Are Atheists Included Under the QUF Umbrella?
By Os Cresson on May 04 2005 | Tagged as: Blog Posts
Print This Post
Over the years Quakers have gradually set aside elements of doctrine previously thought to be essential, such as the divinity of Christ, the trinity, and immortality. More recently universalist Friends have helped us address the question of whether Quakers must be Christians. I urge the reader to go one step further and consider whether it is necessary for Quakers to be theists.
Atheists can love and worship and manifest Quaker principles just as well as theists even though they do not speak about it in theistic terms. Traditional Quaker behavior is available to all, including those for whom God is absent. Take discernment, for example: need it be limited to those who describe what they are doing as discerning the will of God? What about loving that of God in another person? This is a characteristic way of behaving and a wonderful one, but can it only be done by people who describe it in a particular way? No, loving can be done by anyone: Quakers, Moslems, atheists, secularists, and many others. Traditionally we have expressed this in the language of theism, and that has worked very well, but it is not the only worldview that can support a true affection for this sort of behavior.
What about unity within the Religious Society of Friends: could it be maintained without agreement on a belief in God? Yes, it could because we are bound together in many ways in addition to how we speak about God. We need not agree on the words with which we frame our faith. We have often said that ours is a religion that does not require a creed; there is no need to follow this with an exception for the belief in God. It is enough to be in harmony with each other, to worship together, and to celebrate our diversity.
This is reflected in the membership section of Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s Faith and Practice (2002). Nowhere does it suggest we ask whether the applicant agrees with our views. “Membership includes a willingness to live in spiritual unity with other members of the Religious Society of Friends. Members are expected to participate in communal worship, to share in the work and service of the Society, and to live in harmony with its basic beliefs and practices.” (p. 34) Our love for each other must rise above the particulars of our beliefs.
Later in the same document we are asked two questions that could apply to the Quaker Universalist Fellowship as well as the Religious Society of Friends: “Are you comfortable with a Society whose unity of spirit coexists with a diversity of beliefs? Are you prepared to join a Meeting family which includes people whose perspectives may differ considerably from yours?” (p. 36) Are we, indeed?
Again, from the PYM Discipline: “Attenders who seem nourished through their involvement with the Meeting, are comfortable with Friends’ basic beliefs and practices, and understand the responsibility of membership, should apply for membership. The Meeting, for its part, should encourage such attenders to apply.” (p. 35) Are we encouraging those whose religious views are based on the natural world, that of you and me and atoms and molecules, and nothing else? The test is how the visitor reacts. We are only open if they see us as open. Our literature includes so many examples of theistic and spiritualistic language that they could easily miss the fact that we want to encourage them. Why not simply say we welcome these seekers? Let us say it in a loud and clear voice, joyfully reaching out to the atheists and agnostics, the nontheists and pantheists, the skeptics and free thinkers who would be Quakers.
Are there many who would be interested in a religion that does not necessarily involve the supernatural? Yes, there are a great many. There are even members and attenders among us now who are suffering in silence because their views could create discord in their meetings. These closeted Friends need your support.
What could be included in a program of outreach to Quakers and would-be-Quakers who eschew otherworldly concepts? We could start with five steps: (1) a call for minutes of support from monthly meetings that are clear on this question; (2) an effort to support meetings and individuals that are considering this issue; (3) a careful consideration of the objections commonly raised and the replies that can be offered; (4) a study of Quaker literature that addresses these questions; and (5) a search for those who have embraced naturalistic views in other religions, such as among the Buddhists and Unitarian-Universalists, among secular humanists and ethical culturalists, among philosophers and psychologists such as Hobbes, Locke, Dewey, and Skinner, and back in history to the Epicureans in Greece and the Carvakas in India.
Is there room under the QUF umbrella for those who love nature above all else, who love humankind as a part of nature, and who feel no need for anything beyond that? I think so. It is time to welcome them into our hearts and our gatherings and to declare this to the world.
(NOTE: paragraphs 4, 5, 6 and 8 were not included in the original version of this article published in Universalist Friends, #37, Fall-Winter 2002, pp. 14-15.)
5 Comments »
on 04 Aug 2008 at 12:57 pm 1 collegeblogger said …
Sure anyone can go through the motions and look the part, but how does one worship our creator, if we don’t believe there is one?
on 05 Aug 2008 at 8:26 am 2 James Riemermann said …
Collegeblogger,
I’m not sure what you mean. Nontheist Friends don’t claim to worship a creator, so the contradiction you mention doesn’t come up. There are approaches to worship that aren’t directed toward any specific object, much less a supernatural being, imagined or real.
on 16 Nov 2008 at 1:15 pm 3 Keith Miller said …
Sorry to bring up a topic from the past, but I’m curious as to what ways one would claim atheists worship? Worship typically entails ritual veneration and adoration of a thing. =
As an atheist, the closest I could think of to worship would be marveling at the complexity of the nature world and the emergence of consciousness, as well as a sort of…pride in and awe at the successes and scientific advances of the human race.
I suppose this could be considered worship, though I make no steps towards expressing these things except in discussing them with others. Would this qualify, do you think, as a form of worship?
on 21 Nov 2008 at 7:49 am 4 James Riemermann said …
Hi, Keith,
I call what Friends do together in our meetings worship because that is the traditional word for our practice, but I don’t use the word in a traditional way, as an intransitive verb (one not requiring an object). I’m not worshipping something, I’m simply engaging in worship. It has parallels to meditation, but is distinct in that it matters very much that we do it together. It is not a solitary but a communal practice, and some of its most striking qualities emerge out of that communal nature.
From the outside it looks like people sitting down together in silence. Occasionally someone is moved to stand and speak. At the end of the hour we shake hands. The incredible spareness of that structure leaves room for a lot to happen, within us and between us. It takes a while to get a feel for it, and some never get a feel for it.
Some theist Friends–not all by any means–might disagree with me, would say that one is truly worshipping only if one is worshipping something, ideally God. I can live with that disagreement.
So, in my mind what you describe can certainly “qualify as worship,” though if you want to drop by and attend a Friends meeting to see if you like it, I wouldn’t worry about “qualifying.” There are no requirements–show up, take part, see what you think. It’s proven to be very meaningful for me, without having anything to do with God.
on 25 Apr 2009 at 6:52 pm 5 Peter Schogol said …
For me, words like worship and pray(er) make sense if you change the prepositions. I don’t gather to worship, I gather in worship. I don’t come together to pray, I come together in prayer. In neither case does worship or prayer require an object.