The Theist-Nontheist Conversational Smackdown of 2008
Posted by Zach Alexander on Jul 17 2008 | Tagged as: Blog Posts, Books, Events, Personal Journeys, Reports
Print This Post
At Friends General Conference Gathering earlier this month, in addition to Robin Alpern and David Boulton’s workshop on nontheist Friends and discernment (previously posted here), there were a number of one-off scheduled events at the “Nontheist Friends Center,” on topics like nontheistic spirituality and theological diversity.
And in addition to those, three or four more events were arranged on-site to meet what seemed like a demand for them. I might be forgetting any that happened earlier in the week before I arrived, but Wednesday afternoon there was a meeting for worship, followed by a screening of a film about Gerrard Winstanley, who according to some was the first Quaker nontheist.
And on Thursday, Chuck Fager arranged the following debate conversation between himself and David Boulton, complete with lurid posters billing it “The Theist-Nontheist Conversational Smackdown of 2008″ and promising “thrills, chills and (nonviolent) spills,” if memory serves.
The questions they discussed were “Are Quakers a chosen people?” and “Is David Boulton a closet theist?” Thanks perhaps to the posters, it took place before a packed-out room of about 110 people, with a number of (un-chosen?) people listening in the hall.
Click the green “play” arrow below to hear my recording of the event, or click here to download the mp3 file.
(By the way, David’s opening joke refers to the poster, which described the participants as Chuck “Without Apology” Fager and David “The Trouble with God” Boulton.)
I confess I’m not sure I understand what Chuck means by the concept of “a chosen people,” but in the days after the Gathering I started to connect it with two things I’ve heard two nontheistic Friends say. One is that the definition of “who is a Quaker” should essentially be “whoever shows up,” or at least whoever shows up on a regular basis. The other is that a Quaker is anyone who can stand the Quaker business method.
At a simplified logical level, these social definitions make no sense, because they are recursive (A Quaker is anyone who goes to a Quaker meeting, but what counts as a Quaker meeting? A meeting accepted as Quaker by other Quakers?) But those complications aside, they both seem to be saying something rather like what Chuck is saying, in language with fewer theological connotations — you shouldn’t be here because you fit into a theological formula, or because you were “born Quaker,” but because you feel called to be here.
7 Comments »
on 19 Jul 2008 at 11:21 am 1 Virginia Harris said …
Since my sound card doesn’t work, I wasn’t able to hear the conversation. But as a former member of the RSoF and a long-time attender at Friends Meeting of Washington, I am interested in the nontheistic “debate.” I no longer consider myself a believer in God, but I do find spiritual rapport by attending Quaker meeting and serving on committees. However, because of non-belief in God, I hesitate to apply for membership.
on 19 Jul 2008 at 6:35 pm 2 James Riemermann said …
Good to hear from you, Virginia. I wouldn’t presume to tell someone whether they should or should not apply for membership, but I do wonder why such beliefs should make the essential difference between being an involved and committed member of the community, and being a formal member of the Religous Society of Friends. In fact, David Boulton’s explanation in this recording of why a godless sort such as himself would bother being a Quaker, was something like, his fellow Friends thought he should be. Maybe that should play a part in your thinking.
But it’s good to hesitate to apply. Everyone should hesitate to apply.
If you’re interested in more in-depth discussion of such matters, feel free to sign up for the email list by submitting the web form here:
http://www.nontheistfriends.org/email-discussion/
Zach, I loved listening to this. Wish I had been there.
I would agree with you that social definitions–such as my own favorite, “a Quaker is someone who shows up and takes part”–are similar to the way Chuck describes us as a gathered people. The people who are here are the people who should be here. I’d also agree that these might be insufficient for accurately and precisely dividing the world between Quakers and non-Quakers, or perhaps more to the point, between legitimate Quakers and illegitimate Quakers. But I’ll stick with my “showing up” definition for at least a couple reasons.
First, no other definitions succeed in that vein, either, for reasons tied to Wittgenstein’s ideas about “family resemblances” in language. It’s just not the kind of thing that can be defined precisely. A person or a meeting can choose to adopt a clear, concrete definition, but that definition is only in somebody’s head. If something calling itself a Friends meeting across town doesn’t fit, who’s right?
Secondly, what is the purpose of accurately and precisely dividing the world between Quakers and non-Quakers, or the Quaker world between legitimate and illegitimate Quakers? What is the problem we are trying to solve here?
My definition is intentionally loosey-goosey and permeable because I think the whole driving force behind the urge to define and draw boundaries is unfriendly and does not serve us well. I don’t think we should be focusing our precious energy on deciding who’s in and who’s out.
on 20 Jul 2008 at 2:11 pm 3 Paul L said …
Thanks, Zach, for posting this. I was off singing when it was held and regretted having to miss it, and am grateful now that I have been able to hear it.
When the discussion was concluded, I felt that the differences were clearly drawn. The question is: did God create human beings in God’s own image, or is the the other way around?
The Biblical answer is clear — as Chuck pointed out. And, the historic Quaker answer seems to me to be equally clear: The emergence of the Quaker movement was predicated on testifying against the false man-made idols of the church, bible-worship, and so forth and in favor of the imminent reality of the Living God (a.k.a. I Am Who I Am)..
So-called non-theists such as David Boulton perform a valuable and prophetic service to 21st Century Quakers by pointing out how they — we — have in fact accreted the Living God with human-made trappings and thus obscured his I Am Who I Am-ness.
In the end, however, my impression is that Boulton’s witness — so far — is incomplete in that it fails to point the way ahead. It isn’t only a matter of smashing false idols; it must also include a call of repentence and turning to the Living God. Judging from this talk only (not having read much of his other stuff), I fear that Boulton is simply substituting a different idol for the one he’s just smashed.
Finally, while I appreciate Chuck’s willingness to substitute a “Gathered” or “Called” People for “Chosen People”, I wonder if it can’t be refined once more to the simple question: Are Quakers a People?
on 20 Jul 2008 at 4:03 pm 4 Grace Gifford said …
Fred Flynn was a New York Yearly Meeting Quaker who studied at Pendle Hill (England) and travelled out west to Friends Churches and Meetings….to spread unity… about three decades ago. I am so very proud of his mission and the endorsements on his travel minute. He also believed that young Friends should have a “space”, and so after threshing an addition was patched on to the historic Manhassett Friends Meetinghouse on Long Island, and I was one of those who benefitted.
I am praying for the “Great Realignment”. As Sally Rickerman has stated, “Quakerism is a precious gem” and it has many facets.
Grace Gifford
Five Rivers Friends, South Carolina
on 28 Jul 2008 at 9:32 am 5 Dave Britton said …
I very much enjoyed connecting with this group at the 2008 FGC interest group meetings! I was able to follow up by facilitating an interest group for non-theist Friends at the just ended New York Yearly Meeting.
on 05 Aug 2008 at 8:16 am 6 Charley Earp said …
Quoting Paul L.: “In the end, however, my impression is that Boulton’s witness — so far — is incomplete in that it fails to point the way ahead. It isn’t only a matter of smashing false idols; it must also include a call of repentence and turning to the Living God. Judging from this talk only (not having read much of his other stuff), I fear that Boulton is simply substituting a different idol for the one he’s just smashed.”
I understand that David’s view that theism should fall by the wayside worries some in the RSoF. As a nontheist, I have to agree that if matter-of-fact truth is the goal, then nontheism wins the day. But, human beings are far more complex than that. I have known a few atheists who were unpleasant and even amoral. I have also known more than a few theists who were cruel and amoral as well.
Theism or nontheism is just an interpretation of experience. I find the evidence for nontheism persuasive. I also find the evidence that nontheism doesn’t improve most people’s character quite persuasive. Ditto for theism.
I desire an RSoF that is devoted to transforming cruel, amoral, and selfish human beings into compassionate, passionate, and loving persons. Theism or nontheism makes little difference to this transformation.
I desire an RSoF that focuses on that task and throws its arms open wide to both theists and nontheists who wish to engage in such a transformational journey. Since the weight of RSoF is firmly on the theist side, I feel I have to stand up and try in small ways to keep opening the arms of the Society for those who it sometimes seeks to prevent from full participation.
Peace-n-Luv! Charley
on 05 Aug 2008 at 3:39 pm 7 Free Polazzo said …
Thanks for posting this. I love to hear Chuck talk about almost anything and everything.
Now, I know about David Boulton and more about Non Theist Friends.
I guess there is that of “Not God” in every person, too!”