02.09.07
Quakerism’s Dirty Secret?
I’m reading Brian Drayton’s On Living with a Concern for Gospel Ministry. A very good book indeed. Just now I’m looking at a place which suggests, at first glance, that Brian has missed something. I actually don’t believe, based on the rest of the book as well as on personal acquaintance with Brian, that he misses much, so it’s more likely that he has intentionally passed by an important aspect of a passage he quotes.
Here’s what Brian, on page 89, quotes from Job Scott’s Journal:
I have found it my business, sometimes of late, to be more inward in travail, and less active in the exercise of the wholesome rules of society [i.e. the Religious Society of Friends] than I once was; and I believe, when I have obeyed the call into this inward, still abode, and there felt my loins rightly girded, it has contributed much more to the right exercise of the discipline, than when, through a desire for its proper administration, I have, by overreacting, seemed to do a good deal for its execution.
In introducing this passage, Brian says that Scott is writing about a “kind of cumber, arising from over activity in Quaker affairs.” And following the insertion of the passage, Brian elaborates:
“Meeting work” can take up rather more time than is appropriate, and I find myself every year, dring “nominating season,” asking myself what might be my limits and freedom in this connection.
In interpreting Scott’s passage in this way, Brian is reading in Scott both more and less than is there, and doing both in the very same aspect of the reading.
Simply put, Scott is not talking about the entire gamut of “Quaker affairs” or “meeting work.” He is talking about the exercise of discipline, a rather strictly defined subset of Quaker affairs. In this sense Brian is reading more than Scott is writing; that is, he is seeing a whole of which Scott is only talking about a part.
In another sense, Brian is seeing less than is there, in that Scott is talking about an aspect of Quaker work that is scarcely even done any more, and which many Friends wish had never been part of Quakerism: the execution of discipline. Only in the context of modern Friends’ denial of the historical role of discipline can I say that Brian is missing anything. Put another way, only because Brian is glossing over something that modern Quakerism loves to gloss over do I think his interpretation is noteworthy. While I have no disagreement with Brian’s aim, I think it’s a bit sad to lay before modern Friends such a meaningful passage, without helping them understand its meaning.
I believe there are many lessons to be learned by asking how Quakerism gave up slavekeeping. A part of the answer will be “discipline,” this very thing we are now so uncomfortable with. Unless the Society of Friends had been willing effectively to say, “this is our standard of conduct, and those who do not abide by it are not Friends,” it would have been impossible to corporately give up slaveholding.
Does is matter to us today? Only if we ever want to do make a truly prophetic corporate witness again.
Marshall Massey (Iowa YM [C]) said,
February 12, 2007 at 4:33 am
A good posting, Max! I can only agree with you that discipline — the rules and limitations imposed on us as a part of our discipleship to Christ — is indeed central to true Quakerism.
From the perspective of traditional Christianity, discipline is a character-builder: it is a workout that exercises the moral faculty, helping us become strong enough to walk away from wrongdoing even when the temptation is particularly strong or the path upward hard. I think one can see this even in the Gospels, where Christ gives his disciples just such a work-out, and they respond by — all unknowingly — growing into better people.
We humans (not just Friends) shy away from discipline because we have not yet embraced Christ’s invitation to discipleship. But the Quaker movement was established by people who wanted it to be a place where Christians could practice the discipline of the living Christ together, and the good fruits of that discipline could be made obvious to the world.
Ben Lloyd said,
February 23, 2007 at 9:42 am
I agree. And I think discipline doesn’t have to be scary.
I gave a workshop recently to a Quaker meeting in Denver on vocal ministry and discipline was a central aspect of it. There is a relationship between discernment and discipline - we don’t just say anything we feel in meeting. We have the disciplince to discern what is Spirit-led and what is that extra cup of coffee. But we had an excellently fun time together anyway.
I use the phrase “loving discipline” a lot. It’s a parenting thing. When we draw boundaries for our children we are teaching them about what the world expects, or at least what we expect. We are also keeping them safe - and in making discipline a part of Quaker communies again, we will be affirming the safety of those communities. There are standards of conduct which reflect our deep witness to the truth, and we can be joyful about that. We can feel safe in our shared values.
We are left with the difficult question of “Or else . . . ” Observe our codes of conduct, respect our discipline, or else . . . ? I have nothing useful to say about that - yet.
Mike said,
March 31, 2007 at 11:20 am
I wish I had the sense that I would be “discplined” if my words or conduct warranted. I think this would allow me more freedom to listen to God by spending less time listening for the unspoken reaction of my Friend’s community. Of course, if this acually happened, I might find myself in even greater anguish over my serious shortcomings; and be even less effective at listening and acting rightously.