QuakerQuaker

Primitive Christianity Revived, Again

Fundamentalism Among Quakers — Brinton’s View

February 25, 2013

Perhaps the dateline should read “January 10, 1959″ because, rummaging around in the Friends Journal archives, I stumbled across a piece by Howard H. Brinton entitled “The Place of Quakerism in Modern Christian Thought.” It was published in two parts in the January 10 and January 17, 1959 issues. It is what he says about fundamentalism in this piece that I want to lift up.

An aside: one of the many benefits of a Friends Journal subscription is access to the Friends Journal archives, which have been digitized back to 1955, the year of its founding. (It was formed out of the merger of The Friend [1827-1955] and Friends Intelligencer [1847-1955] as the Hicksite/Orthodox schism was being healed.) There are rich treasures in these archives. A subscription will bring you much more than current issues.

In this piece on “The Place of Quakerism in Modern Christian Thought,” Brinton thinks broadly about the theology of Friends in the context of other Christian denominations. He discusses “three main trends in current Protestant thought–fundamentalism, liberalism, and the so-called neo-orthodoxy (new orthodoxy),” and explores Quakerism in relation to each. At the end, he declares that early Friends “took a position between the two extremes of modern liberalism and neo-orthodoxy.” What he makes of that and why he says it are worth reading, but I was especially struck at what he said about “fundamentalism.” At bottom he argues that those who take a fundamentalist or evangelical line within Quakerism part company with the most striking and life-giving insights of early Friends. With permission from Friends Journal, I’ll quote what he says in full:

“Fundamentalism must be considered even though there are probably few fundamentalists in this audience, because it is the most dynamic and rapidly growing movement within Protestant Christianity, and elements of it exist in most Protestant creeds. About one-third of those under the name of Friends in America can be so classified. Furthermore, the struggle between modernism and fundamentalism, so characteristic of the early years of the twentieth century, still continues, especially in the mission field. To defend what they consider to be fundamental doctrines of Christianity, such as the fall of Adam, the virgin birth, the blood atonement, biblical miracles, the Trinity, the bodily resurrection of Christ, and the second coming of Christ, the fundamentalists take their stand on the infallibility of the whole Bible. The Bible from cover to cover and verse by verse is believed to be fully inspired by God as a special revelation of truth unlike any other before or after. No other guide such as the light within, or reason or conscience can be accepted.

“The Society of Friends was certainly not fundamentalist at its beginning. Friends held that the Bible must be understood as a whole and not through texts taken out of their context. The Spirit which produced the Bible, they thought, still works in the hearts of men, revealing new truth and new aspects of old truth, so the biblical canon is never closed. The Bible is obviously not all on the same level. Even the fundamentalist selects what suits him best. When a fundamentalist supports fighting or the use of oaths, he resorts to the Old Testament and ignores the New. He preaches against drinking, smoking, and dancing, which are not mentioned by Jesus, and lays less emphasis on insincerity, pride, and hatred, sins which Jesus especially condemns. The fundamentalist does not realize that several theological points of view are set forth in the New Testament, such as those of the synoptic gospels, of John, of Paul, of Peter in his sermon at Pentecost, of James, of the authors of Hebrews and Revelation. All these show differences, as well as important similarities.

“The Quaker doctrines of the sacraments and of peace can only be upheld by an attitude which accepts the spirit of the New Testament as a whole, rather than stressing the literal meaning of certain isolated texts. As for the acceptance of Christ’s atonement for our sins, a central doctrine not only of fundamentalism but of Protestantism in general, the early Friends believed that Christ’s death and resurrection were of primary importance as a turning point in history, but almost the whole emphasis of Quaker preaching and writing has been on the saving power of the Christ within, without which Christ’s death would have been insufficient (Romans 5: 10). It was on the necessity of the continuing work of the Spirit of Christ in the heart that Friends broke most sharply with Protestantism, which held that Christ’s redeeming work had been finished on the cross. The saving “blood of Christ” was, for George Fox, the light within. As for the second coming, Fox said to those who expected it in his day, “Christ has already come” in your hearts.”

also posted in River View Friend

1 member likes this

Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 26, 2013 at 7:07pm: Wow, Barbara!!! What an incisive commentary!!! I think that Howard Brinton meant well, but he often indulged in rather sweeping generalizations without much basis in fact.

Comment by Pat Pope on 2nd mo. 26, 2013 at 8:07pm: There are however, Brent, those within evangelical meetings or other Protestant denominations that have fundamentalist leanings and it usually comes out on certain hot-button issues. But you are right in saying that they are not quite the same.

Comment by Howard Brod on 2nd mo. 26, 2013 at 8:22pm: My "'drifting' is in the eye of the beholder" comment was somewhat tongue and cheek. But I will attempt to explain it here.

I personally am not too concerned about historical Quaker traditions or understanding except from the perspective of what they offer contextually to what we have inherited within the Quaker religion in our own day. What I do appreciate from Quakers of old is the living faith they evangelized and handed down to us. To ensure this living faith remained genuinely from God, they created two distinctives that are immeasurably valuable spiritual tools in the search for truth and the experience of the divine. Neither of the two tools I am about to outline are mind-centric or have anything to do with creeds or theology, per se. Rather, they are Spirit-centric, and in fact seem counter-intuitive to the mind, which seeks to categorize, label, and analyze.

These two tools are 'expectant waiting' worship and 'sense of the meeting' decision-making. Both, intensely and wholly spiritual processes.

There is a wonderful aspect of 'expectant waiting' worship that is not matched in any other form of worship that I have encountered. During it, the Spirit is free to take each of us individually, and as a gathered community - to where it would have us be taken. It is based on a total trust of the Spirit to be in charge of the worship; it is a human turning-over of the act of worship to the will of the divine. It is what seems like a long waiting process to quiet our minds so the divine can be heard clearly. This form of worship is perhaps the least conducive form of worship for mind-centric thinking. It is not conducive to the development of a creed, since it is so experienced based. Since during it there is no set sermon, form, or theological dogma (other than 'expectant waiting' worship, itself), our minds are free to go where the Spirit wants to take us. (If you are a conservative Friend, you might say "free to go where Christ would take us"). And if you are fortunate, the worship is completely gathered into the Spirit or the mind of Christ, and the worshippers eliminate "mind thinking" altogether, entering into an experience of spiritual oneness with each other and God.

Similarly, with decision-making using the 'sense of the meeting', or Quaker process as some call it, we are trusting the Spirit (God, Christ, the 'divine') to operate freely within the gathered group to unite the group with the divine will. The Spirit is free to correct us when needed with a minimized chance for human mind-thinking to get in the way. I personally have only seen a meeting go awry when this spiritual decision-making process is subverted by human time constraints or a violation of this spiritual process itself, which needs to include much expectant-waiting worship to work well. The Spirit wants us unified in the Spirit, and its time-table is not the same as ours. Sometimes, our impatience for expediency does us in.

With both of these two Quaker practices, 'expectant waiting' worship and 'sense of the meeting' decision-making, a Friend or group of Friends are always gently nudged by the Spirit over time to the place they ought to be. Granted, this takes faith that God (Christ or the Spirit) is a powerful force within all people, who when given free reign within our hearts and the church, will prevail.

So, as long as these two spiritual processes are practiced, what constitutes 'drifting' theologically is indeed "in the mind of the human beholder". God takes us here and there, and I don't claim to know if it is 'drifting' or purposeful. Eternity is a long time - much beyond my comprehension. And the labels we humans use for that singular life-changing experience of Spirit is of little consequence to God. I think He's into what's in our hearts; not what name we each call it by. That ultimate Force that binds all life into Him, simply is.

I think that is the life-giving message that I've heard during my many, many hours of 'expectant waiting' worship and 'sense of the meeting' decision-making.

Comment by James C Schultz on 2nd mo. 27, 2013 at 11:00am: Barbara that was very nicely stated. I was thinking that with all the versions of the bible that we have in the english language it would be a miracle on the magnitude of raising the dead if they were all 100% correct. Even portions which everyone might agree on as being correct can be misapplied without guidance from the Holy Spirit. We might all agree that we are to love our neighbor as our selves but what one considers a loving act another would think of as being simply indulgent so wisdom from God is always a necessary ingredient in applying the scriptures.

Comment by William F Rushby on 2nd mo. 27, 2013 at 7:02pm: Brent Bill wrote: "I think that both Brinton and Bennett somehow imply that Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism are the same and they are not."

Lumping all groups and viewpoints in conservative Protestantism under the label "fundamentalist" is very common among liberal critics. Brent Bill challenges this stereotyping.

Doug Bennett already appears to be aware of older works on the development of fundamentalism. There is also a developing body of literature on the making of evangelicalism and on its many varieties and trends. The sociologist Christian Smith appears to be the primary scholar involved. See, for instance, American Evangelicalism: Embattled and Thriving University Of Chicago Press, 1998.

Another scholar, Gary Dorrien, is the author of *The Remaking of Evangelical Theology*, which traces the development of the many varieties of mainstream conservative Protestantism. Professor Dorrien has also written three books on *The Making of American Liberal Theology*, tracing the development of liberal Protestant theology. In one of these he writes about "Rufus M. Jones and the Liberal Quaker Spirit". I would love to read this!

There are other works that address the varieties of fundamentalism and evangelicalism, but I will not attempt to enumerate them here. Is this my field of interest? Only secondarily!

Let me point out one more volume, by Ralph Hood, *The Psychology of Religious Fundamentalism*. I have this book on my stack of books to read when I can. "Life is so short, and there are so many books to read."

So, Doug Bennett, forget your Indiana troubles, stretch your book budget, put on your reading glasses, and come up for air now and then!! And leave Howard Brinton to that Friend in California who is writing a book about him.

Comment by Jim Wilson on 2nd mo. 28, 2013 at 1:34pm: Friend Barbara speaks my mind. My reading of early Journals is not systematic and probalby not as extensive as Barbara's. Having said that, I think I can confidently say that it is difficult to go for very many pages without scripture being quoted to back up a view being expressed. The modern view that there are a number of different theological views, represented by distinct scriptures, is foreign to early Quaker writing. Here's an analogy I use: scripture is like a great symphony of many movements. One movement in a symphony might be in major, another in minor. One movement might be dance-like, another somber, another light and lyrical. Yet the entire symphony hangs together and we think of it as a single work; a single symphony. I feel a similar kind of relationship to scripture among the early Quakers; that scripture is like an inspired symphony, and that it all comes from the holy spirit. The kind of dissection that is so widespread among modern critics is meaningless for such a view.

Thy Friend Jim

Comment by Barbara Smith on 2nd mo. 28, 2013 at 2:34pm: Jim - That was beautifully put. Thank you. To add to your metaphor, I would add that not only is it a symphony, but the Holy Spirit is the composer and conductor. To miss that Oneness is to miss the entire story as far as I am concerned, but as the Old Quakers said over and over being able to see the Oneness is a gift given us by the Spirit, giving us "eyes to see and ears to hear."

Barb

Comment by Bill Samuel on 3rd mo. 8, 2013 at 9:07pm: Howard Bord - Those practices were ways of acknowledging Christ as head of meeting. When you have the outward forms, but not the submission to Christ, what you have is not consistent with early Quakerism. "Unprogrammed" worship not centered on Christ is not the waiting worship practiced historically by Friends. It is a form separated from the essential substance. Likewise, consensus as practiced by liberal Friends is not the early Friends business procedure because it is not focused on discerning the mind of Christ.

Comment by Barbara Smith on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 8:05am: Bill - I appreciate your comment. And I would like to add that consensus as I have seen in practiced among Liberal Friends can be more like compromise than consensus. There is a desire to "reach consensus" and deliberate efforts are made in that direction, pretty much indistinguishably from how consensus would be reached in a secular organization, with the difference being that those involved are presumably checking with the Inner Light to assess their positions. In Conservative Friends, on the other hand, what I have observed is a checking to see if we "have" consensus, or rather not even that, but an assessment of the "sense of the meeting" which may or may not amount to a unified position. The appraising the sense of the meeting, or rather being sure that we have heard from God through all the available channels, is considered more important than urging unity or consensus. This naturally causes Conservatives to be accused of being painfully slow to "take positions" on issues, beyond the painful slowness characteristic of Friends, but taking a position is not the goal. Being faithful to discerning the will of Christ is the only goal.

Comment by Jane Stokes on 3rd mo. 13, 2013 at 11:08am: Barbara and Bill - as my experience amongst Friends differs from yours I wonder if you could tell me how you define "Liberal Friends" and whether you would classify all Friends outside of the US who are in unprogramed meetings as "Liberal"? If so I wonder if you both conclude that Friends in Canada, Britain, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries are not using Quaker business practises? While there are YMs and MMs that would describe themselves as being "Conservative" I have never seen a YM or MM with a sign outside that says "Liberal" and I am not sure how you are both defining that term. I would be very quick to say that there are individual Friends and meetings that are not consistently using Quaker Business practises - and problems ensue. However, again in my experience, those failures are not restricted to anyone "branch" of Friends.

Comment

You need to be a member of QuakerQuaker to add comments!

Join QuakerQuaker

RSS

Welcome to
QuakerQuaker

Sign Up
or Sign In

Or sign in with:

Support Us

Did you know that QuakerQuaker is 100% reader supported? Our costs run to about $50/month. If you think this kind of outreach and conversation is important, please support it with a monthly subscription or one-time gift.