Johan’s book group is reading an old lecture by Jones, The Nature and Functions of the Light in the Thought of George Fox and he reflects on the approach:
Canby exemplifies a typical Quaker approach to theology: it’s often functional. He doesn’t spend time defining “light,” he finds the distinction between “natural light” and the Light of Christ unhelpful; he doesn’t cling to or generate doctrines. Instead, he describes how the Light of Christ actually seems to work in our lives.
Source
I appreciate Johan’s distinction of functional theology here. Every so often my wife will ask me what I think about some specific point of doctrine, say the nature of Christ. As a Catholic, analytical thinker, and religion nerd, this is the kind of thing she naturally ponders, but I rarely give her a very satisfactory response. I often know the “right” answer according to traditional orthodox Christian creeds and I’m always curious what others make of questions like these, but what I myself believe is shaped and largely bounded by my own experiences of Christ working in my life. I’m adding Jones’s article to my reading list.
blog.canyoubelieve.me