Theology by a non-theologian

My Theology by a non-theologian,

I am neither intellectual nor intelligent and certainly not a theologian but I shall share my ‘theological’ opinions in the hope they may be of interest and maybe even assistance to some readers.

“Theology” is the study of “Theo” and “Theo” means “God”. So the first question is what does the word “God” mean. An even more basic question is what does “mean” mean. The accepted academic meaning of a word can be found by reference to a dictionary. I used to point to my dictionary’s definition of God, “(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.”

However mean or meaning is actually whatever happens. Dictionary definitions give guidance as to a generally accepted meaning but if you and I both think Carlisle is in Scotland then when I mention Carlisle we both accept that I mean a town in Scotland. Problems arise when we have differing understandings of the meaning of words. We cannot usefully talk about “God” if our understandings of that word are too incongruent. I now accept (I used not) that I and all those with whom I have contact and an interest do not mean when they use the word “God” that we are using that dictionary definition. Should we therefore abandon the word “God”, or should we seek a mutually acceptable definition?

I consider that for we Quakers to abandon use of the word ‘”God” simply because many people mis-understand it would be foolish. What better word might replace it? The best candidate is “Spirit”. But since “Spirit” (and “spirit”) has a great many meanings, from whiskey to the Holy Ghost, we would simply be abandoning any attempt at reaching adequate meaning. We could as well go the whole hog and use the word “thingamy-jig”.

As Quakers, why not agree to use the word as used by our “book of Christian discipline” the current edition of which is call “Quaker Faith and Practice” (“QF&P”). It uses “God” over 700 times. We could use a computer to find and replace all mentions of “God” with “Spirit”. Then when anyone asked what we meant by “Spirit” we could reply, “God”.

Far better to help newcomers to Quakers understand what we mean by “God”. One way of defining it, better than attempting a dictionary-type explanation, would be to advise them to read QF&P and consider the context wherever the word appears.

To go back to consideration of the dictionary definition, I am not much interested in whether God is the Creator. It seems to be irrelevant to me, now. How the universe came into existence, and how life evolved, are interesting scientific questions but they have no practical relevance to what I am to do today.

Nor do I understand God to be a ruler. This concept has led to anguish, because if God is the ruler of all then God must be responsible for catastrophes and evil, such as a tsunami or the holocaust. If a person has a heart attack during a concert does one blame the conductor?
Nor do I understand God to be the source of all moral authority though I do see God as being the source of ‘good’ morality. As for ‘supreme being’ I am not sure I understand that concept. I might accept ‘essential being’, or ‘ground of all being’. ‘Supreme being’ seems to mean the same as ruler; the lord of all beings.

Those definitions play to the anthropomorphic model of God which is typified by the God of the Old Testament, an all-powerful male, given to anger and jealousy and obsessed with sin; a control-freak. Quakers have never understood God to conform to that image.

I warm to Advice 1 in QF&P in which we are exhorted to “trust” that God is whatever it is that prompts us and leads us towards good moral values such as love and truth. “Take heed, dear friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts. Trust them as the leadings of God…”.
Here God is seen as a prompter rather than a ruler. In the theatre a prompter sits hidden, patiently, in the wings, available to assist the actors when needed. God ‘leads’ rather than rules.

A most significant word in Advice 1 is ‘trust’. It might have said ‘accept’ or believe’ or even ‘obey’.
I think “trust” means accept as a working hypothesis something which one realises might possibly be untrue. Just as we have many very similar organisations such as Building Societies to choose from in which to trust the safekeeping of our wealth, so we have many philosophies, religions, and ideologies to chose from when deciding which, if any, to follow. We know Building Societies sometimes fail. We do not ‘know’ they are reliable, but we decide to ‘trust’ one of them to be adequately so. The choice can be fairly arbitrary and even irrational. I assert that Quakers are the set of people who have decided to trust that “these are the leadings of God, whose Light shows us our darkness and leads us to a new life”, – to quote the remainder of Advice 1. We might have chosen to trust Buddhism, or humanism, or Roman Catholicism, or Marcus Aurelius, but we agree to trust QF&P’s advice and discipline.

So at least we understand that ‘God’ is the word used to stand for whatever it is that prompts us morally and leads us; something whose “Light” shows us where we are going wrong and which helps us change for the better. (I shall leave out for the time being the question of whether God’s “Light” means Jesus.)

I do not believe evil exists as a force in its own right. Just as cold is no other than absence of heat, so evil is absence or perversion of good.

Seeking more enlightenment about God I accept that all we do not and probably cannot know the what, why, when or where of God. God is incomprehensible. All we know of God is God’s effects on us, i.e. those occurrences which we trust are God’s leadings and promptings. I believe God is available to prompt and lead everyone and anyone. But some actors may have forgotten they have a prompter in the wings of the stage, or may choose to ignore the prompter and ad lib. We may accept God’s leadership or we may drop out and go our own way. Or perhaps we do not follow those God’s promptings because we are deaf.

We cease to be deaf to God’s promptings when we open ourselves to God. All religions have practices which aim to do this, whether by song, or prayer, or scriptural reading, or by listening to sermons, etc. Some people do so by meditation, by listening to music, or by walking in hills or on a beach, etc. I believe Quakers have found a most effective way,perhaps the most effective way. It is very similar to eastern meditation. One sits quietly, preferably with like-minded friends, empties one’s mind of trivia, and opens it to those ‘promptings’. It is as if we have a sixth sense organ which can detect them. But discriminating God’s promptings from other notions we may have is difficult, and prone to error. So Quakers have a system we call discernment to help sort out what is not genuinely ‘of God’. The first sentence of QF&P reads, “As Friends* we commit ourselves to a way of worship which allows God to teach and transform us… All our testimonies* grow from this leading.”

To return to further consideration of God. I have accepted that God is incomprehensible, and I have firmly rejected the Old Testament and Dictionary definition or metaphors/models of God. I have said one way to understand how God can affect us is to read QF&P noting the context of all mentions of God.

My current model sees God as somewhat similar to Gravity, the nature of which incidentally is also largely unknown. Gravity is universal. It affects all objects including us, and draws them together. However it can easily be thwarted. We can stop a jar from falling to the floor by placing it on a shelf. We can even throw things up, away from the pull of gravity. Similarly we can easily inhibit God’s potential effect on us, or act contrary to it. However this model is incomplete since it ignores how God can be personal. God can ‘hear’ and respond to me personally. It has been asked whether a God who created the whole universe would be interested in me, or in every living creature – even every stone. An eastern, e.g. Hindu, answer is that it is possible because everything is God, God is everything. When we see how in a few recent decades computers have increased in power and capacity it seems not impossible that something could be cognisant of everything, at least of all humans. Rather than say God is everything, or that everything is a manifestation of God, Quakers go only so far as to say ‘there is that of God in everyone’. I understand the phrase “that of God” as being like saying there is that of Bangladeshis in many countries. They form vibrant communities in countries such as Britain, Canada, Doha, where they have effect, but they remain emotionally and culturally close to Bangladesh, visiting it frequently. God is ‘out there’ but there is also ‘that of God’ ‘in here’, ‘in me’. To stretch the concept further, there is ‘that of’ the broadband network in my house. Similarly to the broadband fibres and the WiFi radiation which carry messages between me and the vast internet, so I see the people I meet, know and love, and who relate to me, as the communication links with the divine. God’s love of me comes not only in my feeling that I have a personal Comforter, but through all these people who relate to me. I do not think I have any more to say about God.

I do not believe in (i.e. I do not trust in) there being life after death nor in reincarnation. I feel shaky about this rejection as I have heard many very plausible accounts of spiritual experiences such as out-of-body ones, and people’s apparent memories of their past life experiences. Karma is a clever concept as it explains why bad things happen to good people, and vice versa. If it were true then I must have been very good in my previous life, as I have had a very blessed life this time.

It seems all religions face their followers with rewards for good behaviour, such as going to heaven, or being reborn higher up the spiritual scale towards Nirvana. Some also threaten punishment such as hell or being reborn as a worm in a dung-heap. I cannot declare these doctrines to be untrue but nor do I base my life on them.

But that leaves the question: why be good if there is no reward nor any punishment for being bad? I do not have a good answer to this, but I feel that becoming a Quaker is a bit like joining the army. Why one decides to join is one question. There are many reasons including family background, economics, patriotism etc. Once the decision is made to be a Quaker one accepts one has put oneself under the leadership, not of sergeants and generals but of God’s Holy Spirit. Just as one has to try to get one’s uniform as smart as the drill sergeant’s so one strives to follow the teachings and example of Jesus. One need not think, one either accepts (“heeds the promptings of live and truth”) or asks to be released.

Nuff said!
Stephn, 29/6/2017

*”For Quakers, “Friend” means “fellow-member”
“Testimonies” are those morals and behaviour patterns which Friends actually adopt, and which attest to their acceptance of God’s guidance. These are typiclly Peace, Equality, Truth and Simplicity.