The Rise of Liberal Quakerism—Part 2

May 22, 2018 § 4 Comments

Reaction to Evangelicalism

Liberal Quakerism was to a large extent a reaction to the evangelicalism that had dominated British Quakerism and much of American Quakerism throughout the nineteenth century, beginning with its emergence as a movement in the late eighteenth century.

Evangelical Quakerism emphasized a renewed attention to the Bible and a preeminent faith in its authority. The movement also laid stress on faith in Jesus’ atonement on the cross as the only path to salvation from sin.

In both regards, evangelicalism undermined the role of the light of Christ in the human heart as the foundation of Quaker faith. For the early Friends, salvation came from Christ’s immanent presence in their hearts and lives. It was not the result so much of a historic event, but of the transformation of the soul in the now. And when Christ is speaking directly to you inwardly, the Bible necessarily assumes a secondary, if reliable, spiritual authority.

After the separations in the 1820s, Orthodox and Hicksite yearly meetings severed ties with one another and in their isolated silos, the two branches solidified and then ossified. This gradual desertification manifested especially in vocal ministry. Fewer and fewer Friends were recorded, meetings increasingly endured long periods of silence. In London Yearly Meeting (LYM; now Britain YM), what vocal ministry meetings did receive became increasingly narrow and exhortative, even carping. At least that’s how it apparently felt to young people, whose prospects for meaningful expression of their spiritual gifts dwindled significantly over the decades.

Meanwhile, membership dropped precipitously, as meetings applied discipline increasingly rigorously for walking disorderly in all manner of ways.

In 1859, a prize of one hundred pounds was offered by an anonymous British Friend for the essay that best explained this decline and that offered the most promising solutions. A young adult Friend named John Stephenson Rowntree, of the Rowntree chocolate family, won the prize with his Quakerism, Past and Present. The Rowntree family would continue to provide leadership in the movement deep into the twentieth century.

Following Rowntree’s suggestions, LYM revised its book of discipline in 1861 and stopped reading out members who bought pianos or married Presbyterians. Simultaneously, young adults in Manchester convinced their elders to allow them to establish the Manchester Institute, a kind of singles club for young adults that sponsored weekly presentations and discussions on religious topics. The Manchester Institute became a kind of Petri dish for cultivating new ideas and empowering young minds.

In 1861, a 36-year-old named David Duncan gave a presentation that set things rolling. He claimed the Inner Light as the Quaker essential. He emphasized God’s continuing revelation. He defined Quakerism as a life, not a formula. He sought to reclaim the message of early Friends. He later wrote:

“We must resist the domination of those who have lost the tradition of our fathers, who are sacrificing the genuine principles of Quakerism, and putting in their stead the hollow sounding phrases of a pretentious and pharisaical formalism.” (Kennedy, p. 51)

He had launched a liberal resistance against evangelicalism.

A firestorm ensued. Ultimately, he was disowned by Hardshaw East Monthly Meeting. But he left a legacy. It would take another generation, however, for this legacy to bear full fruit.

§ 4 Responses to The Rise of Liberal Quakerism—Part 2

  • […] Steven Davi­son is nerd­ing deep into Quak­er his­to­ry, specif­i­cal­ly the process in which younger mem­bers of Britain Year­ly Meet­ing start­ed for­mu­lat­ing a new kind of Quak­erism. Here’s his explana­to­ry intro­duc­tion and here is part 2 […]

  • Rod Zwirner says:

    Thanks so much for revisiting liberal Quakerism and Capitalism. The way you frame the issues is helpful for the present .
    However, having just read Ken Whyte’s book ,Hoover, I would suggest you
    reconsider lumping Hoover, Reagan and Bush together as following the evangelical economic line. Whyte gives a lot of evidence that Hoover was quite Progressive and willing to be even radical for the times.
    FDR clearly misrepresented Hoover and helped cause the run on banks during Hoover’s final months. Having grown in up the Philly area, I had some idea that part ofthe Quaker dislike of FDR was based on his not cooperating with Hoover in early 1933.

    Keep working on the book, many should benefit from your efforts.

    • I know that Hoover was a Progressive, in the early twentieth century sense of looking to a scientific approach and what we now call technology for solutions to social problems. He was an early example of what we now call a technocrat, a public servant who relies on data, analysis, and social organization in government and public service—on experts in their field, rather than political appointees. In this respect, he had some in common with Teddy Roosevelt. And he did propose some federal measures aimed to help the financial and business sectors that FDR actually adopted.

      But he did not seem to share Teddy Roosevelt’s dislike for business monopolies, and his approach to the Great Depression at first included humanitarian appeals to business and private philanthropy to meet the needs of suffering people, rather than the government—partly, I think because businesses and private donors had been so forthcoming with help when he was organizing post-war relief in Europe after WWI. But he seems to have completely misunderstood business interests in this regard. They didn’t act on the workers’ behalf at all.

      It is his aversion to government intervention on behalf people, rather than business, that puts him in the Reagan/Bush camp, in my mind. And his inclination to rely on citizens’ self-help efforts and philanthropy to help suffering people that seems of a piece with the evangelical approach to poverty in the nineteenth century.

  • Francis Xavier OHara says:

    Thank you for this !

    On Tue, May 22, 2018, 10:46 AM Through the Flaming Sword wrote:

    > Steven Davison posted: “Reaction to Evangelicalism Liberal Quakerism was > to a large extent a reaction to the evangelicalism that had dominated > British Quakerism and much of American Quakerism throughout the nineteenth > century, beginning with its emergence as a movement in the l” >

Leave a comment

What’s this?

You are currently reading The Rise of Liberal Quakerism—Part 2 at Through the Flaming Sword.

meta