Vindication!

I might often appear over-confident, even arrogant, for which I apologise (can’t undo my genes) but in fact I know myself to be ignorant, especially of philosophy, theology, and sociology. Despite this, as a dedicated Quaker, I find myself led to pronounce (minister?) on subjects which involve these specialisms. But did not George Fox rile against ‘professors’?

Often I have felt compelled to argue against an accepted wisdom, breaking the comfortable harmony of a meeting, causing it to end on a sour note – sour if only in the form of anger at me – rather than universal bonhomie. I leave such meetings feeling wretched. More perhaps than most, I like to be loved and appreciated. Now, yet again, I have put myself beyond the pale. Why? Is it me allowing the Spirit to ‘speak’ through me? Not that I have knowledge and skills but that I, with a degree of recklessness, do I allow God to ‘teach and transform us’ through me? Or am I simply an opinionated reactionary curmudgeon, too fond of the sound of his own voice? Is what I say ill-informed, even heretical? Am I mistaken? Should I leave the Society?

I have frequently suffered this agonising. But the reason I do not leave, the reason I continue to put myself into situations where this compulsion to speak out is liable to afflict me once again, is that I continually get vindication of my words. Several times, as we departed from a session of Meeting for Sufferings, of which I was a member some years ago, my feeling of wretchedness, having provoked the clerk’s irritation and Friends’ tut-tutting and sighs of exasperation, weighty Friends (senior staff, or committee clerks) would quietly give me words of encouragement, other members would thank me for having said what they might have. Policies I have been led to advocate have almost always become accepted later. (Ask me for examples.)

In recent years I have been writing about what I see as a serious threat to British Quakerism; the spread of non-theism. I believe this is due to ignorance, especially ignorance about the Quaker understanding of the word ‘God’. Many Friends have absurdly anachronistic ideas about it. I believe each of us, and Quaker Life department in particular, have a duty (if only as it were under the Trades Description Act) to inform enquirers, attenders and all members of the true nature of corporate Quakerism – the Purpose of BYM as specified in its Governing Document, and more fully illustrated in “Quaker Faith and Practice”. (Something which particularly riles non-theists is when I remind them of the sub-title of QF&P – our ‘book of Christian discipline’ which incidentally is the term used officially to describe it.)

(Incidentally, at the recent YMG I went to the series of meetings convened by CCIR and the Non-theist Network. As a result of the presentations and other attendees’ assurances, my feeling that the non-theists posed a serious threat was lessened.)

After that long-winded prologue, I come to the point of this essay. Vindication! I will simply quote a passage from this year’s Swarthmore Lecture, given by our leading (or at least, one of our three leading) practical theologians, Ben Pink Dandelion. (Page 65)

“…we may undo the very means to what it is we are about. Given how far we have lost a counter-cultural stance, and given how far a secular world courts us, it is a challenging time to be a Quaker. It may be difficult for us to assert our distinctives. I am suggesting that in some of the ways we now approach the corporate Quaker life, it looks and feels as if we have taken the secularisation of wider society into the very heart of the way we approach or faith and practice. Our book of discipline is grounded and centred on a collective experience of God over several centuries. The varied response of individual Friends to that coherent body of wisdom places a strain on our coherence as a church, and moves us further towards a secular individualism.”

How I agree with and welcome this passage. Joy!

I would draw attention to his specification of ‘corporate’. While remaining inclusive and non-credal with respect to individuals, I believe it is vital that corporately, BYM retains its ‘Religious’ essentials, in accord with to our current QF&P.

I also see an irony in his mention of ‘corporate Quaker life’ – I might have dared to spell it ‘Life’.

He talks of the ‘varied response of individual Friends to that coherent body of wisdom’ – I might have said the ‘widespread woeful ignorance and arrogant dismissal of QF&P’.

Friends, we must not simply advise people to read the book of this Lecture. We are too prone to pushing literature at Attenders rather than engaging with them. People don’t read nowadays. We need to accept our role as the priesthood of all believers, and tell people the religious essentials of corporate Quakerism.

Stephen Petter, 21/8/14

Response to Responses (re non-theism, etc)

Theism/non-theism again, again, again …

Rather than plague the many Friends who find the theism/non-theism debate in The Friend boring and irritating, I have decided to confine this reply to my blog.

Comments welcome! I would like few things better than to be convinced I am mistaken in my fear that the spread of non-theism will seriously debilitate Quakerism.

I have a problem: something which baffles me and also angers me.

Often, a week or two after a letter from me has been published in The Friend, there appears a response which commences by critically mentioning me by name and goes on to misrepresent what I have said, and then states opinions, beliefs and activities about which – here’s the difficult part – about which I do not disagree, in fact often with which I completely agree!

The effect of this which troubles me is that anyone reading such a letter, unless they clearly and completely remember what I had said in mine, which is unlikely, will assume that I must have opinions contrary to those expressed in the responding letter.

Why do these Friends respond to my letters in this manner? I suggest three possible reasons.

Firstly, could it be that they are cynically adopting a devious technique to discredit me, without actually lying?

Model: “I object to Stephen Petter implying XYZ. I believe ABC”. Readers’ assumption: Stephen opposes ABC.

Or, secondly, are they simply thoughtless and careless of the truth? I think probably not, as most of these have been well-informed Friends.

Or thirdly, perhaps there was one word or phrase in my letter which so rattled their cages that they rushed a letter of opposition, but quickly found that there was so little they could say against my offending words that they had little option but to express at length their own, uncontroversial views.

To copy out these letters in order to demonstrate my case would be tedious. But taking the most recent one, published in The Friend on 14 August, in reply to mine on 25 July, the writer, Toni Calam commences:
“Stephen Petter’s letter implies that to accept those of non-Christian beliefs and views into membership … is inconsistent with our understanding of the Society’s purpose.”

By saying ‘implies’ she avoids being accused of mis-quoting me. In any case, in what way did my letter have the implication of which she accuses me? I said nothing of the sort. What I said was, “to our shame we have encouraged people to join our Society while not ensuring they understand its purpose”. I then went on to deplore the widespread ignorance of the content of our ‘handbook’ -”Quaker Faith and Practice”. She then goes on at considerable length to describe her understanding of Quakerism, to virtually all of which I agree.

But why her accusation of me? Using the ‘cage-rattled’ explanation, was she upset by my mention of ‘God’ in my comment that a Friend had quoted part of Advice 1 but ignored the second part (‘trust them as the leading of God’)? Or was she rattled by the word ‘Christian’ which I used when quoting the sub-title of “Quaker Faith and Practice”? Does quoting that title really imply what she says it does?

If a Friend finds words such as ‘Christian’, or ‘God’ surprising and offensive in this, a Religious Society, and an active, leading church within the Christian community in Britain then maybe that Friend is one of the ill-informed.

I also mentioned, “…the essentials of Quakerism – being God-centred, Spirit-led” which is entirely typical of Quaker literature, and “humble learners in the school of Christ” which is a quotation found in QF&P. To be ‘in the school of’ defines a very broad and inclusive domain. A Sikh child can be a learner in an Anglican School.

QF&P Chapter 11 which is about applying for membership says, “Membership is still seen as … a discipline within a broadly Christian perspective…”, and it also says, “Membership is also a way of saying … that you accept at least the fundamental elements of being a Quaker: … divine guidance… equality of all before God”. If I was implying anything other than stating it plainly it was to regret that many Friends have not been made aware of this. It is Quakerism, our religion. Many mainstream Christians do not accept us as Christian, since we do not repeat prayers, nor a creed, nor sing hymns etc. But the fact is that corporately (NB ‘corporately’) we are an active, in fact a leading, denomination of the Christian community in Britain.

The leaders of the other churches leant over backwards, including altering their constitution, to get us to join them. In my opinion they realised that many members of BYM are more Christian (acting more in line with the teachings of Jesus) than many members of their churches.

But another fact is that not all members wish to identify themselves a Christian. It is not unusual for members of a community, association or company not to identify with their organisation’s aims. That’s fine. But it is not fine for them to oppose the organisation’s aims.

I do not say everyone should ‘be a Christian’, or not have non-Christian beliefs, but I do think it important that people joining our Society are clearly informed of its nature and purpose.

What staggers me is how and why people such as Toni Calum state their beliefs as she does in her third paragraph (too long to quote here) as if arguing with me, when in fact I agree with every word she writes. What makes her think that I might disagree? Is the word ‘Christian’ such a terror?

She ends by asking if the Society became ‘meditating groups of gently social reformers’ (my words) “in what way would that be inconsistent with the teaching of Christ?” Of course it would not be inconsistent! I have said nothing to that effect. But it would be very much less than the vibrant Society founded by George Fox.

A similar case was the reply I received after I wrote to one of the department heads in Friends House, with the suggestion that they had failed in their responsibility to ensure enquirers were adequately informed of our religious Purpose and our Christian basis. The reply urged me to read Chapter 27 of QF&P, which is on Diversity. But it is patently clear in this chapter that the diversity advocated is within the domain of our religious basis. It is not ‘anything goes’. Throughout QF&P there are innumerable mentions of God, many of Jesus, a declaration that we are rooted in Christianity and as far as I am aware no advocacy of humanism or any other religion than Christianity. What is so wrong of me to remind people of these facts especially when I observe them being kept from them, presumably to maintain our membership, even at the cost of losing our identity?

A third example   …
I break off here. I have not been good at filing my letters and their responses, and cannot find the one from which one wished to quote.
I hope to complete this at a later date. But meanwhile I want to write on something relating to this year’s Swarthmore Lecture.

– Stephen Petter, 21/8/14.

My letter to The Friend, published July, 2014
If clerks accept that their job is to discern the will of God, then our non-theistic members may be disappointed when we review “Quaker Faith and Practice”. But if they accept that their job is to reflect the sense of the meeting (which is close to democracy) then it is Quakers whose convictions are as mine who will suffer. Our defeat will be well-deserved because to our shame we have encouraged people to join the Society while not ensuring they understand its purpose.

Many Friends are ignorant of the content of our ‘book of Christian discipline’ and some others choose to ignore those parts they will not accept. Hence a recent letter in which the writer quoted Advice 1’s “Take heed … to the promptings of love and truth” while ignoring the next sentence, the exhortation, “Trust them as the leadings of God”. Many Friends reject the very concept of discipline. Some, though likeable, sincere, often admirable, while pointing out how their attitudes and actions are those of Quakers, insist on rejecting the essentials of Quakerism – being God-centred, Spirit-led “humble learners in the school of Christ”.

Some Friends insist Quakerism is not about action, not belief. But Quaker action is the result of allowing God to teach and transform us. If corporately we abandon the traditional basis of our convictions, and morph into meditating groups of gentle social reformers, we as individuals and the world at large will have suffered a grievous loss.