Comment by Jim Wilson on 11th mo. 30, 2014 at 11:32am

Good Morning William:

Thanks for the corrective.  I am posting based on my personal experience reading Quaker history; but your reading is far more extensive than mine and you put more effort in keeping up with the latest trends in Quaker history.  I developed this feeling of distrust when I became interested in the period of Quietism and the traditional practices of the Quaker community.  What I discovered is that a number of prominent histories that touch on this period do not let the Quakers of that period speak for themselves.  They are very dismissive of traditional Quaker Faith and Practice.  This is true for both liberal and Evangelical histories.  Both of them tend to view this past as something that we moderns have overcome and progressed beyond.  I think this attitude cuts Quakers off from their past and their actual history and I have come to the conclusion that this is unfortunate.

I have been reading, off and on, sections of Fager's two books that were recently published on Quaker Progressives.  I am ambivalent about his work.  Fager is, as you noted, an iconoclast and for that reason I am often skeptical about his presentations.  Still, there is a lot of good material in his books.  But Fager is a modernist in the mode that Boulton is; that is to say Fager is only iconoclastic towards traditonal Quaker Faith and Practice which at times borders on contempt.  Fager is not iconoclastic regarding the presuppositions of modernism and progressivism; these remain unexamined.  The basic idea, that Fager believes in, is that Progressive Quakers liberated the Quaker community from the dead hand of the past and the constricting and limiting practices of traditional Quakers (e.g. plain dress, plain speech, etc.).  He regards this as a good thing because he believes in a progressive view of history.  He does not see the abandoning of these practices as a loss because of his modernist presuppositions. 

I have to go to Meeting now, but I'll close by saying that I suspect I may be overgeneralizing at this time regarding modern Quaker historians.  But if that is true, I thankfully have people on this forum to correct me.

Best wishes,

Jim

Comment by Patricia Dallmann on 11th mo. 30, 2014 at 1:56pm

Jim, the phrase "hermeneutics of suspicion" seems too innocuous for this behavior of misrepresenting people's thoughts and character. It's heartening, though, that there are others, like your Orthodox friend, who are aware of the injustice of the method and given it a name. 

William, reading the Chuck Fager response to the Brinton biography, I thought that Fager was asking questions about mysticism and ecclesiology that had been answered long ago by Benson (and Fox). In "Prophetic Quakerism" Benson distinguishes between the philosophical type of mysticism proposed by Jones and the prophetic viewpoint of original Friends. Again in Catholic Quakerism (published 13 years after Brinton's Friends for 300 Years), Benson takes on the problem of interpreting Quakerism as a form of Christian Platonism. Then Doug Gwyn, in  Apocalypse of the Word (1984), examines Jones's interpretation of Quakerism as a Christian form of mysticism and, as did Benson, explains where Jones's theory deviates from the prophetic faith of first Friends. It's puzzling to me that any scholar of Quakerism could only just now be puzzling over issues that were raised and answered more than half a century ago.  

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 30, 2014 at 2:00pm

William, Thanks for your correction about the nature of David Boulton's status. From now on I will note he is journalist.

Daniel Wilcox

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 11th mo. 30, 2014 at 2:53pm

Good morning Jim,

We're back from my daughters and sons' turkey day, playing with the 'grand'kids:-) in the Bay Area.

As a lover of histories in general and religious history, Quaker ones especially, I have discovered that historians seldom agree even while trotting out the same thousands of pages of facts.

It seems that every history written has a certain perspective. This in the similar sense of the scientific mantra--lots of facts have no obvious meaning; it's in the networking of the facts that a scientist seeks to delve more deeply into the real nature of things.

And in our case, an historian seeks to ferret out through historical events the real nature of spiritual reality and its fallible various manifestations in finite history..

Then there is the second factor--inherent within every writer, is his own background and biases and experiences. That by it's very nature off-balances the accuracy of every history.

And, lastly, some historians, while paying lip service to the difficulties of journalistic objectivity, admitting their own biases, etc., unfortunately,
have a particular ax they want to grind.

At this stage in my life, going on '68,' and having worshiped with, met, dialogged or read various kinds of Friends,
I think Quaker history is like the Bible, one can find a verse or fact here and there to defend almost any version of Friends history.

Unlike George Fox's (and other early Quakers) own estimation of his revelation, I've come to the conclusion that the Society of Friends is like many other dramatic movements of history, a mixture of error, wrong, and scintillating light.

I think Quakerism's quilted path with all its various strands (though I would exclude the late 20th century move by nontheism, because it's contrary to the very essence of Friends),

has opened us to more light than many a religious movement.

In 300 Years of Quakerism by Howard Brinton, he speaks of 4 chief elements in every complete religion--mysticism, evangelicalism, rationalism, and humanitarianism. He then explains how Quakerism's various historical meetings have usually fragmented these 4 essentials toward one or two of them and minimized, even opposed the others.

I think Brinton shows incisive insight in his analysis.

However, the humor here is his book has its own biases and weaknesses.

Oddly enough, I disagree with some of Brinton's views, and prefer my own biases;-)

And, lastly, not so long ago, when I explained to another Friend that I was a "liberal" Quaker, he disagreed. He said my view that nontheism is by definition not-Quakerism is not liberal.

So, getting back finally to Patricia's focus in the article, it is my understanding "prophetic faith" and philosophical idealism both have their dark side,
and they have a LIGHT side.

And the history of Friends shows that.

It seems our calling here and now is to live to God, the Light, using only the huge tomes of Quaker history and all religious history as warning lights and go lights.

In the Light,

Daniel Wilcox

Comment by Jim Wilson on 12th mo. 3, 2014 at 10:38am

Good Morning:

I few closing comments for this informative thread.  One way of uncovering the meaning of Fox's statement is to try and find out how contemporaries responded to it.  For example, did Cromwell respond with delight that now, finally, the Quakers were on board with his Puritan project?  Did other Quakers questions Fox as to the meaning?  Or did they argue that it contradicted other statements Fox made on the abandoning of 'carnal weapons'.

Though I am not an expert on this period of Quaker history, what reading I have done would seem to indicate that people did not take Fox's statement as some kind of reversal, or that it presented inconsistencies.  If that is the case, it seems to me that this is evidence that supports the view that the passage by Fox was, in fact, a diatribe, a rant, a clear example of using exaggeraton to point out the absurdity of Cromwell's views. 

Daniel: I appreciate your gracious comments.  Agreed that both have their dark side; but I suspect that is because human beings have a dark side.

 

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 3, 2014 at 11:16am

Hello, Daniel!

You wrote: "I think Brinton shows incisive insight in his analysis.  However, the humor here is his book has its own biases and weaknesses."

I think Howard Brinton had some very strong biases.  He operated within the Rufus Jones paradigm though, as someone said (Anthony Manousos or Chuck Fager), with more sophistication than Rufus Jones achieved.

Howard spent most of his life in a liberal Quaker environment, and this influence shows in his writing.  To cite one example, he ignored Ann Branson's journal in his book on Quaker journals.  Howard taught for a time at Friends Boarding School (now "Olney") at Barnesville OH.  Ann Branson had been a spiritual "giant" in Ohio Yearly Meeting (Conservative) and her journal one of the best on the shelf.  Nevertheless, she didn't make it into Howard's book.  I am still trying to figure out this oversight.

On the other hand, Howard Brinton offers now and then some rather arresting insights, sometimes based on his Quaker childhood and long career as a professional Friend.  I have more than once found these insights very illuminating.

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 3, 2014 at 11:35am

A few comments on Lewis Benson as a marginal Quaker theologian.

Lewis never graduated from high school, and never earned a college degree.  Among Friends in the East, these two "uncredentials" would be enough to sink his ship as a Quaker thinker.

Lewis was an outsider vis-a-vis the prevailing Rufus Jones paradigm which prevailed among unprogrammed Friends during the first half of the 20th Century.  John McCandless was a deep thinker among eastern Friends during mid-Twentieth Century.  John once told me that one of the foremost opinion leaders of the eastern Quaker elite urged him to stay away from Lewis Benson, who was regarded as a black sheep by the Quaker establishment.  So, is it any wonder that Lewis's challenge of Jones's assumptions was mostly ignored for many years.

I think we owe a large debt to Quaker Religious Thought for providing a platform to those who helped to topple the Jonesian consensus on Quaker history.

Let me acknowledge that Rufus Jones was a great and prolific writer.  If one overlooks his particular biases, the two-volume The Later Periods of Quakerism is a valuable historical work. 

But beware of treating Rufus as the last word, and of regarding Lewis Benson as an academic underachiever whose thought doesn't count!!

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 12th mo. 4, 2014 at 11:08am

And isn't it rather ironic that Rufus Jones was a brilliant academic, while Lewis Benson was really more like George Fox himself in that he wasn't university trained.

I greatly value higher education, especially university, and taught American literature for many years, but I find it quirky
that Friends in the 20th century so emphasized academic study of theology when originally George Fox railed against the ordained ministers of his time.

Comment by William F Rushby on 12th mo. 5, 2014 at 10:16am

Daniel Wilcox wrote: " I find it quirky that Friends in the 20th century so emphasized academic study of theology when originally George Fox railed against the ordained ministers of his time."

Daniel, I don't think that 20th Century Friends, especially liberal Friends, emphasized the academic study of theology much at all.  In fact, Chuck Fager wrote about the "Age of Amnesia", emphasizing how little liberal Friends thought about their own history and theological presuppositions.  J William Frost gave a series of talks at, I think, the Friends General Conference annual conference, in which he asserted that post-WWII academic Friends produced very little in the way of Biblical scholarship or serious Quaker theology.  That's why Quaker Religious Thought and the Quaker Theological Discussion Group were established.

Academic liberal Friends were much m0re focused on politics and liberal social causes than they were on their own religious tradition.  Thomas Hamm asserts that 'The Nineteenth Century saw what amounted to a kind of divorce from their past on the part of most American Friends."  "New Light on Old Ways",  Quaker History, 93#1. (Spring, 2004): 53.

Comment by Daniel Wilcox on 12th mo. 9, 2014 at 1:51pm

Thanks for the correction. I used the wrong term "theology" when speaking of "liberal" Friends

What I meant to say is that Friends in the Jones-Brinton-etc. tradition of Quakers tended to emphasize the academics, while Fox railed against academics. This can be seen in Jones' focus on his emphasis on the  study of history of mystics and religion than on emphasizing living out Fox's sort of prophecy, claim of miracles,etc.

Does that sound more correct?

But in the more "evangelical-fundamentalist" tradition, emphasis has been placed on academic theological preparation for the ministry, much less on the mystical or the prophetic (at least in my experience in California Yearly Meeting).

In neither the "liberal" nor the "evangelical-conservative" (excepting, of course minor counter-moves) do I see much that is similar to the non-formal not-universe trained, experiential and almost Pentecostal focus, as well as prophetic, outlook of Fox. Generally, 20th century Quakers of all traditions
avoided, opposed much Fox type behavior. 

Of course, my limited experience may be making it more simplistic and anecdotal than accurate.

But when I lived near Philly (during my time as a C.O. working in a mental hospital) this is the perspective I saw in "liberal" meetings.

When my wife and I attended "liberal" meetings in Arizona and California, this is the also the perspective we experienced.

And when were members of in California Yearly Meeting), the focus was on theological study of the Bible, on ministers with theological degrees, not on spiritual experiences like Fox's

Any "spiritual experiences" in  George Fox sense in the "evangelical-fundamentalist" meeting was discouraged. Our meeting's leaders didn't even allow open worship for more than about 10 minutes for fear that someone might get Pentecostal in behavior.

I found that very strange and contrary to Fox's outlook and behavior as described in his Journal.

Comment

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