 |
| Editions: London Yearly Meeting, 1959 (my copy); Britain Yearly Meeting, 2013. |
I received my first book of Quaker faith and practice in 1975, when Ottawa Friends Meeting accepted me as a new member. Canadian Friends of that era had adopted London Yearly Meeting's Christian Faith and Practice for that purpose, alongside their own loose leaf supplement entitled Organization and Procedure.
British Friends, in the renamed Britain Yearly Meeting, published a new faith and practice book in 1995, now entitled Quaker Faith and Practice.
The word "Christian" was not exactly being deprecated—the full title of the book is Quaker Faith and Practice: The book of Christian discipline of the Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Britain. It may be tempting to interpret the title change in terms of the post-Christian trends among some British Quakers, but that's not what interests me today.
I suppose that in either case, Christian or Quaker, the prevailing assumption was that these books are for internal use among Friends. This is who we are, more or less. But what I like about the title Christian Faith and Practice is another interpretation entirely, one I have no permission or evidence to propose: this way of faith and life is not just for us; it's recommended for all Christians.
This way of thinking rubs against the ecumenical/interfaith spirit of our times. It paradoxically conflicts with both the modesty and diffidence of contemporary Quakers on the one hand, and our sectarian exceptionalism on the other. But it makes sense to me to interpret these books as our contribution to an ecumenical conversation: this is how we are trying to live with Jesus at the center of our communities; how about you? Can we learn from each other? Are we ready (with kindness) to point to each other's strong places, and each other's defects, blind spots, and worldly accommodations? Ideally, we Quakers are not forming yet another community of self-contained "enthusiasts" (in Ronald Knox's sense) but are eager participants and ecumenical allies in turning the world upside down in the Lamb's war against all forms of oppression.
I don't know how George Fox and his companions would feel about my interpretation of the true audiences of our "faith and practice," but one of his late interpreters, Lewis Benson, once told me, "I don't have an ecumenical bone in my body." He firmly believed that Fox didn't intend to organize a new sect, but to revive or reconstitute the entire Church. However, as Knox points out, the reality is that most reform movements, inside and outside the established confessions, have similar ambitions, so it's up to us to keep the lines of conversation open with all of them rather than tending to our own exclusive conceits.
The work of our late Friend Eden Grace at the World Council of Churches is a wonderful example of these kinds of conversations. Given the range of concerns among Friends worldwide at this grave moment in human history (speaking of ecological as well as political and economic challenges), there probably won't be many of us who will be called to make ecumenical conversation a priority. But if you are one who happens to understand "Christian Faith and Practice" as a contribution to a potentially unlimited audience, I hope these words are encouraging.
Related: Meditations on sectarianism; Functional ecumenism; Core sample of a Quaker culture, Are Quakers part of the Church? Your thoughts and links are very welcome.
To be continued next week in Part Two: Pope Leo XIV and "just peace."
Bill Samuel's list of online books of faith and practice.
Grace Spencer (Prospect): Disagreement among Friends. ("Keep or dilute God?")
Eden Grace: Quaker and ecumenical essays. Her Swarthmore Lecture (2019) with video and transcript.
George Demacopoulos (Orthodox Christian Studies Center): Is Donald Trump the Arius of American Democracy?
Gerrit De Vynck and Nitasha Tiku (Washington Post, gift article): Can AI be a ‘child of God’? Inside Anthropic’s meeting with Christian leaders.
Nancy Thomas, Poems of the Beatitudes, part one, part two, part three.
Kristin Du Mez comments on Keri Ladner's newly published book American Dominion, and provides us an excerpt. (Also see link to today's live episode of The Convocation Unscripted.)
"...When I heard that song, I said, 'Man, it's just what my soul needed.'" Eric Bibb remembering Lightnin' Hopkins performing "Needed Time" in the film Sounder. (Here's Lightnin' Hopkins' version.)
8 comments:
When I think about what ancient Quaker oddities might still be relevant, one of the questions I ask myself is whether an argument could be made that the whole church should also adopt the practice. If it’s just some Quaker canard, we can toss it into an antiquity dustbin. But if all Christians should be doing it then let’s set the example.
I like Thomas Clarkson’s historical account of Friends particularly because he’s not writing for a Quaker audience. I get the feeling he’s holding our practices up for scrutiny, as if to say that maybe everyone should be following them.
Hello, Martin! Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I wonder who are today's Thomas Clarksons. (You might be in an excellent position to spot them.)
Thank you for this interesting article. I had not thought of QF&P being accepted by all Christians. My understanding of "Christian" he sub-title "Book of Christian Discipline" is that it is an adjective indicating that the discipline is loving gentle and inspiring.
Thank you for these reflections, Johan. This reminds me of a school of thought that says Quakerism began as a church and transitioned to being a sect. That is, we started with a universal mission and later accepted that our mission was more particular, something for some of us but not all. I think you are saying we should start thinking less like a sect and more like a church again.
This would indeed be counter cultural. In the evangelical Friends spaces I am in, it feels like some Friends want to emphasize that we belong to orthodox or mere Christianity (categories I am not fully persuaded are meaningful) rather than holding up the unique way Quakers understand the Gospel. One thing I've always appreciated about my Catholic friends is that they seem able to respect other Christian traditions while also being willing to say, "We believe we are the true church, you should join us!"
It would be great to see Friends reclaim some of this spirit, but it would require us to actually own up to what we believe rather than treating it as optional . . . something both evangelicals and liberals both tend to do!
Stephen, you may be right, but I also think that, in the give-and-take of the approval process, the word "Christian" served as a link to the past, to tradition (not dead tradition, but a cherished aspect of heritage), as well as a nod to those in the yearly meeting for whom eliminating the word entirely would be a serious loss.
Jay, that balance or overlap between "mere Christianity" and our unique understandings seems important to me. Part of that uniqueness is composed of aspects of discipleship that we believe are undervalued in the larger Church, but maybe we should be creatively discontented with that undervaluing, building bridges of relationship sufficiently sturdy to convey our discontent (and hear about our own defects as well!). We also should acknowledge that much of what we value as Quakers is now being done with equal or greater persistence by others.
Thank you for this reflection. I find myself in substantial agreement with your reading of Faith and Practice/ Book of Discipline what these books are for and who they are meant to reach.
You identify something that has long seemed important but rarely gets named directly. Keeping Christian in the title is not a retreat into sectarianism but an act of theological honesty and even ecclesial courage. It functions as an invitation rather than a boundary marker. It communicates that we are not embarrassed by our rootedness and are not inclined to obscure it for the sake of broader palatability. We have a distinctive contribution to bring to the wider Christian conversation and intellectual integrity requires that we bring it openly.
I would add only that I believe our witness is meant to extend beyond that conversation as well. We are rooted in the Christian faith and that rootedness is nothing to minimize or apologize for. But the Lamb's war you invoke is not prosecuted only among Christians. The call to overturn the world's ordering reaches everyone and so does our testimony. Non-Christians encounter us too and they are better served by an honest account of who we are than by a version of ourselves we have softened in the hope of seeming more accessible.
I share your reading of Fox's intentions as interpreted through Benson: not the founding of a new sect but an attempt to reconstitute the whole Church. That vocation does not terminate at the boundaries of Christendom. Keeping Christian in the name is part of how we maintain fidelity to our identity while remaining genuinely open to all. It is not a wall. It is a window.
Ellerie, as I read your comment I kept going "yes... yes... yes...."
Post a Comment