Jim Roush

I grew up in a vocal Meeting. People liked to speak their mind about a variety of things that they were struggling with at that moment, whether it be religious, personal, social, or political. Struck by how often the messages seemed to relate to social and political issues, and specifically, the need for peace in the greater world, I’ve begun to think about why the messages seem to flow from this particular aspect of Quaker tradition. Of course, the Peace Testimony is a central component of modern Quakerism. That being said, it makes intuitive sense to me that the relative importance of the Peace Testimony is because many influential Meeting members/attenders are of the Vietnam/peace movement generation. This statement begs the question of what Quakerism will look like when many of its leaders grew up without a real peace movement. To this, I have no idea. But I think it will look different.

As a 20-something, I have no experience of the “march on the Capital” style movements characteristic of the ‘60s. I feel those emotions only second-hand, through my parents. My reality is dominated by short sound-bytes, the Internet, and other forms of communication. For better or for worse, marching on the Capital just isn’t the way things really work these days. In a political culture dominated by money and lobbyists, there has not been a serious, national grassroots movement on the magnitude of Martin Luther King and the like in quite some time. Now, I’m not saying this is good or bad – this is just how I personally view today’s political culture. So, what does this mean for Quakerism?
The Peace Testimony is obviously still important – it has been since the times of George Fox and will be in the future. Indeed, I have applied much of my Quaker peace beliefs to my political views regarding the second Iraq and Afghanistan war, as well as other activities in my day-to-day life. But, I would be lying if I did not admit that it is just not my primary focus as a Quaker. Indeed, while I find Quakerism’s notions of equality, silent worship, and deep spiritual conviction drawn from a direct connection with God powerful, these things do not provide my Quaker roots. Indeed, my roots are the fruits of another, independent series of experiences I had as a Quaker middle and high school student – Quaker youth activities like Quarterly Meeting and FGC. It was in these communities that I learned the power of a truly caring, supportive, and empowering community. Hard to describe if you’ve never experienced it, communities like the FGC High School Program hooked me into Quakerism. It was like coming home. It was there I learned the real meaning of the word “community,” and how empowering that experience can be. For me, this type of experience drives my version of Quakerism, and not a peace movement. To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the peace movement or the Peace Testimony – it just isn’t what excites me about Quakerism.

Certainly, there are those who (correctly) say that the loving, caring, and energizing community of Quaker youth programs is just one form of the Peace Testimony. But, at least to me, these programs are a distinct aspect of the Peace Testimony from the social and political side. I’m not sure what difference this distinction will make, but I believe it will make a difference to the development of Quakerism in the coming decades. Whatever happens, I’m sure it’ll be interesting.

Feel free to email comments or responses to jim.roush@gmail.com. Any and all comments (even negative) are appreciated : - )