State of the Society:
FGConnections Spring 2005
Challenge to Friends
by Marty Grundy
What
do Quakers have to say to those Friends and non Friends who cite “morality”
as the reason they voted for an administration that waged a preemptive war
for trumped-up reasons? If, as some pundits suggest, the issues that divide
the United States of America have to do with the way we view and define morals
and ethics, what are Friends saying? Most of us have read at least the four
gospels, so I ask, what did Jesus say about homosexuality or abortion that
makes them the litmus test for faithful Christianity? As most of us are aware,
Jesus is not recorded as mentioning either. I happen not to equate Jesus and
Paul (Romans 1), although I suppose some folks do. Nor do I equate Jesus’
message with the laws of Leviticus (Lev. 18:22 and 20:13), although he certainly
comes out of that tradition. What, then, did Jesus spend most of his time
talking about? Seems to me a major theme of his parables was the Kingdom.
Jesus preached that the kingdom is within or among us, and early Friends picked
up on this as the reality upon which they based their lives.
Early Friends experienced and preached that “Christ is come to teach his people himself,” and what he was teaching them, apparently, was about living in God’s Kingdom right there in mid-seventeenth century England. Obviously there were many, many ways in which the dominant British culture of the day did not conform to what Christ seemed to be teaching (through the written Bible and through the hearts and experience of Friends) about God’s kingdom. In spite of that plethora of possible ways to criticize the dominant system, Friends didn’t wander off in all directions, each trying in his or her own little idiosyncratic way to live the parts of the Kingdom that would be most comfortable for them. They seem to have arrived at a clear sense that they were called to witness in three very specific ways against three aspects of the dominant culture that were counter to God’s Truth as they were experiencing it. In fact, in the early days there was no membership per se. Folks were recognized as being Friends (or not) by their behavior in conformity with these three witnesses. And, of course, that they faithfully attended meetings for worship.
First was the refusal to pay tithes to the established church. This witness testified to their rejection of a politically-established church that was not worshipping God in Spirit or in Truth and was corrupt, venal, and outside of the Truth.
The second witness was against “hat honor” and the social honorifics of their day. Their witness included the grammatical use of the second person singular. This broad witness testified to their understanding that in God’s kingdom there was no hierarchy based on birth, wealth, or political power. They did not say that all people were the same, they recognized the difference of gifts. But this witness was against human hierarchies based on corrupt, self-serving human criteria.
The third witness was against taking oaths. This witness testified to their understanding that those who live in God’s Kingdom had total integrity, that their words and actions were congruent, and completely honest and transparent. All three of these witnesses were highly visible and effective in testifying to and spreading Friends’ message. Everyone who was considered a Friend, who was “owned” by the local meeting as a member, witnessed in these three ways. And all three witnesses came at a huge personal cost.
Incidentally, the peace testimony came a little later, and for its first few decades was a personal witness rather than a program of political action to influence governmental policies. Because God transformed a Friend inwardly, he could not bear arms against another human being.
Where does this leave us, in the early 21st century living in the post 9/11 world, and in the reality of the recent US election? Over the past two centuries we seem to have developed a basket of optional testimonies from among which Friends are invited to pick and choose what might be comfortable for them to try. Some Friends live exemplary lives of witness and sacrifice, from refusing to pay war taxes to refusing to drive gasoline-powered automobiles, from living below the poverty line for conscience’ sake, to generous financial support of Quaker organizations and causes, from conscientious recycling of waste to having a TV-free home, from wearing comfortable rather than stylish clothing to volunteering in soup kitchens, from celebrating ceremonies of commitment to participating in peace vigils, and on and on. I could make a list. But I am not aware of any single behavior analogous to the three witnesses of early Friends by which anyone anywhere can identify someone as a Friend.
To what does the Religious Society of Friends witness today? What is God calling us to do, as a religious body? I would like to suggest that Friends in our meetings should get under the weight of this question. I would like to see each monthly meeting, in a format that seems best to it, coming together in deep worship to seek divine guidance in discerning exactly what God is asking Friends to witness to in this day, in these times. I wonder if there are not three key places in which we could make a unified witness that would testify to the world that indeed God is here, with us, teaching and guiding us into the way in which we should be in this world—demonstrating what life can be like in God’s world. Can we learn to say again that God’s Kingdom is within and among us—and anyone can see it if they just watch us a bit?
So first, let each monthly meeting prayerfully wait on divine guidance, and discern not what are the most politically expedient areas or the least dangerous or uncomfortable places, but what is God asking us to do. Then the monthly meeting could minute its sense of God’s leading, and send the minute to the quarterly meeting (if there is one). The quarterly meeting could then carefully and prayerfully read the minutes from its constituent meetings and settle into its own deep and prayerful discernment to find the three (or however many) ways in which it understands God is calling the body of Friends to witness. This would be minuted and sent up to the yearly meeting. The whole process of careful and prayerful deliberation would be repeated in an ever enlarging circle of discernment and, one hopes, of wisdom. Finally FGC might host a conference or retreat or consultation in which representatives of all 14 affiliated yearly meetings and the additional smaller bodies could gather and repeat once again the corporate search for what God is laying on us as a body of Friends. What is our witness to the world? What transformations in our inward spiritual understanding, our comfortable outward lives, and our generally respected Quakerism, might God be requiring? What is God teaching us as a group, a corporate body? How is God asking us to testify to God’s loving, tender, passionate concern for all of creation?
