Now, I know about David Boulton and more about Non Theist Friends.

I guess there is that of “Not God” in every person, too!”

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

Grace Gifford
Five Rivers Friends, South Carolina

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?

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.