Page 4 - summer edition2 2023

Quakers Without God? Barrie Mahoney

by Barrie Mahoney

I had a challenging debate last week. I joined a debate with a Quaker group on Facebook and, in some ways, I
now wish that I hadn’t. Not that the debate wasn’t good, it was. It was challenging, and some excellent,
thoughtful views were expressed. Unusually for social media, most contributors were polite and respectful of
the views of others. Despite this, my own views were challenged and tested, which is often a good thing.
Nevertheless, it has left me with an uncomfortable and unsettled feeling of ‘Where are we going?’ By ‘We’, I
mean the Quaker movement in general. I will try to explain why.

Over the years, my understanding of being a Quaker has always been quite clear; it is straightforward and non
-complicated. To me, it is a willing acceptance of God, The Light, or Whatever in my life, and the recognition
of ‘that of God within everyone’. To me, the God that I know never requires subservience, worship and
sacrifice, but is an all-embracing acceptance of knowing that there is something bigger, better and more
powerful than myself. I rarely refer to ‘God’, but usually as ‘The Light’ in my life.

During the online debate, I came across those who said they were ‘non-theist Quakers’, and others who were
‘atheist Quakers’. To my understanding a-theism and non-theists are semantically the same, a view strongly
denied during the debate. I came across ‘agnostic Quakers’, as well as ‘materialist atheist Quakers’, ‘humanist
Quakers’, ‘religious naturalist Quakers’, as well as a range of other terminology that I cannot remember. It did
appear to be a distorted debate, since nearly all participants denied the very existence of God, The Light or
Whatever, but maintain that they are Quakers.

I know several Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists and indeed Pagans who are Quakers, and I can easily understand
this because there is an acceptance of ‘Something greater than ourselves’. Whilst I try to listen and accept the
views of others, I remain puzzled by those who deny the very existence of The Light. Why would they want to
be Quakers anyway? Is it because Quakers are generally nice people to be with? Maybe it is somewhere to
escape to on a Sunday morning? Maybe it is for time and space for meditation? Maybe it is for a decent mug
of coffee and good chat after Meeting? The real reason why non-believers would wish to attend Meeting
eludes me.

What would George Fox and Margaret Fell make of the discussion? How would they answer the question, “Is
it possible to be a Quaker and not believe in God? Yes, we are all seekers of the Truth, but we must start from
somewhere. If we accept that a belief in God is the very essence of being Quaker, how does this link to the
broader view of the value of inclusivity, the embrace of a wider range of religious views and tolerance for
which Quakers are rightly known and applauded?

It was also pointed out to me that a significant proportion of the Quaker membership lack a belief in God,
which I find alarming, or should I? I do wonder if the view of Quakerism as an all-embracing, ‘all things to all’
approach, which includes the denial of God, The Light or Whatever as the central tenant of our faith, is helpful
to the long-term future of Quakerism? Maybe it simply doesn’t matter.

To find out more about Barrie and his books, go to: http://barriemahoney.com/

4