Quakers are proud of our historical support for
important issues of social justice – prison welfare, slavery,
women's rights. I wonder if we would be so proud if we understood
properly the history of these things.
For some issues, we have truly been leaders, at
least among religious communities. We have been at the forefront of
acceptance and welcome for non-heterosexuality, though it still took
us longer than, we may think in hindsight, it might. I don't know
enough to say either way about the work of Elizabeth Fry, among
others, on prison welfare. But to take the example of slavery and
women's rights, two that Quakers are particularly proud of
(especially on the western side of the Atlantic), we shouldn't be so
proud of.
It's not that we were on the wrong side of
history. And it's not that we weren't ahead of a lot of other people.
It's that we had the call, delivered as usual by individual Friends,
and we resisted it.
Benjamin Lay (about whom much positive has been
said lately among Friends) and John Woolman bore passionate and
well-reasoned witness, obedient to the leadings of the Spirit,
against slavery (and regarding other things). But before they did
this, Fox wrote to the Governor of Barbados explaining that the
Quaker approach to slavery in the world was to exhort slaves to be
faithful and loving to their masters, and that in so doing they would
cause their masters to treat them well. Strangely enough, that
section is rarely excerpted.
Both Lay and Woolman brought their witness to
their communities, their Meetings, to Friends (and others) with whom
they worship, or with whom they had dealings. Neither found rapid
agreement, and indeed quite some resistance and antipathy. From what
I have read, Lay suffered more rejection than Woolman, but he was
working earlier, in more eccentric and forceful ways, and of course
his deformity may have made people less inclined to be sympathetic.
Woolman worked quietly and gradually, and somewhat later, and made
more headway, but neither could simply announce to Friends this
leading and have it properly addressed. They faced resistance at
every turn.
Even on this side of the Atlantic, in Britain,
where Friends truly were at the forefront of the movement to abolish
the slave trade (slavery was not legal in Britain, so couldn't be
abolished itself), it took time. Many Friends had business interests
that depended on slavery elsewhere in the world. Some had even had
business interests in the slave trade itself. The call to reject
slavery, reject the products of slavery, was not welcomed as the
clear leading of God, or even as something that simply made ethical
sense.
As Quakers, we often proudly report the
involvement of Quakers in the women's suffrage movements, both in
Britain and America. More so in America than Britain, in fact; in
America, it's often quoted that the Seneca Falls Convention was
organised by five women, four of them Quakers, including the renowned
Lucretia Mott. This is true, to the best of my knowledge, but it was
organised by these Friends, not supported by their Meetings. It was
also in an area that was home to particularly egalitarian Friends,
around Seneca Falls and Rochester in New York, who rejected the
segregation of men and women in Meetings for Church Affairs (commonly
now called business meetings, or Meetings for Worship for Business)
and the resistance of wider groups of Friends to engage in social
concerns. This was also the atmosphere of the upbringing of the
famous Susan B Anthony, perhaps the name most associated with women's
suffrage in the United States.
Oh, in case you were tripped up by it – or
missed it – I didn't make any mistake there when I wrote
“segregation of men and women” in terms of Quaker practice. This
was a thing on both sides of the Atlantic; while Friends worshipped
together, and women could minister – even preach in public during
our open attempts at widespread convincement – they did not come
together with men to organise our Meetings, to take decisions.
Instead, separate Men's and Women's Meetings for Church Affairs were
held – and I would very much like to find out how their decisions
were integrated. I've not yet been able to find any real clues, but
one cannot help but wonder what happened to initiatives that women
wished to see but men were not inclined (or led) to accept, or where
they considered the same question and came to different answers.
I have not carefully researched records from the
times in question to find any clues as to why Friends resisted things
that should, seen from today or analysed with what we would now
consider a Quakerly understanding of the ethics involved, have been
no-brainers to accept. Today we see many initiatives that are
sincerely endorsed by some Friends that struggle to find acceptance,
and we must ask ourselves which of them might turn out, in
generations' time, to seem similarly baffling. We analyse these
things through our
process of discernment, of being led by the Spirit, but we must
beware, thanks to these lessons from the past, our human tendency to
resist change, to resist discomfort. We can try our best to follow
our processes faithfully, but we
can still get it wrong.
For me, from what I have been able to read, I am
reasonably confident that this was a major reason for our reluctance,
our dawdling and delaying on the route to embracing important social
goals – our disinclination to change, and even more to discomfort.
Those pushing for abolition called on Friends to reduce their
financial prosperity, to increase their costs and reduce their
profits, to reduce their comfort. Those calling for suffrage and
gender equality, along with those concerned with abolition, were
calling on Friends to stand publicly for change, to push against
public opinion in a stand for what was right. It is much to ask, but
truly the Spirit asks for much from us sometimes – to impoverish
ourselves, to make ourselves socially unacceptable, even to put
ourselves in physical or psychological danger.
The Light comforts us, but it also brings us
discomfort. Where our lives are not in accord with what they should
be, it pushes us, and the process is uncomfortable. Doing what the
Spirit drives us to do may be very uncomfortable, but we are
ultimately comforted by knowing we have done something that should be
done, often something for general good. Where we are called to break
down barriers and remove disadvantage, we oftentimes find that this
means giving
up our own advantages.
So let us not be proud of what our forebears did
without recognising that they had to be dragged kicking and screaming
– usually metaphorically – to do it. Let us not be proud of
examples that we have not lived up to. Let us be aware that we might
resist a call because obeying it will bring us discomfort. Let us be
aware that sometimes the loud, lone, perhaps impolite voice has
turned out to be right.
There's nothing wrong with pride, so long as it is
justified, and so long as it doesn't corrupt. That corruption might
be ego, excessive self-worth, but it might also be complacency –
and that is a corruption of pride that we must face the fact that we
have fallen into in many cases. Let us set aside unjust pride, and
find new sources of pride that we can justly claim. Let us use that
pride to drive us forward and bring our work and testimony to new
heights. We are not our forebears; let us emulate their successes,
rather than their errors.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.
Did you enjoy this post, or find it interesting, informative or stimulating? Do you want to keep seeing more of these posts? Please consider contributing to my Patreon. More information is available in the post announcing my use of Patreon.