From Here To Nowhere?
A response to Diana Sandy’s article “From here to where” in The Friend, 8 July 2016.
I summarise Diana’s article as saying that we, the members of the Religious Society of Friends, Quakers, in Britain (RSoF) have a crisis of confidence, or corporate identity, based initially on ignorance of the Quaker environment, particularly our history. In early days the notion of ‘God’ was normal, “humans were more at one with their natural world then and accepted ‘spirituality’ as fundamental and normal”. Little of this is widely accepted today. “Indeed, many challenge these concepts as delusions”. Originally our structures enabled all Friends to be guided by the Spirit – that structure no longer exists. “For many, our Society has become a friendly society, a sort of Sunday Club. Does that matter?” Is it simply a crisis of confidence in the guidance of the Holy Spirit? Early Friends were not afraid to tackle issues head on. Now we are too afraid of hurting one another. Finally, she writes, we “are unclear about what the Society of Friends is for… it is time for us all to find out… to start addressing the issues …”.
(Apologies if this summary does not do justice to Diana’s carefully crafted article, but I hope it conveys the gist of it.)
Personally, I agree with almost all Diana says and assumes. Here I hope to further illustrate her assertions and to suggest a way forward.
I fully endorse her view that we have lost confidence in the guidance of the Spirit. In my former Local Meeting (LM) we discussed Meeting House improvements for at least 15 years, with several successive working parties and with expensive professional advice, resulting on several occasions in decisions reached in right ordering. But we never had the confidence to implement those decisions. However, when a professionally qualified Friend transferred to the Meeting, his proposals, very similar to those reached previously, were quickly accepted and implemented.
When I, as clerk of my present LM, posted a document containing the Bideford Statement, (which is somewhat similar to Diana’s article) with its endorsement by our Area Meeting Elders, a Friend of long standing and a former Quaker Life Representative took it down explaining it was too divisive. My then local Elders backed him in this. See also “Quakers’ Ignorance of Quakerism” on my blog friendstephen.wordpress.com which describes how two long-standing Friends rejected the assertion that the RSoF was Christian.
The assumption made by Diana which I do not accept is I think an example of the individualism which permeates our wider Western culture. Individualism has its place: we all agree with personal freedom and that each individual should be enabled to reach their full potential. But there other bases on which to make judgements. Diana seems to see the Society as only a set of individuals. I believe a more useful analysis of the state and future of the RSoF should start with a recognition that it is more than that. The RSoF is a ‘person’ in its own right. It has its own history, property, funds, officers and legal obligations separate from those of its members. BYM is formally recognised, registered, and controlled by the Government, in the agency of the Charity Commission. (The relationship between the RSoF and BYM is subtle but for all intents and purposes we can regard the two entities as one.)
The RSoF has a “Purpose” negotiated and agreed with the CC and documented in BYM’s Governing Document. It should be noted that BYM is not permitted to use any of its resources other than in furtherance of its agreed purpose. Also that each Area Meeting has a similar Governing Document which declares their purpose to be furtherance of BYM’s purpose. Yearly Meeting is entitled to amend any section of its Governing Documents except the “Purpose”.
The Purpose of BYM is ‘religious and charitable’. ‘Religious’ and ‘religion’ are terms with a very wide definition which the CC seems to accept. But when negotiating with them we defined our use of these words by pointing to “Quaker Faith and Practice” which is sub-titled our book of Christian discipline. (In fact the CC tend to use the sub-title. I shall refer to it as QF&P.)
So what is meant, in this context, by ‘religious’? First, there is the sub-title, which is pretty unambivalent. Secondly, the word ‘God’ occurs at least 700 time in QF&P, and any other similar Higher Power (other than ‘Spirit’) is not or is rarely mentioned. The word ‘Spirit’ (Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost) in the context of Christian language usually refers to God, or a part of God, or that which proceeds from God or Jesus. (As does the “Light”.) Thirdly, QF&P contains many references to the teachings and example of Jesus, and of his disciples. A recent article in The Friend suggested that George Fox was greatly influenced by St Paul’s writings. Then there is the title “Religious Society…”. A close association with the other Christian churches is maintained by BYM and the RSoF at most Area and many local levels. QF&P states that ‘we are rooted in Christianity”. Its section on Diversity clearly describes a diversity within the Christian domain. The section on applications for membership shows a similar attitude.
So the RSoF of which we are members is undoubtedly a corporate body with a clearly defined and virtually unchangeable (Christian) religious purpose. It is strong, well-resourced, well-staffed, and active.
The only (!) problem is that a very large proportion of its members are ignorant of these facts, or prefer to ignore them, or erroneously dismiss them as being out of date and irrelevant. A danger exists that these members may attempt to push through policies (or amendments to the Society’s Governing Document) that would not comply with its Purpose. Although, in my opinion, they could not legally succeed, the conflict would be at least depressing and a waste of resources, and at worst disastrous.
What do I propose? Firstly that Quaker Life Central Committee on behalf of BYM acts effectively to ensure that all members and established attenders are at least aware of the facts I have outlined above. Quaker Life issues much documentary material that supports these facts but does not ensure that their message gets through. Local Elders should accept similar responsibilities – to ‘nurture our faith’.
It needs to be emphasised that this does not mean that a member must accept that they are Christian. It is very common, indeed usual, for members of an organisation not personally to identify closely with the organisation’s aims. A communist can work for a capitalist employer to everyone’s satisfaction. Quakerism is inclusive. Quakers hope that newcomers will commit themselves to the form of worship which allows God to teach and transform them. Quakers exhort each other to trust that good values such as love and truth are the leadings of God, and that God’s Light will show them their darkness and lead them to a new life. These are Quaker aims but not exclusive rules.
Secondly, if and when our Yearly Meeting is to make a decision affecting our faith, such as whether to drop use of the word ‘God’, whether to withdraw from Churches Together, or to further relax membership criteria, then I consider that only members should take part. Not many other organisations would allow non-members to have an effective say on constitutional amendments.
Thirdly, I consider the RsoF needs urgently to introduce some form of learning mechanism. As far as I am aware every other religious body has some method of reminding its adherents of the purpose of their regular meetings and of the wider organisation. This does not mean we need a creed, but at very least Advices and Queries should be read out frequently, and applicants for membership required to have attended an introductory course which included some of our history, and an explanation of Quaker faith.
Daiana Sandys was correct in saying that for many our Society has become “a friendly society, a sort of Sunday Club”. I know that to be true of some of our attenders. But it is even more the case that it has become little more than a society of philanthropists and liberal reformers. These are admirable pursuits but are not all there is to Quakerism. My fourth suggestion is that those who want to be Quakers but cannot accept Quakerism’s Christian basis should form a separate Society, perhaps called the Spiritual Society of Friends (Reformed Quakers). The RSoF could maintain close links with the SSoF. Wealth from the RSoF should be passed to the SSoF in proportion to the number of Friends transferring their membership. QPSW could become largely independent of but supported by both, as is the case with QUNO and the AFSC, both of which report to several YMs.
Another option is to do nothing. Maybe God ‘wants’ (as it were) there to evolve a secular society with the aims and effectiveness that Quakerism acquired by being God-centred, Spirit-led, humble learners in the school of Christ. Maybe it’s OK to regard the purpose of Quakerism to be seeking to live up to the Testimonies. (The testimonies are the outcome of being a Quaker.) But I fear that without their conviction that Quakers are subject to the leadings of God Quakerism will lose the fire in its belly. Once its reputation, based as it is on Spirit-led good works in the past, grows cold, the Society might become no more effective than many another small group of do-gooders, or meditator circle.
My Credo Blog 