Letters - 27 June 2014
From the core beliefs of Quakerism to 'The two worlds of Charlie F'
The core beliefs of Quakerism
As a new attender I was attracted to the Religious Society of Friends by what I had long thought to be the core beliefs of what I call the religion of ‘the authority of no authority’. It was with dismay that I discovered a general consensus that Friends hold no beliefs in common and that there is a theory that the Society is held together only by form not substance.
I thought that the religious ethic of the Society is the equal value of every person. I thought that this ethic is given day-to-day realisation in the task of promoting the autonomous fulfilment of the potential in the life of every person. I thought that the guiding authority adopted by Quakerism as best conducive to this flourishing of human relationships is the authority of no authority of one person over another. The principle of mutual respect and assistance that usually goes by the name friendship. I also understood, according to George Fox’s complaint against ‘notions’, that the Quaker belief is that religious doctrines are themselves the cause of irreligious division. The reality of religion, therefore, as stated in Fox’s plea for ‘possession not profession’, can only be embodied in the Good Samaritan principle that religion is what is done, not what is professed.
Could any Friends confirm whether I have lost the thread of what it means to be a Quaker in my sense that this set of core beliefs inspires the Society? Or is it, perhaps, the case that today’s presentation of Quaker faith is missing something?
Hugh Rock
First world war
I do not like to disagree with David Boulton (13 June), whom I respect and admire. But I think that he is mistaken in saying that Quaker commemoration of the first world war is limited to remembering ‘those who opposed it’.
Support for that war in this country is an object lesson on how politicians, often acing from motives not made public, determine what patriotism is. They were certainly successful in 1914-18. Nearly six million men served in the British army. Three-quarters of a million of them, and very many more in other belligerent countries, were killed. Probably a little over 20,000 British men were conscientious objectors. Bertrand Russell, a doughty and influential opponent of the war, exaggerated but not unduly when he wrote later: ‘When we [opponents of the war] were all together we felt warm and cosy, and forgot what an insignificant minority we were.’
Governments have whipped up patriotic emotions many times since 1918 to ensure support for other wars. If Quakers are to be an effective anti-war force they need to understand why wars happen, how populations can be roused to support them and how to mount effective opposition. Understanding how and why the first world war began and the massacres which resulted are an important part of that process.
David Rubinstein Friends Historical Society president, 2014
You need to login to read subscriber-only content and/or comment on articles.