Reactions to my letter. 27/6/23
I wrote a letter to The Friend. It was published with an error on 28 April 2023.
The error was the addition of about 8 lines which had mysteriously been copied from another letter.
I wrote to the editor complaining about the addition, though I said I did not disagree with. I suggested the Editor might have added it to soften what I had written. The Editor swiftly replied to me with apologies for the mistake and assured me he would publish my letter correctly in next issue.
The leading dates below refer to dates of publication of issues of The Friend.
5 May 2023.
My letter was published correctly under the heading “Membership”.
The editor added a note apologising for the previous error and also wrote:
“Some Friends have found it a difficult read…Many apologies here, too.”
As to the content of my letter, a friend said he did not understand it, so I broke it down as follows.
Dear D.
“I think the reason you did not understand it was that it covers five different points. This is a bad mistake which I regret I often make.
“The first point is:
” I admire those attenders who are devoted to our Religious Society, who serve it in many ways, but who refrain from applying for membership because in all honesty they cannot accede to our God-centred religious basis.“
In this I make two contentious assumptions. 1. the reason they refrain from joining and 2. that we have aGod-centred basis. It is also contentious in that I am separating members form attenders.
Secondly I say,
“I deplore the fact that our procedures are such that avowed and even evangelical atheists can be and are admitted into membership.“
This is seen to go against the principle of inclusivity. But I don’t think any other organisation would accept into membership people who were actively opposed to that organisations’s ethos. (But that assumes that our ethos is “God-centred”.)
Thirdly,
“I consider that far too many attenders are permitted to attend Yearly Meeting. Once there, our decision-making process gives them as much weight as members. This will be particularly incongruous when the subject matter is in effect the fundamental basis of our form of Quakerism, or the basis of our membership. These topics will be inherent when we seek to approve a new version of our book of discipline. “
Again this is seen as non-inclusive.
Fourth:
“We have gone too far in accommodating ‘refugees from Christianity’. For at least thirty years we have refrained from using religious language for fear of upsetting them. Any expression of our religious basis is now so unusual as to seem almost offensive.”
Note that this is the assertion which has been most widely supported.
Finally:
“In the 1990s we almost entirely dropped ‘Jesus’ from Quaker faith & practice. If we now drop ‘God’ shall we still be able to present ourselves to Churches Together and to the interfaith community as ‘Religious’? Must we adhere to our Testimony to Truth by renaming ourselves ‘The Spiritual Society of Friends’?“
In fact we are partly dropping “God”. The Book of Discipline Revision Committee are proposing to use other words (and occasionally “God”) in various chapters of the new edition. .
I hope that clarifies my several opinions. Perhaps I am mistaken. But so far no-one (except one member of my local meeting) has questioned my assumptions. And as you point out, several letters (so far, five) have been published in support, which is pretty exceptional.
SP 8 June.
Issue dated 12 May 2023
In this issue three letters broadly support mine.
Under the heading ‘Quaker tradition” Roger Hill complains about our leadership’s contortion around the non-use of the word “God”.He writes, “Jesus had a personal relationship with God and the Quaker tradition similarly seeks to have a personal relationship with God”. He ends, “It is a mystery to me how we got into this false position and why we are so feeble not to defend our historical radiation.”
Under the heading “New meanings” Anne M Jones writes, “Stephen Petter is to be applauded for his outspokenness in querying the place of ‘atheist Quakers.” However she goes on to support change.
Under “Hard agree” David Abbot wrote, “Stephen Petter’s letter has a combative tone … but … there was some truth in it…. am an atheist … I hold on to Quakerism with gratitude, conscious it is … grounded in Christianity”.
19 May
Under “Apologies” the redoubtable Barbara Forbes started her letter with, “I am at a loss to know why you felt it necessary to to apologise for re-printing Stephen Petter’s letter about non-theists in membership” She goes on to point out that many letters which Friends might find “difficult to read” are published with no similar apology. “Does the fact that you felt you had to apologise actually reinforce the case made by our Friend that we are too afraid to challenge people who join us even though they are not following a religious path?” “If we try to avoid the difficult discussion … we don’t deserve to survive as a Religious society”.
26 May
Under “Quaker tradition” Jeanette Lock says Roger Hill’s letter “speaks to my condition”. “I find it sad … that we cannot express our Quaker Christianity in Meeting … for fear of upsetting someone”.
Under “Post Christian Quakerism” GeoffreyJohnson quotes several authors. “Ben Pink Dandelion argues that belief in God is no longer an appropriate measure within Quaker spiritual pluralism… ant that Quakerism is post Christian”.
I am sad that the discussion has turned to the question of Christianity. Though I think this is important I did not argue for Christianity in my letter, but for religion and God. I am a universalist and appreciate other religions especially Hinduism, but also Buddhism, paganism, and Judaism. -SP
Under “Apology” Richard Pashley writes,”I am sorry The Friend has to apologise for the distress caused [by] Stephen Petter’s letter. I agree with all of [his] comments… the Friend’s apology proves the point that Stephen Petter is rightly making namely that \any expression of our religious basis is so unusual as to seem almost offensive’.
June 2.
Under “Membership” Peter Moore supports my letter only where I suggested our society might more truthfully be renamed the Spiritual Society of Friends”. But he goes on to write, “There is also value in acknowledging Jesus … and prophets of other religions … it would be very dull if were we only to admit followers of Jesus”. He concludes by deploring the two class system of members and attenders.
June 9. The discussion seems to be hotting up!
Margaret Sadler under the heading “Quakers and Christianity” regrets “the feeling of reluctance to to talk about my belief in God and of being inspired by the teachings of Jesus, which to me are the backbone of our Religious Society of Friends. … if what has been our core belief for over 300 years is lost, and we become a secular meditation group … Quakers will be finished.”
Joanna Parker echoes Jeannette Lock’s and Roger Hill’s letters and quotes several passages from Advices and Queries in support.
Mike Glover writes, “I find it shocking that that there are some Quaker meetings where Friends are unable to express their beliefs … where Christian Quakers have to keep their thoughts to themselves …”
Gerald Drewett writes a long rather complex letter. He displays mystic insights. I very much agree with what he says. It includes, “Acknowledgement of the divine spirit of life must remain fundamental to the Society. I happen to call it God … and call myself a Quaker Christian. There may be other valid descriptions but seeking the guidance of the light within is fundamental to the Quaker way”.
June 16. The discussion gets deeper!
George Penaluna starts by saying it is sad Friends “not being able to talk about God or feeling excluded as Christian Quakers.” He than praises an article by Tony D’Sousa (26 May) which he says answers the question of what Quakers do. “Waiting in theLight we can encounter the divine … and find the word of God within … This rather than second hand through he Bible.”
Judith Smith echoes others in her regret that “some Friends feel afraid to speak of their Christian beliefs… [but] non-Christian Friends may also feel isolated.”
Daniel Hughes “Religious experience” states the case for a Quakerism more Christ-centred than mine. I think what he attributes to Christ I do to the Spirit.
Under “What’s in a name’ Keith Braithwaite starts with thanks that my letter was correctly published. He notes that “Christ” and “Jesus” appear in the current edition of QF&P only about half as many times as in the edition of 1883. From this he concludes that ‘the Society has rushed to abandon its Christian roots. (I disagree with this conclusion. The current edition asserts that Quakerism is rooted in Christianity, and in my opinion our current priorities are still very close to those suggested by Jesus.) However he says that “Christians are still a majority of our membership, I think”. George Fox said that Christ had come to teach his people himself. Keith asks “What kind of Christians might we Quakers be today if we all believed that proposition?
June 23. The latest issue as I write this.
Today, the only letter apparently in this discussion is from the much-respected Harvey Gillman. It is complex and undoubtedly “difficult” for me to read. For me it is quite obscure. He says he was once told never to mention God. He writes, “The woman who said this was in tears … I recognised a pain from years before”. I (present writer)n found it hard to continue until I had digested that. I asked myself, should this distress cause us all to prune our language rather than to try to convince ‘the woman’ that Quakers’ concept of God is very far removed from that which so pains her. Harvey goes on to say that many atheists had been oppressed by years of religious intolerance. But he then says, “I have met many from atheistic backgrounds who have embraced with enthusiasm a whole wealth of poetic metaphors about the divine.” His final paragraph is a series of pointed questions to which we would all answer positively, but which seem to me to be veiled criticism or direction, possibly directed at me. It’s a literary form much used by modern quakers – far from plain speech.
It has been a fascinating discussion! I am surprised that there has been so little rejection of what I wrote. Perhaps not surprised because just as Friends are over-keen not to upset those who dislike religious language, so Friends hesitate to argue with each other. A few years ago my area meeting newsletter had published many pieces of mine, which I knew to be contentious, While with the newsletter editor on a demo at Aldermaston I commented on this lack of opposition. Did no-one think I was mistaken? She replied that she had received much criticism for publishing my stuff.
I accept I could be mistaken over this matter. Maybe it is good that our society morphs into humanism, while retaining the practice of silent waiting and maintaining our tradition al peace and social justice t concerns. Maybe (if God is something which wants), God wants there to be an influential organisation carrying out the work he/she/it wants done, even if that organisation did not recognise God. Apparently some writers have declared that this transition has already occurred. I am concerned that we have not discussed it in Yearly Meeting, nor even in MfS, let alone agreed to this change of policy. I also wonder if the Charity Commission would be happy for us to abandon the “Purpose” that we agreed. (This Purpose is ‘to further the religious and charitable purpose of the RSoF’; for guidance as to what we meant by ‘religious’ reference was made to QF&P, which mentions God over 700 times. I would also regret us ceasing to be a religion, firstly because I love our Quakerism and secondly because it has done a huge amount of good in the world which many a peace, or social justice organisation has failed to do.
We must continue to put our trust in the proposition that virtues such as love and truth are the leadings of God. And since we have no regular induction or teaching practice other than reliance on the guidance of the Holy Spirit, we must urge Quaker Life and our Elders to act emphatically to nurture our religion. Certainly to cease to undermine it. They might start by discussion on modern concepts about God.
(That’s over 2000 words! Sorry but I did not have time to write less!)
PLEASE point out any errors – especially if I have mis-quoted anyone.
– Stephen Petter, Wolverhampton, 27 June 2023.
My Credo Blog 