Quakers in Britain are almost wholly white, middle class, educated and over fifty.

We pretend to have a wide range of faith positions and spiritual practices, but in fact these are just ‘notions’: distractions, entertainments, games to fill the void left by comfort and the need to hide from guilt. The ‘rational’ approach, of which we are so proud, is in fact rationalising (in the sense of justifying) our behaviours and way of life. ‘It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.’

In the middle classes we manipulate the justifications people make for the way they live.

• Username
• Password
• Log in
  

• Forgot your password?

If you don't have an account you can register here

Comments

• Posted by geriatrikid on February 03, 2010

  As I suggested in comment on Jessica Reed’s recent piece in The Friend, behaviour and belief have close links, but neither has precedence. Therefore I find it hard to accept John’s final sentence. It oversimplifies: people born into a watered down or inactive religious family tradition may well acquire from babyhood onward habits of thought and practice that are behaviourally similar to those of their more positively religious parents or forebears. Yet their own beliefs, if any, may have no direct conscious link to their behaviour.

  I can think of people whose behaviour in some measure succeeds in being recognisably similar to the ‘Advices’, so succinctly presenting a pattern for action - a way; yet they almost certainly know next to nothing about Quakers.

  John uses the term extinction. As an outsider I fear that inwardly directed preoccupation with the weaknesses or illusions of those who are Quakers is not the direction to turn. Look rather at the many in society from diverse backgrounds (not mainly ethnic) who may welcome introduction to a definitive way that seems in harmony with what they want themselves and our society to be.

  As I have named John I should at least peep out from my username and admit to ‘Norman’.

• Posted by PeterR on February 05, 2010

  I think John’s vision of the Quakers dying out as a result of self-justification and absorption in their own (not very important on a global scale) issues is entirely believable. I’ve been a member for nearly 4 years and I despair at Quaker complacency on the one hand, set against apparently passionate commitment to issues which are at best lost causes. Why has it taken so long for Quakers to take the enormous challenge of climate change seriously rather than hiding behind empty statements about ‘prophetic witness’? And on the other hand how much ink and middle-class rhetoric has been expended over the naive, unfeasible and undemocratic peace tax campaign?

  Quakers need to look outside their own narrowness and reach out (why is ‘outreach’ felt to be so un-Quakerly? it seemed to work for George Fox…) to engage with the concerns of the majority. Other faith groups have done this. In fact I think the Society of Friends needs its own Vatican II, right now. It should:

  Bring back radicalism by reaching out to collaborate with local and regional groups on common issues. Every LM and AM should be able to identify initiatives to join, augment, even initiate - and where they can collaborate with others. Everyone in the Meeting should be able to be involved at some level of activism, however small or great.

  Simplify the structures of the Society of Friends, in particular removing the strange and inappropriately exclusivist distinction between members and attenders. Make it easy for people to come along and get involved, because that’s what counts.

  Celebrate diversity of belief, acknowledge the benefits of universalism, and abandon the so-called debate between theists and non-theists. The early Quakers were Christians because there was no other world view open to them in 17th century Leicestershire. Now we know that there are many ways to incorporate spiritual awareness into our everyday lives, and each one is right for the person who follows it truly.

  It would indeed be great for the Society to be overwhelmed with idealistic people. But that’s not going to happen until Quakers stop being content that most people don’t know they exist, and start doing things that will raise their profile locally and nationally. This will of course need a concentrated and probably long campaign against traditional interests in the Society, but it is a campaign that is worth the struggle and which we can actually win - if Quakers really want to.

• Posted by geriatrikid on February 09, 2010

  How very much I share this commitment to reaching out and working with others locally and nationally wherever there is scope for promoting ‘common ground’; consistently with the behavioural guidance of Advices.

  It may thought sacrilegious by some to adopt a primary commitment to this life’s affairs.  For those of us who believe in the power and the working of God, ‘the way’ - our way - realistically - is to till the soil by action so that it becomes fertile for the working of the Spirit, not to contemplate our navels.

  For non-theists, promoting, publicising and acting out the behavioural guidance of the Advices, being examples, should be enough.

  From those to whom we reach out will come those who will be the heart of the Society in the future. Without them, we shall wither.

• Posted by Ambrosidian on April 22, 2010

  My apologies if my post is a little amateurish:  I have only very recently become a Quaker attendee and only today subscribed to this magazine!  Thank you for your patience with it, and please forgive any apparently negatives toward the author - it isn’t that way at all, you have my utmost admiration for posting, I just need some practice in arguing my own point!

  I was interested in this article as a new ‘member’ and wondered if my background as a new member (preventing or fighting off Quaker extinction) might be of value in someone’s analysis: in line with the description above I am almost wholly white (though with patches of red when sunburnt), middle class Surrey and peasantry (as in agricultural smallholder) Hebridean, educated… and twenty eight.  My exposure to religious forms from my family are very different:  my father an ardent atheist of the Richard Dawkins variety who still explained religion to be for those who are either delusional or self-deluding.  My mother is from a strict Protestant background and is a member of the Free Church of Scotland.  Both viewpoints have equally aggressive doctrines in my experience.  I have arrived at being a Quaker (it still feels dizzying to be able to name myself one of something) via atheism, buddhism, taoism, agnosticism, the ‘spiritual’ and interests in philosophy, ethics and frugal living.  But I am refreshed by being able to say I am a Quaker, because, to me, it frees me to say - I don’t know, I don’t have to argue it, I feel. Not to say I am not interested or rational, but reasoning and arguments no matter how reasoned they might be, all demand faith in certain premises, even if that premise is as simple as the scientific premise that because something has behaved in a certain way x number of times it will continue to do so and did so before the trial.  Trying to prove that is far beyond my capabilities and, it strikes me, there is a demand for a leap of faith in at least one premise at the heart of any argument toward there being consistent ‘truth’.  I find the Quaker approach of not ‘demanding’ the most interesting and refreshing and spiritual approach I have ever encountered. I am a newcomer and find it liberating/frightening not having a ‘creed’.

  
  I was interested in the foundation for this article, summarised at the end.: “Actions are the only reliable guide to a person’s beliefs.”  Having read, reread and argued with myself I conclude that the author is trying to express - although I do not necessarily agree with certain points and think the author has not done themselves justice in some of their approaches -  the beauty I see in Quaker ideals:  they are about giving, not demanding.

  
  The topic of the article appears at first reading to be about attracting membership. I think a discussion first of why we want to attract members was a missed opportunity and would have offered a clearer context: ‘attracting membership’, to me, is a demand.  The subtitle - guarantees Quaker extinction - a threat and the message is that we need to do something to stop extinction.  If we extrapolate the idea and alter the wording a little, I believe what the author is calling for is diversifying and attracting membership leading to more people willing to give (and receive) services and community.

  Looking at the argument about diversity within the Society: middle class is a byword for a range of attributes and attitudes: correct me if I am in error, but my interpretation of the term here is those with the financial background and stable domestic background who can afford to embrace/believe/deliver the Quaker ideals: but, in order to retain the financial background and stability, exclusion has to be exercised against influences which could upset them.  Although I would hesitate to put an actual amount on the finances and a checklist definition of domestic stability I do think that there are mental, spiritual and physical core human needs to be satisfied.  The author uses the words ‘hide from guilt’.  Someone who has satisfied needs need not feel guilty - surely it is the state everyone is entitled to be in?  His juxtaposition of the middle class next to trade and manufacture is misleading.  There are a large number of exceptions, but it is regularly measured that a proportion of those in and born of trade/manufacturing/third world ‘lower’ class backgrounds suffer the consequences of the lack of these core human needs.  At this point I move away from the author’s statements -  ‘they will have to seek real diversity, by mixing with other ethnic groups, especially those who are uneducated, poor or working in trade and manufacturing’.  This is so misleading a statement I feel quite angry about it.  Satiety and satisfaction can still be delivered in working class backgrounds, and different ethnic backgrounds - absolutely, yes, and exposure to those is enlightening and enjoyable.  But, and this is the major BUT, lack of education and poverty are not groups of people and neither are trade and manufacturing and that is a fundamental issue.  Trade and manufacturing are a means of earning and using skills which deliver satiety in to the same extent as middle class roles such as accountancy and law and do not dictate the person doing them.  But lack of education and poverty have a fundamental impact upon the person burdened with them.  The author could indeed compel me to diversify and change my living to interacting with those in trades and manufacturing as I would undoubtedly receive as much as I give to them.  But ignorance, lack of education and poverty are a lack - and much as I admire those who survive and have to struggle under them - they are not something to emulate, but to fix.

  The author is blurring separate issues here: the middle class may indeed be (albeit willing) sufferers of a glut of comforts and we would be improved within from living with those operating leaner, more frugal lifestyles. But there is nothing noble or enlightening about ignorance, avoiding improvement and, even worse, having improvement withheld.  I recently overheard a conversation on the bus between two ladies who were cleaners.  One was talking joyously about her 15 year old granddaughter passing her exams and how well she had done and that she herself loved learning from the granddaughter about science and things she didn’t have the opportunity to learn at school herself.  I found myself quite ashamed of myself as I have squandered and ignored a number of great opportunities that others would have optimised.  The other lady turned round to her and said, but what use is science, it’s just for those stupid scientists…

  Rather than, as the article calls for, us (the middle class presumably) ‘be challenged to change our ways of living’ how about Quakers emphasise their ethical standpoint of investing in the things that are REALLY investments, which are all miraculous.  Look at education.  You receive a good education, you can pass it on for free, no return, AND STILL HAVE IT.

  I agree with the article that we can be challenged to change our ways of living - we could invest in a sub-Saharan school rather than buy next year’s car model or camp instead of use a hotel and give the difference to a charity.  But we also need to help those who haven’t been given the opportunity and freedom from their circumstances to realise that they could invest £40 in an evening class rather than a Friday night carry-out and cigarettes to consume in front of their children, or, as I saw the other day here in Dundee, a matching pair of trainers without holes in them for the child waiting on his own for half an hour outside the Arctic Bar for his father to come out to collect him.  There’s our diversity and opportunity to give - help give choices to people who need them.  By helping them to help guide their own light, we don’t need to persuade or sell ourselves.

  “Actions are the only reliable guide to a person’s beliefs” - a guide for whom and why?

• Posted by jgharston on April 26, 2010

  In this weekend’s Guardian Population supplement it showed that only 6,171 people listed themselves as “Quaker” in the 2001 census. Many Friends may have put themselves down as Christina, Other, or just None Of Your Business. In the run-up to the 2011 census we should be persuading Friends to put Quaker down on the census form. After all, Jedi was listed as the fourth largest religious group!

• Posted by miriam on April 14, 2011

  Dear John,                    I welcome your essay.        You end with; ‘Actions are the only reliable guide to a person’s beliefs.’ I completely agree with you.  So, what is to be done?