Often, in reading various Quaker blogs, I see calls to return to the ardent spirit of early Quakers. This spirit is lacking today, or so it seems from reading these various authors’ nostalgic laments.
One might say that, in addition to having encountered the Light Within, they also had the Fire Within.
Something never quite set right with me about these calls to renew the vigor of the early Friends. I wasn’t quite sure what my uneasiness was about. This week, while reading Ben Pink Dandelion’s delightful little book “The Quakers: A Short Introduction”, I got the clarity I was seeking.
BPD says “In the 1650s, Quakers as co-agents with God as the vanguard of the new dispensation had little time for believers of other types and in particular for those who led them. At the same time, the sense of unfolding endtime gave this critique an urgency contributing to its zeal…Thus, the first period of Quakerism was not universalist or ecumenical, and neither was it polite…In the 1660s, as with so much else, Quakers modified their outlook towards other groups in that they worked with others to seek relief from persecution and religious toleration.” (BPD, pp. 86-90.)
It was not the information itself that caught my attention. Even a casual student of Quaker history knows that there was a fervor in the early days that was eventually replaced by a more serene approach to Friendly life.
What caught my eye was the date: the 1660s. Quakerism is often dated to George Fox’s vision of “a great people to be gathered” on Pendle Hill in May of 1652. James Nayler’s “triumphant entry” into Bristol was in 1656. The excesses of Nayler’s actions caused many of the early Friends to moderate their actions. Not all, of course, but one could make a case that Bristol denoted the high-water mark of the early period of vehemence, and that it tapered off from there. “By 1662, the Quaker message toward the priests and professors was tempered.” (BPD, p. 90)
1652 through 1662, more or less. Ten years, more or less. George Fox was still alive. Edward Burroughs was still alive. Mary Fisher was still alive. Francis and Mary Howgill were still alive. These and many others of the Valiant Sixty were still active in Friends’ ministry — and had moderated their earlier zeal.
Those among us today, who long for that same passion, may not realize how short a time it lasted. Of our 360 year history, 10 years is a very short time. It had its impact. It spread Quakerism far and wide, and permitted the establishment of Meetings which are still active today. It provided many of the legends by which we still identify ourselves (you have to love the one about Mary Fisher going to Turkey to convert the Sultan.)
But it didn’t come to an end because the next generation was too complacent or lazy to follow suit. The very people who were most influential during that pioneering time were those who brought it to a close. They changed their minds. They found different ways to spread and consolidate the message that “there is One, even Christ Jesus, that can speak to thy condition.”
Is it not the work of arrogance and pride to say that we should return to the intensity of that time, when those who lived in and through it found it inadequate themselves? I suspect, human nature being what it is, that a secret desire is cherished among some of those who call for such a return to be the George Fox or James Naylor of our time. Easy to forget that for every one of the Valiant Sixty, there were many more, the nameless heros, who supported them in their journeys and kept the Meetings open while they were off gallivanting around. These are not bit players; these are the foundations without which the work of the architects is in vain.
Yes, there is value in contemplating that passion. There is also value in considering the Quietist phase which produced such lights as John Woolman and Lucretia Mott. No lack of passion there.
I doubt that any great number of people will ever again look upon eschatology in the same simple, even naive terms, as was found among the early Friends and others, in England and on the continent, who thought that the Second Coming of Christ was imminent.
The Second Coming, as subsequent Quaker experience has taught us, is not an event. It is not a historical moment. It is something that happens every day, in many ways, whenever someone becomes aware of the Light Within and surrenders their egoistic will to that divine guidance. For some, this will be a passionate awakening, and if they are true to the Light as given to them, it will play out in a genuine way, in context of that person’s life and times. For many, that awakening will be more like a hearth fire than a wildfire, warming and nourishing all who come near it. Is the one not as worthy as the other?
Letters from the Street 
I’m pretty comfortable with what you say, and especially agree that the “Quietist” period of Quakerism gets a “bad press’ that is far from fair and balanced. However, in thinking about these early years of Quakerism there a couple of things we must, I believed, keep in mind if we are to make sense of the way things evolved. Firstly, in the 1650s Fox and many of the others were just very young; one’s view of the impact of aging (I’m 65) tends to depend a little on how old one is. Secondly, the movement had been traumatised by the hideous suffering inflicted on significant numbers of early Friends. This must, surely, have been an important element in changing Friends’ understanding of their faith; they didn’t just have a bit of a re-think. Finally, the 17th in England was a period of huge upheaval and radical changes; we should not forget “the spirit of the age”.
By way of an aside, if I were ever offered a trip in a time-machine I’d be tempted to ask to see what really went on with Naylor and his followers around the Bristol event given the uniformly negative way it is portrayed.
Thank you for these comments. I had these things in mind when I wrote the post, but they just didn’t fit with the flow of the writing. Honestly, I was guilty of over-simplification in this post, and I am grateful for the amplification. I’m glad you said this so well.
This is like Meeting for Worship at those times when every speaker brings more richness to what’s been said before.
Wthout disputing these important observations, we should note that Friends in the U.K. continued to be persecuted, imprisoned, harassed, bankrupted, tortured, killed through cruel conditions of imprisonment, and occasionally executed, until 1687.
Thanks, Johan. This is an important part of the “many good reasons why the early Friends changed their tactics” thread. As another commenter said, they didn’t just do a re-think.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. You essentially said everything I, as a member of the age group of a good many Quaker bloggers, have been wanting to say for a good while, and said it better than I could ever have. This is 2012, not 1652. I do not wish to demean the importance of the early Quakers; the early fire in such movements is necessary in order to get things started, but it is ultimately unsustainable, in much the same way “being in love” (in the way our culture, so influenced by Hollywood understands it) is unsustainable- there must be a transition to a period of keeping the fire tended so it does not flame out. The events of 2011 are important but still transitory, the same way the events of 1968 were important but transitory. People like George Fox and people like William Penn were BOTH necessary in order for Quakerism to exist. Without Fox to very directly reign in Naylor, no Quakerism. Without Penn to, in effect, reign in Fox, no Quakerism. I understand the frustration of those in my age group who want to see Quakers once again “shake the countryside for ten miles around.” I share the same, or at least a similar, hope. But telling everyone else that they are not being true to Quakerism is absurd. I hate to break it to folks, but no one is being true to 1652 Quakerism. No.One. And no one ever will be again. There, I said it. And you know what? That’s ok. What we need is new wineskins, not old ones that happen to have new, neat online hipsterish presentation that promises we are on track with “New Monasticism” or whatever the current code word happens to be. Forgive my crude parallel, but I think what 1650’s Quakers learned, over time, was that “if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain’t gonna make it with anyone anyhow.” Telling everyone who disagrees with you that they are wrong or not following God’s will is not peaceful, and it is not humble. We MUST remember: Jesus’ prayer was “Not what I will, but what You will.”
Bruce,
I appreciate your refreshing take on early Friends’ enthusiastic beginnings and how limited it may have beeen.
As an amateur Quaker historian, I am often struck with how changeable the narratives are over time depending on who is interpreting the facts. Your take on this period allows a different emphasis to be held and examined.
Like any religion we Friends have our cherished myths and (mis) understandings of our own history and it is always good to re-evaluate and recognize that it is always a “work in progress.”
John
Hi Bruce!
Even as someone who often of refers us back to that 10 year period of pre-moderated zeal (as you have named it), I can appreciate the point that it is possible to over-emphasize that period of our history and, in doing so, risk coming from a place of arrogance and pride.
But to believe in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth so firmly that we are willing to risk everything for it… is that arrogance? To see the falsehoods all around us and call them by their true name… is that pride?
I believe my Quaker upbringing has been highly reactionary to the religious zeal that we see in the media. So much violence has been done in the name of Christianity. So much hatred. So much distancing and tearing down.
But are these the only results of zeal?
My contemporary Quakerism would have me believe so. I have been taught that the antidote to hate & violence in the name of religion is PASSIVE spirituality. Silence, soft voices, no evangelism. Community, coffee, potlucks.
Some might say that by this path we will build the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. We are an accepting, quiet, loving people who do not attempt to force our beliefs on anyone else. Perhaps this is the way for us to come together, safely, and be a body.
But I do not see that happening. What I see is Quakerism wasting away, becoming obsolete.
Why?
We don’t have anything to say. We don’t stand for anything with passion. If the Early Friends had too much zeal, we have negative zeal. Our only zeal is for our zeal-less-nous.
And where do we stand with tearing down empire, creating the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth?
Right where we started, I would argue.
We have become too complacent in our hybrids, too safe in our universalism. We no longer challenge empire… instead, we have become a functional part of empire… willing participants in the oppression of the Truth. I would say that we could use a little dose of that original zeal.
thanks for your post
Jon Watts
Hi Jon, Thanks for chiming in.
What I want to say, I wish we could just sit down with a cuppa Joe and talk it over. Maybe some day we will cross paths at some gathering or another.
In the meantime, just please think on some things.
“But to believe in the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth so firmly that we are willing to risk everything for it… is that arrogance? To see the falsehoods all around us and call them by their true name… is that pride?”
This is what we in the philosophy biz call a straw man argument. The claim you make is not easy to refute. Yet, it is not relevant to the issues I raised. I did talk about pride and arrogance, but not in those terms. So I could get into a foolish argument over what is or isn’t pride or arrogance, which is what the straw man gambit usually provokes — and in arguing foolishly, I look like a fool. I’m not saying you are trying to do this. I doubt that you said “I’ll make him look like a fool,” because your letter is very respectful all the way through. I’m just giving you the benefit of free education. People pay thousands to go to university to learn this stuff. Lucky you. 🙂
“I believe my Quaker upbringing has been highly reactionary to the religious zeal that we see in the media. So much violence has been done in the name of Christianity. So much hatred. So much distancing and tearing down. But are these the only results of zeal? My contemporary Quakerism would have me believe so. I have been taught that the antidote to hate & violence in the name of religion is PASSIVE spirituality. Silence, soft voices, no evangelism. Community, coffee, potlucks.”
Oh, there is so much more to the RSOF than this. What you describe, definitely exists. But it is so far from the whole story. I do not doubt that this is an accurate description of your experience. Trust me, many Quakers are out there on the front lines working for peace and love in a very non-passive manner. Yet still peaceful and loving…how about that? Blink, and you miss it. It doesn’t call much attention to itself. It just works. Man, does it work.
“What I see is Quakerism wasting away, becoming obsolete.” I really don’t. I see ways in which we are fallible and tragic, just like people. I see ways in which we are sublime and ridiculous, just like people. I see ways in which we rise to the occasion magnificently, and times when we don’t. Just like people.
And I am not concerned about numbers. How many Quakers there are in the world is of no concern to me. It’s like the story about Gideon.
What is of concern to me is, are we thoroughly and authentically led by the Light? Do we take the trouble to discern its movement in our lives, and to test our Light within the community of Friends? Do we follow where it leads, even though we don’t often know where it is leading?
“We don’t have anything to say. We don’t stand for anything with passion. If the Early Friends had too much zeal, we have negative zeal. Our only zeal is for our zeal-less-nous. And where do we stand with tearing down empire, creating the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth? Right where we started, I would argue. We have become too complacent in our hybrids, too safe in our universalism. We no longer challenge empire… instead, we have become a functional part of empire… willing participants in the oppression of the Truth. I would say that we could use a little dose of that original zeal.”
Son, you should have been with me out on the steps of the Pentagon, in the parking lot of the CIA, in the draft board in Wooster Ohio, and a hundred other places, where Friends and others of all ages — I love the little old ladies in tennis shoes, they had the best spirit of anyone — standing up for peace and justice. We let our lives speak. Those things are still happening. I’m more in the healing business than the Speaking-Truth-to-Power business these days, but I have no doubt I will end up on the barricades again some day.
Hope to see you there.
[I just showed Bonnie your Quaker Dance Party video on You Tube. She loved it. Naturally.]
Thanks for this thoughtful post. I particularly appreciate your suggestion that as a community we might want to reassess the period of ‘Quietism’. Since I began studying this period I have become more and more attracted to it. There is a lot of material from this period which speaks to the beauty and depth of silent prayer and contemplation. There seems to be a tendency to regard the period of Quietism as somehow a period where Quakers lost their energy and vigor; but I am now tending to think of it as a period where Quakers began to sink roots into the soil which had first been tilled by the earliest Quakers. These roots went deep and much of the writing from that period reflects this deep contact with the Divine. Again, thanks for the post.
Jim
Maybe we need to look more closely at the political action side of the equation here. As much as I am fascinated by the revolutionary theological implications underlying the early Friends movement, there’s no escaping the initial impact of the overlapping waves of radical activism as the followers united with Quakers.
But by 1660 the strands of the Levellers and Diggers, which had so powerfully infused the early Friends movement, had long been crushed, many members of the parliamentarian armies had been denied the right to vote, the dreams of a Quaker-led holy experiment in Britain itself had been dashed and Cromwell’s Commonwealth was definitely in shambles. All of this no doubt had a sobering impact on the Quaker leadership.
That’s not to say the struggles wouldn’t continue, but the battle had changed.
I’m still struck by placing the date of this change at 1660, but I lean with Rosemary Moore’s suggestion that we begin dating the origins of Quakerism in the mid-1640s, rather than 1652.
I don’t agree with the conclusion that the “Fire Within” and the zeal of early Friends is equivalent to their attitude towards priests and people of other denominations. Friends still held public meetings, they still preached publicly, they still believed in the transforming power of the Light. Samuel Bownas comes to mind as someone who seems to have had that fire and he wasn’t even born until 1676.
What I hear in the calls to return to the “ardent spirit of early Quakers” is an emphasis on the transformative power of the Light, which would involve a spirit of humility, humble obedience, and an openness to the call to bring that power to others in more direct ways. My impression from various early Friends’ journals is that their public meetings had a power to them that reached people. I don’t think that these were meetings in which everyone got together and talked about what Quakerism meant to them (a la Quaker Quest). These modern young Friends seem to me to be to be seeking that same experience.
The impression I get from what you refer as the “front lines” is basically political activism. With that impression, I would ask: “What is specifically Quaker about that?” Are all the little old ladies in tennis shoes Quaker, or is it a conglomeration of various groups sharing a particular political concern? As an example, many groups would stand behind the statement “War Is Not The Answer”, but the testimony of Friends started as “We live in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars”. Where is the call to live in the virtue of that life and power?
Mark, neither I nor Ben Pink Dandelion said that “the zeal of early Friends is equivalent to their attitude towards priests and people of other denominations.” This is one way in which that zeal was manifested, not the only way.
Friends still believe in the transforming power of the Light. Leastways, a lot of us do. So did those of the Quietist era. That belief is expressed in different ways at different times. The early Friends had no corner on the market in that regard. Those who don’t see it in the ways that it shows up today, and long for a return to that first decade or so, are not being true to that Light. You have to find it in the way that it shows up. Now, here, not at some other time or place. If you don’t see it here and now, you are looking in the wrong places. Which, come to think of it, is pretty much my point.
Anyone who has ever sat in a gathered Meeting knows that Power. I have not found gathered Meetings to be a rare event. Maybe I’ve been lucky.
I’m surprised at your remarks in your last paragraph. I’m not talking about politics. People of faith getting together to act on that faith in public is what I am talking about. I think that’s clear, within the context. To answer your final sentence/question, we didn’t promulgate a manifesto which contained a call to live in that life and power. We didn’t have to. We were living in that life and power. “Let your lives speak.”
Did you read the final paragraph of the original post? “The Second Coming, as subsequent Quaker experience has taught us, is not an event. It is not a historical moment. It is something that happens every day, in many ways, whenever someone becomes aware of the Light Within and surrenders their egoistic will to that divine guidance. For some, this will be a passionate awakening, and if they are true to the Light as given to them, it will play out in a genuine way, in context of that person’s life and times. For many, that awakening will be more like a hearth fire than a wildfire, warming and nourishing all who come near it. Is the one not as worthy as the other?” What does that sound like to you?
Friend Bruce, you mention the Second Coming as a daily event. I would go so far to say that our spiritual baptism is also a recurring event. Based on Paul’s writings in Ephesians 4 where he talks about one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God who is father et al… We experience Christ as Lord on a recurring basis; we experience faith on a recurring basis; we experience God on a recurring basis – why, then, would we not experience baptism on a recurring basis? The idea of “one” Lord, faith, baptism, God, seems to point toward identity rather than one experience.
If we would see baptism as a recurring renewal – it might be also called the filling with the Holy Spirit – perhaps, we would be open to the spread of the Fire. All to often, it seems to me, Christians try to compartmentalize things in a tidy box. Friends Fox, Penn and others tried to enable us to see spiritual things experientially.