Curious not condemnatory: Tim Gee on why Quakers talk to other churches

‘I think interchurch engagement makes me a better Quaker.’

Part of my job is to talk to other churches, on behalf of international Quakers. On occasions in the lives of other world communions, I sometimes serve as a part of interchurch delegations. I am also often the contact point for multilateral processes. While Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC) is not a member of the World Council of Churches, for example, we are invited to send observers, which we often do. 

Representing Friends in these spaces isn’t entirely straightforward. Not all Quakers believe the same things. Some would even be hesitant about whether we should be speaking to other churches at all. If it is any consolation though, most of the denominations also span a similar breadth of perspective, and many of the tendencies within global Quakerism – evangelical, liberal, mainline and so on – also exist in other Christian bodies. 

I am also a little hesitant to call myself an ecumenist. On the local level, my experience of other churches hasn’t always been good. We could probably all list examples of things churches have said or done that have served to repel in one way or another. 

Ecumenical spaces are usually different, though. In these, on the whole, each person tends be curious rather than condemnatory about difference, and serious about working together on the things that we can to reduce conflict, and care for creation. 

These spaces will mean different things for different groups. For some (especially those who split from one another) they are a means to returning to being in communion. Some dream of full visible unity. Others see their engagement as limited to diplomacy and dialogue. 

Advices & queries simply asks, ‘Do you work gladly with other religious groups in the pursuit of common goals? While remaining faithful to Quaker insights, try to enter imaginatively into the life and witness of other communities of faith, creating together the bonds of friendship.’ So, I try to remain faithful to Quaker insights, while always seeking to respond to that of God in my neighbour. I don’t think Jesus wants us to quarrel. I also think it’s likely that conflicts – even wars – have been averted through relationships built in these settings. 

I also think interchurch engagement makes me a better Quaker. Answering questions about Quakers’ unusual takes on baptism, communion, priesthood and creeds, for example, makes me better at explaining them in ways that other Christians will understand. Sometimes these conversations have deepened my understanding. For example, in explaining that European-style Quakers do not baptise with water, a theologian from a denomination that definitely does reflected: ‘Do you know, I don’t think there is any mention in the Bible of Paul being baptised with water.’ I went back and checked. He was right. 

I also learn when I find things dissatisfying. I’ve attended services of other churches that have focussed entirely on sin, death and substitutionary atonement without once mentioning the things Jesus did and taught which point towards justice, peace and reconciliation. To me that feels profoundly incomplete, and I go home feeling uncomfortable, asking God: ‘What was your purpose in bringing me there?’ And I often get the same answer George Fox got: that it was needful I should have a sense of all conditions. 

I also feel reminded that Jesus taught that we should take the planks out of our own eyes before removing the speck from the eye of our neighbour. Haven’t I attended Quaker Meetings without Jesus’ ministry being mentioned either? Of course I have. And besides, there are plenty of folks in our neighbouring churches who also critique what is said from their pulpits. 

‘If it wasn’t for interchurch engagement, we wouldn’t have the building blocks of Quaker theology.’

In some ways this type of engagement marks a difference from the early days of Quakerism. George Fox was more inclined to stand on church pews to respond to sermons he disagreed with, rather than seeing them as prompts to self-reflection. But then – even then – there was much more interchurch dialogue than you might expect. Fox’s Journal notes his long discussions with priests and dissenters before realising that only Christ Jesus could speak to his condition. Even after that he records that the Quakers had ‘reasonings’ with Presbyterians, Independents, Seekers, Baptists, Episcopalians, Socinians, Brownists, Lutherans, Calvinists, Arminians, Fifth-monarchy-men, Familists, Muggletonians and Ranters. He did add, rather un-humbly, that none ‘would affirm they had the same power and Spirit the apostles had, and were in; so in that power and Spirit the Lord gave us dominion over them all’. Hopefully since then we have learnt a little humility. 

If it wasn’t for early interchurch engagement, we wouldn’t have the building blocks of our Quaker theology. The first written version of our peace testimony was written to the supreme governor of the Church of England – Charles Stuart. Robert Barclay’s An Apology for the True Christian Divinity was addressed to scholars, professors and theologians of other Christian groups. 

Then, in the second generation, came John Bellers, still celebrated today for advocating systems which would, much later, be created as the post-war welfare state, the NHS and the European Union. Back in 1710 he made a proposal for: ‘A General Council or Convocation of the different Religious Persuasions in Christendom, not to dispute what they differ about, but to settle the general principles they agree in, by which it will appear, that they be good subjects and neighbours, though of different apprehensions of the way to heaven.’

Eventually such a council was created, even though in the event Quakers in Britain declined to join it. One of our most eloquent modern articulations of faith, though – the 1987 text ‘To Lima with Love’ – was originally a response to a World Council of Churches consultation. 

And of course many of the famous Quaker campaigns were partnerships, not least the anti-slavery campaign, which Quakers supported but was fronted by other types of Christians who were perceived to be more respectable. The Fellowship of Reconciliation, Christian CND and Jubilee 2000 are just three examples of joint projects since.

That’s the kind of ecumenism I absorbed growing up – to enjoy common cause and mutual spiritual enrichment with the likes of Pax Christi, Anglican Pacifist Fellowship, the historic peace churches, Christian Aid and so on, many of whose values closely align with Friends.   

This seems to be a rather comfortable form of engagement, though. Serious peacemaking involves loving all our neighbours, not just the folk who are already our friends. Working with churches who are on the surface of it quite different, is doing the hard work of peace. 

From 13-15 March 2026, Friends who either do ecumenical and interfaith engagement, or are interested in it, will meet for the Quaker Committee for Christian and Interfaith Relations conference, open to all. By then I hope to be able to share the peace project I’ve been working on, as well as being able to enjoy the space to learn from one another and to plan forwards in these difficult times. I hope to see you there.

---

Tim Gee is the general secretary of FWCC.

---

Comments

Excellent article, but: ” ‘Do you know, I don’t think there is any mention in the Bible of Paul being baptised with water.’”
Acts 9:18. (Annoying, but true.)

By Tas Cooper on 31st January 2026 - 16:00

---

Please login to add a comment