Why it take guts to use the "G word"?

It quite amuses me to note the extreme lengths some Quakers will go to at times to avoid mentioning the "G word". To achieve these intellectual heights, and theological detour, we note various aspects of God, embrace that insurmountable academic challenge of finding exactly the right words, hedge our bets by referring somewhat obliquely to "Some Higher Being", and risk offending a considerable number of other faiths by talking solely and very enthusiastically about "The Light Within."

Does this process make us more enlightened than our predecessors or even other faiths? Perhaps it makes us proud and less responsive to the guidance which comes through silence?  Early Quakers would I believe, have been totally mystified about how anyone could possibly "quake" about an entity entirely within them selves. It would seem to me as if these days we have chosen to dispense with that sense of urgency and wonder.

This fragile relationship reminds me of partnerships which go on for years on a day to day basis without taking on a commitment. There may be many benefits. A relationship of this nature could be mutually understood, result in economic stability, a lovely home, and even children. Some would argue it is considerable more honest to scrutinise and review a relationship with such regularity, rather than to take on a new identity, risk becoming half the person you were before and be straddled with the lasting commitment associated with marriage.

Those who have ever been married will know that marriages are not made in heaven, coming without any blemishes and a life-time guarantee. Instead they are not the same thing as romance and there will be many, many challenges ahead. Instead of being made in heaven, we have an opportunity to create a little bit of heaven through them, through honesty, love, compassion, tolerance, forgiveness, the manner in which we choose to support other family members and bring up children.

It would seem to me that, just as the term "marriage" implies commitment, using the word "God" extends a matter of belief into an undertaking that will affect the choices we make through life. Given all the other opportunities about and that a Covenant of this nature would involve some kind of law, no wonder we seem so afraid of taking on this commitment. As with marriage, I do not think this relationship would be possible without firstly some clear evidence that the other party in this relationship understood and loved them.

For many Quakers this evidence of love often comes through their surroundings. Though promptings of the Spirit and considerable practice, we are particularly good at daffodil ministry. I would almost expect at this time of year for it to be mentioned quite a bit

in Meeting. For those rainy, cold days in a relationship, it may be very hard however to feel more than a tiny ineffective spark of light going on inside you. There may be many life situations when "Some higher being" may seem quite unreasonable and illogical when it comes to dispensing justice. Just as with marriage there will be times when our relationship with God will be tested,

This relationship reminds me of how George Fox went through a particularly dark time in his life. As kingship was being restored, he had good reason to feel terrified through his links to the old regime, besides a huge sense of failure that the concept of an English Commonwealth had failed. At this crucial time, I think George Fox referred back to his relationship with God. Just as it is usual for one or both parties to wear a ring as a sign of their lasting commitment to each other, he remembered that we have a Law, drawn up through love and understanding of the human race, to keep up going. George Fox spoke later of an ocean of darkness that was overcome by an ocean of light. From that moment on Quakers had a peace testimony through following a very precise instruction contained within the Ten Commandments. "Thou shalt not kill."