Taking sides
Peter Boyce reflects on the journal of Elias Hicks
I have been reading the journal of the American Quaker Elias Hicks (1748-1830). For the most part, this journal is about the visits he made to Quarterly and Yearly Meetings at a distance from his own Meeting on Long Island. Many of these movements took place at the time of the civil war between the British colonies of North America and the ‘mother country’.
In one particular case, Elias Hicks and his Quaker friends were able to pass through the lines of the assembled armies and across a tract of country between them. They passed through with permission and mostly without hindrance as Quakers, at the time, were recognised as a peaceable and neutral people. In spite of the conflict, Friends had considerable dispensation that allowed them ‘a favor which the parties would not grant to their best friends that were of a warlike disposition; which shows what great advantage would redound to mankind were they all of this pacific spirit’.
Reading is not just for entertainment. So, does the book speak in some way to my condition? Is there somewhere in the text food for thought? Does it set off a sequence that suggests that something of importance has been said by the author? Is there something one can add to one’s own journal?
Well, I was led to consider the neutrality of Quakers. Why are Quakers neutral? Do Quakers not have opinions? Do Quakers not join sides whatever the provocation? Joining one side, calling one side good and the other evil leads, maybe, to enlargement of the feelings of anger and hatred, leading to confrontation, fisticuffs and war even. An unstoppable boiling river starts life as a spring and tiny streams. If we eschew war, then perhaps we should eschew those early beginnings.
Does the Bible help with the problems of taking sides, judging and calling one thing good and another evil? The story of the Garden of Eden is helpful. Paulites, followers of the ‘usual’ Christianity that comes solely from Paul and his voices – as opposed to, say, the Gnostic Christians of the Cathars, written about by Kris Misselbrook in the Friend on 17 March – look on the Garden of Eden as the origin of ‘original sin’. This is ‘nonsense’ and ‘nonbiblical’ according to Hicks. It ignores the chief message: that second tree, the tree of the difference between good and evil – covered with apples? No, that was a mistranslation from Greek to Latin. Anyway, ‘tree’, ‘fruit’ are metaphors. God, Elohim – this word is often viewed as the plural of Eloah – says that if humans make those sort of judgements, they would be ‘more like us’. Such judgements should be left to a Higher Authority.
What does Jesus say? ‘Do not judge, and you will not be judged.’ How does all this affect our attempt to be good Quakers and walk a righteous path? This now becomes personal. I find that I can’t take part in demonstrations, however well-intentioned, such as that of Greenham Common many years ago. To me, these represent the politics of hate, confrontation and violence. For me, letter writing is a far more effective way of raising the banner. I prefer to pester top brass: the prime minister, Boris, Jeremy, leaders of conversation on LBC, radio, newspapers’ correspondence columns, and local community chat forums such as Nextdoor.
Persuasion is much more effective than confrontation, which tends to harden attitudes. Logical argument, simply expressed, is much more likely to be effective. Shouting ‘down with’ whatever may well produce an equal and opposite reaction from observers. Taking sides leads to increased anger. Parading banners might lead to violence. Shouldn’t we try to follow the example of the peaceable, nonconfrontational, visibly neutral Elias Hicks?
The Journal of Elias Hicks edited by Paul Buckley is published by Inner Light Books at £24. ISBN: 9780979711053.
Comments
Please login to add a comment
