An Apologetic for a Quaker Theology | Do We Need It (or want it)?
This is a response to a comment I received yesterday about Quaker theology. The comment was good enough that I decided to write a post about it, because I know that many people have the same questions and challenges it brought up. Theology should be done in a way that is not only sensible (in terms of its sources and clarity) but also sensible in terms of its practicality. In other words, as one of my professors used to say, “if your theology doesn’t work, it’s bad theology.” This post tries to set forth why the pursuit of theology can and should be something we support. I’ve yet to really address an apology for why the Friends Church need Quaker theologians (something I am challenged on fairly constantly), and so this is my first attempt of many to come. The post is written as a response to the comment and not as a typical post
Thanks for your honesty and challenge to my experience here. I appreciate all of what you say, but the last part suggesting this could all be a waste of time did throw me a little. Maybe you read the uncertainty in my writings about what I am doing and if so you’re right to suggest it “might well be” a waste of time.
But honestly, this could be said about anything we do where we put ourselves on the line. I am sure people like: Galileo, George Fox, Robert Barcly, John Woolman, Elizabeth Fry, Dorothy Day, Albert Einstein, Martin Luther King Jr, John Howard Yoder, Bob Dylan, etc, were all in danger of wasting their time, and probably told so as well. Not that I think I am any of those people, but I do look up to them because they were (or are) not satisfied with the state of their society and/or church and set out to do something about it. These people blurred the lines and challenged the status quo of their times.
A Faith in Danger
I think that faith ultimately is always in danger of just being seen as, or turning out to be, a waste of time. That’s the nature of faith. Faith that is efficient, safe and purely rational is not really faith is it? At least not faith like Jesus’ – which is ultimately who I am interested in following.
So I heed your warnings, and understand that yes I am in danger of looking back and seeing that I would have been better off collecting change on the street corners of hollywood instead of living at Woodbrooke and studying Quaker theology, or worse yet doing a dissertation on it. However, at this point, I choose to trust that this is my lot and that it’s a step in the direction I have been led. I still honestly believe I’m doing what God wants me to do (though I often question all that it involves). I want to be a part of the tradition that is seeking to turn this ship around (or build a new one out of the old material). I’m not interested in helping to patch holes anymore.
But the rest of what you say I definitely hear loud and clear. I think liberalism at its best seeks to cross boundaries, and actively pursue justice in the world but at its worst is completely stripped of what makes it distinctive, in modernity language looses its meaning, we see an obsession with individualized authority, there is the continued desire for a lowest common denominator religion, and one of the worst possible thing someone could say to us is that “you’re making me feel excluded.” I’ve recently been called an intolerant liberal, and appreciated the irony. I can only imagine how the list of some of my hero’s above answered the people who told them they were being exclusive.
Can Theology Save?
You’re right theology won’t save British Friends, but I do believe that it could save the Friends tradition. In fact, I think that’s a lot of why Quakerism is dying; there have been so few people given the right to actually think about, and challenge, the tradition’s beliefs and practices in a thoughtful, educated way. I have been disheartened a number of times by Friends from all over, who I have met and who have suggested to me that they don’t need the likes of me, or how silly it is to study something like “Quaker” theology (Of course, Quakers aren’t special in their disdain for theology, that’s the normal stance of the Enlightenment). This coming from one of the smallest Christian denominations in the world, and one that has so few theologians and philosophers to its name.
Our negative reaction to theology seems to me to be similar to me telling my doctor who has diagnosed me with Asthma, after I tell her that I haven’t been able to breathe for the last year and experience all this wheezing, that she’s wrong and I don’t need a doctor to tell me how to take care of myself because no one in my family (who, consequently in this story, has all but died away) ever went to a doctor.
I would like to learn why there is such a reticence toward theology from Quakers, I know the old arguments about the Light being most important, but we also believe God works through all things and that all of life is sacramental. So why can’t God work through theology? Why no nurture all of life as sacramental and actually allow for that kind of engagement? I think our reticence goes much deeper, but I honestly don’t know what it is. I think there are different reasons for different parts of the tradition, but it’s something I think we should try and work through.
The point is that theology won’t save us, and your assessment is spot on especially the part about there being an overall rejection of Christianity. With no common language, no common telos, no common virtues or practices we will not be able to progress. The saving is really up to God, and the people within the tradition to make serious decisions about whether they want to change or not. This is reason for hope in this, we are a resilient bunch of people and, I believe, truly desire what God wants. But theology is one of the, very essential, missing pieces from our church’s tradition. Theology is to the church, what doctors are to medicine, or teachers to education, but maybe the problem is that we don’t know we’re a church any longer?
But it’s not too late to try something different and experiment, we all know that Quakerism has been in decline for a really long time. And that there’s only been a few people who have diagnosed the tradition, and tried to move it forward in theological terms. People like John Punshon, Elton Trueblood, and Rufus Jones are some of few Quakers to do this kind of work and for this they are heros of mine.
I hope you’ll continue to read and dialogue, and I hope that while you’re right about the bleak nature of what’s going on, maybe together we can find some hope left for the Society of Friends. My hope is that we can all come to a place where we not only see ourselves as a part of the church, but become active again in sharing the good news with the world.
Recent articles on Quaker theology
Towards a Post-Foundationalist Quaker Theology
Orthodoxy as an Event: Questions About Quaker Orthodoxy
Loving Ourselves to Death
[Credit for images: George Fox and Stethoscope]
Technorati Tags: apologetic, quaker theology, theological reflections
Related posts:
@wess. I am English so irony is in the blood to the complete bafflement of many Americans. if you think I exaggerate please read Watching the English: The Hidden Rules of English Behaviour by Kate Fox. However, my last post is a sign not to comment early in the morning before Tea has engaged brain.
I was aiming it @Anne. Its this language that makes me feel excluded from the discussion, and my experience is that its Christians within this theological stance that excludes me and many others. I have over 30 years in Quakers only heard christcentric followers concerned with my presence whereas I embrace them in the fellowship of Friends.
But if I am confused(easily done I may add!). Were you saying that’s it you and your tradition that feels excluded by the secular or liberal traditions in their various forms? And so feel written off when their visions of Christ etc is marginalised by these liberal/secular views? If so then I agree I am in danger of putting up a fence as well.
My position is not dissimilar to yours re the holes and flaws in liberal thinking. Not sure what they are yet! I have the advantage of being new to this Theology thingie and not escaping from negative Christian experiences. I do know from a deep involvement in political and social studies that power, social status, gender etc has to be built into the reflection And that competing groups often have partial views of what needs to be done which are both true. Yet at times, debate had to end in a common line.
So I want a dialogue but if reconciliation is the goal then the peace process in Northern Ireland serves as a model of building up trust and processes that directs the parties to give up cherished notions but not overall visions. By this I mean that a post converged Quaker Community that has me and you in its membership would see both of us letting go of many ideas and practices that we think are core to our “beliefs” now. A second element is that this can not be done by talk alone it has to use visual, physical means of discussion. It has to be about poems, stories, spiritual journeys , paintings songs etc
Two of the most spiritually alive people I have met where such by deeds not right thinking. One was a communist who during the Bristol riots in the 80′s despite being in his 70′s and white gained the trust of the different black groups and worked with them to rebuild a more secure and open community. He had no time for Religion but spent his life struggling for social justice- the republic of heaven now. The other was a very traditional Christian Quaker in her late 90′s who looked at my “soul” not my words and who held on to life so that she could continue to care for a depressed fFreind that family and the Meeting had long given up on. She did this until he died and attended his funeral alone as her last final act of love before she died.
No, no! I’m one of you dirty liberals although not a Liberalquakerist.
I’m also frequently guilty of poetry, which is why I just responded to you with a quote from Rumi inviting his neighbor to a gathering of mystics.
(If you want a better idea of how we relate or don’t, try http://www.sneezingflower.blogspot.)
We escaped colonists are utterly incapable of and impervious to irony.
And also I see I answer where the actual POST is addressed to someone else! Sorry!
Maybe my reply to Anne a little while ago was in the right language; I suspect however that “dialogue” with us heathens may be less her priority than getting us properly saved!
@apologies to all, I seem to have posted a draft as well, so ignore the first post.
@ forest curo, its right to say how something may make you feel but not at the expense of others. Some of the theological language here may make me uncomfortable but I need to make the effort that my tone and remarks do not disrespect the people who hold them.
We’ve had a lot of misunderstanding going on, and I’ll try to stop doing more than my share of it!
Tone & remarks? I roomed for a year with another mathematician who continued to believe that I would be going straight to Hell, along with most people. We respected each other, but not each other’s beliefs on this issue.
Similarly with Anne here; I am not meaning to disparage her when I say she has other priorities than having a dialogue with us. She has the answer and we do not; that is the tone of her message and I don’t believe I’ve misread it. Nor am I trying to make her ashamed of believing that she is right, us wrong–I consider that belief incorrect, but there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with her thinking so. Considering someone else wrong may be sinful under LiberalFriendian mores but she, and I, both consider it perfectly acceptable.
So, if you reread my first response, I refer to the same Bible she considers authoritative but interpret it differently, in hopes that this may make more sense to her than appealing to a liberal ideal of reconciliation between different positions. There’s nothing to reconcile here, rather a question of whether we will agree as to the core of Jesus’ message or not.
I do think that it’s profoundly unChristian to believe that God lacks the power or the desire to save us all. And have no respect for that belief, hence my bad jokes about that tone in her message, but I’m not offended with it, and hope she’ll cut me some slack about my tone. (You too! Once I got the notion that you thought I shared her opinions, I was ripe for confusion and flailing in all directions! I wouldn’t mind cutting a lot of the last few messages, if that could only make me any better!)
anne’s reply to: author: c. wess daniels comment to Anne – thanks for dropping by but your comments are a bit off topic – we’re not really debating issues of baptism or salvation at this point. Though a post on baptism could be interesting, especially from someone like myself who sees value in both the inward and outward forms of worship.
canawedding / anne’s reply: Thanks for the thanks but what i wrote is not “off topic” at all. Today’s so-called Quakers have no idea what the first Quakers really believed in because they do not have the one and only Holy Spirit baptism that all truly saved Christians must have to be born again. I use “one and only Holy Spirit baptism” because that is the one and only baptism of the New Covenant. Almost all non-Quakers, who continue with the physical rituals from the OT Law, John’s baptism included, have no idea that there must be only one spiritual baptism that we must spiritually drink. So-called Quakers, who are going to institutions to learn, institutions that the first true Christian Quakers would never, ever attend, also need to know about the one and only Holy Spirit baptism that is the very same anointing the first true Christian Quakers repeatedly wrote about. It is the one and only anointing from the Holy One of God that must teach us everything we need to know to be saved. When you people attend these types of institutions run by false Christians, that the first true Christian Quakers proved false over 300 years ago, all you are doing is committing spiritual suicide! A true Christian never teaches God’s Gospel Truth for money! You should have been able to learn that from the first Quakers!
Everyone, without the one and only Holy Spirit baptism, including the vast majority, if not all of today’s Quakers, will hear the real Jesus Christ tell them that He never knew them and they will be tossed where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. If you don’t like it, then do something about it. All you need to know is freely available in the writings of those you claim to follow! Quakers have had God’s Gospel Truth about baptisms for over 300 years. Most of you, who still dare to call yourselves Quakers but aren’t, have done nothing but sit on this critical salvation issue, bickering about nonsense among yourselves, while you let millions and billions of people go to the eternal Lake of Fire! You people are more interested in how you can sound important and knowledgable than finding out what you must know to be saved and then to help others to be saved.
And, for those who do not know the real Jesus Christ, i will suggest that you read Ps 1-2; Ps 12; Ps 52; Ps 110; Pr 1:22-33; Isa 63:1-6; Mt 23; Rev 19. He is coming back to destroy the earth and almost all of its people with fire whether you people are ready or not! You can also get a good idea of what is coming by reading what George Fox and Isaac Penington wrote about the Daughter of Babylon. Guess who that is? You don’t know, do you? September 11, was prophesied to happen to the very day, 2700 years ago. You don’t know where, do you? God could have stopped it but He didn’t. Read Isa 24. That Day is coming and He will not stop it either because most people have done nothing but rebel against His Gospel Truth. As usual, only a remant will be saved.
Now it is up to each one of you to do something about what you are being told. I will suggest that you trash what you only think you know and become fools as Paul suggested you do. Read 1Co 1-6. For a couple of thousand years, God warned He would destroy worldly wisdom and He has been doing exactly as He said He would do. For a couple of thousand years, God warned that the nations are but a drop in the bucket and He will destroy all who rebel against Him and He is going to do that too. You have been warned for your own good and i truly hope you will listen to Him. God has given everyone the opportunity to be saved. If you mess it up; it is your choice and your problem. This world is going to be destroyed because of sin and those who love it. God won’t be creating and recreating worlds just because some fools decide they can rewrite His Rules and expect to get away with it, anne robare
@anne,
“You people are more interested in how you can sound important and knowledgable than finding out what you must know to be saved and then to help others to be saved.”
I’m sorry do I know you? You visited my blog, where we write out ideas, that’s all a blog offers, it doesn’t offer actual interaction with a person, you have no idea what I do on a day to day basis, what goes on in my heart, and whether I am helping other to “be saved” or not.
So maybe the baptism response wasn’t off topic, and maybe it was, but what really bothered me was someone I don’t know condemning a bunch of people in friendly dialogue on my site. I’ll have to ask you not to comment anymore if you’re going to insist on condemning people you don’t know. That does not reflect the Jesus of the Gospels, when he challenged people it was face to face much different than on a blog.
Anne is being quite traditionally Quaker in warning us of The Day of the Lord, as those of Fox’s time often did, and in not letting anyone’s ideas of politeness stand in the way; one reason Fox refused to take his hat off for anyone was that subservience to an earthly power would undermine this message, which (in at least one place in his journal) he felt obliged to deliver to his judges.
And you don’t need to read Isaiah (scarey passage, that!) to see that we (all the present nations) have blown it and continue to blow it in a bad way. God has been mercifully allowing our folly to continue but the damage and suffering we do is starting to cry to Heaven like the sufferings of Sodom. (As the midrash interprets the Torah, it was the cries of suffering people that motivated God to that destruction, because of the inhabitants’ cruelty to foreigners and the poor.) Sometimes the love of God has to resemble wrath.
The differences I see between me and Anne are partly in interpretation, and partly (I think) in my belief that we can have our knowledge of God enhanced by people we disagree with. (Without that, we get warnings but not much reason for dialogue.) I did not mean to disrespect Anne or her urgency, but I do see the scriptures as human documents that only point towards God, and I have to dismiss any interpretation that limits God’s intention to save, or that limits his annointing only to believers in a particular doctrine.
While the sword still hangs over us (as it has all my life) I think that theological matters are not less worth discussing, but more so.
The Rabbis were discussing a passage in Torah, about the commandment to stone an incorrigible child. “What kind of child is this, that we should just take him out and stone him?!” They talked for some time, and were unable to imagine a child that wicked. “Then why did He give us this commandment?” they wondered. “So we would have the pleasure of arguing it.”
We have a little time left here to know God better through bumping up against each other’s ideas–but we live also in Eternity!
Don’t worry too much about Anne, she has recently commented on several Quaker blogs (Simon StL’s, Cherice’s & mine). And before that on other faith blogs.
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22anne+robare%22+canawedding&hl=en&start=10
Cherice had a nice reply.