So many requests have come in for my paper that I've made it freely available on Scrib'd:

Walt Whitman's Quaker Paradox

Thanks for your interest in this history.

Mitchell, thanks for sharing this concern. I'm glad that folks reading the introduction from now on will have access to this different perspective and set of resources.

I am not a scholar-- just a Friend with an interest in Quaker history, and a hope that it can be useful as a resource and context for deepening our contemporary faith. This introduction wasn't intended to be a thorough academic review (thus the lack of citations), but I did consult the work of Quaker historians in order to present, to the best of my ability, an accurate picture. I relied primarily on Tom Hamm's The Quakers in America for overview and broad context. I also reviewed some of Jack Marietta's data on ecclesiastical discipline.

I intended only to present a broad picture of the collective cultural and theological standards-- recognizing that there will always be individuals who resist, oppose, or exist outside those. I understand and sympathize with the concern that by not naming these individuals, we too often default to the presumption of universal heterosexuality. I hope that I have neither made nor encouraged others to make such a error. It simply seemed outside the scope of this brief and limited overview, so I'm grateful that you've added that to the mix of perspectives in the comments.

Kody, is it possible that you are speaking beyond your Light on this subject? Do you have any deep training in Quaker history on the one hand, or in the history of sexuality on the other? Both of these disciplines caution against making breathtaking generalizations without citations and references, such as:

"For its first three centuries, the Religious Society of Friends was straightforwardly aligned with broader Christian orthodoxy on sexual ethics questions. There were clear collective standards, and Friends could be (and were, in large numbers) disciplined for sexual offences like adultery and fornication. Starting in the 1960s, liberal Quakers began to examine-- and in some cases seriously question-- the established parameters of sexual morality."

Thanks to almost two decades of my work, we now know about a sharp schism over sexual morality as a contributing factor in the Hicksite Schism. Even in more recent times, it is not justifiable to guess that Friends were not much interested in sexual morality until "Towards a Quaker View of Sex." I would point you towards "The World in the Evening" by Christopher Isherwood, and Marc Stein's "The City of Brotherly and Sisterly Loves." In the interim historical period there is S Weir Mitchell's astonishingly "queer" novel, "Hugh Wynne, Free Quaker."

If the subject of historical testimonies on sexuality interests you, I invite you to read my essay on "Walt Whitman's Quaker Paradox" in Quaker History for 2007. And then read the works of gay historians Ann G. Myles, Lisa M. Tetrault, Caleb Crain, Hans Turley, and to a lesser extent, Lilian Faderman, all of which have explicitly or implicitly investigated same-sex love among historical Quakers. You can start here:

http://leavesofgrass.org/TimeLine/gqh3.htm
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=57
http://www.lgbtran.org/Profile.aspx?ID=113

Unfortunately, I have been prevented from extending this timeline forward by my other duties in this ministry; however, the evidence given above should be enough to open up a deeper appreciation of the role of Friends at the forefront of testimonies on dignity and equality through our history. Also, if you are close to the power structure of FGC, I would ask that you share my sentiments with the organization, and ask it to engage in the kind of open listening which is considered to be a Quaker hallmark. There is really no need for us to stick our heads in the sand any longer.

Friends,
You all, in your own ways, speak my mind. I especially like Free Polazzo's vivid imagery of "Meeting for Worship for Sex". In this day and age, where sex is still too frequently used as a means to control and dominate, being able to look at it as a means of Worship is very fulfilling. As I work with the Pentagon of Peace in NM and hear Col. Ann Wright's horrible statistics, I am able to renew my hope through FGC's timely look at Quaker sexuality. It is good to have other people debating this, to help open the way to inner dialogue about a subject which is frequently treated as taboo. Thank you!

Walk in the Light,

Torrey Moorman
Bellingham Friends Meeting
(and currently Worshipping with)
Albuquerque Monthly Meeting

This is a great summary Kody, and it is much appreciated.

J. Carmona

You're welcome, Kody. Thanks again for sharing.

I personally have a very low opinion of votes and vetoes, I just liked the catchy slogan.

Lincoln Alpern

Thanks for the feedback, Friends!

I think I probably should have elaborated or re-phrased what I said about "scriptural authority." What I *didn't* mean was, "Friends believe in the authority of scripture, and that will influence how we think about sex," but rather, "the particular understanding that Friends have of the *nature* of scriptural authority will influence how we think about sex."

I reference Robert Barclay a lot, because I think his imagery is clear and powerful: in a traditional Quaker understanding of scripture, we recognize the words of the Bible as a stream-- not the fountain, not the Source, but a witness to it, issuing forth from it. At its best, I believe this understanding liberates us to use the Bible as it is meant to be used-- to point us towards God's truth revealed in our own lives. This particular understanding of how to read scripture helps me, for example, to hear messages about faithfulness, honesty, non-objectification, and honoring one's own and others' bodies in scriptural teachings about sexuality. These teachings feel relevant to me in a way that head-coverings and prohibitions against sodomy do not. I believe and hope that my reading honors God, who gave forth the scriptures. I try to stay open to God revealing more or different understandings.

I would hate to think of scripture having either a vote or a veto! I believe that we do Quaker process the way we do because we have a collective understanding that votes and vetoes are a poor way to negotiate Truth. Early Friends spoke of seeking the movement of Spirit, having the scriptures revealed to them by the immediate, present God. We don't have to choose because scripture and unmediated divine revelation. For me this is good news, and an important thing to hold on to from Quaker tradition.

Thanks again for the comments. This kind of dialogue is exactly what we're hoping will be sparked by the series.

"Some of the tradition that I bring to the Religious Society of Friends says that scripture and even the past: 'Has a vote, but not a veto.'"
Thank you, Friend, that was very well said.

And it is true. There are many beautiful things in scripture, and many lessons for us to learn. But it is also a product of its time, as any other great work, and some things which were considered right and proper at the time of its writing are now correctly identified as horrible and destructive.

Now some will claim Scripture is the Word of God. I am not among them, but consider this: one of the central beliefs of Quakerism is that all human beings have within them the innate capability to comprehend the Divine. That makes each of us, in our search for that which is right and true and just and good, the final authority on how to conduct ourselves morally, not Scripture.

Lincoln Alpern
Scarsdale Friends Meeting
New York Yearly Meeting

Dear Friend Kody,
Your summary of the history of the sexual morality among the Religion Society of Friends is very much appreciated. This is a conversation that is sorely needed and I appreciate your kicking it off on this site in a public blog. I want to honor that. I also believe that any discussion of sexuality needs to include the morays of the wider community as we know Friends are (and have been) influenced by our neighbors and their views on this "hot" topic.

Sexuality can be seen as a gift and a curse. It can bring us together and it can separate us from each other and even from our inner life. It feels good and it hurts. It makes us laugh and it makes us cry. The act can create life and it can end life. It is curious that sexuality is so important to our individual and collective lives yet it remains a taboo subject even in our most “Liberal” Religious Society of Friends Meetings.

I would hope that it would be remembered that most of the history we know from the past is "HIS/tory", which is mostly written by men from a male perspective. I am hopeful that the HER/story gets out there, too. Something we can all be more mindful of as we leave an era of human history where until fairly recently, sexual intercourse between men and women meant reproduction and offspring. Women were often treated as the property of specific men so that the children that were 'produced" could be claimed as "mine" by the man.

While I didn't see "continuing revelation" in the summary of Friends History, I believe that this is central to the conversation about human sexuality. "Waiting on the Spirit" or "Waiting for Mr. /Ms. Right" is all about seeking the Light in the here and now. Could Friends consider downplaying "the authority of scripture" in our present day discussions about xexuality? Some of the tradition that I bring to the Religious Society of Friends says that scripture and even the past: "Has a vote, but not a veto.” Something to ponder. . .

As we search together for a "Way to Open" in our sharing our possibilities for human sexuality to help build the peaceable kindom in this physical world, let's remember how we Quakers search for that elusive but so satisfying "third way" where we co-create together the Sense of the Meeting.

That is what I have strived to achieve in my sexual relationships: “Meeting for Worship for Sex”.

Blessings,

Free Polazzo
Atlanta Friends Meeting
Southern Appalachian Yearly Meeting and Association