The Friends Peace Testimony Reconsidered
Prepared to accompany a workshop
At the FWCC Conference on Peace at Guilford College,
Greensboro North Carolina, First Month 17-20, 2003
Copyright © 2003 Chuck Fager. All rights reserved.
I
If Quaker are asked, Where can I find the ‘Quaker Peace Testimony’? where would
we turn to find it?
Most of us in North America and England would pick up a book of Discipline or
Faith & Practice. There the answer seems straightforward. All the many such
contemporary books I have examined, from across the various branches, include
the same statement, with only minor variations. Philadelphia Yearly Meeting’s
1997 version of what it calls the “historic peace testimony” is typical:
“The Society of Friends has consistently held that war is contrary to the Spirit
of Christ. It stated its position clearly in the Declaration to Charles II in
1660:
‘We utterly deny all outward wars and strife, and fightings with outward
weapons, for any end, or under any pretense whatsoever,. this is our testimony
to the whole world . . . . The Spirit of Christ, by which we guided, is not
changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil, and again to move us
unto it; and we certainly know, and testify tot he world, that the Spirit of
Christ, which leads us into all truth, will never move us to fight and war
against any man with outward weapons, neither for the Kingdom of Christ nor for
the Kingdoms of this world.... Therefore, we cannot learn war any more.’” (F&P
pp. 76f)
When I speak of reconsidering the Peace Testimony, these few sentences are the
starting point. They are treated in our Disciplines as a definitive expression
of this witness, one drafted by our founders, bearing the seal of history, and
ratified today by Friends of all branches.
Indeed, such is the stature of these few phrases that I call them the
“canonical” Peace Testimony, because they have become a kind of Quaker
scripture. And this status makes them all the more ripe, indeed overripe for
reconsideration.
II
Before this reconsideration begins, four preliminary points need to be made:
First, these sentences are only a
brief excerpt from the 1660 Letter (about 110 words out of a total of 2500).
Secondly, they are not really
representative of the full letter, which as we shall see is indeed much more
complex and even ambiguous.
Third, to put it gently, even these
excerpts are more qualified than they appear in our Disciplines. More plainly,
they are presented in a way that significantly alters their actual import.
Take, for instance, the opening statement: “We utterly deny all outward
wars and strife . . . .” “We” however is not the
beginning of that statement; in the text it actually starts like this:
“All bloody principles and practices, as to our own particulars, we utterly
deny; with all outward wars and strife . . . .”
It can be argued that the phrase “as to our own particulars,” is very
important here, especially as a qualifier; we shall see why in a few moments.
Further, what is presented as the sentence “Therefore we cannot learn war any
more.” is actually the beginning of a longer sentence, and occurs close to the
end of the statement, three pages away. These standard excerpts, in short, have
been significantly altered and misquoted.
Fourth, while the 1660 Letter is
obviously ancient, it turns out that its elevation to “canonical” or scriptural
status is not an ancient piece
of Quaker history, but actually quite a recent development. Examining old books
of Discipline, I have not found it anywhere before the 1920s. In fact, prior to
that, it’s hard to find any statement of a “Peace Testimony” as such. Instead,
there was a testimony against war. Here’s how most Yearly Meetings
Disciplines put it throughout most of the 19th century, under the heading of
“War” (There was no heading of “Peace”):
“Friends are exhorted faithfully to adhere to our ancient testimony against
wars, and fightings, and in no way to unite with any in warlike measures, either
offensive or defensive, that by the inoffensiveness of our conduct we may
convincingly demonstrate ourselves to be real subjects of the Messiah’s peaceful
reign, and be instrumental in the promotion thereof, towards its desired
completion; when, according to ancient prophecy, ‘the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea; and its inhabitants shall
learn war no more.’”
(There followed specific directives about loss of goods for refusal of war
taxes, and avoidance of military ceremonies and the like.)
The other reference to the testimony in these books came in the Queries.
Here’s the one from Baltimore Yearly Meeting (Hicksite) in 1861, which was
typical:
“Sixth Query. Do you maintain a faithful testimony against oaths; an hireling
ministry; bearing arms, training, or other military services; being concerned in
any fraudulent or clandestine trade; buying or vending goods so imported, or
prize goods; and against encouraging lotteries of any kinds?”
Again, there is no mention of peace in this laundry list of miscellaneous
mandates; and not “bearing arms” comes after the prohibitions on oaths and
hireling ministry, suggesting that these were held to be greater evils.
Indeed, it is not until after World War One, that the 1660 (mis)quote begins
appearing in books of Discipline. My own hypothesis about this sudden emergence
is that it stems from a report on peace made to the first Friends World
Conference in 1920, where delegates from all the branches were present, in which
the quotes appeared.
In sum, what is presented as a definitive, unambiguous, and perennial statement
in our current books of Faith and Practice, is on closer examination shown to be
something quite different, and, I would contend, considerably more ambiguous and
challenging.