Liberal Friends

Liberal Friends' Responses to Other Faiths Margery Post Abbot 0 0 Thi s Article is brought to you for free and open access by Digital Commons @ George Fox University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Quaker Religious Thou ght by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ George Fox University - Article 5 LIBERAL FRIENDS’ RESPONSES TO OTHER FAITHS MARGERY POST ABBOTT T1827 are quite evident in 1996. Many groups of Friends see he consequences of the divisions that started in Philadelphia in themselves as inheritors of the faith of George Fox. Yet as a direct consequence of the separations, they have grown to emphasize different aspects of early Quakerism. In the process each branch has adopted new beliefs and practices which push them further apart. A question close to my heart is “how can we all rightfully claim to be Friends?” My research on this question centers on those Quakers who belong to yearly meetings open to a diversity of belief. For want of a better term I am calling them “liberal Friends.” I use the word liberal to mean open to a wide range of belief. I specifically do not use the more common term “unprogrammed Friends.” Most liberal Friends worship in unprogrammed meetings which are closest in form to early Friends’ worship1 of waiting on God. However, I want to stress that “waiting” or “open” worship is not inherently linked to a “liberal” theology. All Friends can benefit from a rediscovery of the full meaning and practice of the testimony of waiting for guidance of the Spirit in the silence which is such a central part of Friends’ heritage. Liberal Friends are a minority within the Religious Society of Friends. Their yearly meetings—those that do not have a clearly defined statement of belief in their Faith and Practice—include North Pacific, Philadelphia, Britain, Baltimore, and Canadian, among others. Within such yearly meetings worldwide, one can find individuals and meetings that are quite evangelical as well as Meetings for Worship where the word “Christ” is never heard. These meetings are often politically liberal, but not always, and a few monthly meetings hold programmed worship and have pastors. They are perhaps a third of North American Friends and a small fraction of Friends worldwide.2 Tom Hamm has issued a challenge: “If Friends can accommodate virtually any belief, then what does it mean to be a Friend?”3 The 41 42 • MARGERY POST ABBOTT book that is the larger context of my research is one response to this challenge. It is organized around four central topics: Mysticism, that is, the individual and group encounter with the Divine; Belief, or the ways people speak about God; Testimonies—the witness of God’s action in daily life; and Community, or how Friends live together as a people of God. The core of my research is a set of over 60 interviews with Friends in three quite different liberal yearly meetings— Philadelphia, Britain, and North Pacific.4 Individuals were chosen in part because of their active involvement in leadership positions or in interpreting Quakerism through writing and teaching. They were also chosen to give a sense of the range of beliefs present in those yearly meetings. This paper speaks to the ways in which other great religions of the world have reshaped the beliefs of liberal Friends, particularly some of the ways in which shifting understandings of the universal nature of Christ has allowed many Meetings to accept non-Christians into membership. This was unheard of before the twentieth century and probably before the second world war. It is a practice rooted in the universal nature of the Light expressed so fervently by early Friends. Robert Barclay, the seventeenth-century codifier of Friends practice and belief, established a clear alternative to the predominant views of his time in stating that: [Christ] is the “real light which enlightens every man” (John 1:9 NEB). And makes visible everything that is exposed to the light. And teaches all temperance, righteousness and godliness. And enlightens the hearts of all to prepare them for salvation.5 The first generation of Friends were radical in believing Jesus Christ was universally available to all people. This allowed them to approach individuals of other religions in ways that recognized and respected those who responded to the Spirit of Christ in all cultures and all religions. Over the centuries, this initial opening has undergone many changes. In the 1970s a few liberal Friends, first in Great Britain, then in the United States, created formal organizations based on a concept of “universalism” which some see as independent of the Christian message. But this is not an easy blend. John Punshon and Elton Trueblood are among the prominent Friends who have challenged this diversity in belief and decried a universalism that is not grounded in Christ as untrue to Quakerism.6 The place of Christ has also been a difficult issue for liberal Friends. The truth is they don’t even agree (...truncated)