Odd Questions about Quakers

Very soon, the Quaker Information Center webpage and the responsibility of responding to emails will be transferred from our office in Philadelphia to the Earlham School of Religion in Richmond, Indiana. In preparation, I have been going through old emails, culling classic examples to send them. Below are a few of the more strange or amusing questions I have received over the past six years.

Chel Avery

Q1
We are using cutting oil QUAKER ALU 3853 for our machining. We are buying from your Poona local representative ‘Techno Tooling.” . . . Our order is 1 Barrel and your local auth dealer is supplying in 20 LIT can. What the meaning of this? . . . Expecting a good business relationship always.

A
I am sorry, I cannot help you. The Quaker Information Center provides information about the Quaker religion. We have nothing to do with products that carry the name Quaker, no more than Saturn automobiles come from the planet Saturn. I believe you may be thinking of Quaker State Motor Oil, a company that is owned by Pennzoil. Try contacting them at www.pennzoil-quakerstate.com/international/default.asp.

Q2
My friend suggested to me that Quakers do not procreate, but rather obtain all members via conversion. . . . I told her she was crazy and misguided, she insisted she was not crazy. She is crazy, right? You know how Catholics can be. Christian Reformed here.

A
I assure you, Quakers do indeed procreate. (One of our songsters has a humorous ballad called “Making Quakers from Scratch.”) I think your Friend has us confused with the Shakers, a religious sect that started in England and came to North America. Shakers lived in communities that practiced celibacy and took in orphans. There is a very minor connection between the two groups. The Shakers had been a small group in Manchester started by a couple named Wardley, two former Quakers. Ann Lee--who had no Quaker connections—joined the group and eventually became its leader and introduced many changes, including the part about not procreating. I don’t think your friend is crazy, just misinformed.

Q3
My friend heard on the Philadelphia Duck bus/boat tour that there is no First Street in Philadelphia because our Quaker fore-parents, in naming streets, decided that no earthly location should be set above God and called “First,” so they named it “Front Street.” Do you know if this is true or is it a Quaker urban legend? People are being told this everyday in the tour.

A
Quaker urban legend indeed! “Front Street” is a commonly used term in many American cities for the street that faces a water front. The next street is second street, and so forth. There is nothing “Quakerish” or unique to Philadelphia history in this naming of our streets. I once spent a couple hours dissuading a BBC reporter who had participated in a local tour from including this little bit of local color in her story about Philadelphia Quakers. I cannot figure out why visitors are unable to remember the difference between William Penn and Benjamin Franklin, or forget the difference between Quakers and Pennsylvania Dutch, but relentlessly remember this bit of nonsense!

Q4
Do the Quaker’s still own Quaker Oats? If the Quaker’s no longer own Quaker Oats, do they still represent Quaker Oats? Are Quaker’s the inventor of the Oatmeal cookie recipe?

A
Quakers do not and have never owned the Quaker Oats Company. “Quaker” is simply their brand name (like “Eskimo Pie,” which I do not believe was ever owned by Yupik, Inuit, or Aleut people). . . . . I do not know who first made oatmeal cookies. However I have read that the process for making rolled oats was developed by a Quaker woman in the U.S.

Q5
What is a Quaker spook chaser?

A
You’ve got me. According to the writer, this was the description applied to a noisemaker sold in an antique shop. I hope it isn’t what it sounds like!

Q6
How do I get my Quakers to mate?

A
(Ref Q2 above.) Dinner and soft music weren’t effective? Then I am going to assume this question refers to the breed of parrots known as “Quakers.” Try this other Quaker Information Center: http://www.quakerville.com/qic/q_links.asp.

Q7
What age are Quaker girls when they get their bonnets? Do Quakers commemorate the occasion with a special ceremony?

A
I’m all out of answers. I hope somebody else will take this one.

Help -- We Are the Target!

Q

[The situation described below is real and recent. The name of the meeting has been changed out of cautiousness. ]

Dear George Lakey,

Please advise us! Friends at Rivertown Meeting have scheduled a 10-week course on Islam, to be taught by an Islamic scholar. We advertised it to the public, hoping it would create openings for better understanding in our community. About 70 have people signed up. But now we are targeted by a “tea party” group that is recruiting to get a large group of demonstrators outside our meeting house as well as people to come inside and confront the teacher.

We asked the yearly meeting to help organize a “Friendly presence” group of trained peacekeepers to help us manage the situation, but we found out they don’t do that anymore.

What do you suggest?

Clerk of peace and concerns committee, Rivertown Meeting

A

Dear Friend,

One way to look at disruption is to see it as an opportunity. That was pretty much the attitude of early Friends, who seemed to think that if there wasn't turbulence around what they were doing, they must not be doing something of consequence. It was also the attitude of Martin Luther King and his colleagues. So congratulations!

If you and other Rivertown Friends do manage to view this as an opportunity, you'll see a lot of positive possibilities. One that see even from this distance is to shift the dialogue about Islam from a small bubble of the already-convinced ("the choir," as we used to say in church when the preacher was "preaching to the choir"), to a dialogue that influences far more citizens of the area including those who initially wouldn't choose to be in the choir.

One way that the disrupters may be doing you a favor is that they are a fringe who are acting out what is really the mainstream feeling: "We don't really want to learn more about Islam."

This is similar to the favor the KKK did in the deep South by acting out the mainstream white attitudes toward black people, and thereby raising the question for those mainstream white people: are we really as unwilling to re-consider our racism as the KKK folks are?

The politics of our country can't really shift regarding Islamophobia until there is much, much more attention paid to it, and the Tea Party people are apparently willing to give that gift to the body politic. Just as the nonviolent civil rights movement turned the KKK's acting out to their advantage, by responding nonviolently and assertively, so also Friends can thank the Tea Party folks for opening up attention to these issues in a vital and exciting way that can move the Rivertown-area people who have been avoiding the set of issues involved.

The important thing is not to imagine that this is all about you, or all about the Tea Party people, or the combination of you two parties.

Naturally it is partly about you (the opportunity you get to strengthen yourselves spiritually and build your capacity for courage, for example), and it is partly about the Tea Party people (the opportunity for them to express themselves as fairly marginalized people in the broader society). But sometimes the biggest opportunity is for the Rivertown-area people more in the middle of the spectrum, the people who perhaps would rather not confront the realities either of what Friends assert or what the right wing asserts, but just duck the whole thing if they can.

In other words, as you map out your strategy it pays to bear in mind a picture of the Rivertown-area population as a spectrum. You are on one extreme of the spectrum. On the other extreme are the Tea Party folks. 90% or more of the people of the area are ranged in a spectrum between the extremes, but to differing degrees leaning toward you or leaning toward the right, with some folks (maybe most) in the middle, on the fence.

Our job strategically in working for change and transformation is always to influence, if we can, the various parts of this spectrum. Usually the challenge is to get various parts of the spectrum enaged in our issue.

Thanks to the Tea Party folks, this should be much easier this time.

A nice thing about the Friendly Presence as I experienced it was that it didn't intimidate the extremists, so they could still act out enough to generate drama and stimulate forces for change. The Friendly Presence built a supportive container, but didn't shut down the extremists.

It was in the best tradition of early Friends, who often called themselves "Friends of Truth." (It's the truth about our society that will set us free, not pretending that our society is about politeness and civility.)

So -- well done in becoming a target, and good luck in making the most of it!

George Lakey

Responding to Accusations

Q

I have been an "unprogrammed" Quaker since 1959, having attended the Quaker church in Whittier, CA. Since I moved away from Whittier, I have never lived near a Quaker meeting place so haven't been able to attend meetings, but I have always tried to practice the Quaker beliefs in my own private way.

One of the things I have always run into is accusations that I am not patriotic. In my heart, I feel I am extremely patriotic - I love my country and the freedoms we have. However, since I have always been very much against war and the military in general (and the horrible harm they do to our young people in the name of patriotism), I am viewed with disdain by veterans and those who have served in the military. Because of this I am somewhat reluctant to express my views in public and feel I don't really have a good rebuttal answer.

I would really appreciate your discussing this problem in the blog as I feel it is undoubtedly a problem many Quakers are or have experienced.


A

This is a really tough challenge. Here is what I’ve learned from my own experiences and from observing others – I hope some of it will be helpful to you.

When someone accuses me of something like not loving my country, my first reaction is to want to show them they are wrong. And the tools I instinctively turn to are the tools of argument – facts, logic, and other forms of persuasion.

It almost never works.

In fact, when I respond by using argument to try to prove that I’m right and my accuser is wrong, usually, by the time the exchange is over, I go away feeling more resentful, more defensive, more critical of the other person than before I responded at all. And I’m pretty sure that my arguments in those instances have hardly ever changed anyone’s mind – maybe occasionally they planted a seed that sprouted later, but I doubt that happens often.

So one thing I have had to learn to do is give up the goal of “winning” on the playing field of right vs. wrong.

Instead, I’ve learned to focus on the fundamental question: how do I maintain my own confidence, my own comfort with my beliefs, in the face of criticism or ridicule? I need to trust the foundation that they are built upon.

So, I ask you, why do you believe in peace? Is it because you accept the authority of the teachings of Jesus who said “resist not evil”? Is it because in the depths of your spirit you have “come to live in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all war”? Is it because all life is too sacred to you to be able to conceive any reason that would justify violence? Whatever your foundation, know it. Plant your center of gravity in that spot. And be assured that this is the truth as you have encountered it, regardless of what anyone else may say to you. You do not need to defend it with data, clever words, or sharp analysis. It is already true in a way that cannot easily be damaged or strengthened by disagreements with others.

When you are rooted in your strongest, truest understanding, you need not be rigid. Rigidity is a refusal to allow any space for doubt. But it may be that an experience you have or someone’s comment will cause you to question some aspect of your understanding. Doubt is an opportunity to dig a deeper foundation by testing that understanding, by knowing it better, perhaps by refining it. So if someone challenges you in a manner that raises questions for you, you are free to say, “Gee, I haven’t looked at it that way before. I’m not convinced, but I will give some thought to what you say.”

When you are not personally threatened by someone’s accusation, you are able to respond nondefensively, even generously. What value do you have in common with the person who is accusing you? Can you understand it as a bond between you? Do you both love your country? Then speak to that common bond? For example, “Oh, I do love my country. I am always asking myself how to be a better American. The best answer I have found so far is that I can support my country best by encouraging it to make peace in the world.” Or, “I’m proud of how many young men and women are making sacrifices in their lives to be of service. I really don’t want those sacrifices to be wasted – I want them to help build up the good in the world rather than risk their lives in acts of destruction.”

Sometimes there will be such a huge difference between your assumptions and the other person’s that the thing to do is acknowledge it and honor it. Let the person know that you get what they are saying (if you do). For example, “So you say that you believe it is naïve to try to make peace with the people in Iran? You think we will be in peril if we do that?” Then hear the person out. Then offer up your commonalities: “I want us to be secure, too. I want American children to grow up in safety, and I also want the Iranian children to grow up in safety. I can see why you disagree, but I still believe that cooperation, not force, is what will keep us safe.”

Identify your own, personal indications for success in such a conversation. For me, success is not “winning” the argument, or even convincing the other person that my beliefs are a legitimate alternative to their own. I feel successful when I witness to my belief in peace through a conversation that is itself truthful and peaceful. I remind myself to try to speak in the spirit of someone giving a gift to a beloved friend who deserves that gift, as I deserve the joy of giving it.

Now, having said all of this, I need to confess that quite often it is easier for me to describe such exchanges than to participate in them with all of the calm confidence and loving generosity I have described. Sometimes I do feel my defensiveness flare up. I realize that I am going through the motions outwardly, but in a less than wholehearted way that later will leave me fuming, thinking up the harsh arguments I could have made.

I think it takes a strong spiritual grounding to be able to do well what I have just described. It also takes practice. I have seen other people, who are both grounded and practiced, respond to such accusations amazingly well. If their accusers do not change their minds, at least they leave the conversation with mutual respect. One of these individuals is Marshall Rosenberg (www.cnvc.org/) who offers workshops in “nonviolent communication.”

I am going to invite others, whose abilities in this area I have witnessed and admired, if they will post tips, or different kinds of advice to you. I hope other readers will leave comments about their experiences.

Peace,
Chel Avery

Quakers Under the Microscope -- Participant-Observer Report No. 2

Q

So I’ve heard that Quakers tend to be introverts who are not very outgoing with non-Quakers. How has that affected you as a non-Quaker extravert working with Friends?

A

Authors Note: This is the 2nd part of my series of working with Quakers. In this entry, I’ll attempt to describe some of my perceptions and misperceptions of Quaker beliefs. Also, I will attempt to describe an outsider’s perspective of the correct Quaker beliefs. -- Matt Bernot

Well, I too have heard stories about Quakers not being the most extraverted group on the planet, but to say they are not social would be, in my opinion, incorrect. A good part of this perception of Quakers comes from, in my personal belief, the fact that because Quakers do not actively try to convert or recruit new members they must be anti-social. I have found that Quakers are more passive and can be quite social if one takes the time to approach them first. Many Friends are quite friendly when approached. Another aspect of Quakers that may fuel the belief that Quakers are not social comes directly from the Quaker belief system.

The Quaker belief system is unlike most other religions. I will attempt to explain it in the best terms I can as a non-Quaker. I realize that I probably will not grasp the full concept of Friends beliefs, but I will make my best attempt and I invite our Friends to leave comments referring to whether or not they agree with what I say here.

For one, unlike most other religions Quakers do not have a set creed. Rather Quakers follow a set of Testimonies. There are many values found in the Testimonies. The role of these values, Simplicity, Peace, Integrity, Community, Equality, and Stewardship (SPICES) are neither a creed nor commandments. Rather some Friends consider these values to be the guiding principles in decision making, while other Friends say that good decision making leads to these values being the product of a good decision. This argument reminds me of a favorite debate of the world today, which came first, the chicken or the egg. I would assume that if you asked ten different Friends about the role of the SPICES acronym, the ten Friends would give ten unique answers. Needless to say, this can be a bit off-putting to someone who is used to religions that have creeds and therefore the beliefs are set in stone.

Quaker beliefs come from within and it is, to an extent, up to each individual Friend to determine what is meant by the different teachings and what the correct course of action is in a given situation. When I first started working with Quakers, this unique way of thinking was surprising but also refreshing. It has challenged many of my own views and allowed me to think of things in a whole new way.

At first, I found it quite hard to understand how anyone could be a part of a religion that did not have a set creed or set beliefs. I also found it hard to see how a religion without few, if any, outward rituals could bring people closer together. However, after seeing Friends interact with each other, I realized soon after, that I was quite wrong. While outward rituals do seem to give the impression of bringing people together, I have come to see that the inner bond that Quakers have from their meetings runs far deeper than the outer bond that Catholics have from Mass. [Author’s Note: I was born and raised Catholic, but now fall under the category of lapsed Catholic.] In my own opinion, this inner bond that Quakers share and develop through silent, unprogrammed worship creates a bond between Friends that is far deeper than any bond created by participation in a ritual. One thing I think that causes this is the fact that all Quakers are equal since there is no minister or pastor that leads worship. This equality allows Friends to develop a spiritual bond that I have never observed before.

Now, from my time here, I have been able to correct my misperceptions of Quakers, which I am sure are shared by many other non-Friends. This experience so far has been enlightening.

Matt Bernot

"Spontaneous Worship" and the Problem of Orthodoxy

Q

I'm a graduate student
from the U.K. studying
'spontaneity in worship',
and I have some
questions about
Quakerism. . . . During your meetings I am aware that anyone who feels the Holy Spirit prompting them can speak. I wonder, how can Orthodoxy be maintained? Do situations arise where sentiments expressed are clearly not in line with, for example, biblical teaching? How is this dealt with, and are there leaders who have some sort of steering capacity?
NL

A

Dear NL,

There are two levels at which I can respond to your question about "spontaneity in worship." One is why maintaining orthodoxy is not a huge problem for Friends. The second is what we do about it on the rare occasions when spoken ministry is considered inappropriate.

At the first level, Friends in the unprogrammed trandition are a noncredal religion. "Orthodoxy" of belief is not what we are about. Some religions define themselves primarily by a clear set of beliefs. If you are Roman Catholic, then you are supposed to believe the statements of the Apostles Creed, for example. But belief, per se, is not what makes a Quaker a Quaker. It's not that we don't have beliefs, but that we don't put them at the center of what we are. Our beliefs have to do with the idea that God is alive and present among us and continues to reveal godself to those who have ears to hear, and that seeking that personal encounter, following that continuing revelation, both individually and as a community, is central. So we are Friends because we participate faithfully in a community that supports and encourages (and yes, sometimes lovingly rebukes) one another in our efforts to know God here and now, and to be guided in daily life.

A British Quaker and sociologist, Ben P. Dandelion, has written much more eloquently than I can about the value of "uncertainty" to Friends in an article for the London Times. See:
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6206864.ece. What Ben writes is an interpretation of how we approach our faith, but I believe it is a very good interpretation.

What about the second level of your question -- what do we do when spoken ministry is clearly inappropriate? I found myself balking at the word "spontaneous," not that it is inaccurate, but it is too easily understood as impulsive. At its best, our spoken ministry in worship is present tense, not prepared or intended in advance. But before we speak we are expected to test our discernment of that ministry, to confirm to the best of our imperfect abilities that it comes from a deeper Source than our own active thoughts or imaginations.

And since we assume that everyone who speaks is in the process of "maturing" in the ministry, we expect and are comfortable with a wide range of messages -- some articulate, some stumbling; some emerging from years of "seasoning," some raw and unrefined. We do not expect to be taught by, spiritually moved, or to agree with all the messages we hear, knowing that some may not have been inspired for our own needs but for others in the room. But we try to listen for any spark of truth that may serve us, even in messages we essentially disagree with.

Only rarely is does a person speak in a way that is truly a problem for the meeting. If it is simply a case of not understanding our approach to ministry, we can be very patient. Sometimes, in extreme such cases, there is a mental health problem involved, and a person becomes a regular disruption.

Every meeting has a way of taking responsibility for the quality of worship. In most meetings, that responsibility is assigned to a committee. In the U.S. we generally call it the "committee on worship and ministry," or "ministry and counsel." Members of this committee may spend time with a person, speak to them, encourage them in one way, gently steer them in another. Only rarely -- usually in mental health situations -- is a problem severe enough that members of the committee will actually interrupt a speaker or ask the person to come with them out of the room. I have seen this happen only a handful of times in my life.

I hope this answers your questions. Peace to you,

Chel Avery

A Report from Our Participant Oberserver - No. 1

Q

I hear that you're doing your Drexel coop placement with Quakers? What did you think you were getting yourself into? And what is it really like?

A

Author's note: this is the first of what will hopefully turn into a recurring series of comments about my experiences at the Quaker Information Center. I invite you to read on and see the perspective of a non-Quaker trying to understand Quakers.

In September of 2009, I accepted and started at a coop internship position with the Quaker Information Center in Philadelphia. To be honest, I really had no idea what I was getting into. Being raised by Catholics and having spent my life before college in Catholic schools, I had never really come across any Quakers. The closest connection to Quakers that I was aware of in my life was that of my Congressman, Rush Holt, from my home in New Jersey. And since I do not actually see Congressman Holt on a day-to-day basis, I do not really know if that counts as anything. So, I had no idea what I was getting myself into.

Now, I honestly was prepared for anything going into my interview. I was half expecting that I would run into a carbon-copy of the Quaker Oats Man as my interviewer. I also expected see the Quaker values that I knew of, pacifism and plainness, being expressed to an almost cartoonish level between the current staff. However, this could not be further from the truth. My boss, Chel, is one of the most down to earth people that I ever worked for, and the other staff members are quite friendly and also, quite normal.

Another big surprise from working with Chel is that I was able to start up some rather large projects fairly early on with complete independence. The first two projects I was able to work on completely on my own were the creation of a QIC Twitter, which was fairly easy to do, but also required me to sell it to Chel, and the creation of an Excel-based inventory tracking sheet. With that second project, not only was I given complete autonomy, but I also became the “teacher” in a way, as I am the one in the office who has the most experience using Excel. Chel also was more than willing to let me be the lead on projects that I do not think I would have been able to lead had I worked at another place.

What I consider to be the most interesting experience of my time here so far was when I was able to attend a committee meeting early on a Monday morning in late September. Chel had prepared me for this meeting by telling me that Quakers never vote on an issue so I was quite confused as to how decisions were made. Needless to say, the meeting actually went quite well. I was shocked at not only how much got done, but also by how organized everything was. Unlike most similar meetings I’ve been to, no one was shouting over the crowd, and no one was cutting people off as they spoke. Also, because there was no voting, the committee actually got more done as issues were discussed and debated, in a calm and orderly fashion, until the group reached a consensus. After watching this process work successfully, I can honestly say that in my opinion, it works better than voting as committees that use a voting procedure will only call a vote when they have enough votes to pass a measure rather than agreement. Those rules of voting can alienate people, and that’s something the Quakers avoid.

So, in short, I have learned a lot in my first four weeks here, and hopefully I will continue to do so as time goes on.

Best regards,
Matt

What Is It about Quakers and Music?

Q
Please explain -- what is the deal about Quakers and music? Is it true that music is considered sinful? Why? If music is bad, how do you explain the video “Dance Party Erupts at Quaker Meeting for Worship” at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-XlMkK4_kTg?

A
What IS the deal about Quakers and music? This relationship has been a challenge. For programmed Friends (mostly in the midwest and western states), whose traditions since the 1800s have included pastors and prepared liturgies,[see comments re this word--ed.] hymn singing is regularly included in the service. For Friends whose tradition is “open” worship [see below], music is not part of the traditional practice, although some meetings (congregations) have introduced a custom of singing before or after worship. At times in open worship individuals may offer ministry in the form of song, and may even welcome others to sing with them. My meeting –- one of a handful I know –- ends with the singing of a particular hymn, As We Leave this Friendly Place, which was developed as a closing hymn during the 1900s.

[NOTE: “Open worship” begins in silence and has no prepared format and no appointed clergy. Friends wait expectantly in stillness for the presence of the Divine Light, and offer messages to other worshipers when led by the Spirit to do so. It is also called “unprogrammed” or “silent” worship. For more information on the programmed and unprogrammed branches of Quakerism, see www.quakerinfo.org/quakerism/Branches.html. –ed.]

Worship in Song is a Friends hymnal developed through Friends General Conference. FGC has served unprogrammed Friends since the late 1800s, and music has always had a place in the social events it sponsors. Worship In Song was created to be used for group singing and for personal devotional use, because the practice of group singing in open worship is not established--yet many Friends love to sing!

Friends have not generally described music as being “sinful.” Yet our actions can give that impression, as wonderfully portrayed in the movie Friendly Persuasion. In that movie, the family tries to keep secret from the Quaker elders that they have a musical instrument hidden in their attic.

Early feelings about music arise in the writings of George Fox, a founding Quaker and journal writer from the 1600s. His journal notes –- with no particular animus –- the music that his wife and stepdaughters regularly played. He writes that at a particularly hard time in prison, he “sang,” presumably in prayer. In another place he strongly condemns the sound of psalm-singing. His condemnation of street music and his warnings about the power of music are timeless. I assume that early Friends paid a lot of attention to these strong messages. Music in the church was a likely target for early Friends in their general critique of the Church -– which they were trying to change. In that early time of establishing Friends traditions and ministry, music became for some an element to sharply dismiss. I am grateful we are moving on.

The concern about music has focused mostly on two assumptions: music is a power that raises emotions in ways not conducive to worship; and congregational singing as part of liturgy does not have a place in open Quaker worship. As a Friend in the unprogrammed tradition and as a “singing Quaker,” I’ve long held a conviction that these two assumptions, based on early Quaker writings and practice, were not the whole story, and there are many “singing Quakers” who share my unease with our long, silent dismissal of the value of music for Friends in worship.

I find music very conducive to worship. I have been opened by music that I’ve heard sung both in and out of worship, and in worship have sometimes sung myself. Music connects us to each other and to Spirit by an invisible thread. Hymn singing before worship helps me to “center down” and helps me be more in tune and open to the Spirit, rather than to distractions. I am not alone in this experience.

It is, then, with joy that many Friends have viewed the video from Jon Watts that you linked to your question. It is edgy, particularly for unprogrammed Friends, because it is rhythmic, even including dance. It reminds me of the revival tent in its energy, something that pastoral Friends may relate to as part of their tradition. But in this case it comes out of Friends’ other tradition of open (nonliturgical) worship, and many Friends in this tradition are responding with enthusiasm. Jon’s lyrics express his experience, his life in connection with his faith. The video opens up a possibility for a kind of message we do not often hear -- either musically or in words -- in open worship. Does the performance engage emotions in ways that block experience of God or Spirit? Is it self serving? These are questions we can keep in mind as we respond to the message.

There are some Quakers who may dismiss Jon's ministry. There are some who still feel the weight of our old assumptions about music. If we are true to our tradition, we will engage with Jon’s ministry and listen to him. Through that experience of engagement we may learn more of God's truth.

Joan Broadfield

Is There a Quaker Objection to Labor Unions?

Q

I was wondering if you could answer a question about your religion for me. There is an employee at work that said that she cannot join the union because she is a Quaker. Can you please help me understand why that is?

Thanks for the clarification

An Interested Co-worker

A

I have been thinking about your question for a couple of days, and in fact I had a vigorous conversation with my husband about it, in which we did not see eye to eye. My reply will be lengthy and not very conclusive, but I will do my best.

When a Quaker says, "My religion does not allow me to do X," it is different from when a Baptist says, "My religion does not allow me to dance," or a Muslim says, "My religion does not allow me to drink alcohol." Quakerism does not come with a list of things that you are not allowed to do. Even certan practices that are common among Friends -- such as not taking judicial oaths or not serving in the military -- are still considered matters of individual conscience as guided by the Holy Spirit, and each Friend is expected to discern how he or she is being called, and then to test that discernment in worship and with the community.

The decision whether to join a union is one of the areas where Friends have found themselves called very differently from each other. I have known Quaker union members, and I know that at least one Friends organization is unionized. Friends who find themselves led to stay clear of union membership for religious reasons would probably give many different explanations for their choices. These explanations would be likely to refer to one or more of the "testimonies" that are frequently evident in Friends' efforts to live faithfully. There is no official list of testimonies, but typical principles described include: peace, simplicity, equality, integrity, and community.

In trying to imagine possible explanations that your co-worker might give, I have come up with several possibilities:

Some Friends interpret our commitment to peace and nonviolence to mean that they should never exert physical, economic, or other kinds of force to influence the wills of others. Only persuasion, witness, and prayer are acceptable routes to "get their way." If your co-worker has this perspective, then she would probably feel unwilling to strike or to use a threat of a strike in negotiation processes.

I have never been part of a union myself, although my grandmother was a labor organizer and I retain much of the "pro-union" attitude that was instilled in me in childhood. Nevertheless, at one time, I applied for a job in an organization that was unionized, and if I had ended up working there, I would have been required to make a decision about whether to join myself. Even though I do not personally adhere to the strict definition of nonviolence described in the paragraph above, I felt that to be part of an organization based on the principle of exerting "our interests and power" against "their interests and power" would encourage an attitude of opposition, and I found myself very uneasy about it.

I have a friend who is a Teamster. His conscience troubled him after he was recruited to become a shop steward and discovered himself in the role of always being expected to defend the worker, whether or not he agreed with the worker's grievance, or whether he thought the worker was right or wrong in a dispute. His mentors in the union advised him that yes, he sometimes had to go to bat for people who were abusing the system, but it was a necessary part of maintaining the union's ability to protect workers when they did deserve it. The mentors were probably right, but their assurance that it was "necessary" did not entirely give my friend peace. In his situation, I expect my religion would not "allow" me to accept a role in which I had doubts about my own honesty in specific instances. I would lose too much sleep.

I do not mean to suggest that any of these examples explains your co-worker's problem about joining the union -- only she can articulate her religious reasons. The same testimonies (e.g., peace, integrity) that can guide one Quaker to make a particular decision might guide other Friends to make very different decisions. And such reasons are not always explainable. Sometimes Friends weigh decisions for months, years, or decades because they feel a heaviness within or a spiritual stop that they cannot define, and they will not go forward until their hearts and minds are clear.

The requirement for Friends is not that we all choose the same responses, but that we have a tender conscience, that we seek guidance from the Light Within, and that we adhere to that guidance to the best of our ability.

Peace to you,
Chel Avery

Why no caps and gowns at Friends school graduation?

Q
I am trying to find information/explanation on why Quaker school students do not wear caps and gowns to graduation.

A

Dear [friend],

Each Friends school is independent from every other Friends school. Each school community discerns for itself how to interpret Friends testimonies and traditions, so our schools do not all develop the same practices. I have attended a high school graduation at a Friends school where caps and gowns were worn, so I know it is not a uniform determination among all the schools to do without them. I can make some guesses that could explain why some Friends schools have not adopted caps and gowns for graduation, but the only truly accurate explanation for a particular school would have to come from the school itself.

My first guess relates to the Friends testimony of simplicity, which has evolved from the historic tradition of plainness. Material simplicity has to do with not owning or using things that are unnecessary, including items of apparel that encourage pride of appearance or are dictated by changing fashions. Students, families, and teachers may feel that it is a frivolity, or a waste of resources, to spend money on ceremonial attire.

Another tradition that may explain such a practice goes back to the beginnings of the Quaker faith: rejection of ceremony, symbolism, and formal ritual. This is why Quakers do not perform outward sacraments (such as water baptism), and why you will not see symbols, such as crosses, in a Friends meeting house. Friends traditionally avoid the outward forms that may distract us from the inward experience those forms are meant to signify. So again, ceremonial attire may be seen as going against Quaker culture.

My final guess has to do with the emphasis on each person's uniqueness. When Quaker educators get together and discuss what our schools do have in common, one principle that invariably comes up is an emphasis on the special individuality of each student -- the importance of honoring each child's special gifts and appreciating differences. So it may simply be that the idea of having every student appear in identical costume goes against the values and spirit of the school's community.

I am copying my response to Sarah Sweeney-Denham at the Friends Council on Education. She may be able to add to or clarify what I have suggested.

Peace to you,

Chel Avery

Sarah's comment:

I agree with you. Of the reasons you explore, I believe the practice that some Friends schools have of not wearing cap and gowns is most strongly felt and linked with Friends schools' essential belief in that of God in each person, which leads to an appreciation for diversity and individuality, as well as celebrating that which connects us all. Many Friends schools design "Meetings for Graduation," giving every person in attendance (students, parents, grandparents, teachers) a chance to be part of the occasion, by speaking from the heart and spirit within. In some Friends schools each member of the graduating class makes a speech, further celebrating each student's perspective while also celebrating the group as a whole. These practices seem aligned with these ideas as well.

Thanks for asking,

Sarah Sweeney-Denham

Do Quakers believe in the bible?

Q
Do Quakers believe in the Bible?
(Received August 3, 2009, and many other times as well.)

A
Do Quakers believe in the bible? I guess the short answer is yes, but the Religious Society of Friends is a made up of several diverse branches with diverse memberships, and what one person means when she says “I believe in the bible” can be very different from what another person means by the same statement, and I don’t know whether either of them would be identical to what you mean when you ask that question.

Generally, Friends believe that the people who wrote down the words in the bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit, and so the bible is evidence (if not a perfect record) of the Word. Friends have also believed historically, and a great many still believe, that God speaks to us directly through a deep connection that every person has with the Divine. Sometimes that connection is called the Inward Light or Christ Within or the Seed or many other names. Different branches of Friends place different emphasis on the authority of the bible versus the authority of direct revelation.

In today’s mail I received the most recent edition of the magazine Quaker Life, and this issue is entirely devoted to the topic “Friends and the Bible.” You can access a couple of the articles at: http://www.fum.org/QL/issues/0907/contents.htm.

Here are two different statements about the bible that come out of important documents from different branches of the Society of Friends (and which I am copying from the magazine I just mentioned):

The Richmond Declaration of Faith: “It [is] the belief of the Society of Friends that the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament were given by inspiration of God; that, therefore, there can be no appeal from them to any other authority whatsoever.”

and

Baltimore Yearly Meeting Faith and Practice: Many differing attitudes toward the Bible can be found among Friends, but a few statements find general acceptance:

• In the experience of Friends, the Bible can be rightly understood only in the light of the Spirit which inspired it; the same Holy Spirit which is available to all.

• Although the word of God can be found in the Bible, inspiration may also be found elsewhere. The closing of the canon of Scripture did not signal the end of Divine inspiration.

• Any part, any verse of the Bible can best be understood in the light of the whole, so that care should be taken in the use of passages removed from their contexts.

• Detailed understanding of the Bible can be reached only through study of the times and circumstances of the writing, in the light of various commentaries and translations.
  

I am afraid this response is both too long for your simple question, and way too short to capture a fair representation of the breadth of Friends’ relationship with scripture. I hope it is at least a little bit helpful.

Peace to you,
Chel Avery