make on cloth?” The father replied, “that family came here from far away, and they are not like us; they do not worship as we do, and we cannot trust them.”

The child thought for a moment, and took out the cloth from the picnic basket. “Did they not dye this cloth, that we bought and use on days such as these? Do they not drink the same water we do, and also use it in their work?” The parents could not think how to respond, so the child took the cloth and turned to the dyer's family, held it up and said, “see this cloth you dyed; we will be using it today when we have our lunch, and it is wonderful to be able to picnic on such bright, happy cloth. I am glad that we could get such pretty cloth.” The dyer's family smiled, and thanked the child for their praise.

Countless Paths to God

Do not admonish them to be godly, but to be good.
Do not tell them to have faith, but to be faithful.
Do not advise them to follow your way, but to find their own.

For there are countless paths to God,
   and no-one can know them all;
And true faiths are innumerable,
   yet all are lived faithfully;

And the ways of God cannot be fully understood.

Yet this does not mean you should not speak.
Goodness speaks to goodness, and a faithful life speaks of God to all.
To share your way does not mean to seek to draw others to it.
Your way will be enriched by sharing theirs, and theirs by sharing yours.

Written March 2017

On Tolerance

If you wish to be tolerated, you must tolerate.

This does not mean that you must be silent and put up with intolerance. It does not mean that you cannot decry the misdeeds of those who do not tolerate. It merely means that, if you wish not to be excluded, you should not exclude.

This does not mean that you cannot sometimes set yourselves apart, especially if those times and places in which you do not exclude you. But seeking acceptance and toleration cannot rightly succeed if it does so by seeking to exclude others who are not set to exclude you. The only thing that should not be tolerated is intolerance.

Written January 2017