Letters - 06 November 2026
'In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, in all things charity.'
Community standards
Friends who post comments on thefriend.org are deemed to have consented to our community standards, which can be found in our Terms & Conditions. Please familiarise yourself with these ten simple guidelines so that we can keep thefriend.org a safe, respectful and inclusive platform for discussion.
Comments breaching these standards will be removed, and persistent breaching of these standards will result in the comment facility on the letters page being suspended.
Letter of intent
The recent open letter circulating to Friends (look out for the upcoming ad), which calls for emergency climate discussions in Britain Yearly Meeting, speaks to a profound and entirely justified grief. When you look at the terrifying scale of the ecological crisis, it is easy to feel paralyzed. You are not alone in that pain.
But how must we respond?
When faced with such existential dread, it is deeply tempting to turn our anxiety inward. We can easily spend our limited energy demanding more internal discussions, scrutinising our own structures, or fighting over committee agendas while the world burns outside.
Our Quaker faith was never meant to be confined to the Meeting house. We are a people of practical, prophetic witness. When future generations ask what you did during the crisis, they will not ask if we managed to hold the perfect committee meetings. They will ask how we loved the world.
You have the power to make a profound difference right now. Let us not trap our radical energy in internal bureaucracy. The wider world desperately needs your courage, your voice, and your practical action today.
Instead of looking inward, let us step out. Let us support the dedicated changemakers already doing the heavy lifting, and turn our love outward.
Jez Smith
In brief
I am responding to Julia Aspden’s letter (16 October) called ‘Brevity’. I fully agree with her.
I would like to make a suggestion on your instruction ‘Please keep letters short’.
It seems that people don’t understand what ‘short’ means, but also that your instruction is not adequate.
In the 23 October issue the space was filled with three lengthy letters of about 400 words each.
Why don’t you give a maximum guideline for ‘short’ with which you will publish letters, like 200 or 250 words, which would be more likely to be adhered to? It would be more pleasant for the readers.
Maria Grace
