As Friends, we are committed to integrity and honesty with all. How to talk of God, or not, with integrity and honesty is an area of difference, diversity, and even conflict among Friends. In the spirit of openness and peace, as well as honesty and integrity, we invite you all to consider how we talk about God, or not.
I, Helen Haug, testify to the following in writing, knowing that short answers are problematic for me. I hope this session inspires Friends to journal and share journal entries when appropriate.
What experiences have shaped my perspective on how to talk about God or not?
My conception of G_D was formed and confused by a dual-track religious education: 1) a spiritual connection that was wordless and often happened in the natural world (Creation?), and 2) a rote Sunday School instruction that gave me hierarchy, rituals and most of all, words: vocabulary, names, stories. Experience was somehow supposed to be fitted into the construction. The two tracks did not mesh for me, and launched a long and wide search for how, and if, the two kinds of knowledge could be reconciled.
I called that search a hobby, which was an acceptable point of view. My home setting was a family that valued religious education as a kind of cultural literacy, while being suspicious of organized religion. There was also a curious classical education sidetrack to "knowing my Bible stories", which was "knowing my Bullfinches Mythology stories". My interest in anything spiritual I learned to dismiss as a mere hobby and by making light of it. I got very good at making light of things and having them plunge without warning into a deep place.
How do we talk to each other about such things as God (or not)?
The Sunday-School construction was bewildering to a little girl with a very literal way of thinking; does the Good Shepherd protect the sheep only to eat them himself? The Greek Pantheon looked like a dysfunctional family that only made me glad to not be Greek or a god (father gods eat their children). To a big girl with a literal way of thinking it seemed a crazy-making scam; Jesus sets me free to be his slave? The more words I learned the harder it was to talk about such things as G_D, and the more possible interpretations the word could have.
As an adult I determined to try being an atheist and as a result of that experiment, I can commend atheism as a valuable phase in one's spiritual journey. I certainly recognize it as a legitimate end phase if the shoe fits. But for me, though atheism cleared away the confusion and all the words, it also left a vacuum, which let the spiritual connection shine through—like fireflies that still keep my head swiveling.
I felt a need for making up my own titles and descriptions, something I still play with. The word, God, itself has come to be a nickname that begs a follow-up phrase: "and what I mean by that is..." "The Un-nameable Divine Superlative" is my favorite so far. Sometimes a "what I don't mean by that" is called for. For me, the spelling, G_D, signals an interruption in assumptions. With Liberal Friends I find that "Spirit" comes closest to a common worshipful vocabulary with the least baggage. "That of G_D" is easier to describe through experiences without defining. Exploring gender pronouns with G_D as the subject is nothing new, but always new, and something I look forward to. Not talking about G_D also fits with knowing in silence.
How does speaking of God (or not) within the wider society and world, shape our experiences?
I have learned so much from people sharing their stories with me that when I speak of G_D in the wider society I feel I am also dialoguing with all of the story-sharers as an invisible cloud of witnesses. The confounding vocabulary now feels like a poetry that doesn't have to be taken literally, yet can be. And I don't want it to be taken from me. I find it easier to define my terms with stories from my own experiences as analogies. And I find it easier to view my own and my culture's story through the lenses of biblical tales, cautionary or not. I don't want to cede G_D and the Bible to people who weaponize them and use them for hurt and hate. It’s a political stance. And it's a delicate balancing act, the habit of taking lightly with taking seriously.
In the Light,
HH