What Canst Thou Say? Towards a Quaker Theology

by Janet Scott

Are Quakers Christian? Is it possible for Quakerism to be both Christian and Universalist? These are just two of the questions which form the starting point for this book. In exploring them, it becomes clear that they cannot be answered in isolation for they are linked to a whole complex of questions about Jesus, God and the nature of human living. So it becomes necessary to engage in theology. But for Quakers this must be from a distinctively Quaker standpoint which seeks to be both undogmatic and concerned with practical issues. Most of all it must be grounded in our corporate experience of God. Janet Scott attempts to begin this process. She explores what we may say about Jesus and about God, sets out one way in which Quakerism may be both Christian and Universalist, and points out areas needing further discussion.

100 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2007

Reviews

[Chris]

Despite its short length, it's a dense subject, best read in small bites. Whilst I did not agree with some of Janet's points, it's an interesting read which provided some thought provoking ideas.

[Chaundra]

A valiant effort to get Quakers thinking more rigorously about our beliefs and what we can constructively say to the more mainstream faiths. Unfortunately, I don't think it goes at any length to actually help Quakers forge what could reasonably be labelled theology, and that perhaps is not a bad thing.

What it has done is convince me that theology is more reflective of people in the place and time it is written than it has anything to do with God. And if you use theology as a starting point for discussion and record, then this isn't necessarily a bad thing. However, if used to try and solidify Truth, then it becomes something that is fundamentally divisive - giving us something constructed by our own egos to fight over rather than an earnest searching after Truth.

I would hope that any Quaker use of theology is more in the vein of a starting point. Still, the tendency towards divisiveness is not to be taken lightly. Perhaps there is a better way than theology to get at the former while still avoiding the latter.

Regardless, Ms. Scott doesn't actually give us answers (in good Quaker tradition), but lots to think about. And if that was her aim, it was well achieved. But as an actual basis for theology in the strict sense of the term, I don't find it convincing nor necessary.