For some Quakers, religion is primarily about daily lives and living as well as possible in ones meeting community and in the wider world. This is Quakerism with an emphasis on our lives rather than an emphasis on talk about these lives.
Standing on a rock in Firbank Fell in 1652, George Fox called out, “Let your lives speak!” Henry Cadbury answered that call and in so doing showed us a Quakerism centered on our daily lives. [see Note #1] He did this in many different ways, again and again, over many years. In 1936, in a paper titled “My Personal Religion,” he wrote,
And what is the real test or evidence of religion that I can offer in myself? According to my own definition it is nothing I can say now nor in the classroom. It is whether in all our contacts – when I am off guard, when personal situations arise – you can conclude that not consciously nor for display I represent the manner of reaction that befits a religious personality in action. [#2]
(M)y own religion, as nearly as I can tell,…is mainly neither emotional nor rational but expresses itself habitually or occasionally in action. I need not retail the reasons that have led me to this emphasis in religion. It is one part of our Quaker tradition that “religion is a way of life.” We think sometimes that the best way to know religion is to see a religious personality in action. The latest and best form of the Discipline of the Society of Friends consists not of a statement of faith but merely of quotations of different individuals about their own religious experience. If you know John Woolman’s Journal you will know what I mean by a religious personality in action. [#3]
This is religion taking place where we are living and described in the same terms we use with daily living. It does not seek truth behind the lives, in other dimensions, described in other languages.
To call the set of a man’s life his religion no doubt seems a great comedown. But when a man deals religiously with issues that others settle in other ways, in fact takes seriously the religious implications of behavior both individual and collective, tries to practice fully the standards that conventional religion officially endorses, and to make his whole life consistent if not conscious, he is in my opinion practicing religion as much as the one who skillfully builds the dialectic structure of a well rounded theology or as the man who through public and private devotion lives in that mystical drama of the religious imagination. [#4]
The emphasis on a life well lived is part of all religious traditions: Christian, Jew, Moslem, Hindu, Buddhist, secular humanist, Quaker and others. [#5] When this is central feature of ones approach it is not necessary to agree on theory or theology or the spiritual or mystical aspect of life. We all know people of different faiths who love each other and worship together and cooperate. It is vital that we become ever more capable of this. The collective effort to live together in the presence of theological differences is at the heart of the religious outlook described here.
It would be a pity if the natural variety in Quakerism were artificially restrained. Even unconsciously we are subject to powerful tendencies to conform to a single standard in religion as well as in other ideologies and practices. If the role of Quakerism among the denominations is precisely one of enriching the variety and challenging their standards of uniformity, we ought by the same token to welcome variety within our own small body and ought to object to the impoverishing effect of attempting to get ourselves and our fellow Quakers into one mould. [#6]
Friends have long been more concerned about conscientious action than religious speculation. In about 1660 Isaac Penington wrote, “Whoever desires to see this lovely state, this peaceable kingdom, brought forth in the general must cherish it in the particulars.” Early Friends also saw the virtues of accepting diversity. Again in Isaac Penington’s words, “For this is the true ground of love and unity, not that such a man walks and does just as I do, but because I feel the same Spirit and life in him,…walking sweetly and harmoniously together in the midst of different practices.” [#7]
* * * * *
Of course, a religion consisting of the particulars of our lives holds promise but it is not sufficient for many Quakers. For instance, many Friends emphasize the mystical experience of the divine. Henry Cadbury did not think mysticism was necessary for all Quakers and he was not shy about saying so.
(An) area of religion in which I can make little contribution is in the kind of personal religion which has played a great part in Christian history – I mean in conscious communion with God, the practice of prayer and the like. That may seem the more remarkable since the Society of Friends whose traditions I inherit is generally supposed to be a society of mystics. Now I am not denying a large mystical strain in Quaker history both early and late, but I am quite convinced that it has never been general and that a large number of non mystics have enjoyed religious life under its auspices and have contributed much that Friends have done for human good. As a Friend I have been brought up to expect occasional divine revelation or immediate consolation or fellowship. I have not found that expectation fulfilled in any demonstrably supernatural way. [#8]
The plight of the nonmystic Quaker was of concern early in the 20th century when mysticism was presented as a central and unifying concept for all Quakers. In 1902 William Littleboy noticed the emphasis on mysticism in William James’ description of Quakers in Varieties of Religious Experience. That year he wrote to Rufus Jones urging Friends not to forget those who do not have mystical experiences, and in 1916 he published a pamphlet on the topic. For him the central fact was the sacramental nature of ordinary life:
It may take a thunderbolt to arouse a careless or lethargic person; but the childlike spirit learns to recognize divine guidance through the ordinary trivialities of an uneventful life. We know that to some choice souls god’s messages come in ways which are super-normal, and it is natural that we should look with longing eyes on these; yet such cases are the exception, not the rule….(A)ll life is, or may become, sacramental to one who will have it so. Not only in its great crises of sorrow or of joy, but in the trivial round, the common task, in the ordinary human relationships, and in service and association does God speak to us all, whether we have the mind of the mystic or no. The faithful and persistent doing of duty in the routine of life is a means of grace which is open to us all. [#9]
Speaking of mysticism in his 1955 Swarthmore Lecture, Henry Cadbury said, “This problem was poignantly put by William Littleboy in his pamphlet first published about forty years ago, The Appeal of Quakerism to the Non-Mystic. I am sure that over the years his perceptive presentation of the matter has brought real relief to many of us.” [#10]
The emphasis on lives rather than speculation is congenial for Quakers who consider themselves atheists, agnostics, and nontheists. [#11] Henry Cadbury suggested the possibility of Quakerism in the absence of God when he wrote:
I may say that theological questions are not the only ones on which I find it possible to avoid decisive and enthusiastic espousal…Economically and politically I am no conservative – certainly no convinced capitalist. But I am no more an ardent communist either. And in like manner I can describe myself as no ardent theist or atheist. (p. 24) I am interested in better individual and social morality. I should be glad to promote it through my own practice first of all. How I can justify such a wish theologically does not bother me, and I am not in sympathy with those who deprecate morality that is not religiously self-conscious or not motivated by a theistic conviction. I should be willing to let my religion rest very largely in a life of honest thinking, of kindly dealing and of challenging impact upon the social uses and conventions that it comes in contact with. (p. 29) [#12]
A religion of life is available to all Quakers including mystics and theists and Christians and others. It is especially helpful as an entry into Quakerism for naturalists including nonmystics, nontheists, and nonChristians.
* * * * *
What about Christians and nonChristians? For many years Friends have debated the question of whether a Quaker must be a Christian. [#13] Near the end of his life, Henry Cadbury addressed Pacific Yearly Meeting on the topic of Quakerism and Christianity. He said:
Well, my answer to the question in general of what we shall do in the presence of these two possible spheres of loyalty, Quakerism and Christianity, is that perhaps it is both/and rather than either/or. I don’t think it has to be either/or. I suppose that to be completely honest, the amount of Christianity that you have, and the amount of Quakerism, in the last resort is your own selection out of those two orbits of what has come to appeal to you. Nobody can put down in writing either for a Christian or a Quaker what he has to be. He can put down in writing some of the things he can honestly attribute to those two groups; and we select from them, unconsciously I’m sure, those features which are congenial to us. I guess you know that in the Society of Friends people select very different things. [#14]
Another example of variety among Quakers is in the ways we combine faith and action. We often hear that Quakers put their faith into action. Henry Cadbury had a surprising position on this that he presented again and again during his long career. In his view the “correlation of behavior with theological views (is) small and unimportant.” He also wrote, “sound religion is not limited to certain beliefs (and) ethics doesn’t rest on orthodoxy. (I) don’t believe men’s actions depend nearly so much on doctrinal absolutes as is commonly thought.” Faith can grow out of action as well as action out of faith. For instance, he was led to a deepened sense of faith when he was told to sign a loyalty oath that infringed on academic freedom. This was nothing less than a reformulation of the role of belief in Quaker life. [#15]
There is an assumption abroad that religion comes first and social action after, as shown in the title of a recent conference in Philadelphia “Beliefs into Action.” By religion is understood something inward, perhaps mystical, perhaps theological – but not very extrovert. Now historically Quakerism has both aspects; we have been social pioneers, also quietists. How did the first derive from the second? It seems an unlikely origin. My answer would be that the alleged relation, “basis,” is not the whole truth. The two aspects are complementary, and I am impressed how much inner religion is fostered by social concern. If social work can be an escape from inner religion, as is sometimes suggested, is not the opposite also true? Action, often incoherent and inarticulate, leads to thought and can also lead to spiritual growth. [#16]
Ever since its earliest days Quakerism has been something appreciated by the adherent rather than deliberately advertised. For that reason it has not depended on definition and formulation. These have followed ex post facto. They are not blueprints of a course of development to be recommended. They are analysis of the deposits of experience. [#17]
A Quakerism of daily life is a useful approach for skeptics who might wonder if they are welcome among Friends. Throughout his life Henry Cadbury exhibited a tender concern for them. In Margaret Hope Bacon’s words: “Henry Cadbury himself, with his open, probing mind and his committed heart, served as a bridge for many men and women who longed to make a religious commitment that did not challenge their intellectual honesty. In a time when many people either silenced that longing, or silenced their intellectual integrity in order to become true believers in religious or political cults, his life itself was the message that neither sacrifice need be made.” [#18]
* * * * *
Henry Cadbury called our attention to a Quaker religion of daily life. From that perspective he gave careful consideration to questions of theological diversity, mysticism, theism, Christianity, the relation of faith and action, and the manner of life of the early Quakers. There are many other examples of how Henry Cadbury incarnated this religious approach. As a Biblical scholar he was known as a positivist, concerned with the life and times of Jesus and the Apostles, rather than what others have said about him. [#19] He was a founder of the American Friends Service Committee and helped guide it for over 50 years. The AFSC is famous for focusing on practicing instead of preaching, and for drawing in Friends regardless of ideological differences. Throughout his life Henry Cadbury worked to help Quakers accept theological diversity. He recommended that yearly meeting Disciplines replace the collective statement of faith with glimpses of the views of many individuals. He was one of the Young Friends who started bringing the two Philadelphia Yearly Meetings together in 1912 and he worked on that for more than 40 years. He never tired of urging us to warmly embrace variety in our Quaker faith. He closed the 1955 Swarthmore Lecture with these words:
The true catholicity of Christianity is a precious heritage to the Church universal and to its every branch. The over-zealous advocates of conformity have forgotten their scriptures. Their Bible begins with a story of a “good” creation in which it is said that the flora and fauna were made in variety and were each “brought forth after its kind”. It ends with a heavenly city approached not by one narrow way and one strait gate, but with several gates facing each quarter of the compass. [#20]
Lastly, Henry Cadbury showed that life is more important than what we say about it by his reluctance to discuss his personal religious views. This was sometimes frustrating to his students, friends, and family. One of his students wrote, “Now, after years of digesting Rilke’s famous saying about loving the questions themselves and living along some day into the answers, I am not so puzzled by Henry Cadbury…I have come to think of that Rilke quotation as an almost exact description of him and to realize he did a most remarkable job of living his answers to the Gospels questions that he refused to answer in words.” [#21] Cadbury wanted to prompt others to question rather than giving them answers. He did not want to interfere with another person’s search or cause them to judge the views of another. Expressing his views might diminish his efforts to cooperate with others in reunifying Quaker groups or building peace or teaching the Bible. He might be taken for a hypocrite. He hesitated because there was not sufficient evidence for an informed decision, or his answer looked to him to be shallow or misleading. We don’t know what Henry Cadbury’s personal views were, and we don’t need to know. It is enough that he pointed to a living religion available to all. [#22]
* * * * *
Before concluding this essay it is appropriate to focus on the effect on Quaker meetings of admitting Friends for whom religion is life, and to the effect of doctrinal diversity in general.
We all know people of different religious beliefs who love each other. I am particularly moved when this happens in a Friends meeting, when people of differing views worship together and work on committees and interact in other ways. Traditional Quaker experiences such as messages and leadings are expressed in a variety of voices and in a variety of lives. I treasure the diversity of Friends and the unity that comes from loving one another.
There are some words that Quakers have traditionally defined in terms of particular doctrines, words such as worship, message, leading, discernment, clearness, and sense of the meeting. These concepts can be described in many ways and no way is the only way. Quaker behavior is independent of the explanations of it. It is not limited to people who hold one doctrine or another. We can and do behave as if we agreed; we behave as do those who agree. We are more or less open about this, and it is sometimes a challenge but it is happening in many Friends meetings.
In a diverse religious community speakers speak in their own religious vocabularies and listeners translate. There is no need to bite your tongue in Quaker meeting! Special consideration is needed for listeners who don’t know they are responsible for interpreting what they hear. Visitors picking up brochures in the entryways of our meetinghouses may conclude they are not welcome if they do not agree with what they read. This is why my home meeting placed these words why literature is displayed: “These statements are meant to be guides rather than rules. We place on the individual’s heart and mind the responsibility for the discipline of the spirit.” [#23]
Even as we speak differently we can still be united. Quaker unity, like Quaker sense of the meeting, goes deeper than agreement; it is a willingness to go forward together, to act as we would if we agreed. It is a commitment to community without implying unanimity of opinion. Families are often united while holding diverse opinions. In a similar way, there are meetings where Friends of diverse religious experience are united as a religious community. It can happen, and it is vital that we learn to encourage it to happen. [#24]
One way to strengthen unity and diversity in a meeting is through the membership process. Attenders are encouraged to be fully active participants in the meeting community. When so moved an attender may apply for membership. The applicant and the meeting gradually learn more about each other. They consider the challenge of living in a doctrinally diverse community. They search for clearness on whether this step is appropriate for both and they live with this until it becomes clear how to proceed. Being open to diversity does not mean accepting everyone. There is still the clearness process.
Here are comments from three yearly meetings on membership in a diverse community:
Because membership in a meeting means membership in a community, one of the tests of membership is compatibility with that community. Applicants need to feel in harmony with the community they are joining. They should be able to accept the diversity of Friends, both locally and at the national and world levels.
Membership includes a willingness to live in spiritual unity with other members of the Religious Society of Friends. Members are expected to participate in communal worship, to share in the work and service of the Society, and to live in harmony with its basic beliefs and practices.
Friends are aware that religious truth comes to different persons in somewhat different ways, and that seekers find themselves in various stages of growth in religious experience. An open mind and heart and an earnest desire for ever-increasing Light are matters of deep concern. [#25]
It is sometimes a mystery how to live a religion of daily life and how to be a theologically diverse meeting, but in this mystery we find the essence of the Quaker way.
* * * * *
NOTES
#1: Henry Joel Cadbury (1883-1974) received international acclaim as a Biblical scholar and he helped start the American Friends Service Committee where he served in many capacities. Among Friends he was a powerful force for unity and he loved to dig into Quaker history. Ordinarily quiet and retiring, he passionately defended those who could not speak for themselves. We are indebted to Margaret Hope Bacon for the tremendous effort she expended in reading almost everything Henry Cadbury wrote and her skill in summarizing it for us in the biography, Let This Life Speak: The Legacy of Henry Joel Cadbury (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. Press, 1987).
#2: 1936/2000, p. 31. In a citation where the author’s name is omitted, it is Henry Cadbury. In this paper I will quote extensively from Cadbury because, aside from Bacon’s biography, this is the first extended presentation of his position on a religion of daily life. Also, many of the sources are unavailable to most readers.
On another occasion Cadbury described his approach this way: “(T)he best way of advertising any ideal is to wrap it up in a person, to incarnate it. Vocal or verbal Quakerism cannot compete with incarnate Quakerism.” (1964b, p. 3) Near the end of his life he told a gathering of Friends: “What is the real criterion of either of these religions (Quakerism and Christianity)? Some put it in a creed. Some put it in a set of religious acts, sacraments or silent worship, or something like that. Some put it in official membership….And some like to say it is a way of life.” (1966, p. 5)
Lucretia Mott liked to make the same point by quoting William Penn: “Men are to be judged by their likeness to Christ, rather than their notions of Christ.” (quoted in Bacon, 1980, p…)
#3: 1936/2000, p. 27-28. Margaret Hope Bacon called this “a living religion,” “an ethical religion” and “a religion of conscientious action.” (Bacon, 1987, pp. 116 & 119; 1989, p. 177) Chuck Fager called it “‘Ethical Action’ Quakerism” and “‘creeping Unitarianism.’” (Fager, 1987, p. 2; 1996, p. 59). Cadbury did not give his approach a particular name.
#4: 1936/2000, pp. 28-29. (The sexist language shows how even the most sensitive spirit can miss an alternative that became obvious only a few years later.) From notes for a talk at Doylestown Monthly Meeting: “Some people suppose a certain religious faith – like belief in God, in future life, in the role of Jesus is essential. Experience shows devotion, sincerity, even saintliness can go along with more than one type of theological position. This is much like what Oliver Tomkins said at Oxford in ’52 speaking on behalf of the World Council. ‘You Friends are a standing perplexity to other Christians, you enjoy the spirit of Christian life without the forms…that we have supposed essential.’” (1962b, p.4)
Howard Brinton was addressing both Philadelphia Yearly Meetings when he wrote at the time of their reunion, “The history of all religions indicates that religion is more what it does than what it thinks. People who differ in their thinking can worship together in harmony, if the manner of worship is congenial to all. At the time of Christ, for example, a Jew might be an atheist; he might be a Platonist; he might have one of many types of religious philosophy. But as a Jew his membership was defined by his practices rather than by his opinions. This seems to be true in most religions.” (Brinton, 1954, p. 197)
#5: In this paper the following words are considered to be synonymous: emphasis, approach, view, belief and experience. In the sentences where one of these appears, the others would serve as well.
#6: 1957, pp. 47-48; see Bacon, 1987, p. 182.
#7: The two quotations were found on an AFSC note card (2004), and an FGC bookmark (undated).
#8: 1936/2000, p. 24. Cadbury explained further, “I find myself at times in moods that seem to me closely to resemble the moods of religious experience. But I do not induce them, nor quote them, nor treat them as evidential. I am inclined to think other people would do so. I would regard that as a matter of interpretation…It seems to me that both theology and piety are interpretations. I recall the words of an American critic about poetry. Poetry he says is the imaginative dominion over experience. Perhaps religion is much the same – the dramatizing of life in terms of an unseen companion, or of a loving father, or of a greater creator. This dramatizing goes into all aspects of life.” (1936/2000, p. 25)
He returned to the image of the religious thinker as dramatist many years later: “Whatever the experience – and all kinds of Friends like to feel the supremacy of experience – the expression of experience is an imaginative dramatization, in which supernatural beings and significant transactions are involved on a stage conceived as the dramatist does with the figures and actions of a play…Modern Biblical study has suggested the necessity of “demythologizing” much of the religious staging of those ancient records. It has not shown substantial reasons for ending just there instead of continuing the process in the modern world which retains so much of the same kind of imaginative construction.” (1959, p. 28) Also see: 1954, p. 429; 1964a, pp. 23-25 & 30-31; and Bacon, 1987, pp. 23 & 117-118.
#9: Littleboy, 1916/1964, pp. 10 & 14. The Religious Society of Friends has changed since Littleboy’s day. When 692 British Friends were asked if they believed in God, 26% replied “No” or “Not sure.” (Dandelion, 1996, p. 167) A recent study of 199 nontheist Friends showed a passionate desire for Quakerism and for combining it with a wide variety of skeptical thought. (Rush, 2002)
For articles on various combinations of skepticism and Quakerism, see Allott (1989), Alpern (1997), Boulton (1997), Creasey (1969), Cresson (2000, 2003a, 2003b), Crom (1972), Friends Home Service Committee (1966), Holmes (1928/1992), Johnson (1991), Linton (1979/1986), Littleboy (1916/1964), Loukes & Blackham (1969), Miles (1985/1994), and Swayne (1980). A website is under construction at http://nontheists.quaker.org, and there is an email discussion that you can join by sending a message to nontheistfriends-subscribe@topica.com.
#10: 1957, p. 42. Was Cadbury referring to himself here? He didn’t make that clear and it doesn’t matter. He liked to leave us guessing as in Note #4, 1st quotation; Note #8, last quotation; and Note #12, second quotation.
#11: As far as definitions go, there are many varieties in each of these categories. Atheists can not assert there is a God, or assert there is not a God. Their assertions can be about God in the universe or about God in their own belief system. God can be viewed as a power that intervenes in physical events or a metaphor for universe, mystery, love or highest principle. Agnostics can be waiting for a basis on which to decide, or they can be confused and not know what they want. Nontheists are carrying on in the absence of God, or in the absence of some particular form of that concept. The term is used loosely to refer to someone who is skeptical of some of the ways of talking about religion that have been traditional among Friends. Individual nontheists provide positive descriptions of their views but these vary so much that they resort to the negative term as a convenient umbrella to gather under.
#12: 1936/2000, p. 29. Four years later, in his notes for a talk titled My Personal Religious Beliefs, Cadbury wrote, “Philosophical studies of (an) elementary kind — left me without assurance for or against God or immortality.” (1940, p. 2)
In his 1955 Swarthmore Lecture Cadbury spoke of the plight of the non-theological who find it easiest to keep quiet among Friends: “Someone ought to write a pamphlet The Appeal of Quakerism to the Non-Theological to help them with their inferiority complex….They seem to others and perhaps to themselves subject to some defect. Perhaps it is intellectual laziness, or some congenital skepticism….The repetitious recourse to any doctrinal framework, including the one most in fashion in the Society at the time, they do not find helpful to themselves, and they regard it as perhaps their duty and privilege to seek for or to exemplify other aspects of truth to supplement the limited emphasis. It is not that they wish to deny what the theologian affirms, but that they find his approach uncongenial and irrelevant to their own spiritual life, and they are indifferent or even pained or estranged when it is made central in the definition of Quakerism….It does not speak to their condition. Their search is not for a more satisfactory theology, they do not believe that for them spiritual progress depends upon such factors. The obscurity of the mysteries of God does not really bother them and they have no confidence that even the most rational of religious analyses would add a cubit to their moral stature. They have, therefore, neither the will nor the competence to deal with the situation, but they hold their peace by simply keeping their own counsels without contradiction or controversy.” (1957, pp. 43-44)
This approach has met with some opposition. Chuck Fager wrote, “(W)hile Cadbury’s condition of building religion ‘in the absence of God,’ may have been an honest response to his own inner condition, as a basis for the Quaker movement it is woefully inadequate and many of its effects unfortunate.” (Fager, 1987, p. 3)
#13: On nonChristians as Quakers, see Watchman (1944/1994) and Havens (1953). The issue was raised as the Quaker universalist movement was gaining strength in 1979. John Linton wrote, ““It seems to me that the Society would be greatly strengthened by the influx of people who claim to be agnostic rather than Christian and yet who sincerely share the fundamental aspirations of Quakers. I shall therefore argue not merely that the Society should admit such people as a fringe element of ‘second-class members’ (which is what they feel at the present), but that it should widen its own basis and give up its claim to be a specifically Christian organization. I think this should be done not just as a matter of expediency, but in the pursuit of Truth, because I believe the Truth is wider than Christianity. And I like to think that Quakerism is about the search for Truth.” (Linton, 1979/1986, pp. 4-5) This approach was harshly criticized by some universalists (e.g. Caldwell, 1988/1997). For more moderate reactions to the possibility of diversity in Friends meetings, see Seeger (1984, 1991) and Habschmidt (2005).
#14: 1966, p. 9. See also 1944b, pp. 9-10 & 25. In 1953 Arthur Morgan called for a pluralistic Religious Society of Friends in which people of all faiths would be welcome: “Could some units of the Society of Friends, such as the Lake Erie Association, take the position that they wish to be a fellowship of sincere searchers for the truth, including those of any compatible religious fellowship? I suggest the adoption of a minute or a resolution of the following import…: Many men and women of many faiths have shared in the search for truth and love and human brotherhood. Each faith has helped its sincere followers in that search. Each faith has something to learn form the others, and something to give. The Lake Erie Association of Friends desires to be a unit of such a brotherhood, and welcomes into its membership and to its meetings all sincere, concerned seekers whose ways of life and ethical standards and practices are compatible with its own. Also, the Lake Erie Association of Friends would welcome affiliation with other fellowships of sincere seekers, whatever may be their religious origin or affiliation.” (Morgan, 1953, p. 564)
#15: 1940, p. 1; 1944a, p. 1; 1955/2005; Bacon, 1986; Bacon, 1987, pp. xiii, 30, 48, 136, 145-146, 168-170, & 197-198.
#16: 1964b, p. 4. See also 1962a and 1962b. Cadbury liked to make his points with humor. Margaret Bacon gives a delightful example. It happened when, in 1973, Cadbury was testifying in a case concerning payment of war taxes. “‘And what is the meaning of the concept as used among Friends of “bearing witness”?’ ‘Bearing witness means primarily, I suppose, a vocal expression of your belief in certain ideals, but beyond that in the consistent expression in your actions of those ideas.’ ‘Could you say in a nutshell that it means practicing what you preach?’ the lawyer pressed. Henry Cadbury’s eyes danced and his face lit up with a delightful, mischievous twinkle….‘Yes, or only preaching what you practice,’ he quipped.” (Bacon, 1987, p. xii)
#17: 1959, p. 7. Cadbury said, “I think we often tend to rationalize as tho (action) all grows out of some Christian or Quaker historical attitude that can be articulated. Our predecessors did not usually do so. Their action was much more spontaneous than inquiry as to whether it fitted a belief, e.g. as in the inner light. If what they did actually did fit, I think that was a later discovery.” (1962a, pp. 1-2) See also 1947a, p. 6 (quoted in Bacon, 1987, p. 146); 1954, p. 5 (quoted in Bacon, 1987, p. 169); and 1957.
Cadbury called attention to John Woolman as an example of someone for whom daily life was a religious act: “(T)he amazing revelation which he gives is that of a sensitive conscience feeling its course in a series of soul-searching problems – public problems that he felt must be personally decided. Such forms of religion do not often get recorded, but they are none the less real and important. As we observe such people we see that their behavior both habitual and in conscious crises is the natural expression of a character. And perhaps what they do speaks louder than any words.” (1936/2000, pp. 27-28)
Cadbury sought a smooth articulation of circumstance and response: “I have the feeling that the purest influence has often been unplanned, the by-product of conscientious spiritual living. (1959, p. 20) And, from notes for a talk at Doylestown Monthly Meeting: “I have been willing that life should be spontaneous response to passing situations or problems – rather than a plan or pattern.” (1962b, p. 1)
#18: Bacon, 1987, p. 218 (see also pp. 79-80). Cadbury hated the idea of driving away people who might otherwise become Quakers: “(T)he intolerance of demanding uniformity of experience is often a detriment. Those who insist that their experience must be the normative experience turn many away – not only from their type of religion, but from other types as well.” (1944b, p. 17)
#19: 1937; 1947b; 1953; 1964a; see Bacon, 1987, p. 23, 76, 112-113, 142-3, 193.
#20: 1957, p. 48. As you would expect, some Quakers do not support Cadbury’s approach: “(I)n recent years the Cadbury ethos has been in broad retreat within FGC circles, swept back by a resurgence of mystical/religious seeking and finding which owes far more to Rufus Jones and even programmed Friends such as Elton Trueblood and Wilmer Cooper….Thus, the religious legacy of Henry Cadbury, an important Quaker force once, seems to be fading rapidly. Perhaps this is just as well.” (Fager, 1987, p. 3)
Henry Cadbury will always be an inspiration to Friends whose religion is the act of living, and for Friends who wish to share their meetings with a great variety of others whether or not we agree on points of doctrine. The present pamphlet is an effort to strengthen this legacy.
#21: Mary Morrison quoted in Bacon, 1987, p. 175. When asked what he would be if not a Quaker he said a Hicksite. When asked whether he were a mystic, he said he was neither a mystic nor a nonmystic. He told his class he believed in the resurrection on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. (Bacon, 1987, pp. 141, 175, & 118)
#22: Bacon, 1987, pp. 76, 117-119, 146, & 175-176.
#23: This was inspired by the words of the Discipline of Iowa Yearly Meeting, Conservative: “The Discipline suggests rather than commands, and raises questions or queries rather than giving specific answers. It places upon the individual conscience rather than external authority, the responsibility for the discipline of the spirit.” (Iowa Yearly Meeting, Conservative, 1974, p. iii)
#24: In 1908, looking forward to the eventual reunification of the two Philadelphia yearly meetings, a Friend made this dramatic announcement during annual sessions: “Unity does not necessarily mean agreement; indeed, it is not inconsistent with wide difference in opinion, expression and purpose. Unity is love, not likeness.” (quoted in Moore, 1981, p. 136) Twenty years later, Jesse Holmes wrote, “It is a Society of Friends. Friends claim no authority but owe each other friendliness…Our unity consists in having a common purpose, not a common creed”. (1928/1992, p. 22) In 1991 Dan Seeger called attention to the way of openness with these words: “Perhaps it is given to us to show how a great people can be gathered into a unified and loving community while respecting, and even celebrating, its individual members’ distinctiveness. But one thing is certain – we Friends cannot preach reconciliation in the world at large unless we ourselves are reconciled.” (Seeger, 1991, p. 7)
#25: New England Yearly Meeting, 1985, p. 128; Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1997/2001, p. 34; and Iowa Yearly Meeting, Conservative, 1974, p. 33.
* * * * *
REFERENCES
Note to the reader: the Henry Cadbury manuscripts listed here are available for study in the Quaker Collection at Haverford College, Haverford, Pennsylvania.
Allott, Stephen (1989). “Quaker Agnosticism.” The Friends Quarterly, 25(6): 252-258.
Alpern, Robin (1997). “Why Not Join the Unitarians?” Universalist Friends, No. 28: 158-166.
Bacon, Margaret Hope (1980). Valiant Friend: The Life of Lucretia Mott. NY: Walker and Co.
…………………….…(1986). “The Friends and Academic Freedom: Some Experiences and Thoughts of Henry. J. Cadbury” in J. William Frost & John M. Moore, Eds. (1986) Seeking the Light: Essays in Quaker History, Wallingford and Haverford PA: Pendle Hill Publications & Friends Historical Association
…………………….…(1987). Let This Life Speak: The Legacy of Henry Joel Cadbury. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Boulton, David (1997). The Faith of a Quaker Humanist (Pamphlet #26). London: Quaker Universalist Group.
Brinton, Howard H. (1954). “The Kind of Quaker Paper We Really Want.” The Friend, 12th Month 23, 195-198.
Cadbury, Henry J. (1936/2000). “My Personal Religion” (Talk at the Harvard Divinity School). Universalist Friends, No. 35 (Fall-Winter 2000): 22-31, with corrections in No. 36: 18.
………………….. (1940). The Perils of Modernizing Jesus. New York: Macmillan.
………………….. (1940). My Personal Religious Beliefs. (Notes for talk at the Harvard Divinity School). Unpublished manuscript.
………………….. (1944a). My Personal Religious Convictions And Their Relation To My Work. (Notes for talk given at Harvard Divinity School). Unpublished manuscript.
………………….. (1944b). Two Worlds (William Penn Lecture). Philadelphia: Book Committee of the Religious Society of Friends.
………………….. (1947a). “Answering That of God.” Journal of the Friends Historical society, 39: 3-14.
………………….. (1947b). Jesus: What Manner of Man? New York: Macmillan.
………………….. (1953). A Quaker Approach to the Bible (Ward Lecture). Greensboro, North Carolina: Guilford College; reprinted as A Quaker Approach to the Bible (Pamphlet #209) (1996). Landenberg, Pennsylvania: Quaker Universalist Fellowship.
………………….. (1954). The Basis of Quaker Political Concern (Notes for talk at FCNL in Washington). Unpublished manuscript. Published version (1954): The Basis of Quaker Political Concern. Washington DC: Friends Committee on National Legislation.
………………….. (1955). “Our Theological Illiteracy.” Friends Journal, July 2, pp. 6-7; reprinted in Friends Journal, …, 2005.
………………….. (1957). Quakerism and Early Christianity (Swarthmore Lecture). London: Allen & Unwin.
………………….. (1959). The Character of A Quaker (Pendle Hill Pamphlet #103). Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill.
………………….. (1962a). Quaker Principles and Action. (Notes for talk at Stony Brook, Baltimore). Unpublished manuscript.
………………….. (1962b). (Untitled). (Notes for talk at Doylestown Monthly Meeting). Unpublished manuscript.
………………….. (1962c). (Untitled). (Notes for a talk at the Middle Atlantic Region Staff Committee Retreat, Pendle Hill, and later at Radnor Meeting Forum). Unpublished manuscript.
………………….. (1964a). The Eclipse of the Historical Jesus (Pendle Hill Pamphlet #133). Wallingford, PA: Pendle Hill.
………………….. (1964b). “Vital Issues for Friends Today.” Canadian Friend, 60(3): 3-4; quoted in Friends Journal (January 2001), 47(1), back cover.
………………….. (1966). “Quakerism and/or Christianity.” Friends Bulletin, 35(4), 1-10.
Caldwell, Samuel (1988/1997). “That Blessed Principle: Reflections on the Uniqueness of Quaker Universalism,” a Quaker Universalist Fellowship pamphlet based on a talk given by Samuel Caldwell at Willistown Friends Meeting, November 19, 1988. Also published as The Inward Light: How Quakerism Unites Universalism and Christianity, Philadelphia: Philadelphia Yearly Meeting, 1997.
Creasey, Maurice A. (1969). Bearings, or Friends and the New Reformation (Swarthmore Lecture). London: Friends Home Service Committee.
Cresson, Osborn (2000). “Quaker in a Material World”. Quaker Theology: A Progressive Journal and Forum for Discussion and Study, 5(1), Spring-Summer 2003. Online at http://quest.quaker.org/issue-8-cresson-01.htm.
……………….. (2003b). Doctrinally Open Membership in the Religious Society of Friends. Unpublished manuscript.
……………….. (2003b). Roots, Flowers and Prospects of Quaker Nontheism. Unpublished manuscript.
Crom, Scott (1972). “The Trusting Agnostic” (with Comments by Maurice H. Friedman and John H. McCandless, and Response to Comments by Scott Crom). Quaker Religious Thought, 14(2): 1-39.
Dandelion, Ben Pink (1996). A Sociological Analysis of the Theology of Quakers: The Silent Revolution. Lampeter, Wales: The Edwin Mellen Press.
Fager, Chuck (1987). “Henry Cadbury and the Awful Absence of God.” A Friendly Newsletter, #80: 2-3.
…………….. (1996). Without Apology: The Heroes, the Heritage, and the Hope of Liberal Quakerism. Bellefonte, Pennsylvania: Kimo Press.
Friends Home Service Committee (1966). In Search of God: Some Quaker Essays. London (author).
Habschmidt, Cathy (2005). “Speaking Truth to One Another: Addressing Theological Differences in the Meeting.” Pastoral Care Newsletter, January 2005.
Havens, Teresina Rowell (1953). “Should Quakerism Include Non-Christians?”, Friends Intelligencer, Eleventh Month 21, 1953, pp. 633-635.
Holmes, Jesse (1928/1992). “To the Scientifically-Minded.” Friends Intelligencer, 85(6): 103-104; reprinted in Friends Journal, (1992) 38(6): 22-23. Also published as a brochure, To the Scientifically-Minded. Philadelphia: Friends General Conference (undated), and in Spanish, A Los Intellectuales. Philadelphia: Friends’ General Conference (undated). Also reprinted in the magazines Atlantic, Christian Century, Harpers, and Unity (Wahl, 1979, p. 295).
Iowa Yearly Meeting, Conservative (1974). Discipline. Des Moines, IA: (author).
Johnson, Eric (1991). “Why I Am an Atheist.” Friends Journal, 37(1): 17; also in Quaker Universalist Fellowship (1991), Variations on the Quaker Message (Pamphlet #201). Landenberg, Pennsylvania: (author).
Linton, John (1979/1986). “Quakerism as Forerunner.” Friends Journal, 25(17): 4-9; reprinted as Quakerism as Forerunner (Pamphlet #1) (1979). London: Quaker Universalist Group; also reprinted in Quaker Universalist Fellowship (1991), The Quaker Universalist Reader Number 1: A Collection of Essays, Addresses and Lectures. Landenberg, Pennsylvania: (author).
Littleboy, William (1916/1964). The Appeal of Quakerism to the Non-Mystic. Harrowgate, England: 1905 Committee of Yorkshire Quarterly Meeting of the Society of Friends; reprinted in 1938 by the Friends Literature Committee for the Yorkshire Friends’ Service Committee; reprinted in 1945 by the Friends Literature Committee, Friends’ Book Centre, London; reprinted in 1964 by the Friends Home Service, London.
Loukes, Harold & H. J. Blackham (1969). Humanists and Quakers: An Exchange of Letters. London: Friends Home Service Committee.
Miles, Thomas R. (1985/1994). Towards Universalism (Pamphlet #7). London: Quaker Universalist Group.
Morgan, Arthur (1953). “Universal Brotherhood in Religion.” Friends Intelligencer, Tenth Month 17, 1953, pp. 558 & 564.
New England Yearly Meeting of Friends (1986). Faith and Practice of New England Yearly Meeting of Friends, Worcester MA: (author).
Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (1997). Faith and Practice, Philadelphia: (author).
Rush, David (2002). They Too Are Quakers: A Survey of 199 Non-theist Friends. Unpublished manuscript.
Seeger, Daniel A. (1984). “Is Coexistence Possible?” Friends Journal, 30(18): 11-14; also in Quaker Universalist Fellowship (1991), Variations on the Quaker Message (Pamphlet #201). Landenberg, Pennsylvania: (author).
…………………. (1991). Sharing Our Faith: Christian and Universalist Aspects of Friends Spiritual Experience. Philadelphia: Friends General Conference.
Swayne, Kingdon (1980). “Confession of a Post-Christian Agnostic.” Friends Journal, 26(3): 6-9. Also in Quaker Universalist Fellowship (1990), Variations on the Quaker Message. Landenberg, PA: (author).
Watchman (1944/1994). “As We Are Seen” (commentary). The Friend, 102: 66-67; reprinted in The Friend, (1994) 152: 1339.
No comments yet.