“Think it possible you may be mistaken”
I think it possible that I think it too often. I labour through the many arguments that suggest I am mistaken, but I continually conclude I am not.
This is about a matter where I find many people who I respect write and argue for a position with which I cannot agree, a matter which I consider of extreme importance. It is what I see as the secularisation of the “Religious Society of Friends” (RSoF). Today I am prompted to drop other important work by a Twitter that seems to to be supported by one of those Friends I greatly respect. The writer of the Tweet describes himself as “Quaker. Humanist. Ap-atheistic, Agnostic Atheist. Secularist, Sceptic”. His tweet: “Arguing about God and religion can become very tedious. However, looking for common ground, for ways to collude in the cause of love, peace and justice in the world – that gets very exciting.”
I don’t find it ‘tedious’. I find it painful. I would enjoy looking for common ground were we in the same ball-park, were we in unity about essentials. When once the then secretary of Quaker Life told me to read the chapter on diversity in our book of discipline I felt vindicated, for it seems very clear to me that it discuses diversity within the realm or domain of religion. As both the Twitterer and I are in the same “Religious Society” I would expect our common ground to be our religion. As for the definition of ‘our religion” surely that is best defined by that same ‘book of discipline’, whose title is Quaker Faith…”.
That’s a rather longer preamble than I intended.
I am troubled by this secularisation on two grounds.
First, I have a background in Organisation, and much experience of governance issues especially within our Society. I see a major flaw in our form of Quakerism in that we do not have a learning functionality. In every other religion as far as I am aware the participants are regularly and frequently reminded of their doctrine, the purpose of their faith group. In secular organisations the same effect is achieve by the management structure. Traditionally this functionality was achieved by all Quakers being aware of the fundamentals of Christianity (e.g. the Gospels) plus their acceptance that virtues (such as love and truth) were the leadings or promptings of God, whose Light (Christ?) teaches and transforms them, and leads them to a new life. There was no need for human teaching – it was left to the Spirit (including vocal ministry channeling the Spirit’s guidance). But for the past few decades people have come into the Society not only unconvinced of the idea of a guiding Spirit but actively resistant to the very idea that such a power can exist. Friends assume that what they have witnessed at Quaker meetings is Quakerism. Presumably if they think about it at all, they assume our book of discipline is out of date. This despite our Society updating this publication every 30 years or so, whereas other faiths value their scriptures for their having been written centuries ago. What people do by simply attending Quaker meetings is known as “sitting by Nellie”. A better simile, “by Nellie’s great-great-neice”. The result is that most members of our Society are ignorant of Quakerism.
A second reservation in the realm of Organisation is that the direction of the Society is supposed to be discerned and directed by YearlyMeeting. I have attended almost every YM for the past 47 years and at no time have we agreed to become a humanist organisation. We broadly dropped Jesus last time we revised our book of discipline but so far we have not dropped God. Therefore in my opinion all our paid and unpaid officice-holders (including Elders) should “nurture our faith”.
A third organisational consideration is that at national (BYM) and local levels we have agreed with the Government (via the Charity Commission) to adhere to a defined Purpose, namely to ‘further the religious … purpose of the Religious Society of Friends’. That Purpose is best described by our book of discipline which now and that the time we made that agreement was the 1994 edition. “Quaker Faith and Practice” mentions God over 800 times, and does not mention anything similar other than The Spirit and Jesus or Christ. We are permitted to amend any part of our agreement other than our “Purpose”. So all our trustees, nationally and locally, should be ensuring our registered charities are devoting all their resources to our agreed purpose and not to any other issue (such as humanmism).
The religious basis of my concern (“Am I mistaken”) is less easy to explain. In addition to this essay I am preparing to give a short talk entitled “Is Unprogrammed Quakerism Doomed?”. My line will be, “It depends on what you mean by Unprogrammed Quakerism, and on what you mean by doomed”. As I have implied above, Quakerism could be defined as “what Quakers do”. A democratic definition; whatever the majority of people who have been accepted as members believe is right, is right. (Actually it is worse than that, because we permit non-members to take part in the highest level of our decision make, even it seems in decisions about the means by which we make decisions! Would ANY other organisation allow this?) With that definition, it is probably not doomed. It will carry on with a national body paid by its membership to go on doing the sort of good work the RSoF has always advocated. And the members will go on attending their Sunday morning meditation clubs and donating to the Society. One way in which I feel I may be mistaken is in considering this a bad thing. Maybe God as it were wants this. After all, it results in a lot of well intentioned people doing and paying for God’s work to be done, even though they believe no God exists. A person can shop happily unaware of their money that ends up in an idle capitalist’s tax haven. (P.S. I realise that is an utterly dreadful metaphor/simile. But it amuses me!)
But if by ‘Quakerism’ we mean what is described in our Book of Discipline (BoD) – and probably in our forthcoming new edition – then I believe it is doomed. Already it has almost disappeared. What is left is a pretence. As my Area Meeting’s representative on our area’s Churches Together organisation I sometimes feel I am betraying our testimony to truth. I know that many, probably most (but how can I know – we never discuss it) of my fellow Quakers do not wish us to be active in Churches Together and a few are definitely opposed. Similarly I sit and deliberate with other (mostly evangelical) church representatives aware that they assume I have the same faith as they do, a very real and close Jesus, an all powerful and omni-present God. But again, am I mistaken? My AM does support CT both financially and by appointing a representative. I can find Friends to support me in this difficult role. The other representatives on CT do seem to value having a Quaker in their midst, and my contributions to their deliberations. Maybe despite so many misconceptions, this is what God as it were wants. (P.S. I say ‘as it were’ because I don’t think God ‘wants’. An essay on what the word ‘God’ means to me would take up the second half of this day. ) ;
They say that our non-theists don’t know what it is they don’t believe in. That Friends who say they don’t believe in God don’t know what is meant by the word ‘God’. Some Quakers even seem to think that we mean it to be a male authoritarian all powerful, angry and jealous Lord in the Sky – or if not, that that is a suitable model of God. Have Quakers ever accepted that model? Do any thinking mainstream Christians hold to it? People throw bricks at Aunt Sally but they do not usually disfigure her then throw her away. Again, this is the fault of our modern Society not having an effective teaching mechanism. We might give a copy of our BoD to a newcomer but do we ensure they read it? Even university students need tutors to guide them in their reading. But again, am I mistaken? If many people think ‘God’ means a male autocrat, who am I to say they are mistaken? Is it I who am (is it me who is) mistaken again? My idea of ‘God’ might have changed over the past 40 years but maybe THE definition of ‘God’ has not. I have said I might find it acceptable if the new edition of our BoD replaces ‘God’ with ‘The Spirit’ (or the ‘Spirit’) but it would have to have a capital ‘S’. And am I mistaken in thinking these latter points matter at all?
I am aware that philosophers (including Quaker writers) argue what seems to me that all words can mean anything, depending only on who says them. I find this hard to accept. How can we discuss an issue if we don’t agree on the meanings of the words we use ? And if we cannot, how can we help each other develop our thinking?
What is the purpose of religion? I asked that early in my membership and was told that (according to MacMurray|) is is to make the world a better place. “Thy Kingdom Come”. But I have read much from Hinduism, and they seem to me to see the purpose being to get nearer to God, to achieve God-consciousness, to be one with God. (“I and my Father are one”. ) Can we do this without any guru. Would a dumb Guru be of use?
Of course living rightly is good (By definition, but le’s not explore that now.) But I expect my religious life to be something more than my Green Party political life.
I believe my faith group should nurture my faith, not undermine it. Am I mistaken in that belief?
My Credo Blog 