Simplicity; Other Quaker Testimonies

 SIMPLICITY TESTIMONY

400. Finding the Taproot of Simplicity: A Movement Between Inner Knowledge and Outer Action (by                 Frances Irene Taber; 2009)
           About the Author—Frances Irene Taber’s background is in Conservative Quakerism in Iowa & Ohio. Fran & Bill Taber were at Pendle Hill for 13 years. While there, Fran was: Resident Program Student; part of cooking team; & taught Quakerism with Bill. She wrote Come Aside and Rest Awhile (PHP #335). For 10 years Fran was a core teacher in the program “On Being a Spiritual Nurturer” in the School of the Spirit ministry.
           Publisher’s Introduction—This essay [was 1st published in Friends Face the World, 1987]. The many changes in our lives are challenging, ever more strenuously, our understanding & expression of simplicity as a personal testimony for us. One of the changes is the environmental sustainability problems. In the face of global warming & other planetary stresses, the environmental implications of our lifestyles loom over us. Another change is the role of electronic communications in our lives. Fran Taber reminds us of the spiritual intentions from which the simplicity testimony evolved. Friends’ testimonies aren't the article of our faith, but the fruits of it. In examining our outward lives through the deepest truths we encounter inwardly, we may find a more meaningful role in our modern lives for what Quakers have called at various time: “plainness”; “moderation”; “simplicity”; and “stewardship.” There have been paragraphs restored and citations of source material added here.
           Early Friends Find the Taproot of Simplicity—It may surprise some to hear that 1st generation Friends didn’t have a simplicity testimony. They saw that all they did must flow from what they experienced as true; they stripped away anything which got in the way. They called these things superfluities. Attempts to talk about simplicity without recognizing the intention to follow God all the way go around in circles [trying] to decide what is simple. The taproot is found when the realization comes that inner & outer lives are connected, that spiritual knowledge comes from a relationship between one’s inner & outer lives, & from free movement between the 2.
           Mary Penington was very much aware of this movement. Parker Palmer said: “You don’t think your way into a new kind of living; you live your way into a new kind of thinking.” Mary became very clear that for her inner peace would be connected with outward changes, changes she couldn’t bear the thought of. Once the leap was made, & she was “brought off from all those things,” Mary found herself at last content. Thomas Ellwood “in obedience to the inward law … took off … lace, ribbons, & useless buttons … & I ceased to wear rings.”
           1st generation Quakers found not only joy but power. Stephen Crisp writes: “And the cross of Christ was laid upon me, and I bore it. I came willingly to take it up … Oh, how glad was my soul when I had found the way to slay my soul’s enemies.” Crisp had tried the whole range of dissenting sects in Puritan England without finding satisfaction. When he made the decision to actually live in his own life what he knew was right, he felt a release from powerlessness. He had the confidence that as he kept that path he need not despair again.
           Not all early Friends record the same kind of struggle about customs and fashions. Margaret Fell makes no mention of superfluities in her brief story of her convincement by George Fox. John Gratton “saw that the Holy Spirit did not allow of any superfluity,” and took a laced band off his collar. Gratton’s record suggests that as of 1671 no one was enforcing uniformity. John Banks found his prosperity “by being Faithful unto the Lord,” and doing what the Lord showed in the Light, even “in little and small Things,” [so as to avoid] “the loss and Hurt of many in their Growth and Prosperity in the Truth.”
           “Live up to the Light Thou Hast, and More Will be Granted Thee” [Caroline Fox]—This movement between the inner life and the outward one which resulted in the testimony on simplicity was a pivotal one in their faith. [This testimony might be called a sacrament], with the outward life being a visible sign of the inner spiritual grace. Caroline Fox wrote of early Friends: “[The inner life is as] or more legible in the outward existence as in their most earnest writings; they … conceive themselves … as simply taking our Lord’s declarations & … translating them, however imperfectly, into Life.”
           It is no accident that John Woolman is the Friend most often quoted on the subject of congruence between the inner and the outer life and the resulting simplification of the outer. Woolman was also far seeing in terms of the social implications of a simplified life. Fox had spoken of unity with the creation in personal terms. Woolman’s [concerns] were “the right use of things” “to apply all the gifts of Divine Providence to the purposes for which they were intended.” “God hath provided that so much labor shall be necessary for men’s support in this world, as would, being rightly divided, be a suitable employment of their time.”
           “Every degree of luxury of what kind soever, and every demand for money inconsistent with Divine order, hath some connection with unnecessary labor [and with] some degree of oppression.” “Treasures, though small, attained on a true principle of virtue, are sweet; and while we walk in the light of the Lord there is true comfort and satisfaction in the possession.” “If I would be God’s faithful servant I must in all things attend to God’s wisdom, and be teachable, ceasing from all customs contrary thereto however used by religious people.”
           The “tenderness” or sensitivity to truth which led Thomas Ellwood & John Woolman is still able to sensitize our consciences to the implications of our lifestyle on our spiritual growth & the cause of justice. I have known one Friend [whose life spans the period between] a traditional & a mid-20th century interpretation of simplicity. [He began with a collarless suitcoat without a tie in his 20’s & progressed to] a fresh clean outfit of work clothing for the last 40 years of his life. He & his wife sold their wedding silver in order to have funds to help meet needs of others less blessed than they felt themselves to be. With poverty-level income, they managed to live in frugal comfort & to give generously to help others. Simplicity has been a core or pivotal testimony, a way of honing & making oneself available to God’s work in one’s life, a necessary corollary to other testimonies.
           
           To transform our whole nature requires us to be in the test tube body and soul, in other words a disciple-ship. Living without any sort of security, true discipleship is shaking our foundations. When we have gone down to the very crypt of our soul and discovered our true relations, we may discern the will of God.      Sven Ryberg

           Some 20th Century Witnesses—Sven Ryberg’s story as described in the Friends World Committee for Consultation pamphlet Return to Simple Living is a strong witness; he changed from film industry to farming. He wrote: “The main impetus to leave was a most dim & unidentified feeling, growing more & more awkward, that we had to do something before ‘religion’ had run out … completely.” They searched for a live root to nourish their religion. “To live simply [won’t] last for long or work out positively if it isn’t part of an inner context.” “In our souls the Divine Seed has, by the Grace of God, begun to germinate slowly.” [See quote at beginning].
           Wilmer & Mildred Young left professional life, teaching at Westtown School, for farming in rural MS & SC for 19 years. Their convictions about simplicity as related to other testimonies were forged in this & other contexts of working with the poor. Mildred wrote: “I shall impugn our admired standard of living, elevated to an ideal, as a main cause of the distress & violence of our world … It no longer seems possible to reconcile pacifism with physical ease or with the effort to get & hold property.” She feels that there is among us a worldliness which is “throttling our witness & giving a hollow ring of pretension to what we say.” “The testimonies grow out of relatedness, but on the other side they are also the means by which we clear the path to the relatedness.”
           A Contemporary Movement Toward Voluntary Simplicity—[The non-Quaker part of the simplicity current] is described in the book Voluntary Simplicity, by Duane Elgin. He writes: “one of voluntary simplicity’s principal qualities is an unfolding balance between inner & outer aspects of our lives.” The voluntary simplicity he advocates is congruent with Quaker experience. It shares 9 distinctive characteristics with Quaker testimony:
           1. Elgin says: “The journey into this way of life seems to be a relatively slow, evolutionary process.
           2. There is a balance between attention to the outer and inner life and movement between the two.
           3. Elgin says: “The interior journey is indispensable in revealing that we inhabit an ecological reality.” As life                               simplifies itself, we awake from “the hypnosis of a culture of affluence.”
           4. There is an awareness of personal empowerment [and effectiveness] as a result of taking action.
           5. The appropriate level of consumption is one which takes into account the needs of all humanity, and does not                        prescribe a uniform standard of material wealth and possession for everyone.
           6. People prefer work which provides a “contributory livelihood,” that is, work which gives “opportunity to support                     others … and to support a workable and meaningful world.”
           7. A connection with directness & honesty in personal communication; “greater openness to physical contact.”
           8. A spiritual, ecological, nonviolent activism seems to characterize their political orientation.
           9. Developing congruence between one’s inner & outer life has led to contentment with life & to joy.
           It is clear that Quakers are involved in the contemporary movement toward voluntary simplicity which Duane Elgin describes. Few of us are at the forefront of it. It is a challenge to our faithfulness to our own vision. Elgin sees in this movement: our strongest hope for the revitalization of civilization; hope for making the ethic of love normative on a world scale as well as in personal relations.
           Our Personal Encounter with Simplicity—[Moving into a simplistic lifestyle] is an intensely personal journey and also an immensely hopeful one, both personally and for our planet. We must remember that it goes on by a constant movement between our inner and outer lives, and it may not be possible to tell in which place it begins. Thomas Kelly speaks insistently of the inner core of devotion in our lives and of how the effects of that seeps out through the texture of our days, rather like water from a hidden spring. He writes: “Quaker simplicity needs to be expressed not merely in dress and architecture … but also in the structure of a relatively simplified and coordinated life-program of social responsibilities.”
           Mildred Young writes: “One Friend … found himself brought into that perpetual sense of the presence of God which is simplicity. In this Presence, he knew what work or travel he had to undertake, and what to lay down or leave for others. When called on to do work beyond his strength he found the strength to do it.” We live in a difficult era for simplicity; there are a great many choices. We have to live in constant awareness of our primary goals, and very consciously make our choices in the light of these. As we approach closer to simplicity, however, it can become our window into reality, our clarifier for murky places, the opener of our blind eyes.
           Queries—What in my own experience reveals the way in which spiritual insight gains firmness & grows through putting into practice what I already?      How does my understanding & use of Quaker concern simplify or complicate the direction of my energies?      What could a sense of uneasiness be telling me about a conflict between my values & the way I live, or about a work I am called to?      What hinders me from responding?      How could we as members of a meeting community support each other in our efforts toward simplicity?      What circumstances might need to be changed to facilitate mutual support?      What difficulties sometimes arise for children when their parents make changes to simplify their lifestyle?
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

3. The Value of Voluntary Simplicity (by Richard B. Gregg; 1936)
           About the Author—Born in 1891, Richard B. Gregg was a Harvard trained lawyer who practiced law for 3 years before going to work with trade unions. He assisted with arbitration for the railroad workers’ union following WWI. Laid off in the 1920's, he read about the work of Mohandas Gandhi, & went on a 4-year journey through India where he studied nonviolence. He wrote The Economics of Khaddar, & The Power of Nonviolence (1934). His work described nonviolence as a method for changing the character of the world. In 1935-36, he served as the acting director of Pendle Hill. His work was used by many civil rights and other social activists.
           I. INTRODUCTION & DEFINITION—Voluntary simplicity has been practiced by: Buddha, Moses, Hebrew prophets, Jesus, Mohammed, Moslem sufis, St. Francis, John Woolman, Lenin & Gandhi, Mennonites & the Society of Friends. Mass production, commerce, science, & complexities of existence have raised doubts as to this practice. Our present "mental climate" isn't favorable to clear understanding of simplicity's value or practice. What we mean by voluntary simplicity is singleness of purpose, sincerity & honesty within, & avoidance of exterior clutter, irrelevant possessions, & a partial restraint in some directions in order to secure greater abundance of life in other directions. Simplicity is a relative matter, depending on climate, customs, culture, & the individual's character. What is simplicity for an American would be far from simple to a Chinese peasant. Different people have different purposes in life; what is relevant to one person's purpose might not be relevant to another's. Life would be much changed if each person reorganized life in accordance with a new arrangement of purposes.
           II. DOUBTS—Modern machine production seems to have solved scarcity of necessities. Henry Ford's idea that civilization progresses by the increase in people's desires and their satisfaction looks sensible. The vast quantity of advertising add emphasis to that belief. Financial and social stability seems to depend on an ever-expanding market for mass production. Is it not our duty to rise above and master the increasing complexity of life? Would not reverting to simplicity mean reverting to a vast amount of drudgery? We must surely have leisure if civilization is to advance. How can children acquire their full potential if their parents resort to simplicity?      How can we and they have beauty if we are limited by a drab and monotonous simplicity?      Is this cry for simplicity a dodge, a camouflage for irresponsibility? To insist on simplicity and really put it into effect would seem to mean eventually destroying large organizations.
           III. ANSWERS TO DOUBTS—Modern science & inventions have made possible a boundless supply; all the assumptions based on scarcity are outmoded. [It is possible, not reality; many are doing without, even in the US]. There are vast numbers of unemployed in most countries. Our financial price system & debt structures operate so as to burn wheat in the US while millions starve in China; California oranges rot while city slum children suffer from lack of Vitamin C. The great advances in science have not solved the moral problems of civilization, such as the fair distribution of material things. [The influence] exerted by science, technology and money effect the quantitative rather than qualitative aspects of life. The essence of man's social life is qualitative and moral.
           Arnold J. Toynbee, in his "Study of History," concludes that real growth of a civilization lies in what he calls "etherealization," or development of intangible relationships, which involves simplification of life & a transfer of interest and energy from material things to higher sphere. Our civilization is like a huge engine resting on too small and weak a moral foundation; it vibrations are tearing the whole thing to pieces. We need stronger self-control and group and individual morality.
           When certain means & tools are used vigorously, thoroughly & for a long time, the means become an end in themselves. Machinery & money give us more outer energy, but they live upon & take away inner energy. We are all covering much bigger territory than formerly, but the expected access to leisure is absent. The mechanized countries aren't countries noted for their leisure. Machinery spoils inner poise & sense of values; time not spent in toil ceases to be leisure & becomes time without meaning. Advances in transportation, communication, & finances haven't relieved the world of famine. People forget about or are unaware of recurrent Chinese famines, or worsening Indian famines. [A comprehensive look at disease statistics doesn't support our] alleged "conquest of disease." Alexis Carrel believes that our modern seeking of comfort causes atrophy of adaptive mechanisms.
           The way to master the increasing complexity of life isn't through more complexity. As an aid to expressing our inner life & as a corrective to our feverish over-mechanization, simplicity is greatly needed. Our present world has too many occasions & opportunities for the exercise of power over other people. Our great executive organizations from financial to government are so large that it is impossible for chief executives to know the full truth about what is happening to the people in them. Even honest subordinates on location won't tell the whole truth; he will protect himself & those immediately above & below him. The President has to make decisions based on this person's report. After the order is made, with all the levels it passes through in its execution, the probabilities of injustice to rank & file on the edges of that immense organization are greatly increased. Their very size makes them humanly inefficient. There is too much power in the hands of too few people. If we want civilization to last we must prevent megalomania & keep different departments of our common life in harmony.
           IV. ECONOMIC REASONS FOR SIMPLICITY—Simplicity of living affects primarily consumption; it sets a standard of consumption. If one regards one's self as responsible for our joint economic welfare, one has a duty to think out and decide upon and adhere to a standard of consumption. The economic system in which we find ourselves is gravely defective in operation. Even those who desire to reform or end capitalism usually have within themselves certain of its attitudes and habits of mind and desire. If I wish to participate in transforming it, I must begin to alter my own life in the desired direction; [the more I benefit from the system I want to change, the harder it will be to] disentangle myself. My changes must be both inner and outer, and must be in the direction of more simplicity. I have no right to criticize evil elsewhere unless and until I begin to remove it from my own life, however insignificant my contribution may seem. The meaning of my part in such a movement lies in the quality of the principle and the quality of my participation.
           Exploitation of human beings is much older than capitalism. The consumption of luxuries divert labor & capital from tasks which are socially more productive & beneficial; they waste raw materials and make necessities more expensive. The ostentatious luxury of the rich clearly is a factor in causing hardships, sickness, & unnecessary labor on the part of the poor. The fewer people there are engaged in luxury trades, the more secure the population will be. Simplicity must not infringe upon the wise surplus above minimal needs. A recent study by Professor E.L. Thorndike, based on the US census and similar reliable resources, indicates that American expenditures for food, clothing and housing are considerably larger than the actual necessities to sustain life. "We pay more for entertainment than for protection against cold, heat, wet, animal, disease, criminals, and pains." Above our necessity expenditures there is a wide realm where we can apply the simplicity principle.
           V./ VI. SIMPLICITY AND POLITICAL INFLUENCE/ SOCIAL ASPECTS OF SIMPLICITY—Lenin's, Gandhi's, and Kagawa's lives of simplicity have been a factor in their political power. The masses feel that such a leader will not "sell them out." In spirit they feel closer to him and feel themselves enabled to share in his greatness, and thus their self-respect, their courage, their endurance and morale are enhanced.
           St. Francis espoused poverty & simplicity in order to secure unrestricted contact with nature & with men. Unity with nature & men is something which industrialized modern society is sorely lacking, & which its individual members crave. [My inability to invite a starving, homeless man in may be from fear of dirt, fear of theft, fear of his resentment, fear of the great distance between his life experience & mine.] I may have so many possessions to look after, that I don't have time for neighborliness. My failure to do things to create good feeling & unity may result in trouble between neighbors. If a new group with economic power might create a revolution, I wonder if the rise of a new group into moral power might create a revolution of a profounder, more permanent, & more widely satisfying nature. A group which combined simplicity of living, disciplined non-violence, & wise changes in economic & social practice, might attain sufficient moral influence to guide & mold a nation.
           VII./ VIII. NON-VIOLENCE REQUIRES SIMPLICITY/ SIMPLICITY AND RELIGION—For those who believe in non-violence, simplicity is essential. [Resentment of an excess of possessions can lead to mob violence]. Simplicity helps to prevent violence. Habitually practicing simple living will ease the doubts of others as to the completeness of his sincerity and unselfishness.
           Living simply seems to be an important element in the effort to manifest, [to act out] love and human unity, and hence, to live in accordance with Jesus' commands. We have seen in the case of St. Francis how simplicity aided in his attainment of unity with his fellow creatures. Likewise simplicity helps to express and aid love. The rich young man was advised by Jesus to simplify. Hinduism and Buddhism have also emphasized the value of simplicity. In the anonymous "The Practice of Christianity," tender-heartedness is the supreme virtue and the essence of Jesus' teachings. [All the heroic qualities demonstrated in war] make for a strong character but necessarily a good character. The essence of Jesus' goodness may be summed up in "tender-heartedness."
           This trait along with great intelligence has resulted in simplicity in Buddha, Jesus, St. Francis, George Fox, John Woolman, & Gandhi, who shared property & lives with those who had need. The practice of simplicity means that you are going to lay up treasure in heaven rather than on earth. The practice of simplicity means that you prefer to cultivate & amass the reality of human trust rather than its symbol, money. The inner state must be expressed by an outer act, in order to have sincerity, to prevent self-deception, to know the next step. While simplicity alone is only one element, it would seem to me to be one of the necessary elements in such a program.
           IX. SIMPLICITY AND PERSONALITY—Possessions are said to be important because they enable the possessors thereby to enrich and enhance their personalities and characters. But the greatest characters, those who have influenced the largest numbers of people for the longest time, [who have strong personalities], have been people with extremely few possessions [e.g.] Buddha, Jesus, Moses, Mohammed, Kagawa, Socrates, St. Francis, Confucius, Sun Yat Sen, Lenin, Gandhi, many scientists, inventors and artists. Personality is a capacity for friendship, which along with creativity does not depend on possessions.
           The most permanent, secure and satisfying possession lies not in physical control and power of exclusion, but in intellectual, emotional, and spiritual understanding and appreciation, especially of beauty. The world of nature and the museums afford ample scope for such spiritual possession. The wise person's simplicity is because one knows that all life, both individual and group, has a certain few essential strands or elements and then there is everything else; the wise person confines most of his attention to the few essentials of life. Unless we come into close and right relationships with others, with nature and with Truth, we cannot achieve full self- respect. Simplicity is an important condition for permanent satisfaction with life [and self-respect]. Widespread simplicity, as a cultural habit of a nation, would be essential for its civilization to endure. Some voluntary suffering or discomfort is an inherent and necessary part of all creation. Avoiding it means the end of creativeness and loss of self-respect. Simplicity would help to stimulate and maintain singleness of purpose.
           X.-XII. SIMPLICITY: A KIND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL HYGIENE/ SIMPLICITY & BEAUTY/ A CAUTION —There is a limit to the number of things or the amount of property which a person may own and yet keep one's self psychologically healthy. Too much of anything creates so many possible choices and decisions to be made every day that it becomes a nervous strain. Making decisions is work and can be overdone. Sensitiveness to some important human relations is apt to become clogged and dulled. Imagining lives in circumstances less fortunate than one's own [becomes more difficult]. Observance of simplicity is a recognition of the fact that everyone is greatly influenced by one's surroundings and all their subtle implications. [Conscious choices of those influences] will make it easier to live in a wise way, with freedom and clearness of vision.
           In regard to aesthetics, simplicity should not connote ugliness. Complexity is not the essence of beauty; harmony of line, proportion and color are much more important, as is removal of all details that are irrelevant to a given purpose. I once said to Mahatma Gandhi that I had a greedy mind and wanted to keep my many books. He said, "Then don't give them up. As long as you derive inner help and comfort from anything you should keep it. [Giving it up unwillingly or reluctantly would mean] you continue to want it back, and that unsatisfied want would make trouble for you. Only give up a thing when you want [something else] so much that the thing no longer has attraction for you, or it seems to interferes with something more greatly desired."
           XIII.-XV. CULTIVATION OF SIMPLICITY/ INVOLUNTARY SIMPLICITY/ SIMPLICITY ALONE ISN'T ENOUGH—We must try to understand intellectually all implications of new desires & make imagination dwell upon them in spare moments. Practice desired simplicity in small ways as well as large. We help ourselves toward simplicity by cultivating a strong & constant feeling of unity [rather than competition]. You will need to resist group pressure & negative reaction [to your lifestyle]; there is a price to pay for simplicity. If we want simplicity as a vital part of our lives, we must express it in the warp & woof of our life[-weaving].
           Moral qualities which are cultivated in one sphere are usuable in allied spheres. People in affluent countries need to discriminate in the selection of machinery for personal and home use. We need people, who decide for themselves that they will be happy in the world, and who seek simpler pleasure, deeper felicity, not greater wealth, higher fortune, or physical possessions.
           Is involuntary simplicity a good thing? Living in involuntary simplicity close to Nature, where there are naturally fewer possession isn't wholly evil. Urban involuntary simplicity, with its high degree of artificial & complex conditions, lacks necessary, natural elements, & often normal human relationships & activities. But simplicity alone isn't enough. The relative failure of the Franciscan movement seems to be evidence in point. Along with changes in consumption, there will need to be changes in modes of production, control of large-scale production, land, & changes in distribution. Simplicity, to be more effective, must inform & be integrated with many aspects of life. It needs to be more social in purpose & method. [It needs to be considered an integral part of] non-violent programs, and economic security programs; the need for simplicity will always remain.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

189. Simplicity: A Rich Quaker’s View (by George Terhune Peck; 1973)
           About the Author—George Peck was trained as a historian and received his doctorate in Italian history at the University of Chicago in 1942. He worked in the family advertising business for 20 years. He is now teaching medieval and Renaissance history. He is a member of Stamford-Greenwich Meeting. For several years he has been chairman of the finance committee of the New York Office of American Friends Service Committee.
           I. THE QUERY/ II. THE SOURCE—A testimony is carrying out in everyday life a fundamental belief of the Society. Our [definition] of the simplicity testimony was antiquarian &/or vague. NY YM asks: Do we keep moderation & simplicity in our living standards? Do our vocations provide constructive, beneficial service? 

           NY YM advises: Be mindful of your conduct and conversation. Be responsible for using and disposing of possessions. Have integrity in living and inspect your temporal affairs. We really had not given the testimony much attention. Anyone who presumes to advise [about simplicity] on the basis of his own experience falls into spiritual pride and can cause great damage. [In this essay], I run the risk of falling into such error.

           The source of the simplicity testimony is the light. Revelation or religious experience is continuous, universal and individual. When we realize that God is [and have some idea what God is], we have the urge to spread the good news and add attributes to God from our experience. Joel Goldsmith says: “This you will experience for yourself, not by believing me and not by accepting my word … Spiritual experience can come only through your own realization.” I have become convinced that the realization of the presence of God is one of the most common and universal of human experiences from [ancient times to now]. Blaming the complexities and pressures of our civilization for our problems is a blind alley and an escape.            The 1st step in the simple life is to turn to God. I do it for short times every day. I start with a Biblical phrase. The Christian tradition is very dear to me. It does not bother me that Christians are often hypocrites and sinners (am I not one too?). Nor does it bother me that the word “Christian” for some [is only a word referring] to a type of country club or boys’ camp. These friends must [look elsewhere for inspiration]. 

           So far in my morning meditation, I am in the willful human stage. So, that is that, & I turn to the usual activities, not with guilt but in dryness. Ever more frequently, the willful human stage of meditation is replaced by a suffusion of divinity. I hear the music of the spheres. I understand Fox’s “wait in the Light for Power to remove the earthly part … that with the Light your minds may be kept up to God, who is pure, & in it you may all have unity in the Light.” [I have rediscovered the guardian angel of my childhood]. He improves my dream life no end; in my dreams I have seen God. [I have had dreams of jails vanishing & flying free after a feeling of power, and dreams of the cry of an anguished creature modulating to a thin and lovely, gentle and sensitive melody]. One really knows God only when one begins to dream of God. Otherwise, it is still a willful experience. 

           Freud did not realize the presence of God; [it was all superego]. In the 1890’s most religious expression was full of talk of duty, conscience, guilt, and the like. Freud rightly condemned it, [for pure] duty does not work. Duty rests on the force of domination and not on the power of love. Bullying one’s psyche about in the name of what one thinks is right is only useless but dangerous. [The idea of the] “duty” of serving God is [born of the image of the God of wrath, a sort of deification of fear. The value of nightly prayer is that they bring the conscious and unconscious life closer together in God’s love. On some nights and in meeting for worship, I am assisted by the group of Friends there. The experience of spiritual unity with the group has become almost a weekly occurrence. The spirit is abroad in our meeting, and in others I have visited in America and Britain. I find myself suddenly close to total strangers because the spirit is in both of us. 

           III. GOD’S WILL/ IV. TIME—What is God’s will for me? Who, me? If anyone presumes they are acting out God’s will, we shy away; it smacks of fanaticism. Few people are struck by the bolt from the blue [like the apostle Paul]. To me, turning to God is gradual, accompanied by gradual growth in spiritual power. Much dryness & frustration of middle age seems to result from achieved goals that were too limited & limiting, & for which adequate replacements haven’t been found. When we turn to God in worship, are our goals consonant with the Light? The best starting point is our present behavior, for these express our true beliefs, no matter what is claimed. For me, how I go is as important as where I go; I believe I must be led by love and not by force. 

           How do we use the time of this life? When we say “I just don’t have the time,” we are kidding ourselves. If we are really led to do something, we find the time. The last 50 years has been different from other periods in its attitude toward time. My life is too full of external stimuli, of busyness. If conversation is to be more than regurgitated newsprint, external stimuli have to be absorbed into one’s own experience. Reducing the stimuli from the outside world doesn't imply retiring from social concern, but rather placing it in the context of worship. 

            Most of our days are spent at work, & it is primarily in this area that we contribute to [others’] lives. Christianity saw the complete equality of all occupations in God's eyes. The early Quakers accepted this & demonstrated it by keeping hats on in the mighty's presence. Do we accept the equality of occupations as fully now as did early Quakers? Do we still respect or disrespect people just for what they do? The common quality of occupations is that they provide service to men & a living for performers of the service. Sometimes Quakers have been highly rewarded; sometimes they have not been rewarded at all. What seems important to me isn't what a person does, but how one does it. [Is one passionate or passing time?      Is one working for betterment of clients or their bank accounts?      Am I building something lasting and not building frustration and resentment?] 

           We may find that our work doesn’t fully express our desire to be of service to others. [We may do service connected to our worship community]. We may find that with all of this, we haven’t kept enough time for our families. We are brought up sharp when we realize some family members have been neglected. Would we have troubles with our children if we played with them more? Have we saved time for our friends? [Rather than competitive sports], I imagine Jesus camping, climbing, fishing, hoeing a garden, or observing birds. These activities are contemplative & enjoyable, and in keeping with my experience of worship. It isn’t easy to be present where you are and to turn with spontaneous joy to each new activity. But it is the essence of the simple life. 

           V. MONEY—How we spend our money is nearly as important as how we spend time; the 2 are related. 18th century Quaker overseers did very frank probes of how Friends made & spent their money. Quaker bankers of that period were patronized because they could be trusted. Simple business honesty was apparently that rare. We wouldn’t submit to inquiries into our economic activities today. How do our economic activities square with what we know of God’s will? The tool of money has [risen to the level] of being a good in itself. 

            Then, there is the prudery connected with our views of money; we don’t talk about how much we make. [We have numerous euphemisms or weasel words to avoid admitting we are rich]. Euphemism has a firm and largely unrecognized grasp on economics, whether we are talking about richness or poverty. [Those of us who grew up during the Depression] and have the fear of poverty burnt into our souls, spent the next 30 years in exorcizing the devil of poverty by creating the affluent society. Young people laugh at our fear of poverty. 

           The fact is that we are affluent. We can afford to address poverty and the environment. Though we have made little progress in these areas as yet, we do envision them as goals. When we explore our personal spending, we find that they are all tainted. People buy locks, guns, police departments, armies out of fear. People buy use-less things, and “replace” things that do not yet need to be replaced. I look to Woolman as a good economic guide. I respect his refusal to pay for the products of cruelty and brutal exploitation. I do not share his belief in lack. He assumed that production was either so limited or so demanding of time and energy that consumption must be confined to the essentials. If we look at production without guilt or fear, we see abundance on all sides. 

           VI. FOOD, SHELTER AND CLOTHING—In my life it is my choice, . Food, clothing & shelter make up the largest single group of expenditures in the family budget. For me the claims of beauty are as great as the claims of utility. We all have to eat, but we don’t have to make eating unpleasant. When my family sits down to dinner, we use a moment to be . Sometimes while working in the garden I feel like Antaeus, who gained strength every time he touched the ground, his mother Earth. I can accept that others enjoy raising & killing animals … that God made us hunters, herders, & fisherman. 

            I don’t think that use of alcohol or tobacco is detrimental to the body or mind—only the misuse. The Puritan dichotomy of total abstinence or immoderate abuse has done a great deal of harm in this country. Moderation, not abstinence is the answer. The Chinese, the ancient Jewish & the Italian have solved the problem of alcoholism. These people enjoyed the God-given fruits of the earth in moderation & by social pressure severely condemned excess. As for tobacco, not even the Surgeon General condemns the Indian pipe of peace. & I have as little use for aspirin as for heroin. I feel that Fox & I are close together in our attitudes toward clothing. Many today, in the long run dress in the cheapest way. Fortunately our highly developed clothing industry permits individual expression at bargain rates.

           My home & other homes of Friends are beautiful places, with symmetry, interplay of color, views of nature, marks of use, welcoming openness. Most Friends have outgrown that bane which is the collection of things. I find myself being very careful about purchasing tools & machines [to avoid buying things that aren’t really needed]. I think of our house as a lovely, but temporary, expression of the family’s way of life. Jesus didn’t want us to be improvident when he told us to consider the lilies of the field. He didn’t want us to be tyrannized by things.            VII. EDUCATION AND OTHER ITEMS—Education is an expense I would like to see grow, for to provide for ourselves and our children with an exciting and joyful education is truly to lay up a treasure in heaven. [Learning a language, cultivating a passion for] biology, music, expression, literature, history, or numbers—these gifts we carry through life, in prison poverty and loneliness. Yet how niggardly is our society with its expenditures for education. It is not that we do not know the needs of education. The education of 2 children takes up about 1/5 of our family budget, and I wish it were more. 

           Travel is the next significant expense down the line. I look forward to this one coming down as I grow. As the inhumanity of air travel increases, perhaps we will be more content to quietly cultivate our gardens among old friends and companions. [As far as taxes are concerned], I wish I could pay more to our financially starved cities and states, [and much less to federal taxes for war]. Our doctors’ bills are not much more than the medical insurance, that tax levied by the most effective trade union in all history. [Charity is all too small a portion of total expenses]. A Contingency fund is important, as is not to have to plan closely down to the last dollar. I look forward to the time when I will be less and less dependent on things. Like most people, I have far to go. 

           VIII. SPEECH—Honest and clear speech has always been a Quaker ideal; the avoidance of inflation is a basic need. Dante placed the flatterers deep down in hell, deeper than the carnal, the violent, the seducers. Using status symbols in speech was and is one of the most insidious forms of flattery. The custom of avoiding titles has survived among almost all Quakers. [It is important that plain direct speech not be used as an aggressive weapon. It rarely helps to have our illusions insensitively publicized. When we are exchanging ideas and feelings, we have to be inspired by love, respect others genuinely, and have faith in their ability to face truth.

           Euphemism reigns happily in many areas. It takes courage to face old age and death, especially one’s own, but we make fools of ourselves when we try to hide from it. [Military action, prisons and truth in advertising are buried under an avalanche of euphemism]. Close to euphemism is the use of language as a smoke screen for our true thoughts, [especially in the use of technical language]. In the presence of God one gradually outgrows the need for pretense; it is just too silly. It is easy for me to visualize a truly Godly person who is also [lovingly] fun-ny in delivering unexpected insights from being in God’s presence. 

           IX. FULLNESS OF TIME—Conclusions which I am trying to reach are good mainly for me. How would it be useful for each Friend to have own idea of simplicity?      How do I stand in the Light?      What is God’s will for me?      How did I spend my time in this [pick period]?      How do I do job in a Godly way?      What extra service can I [do I] do?      How do I find re-creation?      How do I spend money to get what I really need?      What are favorite ways of avoiding truth in speech? When my time's fullness comes, I pray that mind & life may be so clarified, simplified, that I easily step over the life/death boundary in God's presence.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

244. Reflections on Simplicity (by Elaine M. Prevalet; 1982)
           About the Author—Elaine Prevallet, S.L., is currently director of Knobs Haven, a retreat center near the Loretto Motherhouse in Nerinx, KY. She was for 2 years on the staff at Pendle Hill, teaching Scripture and spirituality. She has studied Buddhism here and abroad. The Sisters of Loretto in 1812, was one of the 1st Roman Catholic orders of women to be founded in the US. The Sisters are committed “to hold all goods in common in a spirit of simplicity.” This pamphlet represents Elaine’s lifetime concern for the process of simplicity.
           [Introduction]/ Living from the Center—Simplicity is a gift that eludes our grasp. One sees it more clearly when not looking directly at it. When I imagine my own life simple and uncomplicated, I picture a neat room and desk, and me moving through tasks in a smoothly and orderly fashion, with no strain or pressure. My life is complicated because people don’t stay in place. I can’t keep up. I am unable to control time or much else. Mostly what I find is frustration [when people and things] don’t fit into my program. In the simple way, there is an agenda, but it’s not my creation. I only receive the day and program that comes to me during the day from God; interruptions are as integral to the scene as anything I had planned.
           The illusion is that the source of the complication is outside myself. While networking in our world has become complex, the real source of the complications, lies within. Thomas Kelly writes: “Each of us tends to be ... a committee of selves … Each of our selves is in turn a rank individualist ... shouting out his vote ... [The “chairman”] doesn’t integrate the many into one, but merely counts the votes & leaves disgruntled minorities.” When we say Yes or No to calls for service on the basis of heady decisions, we have to give reasons to ourselves & to others. When we say Yes based on inner guidance, or No based on a lack of inward “rising,” there is only God’s will as we discern it. If we believe in the indwelling of God’s Spirit in us, it makes sense also to believe that that Indwelling Spirit will give the nudges we need. I listen for the decision rather than make the decision.
           That presupposes: inner quiet; a developed prayer life in connection with the Source and Center; the capacity to act out of something other than our head. Rational, extroverted, action-oriented Westerners are uncomfortable with all of these. John Woolman writes: “If we give not up those prospects of gain which in the wisdom of this world are open before us, but say ‘I must go on ... I hope to keep as near to the purity of truth as business before me will admit of ’ ... Under Christ’s leading people are brought to a stability; where he doth not lead we are bound in ... pure love to stand still and wait upon him.” I don’t think we have to strain to apply what he says to all of the pushes and pulls we are subject to. The busier you are the more important you are, [and the more complex your life is]. Our society says you must have something to show for your life.
           Congruence Between the Inner & the Outer—The process of waiting for an “inward rising of Life to encourage us” happens quietly, it comes from inner silence in which an inner sensor is working. It is as important to live in the awareness of receiving each day from God as it is to offer it to God. We don’t control it, & we don’t hold on to it. The relationship between outer stimuli & inner prompting is always only more or less congruent. We can become excessively inward-turned, prone to substitute piety for action, confusing our own inner sleepiness & complacency with an undemanding will of God. Or we can so scrutinize all possible actions that we forget to examine why, how, in what spirit or for whom we are doing them. Our lives are like a risky tightrope walk. The rope is straight, reliable, direct, a simple, single narrow way, the path to life. Our struggle is to learn to walk it quietly, trustingly, simply. The process of tottering into congruence is the process by which we become simple.
           Simplicity and Duplicity: The Inner Process—What do we want more than anything in the world? If security is our treasure, then we need to look there to find our idols. We can’t belong wholly to God if our hearts are mastered by another treasure. We can’t become single-minded unless we confront our double-mindedness. The more objects, persons, situations outside myself I look to for security, the more multiple-minded I am. [Our security-objects are not subject to our control, so we have to compete, grasp, to clutch at them. We can never be secure, for we will always fear that they will fail us; they probably will.
           Often people start on the spiritual path by “stripping down,” exteriorizing an inward desire or willingness to live in dependence upon God alone. Our attitude toward material possessions is often a 1st and fundamental index of where our hearts are. Jesus does not cite giving things away as an ideal, [but as a given part of life]. He is in touch with the deep laws of life. Far more difficult than material possessions is to love unpossessingly, to regard as enough whatever anyone is willing to give me of their love. A talent, a job, a position we’ve held, can gradually take possession of us, dominate and control us with a source of security. Then comes fear of losing it and we hang on yet more tightly. All the things we took for granted that may fade away later in life, they were all gifts and we didn’t know it. Once we have stripped away material possessions, we mustn’t make the mistake of stopping there, and of assuming that the inner reality necessarily follows because we did the outer thing right.
           Exposure of Duplicity: A Painful Grace—We can get a hold on an inner “object” as well: a concept of God, a piety, a grace, even a love—all can be clung to as if our security depended upon them, as if they belonged to us. Working through all of our systems of security starts with material possessions and moves inward, progressively, and inexorably, to more subtle areas, cutting to the heart of all our systems. In reality, it is God we would like to control, or replace. All our lives, our giving, our loving, our serving, our giving up, teaches us, exposing our desire to be our own source of security, our desire to be God, the original sin.
           We learn that the roots of our desire for control are subtler, more interior and devious, than we imagined; we serve our own ego. As God’s work goes on in us, we come face to face with the fact that we are fundamentally and inescapably poor. There is nothing we resist more than our own poverty. The means to becoming single-minded is a continuing process of confronting my own duplicity. The objects I seek to control, interior or exterior, are the masters I serve. We become single only by discovering how we are double. We depend on our attempts along with the grace of God (both are essential) for the exposure, the painful revelation.
           Our desire to be simple, to serve the one God, is always that: a desire; an intention. It is never finished, always in process. There lies within us the possibility of reaching that place of simple being without pretense or affectation, where the interior is directly reflected outwardly with no obstruction or deflection or deviation. We must do what we see to do, and we must live in trust of the continuing presence and process of God. The rest is prayer, observance, discipline, thought, and action. It is a painful grace of having our pettiness, our neediness, our grasping and clutching and clinging revealed to us. We need only surrender ourselves to be refashioned by God. We are only discovering our poverty and our absolute need of Mercy. Little by little, step by step, we let the inside of the cup be washed clean by a painful Mercy. And in letting it be done, we are made simple.
           Some Sayings of Jesus/ [Fragmented Word & Self]—One area where we often have the chance to be aware of our duplicity is in our speech. How much of what we say do we mean?      How much of what we mean do we say?      How much does what we say really mean? I find myself saying something to another while something within me is saying, “Not true, Elaine.” I’m not in my word. The word is empty of my presence. [Here there is] the I that knows, & the I that speaks; a clear case of double-mind. Your words will represent—or betray—the fragmented character of your treasure, & they will provide material for judgment. An oath says, “This time you can be sure I’m telling the truth; that means sometimes you can’t be sure; the oath allows room for lying. Would it be possible to discipline our word? One would talk less, but surely say more [in fewer words]. We would surely find some disciplined scrutiny of our talking an instructive instrument in the direction of becoming simple.
           Seeing with a Simple Eye—Jesus seemed to see the eye as the aperture through which light enters the body. When the eye is simple or single, light is unimpeded in illuminating or making things clear. Only insofar as we are free from ulterior motives or greedy self-interest can we really see the outer world & people as they are. In phase 1 of a love relationship, a “sticky” phase, we often have possessive feelings, or lust, anxiety, fear of loss, expectations of response. In phase 2, the same person some years later when the partners detach enough to love each other without anxiety, without demand, with a certain acceptance of the other as he or she really is. One arrives at phase 2 only if one loves in the 1st place, long enough [& faithfully enough] to purify that love.
           In phase 1 of service, what we really want to do, is subject them to our agenda for them. In phase 2, through years of generous pouring out of energy and love, it is no long a question of power. The process by which we come to recognize how much of self there is in doing “charity” is a subtle and lengthy one. There is our own “wound of pity” we’re healing, at least as much as that of another. The action should be done regardless, as a step on the way toward loving more simply. In phase 2, we know something of the meaning of “purity,” a word whose meaning is easier to get at negatively rather than positively. Rilke wrote of poverty as “a glow from within”; poverty, emptiness of desire, lack of filter, allows clarity, lucidity. We become increasingly aware that all real love is rooted in freedom, is always a gift, a mysterious, joyful, surprise. And so here purity of heart, poverty, integrity and freedom are seen to [congregate] and shine with united radiance. That’s simplicity.
           Flowing from that, there grows a sense of reverence. The capacity for reverence comes in proportion to the capacity to let go. It is not surprising that a country and society like ours shows little evidence of or capacity for reverence for life. [Society rather shows a marked disrespect for life at all levels, from the lowest life forms, the environment, through all ages of human life, from unborn through elderly]. It’s no wonder that we find it hard to develop and live out that sensitivity, that simplicity is won only with very conscious effort. We cannot really reverence anything when we are clutching at it. The capacity for reverence comes in proportion as I know where my true security lies, in proportion as I become aware that my life is grounded in God, given at each moment from the hand of God. Daniel Berrigan wrote: “All, all is gift. Give it away. Give it away.”
           Simplicity in Today’s World—John Woolman was a Quaker who lived from 1720 to 1772 in colonial NJ. What he did, he did in quiet ways, generally working 1-to-1 with others about the concerns that lay on his mind and heart. The chief concern to which he devoted himself was the problem of slavery; he was also sensitive to the question of war tax, and societal collusion in war. His was a heart so tendered by divine love that it issued in a kind of divine instinct for sensing oppression, and he could feel that suffering as his own. He felt he did not need much, and cut back rather than expanded his business, going from tailoring and merchandising to tailoring only.
           He wrote: “Every degree of luxury hath some connection with evil.” Woolman believed that if people were living rightly according to their need, there would be adequate labor for adequate support of all, adequate time to devote to the inner life, adequate work for all to have a hand in their own livelihood. The effect of gradual introduction of error is eventual “dimness of sight”; we no long see error as error, no longer perceive the truth of the situation. Slavery was such a case. In the gradual introduction of luxury & superfluity, the habit spreads, becomes the status quo. An unpeaceful, restless spirit is spawned & finds its home in society, little by little taking over. It will be seen and challenged only by those who are willing to remain unencumbered and detached from outward gain. Woolman urges “that Friends may dig deep, may carefully cast forth [superfluities] and get down to the rock, the sure foundation and there hearken to that Divine voice. If trust in God runs deep and pure, it will manifest itself both inwardly and outwardly. You cannot serve 2 masters.
           Contemporary Society and Our Task—We live in a society which is obviously home to the kind of greedy restless spirit he foresaw; we are affected and blinded by it. The “leavens of the Pharisees”—mistaking outward action for inner reality; greed; ambition; power—surely characterize society today. We do not need more signs. The signs are overwhelming. But we do not see them. We do not see the sheer stupidity of building weapon systems that will inevitably to our own destruction. We do not stop an oppressive economic system. We can’t stop producing even when it is killing us. We need only eyes to see.
           We are not totally blind, but we are confused about what is and is not necessary. Saving time with a car, not mending mendable clothes, not offending a gift-giver, giving into peer pressure is “necessary.” Just what is our part in securing the hundredfold blessing that we now enjoy?      How can we even begin to sort it all out?      What do we really need? 1st, we have to make a solid beginning with our individual lives [before we tackle society]. Where is my excess and why do I do it, anxiety, greed, carelessness, forgetfulness? We can make a consistent self-examination of security, followed by concrete action, perhaps only the smallest, insignificant thing. Perhaps call on the support of others, in order to keep some kind of check on one’s tendencies to get more than one needs. If we take this matter into that Center where God’s direction is available, we can be sure we will be guided in the process of letting ourselves be made simple.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

231. Quaker testimonies & economic alternatives (by Severyn Ten Haut Bruyn; 1980)

           About the Author—Severyn T. Bruyn is Professor of Sociology at Boston College and directs a graduate program in Social Economy and Social Policy. [He has been very involved in the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) including an Executive Committee. His interest in economic alternatives grew out of his search for consistency between religious testimony and the patterns of everyday life. This pamphlet describes how Friends have sought a “third way” which seems more compatible with religious principles. 

           There is the danger and temptation to you, of drawing your minds into your own business, and clogging them with it; so that ye can hardly do any thing to the service of God.       George Fox

           [Introduction]—Friends have long tried to make the conduct of their business life consistent with their religious beliefs. It hasn't been easy in capitalist systems, which persist, in part because acceptable alternatives aren't easily found. The socialist state has its own form of dominance & exploitation. The problems in capitalist countries is that the business systems have led historically toward bigger government; so we stand in a muddle. 

           We can't remain mere observers. We forget that we are part of the continuing mystery of change itself. We either contribute toward corporate exploitation in our daily transactions or we choose to contribute toward social change & the transformation of the system. [Perhaps] people in their spiritual condition are creators of the world in which they live. Some Christians sought to overcome the dominance developing through business institutions. 

           Early Quaker Thought—The early Quakers testified against the excessive demands of business. George Fox said: “There is the danger and temptation to you, of drawing your minds into your own business, and clogging them with it; so that ye can hardly do any thing to the service of God.” John Woolman saw ethical problems developing early within his own business and in the business institutions of his day. His question was: Should he develop business for his own advantage in the light of his Christian beliefs? He withdrew from his own business. Of the wealthy who profited from the poor’s labor he said: “there is often a danger of their being disqualified to judge candidly in their case, not knowing what they themselves would desire [laboring as the poor did].” Woolman’s universal concern for people extended to the rich as well as to the poor. 

           Howard Brinton studied the early Quaker journals & found that almost every one contained some reference to restrictions on business. [Since] there were no professional ministers to look after the affairs of the Society of Friends, if Friends carried on large businesses, they wouldn't have time to perform their religious duties. Quakers were radical Christians who didn't separate their religious convictions from the rest of their life & conduct.             Later Quaker Thought—In the early 19th century, Quakers like John Bright, Joseph Rowntree, & George Cadbury developed a new pattern of thought among Victorian Quakers. By the 1890s, Friends could no longer take it for granted that philanthropy was ideal or that charitable societies were an adequate response to the times. By the middle of the 20th century many Friends had faced directly the problem of corporate capitalism. The Philadelphia YM Faith & Practice said: “[The importance of profit] has been based on the theory that the pursuit of self-interest will result in the greatest good. This is not what Jesus taught. . . By his control of a business, the employer has power over the working lives of all his employees. [Some are asking]: Is it likely that wholesome conditions of work & adequate wages will be attained if the employees have no share in determining them? Will not sharing in management have great educational value & may it not release latent energies in employees?” 

           Quaker Experiments with Common Ownership—In the 1950s Quakers began experimenting in different countries with democratic forms of economic enterprise. The best known is probably the Scott-Bader Commonwealth [still going in 2020]. Ernst Bader, its Quaker owner, gave 90% of his shares to the Commonwealth. Membership in the Commonwealth company was made open to all employees after a probationary period. 

            The Community Council was organized as the main administrative body. The corporate constitution lays down a maximum ratio of 7:1 between the highest & the lowest salary in the firm. Management must answer all questions raised by members. The preamble to the corporate constitution states: “Power should come from within the person & community, & be made responsible to those it affects. Human dignity & service to others [is to be considered] instead of solely economic performance. Mutual responsibility must permeate the community.” 

           “The Commonwealth has responsibilities to the wider community & is endeavoring to fulfill them by fostering a movement towards a new peaceful industrial & social order. [We believe in] a sharing of the fruits of our labor [with the less fortunate] & a refusal to support destructive conflicts.” The Society for Democratic Integration of Industry (1958) became Industrial Common Ownership Movement in 1971; [it is still going in 2020]. 

           [When the Quaker Victor Bewley heard of a woman being fired after 30 years with a company and other injustices], he changed the structure of his own business. The company’s capital would be held in trust for every employee. After 3 years anyone could apply to become a member of the company “Community.” The Articles of Association were written with a Christian motive and purpose. A business “Council” was formed consisting of the head of every department plus elected representatives from each department. The meetings are informal, and a consensus is sought in all meetings. The worker cooperative movement has developed significantly around the world. [There is the United States Federation of Worker Cooperatives]. 

            Another approach to economic democracy in which some Friends have been actively engaged has been the Consumer Cooperative movement. The customers gain equal votes in choosing the board of directors of their own company. Friends constituted a significant portion of the founders and leaders of co-operative grocery stores in suburban Philadelphia. Problems of democratic control and member education had to be worked out in those co-operatives which have become quite large. Worker and consumer cooperatives do not solve all the problems of classical capitalism even though they suggest an evolutionary trend. [Since exploitation can happen in either type], many observers have argued that these 2 types should be linked together in federations. Producer and consumer cooperatives could be linked as well. The result is an economy with a social foundation. 

           Trends and Experiments Outside Quaker Witness—The concern for transforming economic enterprises so that they become more consistent with religious principles has been expressed widely outside the Quaker tradition. American Cast Iron Pipe Company’s owner in the 1920s & Milwaukee Journal’s owner [in 1937] turned over the shares of their company to the workers [both are still operating as of 2020]. 

           A secular trend toward employee ownership has been developing in both the US & Europe. There is Employee Stock Ownership Plan legislation (ESOP); [as of 2016 over 6,660 firms come under this plan]. A marked increase in worker control over the management of European enterprises has been evident in the last 2 decades [e.g.] in West Germany the largest 650 corporations are now “co-determined; [over 750 as of 2005]. Some form of workers’ council is required by law in most of Northern & Central Europe. The AFSC has studied secular changes & has begun to help people participate in this change, keeping in mind the Quaker historical tradition. 

           American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)/New England AFSC)—The AFSC appointed an Economic Exploration Committee in 1965 to look into the economic factors which were affecting their community relations efforts. Rufus Jones once wrote of [transforming humankind (see quote at beginning of last section)]. The Community Relations Division Committee followed these principles in making their suggestions: sharing of power; assistance applied directly to individual; no racial discrimination; external costs of operations should be recorded and addressed; National planning; appropriate subsidies; distinction between “work” and “job.” 

           The New England AFSC has formed an Economic Alternatives Committee to provide opportunities for experimental social action in the field of business and labor. The AFSC argues that the participation of employees in planning for the responsibilities required in managing their own firm is important. [Experience has shown that if the purchase of shares by employees is unequal there is inequity in voting power and the temptation to “sell out” to outside investors is often irresistible]. 

           The AFSC Committee on Economic Alternatives is designed to help employees anticipate these problems so that they can better control their own destiny. The Committee offers information to employees on systems of corporate governance guided by principles of social accountability, an education involving discussion, conferences & consultation. One of their clients was Colonial Press in Clinton Massachusetts. The AFSC Alternatives Committee also helps people develop land trusts in rural areas. Land trusts are organized with lessees to the land participating on the boards of directors which oversee the use of the land in the interest of the community. 

           The AFSC is interested in the social dimensions of economic alternatives, but members also express their spiritual concerns about how systems of production affect people. Committees member are similarly concerned with how enterprises are able to release the creative powers of employees [& in some cases the introduction of meditation into the work place]. The AFSC staff states that it is a matter of maintaining a proper balance in the values of every day life. The concern is to recognize the importance of the inner life & the spiritual needs of people at work while facing squarely, the practical need for a corporate income. The consulting staff also suggest that it is possible to design job systems to maximize the release of the “creative potential of all employees.” [The “mixing up” of traditional job roles may] overcome bureaucratic traps & allow people to expand their lives.

           The AFSC holds that high technology leads toward a centralization of political power while low technology may reverse this tendency. One Committee member [developed a system involving an electric car and a windmill to charge the batteries]. The Committee is therefore seeking a wholistic approach to economics by creating bridges between the producer and the consumer; it sees this as basic to social planning on a larger scale. [Utilizing a community development corporation, a neighborhood grocery store was bought by the workers and was able to provide profit for its employees and serving local needs at the same time]. 

           The Committee believes that it is possible in the long run to reduce government expenditures for agencies treating environmental, labor and other public problems by planning for the systematic development of economic enterprises organized in the public interest. The Committee believes a concept of democratic citizenship is appropriate for economic enterprises. Quakers in the 17th century were calling for the development of an inner power and authority in the face of external controls. The AFSC Committee members however, do not see their primary function as that of changing the larger system. 

           Basic Principles of a Nonviolent Economy: 

           Trusteeship—developing “land trusts” [based on the spirit of stewardship]. 

           Cooperation—economy based on principles of mutual assistance and social responsibility. 

           Constitutional democracy—base production and distribution decisions on [how it affects the community]. 

           A Planned Economy—design economic alternatives based on social development rather than “supply and demand.” 

            Social Development—cultivating the human resources of knowledge, skills, and social sensitivity. 

           A Human Orientation—using material resources and labor to meet human needs. 

           Equal Access—widespread availability of resources, productive opportunities, and needed goods. 

           Small & Global—developing regional units small enough to allow for [widespread] effective participation and large enough to enable self-sufficiency, and always in the context of world citizenship and responsibility. 

           Community and the Economic Order—Parker Palmer, Dean of Studies at Pendle Hill, posed queries about the wholeness of life. London Yearly Meeting became concerned in the winter of 1973 about problems developing in the British economy and charged their Social Responsibility Council to look at the problem. [The members sought answers on a wide range of topics dealing with economics’ effect on society. The answers were published in a volume called Public Resources and Private Lives. The authors concluded: 

           “The state of the economy in any western society is a central pre-occupation even for those whose primary common ground is spiritual. . . We can now see that the economic is not a peripheral concern, but central to the whole relationship between faith and practice. . . Economic affairs are now so central to our whole existence that no other aspect of personal relationships or individual life styles can be looked at without understanding what it means in terms of [individual and] national wealth and their distribution.” 

           What principles can Friends offer to business people, labor leaders, consumer advocates, anyone who is deeply involved in the management of the economy?

           In 1975 AFSC’s Marjorie Swann brought together people to develop principles on what is “the non-violent economy.” The Committee’s task was inspired in part by Gandhi’s principles of nonviolence, self-rule, and non-possession. The group considered the principles at this section’s beginning significant guides to social action. These concepts are in full accord with the testimonies of Quakers in history. Kenneth Boulding calls Quakers “conservative radicals.” Conservative because they seek to conserve the connection to the past and to the eternal, [which they invite into the meeting for worship]. “Here that which is beyond time and in every time becomes part of the present.” Radical because “their authority is the light within . . . by which past undoubted authority must be tested.” “There is a constant hunger to apply the eternal principles of love, justice and redemptive suffering to this present world”; George’s Fox’s “But what canst thou say” is a key query. 

           If George Fox were living in his fearless manner today, he might well suggest that we bring the fire of creation to live our lives together without undue dependence on the corporate state. A major task of our time is to help create a new economic order. George Fox was inwardly guided by a “pure fire,” and during difficult times he walked “solitarily . . . taken up by the love of God.” I believe that these sources of guidance are the foundation on which we can build wise alternatives as we move toward the 21st century.

http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

OTHER QUAKER TESTIMONIES

259. Stewardship of Wealth (by Kingdon W Swayne; 1985
           About the Author—Kingdon Swayne was born into the Society of Friends. A graduate of Harvard, he spent the 1st half of his working life as a Foreign Service Officer. Since 1967 he has taught at Bucks County Community College, & has been active in his political & service community. He thought about the wealth he was accumulating. This pamphlet shares the serious introspection, but most importantly, the knowledge gleaned from others.

           Stewardship is an attitude of responsible, future-oriented caring for: Oneself; immediate family; time and energy; material possessions; the most local ecosystem in one’s personal care; wider circles of human community [ranging outward from] neighborhood to the whole human race; “Spaceship Earth’s” ecosystem; community of All Being (God).      Kingdon Swayne.
           How can I develop my own unique capacities and interests, and use the wealth and power which has been entrusted to me by society so as to benefit others and create a more just and compassionate world? The things we have are [actually only] entrusted to us for wise use.”      Steven Rockefeller
           TOWARD THOUGHTFUL STEWARDSHIP—It is commonplace that most American Friends pursue professional-level occupations & are rewarded with [generous] incomes. Friends are troubled by the contrast between their affluence & their belief in social & economic justice. In 1983, I confronted the fact that my gross annual income was about 10 times my living expenses. To help clarify my thinking, I resolved to devote a fair part of my time to a survey of the stewardship practices of some of my fellow members of the Society of Friends in Philadelphia YM. In part my thinking was: The core idea of stewardship is elegantly simple & wise: what is yours under civil law is not yours under divine law. How one expresses this in action is by no means clear.
           SELF-ASSESSMENT—I wrote a letter to those who responded that served as a model & as the 1st part of a confidential, mutual sharing of approaches to stewardship. My assessment was in part that: [Stewardship is more than charitable giving]. Until 45, I was “other-directed” in my stewardship decisions, my lifestyle governed by my salary & my colleagues’ lifestyle. My charitable giving was modest & pro forma. After 45 years as a nominal, birthright Friend, I opted for a career change. I bought a 3-unit apartment & rented out 2. I received a pension & became a resident in a town where I felt almost total freedom to choose my standard of living. The values I was pursuing were self-sufficiency & a prudent concern for the possibility of medical catastrophe later in life.
           I found it very difficult to find clear, firm set of principles on which to base a self-consciously chosen living standard. I ended up with some rules of thumb: good, long-lasting clothing; no expensive eating & drinking; no excessive living-space; performing arts enjoyed at less than top dollar prices; austere foreign travel; new, modest, energy-efficient car every 6 years; reasonably priced electric & electronic gadgets; housekeeper; excess cash in mutual funds; paying taxes; repairing, recycling, making do, do-it-yourself around house; cost-benefit analysis on all purchases; no wasting of nonrenewable resources; community-building or good works social gatherings only; affordable, uplifting artwork (not for investment); providing good start in life for next generation.
           I find it a little hard to distill a clear philosophical foundation from my 16 rules-of-thumb. What I am looking for is a living standard for myself that I can in good conscience defend. I use less than my “fair share” of the gross national product, but far more than my fair share of the gross world product; the US is a very difficult place in which to live at the median world income. I was now embarked on an elaborate survey whose selfish purpose had disappeared, for I had decided what was right for me to do.
           THE MEANING OF STEWARDSHIP/CHARACTER OF DATA—Many respondents brought other aspects of stewardship into their self-assessment; it may be helpful to devote some space to the meaning of the term. [To paraphrase John Woolman]: small income and cheap conveniences to lead a life free from “much entanglement”; look to the sources of conflict and oppression in possessions; turn our treasures into the channel of universal love. SHAKERTOWN PLEDGE: I declare myself a world citizen. I commit to: ecologically sound life; creative simplicity and sharing wealth; join with others to reshape institution to bring a more just global society; occupational accountability & products free from harm; proper nourishment and physical well-being of self; honest, moral, loving relationships; prayer, meditation, and study; participation in a community of faith.
           Stewardship is an attitude of responsible, future-oriented caring for: Oneself; immediate family; time & energy; material possessions; the most local ecosystem in one’s personal care; wider circles of human community [ranging outward from neighborhood to the whole human race; “Spaceship Earth’s” ecosystem; community of All Being (God).
           I made no serious effort to arrive at a representative sample. Most respondents were active in Philadelphia YM’s affairs. I read and re-read the responses, letting gems of wisdom shine forth and patterns emerge, a Quakerly mode of analysis, appropriate to Quakerly subject matter.
           GENERAL FINDINGS—My major interest was in the choices people make between stewardship of self and family and stewardship of wider circles of the human community. One question on which I would have welcomed experienced guidance was this: how big a personally controlled “safety net” is big enough? Most respondents clearly maintain a prudent concern for likely future contingencies.
           Unlike me, most respondents are parents, and most of the parents are also grandparents feeling responsible for the welfare of their grandchildren. The respondents felt that a Quaker upbringing tended toward children who were less affluent than themselves. Most respondents took it for granted that making provision for a secure retirement of self and spouse and for emergencies for family were proper uses of wealth. Only 4 respondents had specific plans for charitable giving by bequest. No respondent acknowledged the accumulation of wealth as a specific goal. Most respondents have accepted the wealth that has come their way as an object of stewardship, [but do not view it] as an impediment to a good life. Tithing, [while not a strong Quaker tradition] is a rule-of-thumb that about half the respondents see as appropriate and aim for in a non-rigid way.
           A PHILADELPHIA QUAKER LIFESTYLE/ IS IT TYPICAL? —There is a pattern in the responses that defines what might be called a Philadelphia Quaker lifestyle. The only notable difference between respondents with very different incomes was in choice of living quarters. The median lifestyle is characterized, at least in self-assessments for other’s eyes, by a greater consciousness of what is forgone than of what is possessed. Almost every respondent saw his or her use of automobiles as having a self-denying aspect. Many respondents saved through do-it-yourself projects, not including auto maintenance.
           What I have produced is a description of a fictional suburban shopping center whose customers are exclusively Quaker. [The thriving businesses are: health food store; wine and beer; bicycle shop; discount appliance store; fabric store; Goodwill clothing box; hardware store; music store; community meeting room; gas station do-it-yourself pumps. The struggling or failed businesses are: grocery store; bakery; new-car dealer (failed), used-car dealer (struggling); clothing store; furniture stores (failed); restaurant.
           Education is one area where Quaker families see no need to apologize for seeking the best they can manage. A minority of Quakers saw overemphasis on do-it-yourselfing as an anti-social denial of work to someone, & a misapplication of talents that might be more productively employed. I asked the question: Can you distinguish between your economic & religious motivations in the area of energy conservation? I am troubled by contrast between data I have on respondents’ travel habits & practices & my observation of Quaker travelers. What sets affluent Friends apart from others more than anything else is the amount & style of traveling they do. Some see it as “using discretionary income to buy experiences, not things.” I have concluded that 4 Quaker lifestyles can be listed: American middle-class (AMC); AMC with considerable self-conscious restraint; American lower-middle class, value-directed career choice, above average giving; “alternative” lifestyle of deliberate simplicity.
           SHOULD QUAKERS ALIENATE THE WEALTHY?/INVESTMENT OR NOT?—One respondent made an eloquent plea for Friends to change the “repugnance” of wealth for the sake of Friends’ institutions that need help from the wealthy, whom we have either pushed from our midst, or have failed to keep them bound lovingly in as their worldly wealth increased. Do we really believe Jesus’ eye-of-the-needle metaphor about the rich? Are we willing to accept its implications for Friends’ institutions? One money manager challenged me to define more clearly my reasons for embarking on a course of major charitable giving, arguing that holding substantial assets was in itself no obstacle to responsible stewardship or simple living. I had a deep sense that wealth held without clear purposes is wealth withheld from more constructive uses.
           FINAL THOUGHTS—I am left with strong sense that stewardship styles are rightly highly individual. The respondents explained their stewardship styles in terms of family background & life history. The irreducible minimum requirement for an acceptable stewardship style is that it expresses in some meaningful way a sense of inter-connectedness with all the universe. Steven Rockefeller says: “There is something seriously wrong with a social system that allows poverty and related disadvantages to exist along side extremes of wealth and privilege. [The challenge in this situation] is simply this: How can I develop my own unique capacities and interests, and use the wealth and power which has been entrusted to me by society so as to benefit others and create a more just and compassionate world? The things we have are [actually only] entrusted to us for wise use.”
           GUIDE TO SELF-ASSESSMENT[QUERIES]
           What considerations guide your choices with respect to purchasing the following: living quarters; household furnishings; food and drink; clothing; transportation; recreation [i.e. arts and craft, vacations, entertainment]; electric and electronic devices; education; personal services?        What is your annual income?        What career choices have you made that limited family income?        Can you distinguish between economic and religious motivations in the area of energy conservation?        Have you a cutoff below which you can comfortably lay out money without thinking much about it?        What is your family’s budgetary process?
        How are conflicts between family needs and the larger society resolved?        How does your will resolve the above conflict?       

http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

94. Loyalty by Oath: an essay on the extortion of love (by Hallock B. Hoffman; 1957)
           [About the Author]—Hallock Hoffman is a member of Orange Grove Meeting in Pasadena, California. He has taught at Kenyon College, lectured at Occident College, served in the U.S. Air Force. He is presently Assistant to the President of the Fund for the Republic, [a civil rights and liberties defense fund].
           [Introduction]—Nothing is more mysterious than loyalty. To be loyal is to love, to be true to something. If a man could know even himself, & the frame of his own love & loyalty, he would know more than most of us. Why not ask people what they believe in & don’t believe in, if you cannot trust them unless you know? So we come to oaths. Oaths are old, & have been seized upon by men trying [be certain about trusting other men]. They have been used by kings & robbers, democrats & oligarchs, societies open & secret; but they never work. They have never guaranteed loyalty, or protected anyone from disloyalty. They are contrary to human nature.
           THE REPETITIONS OF HISTORY/THE POWERS OF DARKNESS—Henry VIII had Parliament pass “An Act for the Establishment of the King’s Succession.” This act validated his marriage with Anne Boleyn and limited the heirs to her children by him. The oath was supposed to being about an abrupt and radical shift in men’s thoughts and loyalties. The oath was elaborate and sought to cancel out any contradicting oaths and cover all contingencies; [oath-takers were to swear on] “God, all Sayntes and the Holye Evangelystes.” A loyalty oath declares intent to fulfill a duty or promise; it is disavowal of any conflicting power or opinion; it is forswearing other promises. He must call upon frightening and potent forces and penalties to witness his declaration.
           Henry VIII made the penalty for false swearing the same as that for treason. The Papist, [on the other hand] argued that one could swear the King’s oaths including the promise of disloyalty to the Pope, provided one did so in a proper state of mind. In 1672, an “Act” was passed with a new oath forswearing transubstantiation, an essential Catholic belief, and giving up any right to dispensation. It was this kind of oath that George Fox and William Penn refused to take. The higher loyalty to God prohibited their unreserved loyalty to any man. But chiefly, they would not be compelled. God did not give man the right to extract a promise by force.
           In Los Angeles in 1948, the City passed an ordinance, that is a full-scale loyalty oath, [aimed at preventing] the overthrow of the US or California government, and the teaching or advocating the same. 15 objectors of the oath carried their opposition to the Supreme Court, which upheld it 6-3 as within the Constitution. [If there was knowing membership, regardless of whether the employee’s work put him in the position of advocating & teaching or not, and regardless of the presence or absence of intent or possibility, the State can exact from its employees such an oath as a qualification for government employment.
           Both King Henry & Californians want the honesty, trustworthiness, & love of their subjects; they want to be sure of the future, & sought to elicit them by invoking fear. Men insist on believing in the magic of fear, despite fear's steady failure of to promote trust or truth. [As to truth], the men’s reality is never more than partially described. Our faculties for perceiving what men are [lacks clarity], yet men must act, & they must act in doubt.
           CURING DOUBT: THE LURE OF MAGIC/THE FEAR OF JUSTICE—The passionate desire to know what cannot be known led to an elder sister of science: magic. It is not excessive to equate the wish to guarantee loyalty by oaths with a belief in magic. [An oath is an incantation, a magic ritual] to make men fear what will happen to them when they tell lies, or go back on their promises. In our day God is no longer widely feared and the men who would awe their fellows enough to keep their word turn to other forces.
           In our time, the appeal is only to the threat of prosecution for perjury. You can’t trap a person for ordinary lies. But you can catch one once one declares one is telling the truth. [If one believes in the power of the words, the power of science’s non-magical words is not strong enough to dispel it]. Our priests of [“magical”] words are in advertising agencies. They use words to persuade by emotion & misrepresentation. Legislators who enact loyalty oaths do so when they claim oaths can secure the state against treason, or at least to provide the machinery for punishing traitors. The state, the statesman, the government officers, the manufacturers, all who use inconsistent means to achieve stated ends, have confused words with events, & organize their lives by magic & illusion.
           In PA since 1952 every government employee had to swear or affirm that they did not advocate the overthrow of the state or national government or belong to an organization having such beliefs. If the Common-wealth of PA had found some dangerous persons by its oath, the oath advocates would have a case. Nobody has been discharged from his job for swearing falsely, and nobody has been prosecuted for perjury.
           THE FAILURE OF OATHS/THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES—Making men swear oaths doesn't reveal their love of truth or their fear of God. It is a fact that in all the long record of loyalty-oath swearing, there is not a single case of judicial conviction for swearing. The God-fearing and law-abiding have the habit of truth. The oath cannot reform the Godless and lawless.
           The unintended Consequences are to: make men into liars; make men believe in unreality and the illusion of security; corrupt the presumption of innocence doctrine; make men timid; drive honest men from public service; establish patterns of conformity that encourage the totalitarian. William Penn said: “If swearing came in by perfidiousness, distrust, dissimulation and falsehood, it is most just that it ought to go out with them; … Honesty needs neither whip nor spur; she is security for herself.”
           Quakers wanted no double standard of truth, or to set a special time for telling truth; every time was a time for truth. [Quakers sidestep swearing by substituting “affirming].” To me, “affirming” is another name for the same act. If one of the troubles with oath-taking is that it sets aside a special time for truth-telling, then the words that make the occasion special are not significant.
           THE ILLUSION OF SECURITY—Anyone who says: “[a person] who doesn’t want to take an oath must be disloyal,” [is coming from] a misunderstanding of loyalty & why people take loyalty oaths. Loyalty is a matter of love. Love is volunteered; it cannot be bidden. There was a Civil War widow & child. The widow was told she would be fed as long as she swore every day she was not & never had been loyal to the Confederacy. Will she starve her child? People who are hungry or who want to keep their positions are vulnerable. Janet Gray, 4 years old posed for a life class. Janet’s mother was told that Janet would be paid, after a loyalty oath was taken. Janet couldn’t swear as a minor; her mother couldn’t swear to what she did not know, nor for behavior of the last 5 years when Janet was only 4. It is hard to see how the state was protected against foreign agents. Love doesn’t feed upon suspicion; it grows on trust. Loyalty to country can be judged by deeds: words can never make it so.
           SILENCE IS GUILT/DRIVING OUT THE CONSCIENTIOUS—We have always said: “Innocent until proven guilty.” But if any man refuses to take an oath, it will be claimed that he must be guilty of what he refuses to swear. When churches refused to make the affidavit of loyalty, it was argued that such refusal “was a contention by them of a right to refrain & of a right to do the thing which they refrain from disavowing.” No good American ought to desire the overthrow of the government or the overthrow of the presumption of innocence, either. It would always be easy to convict someone for every crime committed, if all the police had to do was find someone who would have trouble proving innocence. The American system was designed to protect citizens from governmental abuse & persecution. Loyalty oaths are chipping away at this keystone in the arch of justice.
           Folks who have conscientious reasons for refusing to make the statements required of them are the only ones caught by loyalty oaths. When the Pechan Act became law in PA in 1952, 3 teachers, a social worker, 3 doctors, and a nurse refused to make the declaration. They objected to: the timid conformity caused by it; the imposing of “totalitarian 100% Americanism”; an atmosphere of mistrust; thought control methods; “compulsion to do a vain thing”; giving up personal liberty; extorted loyalty oath, loss of liberty.
           LESSONS IN TIMIDITY/PREPARATION FOR TOTALITARIANISM—We can disregard those who refused the oath, & those who took the oath under protest. Senator John H. Dent was such a man. He wasn't brave enough to vote against the Bill, but he was brave enough to admit that he was less than free. How many people in the Commonwealth have been encouraged in the habit of timidity? A movie producer said: “I am sorrier for the rest of us who are still in our jobs: we will be careful what we join; we will be suspicious of friends; we will watch our words. For every one fired, the blacklist has made 99 others give up some of their liberty.”
           There is no way to measure the cost to society of the practice of seeking loyalty by extortion. In a single decade we have lost the will to keep the State in its place; we are no longer surprised to find powers in the hands of public officials that would have caused a wild outcry only a generation ago. [From 1948-55], the city of Los Angeles protected itself [by a series of loyalty oaths that covered a broader and broader group of people, from college faculty to all State employees (labeling all employees as “civil defense workers” and making it an amendment to the constitution), to tax exempt agencies (e.g. churches, schools, social welfare agencies, and war veterans), to anyone using a public building, to elected or appointed officials, to candidates for office. Persons who spoke against the proposed amendment were characterized as suspicious or guilty of disloyalty.
           Those who demanded loyalty oaths weren't satisfied by the oaths [& took other measures to ensure loyalty]. Suspicions & desires that lead to adopting oaths can't be assuaged easily. Illinois, New York & PA have passed loyalty oaths & are exploring applying it to more & more people & groups. Illinois requires oaths from residents in public housing projects, & has 6 or 7 Quaker teachers who can;t be paid because they refused the loyalty oath.
           THE FINAL ARGUMENTS—Most people will not mind taking loyalty oaths. Their dignity is not affronted because they have no principles that are violated by saying the words they have to say. [They are more alarmed by Russians than by any loss of freedom], say and do only what is popular, and do not associate with radicals. If the 1st Amendment was taken away, it is likely that only a small minority of Americans would notice. But our Republic with the Bill of Rights promised a government that guarded against the tyranny of the majority. The Republic thought the best way to prevent the government from applying racks to the mind or body was to give every citizen the right to keep still. Support of the Constitution does not demand of any citizen that he agree with and advocate its current interpretation. [All the major reforms: abolition of slavery, right to vote, due process of law took place because of the advocacy of minorities]. This is what the unverturesome majority would lose if it denied minorities the protection of the 1st and 5th Amendments.
           That Quakers abhor violence is conceded by most non-Quakers. That they should with such convictions refuse to say so is incomprehensible to those who favor loyalty oaths. What we object to isn’t what is said, but the conditions under which we must say it. We oppose the force & violence of our government, applied to its citizens' conscience. Loyalty oaths are magic. It depends for its power on fear. Those it entraps are possessed by fear. We can't encourage the love that makes us free by imposing the fear that makes us incapable of trust & love.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

296. The Testimony of Integrity in the Religious Society of Friends (by Wilmer A. Cooper; 1991)
           About the Author—Wilmer Cooper grew up among Conservative Friends in eastern Ohio. He is a graduate of Olney Friends School and Wilmington College. He did Civilian Public Service during WWII, and was on Friends Council on National Legislation in the 50’s. He was the founding dean of the Earlham School of Religion, served as dean for 18 years, and as Professor of Quaker Studies for 8 years. This essay is an expansion of addresses given on the subject before several Friends groups.
           [Introduction]—Elfrida Vipont Foulds told my Quakerism class of how the subject of George Fox’s message “went cold on her.” She thought of doing research, visiting Pendle Hill or the Westmoreland countryside. Then it occurred to her to go to George Fox’s birthplace at Fenny Drayton in the English Midlands. She walked in the village & sat in Fox’s village church. In her mind’s eye she saw young George sitting with his family, pondering why he & his family came week after week, making solemn affirmations [which others ignored the rest of the week]. Inconsistency troubled George Fox, & he continued to ask questions about the meaning of life.
           [Suddenly Elfrida Foulds realized] the Fox felt the need for integrity in daily life. He had to say “yes” or “no” & mean it, without quibbling. Elfrida Foulds pointed out that Fox continually tested what integrity meant. Churches weren’t buildings, but the fellowship of believers in worship. At Woodbrooke, a Quaker study center in Birmingham, England, I was challenged to answer the questions What is a Quaker? What is Quakerism? in 25 words or less. As I have struggled with this question then & since, it occurs to me that perhaps the word “integrity” comes as close as any word to answering these questions; “integrity” is the essential Quaker testimony & undergirds all other Friends’ testimonies in their faith & practice. Integrity must find its root in Quaker history.
           The Meaning of Quaker Testimonies—A unique Religious Society of Friends’ characteristic are Quaker testimonies. Testimonies grow out of inward religious experience & are intended to give outward expression to the Spirit of God’s or the Light of Christ’s leading within. Friends believed in this leading, but they soon experienced common leadings of the Spirit which became formalized into testimonies. They believed they must be convinced of the testimony’s “truth” each time they were called on to enact it in their lives. John Punshon said that inwardly they are our guide to our Creator’s nature, our inspiration’s source. They are our guide to life, a sign of divine love for creation, the means of prophetic witness, taking their meaning from our highest reality.
           There is no definitive list of Quaker Testimonies, which have differed throughout Friends’ history. Many of the early ones had to do with social behavior. Friends observed certain principles of worship and ministry as a testimony to the truth; worship is essentially spiritual not ceremonial (John 4:24). From this arose testimonies against the outward observance of the sacraments, against “hireling ministry,” and against creeds in churches. The most problematic and controversial of the early Quaker testimonies was against music and the arts. If one was truly moved by Spirit of God to sing in meeting for worship, that was accepted but that did not include instrumental music. Art represented reality rather than being a firsthand experience of it.
           Undergirding all of today’s Quaker testimonies is the concern that our outward lives bear witness to truth discerned inwardly. It is in this framework of thought that the Testimony of Integrity needs to become the com-mon denominator of all the other Quaker testimonies. George Fox said: “Let your lives speak.” Doing this is an outward sacrament of an inward leading of the Spirit. Another descriptive saying of Friends is that “Quakerism is a way of life,” which suggests that testimonies are moral & ethical fruit of the Spirit’s inward leading.
           Values & testimonies differ. Values are projected ideals or goals which are rationally determine; testimonies are derived from religious faith & experience fashioned out of a life of prayer, devotion & worship, joined with spiritual discernment & commitment. Testimonies seem a more appropriate emphasis for Quakers [than rational values]. Cecil Hinshaw wrote: “The essence of early Quakerism is precisely in a demand for complete integrity of the individual in his relation to God, other people, and himself … George Fox cannot be understood apart from a recognition that the driving force in this life at this time was for complete integrity.”
           Quakers as “Publishers of Truth”—The Integrity Testimony is grounded in early Quaker understanding of “Truth.” Their later greetings to one another would be “How is Truth prospering in thy parts? George Fox wrote: “I was to direct people to the Spirit that gave forth the Scriptures, by which they might be led into Truth, & so up to Christ & God … to know the Spirit of Truth in the inward parts, & to be led thereby.” Fox’s Truth must be the kind of truth that lays hold of us in a very personal way, & that [insists on] a response of action. It was truth to be obeyed according to God’s will as revealed in the life, teachings & ministry of Jesus. The Hebrew word for truth, emeth, is sometimes translated “faithfulness.” This was a characteristic of truth which was understood & proclaimed by early Friends. The ground of religious certainty for Friends was rooted in the gospel tradition & their belief in the faithfulness, dependability & trustworthiness of God, experienced firsthand.
           Plainness and Self-Denial—The early commitment of Friends to a lifestyle of “plainness & self-denial,” & avoidance of the “vain & empty customs” of the world was nurtured by the Puritan culture & ethic of their time. They were also convinced inwardly that their outward life must be liberated from the fashions of the day to follow the simple, unencumbered life of their Lord. Both William Penn & George Fox gave advice along these lines. Early Friends were committed to “acting truth” in their daily lives. They were quite specific about what would keep them divinely focused & what would deflect their attention from it. [They avoided frivolity & were careful with their time, honest in their dealings, truthful in speech, unadorned in dress & furnishings. A double standard was to be avoided at all cost & nothing was “to divert the mind from the witness of God in the heart.”
           The Quaker Practice of Integrity—The Testimony of Integrity can be articulated and practiced 4 ways: truth-telling; authenticity and veracity; obedience or faithfulness to conscience; wholeness. Truth-telling is the most obvious place to begin to live out Integrity. Friends’ concern was that followers of Christ should be known for telling the truth all the time. They believed in a single standard of truth and honesty. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, though not a Quaker, held that “the very existence of oaths is proof that there are such things as lies.”
           Authenticity & veracity calls us to be truly who we are & not be 2-faced and try to be something we are not. The opposite of integrity of course is hypocrisy. We are all tempted to become pretenders of virtue and piety. The tendency to misrepresent ourselves is a common shortcoming we have. [We are not always aware] we are violating our integrity when we respond this way.
           Obedience and faithfulness [connected with the Light Within is the seat of religious authority, & the touchstone of our faith. This kind of truth is grounded in living faith and experience of the present moment, not in dogma, creeds, abstract philosophical ideas or theological affirmations. The testimonies are a living witness to the inward leading of the Spirit of God in our lives.
           Integrity” comes from integritas, which refers to a state or quality of being complete, that is, a condition of wholeness or unity. Integrity creates a sense of togetherness and belonging when applied to persons in community. Individualism dominates much of our behavior in western society, and it affects the Religious Society of Friends as well. We need to recover the Testimony of Integrity to balance this other attitude and to have a sense of responsibility and accountability toward one another. The fact that Friends came to share similar leadings finally resulted in the common expressions and practices which we call testimonies. http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

95. Inner Liberty: the stubborn grit in the machine (by Peter Vierck; 1957)

           [About the Author]—Peter R. E. Viereck (1916 – 2006), was an American poet & political thinker, & professor of history at Mount Holyoke College for 5 decades. He was born in New York, He received his B.A. (1937), M.A. (1939) & Ph.D. (1942) from Harvard. Viereck was prolific in writing since 1938. He was a respected poet, who published many poetry collections. His poetry collection, Terror and Decorum, won the 1949 Pulitzer Prize for Poetry. This pamphlet deals with selfless sacrifice, holy pain, and the fight for the private life involved in the struggle for the inner imagination against outer mechanization.
           Between long intervals of dormancy, artists and writers suddenly buzz into the market place proclaiming: “Look, everyone; we’ve stopped being Irresponsibles!” Like every other citizen, the artist must be willing to “lay down his life for his country,” when freedom is at stake. But let him savagely refuse to lay down his dream life for his country. He can serve patriotism more permanently by deepening his insight and broadening his sensibility within his works of art. In the long run, whatever enriches your inner sensibility with the unguessed surprises of beauty and love, is a moral act and even a political act.
           In every country much of the fight for the free private life depends on the unadjusted imagination of its creative artists. The Over-adjusted Man knows only the public life. Religious, aesthetic, and intellectual creativity are what the individual does with his loneliness. The fight is to preserve anything playfully private [that does not smoothly fit into an efficiently, busily, useful society]. In certain moral crises the fight is not only for the private life but for the publicly embattled right to have a private life.
           The first characteristic of the well-adjusted good-mixer, the kind of student who [objects to lonely walks] is the refusal to read books. Unadjusted Man is he who indulges in the vice of “over-reading.” Unless outer material power is assimilated to inner spiritual laws, all our efficient mechanization is merely paving our road to hell with good inventions. [This “good-mixer fetish” is even stressed on some college applications].
           To remain individual in an over-adjusted society, start out by being an amateur at everything, never a professional. This is true whether you are a poet, scholar, or political leader, whether you are an artist of life or of love or of billiards. An amateurish life is [harmonious and] finds time to cultivate the complete human. Ultimately freedom’s advantage over totalitarianism lies in the greater imaginative resourcefulness of the non-specializing free individual. In one sense, only by not knowing how to write or think “too well” can the imagination get the insights needed for the highest literary, philosophical, or military achievements.
            Without inner psychological liberty, outer civil liberties are not enough; it is a case of [both] “free from what” [and] “free for what.” My unstreamlined advice [to students is]: “Young lady, why not have the moral courage to be unadjusted, a bad mixer, and shockingly devoid of leadership qualities?” The depersonalization characterizing the present trend is the goal of adjustment as an end in itself. From being well-adjusted for its own sake, what a short step to becoming over-adjusted, [publicly smiling, privately blank].
           The humanist’s, artist’s, scholar’s new heroism, unriddling the inner universe, consists of being stubbornly unadjusted toward the mechanized, depersonalized bustle outside. They are heroes partly because without heroic pose. Their values are not determined by a democratic plebiscite. By revering the infinite preciousness of each individual soul, Christianity builds up a deep, soul-felt, inner shield against outer over-adjustment.
           The unadjusted should not be confused with the maladjusted, the psychiatric; nor with the never adjusted. The [truly] Unadjusted Man is more selective in not adjusting; they adjust to the ages, not to the age, [a choice] between lasting roots and ephemeral surfaces. The easy conformity baiting of adolescent radicalism refuses to adjust even to deep and valid norms. The dying words of Thomas More on the scaffold, [when modernized might be] “I die the state’s good servant.” “Good servant” distinguishes not only More’s unadjustedness from the radical’s nonconformity but from the rootlessness of bohemia’s loveless, facile “alienation.”
           Western man, cannot misuse other worldly morality as a pretext for evading the moral choices involved in facing the material problems of this earth. During some ultimate hour of moral choice between principle and expedient survival, the nonmaterialist, the Christian, the man with inner liberty, walks to his scaffold smiling and unhesitant. What is new today is the more sophisticated ability of the Over-adjusted Man to masquerade as an Unadjusted one. So we must inspect closest the credential of those writers who proclaim loudest their nonconformity. Genuine sensitivity, genuine humanity have nothing in common with the conveyor belt of culture robots who say “I am a real independent, nonconforming individualist, just like everybody else.” To manicure our sacred humanistic and religious values into [popular] fads may kill them more surely than any invasion of open barbarians, torch in hand, burning churches, libraries, and universities.
           Nothing can mechanically “produce” unadjustedness. The stress of many liberals on teaching ephermeral civic needs instead of permanent classics gave the antiliberal demagogues their opening for trying to terrorize education into propagandizing for “Americanism.” These pressures of over-adjustment can be triumphantly resisted if the Unadjusted Man makes full use of the many available burrows of the creative imagination. Such sane asylums for individuality need never degenerate into the inhuman aloofness of the formalist so long as they continue to love the America they criticize.
           The concept and currency of “nonconformity” has become so debased that [a phrase like] “a nonconformist in the Marlon Brando tradition,” is common. [Writing styles when new can be] weapons of liberation because they give their public what it does not expect. The meaningful moral choice is between conforming to the ephemeral, stereotyped values of the moment and conforming to the ancient, lasting archetypal values shared by all creative cultures; archetypes [which] have grown out of the soil of history: slowly, painfully, organically. The sudden uprooting of archetypes was the most important consequence of the worldwide industrial revolution.
           Every over-adjusted society swallows up diversity and the creativity inherent in concrete personal loyalties and in loving attachment to unique local roots and their rich historical accretions. The creative imagination of the free artists requires private elbowroom, free from the pressure of centralization and the pressure of adjustment to a mass average. In the novel and in the poem, the most corrupting development of all is the substitution of technique for art. Most modern readers are not even bothered by the difference between an efficient but bloodless machine job and the living product of individual hearts’ anguish. What then, is the test for telling the real inspiration from the just-as-good? The test is pain. In a free democracy the only justified aristocracy is that of the lonely creative bitterness, the artistically creative scars of the fight for the inner imagination against outer mechanization: the fight for the private life.
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts

313. Friends and Alcohol: Recovering a Forgotten Testimony (by Robert Levering; 1994)
           About the Author/ [Introduction]—Robert Levering's interest in Quaker social testimonies dates from the Vietnam era when he worked for peace on the staff of the American Friends Service Committee, A Quaker action group, and Friends Peace Committee.
           Friends have expressed strong concerns about the use and abuse of alcohol for more than 300 years, through yearly meetings' advices and queries. Many contemporary Friends find such queries quaint at best. Some new Friends thought that "we laid down our 'temperance testimony' long ago ... certainly by the time the nation repealed Prohibition." There are instances of Quakers consuming alcohol at home and socially at meeting pot-lucks, children's overnights, and weddings. Such instances are hardly isolated events, nor are they confined to "liberal" Quaker meetings. [Pastors and clerks from Friends Churches report "liberal" use of alcohol, and not reading "alcohol abstinence" queries that make some "uncomfortable]."
           Contrary to the Spirit/ A Social Concern—The 19-year-old George Fox was so disturbed that professing Christians would engage in [drinking bouts] that he couldn't sleep one night. This incident convinced Fox to leave home & begin the spiritual journey that eventually resulted in Quakerism. Early Friends condemned drunkenness [along with] other sins. John Woolman wrote: "The frequent use of strong drink works in opposition to the Holy Spirit on the mind ... a man quite drunk may be furthest removed from that frame of mind in which God is worshipped ... a person [drinking] without being quite drunk [accustoms] oneself to that which is a less degree of the same thing ... it must by long continuance necessarily hurt mind & body." Excessive drinking interfered with discernment of divine will. [Getting drunk Saturday night and repenting Sunday morning in church] is precisely what Fox found offensive about his cousin's drinking bouts; every moment was to be lived in the Spirit.
           Early Friends were concerned about the social and political ramifications of temperance. William Penn writes: "Drunkenness, excess in drinking, is a violation of God 's law, our own natures; it doth of all sins rob us of our reason, deface the impressions of virtue, and extinguish the remembrance of God's mercies & our duty ... [It tempts some to] incest, murder, robberies, fires and other villainies ... [which] makes drunkenness a common enemy to human society ... It spoils health, weakens humankind, and above all provokes the just God to anger."
           John Woolman decried the selling of rum to Native Americans, and getting them drunk in order to cheat them. Woolman writes: "To conform a little to a wrong way strengthens the hand of those who carry wrong customs to their utmost extent; the more a person appears to be virtuous and heavenly-minded, the more powerfully does one's conformity operate in favor of evil-doers."
           From Moderation to Abstinence—The first generations Friends were not teetotalers. William Penn accepted the custom of drinking for refreshment, but he did not countenance "social drinking." In Penn's day, before refrigeration or vacuum packaging, there were few alternatives to alcohol. People thought it beneficial to drink alcohol [in widely varying conditions, and for numerous maladies]. When 17th and 18th century Friends urged "moderation," they were recommending moderate use of a necessity, like food; [that is no longer true].
           Despite frequent advices for Friends to be moderate and temperate, many of them developed serious drinking problems. Between 1682 and 1776, Jack Marietta found that drunkenness was the second most common cause for disownment, after marrying outside the faith; [some instances included traveling ministers]. Some 1,034 Quakers were disciplined (about 60% of whom were disowned). Disownments were rarely automatic in such cases, as Friends labored patiently with their drunken brethren. By the end of the 18th century, Friends had learned sadly that exhortations to moderation didn't work; the rest of society wasn't even trying. Whiskey was fast replacing rum as America's favorite drink by the mid-1700s.
           Elizabeth Levis of Philadelphia YM is credited as being 1st Friend in early 1750s to urge the prohibiting of Friends from participating in liquor business. In 1774, Anthony Benezet wrote essay entitled: "The Mighty Destroyer Displayed: In some account of Dreadful Havock made by mistaken use [&] Abuse of Distilled Spirituous Liquors." He compared addiction to alcohol to bondage of slavery, & [voiced concern about increasing havoc it would cause in decades & centuries to come] "if some check isn't put to its career." Benezet debunked conventional wisdom about alcohol, arguing that strong drink is harmful to one's health, [not beneficial].
           To Benezet, "all intoxicating liquors may be considered poisons; however disguised, that is their real character, and sooner or later they will have their effect." In 1777, 3 years after Benezet's essay appeared, Philadelphia YM prohibited Friends from importing, distilling or retailing liquor, and advised members [to use] spirituous liquors [only] for medicinal purposes. The Society of Friends thereby became the 1st Christian religious group in modern history to take such a position; the advice later included wine and beer.
           A Corporate Testimony—Slavery & temperance concerns came from the Society's late 18th century re-form movement. [American reformers] included John Woolman, John Churchman, Israel Pemberton; English Friends & reformers included Samuel Fothergill, Mary Peisley, & Catherine Payton. The reformers' insistence on stricter Society discipline led to a lot of disownments for many different offenses. [Through strict, perhaps] harsh disownments, the Society [weeded out] those not serious about living according to high Society standards.
           Late 18th & 19th century Friends took radical personal stances. Quaker pacifism stems from commitment to Christian love; abolitionism from belief in the divine spark; & temperance from commitment to a Spiritled life. John Punshon explained that Quaker testimonies, consistently carried out, is a radical departure from accepted norms, & "socially disturbing." They proclaim how the world ought to be, what other people ought to do. The social assertiveness of Quaker testimonies creates a certain uneasiness among Friends today. Earlier Quakers [knew] their testimonies might cause ripples in society, but were willing to pay the price for standing up for their beliefs. [Many early Friends expected] the statement of their testimonies to be inferred from how they lived their lives; for many others, testimonies implied social action. Quakers individually & collectively were forerunners of major slavery & temperance reform movements that engulfed American society during the next century.
           Temperance Reformers—After Revolutionary War, there were almost no controls on alcohol's availability. By 1830 Americans over the age of 15 averaged 7.1 gallons of pure alcohol a year (5 shots of whiskey, 5 glasses of whiskey, 5 cans of beer a day). [In the midst of] national binge, the temperance movement was born. 19th century temperance reformers saw damage being done to society by people abusing alcohol. They believed social ills would be reduced by eliminating alcohol. The temperance movement encouraged people who were not "drunkards" to sign a pledge & set an example for those with real or potential drinking problems. Quaker reformers often cited Paul's advice, that one had to be aware of the effect of one's example on others' behavior.
           Lucretia Mott preached to Philadelphia medical students: "By practicing total abstinence from that which intoxicates ... you may be instrumental in setting the feet of many upon the rock of Temperance and put the song of total abstinence into their mouths. Susan B. Anthony was a temperance organizer before throwing herself into the women's suffrage movement. She said: "Though women, as a class, are much less addicted to drunkenness and licentiousness than men, it is universally conceded that they are by far the greater sufferers from these evils." Anthony saw suffrage as the way to halt the evils of intemperance. Elizabeth Comstock argued: "There must be, on the part of Christian people, a fire of love that is willing to renounce personal interests, tastes and pleasures, and, with the blessing of God on our efforts, the drinking uses of the land will be changed.
           Substantial contributions to the temperance movement were made not only by individual Quakers, but also by the Society's various temperance committees at both monthly and yearly meetings; they sponsored coffee stands, a Coffee and Lodging House, and lobbied the state legislature on a bill that would place more restrictions on the issuance of liquor licenses. From the 7.1 gallon per year average in 1830, alcohol consumption decreased to 2.1 gallons by 1900; educational efforts of the temperance reformers were given much of the credit.
           Among those who believed that the only solution was absolute prohibition of the sale & distribution of alcohol was Rufus Jones, who wrote: "We honestly believe that the liquor problem is beyond all question the greatest problem before our nation, & the greatest moral problem in the world ... It ought to be as impossible for [one with uncontrolled passion for drink] to get liquor as for a crazy person to get dynamite." The "great anti-liquor crusade" that Jones supported resulted in the 1920 Prohibition Amendment. James H. Timberlake points out: "Although today sometimes regarded as conservative, prohibition was actually written into the Constitution as progressive reform." Why Prohibition was repealed after only 13 years is a long & complicated story, & primarily an economic one. [While it had an impact], most people today believe that Prohibition was a total failure, so the temperance movement which spawned it is considered an embarrassment & is best left ignored.
           A Major Social Problem—Friends have done little to bear witness to our historic testimony on alcohol in recent years. It is rarely seen as a social or political issue. Some are unaware of Quaker alcohol testimony, and many condemn teetotalism as part of a Puritan legacy (It actually is not part of it). I think we would do well to take a long sober look at this issue. The social problems of alcohol abuse may be worse today than 100 years ago when temperance was the top issue on the Quaker social agenda. Among the problems are: drunken driving (20,000 deaths, 300,000 injuries annually and nationally); alcohol-related deaths; fetal alcohol syndrome birth defect (5,000 born annually). Alcohol is implicated in a high percent of emergency room visits, suicides, and violent crimes (52% of all rapes and other sexual assaults). Alcohol ranked ahead of heroin, crank, cocaine and marijuana in terms of addictive potential. All researchers of the subject note that most alcohol-related social problems are caused by "moderate drinkers, not by alcoholics.
           [Alcohol, Children and Women]—At least 8,000,000 teenagers use alcohol every week; 500,000 go on weekly binges. A Univ. of CA—Davis student survey reported that 29% of students said they had experienced alcohol-related personal problems. Quakers can join MADD or SADD (Mothers/ Students Against Drunk Driving) among others; we can push for stricter drunk driving laws. With the exception of some black churches, fighting the social evils of alcohol is being undertaken by secular groups. Virtually all religious groups in America have been deafeningly silent on alcohol abuse issues. The California "Dangerous Promises" campaign is trying to stop alcohol advertising that depicts women as sex objects. My meeting was the only religious organization to endorse and join in an effort endorsed by 2 dozen various women's and community groups.
           Alcohol and Quakers—Groups like Al-Anon and Adult Children of Alcoholics have made the public much more aware that problem drinkers are not the only ones affected by alcohol abuse. 1 of every 4 or 5 Americans comes from or now lives with alcohol abuse in their family. For us to think this doesn't happen to us Quakers is the height of denial. I think the 1-in-4 figure is a realistic estimate for many Quaker meetings.
           Chuck Fager writes: "Friends may have all but forgotten to face up to the problem of alcohol abuse, but it has not forgotten about us ... Several persons and families [we know] have been ravaged by it. If comparable numbers of Friends were hauled off to jail for refusing to swear oaths or submit to the draft, we would be organizing committees nonstop on their behalf." We [need to] first acknowledge that there is a problem of alcohol in society, including in our Society of Friends. We must be tender toward those who have this terrible addiction or who live or have lived with it. Quaker gatherings need to be safe havens from alcohol.
           Social drinking can be divisive. It still amazes me how social dynamics of groups change dramatically with alcohol present. We might think about what kind of community we have that requires a drug to help us reveal ourselves. We now offer almost no information to younger Friends on alcohol & drugs. Their education is left to society, & the nearly $2,000,000,000 a year the alcohol industry spends on advertising & promotions. In most cases, drinking alcohol is seen as glamorous, mature, even humorous behavior; liquor consumed on TV has little if any effect on the drinkers. Drinking is a life-&-death issue for our children. It is sad that we remain silent on it.
           A Spiritual Issue—Modern Friends need to get involved in social & political efforts to relieve alcohol abuse & pay closer attention to alcohol's use at Quaker gatherings. We shortchange our Quaker predecessors if we don't also address personal drinking habits. Some contemporary Friends see "nothing wrong" with social or "moderate" drinking. Friends might consider how social drinking squares with well-established Quaker testimonies like simplicity & truth. Thomas Kelly reminds us: "Life is meant to be lived from ... a Divine Center—a life of unhurried peace & power. It is simple. It is serene. It takes no time, but it occupies all our time."
           Alcoholic beverages must now certainly be categorized among "unnecessary things." Using alcohol in small quantities to relieve stress or to make one feel less socially inhibited raises serious spiritual questions. How does "moderate drinking" reflect living a life of the Spirit or living from a Divine Center? How does using a substance that lessens our ability to be worshipful and to seek God's will fit with a spiritual life?
           How does the Quaker testimony of a single standard of truth apply to the reasons given for drinking? People may have ulterior, concealed motives for drinking beyond alcohol's actual effects. Or people often deny that alcohol has any effect on them whatsoever, a myth reinforced by mass media. Hugh Doncaster wrote: "There is the [rationalization] which pleads for moderation in all things ... In moderation alcohol is cheering & makes for good fellowship ... We need moderation is some things & total abstinence from others, such as murder [or war] ... [But] it is important the total abstainer not judge or misjudge the occasional drinker in such a way as to hold one at a distance ... The total abstainer shouldn't consider oneself more virtuous than the occasional drinker ... In this respect one has discerned God's will more truly than those who differ from one; but one recognizes that in many other respects one is far less truly pursuing the path of Christian discipleship.
           It is difficult for many of us contemporary Friends to take even small acts that go counter to society, against the social grain. Our current enmeshment with the wider society raises the question: Have we lost something important about our singularity, [our "in but not of society" status]; if so, how do we regain it? How much [will] we give up to regain our spirit-led singularity? Friends' testimony on alcohol challenges us to give something of little consequence to ourselves, but which could have a big impact on others. William Penn wrote: "Principles are half as forceful as examples. Everyone that pretends to be serious ought to inspect oneself ... One should be so wise as to deny oneself the use of neutral enjoyments if they encourage ones neighbor's folly." If you were accused of being a Quaker, would there be enough evidence to convict you? If we aren't willing to deny ourselves "neutral enjoyments" for the sake of others, what are we willing to do for our faith?
http://www.pendlehill.org/product-category/pamphlets
www.facebook.com/pendlehill?fref=ts