Have We Become Quakerly Correct?
Forum column of Friends Journal
July 2002Jack Powelson’s “Why I Am Leaving Quakers” essay in the April 2002 issue of Friends Journal (see copy below) should be taken as a wake up call for the entire American Quaker community regardless of their political convictions. In many ways Jack’s essay very much reflects the sentiments of a large if minority of Quakers who are often viewed by peers in general society as being progressives but too often categorized by their fellow Quakers as being reactionaries or conservatives.
Jack makes a serious point that it seems the time has past when many American Friends sincerely welcomed a wide array of Quakers including Republicans and other than liberal believers. Today those people who have studied economics and/or make a living in business are too often held in suspicion. Perhaps one may suggest them as being regarded as not being QC - “Quakerly Correct.”
Some 160 years ago the traumatic Great Separation took place. H. Larry Ingle’s Quakers in Conflict is an excellent account of the so-called Hicksite Reformation. One view of what happened then was that rural Quakers chaffed at how the Philadelphia urbanites were accommodating the trends of the day and insisting that their views override those held by their country conservatives.
One may argue whether there is a parallel happening today. However, in some ways there is clearly a greater and more present dilemma. Rather than the Society tearing itself apart once more, something much, much worse could happen - and it may have been happening quietly for some time. That is, members are no longer attending since they no longer feel comfortable at Meeting. This could be the modern equivalent of the Great Separation - the Great (if silent) Resignation.
If we discover a very small turnout of members is regularly stymieing our Meetings or should we see our attendance dropping off, we may ask ourselves why. It is all well and good to form Outreach Committees and so on, but how welcoming are we to others who may have political beliefs different than our own? How heterogeneous is our current membership in terms of occupations, political beliefs and outside activities? Are we truly a religious society or are we becoming a meeting of like-minded liberals?
Jack’s taking leave of his meeting is a concrete way of asking these kinds of questions. Our challenge is facing up as to whether we are willing to ask the questions and then to answer intellectually and spiritually with honest hearts. If we don’t, we may witness many others doing the same as Jack Powelson but without such public notice.
Tom Coyner
Seoul (Korea) Monthly MeetingFollow-up Letter to the Quaker Outreach Forum
Friends,Since my last posting regarding whether we may have become Quakerly Correct, I have benefited from the kind dialogue with a number of you. Some feel that Jack Powelson and I may be exaggerating a concern - but I suspect that is a matter of personal perspective and which meeting one may be attending. Others feel perhaps I have something that does indeed speak to them. Whatever.
However, one birthright Friend from a well-established Philadelphia family really better defined the nub of the issue better than I did, in my opinion.
He wrote:
"The issue is that Friends believe in the Inner Light, and the ability to speak to that source of goodness within ourselves and with in others, directly.
"Hence all decisions are based on consensus; and consensus is reaching out and listening to the Light in others, not with in oneself.
"I believe the problem you describe is exactly the same as the one in 1827. Friends have forgotten what it means to be a Friend, and that the first step of Friends Practices, is seeing and listening to the Inner Light in others.
"I would say that you are giving a lay explanation, when the theological one fits better.
"I think we as Friends should try to form more of our thoughts in the language of the basic theology. Although Greek to non-Friends (and I fear many new Friends), I think it would actually be unifying for the group. Both focusing on what is important and avoiding sidetracks, but also inclusive as it would setout a set of rules that are clear and accessible to every one.
"With out this, I fear we will move the way of the Amish, where each geographically distinct group has really different rules."
Now that really spoke to me.
Your Friend in Seoul,
Tom
Why I Am Leaving the Quakers
by Jack Powelson
April 2OO2 Friends JournalJack Powelson, of Boulder (Colo.) Meeting, is professor emeritus of Economics at University of Colorado, and the author of several books, including Facing Social Revolution, Dialogue with Friends; Seeking Truth Together; and a Pendle Hill Pamphlet, Holistic Economics.
When I joined Friends 58 years go, I felt integrated into my meeting. Quakers enveloped me and permeated me; I was at one with them. But over the last 58 years, Quakerism has changed, and so have 1. 1 have taken leave of my meeting, but I have not resigned my membership.
Back in 1943, as many Republicans sat in the benches as Democrats, and meeting was a place for the spiritual enrichment of persons of all political beliefs; even soldiers in uniform came to meeting. If the spirit of the 1940s existed now, right-to-lifers might today sit next to pro-choicers, each being equally blessed in the eyes of God. With the spiritual undergirding of the meeting, different political beliefs would be advocated in secular organizations.
Many worldviews were found among Friends of the 1940s. A worldview is a belief about how the world functions. Some of these hold the U.S. as a cruel power, wanting to dominate. Others see us as the fount of liberty, hope for the underdog. Of the many worldviews of people who sat in the benches in 1943, some favored the New Deal, others were opposed; some would fight in World War II, others were pacifist; some thought World War III was coming, some did not. Some wanted security in an uncertain world, others felt that security compromised freedom. Some hated Roosevelt, some loved him.
In the 1940s and 1950s, Friends were very active in discussions on how our spirituality related to world affairs. For several summers I was on the faculty of AFSC high school institutes of world affairs. At workcamps, the evenings were spent in discussions, which continued at workcamp reunions. Weekends at Pendle Hill, George School, and Westtown School were devoted to the same purposes. In the years immediately following World War II, AFSC organized a discussion program on former troop ships taking students to Europe. I participated in that one, along with Margaret Meade, Ken Galbraith, and others.
To me, the sacred triad of unprogrammed Quakerism is that of God in every person, silent worship, and deci sions by sense of the meeting. All worldviews can be accommodated within this sacred triad, as they were in the 1940s and 1950s. But over the years, unprogrammed Quakers have narrowed their views. While the issues of the day are different from those of the 1940s, what is alarming is that we have lost the diversity of yore, and we are more uniform politically than ever. Few Republicans sit in the benches of my meeting; pro-lifers do not feel welcome. Friends tend to think alike on biodiversity in crops, succor for the poor, how the U.S. and other governments function, what embassies do, whether to forgive debts, whether to boycott sweatshops, how multinational corporations "think," how high the minimum or living wage should be, and what to think of economic globalization. We no longer invite speakers whose worldviews differ from our own.
Whatever the worldview is, so go our policies. Since I have a different view from the mainstream Quaker, I tend to think many policy proposals of Quaker organizations would damage the very people for whom we wish to advocate: the poor and the disadvantaged. Yet I cannot explain why, because we no longer communicate well.
Imagine being in the Christian right, where you are always being asked if you have adopted Jesus as your personal savior. If you don't go along with that, you are very uncomfortable. If you try to say something different, you are immediately put down. That's how uncomfortable I am now among Quakers.
I have longed to share my lifetime of experience and study with Quakers, the people who have meant most to me. I do not want to persuade anyone of my worldview, but I had hoped that Quakers, in whose good intentions and good heart I have absolute faith, would be willing to listen to it.
With a few exceptions, Friends are not eager to hear me. Ten Friends walked out of a workshop I was conducting at Friends General Conference in 1999. Last April, I was queried on participating in a conference on Peace at State College, Pennsylvania, but the committee could not reach unity on this invitation. I was told that my brand of economics would not lead to peace. My workshop proposal on "Poverty and Human Rights" was turned down by Friends General Conference 2002, as were all other workshops on economics topics.
The exceptions include a workshop on globalization at Friends General Conference in 2001, which was highly acclaimed by participants, as well as my free, online newsletter, The Classical Liberal Quaker (to see it, visit http:/clq.quaker.org ), in which I have received much support in Readers' Responses. Several people whom I know have also been retreating from Quakerism, for much the same reason as I am. One of them wrote as follows:
One always hates to give up something that seems quite logical and compelling, in this case what seems to be a potentially very fruitful linking of classical liberal thought with contemporary Quaker concerns. But there may be times and situations that simply do not work out, and it is my feeling that this is the current reality. I am scaling back my Quaker activities because many of the things that I care about passionately, and which I believe are consistent with Quaker insight, simply do not resonate with the majority of Friends.
Where I will go next I do not know. I might find another church, or no church, or I might return to my meeting. I do not seek a church where everyone agrees with my worldview any more than I want one where everyone disagrees with it. I plan to visit many churches, to see if I can find one whose spirituality is similar to Quakers but which has not become so uniform in outlook.
In my devotion to the sacred triad that of God in every person, silent worship, and decisions by sense of the meeting--I am still Quaker.
Return to our
Page