We already know this

I don't claim originality in suggesting this: I think it's at the heart -of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been writing and saying for some time, and I'd +

I don't claim originality in suggesting this: John Punshon, as quoted in +QF&P 20.18, pretty much writes exactly this in 1967, and I think it's at the heart +of what Ben Pink Dandelion has been writing and saying for some time. I'd be surprised if there weren't others who will read this and say "But that's what I've been saying for years". I can only apologise for not having read more widely or, increasingly likely, that I have simply forgotten what I have read. My excuse for writing this none-the-less is to try to encourage people to read God, words and us, but avoid the not unreasonable conclusion from doing so that -belief-talk is what matters.

We already know this -

Listing a few well-known phrases will help me make my point

Quoting a few well-known phrases will help me make my point:

Let your life speak Be patterns, be examples A testimony to the grace of God as shown in the life of ... + A humble learner in the school of Christ [For Quakers] Christianity is not a notion, but a way As Friends we commit ourselves to a way of worship Come regularly to meeting for worship + ... in the manner of Friends + Swear not at all + Live simply + [need a quote for equality/justice testimony] + [L]ive in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars

And an old family story:

Are you a Christian? [pause] You'll have to ask my neighbour +

This emphasis on what we do as Quakers puts us, according to +Karen Armstrong, right back at the heart of the origins of the great monotheist religions:

"Religion as defined by the great sages of India, China, and the Middle East was not a notional activity but a practical one; it did not require belief in a set of doctrines but rather hard, disciplined work..."

The Case for God, 2000

Armstrong suggests that contemporary Judaism and Islam have retained +their original self-definitions centred on orthopraxy ("uniformity of religious +practice"), whereas Christian denominations in the +main have shifted much more towards defining themselves in terms of orthodoxy ("correct belief").

It's not surprising that, surrounded as we are by churches for whom +orthodoxy is fundamental, as well as strident parodies of all religious people +as little better (indeed more dangerous) than flat-earthers, we should have +fallen into adopting their language for our own internal discourse.

+ There's nothing wrong with talking about belief +

It's natural to want to dig in to why we do what we do. And +it's not surprising that we struggle to come up with agreed answers. The key +point to hold on to is that doesn't undermine the validity of the +doings. Or, rather, it only undermines our faith if we let +it. If we restricted ourselves to only doing things if we understood why they +worked, we'd have very little left. And, as the previous section tried to +explain, we know that what we do does work. So sure, keep trying +to figure out why. But meantime, keep cheerfully practicing.