As with many, I have been wrestling to understand where the various new groups forming within Quakerism fit – as with the New Association of Friends in Indiana and the new groups discerning their way forward in North Carolina and the Pacific Northwest. Will they just be replicas of the institutions that kicked them out, or is there space for something truly new to emerge?
In the very broad base of Quaker categories what we have today in the United States are two main theological trends: secular liberalism and conservative Evangelicalism. On the one side, there is a group that now seems to be largely influenced by the secular left. These yearly meetings and meetings may be “spiritual but not religious,” think of themselves as secular or even anti-religious, while still being interested in the “values” of Quakerism or some of its specific practices, like communal silence and consensus building. Not everyone within these groups identifies this way but the larger trend seems to suggest that there is far more emphasis on this “secular liberalism” than the socially aware Christianity that one can find within these groups as well.
On the other side of the Quaker isle, again thinking in very large swaths, you have a group largely influenced by the Religious Right. Socially, politically and theologically conservative, many (but not all!) of our Programmed Friends are influenced by and find comfort in right-leaning politics and issues that have come through Evangelicalism. These churches/meetings may not even be directly linked to the Religous Right but I see a cultural and theological influence there that is undeniable. These Quaker institutions are primarily focused on a decontextualized Christianity, a literal and/or authoritative reading of the Bible, emphasis on conversion in Jesus. There is often also a mirroring of social issues often related to conservative Evangelicalism, as in anti-LGBTQ teachings and stances, a lack of engagement around racial, political and other class issues, etc. There are individuals within these institutions who are far more socially aware, attracted to the teachings of the social Gospel, see Christianity as a religion of social as well as personal liberation, but I believe that these Quakers are in the minority.
When I survey the landscape it seems that the middle way has been all but cut out of Quakerism. There are very few places one could go if they were progressively-minded, social Gospel Christian Quaker. I am looking for something like what Dorothee Soëlle calls a “radical, liberation Christianity,” as opposed to a “liberal” or “conservative” one (See The Three Theologies- Soelle).
“Besides these two theologies, there has been, for about twenty years now, a theology that is not done by white, relatively well-to-do males: the theology of liberation. In this theology, faith is not experienced first of all as a consolation for an ordinary and wretched life, but as a way of living, hoping and acting. It means a revolution in human hearts corresponding to the words of Jesus…Christ doesn’t just console, he changes our lives. Just as for Jesus’ first disciples – poor and ignorant people, the majority of whom were women–in the communities of faith springing up at the base, we see emerging a way of living and sharing with one another, of organizing, celebrating, and struggling together” (The Window of Vulnerability, 1991:113).
I would argue that this framing is actually the very heart of early Quakerism, and reflects more closely what I believe early Friends were up to (and why they had so much trouble with the rest of Christendom). As Soëlle writes, “Tell me how you think and act politically, and I will tell you who your God is” (2009:106). A clash of politics is ultimately a clash of theology. In keeping with the teachings of Jesus, early Friends believed God to be the great liberator, and thus they were radical, liberation Christians of their day. Here are a few examples:
- They provided a space where people could come together and truly practice corporate listening and discernment as the core of who they were.
- They challenged the status quote of the religious elite and therefore began to re-write theology and Christian practices in ways that challenged Christendom as other dominate mainstream theologies of their time – out of a commitment to recapture the liberatory teachings of Jesus and the early church.
- They believed in and submitted to the presence of the resurrected Christ, who they understood to be present with them in their gatherings, leading them and guiding them in their work as a community.
- They challenged politics that were underwritten by imperial powers and saw that as largely in contradiction to Jesus’ teachings.
- They re-read the Bible in light of their times with new and creative interpretations.
- They challenged social practices such as women’s roles, the enslavement, and dignity of people of African decent, class-based oppression, and were influenced by and contained individuals who had been a part of the dissenter groups like Diggers, Levellers, and more.
- They challenged church practices that were exclusionary, hypocritical and biased, redrawing the lines around who was welcome and who could lead their faith communities.
This kind of radical, socially aware Christianity within Quakerism followed through in the lives John Bellers, Anthony Bennezette, John Woolman, the Coffins, Elizabeth Gurney Fry, Lucretia Mott, Hannah Whitall Smith and many others. I would argue that Rufus Jones was among those who picked up on this social gospel Quaker thread within what folks have dubbed “renewal or modern Quakerism.” This renewal, modernist Quakerism within the Gurneyite side of the tradition flowed into the 20th century but seems to have eventually fizzled out as a “stream” and is now more located in specific individuals or a few meetings spread throughout the country. Jones’ project was successful for awhile but for all its merits, it seems to have been undercut by larger trends. We need new paradigms, new stories, a new language that doesn’t assume religion and progressive politics are like oil and water.
For the progressive Christ-centered aspect of the Quaker tradition, I wonder “Where have the large scale aspects of this gone?” “What was there a suffering blow?” And “Where are the places it is still alive – or re-emerging – above or underground?”
Whatever the case may be, it does not seem to me that it is currently a viable option within large-scale Quakerism.
In many ways, I see movements like convergent Friends as an attempt to reinvigorate this stream. These are Friends who are are middle-way thinkers, hybrid practitioners, social Gospel Quakers. But these Friends have never been about trying to create a new institution. As Peggy Morrison writes:
[Convergent] is not about making a new place, or stream, or institution.
I think it is a sensibility, a perspective, a desire,
a proclivity, if you will.
It is fearless, non-violent, non-competitive,
for the purpose of deepening the spiritual life (Parsons 2009)
Those who are concerned with the tradition, within context, have tended to be those who are also a part of the Radical Christian Quaker Stream, but certainly not always and rarely in any kind of organized way.
One main reason this radical, liberation Quakerism has struggled is because there has had to be a lot of ducking for cover within the theologically conservative yearly meetings and institutions for fear of disciplinary actions. There are individuals and meetings that are more in the middle range theologically, socially progressive, Christ-centered, but because they are outnumbered there is a sense in which they have had to fly under the radar or “not rock the boat.”
This is where I see a lot of hope and potential for the new groups arising within Quakerism. They do not need to be viewed as splits or divisions, but new iterations and evolutions of the radical, liberation Christian stream within Quakerism. Obviously, the verdict is still out in terms of how these groups will organize and to what extent they will transgress the boundaries of our current Quaker institutions, but there is a lot of possibility for a new middle to emerge. These breaks within Quaker institutions will allow for a new space to be created where a socially aware Christ-centered Quakerism can gain back ground that has been lost over the years. There are plenty of pastors, Quaker meetings, and authors, bloggers, etc. who fit, even if with a fairly broad set of categories, within this “convergent” Quakerism. This in no way means that everyone in these meetings needs to identify as “progressive” or on the “left,” all they need to do is retain the deep commitment to listening together to God in corporate discernment and worship, teach those within their meetings how to become apprentices to the Quaker tradition, and retain the radical, liberatory orientation of the Christian tradition. I believe that we need Christ-centered Quakers who are faithful to Jesus, working towards the liberation of all people, in solidarity with those who are most vulnerable in our midst and working to bring about the beloved community. Peggy Morrison of Freedom Friends Church calls this being “edge people,” people who are found on the edges and margins of society.
I not only think these things are possible, I think they are there already happening and in step with God’s Spirit. It is time to organize, support, and nurture a movement within Quakerism that holds together the radical Liberation tradition within Christianity and a tradition that has struggled with the impact of actually trying to live out that vision in a world that fights against it at every step.
12 responses to “A Radical, Liberation Christian Quakerism”
Wess, i agree with much of your “argument” and suggest that “many” Friends and some Meetings have made an effort in this direction. However, the “weightiness” of those in “Power” has tended to try and “quiet” those voices speaking to power. I do not want to be seen as having “sour grapes” as some of accused me, but twice I was fired for being “too Quakerly” (my words, but certainly both explicitly and implicitly stated) In one case one of the points made “against” me was that I was trying to bring persons who were “too religious” to the school, e.g. Parker Palmer. On the other hand in forming a Friends School support was withdrawn because the school admitted students from LGBT families and on yet another hand we were being too “religious.” As a reTIRED Friend with little connection, other than “virtual,” to f/Friends. I wish you well.
I know that this is true and am rooting for you.
I didn’t find any obvious way to contact you on your blog so far. If you wouldn’t mind talking an odd idea over, you could leave me a note at quakerquaker or maybe a comment on one of my blogs(?)
No, I’ve got your email… It was ‘seekerquaker’ whose situation got me wondering, whether I might have come across any odd bit of info he might be able to use (or not.)
Ideas about health, what to do about it — and what works for any one person (also, which ideas they find credible and which they can’t) — seem to be as ‘personal’ as the actual suffering involved. I’ve run into so many utterly contradictory ideas re nutrition, all of which seemingly applied to the particular individual who held them, but no-one else — that one might wonder whether the universe even applies uniform rules of causation in such matters…
Some Friends noted an earlier version of this text had duplicate paragraphs), which has been taken care of as well as a few other edits that were sorely needed. Thanks!
Quaker faith, as practiced by George Fox, John Woolman, and others is not an easy path to follow. Many, perhaps the majority of those who have tried have fallen to one side or the other. Keeping one’s balance as a Quaker is not an easy thing. But to condemn Quakerism, and Quakers based on those who miss the mark, as seems to be fashionable in some circles these days, is to throw the baby out with the bathwater. It is in line with those who condemn Christianity because of the Inquisition.
Quakerism CAN be done right, and when it is done right it is a wonderful thing. We in the Pacific Northwest who are leaving NWYM are going to make the attempt. Pray for us.
Thanks, Zeke. I am and will continue to pray for you all and support however I can.
We’re talking about two “models” of God here, not two Gods.
Rather than trying to evaluate God according to Hsr politics, we need to let ‘God-as-is’ do the job — to be willing to ask (privately at least) “Will the real God stand up?” (as in that old tv show where contestants were challenged to pick one real whatever from a group of three people including two impostors.)
The Good News is that The Being In Charge here is good, ie that the One whose nature Jesus exemplified is truly running the show —
despite all those aspects of life “that would not at first have occurred to us” to be features of a well-run universe. There is, of course, far more suffering going on than people like, more than God likes as well. We don’t “deserve” that suffering; but it wouldn’t exist without some significance or function.
Yes, we really ought to embody a more humane version of politics than anyone’s ever put on the “electable” menu, ought to stand up and speak as we’re enabled against “this filthy rotten system.”
But God, as modelled by Jesus, has overwhelming force available — and yet doesn’t rule that way. We aren’t going to improve on God’s performance by trying to take charge: God already is in charge. (Looks like a mess, doesn’t it? But nobody’s idea of perfection is likely to improve it.)
The problem comes down to: How can human beings organize ourselves in a way that fits within God’s intention — (That task _is_ “political”, but it cuts across the politics of trying to win dominance for any politician or policy, no matter how good or necessary) while still caring, as human beings, about the outcome? (The prayer, after all, says “Thy Kingdom come,” not “Help us build our kingdom and call it Yours.”)
We can’t rightly say: “Thou shalt do politics!” or “Thou shalt not do politics!”
We’re human; we do politics because we care and hope. We tire and retire because it hurts too much and doesn’t seem to make much difference. I don’t think either stand is wrong; but it would be best to let God direct the choice at any moment we can remember to do that…
Just shared this thoughts with some friends on FB in regards to this article.
C. Wess Daniels Just finished reading the article. Thanks for sharing. Are you the author?
Early Christians, Quakers were not systematic theologians. In other words, their theology was experiential and not a carefully thought out and logically consistent system. Sometimes they means different things when uses the same words.Early Christians and Quakers constantly exploring, unpacking, repacking, testing, trying out new understandings, and pushing language to limits.
As I have shared with Friends whatever language works for you and has integrity is good, I think. The way you or I speak of our faith (or anyone for that matter) is deeply personal and may well change over time. I suppose that if the words never change at all, then there is a good chance we are stagnant.
The Spirit is working in you (and in me) in ways that we do not yet understand. As we continue to listen, worship, pray, love and serve, it will gradually become clearer to us. I believe the same is true for me and for any person of faith. Words are just that. What is more important is the reality behind the words.
my second response;
Although not all Quakers would accept the core beliefs of orthodox Christianity. Most, if not all, believe that a healthy and affirming relationship with the holy spirit is essential. Whether it is called “inward light ” or “just spirit” may be a matter of semantics. All Friends believe in the value of “centered silence” to enable one to be open to the Spirit, from which both truth and ministry comes.
Christianity often lives a schizophrenic existence.
Again and again, military oligarchs put their thumbs down to get Christianity to fit in with their wars and their oppression of certain sectors of humanity. Again and again, the wealthiest people use soft pressure to slowly get Christianity to approve of their money-grabbing tactics.
Peons learn to claim to believe 100% of the Bible, every last word, and then they must simultaneously ignore the many parts of the Bible that can get them hurt or killed. In Bulgaria, shaking your head up and down means “no”, because Muslim conquerors would ask the people if Muhammad was God’s prophet and the people then obediently shook their heads up and down.
And so the Word of God is continually tortured, continually crucified. But on the third day after death, our hope is that the Word springs to life again. The stories in the Bible really are about not fighting Caesar’s wars, and they really are about sharing wealth with the whole community..
They can’t quite get away from the fact that Jesus was saying something which the authorities, “religious” and “secular” (so far as the distinction existed then — or is as significant as people imagine) agreed that he should be killed for. It’s hard to explain why they’d do that for just saying we should all get along, or that Caesar should get his cut of the loot and carte blanc to do his thing…