QUAKER ELIGIOUS R HOUGHT T A Friendly Apology for the 21st Century No Apology Required: Quaker Fragmentation and the Impossibility of a Unified Confessional Apologia . 5 David L. Johns An Apology for Authentic Spirituality . 20 Paul Anderson Responses to Johns and Anderson . 38 Arthur O. Roberts; Stephen W. Angell Responses to “Quakers and Levinas,” QRT #113 Levinas, Quakers and the (In)Visibility of God: Responses to Jeffrey Dudiak and Corey Beals . 53 Rachel Muers An Appreciative Response to Corey Beals and Jeff Dudiak . 57 Richard J. Wood Cumulative No . 114 April 2010 QUAKER RELIGIOUS THOUGHT Cumulative Number 114 April 2010 Sponsored by the Quaker Theological Discussion Group (http://theo-discuss.quaker.org/) The purpose of the Quaker Theological Discussion Group is to explore the meaning and implications of our Quaker faith and religious experience through discussion and publication. This search for unity in the claim of truth upon us concerns both the content and application of our faith. Paul Anderson, Editor ([email protected]) Howard R. Macy, Associate Editor ([email protected]) David Johns, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Arthur O. Roberts, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Gayle Beebe, Associate Editor ([email protected]) Phil Smith, Business Manager ([email protected]) Wess Daniels, Website Manager ([email protected]) Advisory Council: Carole Spencer, Ben Pink Dandelion, Ruth Pitman, John Punshon, Max Carter, Stephen Angell, Jeffrey Dudiak, Corey Beals, and Susan Jeffers Address editorial correspondence only to: Paul Anderson, Box 6032, George Fox University, Newberg, OR 97132 Quaker Religious Thought is published two times each year; the Volume numbers were discontinued after Vol. 30 in 2002, continuing with the issue # system only since 2003, beginning with #s 99 &100. Send all business and subscription matters to: Quaker Religious Thought c/o Phil Smith, Religion Department, George Fox University, Newberg, OR 97132 Subscription rates: Individuals/meetings — per year $16, two years $30 Students — per year $12; Institutional libraries — per year $20 Lifetime subscription $300-500 European distribution: Friends Book Centre Euston Road, London, NW1 2BJ, England International Standard Serial Number 0033-5088 ABOUT THIS ISSUE his issue features two papers by David Johns and myself, presented Tat the Barnesville QTDG meetings last June addressing the topic, “A Friendly Apology for the 21st Century.” As Robert Barclay’s masterpiece outlined a constellation of Quaker convictions for the intelligentsia of Europe to consider theologically a quarter century after the movement began, the question for Friends now is: “What sort of message are we prepared to declare to the world today?” That is a topic worth thinking about in every generation, and at the beginning of a new century and millennium, as well as a third of a millennium (as Stephen Angell points out) after Barclay’s original Apology for the True Christian Divinity, that venture is a timely one, indeed! Johns and I, however, approach the issue in rather different ways. Johns questions whether a Quaker apology is possible on behalf of Friends today because of the huge diversity among us. His question is well taken. Who speaks for Friends in the world today, let alone in North America? A second question follows: who is the audience needing to be addressed, given that we live in not only a post- denominational era, but a largely post-Christian one? Johns offers some important ways forward, even if Barclay’s project seems out of sorts with today’s situation and need. My approach, however, is to stay with Barclay’s general outline and to ask how many of the Scriptures he cites might be relevant in today’s world. That being the case, I argue an apology for “authentic spirituality,” rather than “the true Christian divinity,” as the former seems of greater and broader interest for today’s audiences. These papers are responded to by Arthur Roberts and Stephen Angell in what becomes a lively and fruitful exchange; David and I may want to respond to these responses in the next issue of QRT, as the issues raised are significant ones. The other two responses in this issue engage the essays of Corey Beals and Jeffrey Dudiak on Levinas and the Quakers, appearing in QRT #113. They are contributed by Rachel Muers, an emerging British Quaker theologian, and Richard Wood, a leading Quaker philosopher, educator, and cross-cultural leader in America and Japan. Responses by Beals and Dudiak may also be serviceable, so keep your eyes open for QRT #115 this fall, as well! I want to say a big THANK YOU to Susan Jeffers for developing and maintaining our website over the last several years; she will continue 3 on the Advisory Committee, but the managing of the website will be assumed by Wess Daniels, to whom we are also grateful! Wess blogs and writes a good deal about Quaker interests and concerns, and he is pursuing a Ph.D. in theology at Fuller Theological Seminary while also serving as pastor of Camas Friends Church in Washington state. So, thanks, Wess and Susan for your helpfulness, and to so many others, who keep the venture of Quaker theological discussion and thought a lively interest and pursuit! — Paul Anderson Post Script: Several months ago we learned the sad news that Ted Perkins, the former Business Manager of Quaker Religious Thought, had passed away. I appreciate Arthur Roberts’ preparing this brief statement of appreciation for Ted Perkins in memoriam. In MeMorIaM: Theodore PerkIns (1917-2010) Theodore (Ted) Perkins, a North Carolina Friend, passed away January 14, 2010, at the age of 93. From 1987 until 1997 Ted served as business manager for Quaker Religious Thought, faithfully attending to details of publishing, subscriptions and mailing. A recorded Friends minister, he had a varied ministry—librarian, teacher, and pastor of several North Carolina meetings. His autobiography, This I Remember, tells the rich story of his life; our condolences are extended to his wife Eugenia and the rest of the family. The March- April, 2010 issue of Quaker Life carries a more extensive account of his life and ministry. In deep appreciation, —Arthur Roberts 4 NO APOLOGY REQUIRED: QUAKER FRAGMENTATION AND THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A UNIFIED CONFESSIONAL APOLOGIA davId L. Johns InTroducTIon Quaker Apology for our time is both impossible and unnecessary, A at least in the spirit of the Apology that comes immediately to mind when we say, “Apology.” Robert Barclay’s work has taken on mythic proportions in the Religious Society of Friends, if for no other reason than that it has no peer in the wider Quaker theological tradition. A number of other substantial works were published in the early decades of the movement by Isaac Penington, William Penn, Elizabeth Bathurst, and others. But nothing has paralleled the longevity and wide-spread impact of this particular book. Whether out of appreciation or hubris, others have fancied writing its sequel. In 2007, Patricia Williams’s Quakerism: a Theology for Our Time was heralded by the publisher as “the first substantial work of Quaker theology since Robert Barclay’s 1 Apology of 1676.” While her work has some merit, it is disappointing on several levels, not the least of which is in its lack of familiarity with subsequent theological work and its inability to dialog creatively with 2 contemporary Quakerism. As we know, many Quaker theological projects have not been as ambitious as Barclay’s; however, important theological engagement has been and continues to be published, both in book length treatments, university theses, and in journals such as Quaker Religious Thought, Quaker Studies, Friends’ Quarterly, and Quaker Theology. To write something akin to the Apology is a project besieged on several fronts. As Quaker theologians and Quakers interested in theology, there are other projects that require attention. Secondly, rather than conclude that Quaker theological reflection is impossible or that it has come to an end, I will outline what I believe is possible 5 6 • davId L. Johns and necessary as indicated in some directions I am pursuing in my own work. ParT I: no aPoLogy requIred Generally speaking, an apology can be developed along two trajectories. These are not mutually exclusive but may be differentiated as a matter of emphasis and for explanation. The first is an apology as a defense of, in favor of, or for a particular faith or a particular view. Most theological dictionaries or encyclopedias offer some variation on this definition as the primary function of an apology or the practice of apologetics. A second trajectory, however, that may be developed is an apology as an articulation of the merits and or intelligibility of a particular faith or particular view in a specific context. In other words, its intention may be the convincement of the unconvinced, or it may be simply to establish intellectual credibility and to relate its claims in terms comprehensible to a contemporary audience. In either case, the perceived urgency of such an undertaking increases when there are significant shifts in the cultural and intellectual landscape which, whether intentional or not, present a challenge to that faith. In the broadest sense, every act of proclamation functions thusly, that is, as an apology, as an effort to bring a Christian vision into vigorous conversation with and within the present context. “It is theology that seeks to express itself in contextual terms so that the gospel will be heard and understood.”3 Tillich stated this clearly and directly: “…systematic theology is ‘answering theology.’ It must answer the questions implied in the general human and the special historical situation. Apologetics, therefore, is an omnipresent element and not a special section of systematic theology.” Apologetics is the “art of answering.”4 In the more restricted and literal sense, an apology is a defense of a view point against something else, whether that something else is real or whether it is imagined.