Letters - 09 June 2023
From Quakers and Christianity to Guidance of the light
Quakers and Christianity
My thanks to all those contributors who have raised the question of Quakers and Christianity.
I too have experienced (but in another Meeting) the feeling of reluctance to talk about my belief in God and of being inspired by the teachings of Jesus, which to me are the backbone of our Religious Society of Friends. It does seem that those of us who feel similarly have been backward in expressing our views, mainly because of the desire to listen to others’ views and not to cause upset. This has resulted in not speaking out when perhaps we should have. I suggest that it is important in ministry we should remember to use the word ‘l’ and not ‘we’ to avoid assuming everyone else agrees with us.
Number 17 of Advices & queries, which includes the words ‘When words are strange or disturbing to you, try to sense where they come from and what has nourished the life of others’, surely applies to all.
I strongly believe that, if what has been our core belief for over 300 years is lost, and we become a secular meditation group, the Society of Friends (Quakers) will be finished.
Margaret Sadler
Friends’ way of worship
In the 26 May edition of the Friend, Mary Stone seeks a short, accurate and engaging description of what we do in Meeting for Worship.
In Cork Meeting, we recently agreed to run notices in a number of publications that have space for free, very short ads. The wording we will be using is ‘We connect with God in shared silence and stillness.’
Denise Gabuzda
Centring down
Mary Stone’s letter (26 May) about how Friends describe Quaker worship gave me welcome pause for thought.
I’ve found the concept of ‘centring down’ to be a great guide in my own pursuit of stillness, and now I tend to describe the experience (at least as I find it) of worship as ‘centring down into an inner stillness’ and explain that Friends typically find it is in that state of inner stillness that we are best able to be in direct communication with God – both collectively, and worshipping alone.
Like Mary, I look forward to hearing/reading how others articulate their experience of worship.
Ashleigh Luther
Spirit-led ministry
I was shocked by Jeanette Lock’s letter (26 May), also referring to that of Roger Hill (12 May).
She writes that ‘we cannot express our Quaker Christianity in Meeting or discussion groups for fear of upsetting someone’, and feels ‘uncomfortable expressing my spirit-led leadings in ministry’.
This is sad and confusing, as Advices & queries (A&q) 12 states that all at Meeting should ‘receive the vocal ministry of others in a tender and creative spirit. Reach for the meaning deep within it, recognising that even if it is not God’s word for you, it may be so for others.’ And in A&q 16, ‘Do you welcome the diversity of culture, language and expressions of faith in our yearly meeting… seek to increase your understanding and to gain from this rich heritage and wide range of spiritual insights?’ And in A&q 9, ‘we… respond to the promptings of the Holy Spirit.’
All of which support her spirit-led ministry.
I wonder what has happened at Meeting to have this effect.
Joanna Parker
The whole spectrum
I can hardly believe what I am reading in some recent letters in the Friend. I find it quite shocking that there are some Quaker Meetings where Friends are unable to express their beliefs for fear of upsetting someone else in the Meeting. Are there really Quaker Meetings where Christian Quakers have to keep their thoughts to themselves? Are there really Quaker Meetings where Friends who are not happy with God language have to keep their silence? Shame on us if this is the case.
In Huddersfield Meeting we have the whole spectrum from avowedly Christian to those not happy with God language and every shade in between. We value our diversity, love each other and learn from each other, Meeting together in ‘worship’, thinking on ‘whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honourable, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure…’
We are all part of, and belong to, our Meeting. I naively assumed that this was the norm.
Mike Glover
A purpose beyond profit
We noted with interest Robert Ashton’s letter in the Friend of 5 May, with its reference to ‘a purpose beyond profit’ in a historical Quaker context. We would like to develop this concept, in a wider context than Quaker networks.
The lack of an acknowledged ‘purpose beyond profit’ in the way business is organised and run is inherent in its nature, as business is centred on the profit motive. The recognition that such a ‘purpose beyond profit’ could exist in a business environment is contrary to present-day business ethics, which, regrettably, place profit and dividends above all else.
Quaker values, if recognised, would support workers’ rights and the public good at the expense of immoral levels of dividends and managers’ salaries and bonuses. Let us do what we can to get the concept of ‘a purpose beyond profit’ recognised as a very desirable aim for any moral business. See Advices & queries 37: ‘Do you use money and information entrusted to you with discretion and responsibility?’; number 39 says, ‘Resist the desire to acquire possessions or income through unethical investment, speculation or games of chance’; and number 42, ‘Show a loving consideration for all creatures, and seek to maintain the beauty and variety of the world. Work to ensure that our increasing power over nature is used responsibly…’
Quaker faith & practice 20.56, with its references to the good of others and the community at large, also applies here.
Lesley & Henry Woledge
Guidance of the light
The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) was historically a movement of God’s spirit before it became a religious institution. This moving of God’s spirit said that the established church had lost its roots and had become institutionally self-serving. Even before this Quaker movement failed in its attempt to reform the institutional church, there were good reasons for organising the movement on a community basis. Participants were those who sought a direct relationship with God’s spirit, known to Quakers as the light within. When the passage of time necessitated the formation of a Quaker institution, participation became defined as membership with the understanding that individuals seeking the guidance of the light within remained fundamental.
The worldview of the twenty-first century is different from that of the first to the fourth centuries and we now understand more fully that God is spirit and present in everything (panentheism). For many people perhaps it is not apparent that much first- and fourth-century baggage is no longer necessary and that world Christianity has many so-called orthodoxies. All the orthodoxies acknowledge the guidance of God’s holy spirit; Quakers simply call that spirit ‘the light within’ and perhaps appear to hold it even more fundamentally than the orthodoxies do.
Human life is essentially one part of a spiritual journey because that which we know as God is that spirit of life which is upholding all life. As an advanced octogenarian I can look back and see the journey very clearly and I know that it will never finish. I know that ‘whatever you call it’ (the light within, the holy spirit) has prompted me all the way, even without me realising it.
Perhaps I am fortunate to have had that relatively common spiritual experience of the oneness of creation in which my individuality, for an indescribable split second, disappeared, and I was absorbed into something greater. The experience is inscribed on my soul. I know that God exists and upholds the integrity or oneness of creation.
Acknowledgement of the divine spirit of life must remain fundamental to the Society. I happen to call it God and for coming up to fifty years have regarded myself as a Quaker Christian.
There may be other valid descriptions but seeking the guidance of the light within is fundamental to the Quaker way.
Gerald Drewett
Comments
I started attending 22 years ago, as a believing Christian. I held the view that nontheists should not be in a “religious” society. Then one said to me, “It’s not a question of why we join, but why we stay”.
Now, I do not believe in God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and Earth, or in a conscious afterlife, or in, say, supernatural effects of prayer or “holding in the light”. I stay because I believe there is something in each human that calling it “that of God” is not hyperbole, and that we can reach it and express it through Quaker practices. I believe that even if the explanation most Friends before the late 20th century had of this- an almighty creator- is untrue, the observation of the power and beauty of the human being is true.
If we talked after worshipping together, Margaret Sadler and I might come to see where our experience was similar, whatever words we used to describe it. Speculating alone or with people who agree with us, then disputing in the pages of The Friend or on facebook, our differences will be emphasised.
I do not believe that Jesus is “consubstantial and coeternal with the Father” but a man in touch with the inner light. Many Quakers over a longer period have not been Trinitarian. We could go down rabbit-holes of phenomenology, epistemology, ontology, or we could share experiences of the Light.
By Abigail Maxwell on 8th June 2023 - 8:46
Friend speaks my mind.
By Keith Braithwaite on 8th June 2023 - 9:56
It’s worth noting that the “religious” in Religious Society of Friends is only really used in secular contexts. Our books of discipline, all the way back, refer only to the Society of Friends, except on the notice of publication, where there’s talk of “London Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends” or such.
My inference is that the church (which is the people) is the Society of Friends, and the Religious Society of Friends is the secular arm that does things in the world. Today, “Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers)” is the name of a registered charity, a secular body and creature of statute law. Our church is still the Society of Friends.
By Keith Braithwaite on 8th June 2023 - 12:15
Could anyone clarify for me, what is our status in relation to the Charities Commission?
Is it not the case that we are allowed certain freedoms, to engage in activities ‘in the world’ not because we are viewed as a secular organisation but rather because we are registered as a ‘religious’ organisation?
If we are a secular body, in a social stance, then it might be necessary to point this out to the Commission.
In terms of ‘truth and integrity’ ought we not make it plain what we are?
By GStuartJ on 8th June 2023 - 13:26
QFP 8.02: “the charitable object of Britain Yearly Meeting is ‘the furtherance of the general religious and charitable purposes of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain and beyond’. The full governing document and explanatory notes are available from the Recording Clerk and the BYM website.”
Charities Act 2011, s3:
1)A purpose falls within this subsection if it falls within any of the following descriptions of purposes—
(a)the prevention or relief of poverty;
(b)the advancement of education;
(c)the advancement of religion;
(d)the advancement of health or the saving of lives;
(e)the advancement of citizenship or community development;
(f)the advancement of the arts, culture, heritage or science;
(g)the advancement of amateur sport;
(h)the advancement of human rights, conflict resolution or reconciliation or the promotion of religious or racial harmony or equality and diversity;
(i)the advancement of environmental protection or improvement;
(j)the relief of those in need because of youth, age, ill-health, disability, financial hardship or other disadvantage;
(k)the advancement of animal welfare;
(l)the promotion of the efficiency of the armed forces of the Crown or of the efficiency of the police, fire and rescue services or ambulance services;
(m)any other purposes—
(i)that are not within paragraphs (a) to (l) but are recognised as charitable purposes by virtue of section 5 (recreational and similar trusts, etc.) or under the old law,
(ii)that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes falling within any of paragraphs (a) to (l) or sub-paragraph (i), or
(iii)that may reasonably be regarded as analogous to, or within the spirit of, any purposes which have been recognised, under the law relating to charities in England and Wales, as falling within sub-paragraph (ii) or this sub-paragraph.
By Abigail Maxwell on 8th June 2023 - 14:02
Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) is a registered charity, Nº1127633. It’s aims are:
“Sustaining our church and faith; Supporting Quaker meetings; Promoting Quakerism; Witness through Action.”
It was said at Yearly Meeting that that BYM used to be an “exempt charity” which meant that we weren’t answerable to the Charity Commission, although still bound by law. The exempt charities are things like universities, the national museums (V&A, the Tate, Kew Gardens, that sort of thing) and a few other institutions.
The Governing Document is wildly unhelpful. It says that:
* The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain refers to the church […]
* Britain Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Qaukers) refers to […] the charity […]
I think that this language is wrong, ahistorical, has caused a great deal of unnecessary confusion, and if I’d been on Sufferings in 2006 I’d have been moved to object strongly to it. Anyway, BYM is a Registered Charity, it does things in the world like employ people, own property, spend money, publish books. The (Religious) Society of Friends is a church. It is people sharing their spiritual journey.
Just to muddy the waters even more QF&P 11.04 says: “An individual, of any age, becomes a member of their area meeting, and through it of Britain Yearly Meeting […]” So one becomes a Member of the *charity*, if the Governing Document is to be believed, and not of the national church. It’s a mess.
By Keith Braithwaite on 8th June 2023 - 15:00
Thanks for the responses and helpful clarifications. I have now examined the Charity Commission website - which of course I should have done earlier.
I noted that BYM is registered as the Religious Society of Friends…..as are many AMs….though many seem to be registered just as .‘such and such’....AM, Quakers.
Also I see what the Charities Commission indicates, in relation to BYM:-
Activities - how the charity spends its money
Sustaining our church and faith; Supporting Quaker meetings; Promoting Quakerism; Witness through Action.
Doesn’t this suggest that part of our ‘religious’ ordering involves things noted above….could this be understood as a secular task or role for BYM? It seems unlikely.
If activities of BYM include ‘sustaining our…faith’ doesn’t that faith need to have a content which is not merely an individual opinion but a level of belief that is located within its corporate identity as a ‘church’?
I am asking these questions because, as has already been suggested, a good deal of fuzziness is located in this domain. In fact, where Quakerism stands is a bit of a puzzle altogether. It does appear that it is predominantly a secular, atheistic organisation seeking to follow that pathway; only a minority appear to be inclined to retain vestiges of its Christian heritage and tradition.
I further point, in respect of another letter comment. Certainly, religious language has needed to and has indeed moved on in the last century like theology itself. Some criticisms of the Christian faith, do themselves seem to indicate a severly limited understanding of contemporary Christian belief.
By GStuartJ on 8th June 2023 - 16:28
” [the Society] does appear that it is predominantly a secular, atheistic organisation seeking to follow that pathway; only a minority appear to be inclined to retain vestiges of its Christian heritage and tradition.”
Two things: the last time anyone asked us, the majority of Friends identified as Christian; atheist vs Christian is a false dichotomy.
The registered charity is entirely a secular body, and does entirely secular things. It is of the world. I do think that it has been put far too much into the foreground by the establishment of the Trustees as a separate body. The charity is merely the secular agent of the church and should be nearly invisible.
By Keith Braithwaite on 8th June 2023 - 17:42
I do not think anyone is going down rabbit-holes in this discussion. I agree that we should be sharing our experiences of the Light. That is what I feel Margaret Sadler and others have helpfully done. For some of us the Light is Christologically shaped. For others it is not. When unity is eluding us I feel that it is helpful to consider the guidance that is available from “Quaker Faith and Practice”. A passage that I find helpful can be found at 26.43 which emphasises both the Christian and Universalistic dimensions of the Quaker Faith.
By Richard Pashley on 9th June 2023 - 11:30
Regarding Charity Commission; I suspect that Keith’s concerns are with are involvement of BYF with the CC itself, mine is more about the transparency of BYM as no longer a ‘religious’ Society of Friends.
Problem with the Qf&p is that it represents a view of the latter 1980s, which no longer holds true, hence the call for a revision.
These conversation arose following on from my initial article in ‘The Friend’; in that I quoted two contemporary Quaker scholars. The first Martin Davie (British Quaker Theology from 1895) who argues that while post 1895 ‘liberal’ theology’ detached the then Quakerism from its original roots, post 1960s Quaker ‘liberal-liberal’ or postmodern theology, placed Quakerism outside the orthodox communities of faith. The second, Ben Pink Dandelion (The ‘Cultivation of Conformity’ and also in ‘The Liturgies of Quakerism’ who) argues that a description of ‘post-Christian’ most accurately describes the contemporary BYM stance.
I would argue that there are not too many Quaker scholars who have their finger on the BYM pulse, than these two highly experienced researchers. If there assessments are valid, their research suggest that this is unquestionably the case, then what are the implications - whether personal or organisational.
Perhaps a survey, planned for later this year, will offer further insight into the nature of Quakerism in BYM and provide additional food for questioning and thought.
By GStuartJ on 9th June 2023 - 16:44
In a lot of these discussions there seems to be a false dichotomy between “Christian” and “irreligious”.
Certainly the Society of Friends in Britain is no longer straightforwardly Christian. But then it wasn’t straightforwardly Christian at its creation, either. Calvinist Puritans and Roman Catholics and Anglicans all agreed on that that. The evangelical Christian form of the Society that the 1895 Conference started to move away form was itself a novelty—isn’t that why Fritchley General Meeting separated in 1868?
Unlike straightforwardly Reformed Christians we don’t take the position that Scripture tells us everything necessary for “salvation” (whatever that is) and nothing outside scripture tells us anything useful for salvation. Unlike Roman Catholics we don’t take the position that the accumulated wisdom of the church hierarchy as captured in doctrinal statements tells us what’s needed for salvation. We take the position that Christ (who, or what, ever that is) has come to teach his people himself. The lesson is on-going. And this is a view that almost all straighforwardly Christian churches consider wildly heretical. So be it.
By Keith Braithwaite on 11th June 2023 - 16:21
We can agree that Quakerism was radical and not necessarily orthodox (straightforward…in Keith’s terms) but perhaps we can also agree that its roots were in the Christian faith though offering an alternative Christian community. In the terms used by Martin Davie, it still recognised five ‘core convictions’ of the mainline Christian churches. He summarises these as:
1. They believed that the definitive revelation of God is that given through Christ, and in practice they accepted the Bible as a primary theological authority.
2. They took a Trinitarian view.
3. They accepted the Biblical witness to Christ and held that He is to be seen as divine.
4. They agreed that man had fallen and as a result depraved by sin.
5. They held that it is through Christ that we are saved in the way they described the meaning of Christ’s death….and in the end some people may be damned (Davie pp. 19-30).
It cannot be denied that this is a far cry from what Quakerism stands for today.
Davie later speaks about he developments in modern theology and the more nuanced views on the core principles that remain central to the Christian church community. He asks:
‘Might it be the case that they (British Quakers) have been too precipitate in their abandonment of their beliefs and that there is more to be said for them (the core convictions) than they have have allowed? (Davie p.273)
As you will have gathered, I am with Martin Davie on this and with the view that in abandoning these core convictions, British Quakers have located themselves outside the wider Christian community and can only now be described as ‘post.Christian’.
By GStuartJ on 12th June 2023 - 9:41
I pretty agree that British Quakers now stand outside the Christian mainstream. The nonsense that went on with our Friend’s appointment to the Fourth Presidency of Churches Together [sic] in England confirms this.
And I agree that British Quakers as a whole no longer see Jesus as a uniquely valuable, nor as the only possible, route to a transformative encounter with the divine.
What I don’t agree with is that this state of affairs is clearly an error. If we really believe that our community is guided by continuing revelation, by an on-going conversation with the Spirit as manifested through collective prayerful discernment, then…what? The Spirit has lead us astray? No.
By Keith Braithwaite on 14th June 2023 - 9:26
Thank you Keith. That is all I am arguing for….honesty and transparency about where British Quakerism stands today.
I am not interesting in scoring points, nor in winning an argument…or even saying what is right or in error.
If what we appear to agree about is an accurate representation of where BYM stands regarding core Christian convictions, then certainly there are inevitable implications. Given that the revision Committee hopes to respond to the contemporary beliefs in BYM, in its revised Qf&p, perhaps this is the time to address these issues seriously and honestly….and out in the open.
By GStuartJ on 14th June 2023 - 14:10
Not sure we do agree, exactly.
Couldn’t find that Martin Davie book anywhere on line but I did find some reviews of it which suggest that he’s very, very unhappy (“deplores” was the word in one of them) about where British Quakers have ended up. I can imagine him agreeing with what you seem to be saying above, that the Society of Friends is no longer religious. I can’t agree with that. The Society is a church. Quakers are religious people. Still.
We just aren’t all Christians and we don’t all uniquely privilege Christian doctrines, and we don’t all uniquely privilege Jesus. I agree that we should be open and honest about that. I don’t agree that this stops us from being religious. It doesn’t. This isn’t, well, it isn’t 1895! The systems of empire that made it viable to grant mainstream Trinitarian Christianity the status of “religion” and everything else “not religion” are long, long gone.
By Keith Braithwaite on 14th June 2023 - 15:20
Just to clarify. I agree that many Quakers are ‘religious’ and a great many would be happy to describe themselves as ‘spiritual’ but not amenable to being called religious. Some like me are Christians, some are oriented towards or have a background in other religions, many are non-theist or atheist. Perhaps because of the influence of the latter, we are not now the ‘Religious’ nor even the ‘Spiritual’ but just the ‘Society of Friends’.
It is this plurality of belief systems espoused by members, that I have been arguing, places us outside the community of the Christian Church. I think I am right in saying that there is to be new survey in October which will provide numbers and percentages regarding those who have such ‘religious’ orientation as well as who regard themselves as non-theist or atheist. I suspect that the latter will predominate. It is this plurality and an actual minority Christian espousal among members that I would argue makes BYM a post-Christian body.
I would have thought that BYM, as the authoritative and organisational body of Quakers in Britain has some of the characteristics of the ‘General Synod’ ...not in itself ‘The Church of England’ but rather containing a variety of representative of the whole Church.
In all this, clarity and transparency would seem to be values worth holding too - irrespective of BYM status. A lack of up-front honesty is evident in the comments that have been shared regarding uncertainty and anxiety about expressing in MfW beliefs which are of importance to some members. These concerns have been rumbling around for some time, but have gone largely unaddressed….even perhaps ‘swept under the Meeting House carpet’
By GStuartJ on 14th June 2023 - 16:38
I will be very surprised if it turns out that non-theists and atheists are the majority of British Quakers. I will be surprised, too, if Christians are not still the largest grouping and theists of some kind are not the majority.
It’s understandable that Christian Quakers might feel that the Society has somehow been taken away from them, since it is no longer obviously a purely Christian church, but I really don’t think it has been. Even if it has, I welcome a religious Society which can accommodate pluralities of spiritual approaches. But yes, we should be honest about what’s going on.
By Keith Braithwaite on 14th June 2023 - 20:56
GS StuartJ states that the “Problem with Quaker faith and practice is that it represents a view of the latter 1980s, which no longer holds true, hence the call for a revision”.
I think that the reason why many Friends feel the time is right for a revision may be that they want to reconnect with Quakerism’s religious origins, in which case much of the material in QFP may well hold true.
By Richard Pashley on 16th June 2023 - 11:15
Please login to add a comment
