Quakers on Wikipedia

March 25, 2023 § 5 Comments

While working on an essay on Quaker metaphysics—what’s going on in our personal mystical experiences, and especially, in the psychic dimensions of our gathered meetings—I looked up the Wikipedia entry for “divine spark” to clarify its neoplatonic source. That entry was terrible in many ways; it did not even mention neoplatonism, but only Gnosticism. But it also mentioned Quakers. In fact, the section on the Quaker use of divine spark took up more than half of the entry. See below for the original entry.

This was quite a surprise to me. And as I say ad nauseum in this blog and elsewhere, the claim in this entry that “Friends”, meaning all Friends generally, believe in a divine spark is just not true. Well, I supposed we may all see “that of God in everyone,” as the entry says. But Friends are NOT “generally united by a belief” that “that of God in everyone” is a divine spark, as this statement in that entry implies.

I edited this entry, which was a very interesting experience. It had been years since I tried to edit a Wikipedia entry, unsuccessfully. I was so glad that now I know HTML. In addition to changing the first sentence, I deleted the references to continuing revelation, because they do not have anything directly to do with the divine spark subject of the entry. They are an important element of Quaker faith, but if you wanted to unpack the implications of the light within or some presumed divine spark, you would unpack almost all of Quaker doctrine not just “continuing revelation”. Like Quaker ministry and the testimonial life. 

Here is a link to my revised entry

I bring this up here in Through the Flaming Sword for two reasons, having to do with the testimony of integrity and the need for a systematic search of Wikipedia for similar failures of care in presenting our history, faith, and practice.

First, while some “liberal” Friends consider“that of God in everyone” to be a divine spark inherent in everyone, the vast majority of Fiends worldwide, and even a large majority in North America, do not. We should be more careful when speaking for all Quakers, and we should be more rigorous in our thinking when ascribing this divine spark idea to George Fox; he had no such conception.

Secondly, Friends who edit Wikipedia entries should be very well informed about the subjects they enter on that platform. I believe we should review all entries that a search for “Quaker” delivers on that platform—and, for that matter, on other digital platforms, like Facebook.

Let’s start with the most important Wikipedia entry, that for Quakers. This entry begins with the very same wording as the divine spark entry. I imagine that it was written by the same person. Anyway, the very first sentence is this:

Quakers, known formally as the Religious Society of Friends, are generally united by a belief in each human’s ability to experience the light within or see “that of God in every one.”

While not a falsehood, this is a very vague representation of our beliefs that remains unpacked as far as I can tell, it implies something that isn’t true, and yet its position at the very beginning of the entry gives it undue importance. Furthermore, if it were to be unpacked, would it say that the phrase refers to a divine spark? The entry for the link “the light within” in that sentence is more circumspect and credits Lewis Benson and other theologians who disagree with Rufus Jones, who gave us the divine spark meaning of “that of God in everyone.” But the rest of this light within entry needs review, on principle, as well.

One more criticism of this sentence: we are not united by a belief in the Light so much as by the experience of the Light. Whatever unity we have as the result of a proposed shared belief is superficial compared to the true holy communion of the gathered meeting, in which we know God’s presence within and among us directly.

I invite my readers to join me in a review if this important entry, that of “the light within,” and whatever other entries we come across, and to a dialogue about possible edits. Maybe a series of Google docs hosted on this blog. Or better yet, hosted somehow by Friends Journal or Earlham School of Religion, some institution that has some weight, experience, and a wide network of qualified Friends. It’s a very long entry and a lot of it seems at first glance to be just fine. But I haven’t reviewed it in detail and maybe it has other problems. And maybe other Friends would find problems that I wouldn’t, given its considerable scope.

This raises a concern for me about how the Quaker movement might oversee this kind of public presentation of our faith and practice going forward. In the spirit of Wikipedia’s platform as a peer-to-peer project, and in keeping with the non-hierarchical governance structures so important to Friends, and, of course, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, I propose a peer-to-peer process for the oversight of such presentations, a long-range project of review that would hopefully include Friends with real expertise in the many areas of Quaker history, faith, and practice covered in this entry and whatever other entries we find. I intend to explore what platform might serve us best in this way. But maybe some of my readers know more about the platform options. I’d love to hear from you. 

For many seekers, a Wikipedia entry is likely to be their first introduction to Quakerism. This platform might be the most important outreach organ we Quakers have. It should do the job with accuracy and integrity. And for that, it needs us.

Here’s the original Wikipedia entry on “Divine Spark” before I edited it:

The divine spark is a term used in various different religious traditions.

Gnosticism[edit source]

In Gnosticism, the divine spark is the portion of God that resides within each human being.[1]

The purpose of life is to enable the Divine Spark to be released from its captivity in matter and reestablish its connection with, or simply return to, God, who is perceived as being the source of the Divine Light. In the Gnostic Christian tradition, Christ is seen as a wholly divine being which has taken human form in order to lead humanity back to the Light.[2]

The Cathars of medieval Europe also shared the belief in the divine spark.[3] They saw this idea expressed most powerfully in the opening words of the Gospel of St John.

Quakers[edit source]

Quakers, known formally as the Religious Society of Friends, are generally united by a belief in each human’s ability to experience the light within or see “that of God in every one”.[4] Most Quakers believe in continuing revelation: that God continuously reveals truth directly to individuals. George Fox said, “Christ has come to teach His people Himself.”[5] Friends often focus on feeling the presence of God. As Isaac Penington wrote in 1670, “It is not enough to hear of Christ, or read of Christ, but this is the thing – to feel him to be my root, my life, and my foundation…”[6] Quakers reject the idea of priests, believing in the priesthood of all believers. Some express their concept of God using phrases such as “the inner light”, “inward light of Christ”, or “Holy Spirit”. Quakers first gathered around George Fox in the mid–17th century and belong to a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations.

§ 5 Responses to Quakers on Wikipedia

  • Bowen Alpern says:

    Early  Friends understood themselves to be experiencing the Second Coming of Christ rising in themselves and in the world.  These twin resurrections were inextricably linked.  They felt inspired and empowered to try to live lives without moral blemish, often enduring considerable suffering to oppose laws and social practices that they felt inconsistent with the law of God written on  their hearts, believing that their witness could lead those they met to share in their experience and to join in their project of transforming the world.

  • I’ve now read over the Wikipedia entry on “Inward Light” and think it’s a pretty accurate, well-nuanced statement of traditional Quaker teaching. If it had been written by one or more ESR students, Friend Janaki, it would make me feel proud of being an ESR alumnus myself.
    But I remain troubled by the commonly used formula “Quakers believe that there is That of God in every person,” especially when it’s used in a feeble attempt to explain why Quakers abstain from the use of “carnal weapons.” Consider this: the Bhagavad Gita, revered as a divine revelation by much of the world, teaches that Arjuna the warrior should slay his foes in battle without worrying that he’s sinning against them, precisely *because* “that of God” in them “is eternal and can never be slain” (Bh. G. 2:30, Radhakrishnan trans.).
    To confuse “That of God” in the person with the mortal ego/body/totality of the person is to become an idolater and a polytheist, and to lose all the spiritual benefits of monotheistic faith, which are not few. Better to abstain from the carnal sword because the Spirit of Christ, which is not changeable, commands us to (as the Quakers put it in their 1660 Declaration to King Charles II) than to maintain a testimony of non-violence rooted only in sentimentality, which may fail us in any moment of temptation.
    I could wish that all my fellow-Quakers believed in a God of Love who willed the salvation to eternal bliss of everyone (1 Tim 2:4)! But experience teaches us that there are a lot of us sinners walking this earth with guilty consciences (let’s start with veterans with moral injury from battlefield deeds, oppressors of the poor such as payday lenders, initiators or suppporters of “wars of choice,” hapless employees who tell lies, destroy forests, and poison the earth for their employers, dope dealers and cigarette manufacturers, child molesters, adulterers, bullies… there are quite a few, and these are us, our family members, and our neighbors). And let’s say that there may be a judgment to be faced by each soul after the death of the body, in which not even a God who is Love (1 John 4:8) could rescue horrified sinners from self-condemnation over what they’d done. Should Quakers not be out in the streets, warning all sinners to repent their sins before death may take away their last chance to do so?
    I say that this is a horrific awareness, borne by every true prophet of God, that imputing Godlike-ness to fallen souls anesthetizes us to! Fellow Quakers, don’t do this to yourselves!

  • Janaki says:

    I have heard that the Quaker Wikipedia page is maintained by students at Earlham School of Religion, or that at least it was at some point in the recent past. Not that that makes it perfect, but it does at least make it better than it otherwise might be.

    • FYI, no one person or group of people can control what is written on any Wikipedia page. So some Earlham students might be editing, or have edited, this page regularly, but anyone Wikipedia editor can make revisions as long as they cite reliable sources for their edits.

  • Thank you, Steven, for attacking this seven-headed dragon of a Wikipedia entry! If I may offer a little assistance, I think it’s important to note that the first Quakers *did* hold that every human had “that of God” within them (though not as part of “themself,” for God cannot be divided; It remains God), and it functions as the Light in their conscience, which shows them the right thing to do in each situation, and warns and reproves them when they choose the wrong thing to do (“That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” John 1:9 KJV, and “But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light: for whatsoever doth make manifest is light,” Ephesians 5:13).
    If all humans were not illuminated from within by this Light, argued Fox in “To All That Would Know the Way to the Kingdom” (1654) and other doctrinal writings, God would not be just in judging souls that hate the Light and choose to do evil rather than good! “[T]here is devilishness in your minds…, and pride, and filth: do but hearken to that light in thy conscience, and it will let thee see so” (Works, 1831 ed., 4:18). In this, humans differ from lions, bears, HIV viruses, and poisonous plants.
    So to “walk cheerfully 0ver the world, answering that of God in every one” is not something anyone can do who happens to be in a good mood: to “answer that of God in another person” is to speak *prophetically* to that person, as one may do if and when one feels divinely empowered to say “In the name of the Lord, I pronounce your sins forgiven!” or “Repent your lies and your crimes, or you will die in your sins and those very sins will condemn you!” It is therefore FALSE to claim that Quakers “*see* that of God in every one.” If they could, many liars might dread crossing paths with a Quaker!
    With that, I think I’ve cut off one of the dragon’s seven heads.

Leave a comment

What’s this?

You are currently reading Quakers on Wikipedia at Through the Flaming Sword.

meta