Comment by Keith Saylor on 11th mo. 25, 2014 at 11:35am

Patricia, Jim, and William. Special appreciation and thanks for your contributions to this thread.

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 11th mo. 25, 2014 at 11:57am

I'm unaccustomed to agreeing with and benefiting from so many is so short a time! I'm grateful to all for the information, knowledge, and insight. 

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 25, 2014 at 9:43pm

Wow, I guess I've gotten myself into quite a many-sided discussion:-) Originally, I only meant to respond once, briefly noting the disconcerting history I found when trying to get back to "original true Quakerism." (I was going to just listen, but maybe I should clarify and respond.)

I'm a Friend who has seldom lived near a Quaker meeting but when I did and became a member, (the first time with my wife), I was deeply disheartened by the various contrary directions that the Friends have taken (from pro-nuclear weapons and war in one yearly meeting:-( to killing in another to nontheism in others, etc.)

Keith: 
You wrote, "Many of us know the illumination of Presence in all events and all circumstances. The prophetic is the humility of Presence. Arrogance is conscious and conscience without the inward Light."

I would agree that sometimes "the prophetic" is humble. A good example in my opinion would be John Woolman. However, as a lay historian--who's read, maybe, too many Quaker histories--it seems that often Friends (and other denominational prophets too) get their sense of the prophetic mixed up with their own person.
In my view, George Fox did this way too often. I greatly admire him, was deeply influenced the first time I read The Journal, but (like every human) he at times did display the mix-up, especially when he was vindictive toward those who didn't agree with his mission.

William: It was my understanding that Boulton is a Quaker historian. According to the Quaker Universalist website, Boulton presented his findings at the Conference of Quaker Historians at Earlham College in June 2000. He has written widely on Quaker history and radical theology.  He has lectured and led workshops in the United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. In May, 2005, he was one of three leading a weekend workshop at Pendle Hill...etc.

By the way, I completely disagree with his view of Quakerism. But his historical facts appear to be accurate.

Patricia,
Thanks for bringing this topic up in our article. There is so much to reflect on its various strands.

Based on my other readings (besides Boulton's article), especially First Among Friends by H. Larry Ingle, and as I recall books including Primitivism, Radicalism, and the Lamb's War by T.L. Underwood (though I can't seem to find the page numbers now in the latter),
it would seem the early Friends did support the English Civil War and Cromwell.

According to Ingle, Fox had a "selective memory." In a number of places, I've read that the Friends didn't emphasize pacifism until they were trying gain acceptance from the government and to distance themselves from violent revolutionaries.

If so, then Fox's Journal is incorrect. But I'm not a professional historian, and I wish I could be convinced to think how I originally thought--that early Friends were committed to pacifism.

Jim,

Thanks for posting the quote from Jones. It's an intriguing idea--that Fox was being sarcastic. But based on the facts I know about Cromwell's and Fox's meetings, I think that is unlikely. 

Also, keep in mind we also have Margaret Fell's horrific statement:-( that the English Puritan army is "the Battle-axe in the hand of the Lord." Whew...

Also, I know about contemporary Quakerism both of the evangelical and the liberal varieties. Yes so much support for war. For instance, California Yearly Meeting (of which my wife and I were devoted members) strongly refused to oppose nuclear weapons at its yearly conference! Ministers got up and defended not only regular war, but the possession and threat of atomic bombs! Then our monthly meeting had an active fighter pilot become its leader:-( 

So I switched to “liberal” meetings. My wife and I drove over 2 hours to a liberal Friends meeting only to have members there speak up in support of killing too! My wife, who wasn't diligently a Friend but more a ride-along:-), wondered why we had bothered. Etc. We started attending a Mennonite church.

Maybe (to quote a Jewish perspective) Friends have always "wrestled" with God.

In the Light,

Daniel

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 25, 2014 at 9:45pm

Oops, sorry Partricia, I mistyped, "in our". It's "your" powerful article. 

Comment by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 26, 2014 at 10:12am

Good Morning Daniel:

I hope to respond more extensively after the Thanksgiving holiday, but a few brief comments might be helpful.

In general I have slowly developed a distrust of modern, contemporary, academic historians.  In modern day academia there is tremendous pressure to debunk the past.  An academic who upholds a traditional view or interpretation is likely to be sidelined and considered to be unserious in their research.  This creates a general overall bias favoring a kind of iconoclasm.  I understand how this may sound, but it has been my experience that modern academics, with some exceptions, are strongly biased towards what they regard as a 'critical' attitude; this reaches its apex in disciplines such as 'deconstruction'.  In practice what that means is favoring material that undermines a traditional perspective while at the same time underestimating, or simply dismissing, material that supports a traditional understanding.  For this reason I am inclined to take what modern historians write with some hesitation and balance what they say by older, less ideologically motivated, sources.

In Barclay's 'Apology' there is a significant section at the end of the book, in the autocommentary on Proposition 15, articulating a pacifist stance.  The 'Apology' was published in 1676.  The purpose of the 'Apology' is to defend the paticulars of the Quaker view at a time when those views were being attacked.  The relevance here is that Barclay's advocacy for a pacifist stance is not original; it is gleaned from the Quaker community as a whole.  Barclay clearly regards pacifism as a significant teaching for the Quaker community.  1676 is roughly 20 to 30 years into the establishment of the Quaker community.  I infer from this that the pacifist view was there from the beginning.  I am not aware of anyone, Quaker or non-Quaker, saying to Barclay that he misrepresented the Quaker understanding on this point.  Rather, Barclay's 'Apology' was widely accepted by Quakers.

I'm actually OK with the idea that Fox (and Fell) lapsed from their pacifist commitments.  In some ways it makes them human.  In cases like this I often think of Paul who struggled to do what he knew was good, but at times confesses his inability to actually do it.  It is understandable that people, at times, fall away from the implications of their commitments in areas like this.  In some ways, I don't think this is a big deal.  On the other hand, I remain unconvinced that the negative interpretation of these statements is, in fact, accurate.

Your recital of experiences among various branches of Quakers was disheartening.  From my perspective, Quakers who advocate for war resemble people who call themselves 'vegetarians', and then quickly add that they eat chicken and fish, and, now and then, have a steak. 

Thanks for taking the time to post thy understanding,

Jim

Comment by Forrest Curo on 11th mo. 26, 2014 at 10:53am

The problem I see is the assumption, common to opponents of the early Quaker movement -- that for 'the Light' to be an inborn feature of humanity, it would have to mean carnal reason & conscience.

But if this is really what was meant by 'the breath of Life' and 'the image of God,' then it isn't intrinsically un-natural -- It's a universally implanted -- but not so universally developed or manifested -- endowment of God's presence. Which people can be consciously 'present to' -- or numb to.

So far as anyone is depending solely on what human beings consider 'natural', ie the rational & ethical stuff operating as-if 'separate from God' -- Yeah, people seeing by that sort of 'light' fare poorly! Right into ditches, as the guy said.

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 11th mo. 26, 2014 at 12:09pm

To provide an example of Jim's observation that contemporary historians are inclined to "underestimating, simply dismissing, material that supports a traditional understanding," we need look no further than the context from which Boulton lifted the Margaret Fell reference to the army being "the battle-axe of the Lord":

 You have bin the Instruments of warre, and the Battle-axe in the hand of the Lord...and now you are come into their place which they were in, with whom you warred...where you may execute that which ye formerly desired after, and suffered for...And now that the Lord hath put it into your hands, even to try your faithfulness, and your integrity; Not that he hath need of you, more than them that went before you (as ye are men natural) but as you are righteous men, and guided by the just and righteous principle of God in you, so you may be serviceable unto the Lord...to bring to pass in these latter days...for the Almighty will show forth his righteousness...and his glory....Therefore as ye love your soules, and your eternal peace...beware that ye turn not your hand against his work that he is working in the earth in this day (Margaret Fell and the Rise of Quakerism, p. 134, Bonnelyn Young Kunze).

Fell's intent is to warn the army that their faithfulness and integrity are being tried by the Lord, now that they have the upper hand and are thus tempted to exert their will. She wishes to restrain their "natural" impulse to dominate others; that's her intent. It is not to glorify the army, but to restrain it by reminding the men that they are to be "guided by the just and righteous principle of God."

Fell's intent is quite a different aim from that which Boulton implies by isolating one phrase from the context in which it was placed. Fell's intent was completely in accord with Friends witness and purpose to bring all to be totally dependent upon Christ for guidance into righteousness. Boulton's maneuver put Fell in a less estimable light of having sanctioned the army's military might. To know what early Friends thought and believed, all would do well to read Friends' own words rather than those of their modern interpreters.

 

  

 

 

Comment by Keith Saylor on 11th mo. 26, 2014 at 1:57pm

From Benson in Patricia's original message:

Thus there is accessible to man a light which illuminates his moral life, but this life is not present in man as his own psychological possession. It is imparted to man and man has received the promise that it will never be withheld. The condition of the operation of this light within man is his willingness to submit both conscience and reason to this objective and superhuman light.

The blessing, by glory of inshining light, is direct experience of the Life. This Life is not validated by outward testimony. It is validated in itself as it illuminates conscious and informs conscience through individual experience. Whether  a person sustains Presence or whether Presence dims in the shadowy overlayering and enchantment of consciousness guided and ruled by outward rational ideological and emotive constructs, does not diminish abiding Presence that is ever accessible to individual men and women. To point out the lack of strength an individual may show at a particular moment says nothing of the inward truth of sustained and transformed consciousness. The mystery of a conscious anchored in and a conscience informed by Presence is the promise of restorative re-turning through that pure and restive inward voice calling in the wilderness ... ever and ever and ever welcoming us back to the un-refracted light and quenching water of life the is not predicated by abstraction.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 29, 2014 at 12:24pm

Good Morning Patricia:

I want to thank thee for taking the time to locate, and then post. the full passage from which the Margaret Fell quote was lifted.  This is precisely the kind of thing that has lead me to feel that most modern, academic, historians are untrustworthy.  There are many occasions when I have been able to track down original sources, as thee did, and have uncovered similar distortions.

I have been discussing this perspective with a friend of mine who is Russian Orthodox.  He said that among some critics of modern styles of analysis they have developed a term for this approach: 'the hermeneutics of suspicion'.  The basic view of the hermeneutics of suspicion is that the modern historian, or social critic, has absorbed the idea that people don't really say what they mean and that it is their job to uncover the 'actual' meaning.  From their perspective, for example, the 'actual' meaning will have something to do with power relationships, class commitments, economic exploitation, and the enforcement of false gender distinctions.  So all statements that are not of this type are analyzed so as to be placed under one or more of these ideological categories.  Those who practice the hermeneutics of suspicion don't see this as imposing their own agenda on their analysis; rather they see it as uncovering the 'actual' meaning, what the writer they are analyzing was really doing.

Applying this to Boulton, who appears to be a committed non-theist, it is in the interest of non-theists to describe the Quaker past in negative terms.  The hermeneutics of suspicion is perfect for this.  Non-theists have a vested interest in diminishing the insights of the Quaker past because those insights are founded upon a theistic, and specifically Christian, understanding.  It is difficult to get around that; but if you whittle away at their insights, and at the testimony of their lives, and 'uncover' what they were 'really' doing, it makes the radical task of redefining the Quaker tradition easier.

Thanks again,

Jim

Comment by William F Rushby on 11th mo. 29, 2014 at 1:15pm

Hello to all!

Daniel Wilcox has it that David Boulton is a Quaker historian, and Jim Wilson sees him as an academic historian.  I don't think David Boulton is either!!!  He is usually described as a journalist, author and lecturer.  I don't know that he has ever had an academic appointment, and not likely as a historian.

Daniel Wilcox supports his claim about Boulton as a historian by noting that Boulton read a paper at the 2000 meeting of Quaker historians and archivists.  I read a paper at that same event, again at one of their subsequent meetings, at other academic conferences, and had papers published in *Quaker History* and elsewhere.  At best that makes me a wannabe historian, and certainly not an academically trained one!!  I might qualify as an historical sociologist.

What I claim here is that Boulton is more of an opinion writer [apparently a good one] than an academic historian.

I think Jim sells the historians among us short.  They do generally write from a liberal perspective, but I think there are safeguards against heavy biases.  Even Rufus Jones' interpretation of Quaker history is no longer accepted as adequate, and Rufus was a highly esteemed member of the liberal Quaker intellectual establishment.

The Quaker story is complex and multi-layered.  It is easy to "major" on one strand of it, and portray one's viewpoint as the final word on the subject.  But, over time, it is difficult to sustain a biased interpretation based on a selective reading of the evidence.  Even Howard Brinton, author of the celebrated Friends for Three Hundred Years, doesn't get a free pass.  See a commentary by the king of Quaker iconoclasts, Chuck Fager: http://quaker.org/quest/QT-22-Brinton-Review.html

My two cents' worth!

Bill Rushby

Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page