God, words and us... Photo: skodonnell via iStock.
New series: God, words and us
Hilary Johnson and Robin Bowman, in the first of a series, reflect on the book 'God, words and us'
The publication God, words and us, edited by Helen Rowlands, and sent to all Meetings in Britain, is comprised of different sections:
- Telling our individual stories, remembering to bring our whole selves (rational, emotional and spiritual) to the conversation.
- Sharing experience of core Quaker practice, followed by the language of ‘theism’ and ‘nontheism’ that is potentially controversial and divisive.
- Concluding with reframing the issues, final statements from the participating group, glossary of terms and further reading.
Thirty-nine Quakers gathered at Bull Street Meeting House, Birmingham on 17 February for two-and-a-half hours at an event, organised by the Elders and Overseers Support Group of Central England Area Meeting, and facilitated by Hilary Johnson and Donald Whitlock, to encourage dialogue about some of the issues raised.
Using the glossary/definition of terms each of us was asked to consider the words we might use to define ourselves, choosing from: theist, nontheist, polytheist, deist, atheist, Christian, universalist, none of these and any other. Then, in an exercise called ‘Naming the Unnameable’, each of us individually was asked to place within a circle words we use and have used, though may rarely do now, and outside the circle words we do not use and those words that annoy us.
In groups of three, we shared what we had written, briefly explaining why. Since we were not involved in every group, we cannot say more than that there was a wide range of responses to our ways of defining ourselves and to such words as God, Father, Son, holy, omnipotent and so on. In the short time available, our conversations engendered a focused and enriching sharing of the perceived positive and negative attributes of particular words; a sharing which somehow typified an attitude of the inclusivity of ‘both/and’ rather than an attempt to judge the rightness of ‘either/or’.
In the second half of the morning, we were reminded that, as Quakers, we have no creeds, no doctrines, no sets of beliefs; the nearest we get is our conviction that there is that of God in each and every one of us. We were asked to consider the ways in which we use the phrase ‘believe in’ and the qualitative differences between these uses. We were given examples such as ‘I believe in sustainability…’ meaning ‘I think that sustainability is hugely important and this is what I am doing about it.’ ‘My family believes in me’ indicates that they think I am worthwhile, have feelings for me and will give me support and encouragement. Finally ‘I believe in God’ indicates my loyalty to and my trust in my experiences of the Divine.
In a conversation between Ben Pink Dandelion and David Boulton, which is reproduced in God, words and us, Ben speaks about his reluctance to use the words theist and nontheist and how he loves the more personal stories, saying that:
…the intellectual proposition becomes isolated or individualised, whereas I can feel great empathy across the heart stories; my response can be love rather than an intellectual response.
David Boulton replies:
But the problem with that, Ben, is that all we would be doing is hiding and refusing to face up to very real differences. Theists may drop the word, but they’ll still believe in a transcendent God. Nontheists may drop their label, but they’ll still not believe in a transcendent God.
We were asked to look again at the implications of saying ‘believe in or do not believe in a transcendent God’.
Some Friends will have experienced that which they call transcendence. Whilst it is possible for them to try to remember how they felt before, they cannot return to that state, nor can they convince anyone else of their reality, since the transcendent experience has changed them in some way. Other Friends will not have experienced transcendence; whether they may or may not in the future is unknown. Whether they seek such an experience or resist it is within themselves. And, of course, many of us have experiences, moments of insight and revelation over time that are difficult to classify.
To suggest that transcendence may fall into a debateable category is an error of judgement, since there can never be a conclusion to this argument – it will always remain unproven. To enter into such a debate would be trying to apply a system of logic to an experiential narrative that cannot lend itself to such enquiry. It could also be perceived as the thin end of a creedal wedge that has little place in our Religious Society.
What is relevant to Quakers, and always has been, is our emphasis on religious experience. At this point, working in pairs, each Friend in turn shared with the other five-minutes-worth of, in the words of George Fox, ‘this I know experimentally’, rather than attempting to outline any ‘beliefs in’.
Although transcendence was the main focus, it was suggested that Friends might need to consider certain specific words, such as truth, prayer and worship. This exercise was then repeated in a different pairing, and it was interesting how in some cases the presence of another partner led to a very different pattern of disclosure from that offered a few minutes earlier in the first pairing.
As the morning was intended purely as an introduction, we were able only to scratch the surface of the complex issues raised in the book. Although the glossary provided a useful lead-in to the first exercise, it inevitably gave limited definitions that cannot convey the subtle meanings available through a close reading of the body texts.
We asked what the difference is between atheism, a regular dictionary word, and nontheism, of more recent coinage. How does monotheism stand amongst these various definitions, since gods, deities and God seem to be conflated? Are we even talking about the same G/god?
Given our roots, perhaps we need the more nuanced summary of the mainstream Judeo-Christian concept of God. Who better than our Bournville Friend, the late John Hick, to tell us that:
God is conceived as the infinite, eternal, uncreated, personal reality, who has created all that exists and who is revealed to human creatures as holy and loving.
It may be that Friends need to engage especially with the Jewish philosophical narratives if we are to get away from difficulties with fundamentalist understandings of a ‘creator G/god’.
The morning concluded with a period of worship sharing in which there was ministry about humility, tolerance, an emphasis on seeking truth and the changing nature of how we express our faith during our life’s journey. Friends appreciated not only being challenged but also being given the opportunity to exchange their differing positions. To echo the last sentence of the main text of God, words and us:
We commend the process of sharing spiritual experience and deep listening to one another as a way of exploring our theological diversity and unity.
We hope the experience of this enlightening half-day workshop will encourage us to fulfil one of the book’s avowed aims, namely to encourage Friends to follow-up with study sessions in their Local Meetings to talk about ‘God, or whatever you call it’.
God, words and us: Quakers in conversation about religious difference edited by Helen Rowlands is published by Quaker Books at £8. ISBN: 9781999726928.
