Tag Archives: that of God in everyone

Seven Gods Quakers Might Believe In

Having written some serious things recently, I thought I’d try my hand at some clickbait. Number six may surprise you!

1. a God within us

If you ask a Quaker what Quakers believe about God, this is the answer you’re most likely to get after the umming and ahhing. “There’s that of God within everyone.” Whatever else Quakers think about the Divine, they don’t think of a Divine who’s up there (and certainly not on a cloud), or even out there (although S/He might be active in the world in some way). They think of a God who is within us, with us in a deep way even when we don’t notice.

2. a God who leads

Quakers use lots of words to describe God. Nouns are handy for a list – God, the Spirit, the Light, the Whatever – but verbs are sometimes more revealing. God leads, guides, loves, prompts. This doesn’t mean that God is in front (a shephard often steers a flock from behind), but I think it does mean that God cares about where we are going, and is with us as we seek the right way forward.

3. a God who is all genders and none

Some Quakers use masculine language for God – He, Lord, Father. A few Quakers, myself included, also use feminine language for Goddess – She, Mother, Maiden. More will tell you that they avoid using gendered language – preferring Light, Love, or Goodness, for example. A few use explicitly nongendered terms, such as GODDE. None of us seem to think that God actually has gender as a human would: whatever God is, God is either beyond gender or encompasses all genders and none. Anthropomorphising, talking as if God is like a person, is just a handy way to get the ideas across.

4. a God who is natural

From time to time, people tell me that what they can’t accept about God is the ‘supernatural element’. It’s difficult to find evidence that any Quakers think there’s a supernatural element to the God we believe in, though: classic things which point in that direction, like miracles or going heaven after death, are either completely missing or very rarely discussed. Elements of the Meeting for Worship for Business sometimes sound supernatural when described quickly – e.g. “we listen for what God is telling us to do” – but when they are part of your ordinary experience, it’s hard to think of them as anything but natural.

5. a God of love

In exploring what Quakers are willing to say about God, I found that they draw the line at a God who asks for violence or hatred. This isn’t usually done explicitly – although I did find some writing by a Quaker who explained that they could include most religions as true ways to God, but not ones which asked for human sacrifice – but it’s clearly there, implicitly. Quakers usually assume, without often saying so, that someone who feels ‘led’ to do something which runs against the long-standing trend of Quaker discernment, such as something violent, isn’t really listening to God but perhaps to something selfish or a charismatic human leader.

6. a God which exists

You’ll note that I didn’t say “who exists” – existing in the way a person exists isn’t the point here. The point is that Quakers talk about a God which is part of their experience. This is a God which can lead, can love, can be within us, and which therefore is real because meaningful.

7. a God who lets us work it out for ourselves

A few years ago, Quakers ran a poster which said “THOU SHALT… decide for yourself.” Quakers don’t believe in a God who is cross with you for believing the wrong thing – but rather in a God who is happy that you’re thinking independently and trying to work out what’s going on based on your experience. That’s why you can still be a Quaker even if you disagreed with me about all the previous six points.

Advertisements

My Peace Testimony in a time of terrorism

Repeatedly over the last decade, there have been attacks in which one or a few people take weapons into a public places and kill as many other people as possible, often dying themselves in the process. This has happened throughout the world, but periodically it has been happening in Europe, circumstances under which the British media spends more time bringing it to the attention of people I know.

When this happens, it is sad and distressing, and the closer to home it seems, the more frightening it is. When it happens, there’s often a lot of talk about it – sometimes running in advance of the evidence, or at least of the release of real evidence to the public. When it happens, I often hear people say, including in spoken ministry during Meeting for Worship, that these attacks are mindless or random and that they cannot be understood.

I cannot believe that. The more I read about such attacks, the more I pray about such attacks, the more I come to believe that everyone involved has motives for their actions. What they do is not mindless, or random, or careless, and so – however difficult I might find it to understand their reasons – I have to accept that they do have reasons. Based on what they know and their experiences, they think they are acting for good. To me, this is part of accepting that everyone, however much I disagree with them and am disturbed by their actions, is a full person and has that of God within them.

This isn’t to say that such violence is always rational. Both violence and nonviolence are often, in the moment, irrational. If, under the same circumstances, you would punch someone and I wouldn’t, that isn’t necessarily because we have laid out logical arguments for our different positions. It’s as likely to be about our personalities, habits, training, and emotions – or to put it another way, the kinds of virtues we cultivate in our whole lives, not just our thoughts.

Accepting that the people who choose to carry out terrorist attacks have reasons for their actions does not mean agreeing with or condoning them – but my government also carries out many actions with which I do not agree, and I don’t have to call them mindless or random. (People I know do sometimes call them stupid, which falls into much the same trap.) It does commit me to a different model of responding to this sort of violence: rejecting ‘we must fight fire with fire’ and ‘ignore them and they’ll go away’ in favour of seeking to understand the circumstances which give people reasons to act in this way.

I have been thinking about this today, November 11th, because this view also alters my approach to remembrance. When I was at school we were taught about the First World War, and what I remember learning (rather than what they thought they were teaching!) was that it had something to do with an assassination, and that we had to memorise the diagram of how to build a trench. Similarly, I learned the outlines of the Second World War without feeling that I really knew why, at the time, people had acted in the ways they did. In my late teens, I first heard the idea that Germany’s actions, especially Hitler’s rise to power, could be explained by economics – today, I think that’s too simplistic, but I also think it’s a valuable insight to see that many evil situations aside from systems, not individuals.

Sometimes people challenge pacifists and those of us who say that there is that of God in everyone by naming people they think are evil: Adolf Hitler and Osama bin Laden have featured heavily in those conversations in my experience. For me, a stepping stone between ‘yes, people do truly evil things’ and ‘yes, everyone still has that of God in them’ is this: everyone has reasons for their actions, and they do what they think is best with the tools they see they have. I can disagree about what’s best. I can try and point out other tools, other ways of solving the problems. But I have to start by acknowledging that they are people, who have feelings and needs and motives. I might not know what those motives are in any particular case, but I’m committed to holding open a space, a question mark, which assumes that they exist.

If you are interested in exploring the roots of today’s terrorism, I recommend Riaz Hassan’s short book ‘Suicide Bombings‘ as a clear and approachable introduction to recent research on the topic.