Dilemmas of a pacifist stand
Time for fresh thinking?
Quakers are celebrating the 350th anniversary of the Peace Declaration, which is one of the bases for our Peace Testimony. Let’s get it as right as we can. 1661 was an acute historical moment for Friends. John Punshon, in his Portrait in Grey says that: ‘4,230 Quakers were imprisoned because they were implicated in the Fifth Monarchy Men’s plot against King Charles II’. George Fox wrote in his Journal: ‘We heard of several thousands of our Friends being cast into prison… next week, several thousands more’.
This was the dire predicament that caused Quakers to make a declaration to distinguish themselves from the fighting Fifth Monarchy Men. They were rebels but they did not fight! Margaret Fell regularly importuned the king and council. The Journal continues: ‘Having lost a former declaration in the press, we hastily drew up another against plots and fighting, got it printed and sent some copies to Charles II and the council, others were sold in the streets and at the Exchange’. Here is our first Peace Declaration – put together hurriedly for a drastic cause, because the next step of the authorities was ‘those that were taken came to be executed’.
How do we look back? How do we explain to our newcomers? Quaker Peace & Social Witness’s ‘Peace 350’ pack seems to be drawn up for our recent enquirers. It says: ‘Quakers did not want to be persecuted as a group.’ I think this is too wishy-washy. I do not think it is open and truthful. Early Quakers were not a soft lot. We probably would not recognise them! Vernon Noble in The Man in Leather Breeches writes: ‘The Quakers were already notorious for working towards a “Kingdom of God on earth”.’
Quakers were a millennial, apocalyptic, people like many others of those times. This is hot stuff! We must be honest about our roots or we will lose our credibility, especially to our newcomers.
What can we say about our Peace Testimony today? A recent Radio 4 programme, Exercise of Conscience, said of Quaker conscientious objectors (COs): ‘To stand apart from terrorism [as a pacifist] is not morally tenable.’ This year we have had a robust Swarthmore Lecture by Paul Lacey on terrorism and fundamentalism, The Unequal World We Inhabit. Paul reminded us that George Fox said: ‘…that a magistrate who bore a weapon might permissibly use it in a just cause.’ He is quoting Romans 13:4. Paul Lacey looks squarely at ‘terrorism’ and asks us to do the same. Would this give some authenticity to ‘Peace 350’?
There is a section in Quaker faith & practice called ‘Dilemmas of the Pacifist Stand’ starting at paragraph 24.21. I was ‘called’ to read this in ministry. It has surprising words. Isaac Penington in 1661 says: ‘I speak not against any magistrate defending themselves against foreign invasions; or making use of the sword to suppress the violent and evil-doers within their borders… A great blessing will attend the sword where it is borne uprightly to that end…’ It spoke powerfully and several Friends spoke to me afterwards, saying: ‘It’s not all black and white’ and ‘We shouldn’t be strongly against anything’. Well, when Jesus left for Gethsemane he told his disciples: ‘Sell your garment and buy a sword’. (Luke 22:36.)
Should we rethink our Peace Testimony? Are we too precious about it, making it into a creed? Are we afraid of risk and controversy and of thus losing the ability to discern a new way forward? Where should Friends be standing today? Have we lost our voice and vision?
As I sat in Meeting this morning, as warden, I knew that if an armed person entered and threatened the lives of my Meeting, I would call the police and expect an armed police presence to be ready to shoot if necessary. Along with Isaac Penington and George Fox, I could do no other.
Comments
What a challenging article ! There is an assumption that, from the 1661 Declaration, all Quakers were pacifists. This is far from the case. While it was Yearly Meeting’s official position, in 1693 and again in 1744, London Yearly Meeting had to advise Quaker shipmasters against carrying gun for defence, which they routinely did. In the earlier case Yearly Meeting stated that God was the only true defence. The problem for Friends is that, as Adam Curle demonstrated in his peace work in Biafra, Friends have influence because they are seen as not taking sides and not being part of the violence. If we now say that we are willing to use violence to defend ourselves against, for example so-called terrorists, shall we not lose that influence? Where does reliance on God as the only true defence then stand?
By John H on 20th January 2011 - 13:24
Please login to add a comment
