. As I have previously written, I am very much supportive of this process , seeing it as an opportunity. The revision committee has been appointed, with several people on it being well known to me, and showing quite a range of diversity – as had been requested of nominations. As they slowly and thoughtfully begin their work, I wish to offer them – and the wider community – some thoughts. I suppose this might be considered an ‘open letter’, but I do not intend it in the way that most open letters are used; they are generally in the context of campaigning, and I do not consider it appropriate that anyone campaign for anything in the context of the revision process. This is not about lobbying and defending interests, but about coming together to reach the right decisions for our Yearly Meeting at this time, just as in all of our spirit-led decision-making. This post is just my unasked for advice, or perhaps a statement of my own hopes. Members of the committee, and of the wider Quaker community in Britain, can take it as they will. So, Britain Yearly Meeting has decided – nearly a year ago now – to start the process of revising our Book of Discipline, Quaker faith & practice

First, I hope that we can all be bold in this process. We should not be constrained by the structure or even the inclusion philosophy of the last full revision. Source material could now come from a much wider range of sources, and the ease of self-publishing blurs the line between ‘properly’ published material and things that have been done by one person on their own. Not that things done by one person on their own should necessarily be excluded, as the ease of sharing things online means that some profound wisdom can now be found on blogs, or even on social media. I hope the committee will start, in some senses, from a blank piece of paper and work out what needs to be said, and then carefully and will then daringly seek out, commission or produce appropriate material.

However, while being bold, I hope that the committee remembers that they are working on behalf of all Friends in our Yearly Meeting. Their job is not, to my mind, to decide on significant changes, even though significant changes may well be necessary. Their job is to make sure that we, as a Yearly Meeting, decide on changes – without necessarily referring each one to Yearly Meeting in session. If we are to make clearer statements regarding expectation of belief, if we are to codify a presumption of Christianity or make clear any limits (or lack thereof) on our theological pluralism, then it has to be something that involves the widest possible community of Friends. I hope that there is an ongoing process of consultation on matters large and small, on the parameters of any search for material or on major theological or organisational questions, on how the new book or books are to be structured. We are all responsible for this revision process, though the legwork is being done by an appointed committee (and their staff support).

Then there are hopes that seem little, but must be thought about early in the process. One of the criticisms I have heard again and again about Quaker writing – and most of mine is as guilty of this as anything modern – is that it is inaccessible. We include seventeenth, eighteenth and nineteenth century writing without explanation, and even the modern content is written at a very high reading level. While of course we do not want to lose the wisdom that has stood the test of time (though we shouldn’t be too bound to include everything old that was in the last version), we should want that wisdom to be accessible. While poetic language can speak to us in ways that bald and straightforward descriptions cannot, you sometimes need both in order to be clear. Whether this is done through companion volumes or more editorial content accompanying the anthology sections, it is something we should aim to improve.

The same drive also applies to the sections describing our current practices and structures, the sections most likely to be rewritten entirely, or at least in large part. We can’t make the complex simple, but we can at least avoid making the simple complex. Being careful of vocabulary, keeping sentence structure straightforward, yet not seeming to talk down to readers, is not only possible but very important.

The elephant in the room of this revision is, of course, theology. Must someone believe in God to be a Quaker? What do we mean by ‘God’ when we ask that question? Though perhaps we call it the elephant in the room despite the fact that people will happily acknowledge it – and the fact that it may turn out to be a small model elephant rather than a genuine ponderous pachyderm. This must be confronted, but without assuming we need a final or definite answer. We’ve lived with tension for a long time, and while it would be good for it to be somewhat lessened, that we find ourselves with less of a feeling of stress from that tension, it would be rather unexpected for it to be fully resolved. This applies to other points of tension and disagreement; not all questions will be fully answered. Remember it is only about 25 years since the last revision finished. The revision is not producing work to stand for all time, but to best capture where we are now . This may mean resolving some things that are up in the air, but you are unlikely to resolve all of them.

That said, however, I would be disappointed if the only resolution of hard questions was to include all points of view with no editorial comment and no synthesis. It may be, and it is my feeling that it will be the case that our resolution will be finding a way to live creatively with the tension of theological diversity. However, that will mean new ways, or acceptance of existing ways, of framing the variety of thought in our Yearly Meeting. Those need to be presented as a way of framing the different points of view reflected in any relevant anthology sections. We may not have a unified theology for all, indeed I consider that highly unlikely, but we may have a way of holding them together, a clear and easily communicated theoretical way of explaining how and why we have such variety. I really hope that we might have something in that way, anyway, and it should be presented.

I hope, as one might after this year’s Yearly Meeting, that it will better address social issues like those tied up in privilege. I hope that there is more in there on disability, to address one particular point that affects me, and that what there is reflects the social model. Really, I hope that the process – as I discuss below – will allow Friends in general to learn about things like the social model of disability, and other principles of privilege and oppression, inclusion and diversity, and see that they are natural positions given what I see as the Quaker view of equality.

My biggest hope, though, is very much about process rather than results. As I mentioned above in relation to changes and representing the current state of our Yearly Meeting, I hope there will be consultation. More than that, I hope there will be broad and deep involvement of Friends at many levels, helping to guide the work. This can even go some way to helping resolve some questions, by having this interactive process of revision acting as a form of renewal, driving engagement with difficult subjects as well as joyous ones, and leading to the new book, or books, reflecting not only where we were and where we are (by then, will be), but also presenting a fantastic reflection of the journey we have taken together. The process can be part of the journey that the book it produces reflects.

We have, as I have said many times, this fantastic opportunity. We have together set out the first step, and a small group of dedicated Friends has come together to carry the work forward. We should now expect to continue together, guided and facilitated by that group, and make this revision a journey for us all, that allows us to clearly express our unity and our diversity, that enables or even requires us to learn and grow, and that gives us a result that clearly and understandably expresses our faith as we move into the middle part of the twenty-first century.