Light and Silence

Yesterday I showed a constrast between a Quaker perspective of salvation through a long, gradual walk with the Light with a more traditional Protestant perspective of instantaneous justification followed by a long march toward sanctification. (Instantaneous sanctification comes up sometimes too, but for now...)

Today I'll look at a passage that can appeal to either perspective. Paul talks in Romans about coming closer to the Spirit. This, from Romans 8, is the promise, for "them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit":

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.
12 Therefore, brethren, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live after the flesh.
13 For if ye live after the flesh, ye shall die: but if ye through the Spirit do mortify the deeds of the body, ye shall live.
14 For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.
15 For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.
16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

This follows on Paul's description in Chapter 7 of struggles with sin and the problems of the law. The Spirit is necessary - and separate from our 'carnal minds' - to free us from carnality and sin. Verse 9 appeals to Quakers, with its claim that "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you," but the Spirit is still something distinct from our own selves. There is a clear break here, and it is the Spirit's impact that frees us, "whereby we cry, Abba, Father".

The next verses describe how God leads us to the Spirit. (God leads? Certainly - "we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.") Note that the "Spirit...beareth witness with our spirit," and "not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Hope is unseen, uncertain, "for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?"

18 For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
19 For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.
20 For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,
21 Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.
22 For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together until now.
23 And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the firstfruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body.
24 For we are saved by hope: but hope that is seen is not hope: for what a man seeth, why doth he yet hope for?
25 But if we hope for that we see not, then do we with patience wait for it.
26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.

Some read this quotation as a description of the sanctification process, but it seems to me a more appropriate description of the journey after convincement, a process toward salvation rather than a process after it.

(And yes, I did stop short of verses 29 and 30, on predestination, a topic I'm not yet ready to discuss.)

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 8:30 AM | Permalink

In the essay "New Light on Old Ways": Gurneyites, Wilburites, and the Early Friends, in George Fox's Legacy: Friends for 350 Years, Thomas Hamm writes:

Finally, Gurney recast understandings of the nature of salvation and how Friends achieved it.

For generations, Friends had embraced a view of the nature of religious life that was peculiar to them. In this vision, all people possessed a certain divine seed or Light. Obedience to this Light and to other revelations from God, through Scripture and directly, nurtured it and caused it to grow. As it grew, it gradually sanctified the believer. Ultimately, it would bring the believer to a state of holiness that justified and fitted him or her for heaven. Thus in Quaker eyes, justification and sanctification were inseparable and gradual.

But Gurney, like many contemporary non-Quaker evangelicals, argued that Friends had this wrong. (I will leave it to those more knowledgeable to determine whether Gurney or his opponents were closer to Fox on this particular question.) Justification, or salvation, came through a simple act of faith, believing in the efficacy of the Atoning Blood of Christ shed on the Cross. Thus it could come instantaneously. Sanctification followed as a second experience, also the fruit of faith, but gradually, probably lifelong after conversion. (56)

The note points to Gurney's Essays on the Doctrines, Evidences, and Practical Operation of Christianity, pages 625-7 and 630-1 in the 1884 Philadelphia edition. Unfortunately, the version available online is from Gurney's Works, with different pagination. I'm guessing Hamm is citing section XI, where Gurney describes what sounds to me like the positive side of what Hamm describes. (I can't find any explicit disapproval of the Quaker position, though I believe Hamm is right that it's not very compatible.)

I'll be exploring this subject more in a series of posts, but this seems a good place to start, a marker of the divide that separated Quakers of the early 1800s (and likely before) from many of their fellow Protestants.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 6:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (6)

Commenting on an earlier posting on New Light on George Fox, Martin Kelley suggested that I look into the more recent collection, George Fox's Legacy: Friends for 350 Years. The first was the result of a conference marking the 300th anniversary of Fox's death. The latter is the result of a conference marking 350 years since Quaker preaching took off.

While New Light on George Fox focused sharply on Fox himself and early Quakers, George Fox's Legacy explores the ways that Quakers have related to Fox. There are two excellent essays, one on Fox and Penn and another on Fox and Penington, that could probably have appeared in either volume, but overall the two collections are very complementary.

Running down the list of essays, here's a thumbnail sketch of my perspective on each:

George Fox and William Penn: Their Relationship and Their Roles within the Quaker Movement

Melvin Endy challenges the notion that William Penn took Quakerism in a very different direction than Fox had intended, exploring the relationship between Fox and Penn and concluding that differences are smaller than they are often described.

Liberal Friends (Re)Discover Fox

Chuck Fager looks at how far FGC Friends had drifted from Fox by the early 1900s and explores rising interest in Fox from the 1950s onward. There's some amazing stuff in here about what Quaker psychics reported Fox (and Jesse Holmes) as saying, as well as a general story that raises all kinds of questions about what it means to be a liberal Quaker.

"New Light on Old Ways": Gurneyites, Wilburites, and the Early Friends

Thomas Hamm, whose Transformation of American Quakerism I'll be visiting soon, examines the uses Orthodox Quakers made of early Friends' writings, especially the dwindling interest the Gurneyite wing had for them and the increasing interest of the Wilburites.

The Search for Seventeenth-Century Authority During the Hicksite Reformation

H. Larry Ingle examines the interest Hicksites took in the early Quakers, and how their perspective biases toward the early Fox and his companions, rather than the later more conservative Fox.

Early Friends and the Renewal of British Quakerism, 1890-1920

Thomas Kennedy examines a subject I know little about, British Quakerism's shift from the evangelical toward a more liberal approach, and how the early writings of Friends factored into that.

Isaac Penington and the Authority of George Fox

Rosemary Moore writes a provocative piece following Isaac Penington's shift from support for a more open, individualist approach to the more centralized, communitarian approach that Fox created after the Restoration. Penington's own journey illustrates many of the splits that Ingle describes as inspiration for the Hicksite split. Moore's final question - "Pope George Fox?" - is a difficult one.

"Come in at the Door!" - How Foxian Metaphors of Salvation Speak to Evangelical Friends

Arthur Roberts does something different here. In some ways he demonstrates what others are describing here, by reading Fox and excerpting Fox with an eye to reinforcing his own evangelical perspective. It's an excellent telling, but in the end it doesn't convince me that Fox would have agreed with Roberts or show me the path from Fox's perspective to Roberts'.

Holiness: The Quaker Way of Perfection

Carole D. Spencer here writes an essay that I'll keep coming back to. I like the whole book, but Spencer does an amazing job of connecting early Quakerism with the later holiness movement (citing Hannah Whitall Smith as a key example). The article ranges from Smith to Fox to Catholic and Orthodox perspectives on holiness, integrating Quaker perspectives with a broader Christian framework.

Jerry Frost's introduction helps tie them together and point out where they differ. It's an amazing collection, well worth the $10 for anyone who'd like to explore the diverse perspectives Quakers have taken toward their origins.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

The opening of A New England Fire-Brand Quenched is a stinging blast against Roger Williams for alleged lies about Williams' attempts to contact George Fox while Fox was visiting Rhode Island:

Oh! how darest thou Roger Williams, publish such false lyes to the World, when thou knowest in thy Conscience, that G. F. had never any Writing, or Letter, or Proposals from thee; neither did he ever exchange a word with thee. The Lord God of Heaven knowes it, and the Deputy Governour knowes, that I received none of thy Writings or Papers or Proposals by him. Behold all sober people the foundation of this mans Attempt, the beginning of his work; and since the foundation of thy Book is a notorious lye, the building upon such a foundation of lyes is not like to be otherwise: which lyes thou hast made thy refuge; as throughout thy Book may be evidently seen. For except a man had sold himself to work falsehood, and make lyes; he could not have done more wickedly, and have uttered falser charges that though hast done. But the Lord God which knows them, and sees thy evil design in them, will sweep them away with the besom of Destruction, and clear his people from thy manifest false tongue...

But by this all may see the wickedness, that is in the Bottle of this R. W. by what does flow out of it in his Book, to wit, a malitious spirit against G. F. who was never concerned him by word or writing, much less did G. F. ever do him wrong. And yet he says, G. F. well knew, what Artillery he was furnisht with out of his own bald writings, (as he scoffingly calls them) &c. when never a word of this is true: though he presumes to present it to the King for Truth concerning G. F. ...

This also is an abominable falsehood, the Lord know it, a groundless untrue imagination of his own; for there was no such Agreement or Consultation. Is this man fit to write of Religion, that lyes? a vain man! What is he, and his designs, that they should require Consultations and Junctos? so let the honest Reader Judge, from whence R. W. had all these lyes, if not from his Father the Devil, who is out of Truth: but with the Truth is both his Father and he Judged.

I've put the whole opening section, in which Fox argues over what was sent or not sent during his visit, in the extended entry. It's not particularly theologically interesting, nor do I find that Fox's repetitions and tirades show him at anywhere near his best. The next section looks brighter.

(This book also appears to have a greater number of typos that the other old printings of Fox I've seen. The same word is spelled differently different places, there's a strange use of a parenthesis point the wrong direction, and so on. No doubt I'm adding new typos in entering it, but hopefully I'll be able to clear those up with a few reviews.)

A
New-England Fire-brand Quenched,
OR,
An Answer to a Lying, Slanderous Book Printed at Boston in the Year 1676. by one Roger Williams of Providence in New England; which he Dedicateth to the KING, with Desires, That (if the most-High please) Old and New-England may flourish, when the Pope and Mahomet, Rome and Constantinople are in their Ashes, &c.

R.W. And in his Title-Page he begins thus: George Fox digged out of his Burrowes; Or an Offer of a Skirmish upon (R.W.'s) 14 Proposals made this last Summer 1672, unto G. F. present on Rode-Island; and that (G. F. slily departing) the Disputation went on aforesaid. And in his Narration of the Conference or Dispute he again asserts, that he challenged G. F. by writing, and all his Friends then met at Rode-Island; and that then G. F. withdrew. And farther in his second Page says, he sent his Paper of Proposals unto G. F. at Newport. And in the 4 and 5 pages he says, he sent his Paper to Capt. Cranston, Deputy Governour of Rode-Island. And further scornfully says; The old Fox thought it best to run for it, and leave the work to his Journey-men and Chaplains, &c. And in the 22 and 23 Pages he further says, Within some few days, after the Deputy Governour had delivered his Paper to them, the strange Quakers, (as was agreed with G. Fox) &c.

Answ. How dare R. W. to Dedicate such palpable Lies to the King? For this R. W. never spoke to G. F. nor did G. F. receive any Letter from this R.w. and yet he impudently says (p. 23) As was agreed with G. F. Nor did G. F. receive any of these 14 Proposals from him, though he says, These 14 Proposals were made last Summer unto G. F. and that he digged him out of his Burroughs; Which Proposals G .F. not only never received, but never saw, not so much as knew of them; though R. W. scornfully says, G. F. slily departed; and that G. F. hath pluckt his Horns, as S. T. did, &c. But in this doth R. W.'s wickedness farther appear, in that J. T. might have received Letters from him; but G. F. never received any from him, nor knew.

R. W. further says, He sent his Proposals to G. F. to Newport; and yet pag. 4 says, He sent them to the Deputy Governor Cranston. [But G. F. never so much as received or saw any such Proposals from the Deputy Governour, or knew of any such thing, when he went off the Island.] And yet R. W. says (page 5) That G. F. knew, he was furnisht with Artillery out of G. F.'s own writings, and that he knew the Consequence that would follow; and therefore the old Fox thought, it was best to run for it, and leave his Journey-Men, &c.

Au. This also is untrue, for G. F. knew nothing of his Accusations, or pretended proof, which R. W. vainly calls his Artillery; nor that he ever read, much less objected, anything against G. F.'s Book. Oh! how darest thou Roger Williams, publish such false lyes to the World, when thou knowest in thy Conscience, that G. F. had never any Writing, or Letter, or Proposals from thee; neither did he ever exchange a word with thee. The Lord God of Heaven knowes it, and the Deputy Governour knowes, that I received none of thy Writings or Papers or Proposals by him. Behold all sober people the foundation of this mans Attempt, the beginning of his work; and since the foundation of thy Book is a notorious lye, the building upon such a foundation of lyes is not like to be otherwise: which lyes thou hast made thy refuge; as throughout thy Book may be evidently seen. For except a man had sold himself to work falsehood, and make lyes; he could not have done more wickedly, and have uttered falser charges that though hast done. But the Lord God which knows them, and sees thy evil design in them, will sweep them away with the besom of Destruction, and clear his people from thy manifest false tongue. And I doubt not but the Deputy Gouvernour will testifie for me, that I am clear of this charge; and that I never saw, nor knew that which R. W. writ, and sent to him.

But which is strange, though G. F. was several weeks at Rode-Island, and at Providence (where it seems, this old Priest R. W. dwells) and in all that time he never spoke to G. F. nor writ to him of any such thing: but sends its like, these his Papers to the Deputy Gouvernour; what was in them (as I said) I knew not, they being delivered to him, after I was gone of the Island, as he writes himself.

For his dating of his Letter, what was that to G. F.? for J. T. tells R. W. of his misdating of his Letter, as R. W. confesses himself in his 11 p. wherein he writes to J. T. Your second Letter I received misdated as well as mine. But by this all may see the wickedness, that is in the Bottle of this R. W. by what does flow out of it in his Book, to wit, a malitious spirit against G. F. who was never concerned him by word or writing, much less did G. F. ever do him wrong. And yet he says, G. F. well knew, what Artillery he was furnisht with out of his own bald writings, (as he scoffingly calls them) &c. when never a word of this is true: though he presumes to present it to the King for Truth concerning G. F.

R. W. Again he says (p. 4, 5) that it was concluded and agreed in a Juncto at Newport, that his Letter should not be delivered to the Deputy Governour, until G. F. was gone.

Ans. This also is an abominable falsehood, the Lord know it, a groundless untrue imagination of his own; for there was no such Agreement or Consultation. Is this man fit to write of Religion, that lyes? a vain man! What is he, and his designs, that they should require Consultations and Junctos? so let the honest Reader Judge, from whence R. W. had all these lyes, if not from his Father the Devil, who is out of Truth: but with the Truth is both his Father and he Judged. And this is R. W. Landskip (as he calls it) of the Battle fought betwixt him and the Quakers. But G. F. never spoke with him, nor received any Challenge from him: and yet this man can boast, & saith G. F. slily withdrew and fled) Which untruth is more then slily suggested; for it is impudently asserted by R. W.) But it's well known by many in that Countrey, that G. F. was long enough upon Rode-Island; that if R. W. had any mind to have written to him, or spoken to him, he might easily have had an opportunity. But it was R. W. that was slily in his burroughs then, and kept in his Horns, who had nothing to say to G. F. to his face, whilst he was upon the Colony and Province of Rode-Island.

And it seems but reasonable, that he should have written to G. F. as well as to the Deputy Governour, if he had a mind, that G. F. should have seen it: but the Lord, who is over all, knows and sees his creeping and lying Spirit, and from whence it doth proceed. And though he may deceive some with these his lyes, and very vain boasts, as that G. F. knew what he had against him, what Artillery he had gotten, and what Consequences would rowl down the Mountains upon him: (these are R. W. his own expressions) yet G. F. stands in his innocency in the power of God over it all; nor can such Trash deceive any, that are of a sober and temperate Spirit, and make Conscience of what they believe. But this lying Spirit would be seen to defend the Protestant Religion; but it is his own Religion (if he has any) that is out of Truth, that he would defend: And this is like the persecuting Spirit of the professors of New-England, as will be further manifested in time. (1-4)

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 12:25 AM | Permalink

In a conversation about nearby verses, I found this quote from Lamentations, 3:22-31:

This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope.
It is of the Lord's mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not.
They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness.
The Lord is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.
The Lord is good unto them that wait for him, to the soul that seeketh him.
It is good that a man should both hope and quietly wait for the salvation of the Lord.
It is good for a man that he bear the yoke in his youth.
He sitteth alone and keepeth silence, because he hath borne it upon him.
He putteth his mouth in the dust; if so be there may be hope.
He giveth his cheek to him that smiteth him: he is filled full with reproach.
For the Lord will not cast off for ever. (KJV)

I only wonder why he "sitteth alone." The rest feels like a good fit for Quakerism generally, Quietism particularly.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 10:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Quakers are fond of "What canst thou say?", a question George Fox asked that was key to converting Margaret Fell, a powerful early Quaker and much later Fox's wife. It reminds us that we too are active participants, fitting tightly with Quakerism's abolition of the laity which makes us all ministers.

Sometimes I see it expanded further to:

You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say?

That seems to suggest an opening for anything, even potentially a rejection of the prior revelations on which early Quakers built their world. Going a step further, however, to explore the surrounding story in Fell's telling of her convincement, reveals that this is not a wholesale rejection. Instead, it is an enormous step toward inclusion and construction:

And so [Fox] went on, and said how that Christ was the Light of the world, and lighteth every man that cometh into the world, and that by this Light they might be gathered to God, etc. And I stood up in my pew, and I wondered at his doctrine, for I had never heard such before.

And then he went on, and opened the scriptures, and said The scriptures were the prophets' words, and Christ's and the apostles' words, and what as they spoke they enjoyed and possessed and had it from the Lord.

And said, "Then what had any to do with the scriptures but as they came to the Spirit that gave them forth? You will say, Christ saith this, and the apostles say this, but what canst thou say? Art thou a Child of Light, and hast walked in the Light, and what thou speakest is inwardly from God, etc. ?"

This opened me so, that it cut me to the heart, and then I saw clearly we were all wrong. So I sat me down in my pew again, and cried bitterly : and I cried in my spirit to the Lord, "We are all thieves, we are all thieves, we have take the scriptures in words, and know nothing of them in ourselves." (The Beginnings of Quakerism to 1660, 101, from Margaret Fell's account.)

"And what thou speakest is inwardly from God" clarifies what is to be spoken, what thou canst say. Speaking in this instance requires learning from the inward Light, listening before speaking. What "thou" says here isn't coming directly from "thou", but from "thou" with assistance from God.

Margaret Fell's reaction to Fox telling her this isn't relief that she can say whatever she likes, but rather the painful realization that she has been following the wrong path, and she weeps in her pew.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 8:42 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

I went to the local Presbyterian church this past Sunday with my girlfriend. I sometimes go with her there, and she sometimes comes with me to meeting. (Relations between Quakers and Presbyterians seem to have softened since the 1650s.)

This Sunday was Communion. During the ceremony, the ushers brought the bread and juice to our pews. I declined, though I was eligible according to the requirements stated at the start of the ceremony. I also didn't take it when I was at a Good Friday service earlier this year.

I took Communion once at my grandmother's funeral Mass, and I've regretted that since. (I also went to a Moravian Love Feast but that isn't actually Communion.)

I also avoided Communion once in a spot where I thought it was going to be difficult to avoid it, not really knowing the etiquette of what to do. I was a pallbearer at my great-uncle's funeral, and he'd been a Catholic priest - a thoroughly conservative one, and one of my favorite people. I especially didn't want to take Communion at his funeral, as I hadn't undergone confirmation, confession, or penance, a sacramental path he'd not only participated in but overseen.

His funeral Mass - not in Latin, though I'd had some hopes for seeing that - was conducted by the local bishop, and the church was packed. As a pallbearer, I was in the front row, with seven of my cousins. I was the second in the pew from the center aisle, and as we stood up for Communion I was wondering what I should do. Should I shake my head to the priest? Say I wasn't taking it? I had to get up and out of the pew so the six cousins to my left could take it.

My cousin to the right stood up, got into the aisle, and turned immediately left to go around the pew and back in, never having to say anything. I followed him gratefully, not sure I would have realized that was an option had I been sitting where he was. The next six cousins all took Communion.

This time, the Presbyterians weren't making any taxing demands of me before I was eligible to take Communion - no sacramental penance, no need to be a member. There was no claim of transubstantiation, that the Communion bread and wine are themselves made body and blood by the blessing, and it wasn't my great-uncle's funeral.

Still, I couldn't take it. It's not just that I didn't want to - I couldn't. (I actually did want to share it.)

I'd like to say it was a leading, but I think it may only be a first tiny step toward wherever I'm being led - a blocking that doesn't yet have a positive direction.

I'm well-aware that early Quakers abandoned the sacraments as outward ordinances. There seems to have been some discussion about whether taking communion was actually a bad thing or simply meaningless. Nancy Bieber writes in her Pendle Hill Pamphlet Communion for a Quaker:

Quakers, from their beginnings in seventeenth-century Britain, have eschewed the outer acts. Early Friends dealt with the Catholic, Anglican, and non-Conformist sacraments of their day by declaring them simply no longer necessary. We live, George Fox said, in a time of new covenant when the old forms are no longer needed. The living Christ is already present and within us.

In 1676, Robert Barclay wrote in his classic Apology that "we are certain that the day has dawned in which God has risen and dismissed all those ceremonies and rites. He is to be worshipped only in Spirit." While Barclay urged tolerance to those who still "indulged" in Communion, his contemporary, Isaac Penington, advised friends to "keep steadfast in that holy testimony to keep from outward and dead knowledge, and out of dead practices and worships after man's own conceivings into an inward principle, and into worship in spirit and truth." (9-10)

I share Bieber's conclusion that "the sacramental experiences of communion in our daily lives bring us into real community and a deep unity with others... into Christ-service, into a compassionate being for others," and I think that experience also happens in meeting at times.

Communion at meeting has also been an issue in the more recent past, as Walter Williams notes in The Rich Heritage of Quakerism:

One of the vexing questions which had to be faced during this period of change stemmed from the free mingling of Friends with members of other Christian communions. In some Friends meetings the question was soon arising: "Should not Friends, as others, observe the outward ordinance of water baptism and the Lord's supper?"... Understandably, many other Friends felt uneasy at such disavowal of the historic position of Friends in this regard. (203)

I'd be startled at the introduction of any of these "ordinances" into Quakerism, and couldn't encourage them. I'm more wondering about visiting other churches. I love the symbolism of communion and the way it seems to draw communities together, but share early Quakers' doubts about its religious significance.

Reflecting on communion seems like a good path for a while.

(Incidentally, I find the word "ordinance" much stranger than "sacrament", despite its efforts to be a less dramatic word. I also wonder if Quakerism's treatment of these as inward blessings returns some religious mystery to them, power that disappeared when many of the reformers declared the Eucharist to be a remembrance in food and drink, not body and blood.)

Update, 5/29/2007: I took communion yesterday at my wife's Lutheran church, the church in which we had held a second wedding ceremony the day before. It was Pentecost Monday, and the pastor held a longer period of silence than usual, during which I felt strongly led to take communion this time. I seem to take it once every 18 years, approximately. Hmmm....

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 8:43 AM | Permalink | Comments (3)

Howard Brinton's Friends for 300 Years, published in 1952, is a Quaker classic, and pretty much the only book on Quakerism I find regularly in used bookstores. Pendle Hill Publications reissued it in 2002 with a foreword, update, and notes by Margaret Hope Bacon as Friends for 350 Years.

Like The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, the author's voice is pretty clear, though in this case the voice is closer to my own. Unlike that book, however, the notes provide a second voice (Bacon) critiquing and sometimes correcting Brinton. Flipping back and forth between the notes and the main body of the book, you can hear a conversation going on disputing things like the influence of European mystics on Quakerism, questions of race in John Greenleaf Whittier's poetry, the optimism of the New Testament, and the behavior of various groups of Friends.

Unlike Walter Williams in The Rich Heritage of Quakerism, Brinton writes from a Wilburite perspective (see comments), giving them the benefit of the doubt for adherence to the original religion:

Among the Wilburites there was more opportunity than in either of the other two [Hicksite or Gurneyite Orthodox] for a genuine synthesis of the mystical and evangelical elements in Quakerism. It was they who could most clearly lay claim to be the heirs of the original Society of Friends. But there was an important difference. The code of behavior which the first Friends arrived at through immediate experience of the Inward Light, the Wilburites, with many exceptions, tend to accept in large measure on the basis of tradition.

While Brinton's claim that the Wilburites were the true heirs may raise some eyebrows, Brinton is constantly looking for a balance of the mystical element he sees Hicksites focusing on and the evangelical element that Evangelical Friends proclaim. The result is a book, that while still focused mostly on unprogrammed meetings, tries to reflect the understandings of a fairly wide swath of Quakerism.

It's an excellent book for newcomers to Quakerism to start with, as it focuses on what Quakers do and how they reached those conclusions rather than starting with the story of George Fox roaming England. Every section includes historical material, but it's not until near the end that Brinton assembles "The Four Periods of Quaker History". He's constantly telling stories, but his main narratives are built on Quaker practice. The outline itself is telling:

• I. "To Wait upon the Lord"

• II. The Light Within as Experienced

• III. The Light Within as Thought About

• IV. The Meeting for Worship

• V. Vocal Ministry

• VI. Reaching Decisions

• VII. The Meeting Community

• VIII. The Meeting and the World

• IX. The Four Periods of Quaker History

• X. Quaker Thought and the Present

• An Historical Update by Margaret Hope Bacon

• Page and Line Notes by Bacon

• Appendix I: The Philadelphia Queries of 1946

• Appendix II: The Philadelphia Queries of 2000

I strongly recommend Brinton's book, both for the content broadly - I'm sure I'll be citing it regularly - and as a chance to explore his perspective.

Now, does anyone know of a general history of Quakerism written explicitly from a Hicksite (or modern explicitly liberal) position?

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 4:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (5)

While I was in Portland, staying far too close to the temple of books that is Powell's, I picked up an old copy of Walter Williams' The Rich Heritage of Quakerism. I have a 1962 copy, though I think Barclay Press is distributing a more recent version with an epilogue.

I'd never read Quaker history quite like this. The one Quaker I'd dated, long ago, had warned me that Quakers in the midwest (and Kenya) were not much like the Quakers meeting Sunday mornings in Swarthmore, but it, well, it never occurred to me that they'd be this different. (I suspect Rachael's outlook was somewhere between Williams' perspective and mine, though that conversation was a long time ago.)

There are some excellent sections on early Quakerism, looking beyond Fox to the wider movement, though there's little mention of the doctrines which separated Quakers from their fellow nonconformists. It's hard to tell in the stories Williams tells of the early Quakers why fellow Christians would want to arrest and torment them, though he writes:

As the Friends Movement grew in extent and influence, opposition and persecution also increased. It was an age of intolerance. Men craved religious liberty for themselves, but felt it their right, indeed their duty, to enforce their own convictions upon others. Said Oliver Cromwell to his Parliament, "Everyone desires to have liberty, but none will give it."

...There was no little misunderstanding of the beliefs which Friends held an taught. One of the most frequent charges brought against them was blasphemy, since they spoke frequently of the Indwelling Spirit of God. Not infrequently, too, they were arraigned for their refusal to pay tithes demanded by the state to support the priests; they were charged with disturbing religious services, even with plotting against the government. Again, the magistrates were frequently angered by their refusal to take an oath for any reason, or to remove the hat in deference to them, or to employ the plural "you" in addressing them. As a result, frequent fines were imposed or prison terms allotted to Friends.

Nevertheless, the glow of Christian victory and of joyous enthusiasm was on an ever-increasing number of men and women... (36-7)

Williams' chapter on early Quaker doctrine carefully avoids anything that might seem controversial to other Christians, and later he doesn't care to report on the affairs of the Hicksites after the schism:

In the succeeding pages we shall give but slight attention to the Hicksite group. It has generally failed to be self-propagating, and consequently has rather steadily dwindled in numbers. However, one would not overlook nor minimize the contribution which some of its members have made to numerous humanitarian and reform movements. (170)

In that spirit he mentions Lucretia and James Mott, and Isaac Hopper, and Swarthmore College's existence, but doesn't mention, for example, Friends General Conference at all. (Well, there's a population table in the back which notes that FGC includes about 26,000 Quakers in 1961.)

Probably the best way to explain Williams' perspective is to let him speak for himself, in a piece at the end of "Dominant Trends Among Twentieth-Century Quakers" that seems to sum up his hopes for present Friends (and I think what he wished older Friends had consistently done.) The same conversations are certainly continuing today, and often include a voice like this:

The time is ripe for Friends to awake, repent, and seek to serve God humbly, and their generation worthily. This duty attaches to us all. God waits to work, and he employs human helpers who are fully yielded to Him.

In the opening address given to the 1960 session of the Five Years Meeting, Seth B. Hinshaw sounded a heartening call to that organization - one which ought to be heard and heeded by all Friends. The following excerpt, taken from the official Minutes of that body, indicates its nature:

We have come to a cross-roads of destiny, an hour of decision, and the hour of our visitation. God has brought us together to see whether our generation will rise up and fulfill our mission... We need more than fine challenges; we need total commitment and spiritual dedication to the work that is before us... The gospel we preach must be whole, and not fragmented.

It is encouraging to note that the spirit of this address, delivered by the Executive Secretary of North Carolina Yearly Meeting, is signally reflected in the Message sent forth by the Five Years Meeting. This Message reads, in part, as follows:

We reaffirm that to be a Quaker is to be a Christian... We acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Son of God, who is our Saviour and Lord, and honor Him as the great Head of the Church which He has established in the world. Through the Holy Spirit he guides its ministries, bestows gifts for its work, convinces the unbelieving, baptizes the believers, and is in communication with His people, feeding them upon the bread of life...

This experience [the transforming power of Christ within] binds us into a warmly evangelical fellowship, under the compulsion to proclaim that there is One, even Christ Jesus, who does speak to the condition of every man and time... We are constrained by the love of God to call upon every meeting to examine its message and mission, and join in a spiritual awakening which will bring the entire Friends Movement into new areas of evangelism, Christian education, missions, stewardship, and social concerns.

Would God that Friends of America and of the whole world would rise to the challenge set forth above. We may be sure that such dedication comes at a high price; but our generation desperately needs the ministry which only such servants of God can render.

I don't recommend this book as a reliable source for Quaker history, but I'm very glad to have to have read it, finding in it a detailed explanation of a different perspective from that I'm used to, with the explanation itself assuming that perspective.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 8:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

I knew I'd read at least one history of Quakerism that was excited about Quietism rather than disparaging, and now that I'm back home I can see that it's Howard Brinton's Friends for 350 Years, which I quoted earlier on Quietism.

In Brinton's "Four Periods of Quaker History," there is no "retreat into Quietism". Instead, he celebrates the period:

The Period of Cultural Creativity and Mystical Inwardness

The period of creation was followed by a period of conservation. No religious movement has ever maintained the fire, energy, and power which accompanied its former period. The burning zeal which flames out in the market place must sooner or later become the warm glow of the household hearth. If religion is to become a genuine part of life itself, it must enter the home as well as the public square and become integrated with the routine affairs of family living.

This second period is referred to by all modern historians of Quakerism as the period of Quietism. This designation, while true, is not always correctly interpreted. It is not, as some appear to suppose, a term of disparagement.

For the quietist, worship requires a passive as well as an active phase, a negative as well as a postive way, a time of receptivity and waiting for divine guidance as well as a time for action upon that guidance. The Quaker quietists were far from quiet once they were assured of the right word or deed. Their period of withdrawal was followed by a return to activity with an increase of insight and power.

The leading spirits of this period, Anthony Benezet, Thomas Chalkley, John Churchman, Joshua Evans, David Ferris, Rebecca Jones, John and Samuel Fothergill, Catherine Phillips, Martha Routh, William Savery, Job Scott, and John Woolman, to mention only a few, were all quietists, but every one of them traveled widely in the ministry and became an active agent in some social reform. In the so-called "quietist period" the Quakers governed three American colonies and were active in the politics of two more.

In the technical meaning of the term, Quakers of the first period were also quietists, and all the usual phrases which signify Quietism, such as reference to the Light as "that which is pure" (or free from human contamination), can be found in their writings.

In the transition from the first period to the second, there was no change in doctrine, but there was an important change in behavior... (220-1)

Brinton's interest in Wilburites likely exposed him to Quietist thought at a time when many other Quakers had left it behind. He also contributed an introduction to Pendle Hill's reprinting of A Guide to True Peace, or the Excellency of Inward and Spiritual Prayer, compiled chiefly from the writings of Fenelon, Mme. Guyon, and Molinos.

For a thoroughly contrasting perspective, Walter Williams' Rich Heritage of Quakerism describes the same period thus:

Friends had settled down into a peaceable, respectable sect, proud of their past, but, by and large, feeling no moving concern to do more in the future than to preserve their "Testimonies," and keep the Society's membership in good order.

Where now the call to repentance which earlier Friends had sounded out? Where the compelling passion to tell the whole world of a living Savior?

Had not the Society of Friends been raised up to herald and exhibit to a sinful world and to careless professors of religion the transforming power of the gospel? Could Friends henceforth be satisfied to enjoy close-knit fellowship with a carefully selected group of nice people without concern for mankind in general? We must seek to discover in a later chapter what was hindering the progress of Friends. (120)

As Brinton's writing may seem biased toward Quietism, Williams' writing is distinctly tilted toward evangelicalism, and the questions are definitely leading.

I suspect we could have the same conversation today about modern Quakerism. As is probably obvious from my enthusiastic postings on Quietism, I think Brinton has a point that modern Friends would do well to consider deeply, but it'll doubtless be a long conversation.

I'll have more fuel for that conversation soon enough, as the Quietist writings resonate deeply for me.

Posted by Simon St.Laurent at 5:27 PM | Permalink