Page 9 - NewsandViews 2023 whole publication

Quakers Without God? 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/

The editors wish to apologise to Barrie. The above article was submitted for the summer edition of News and Views. For
a reason that had eluded us, page 4 which held Barrie’s submission did not print. It appeared in the electronic version.
The editors have reprinted the above, both as an apology, but also recognising its ongoing contribution to the discussion
in these pages. It was not the fault of the Printer.

9