The Friend

Making choices: Rebecca Hardy navigates life’s moral complexities

Growing up as a teenager in the 1980s, there was a film that my Quaker mother particularly liked. The film was Witness, the 1985 feature directed by Peter Weir, about an Amish child who witnesses a murder when travelling with his mother to New York. 

Long-term solutions: Imi Hills says Quakerism should harness the radicalism of young Friends

As a result of a declining membership, Britain Yearly Meeting has found itself in a difficult financial position. The means of addressing this problem have thus far been predominantly businesslike. It is suggested that the way forward is: to hire our rooms at Friends House to big companies and establishment bodies; to close as many unprofitable Meeting houses as possible; and to cut central staff. There is even speculation that, ultimately, Friends House must be sold. To me, all of this feels misguided – and conceding our spaces to non-Quaker businesses seems to fly in the face of our values. I am certain that some cuts, economies and efficiencies are needed, but the long-term solution has to be an increase in membership, with an emphasis on gaining young Friends.

I am a young Friend, and I am convinced that if we are to gain another generation of Quakers, this will be done through the pursuit of radical policies.

Right now, we are being held back from fully engaging with young people. This is the result of our failure, through lack of confidence, to tackle divisive topics. 

As young people, we are just asking to see some due attention given to the issues that affect us. A Yearly Meeting where Gaza, Ukraine, Save Our Juries, immigration, and riots were not even mentioned on the agenda, when they are happening in front of our eyes, is a Yearly Meeting that has no hope of attracting new members or appealing to a younger generation. Even the climate emergency was mostly ignored. We are having to live (and die) amid these social and political realities, and we want to talk about them.

Between Yearly Meeting sessions, at the pub and in group chats, I heard my Friends in their teens and twenties complain again and again: ‘Why are we not talking about this, why is no one saying anything?’

I found myself lacking the confidence to address these questions. I was aware of the conscientious discernment that went into Yearly Meeting. This was carried out by brilliant, thoughtful Friends who have more experience of this than I have – more experience of being alive – and who I was certain knew better than me. But the quantity of my younger Friends who felt aggrieved, and the strength of our conviction, emboldened me. Young people are in a unique position to challenge traditional, pre-existing systems and structures, and to reveal an organisation’s blindspots, and we need the space to do this.

Now sure, I understand the objection to radicalism: that we must not be divisive and cause conflict; that we are seeking harmony and unity. But there is no spiritual credit in doing nothing! In showing off our ability to prevent conflict in Yearly Meeting or in Meetings for Business, by avoiding topics that do spark emotion and debate, we are doing a discredit to the strength of our ability to be calm, considerate and loving in conflict –our greatest and most-famed traits. It is when Friends take on contentious issues, and show that they can be discussed in unity and love, that Quaker values shine.

If Yearly Meeting cannot make space to have these conversations in a structured, safe way, they will seep out in irrelevant sessions, disturbing discernment, and upsetting individuals and communities. Do we really feel that Quakers cannot hold sessions that discuss the most important issues at Yearly Meeting without falling apart? Is that really what we think of ourselves and our community?

I also understand that some people feel that all this is ‘political’, and that Quakerism is a church. Sure. But Quakers are a unique type of church – perhaps even an ‘anti-church’ church. Look at our past: we opposed the slave trade in Yearly Meetings, we opposed capital punishment in Yearly Meetings, we opposed two world wars in Yearly Meetings, and we debated gay marriage, prison reform, and taxation (tithes). None of this was dismissed as ‘politics’. That is because all of these issues have an ethical content and have nothing to do with getting any party or person into power. When I discuss my faith with my non-Quaker friends, it is this history that speaks to them. It is this radicalism, this consistent ethical engagement, that makes them ask me: ‘Can I come along some time?’

‘Radicalism is not just a moral imperative, it is foundational to our collective identity.’

I do sometimes wonder if our remarkable history can bog us down in some way, however. When we focus too much on our past we may be overlooking the need to make ourselves actively relevant to the future. There are many exceptional living Quakers. These are modern-day heroes of radical thinking, spirituality, and faith in action. But I feel I hear too little about them. There are scientists, activists, politicians, actors, and more, all with fantastic stories of peacemaking, disruption of wrongdoing, scientific advancement, all done with the influence of Quaker values. If we want to inspire people, spark dialogue and revolutionary thinking, and challenge ourselves to spiritual growth, then I’d like to hear more about these role models, and other brilliant, dedicated and pioneering Friends alive today.

I’ve also encountered resistance to further radicalism in the form of a fear of ‘reputational damage’. This is a protective impulse that I fully understand. But we need to be mindful of who we are talking about when we discuss reputational damage. Whose approval are we afraid of losing? Is it the media, Friends House’s corporate clients, parliament, or other branches of the establishment? By pandering to dominant bodies in society we run the risk of causing ourselves reputational damage with the groups whose ethos and actions most closely align with our vision. We must also be conscious of our reputation with members of the peace movement, the climate movement, the LGBTQ community and so on. We must ask ourselves: who is it we are seeking to impress?

Radicalism is not just a moral imperative, it is foundational to our collective identity. And I believe it is essential for the future of Quakerism, too. Attracting young convinced Friends has the potential to resolve some of our financial hardships, but also, more importantly, the potential to infuse more energy into our community. 

Young people are just asking for space. I am just asking for space. Space at Yearly Meeting, space in the Friend, and space elsewhere in the structure. Not symbolic space, where we decorate the platform, but space where we are allowed to speak about what we feel needs to be heard. Space perhaps to get things wrong, but yet make our points.

We must create the kinder ground on which to have the conversations that have made Quakerism the radical, pioneering community that I am proud to be a part of. Quakers are wonderful, principled people, with an inspiring history and an inspiring present. I am calling for us to be unflinching in living out these beliefs, and to walk over the earth with courage and conviction.

Peace of the action: Richard Seebohm looks for lessons in the Swarthmore Lectures

This summer I watched the television programmes commemorating the D-Day landings of the second world war. Alongside the slaughter of thousands of soldiers on both sides, I watched the story of the historic town of Caen, only ‘liberated’ by being bombed to rubble. Inland, German cities like Hamburg and Dresden were being obliterated, in the belief that this would reduce the fighting morale of surviving Germans. 

Protesting war: Rosemary Rich visits a rare conference

Back in the summer, a conference was held at Northumbria University on the subject of ‘Protesting War in the Twentieth Century’. Three of the papers were given by Quakers and featured Quaker subjects.

All inclusive: Amy Wilson is here and queer

In Christian spaces, ‘the Word’ is mentioned often. This might mean the Bible, or Jesus himself, or the ‘good news’ of the gospel. To me, though, the words spoken in the church were rarely good. I grew up in the 2000s, and the church’s view on homosexuality was largely negative. From out-and-out discrimination to ‘just so long as they don’t do it in front of me’, it was clearly there. For people that preached love, it didn’t feel very loving.