The RE Podcast
The RE Podcast
S11 E6:The One About Quakerism
Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.
Please send The RE Podcast a Text Message!
This week I interview Mathew Guest about Quakerism. If you have the February blues then this episode will really cheer you up. Mathew enightens us about the history of the Quakers but also about the four tenants;
- Equality
- Peace
- Simplicity
- Truth
We also discuss their inspiration behind their commitment to pacifism and non-violent conflict resolution. We consider the importance and need for silence with others in the modern world, as well as the non-judgemental, inclusive nature of Quaker meetings. Although, if you want something done quickly, don't ask a quaker, but if you want something done well - you can learn a lot from their egalitaian methods!
I ask Mathew how to teach Quaker in the classroom as well as why he's a quaker. It is an enightening and uplifting chat and I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.
The website he recommends is;
www.quaker.org.uk/resources
Find out more;
Twitter: @TheREPodcast1
Insta: @TheREPodcast
Webiste: www.therepodcast.co.uk
Welcome to the R.E. Podcast, the first dedicated RE podcast for students and teachers. My name is Louisa Jane Smith, and this is the R.E. Podcast. The podcast for those of you who think R.E. is boring, which it is, and I'll prove it. I'm quite excited about my guest today because it is a subject that I know a little bit about, enough to make me excited about learning more, but not enough that I could do this episode without some help. So I'm really, really chuffed a bit to welcome Matthew Guest to the podcast to talk about Quakerism. So welcome, Matthew.
SPEAKER_00:Thank you. Thanks for asking.
SPEAKER_01:Matthew, can you just tell me a little bit about who you are, what you do?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so I'm an academic. I work at uh University of Durham in the theology and religion department. And I'm actually head of the department until I get to escape in about six months. But I've been working there for over 20 years now. I'm a sociologist of religion and written on a whole variety of things from Christianity and university students to the status of Muslims on university campuses to clergy children, evangelical Christianity, and most recently how the assumptions of economic capitalism infiltrate our understanding of how religion works.
SPEAKER_01:So oh my gosh, that sounds fascinating.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, well, I think so.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, and that might be another episode, Matthew. This may not be your last time on the podcast.
SPEAKER_00:Be happy to.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. And in six months, you're escaping just running the department or escaping time in the state.
SPEAKER_00:No, no, no. I serve as head of department three years, as everyone does, and at the end of that three years, someone else takes over, and that's what's happening in six months.
SPEAKER_01:You're like the Prime Minister, Matthew, aren't you?
SPEAKER_00:I wish I got paid as much.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's the thing about academia, it's very rewarding, but not financially.
SPEAKER_00:It's very I f I'm very, very fortunate. I really love my job, and I really get a huge amount out of it. It gives me enormous pleasure and fulfilment to do it, so I've got no complaints.
SPEAKER_01:Oh, it's lovely to hear. I feel the same way most days. So we're here to talk about Quakerism. What is it?
SPEAKER_00:So I suppose there is a question about history, and there's a question about the present day. So in historical terms, so Quakers they emerged as a Protestant sect in the 1600s, around the time of the English Civil War, and they were a movement founded by a guy called George Fox, and George Fox was quite a curmudgeonly subversive character who really disliked a lot of what was characteristic about the Christianity of the time, particularly what he saw as the hypocrisy of leaders, the emphasis on hierarchy, of deference to those who were in power, and he sought a different way. And over time he developed what became the tradition of the Society of Friends, or Quakerism, as it's called as well. The actual term Quakers was a slight that was directed at Fox and his followers by I think a judge, because Quakers were often in the courtrooms because they were accused of all sorts of things they weren't supposed to be doing, and so they were often in prison. And what this judge said was that these were Quakers because they seemed to tremble at the experiences that they were having. And it also reflects the fact that Quakers were very keen on establishing a direct relationship with God, that didn't have to be mediated by church tradition or the organizational structures of a church, but that all were children of God and all therefore had the capacity to communicate and to be inspired by God, and that that was most important, rather than mediating your own faith through the structures of those who happen to have power at any particular time. So Quakers emerged in that period as a Christian sect and then evolved in the several hundred years since then.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:And are still alive and well today.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. I mean, just a couple of things I want to say, just picking up on what you've said. First of all, in terms of names, because I think sometimes language is very important. Are you happy with the term Quaker now, even though actually it kind of started as a derogatory term almost?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I don't have a problem with it personally. I mean, I think it it's got to a point where it's almost evolved into a different brand.
SPEAKER_01:Right.
SPEAKER_00:I've never met a Quaker who felt offended by the term. I think the joke is an old one.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:There are far worse and far more offensive jokes that could be levelled. So no, I just think it's just it's a term that's stuck.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And it's distinctive, it's unique, it's what we're known by.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. So actually, for us as educators, if we're in a lesson, there's no real difference if we call you Quakers or call you society of friends.
SPEAKER_00:No, not at all. Not at all. Quakers will sometimes refer to themselves and others who are Quakers as friends.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:So when you sign off a message to another Quake, you might say in friendship.
SPEAKER_02:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:So some Christians might say in Christ, or some people say in friendship. And you refer to others as friends. The idea being that you're recognising the equality of all before God.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And I guess also it was a way of the early Quakers distinguishing themselves from other Christian sects that might have used the language of brotherhood or fraternity.
SPEAKER_01:Absolutely. So evangelical Christians might call themselves believers, you know, brothers and sisters in Christ and things like that. So actually, there's this sort of common term within, but actually the umbrella term Quaker is absolutely fine. And the other thing was just that actually I've picked up on this idea that there was a sort of a power struggle that actually Fox's understanding of what the true message of the Bible was undermined the power of the established church and sort of, I would imagine, some political power there, hence why they weren't necessarily welcomed. Am I right in thinking that?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I think so. But I think in the I mean, in the 1600s there were lots of dissenting sectarian groups that were critical of the dominant church and those in power. I think what distinguished Quakers was, I mean, several things. Firstly, Fox and his followers refused to observe the rules of decorum for the day. So doffing your cap to someone who was of a higher status, addressing people using particular terms. He refused to go along with any of that. So he's his egalitarianism was quite radical because at the time it was deemed offensive. You weren't you it wasn't just that you you weren't supposed to speak like this because it wasn't polite, it was deemed to be shocking. So, in that sense, his firm conviction in the equality of all was expressed in the highly subversive behaviour. And he would go to churches and shout over the preacher because he thought they weren't speaking truth, and he was imprisoned, as were many of his followers. So there was a high price to pay for being a Quaker in the 1600s. The other thing that distinguished them that they were pacifists. There weren't many pacifist groups around. And Quakers were they made pacifism one of their distinguishing features.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Which was really quite radical, especially in the in the wake of the Civil War when there had been so much bloodshed and so much of life had been distinguished by an experience of war as as normative, as just everyday reality. And the Quakers refused to fight. And in fact, when Charles II was restored to the throne in 1660, Quakers issued a testimony, a document, to the crown stating their conviction that it was contrary to the spirit of Christ to fight in military conflict. It was a very brave and radical thing to do at the time.
SPEAKER_01:And actually, we'll come back to that because I think I want to do a little bit of more exploring into that sort of side of Quakerism and the sort of pacifism, and obviously thinking about modern-day Quakers like Desmondos and people like that, that actually this is something that's run throughout Quakerism over the last 400 years. Can I just very quickly clarify in my oh my history of religion is so weak? The Reformation, I would have imagined, has so happened before Quaker started. This was sort of like an offshoot of Reformation where we were getting these different denominations.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, so the Reformation happens uh in the century before.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And then you have the start of the 1600s. This is the post-Elizabethan age. So you've got the established Church of England, and you have the rise of a variety of different Protestant dissenting groups in the 1600s, which are also protesting against the Catholic Church in insofar as they're Protestant, but they're also not going along with the line of the Established Church of England.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:And Quakers fall amongst that range of different sectarian groups that emerge around the middle of the 1600s.
SPEAKER_01:It's interesting that the Church of England was dissenting from the Catholic Church, but was kind of intolerant of any groups that was dissenting from them. It's quite an ironic thing, it appears. It is.
SPEAKER_00:I mean, I guess there are different ways of viewing history, and it wouldn't be unfair to attribute in large part the origins of the Church of England to power struggles at the heart of the monarchy, which had to do with Henry VIII and his broader political ambitions and domestic ones as well.
SPEAKER_04:Yes, yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And so when we have the Church of England established in the 1500s, it's not a million miles away from the Catholic Church that preceded it.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. But it does theologically it's not the same.
SPEAKER_00:Theologically, liturgically, it's not a million miles away, but it it it it it has a different authority structure.
SPEAKER_01:Yes. Yeah. So it's just not recognising authority of the Pope and giving much more power to the monarch.
SPEAKER_00:And to the bishops in the Church of England that follow the line of the king. Yeah, absolutely.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Okay, so you've mentioned one distinct belief, which is the personal relationship between God and humans, that they don't need to have an intercessor. Is there any sort of other distinct beliefs of Quakers?
SPEAKER_00:Well, the one thing that distinguishes Quakers, and it I guess it comes to the fore in contemporary Quakers, which have, to some degrees, moved to a more universalist tendency than they're used to. So in the early years of Quakers, they were a Christian sectarian group. In the present day, especially amongst Quakers in the UK and the US, a fair proportion of Quakers would also say that they weren't Christians, that they were not followers of Jesus in the old way, but were more open to a variety of spiritual paths. Some would even claim to be would call themselves rather atheists. So that Quaker commitment manifests in a variety of different ways, from those who still maintain that it's essentially a Christian way, to those who would say it's a spiritual path, but is universalist in its spirit, so in other words, it recognises the legitimacy of all paths towards God, and those who would say it's like an ethical framework, really. It's not really a religious path for them, it's more about finding a way through life that follows the right values. And Quakers don't fragment on these lines. This is another distinguishing feature. While there are clearly people who believe each of these different things, and many in between, they don't coalesce into Quaker subsets or sectarian breakaway groups or anything like that. You'll find people who believe those things in most Quaker meetings. So there's also a strong sense that it is perfectly within the spirit of Quakerism to include all of those perspectives in the community, especially within the UK and US, where there are lots of Quakers. In parts of Africa where there are also a large proportion of Quakers, particularly in Kenya, the tradition tends to be a little bit more conservative, it's more evangelical. But certainly in Europe and the States, it's it's a fairly liberal tradition for the most part.
SPEAKER_01:It's such a wonderful model of inclusivity, isn't it? And that actually almost the the only key thing is a Quaker is anyone who identifies as a Quaker, that there aren't absolutes, you have to believe this, you can't believe that, apart from maybe morality, that actually a Quaker is defined by their actions.
SPEAKER_00:Well, that's certainly true, although I wouldn't go as far as to say that there aren't other things that that Quakers have in common. I mean, one thing to note is that yes, there is an important part of Quaker tradition that has to do with how Quakers worship, which is about silence.
SPEAKER_04:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:And that has a central place in how Quakers make decisions, how they relate to God, and how they relate to one another. But also Quakers uphold what are called the four testimonies. Now these aren't beliefs, but they are convictions that embody a whole range of different traditions and practices, but which are clear and to which all Quakers would in various ways be expected to commit. And they are truth, simplicity, equality, and peace. And what Quakers do is try and learn from how other Quakers have practiced these in the past, as well as from biblical teaching, in living out their lives through these key principles.
SPEAKER_01:Can you just remind them I want to embed those in my memory? So I saw equality, peace, truth, simpleness, and simplicity. I mean, it makes me emotional hearing words like that, because I sometimes think on a universal level how much better the world would be if we had those four principles rather than the ones we seem to have. So we've got these four principles. There's two things you've mentioned that I just want to pick up on. One is this way of worshipping through silence. And I think there's probably this is simplified, this is misunderstood, this is appropriated. How do you understand it, Matthew? How do you understand the use of silence in Quaker worship?
SPEAKER_00:That's a difficult one. Almost by definition, it's impossible to capture in words. I guess one thing you could say is the the early tradition in Quakerism would be to affirm the importance of silence as a way of hearing God's voice.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And a way of hearing God's voice that is free from the clutter of everyday life and from human limitations that usually get in the way with us hearing truth. Whether those are you know relationships or what we have to do to make a living or just the busyness of everyday existence. It's sitting together with other Quakers, and that's another thing. It's not silence on your own. This is silence in the company of others seeking the way. So Quakers will worship, usually sitting in a circle, and they will sit in silence, and you remain in silence until someone feels moved to speak. And at that point they will stand usually and they will speak. And they will speak from the heart about what it is that is weighing on their heart. Now the style of speaking it varies hugely across different Quaker meetings, but certainly in my experience, it tends to be sober, reflective, humble, exploratory, often with a moral message of some kind. And it may be triggered by something that's happening in the world at the moment, some tragedy or some conflict. It may be something rooted in that individual's life experience. So it may be something they've experienced personally. It may be in response to one of the Quaker writings that we read, like the there's a thing called the Christian Book of Discipline or Quaker Faith and Practice, which is a kind of it's a book that embodies all Quaker teaching. It's a strange combination of the regulations that govern things like Quaker weddings and a whole series of sayings, paragraphs, teachings derived from the history of Quakers through the last few hundred years, all compiled under the authority of, within this context, Britain Yearly Meeting, which is the central authority for British Quakers. So this is the book. I'm holding up the book now. It's a red book.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:It's quite a thick book, and this is what you'll find on a table, alongside the Bible, sometimes a candle or something else, ornamental, in the middle of the circle of friends as they gather for silence. And as Quakers sit there, and usually sit for an hour, they will sometimes draw from those texts as they're sitting and sometimes as they're speaking as well. And then when they're finished giving their testimony, because that's what it's called when someone gets up and speaks, it's called testimony, they will sit down and there will be reflection, people remain silent, and then until someone else feels moved to speak. And it's never a conversation, it's never a discussion. Each piece of ministry sits on its own, and sometimes there'll be whole hours when nothing is said, but the silence itself is judged to have its own value, and that's how Quaker worship works. There are some traditions in some parts of the world where it's a bit more conventional. So there are institutions in the States, for example, where Quakers will have Quaker chapels and there'll be a Quaker minister, and they will have hymns and a sermon and some silence in the middle somewhere, but it will be quite similar to what you'd find in, say, a Baptist service or a Methodist service. In British Quaker tradition and in most of the states, or a good part of the states, it's entirely what they call unprogrammed worship. In other words, there is no minister, there's no leader, and there is no liturgy, and there is no order, there is no singing, there's no prayers, there is silence and ministry, and that's it.
SPEAKER_01:It does feel like increasingly this is such a necessary thing that there's so little time in our lives to have silence. We're constantly filling it with stuff. Whether this is social media, whether this is podcasts, even and music and film and talking and radio, and it's a very loud world that we have now. That actually probably now more than ever silence is needed where we just sit with our thoughts without filling it. And I think in terms of mental health, this is probably really helpful for some people. My question though is sort of this idea of the relationship between prayer and worship and a belief in God, because actually you have a spectrum of beliefs in God within Quakerism from atheism to theism. How does that work in terms of worship? Is there a focus of worship that would incorporate both theists and atheists?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, that's a good question. I think the tricky part there has to do with terminology. When Quakers meet together on a Sunday, they call it meeting for worship. And it will typically be an hour of silence with ministry as it occurs, and then there might be some notices and you know, a cup of tea and coffee afterwards or whatever. But I've always found the term worship a little tricky to slot into Quaker practice because there are clearly people amongst Quakers in most meetings in the UK who either don't believe in God or don't believe in a God that would be the object of worship in the way that we might conventionally understand it. So why do we call it worship? I think it's a survival from previous traditions.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:But in practice, I'd say what's happening for many is a process of reflection and discernment. So it's about discerning truth and discerning God through your own experience of the silence, and then giving voice to that if you feel that's appropriate, through the ministry that you deliver.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:So in that sense, there's no element of worship in the sense of adoration or celebration that you might find in a traditional Christian church, or especially in a kind of lively youth worship kind of experience. There's none of that. That's completely absent. It's called worship, and I guess from a certain theological point of view, you might describe it as a form of worship, but to me, the words reflection and discernment resonate more.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. The other thing I want to pick on, so you've got this book, sort of the Quaker Faith and Practice. Obviously, the Bible is a source of authority, and you've got this sort of structure where sometimes there are ministers, there are sometimes people that sort of lead the service. But how does sort of authority work within a Quaker?
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, it's a very interesting question. So it works slightly differently in different places, but in the dominant tradition, certainly in the UK, is that there are no ministers, there are no paid clergy. Everyone is equal in terms of their capacity and entitlement to assume a particular responsibility. For each meeting, there will be a number of roles that need to be filled. So there might be a meeting might have an overseer, which is an old-fashioned term. They don't always get called that these days, but it effectively means someone who's responsible for the pastoral care of the meeting. And there are also elders. No elders are responsible for the spiritual life of the meeting. And there will be a clerk, and the clerk's role is to maintain the administrative life of the meeting and to clerk, the business meetings. I'll come on to those in a minute. So within a Quaker meeting, a meeting for worship, there will be no visible clear leader. If you walked in, you wouldn't be able to see who was the leader, because there wouldn't be one. But there may be someone who stands up at the very end and delivers notices, so stuff that's happening in the local area, thing that people might be interested in, and that's probably going to be the clerk. Now, Quakers meet for worship every week, but they also have what's called Quaker meeting for business less frequently. And Quaker meetings always happen in the spirit of worship, regardless of their purpose. So if you have a business meeting, and the business meeting is about making decisions that have to do with how you spend your money, events that you're organizing, appointing new people to take on responsibilities, that kind of stuff. And it will be, for want of a better word, chaired by the clerk. And the clerk will sit at the front of the table and everyone else will gather, and you will have silence for a while, and then the clerk will introduce the proceedings. And each item will be introduced by the clerk, and then they will open it up to the meeting. And the meeting will then, if someone wants to speak, they'll stand up, and then the clerk will call them to speak, and they deliver what their point of view is and they'll sit down again. And then the silence remains. And then they do that until everyone films they've had their say. And then the clerk drafts a minute. Now the minute is supposed to be a summary of the mind of the meeting. It's not consensus, it's not subject to a vote. It's supposed to reflect the mind of the meeting. So they write this down and then they read it to all present. And then people respond to it. And if they feel that it needs to be adjusted, they say so. And that's how decisions are made. So it's very long and it's quite arduous, but it is as inclusive as you could possibly be. Because no decision will be made without it being the mind of the meeting. And it requires a very skilled person to take on the clerk's role because they need to discern where people's feelings are running on something, and to make sure that the a range of voices are heard, and also to craft a minute that captures the essence of what's been heard in a way that includes everybody.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And actually, in terms of their interpretation, there can't be biases or there can't be interpretation. You have to authentically represent someone and not paraphrase it in your own words. That's quite a skill in itself, I think, to accurately reflect someone else.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, absolutely. And that's done at a higher level when Quakers meet in much larger groups for like national meetings things. That's the same method used.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:So I've sat in meetings where you have, you know, four or five hundred people in in an auditorium, and that's how they're making the decisions. So people will stand and talk about something, and then there will be a bunch of people who stand up and speak, and there'll be silence, and then there'll be a minute read, and it'll be put on a projector, and then there'll be more input. And it it's it's remarkable. I mean, it's quite inspiring to see when it's done well. It probably strikes outsiders as a little frustrating because it means that sometimes it takes a long time to get things done. Sometimes decisions aren't made, but they're deferred, and that can be frustrating for those who want to see action quickly, but it's also in the spirit of the Quaker business method.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. It's interesting. I talk a lot about China and communism. Things get done very quickly because they don't have to ask anyone's permission, they just do it. So and actually that could be really positive in terms of environmental changes. We need to make a change that's going to positively impact right tomorrow, this is what we're doing, and it gets done. So I think there's an efficiency to communism or dictatorship that there isn't when you've got egalitarian decision-making process. But actually, in the long run, there's much more accountability of the decision that's being made and it's going to please more people in the long run, I think.
SPEAKER_00:Well, it means it's a reflection of the community.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:In a more authentic way. It also often helps you think through things much more carefully. So I've been proposing things before a meeting in the past, and I've wanted something to go through, and it hasn't. And that's been frustrating.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:But by the time it has gone through, after we've done a little bit more work and a bit more listening and a little bit more consultation, it feels so much better because you think you've won people over them and you've done something truly in the name of the meeting you represent.
SPEAKER_01:What I want to do now is I want to take some like key concepts that come up in religion. And I want to sort of summary, and I know this is hard because Quaker beliefs seem to be a spectrum, but just sort of help us to understand the sort of Quaker approaches to some of these ideas. So the first one is just creation. Do you have a creation story? How do you understand the creation of the world?
SPEAKER_00:No. I don't think so. I mean, Quakers will have as many stories as there are Quakers, I'd imagine. I mean, it's not something that's central to what we believe. And because many Quakers will not be biblical literalists, there will not be any importance for most attached to the need to have a creation narrative. It might be something interesting to reflect on.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:But it certainly won't feature at the heart of what Quakers believe. The one way in which you can draw an exception there is that insofar as it feeds into environmental responsibility.
SPEAKER_04:Right.
SPEAKER_00:So there might be a strong sense of care for the world.
SPEAKER_04:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:Of care for the world being an injunction from God and an important part of being a Quaker and a follower of Jesus and that kind of thing. So that's important insofar as the ethical consequences of creation might be followed through. But in terms of belief in how the world started, it's difficult to answer, really.
SPEAKER_01:No. And so actually, because stewardship is something that's central, isn't it, to the Quaker way of life. So actually, it's not necessarily why we're here or how we got here, it's the fact that we are here and that there is certain responsibilities.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:What therefore is the purpose of life?
SPEAKER_00:Wow. Um I I can only speak for myself.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:So I guess if we were to pin it down, I might say to discern truth. Yeah. Well, there's a teaching. Let me just read something to you because this captures it much better than I will. And it's at the start of Quaker Faith and Practice, the book we talked about, there are a series of things called advices and queries. And they're like little maxims for life. They're beautifully written, and there's some great teachings in there that Quakers abide by. So the first one is take heed, dear friends, to the promptings of love and truth in your hearts. Trust them as the leadings of God whose light shows us our darkness and brings us to new life. I can't say anything better than that.
SPEAKER_01:Okay. Okay. So then let's think about the afterlife. Because you mentioned a sort of universalist idea. Suggesting that there is an afterlife, there is a place that we will go, and that everybody goes to heaven. But I'm assuming not all Quakers have a concept of the afterlife?
SPEAKER_00:No, I I mean it's. I mean, it may be if you take universalism to be, and not all Quakers are universalists, but if you take it to mean all will be saved by God, then that might lead you to say, well, what does that lead to? It may lead to all people going to heaven. That doesn't resonate with me, and I've never had conversations with Quakers that suggest it would with other Quakers either. There's a far greater emphasis on what we do in this life rather than what might or might not be the case in the next.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:That's one of the things that attracted me to it in the first place, to be honest, because there seem to be not as much interest as there is in some branches of Christianity in imponderable questions. Questions that are really I mean, I just find impossible to even think about. Like, what is the nature of God and what happens when you die, and how do you make sense of Jesus' resurrection or whatever? I mean, I don't know. I just don't know the answers to these questions. To be honest, I'm not entirely sure that having the answers would help me in my life.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:But Quaker teaching has got very strong and clear things to say about everyday morality, about treating other people with respect, about reflecting carefully on the decisions that you make. All things I find just really helpful in enabling me to be a better person or to lead a more responsible life. And you know, if that leads to something that happens after I die, then great. But I'm never gonna know.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:All I can do is live as I live and and and follow the teachings that take me in the in in a direction that I think is true. But so that to me makes it just makes more sense to think of it in that way.
SPEAKER_01:So actually for you, it's helpful that there's like a pragmatism. Yeah. So this is about how to make very clear moral decisions for why. So, I mean, how do you understand morality? How do you decide what is right and wrong?
SPEAKER_00:I think part of it is about conscience.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And there's a great saying that William Penn, who was an aristocrat in the 1600s, who was one of the earliest Quakers who was a sort of a public figure, and he's the guy who Pennsylvania's named after. So if you go to Philadelphia, there's a big statue of him on the top of the town hall. And William Penn, as a man of status, carried a sword, but Quakers, of course, were pacifists, and so he asks George Fox, How long should I wear my sword for? Can I continue to wear this? And he said, Wear it as long as you can, or as thou canst, you know.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And just that idea that listen to your inner voice.
SPEAKER_04:Yes.
SPEAKER_00:Is it something you can possibly do? Can you resolve that with your own innate sense of good? And there's a lot to that. I don't I don't think that's an impeccable barometer for living a moral life, but it's a good start.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And um I find that a lot of Quaker teaching kind of elaborates on what I intuitively somehow recognise as the way to go or the right, or just a kind of moral compass, a sense of about what might be the best thing to do in a given set of circumstances, in the broadest terms, in terms of principles. So that's where we get these truth, simplicity, equality, and peace thing. I mean, I Quaker teaching won't tell you what to do, but it'll give you some very clear principles about on what would be the best way to work it out.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, that's really fascinating. And I mean it's interesting that in terms of a sense of justice, for a lot of religions, that sense of justice comes from some kind of reward and punishment in an afterlife. But actually, that's not significant within Quaker because the justice comes from knowing you've done the right thing. It is that personal thing, isn't it? Is that actually this is what my conscience says, this is what I intuit to be the right thing. The reward is doing the right thing.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, well, it's not even a reward, it's just right. Yeah. There are certain principles in in Quaker tradition that I, you know, I would just defend to the hilt. I mean, that and the whole idea of of just telling the truth, which is a very simple thing, but is not straightforwardly applied in the in the contemporary world, you know. There there's there's much strong a strong emphasis in certain parts of culture to edit our speech according to what's convenient or according to what gets us the best outcome, or and I find that very problematic, and I try and never to to to fall foul of it if I could possibly can.
SPEAKER_01:Truth, I think, is something that people have lost sight of, and actually it's something that is not obvious always, and I think it is something you do have to search for and work hard at to find, and it's not always obvious. Let's talk about pacifism, because I think this is probably the one area that you're most well known for, you know, is this sort of like relationship with violence. How can you sort of put this into words? Where has this belief come from? Why is it so central? And what are your reasons for being pacifists?
SPEAKER_00:So theologically, my understanding of the argument is that it's an outworking of the belief that all are children of God. There is that of God in everyone. Now, if there's that of God in everyone, and all are therefore equal, how can we countenance taking up arms against somebody else and call ourselves children of God? I mean it just it doesn't work. I mean, it's completely inconsistent. So in a way, it's a consequence of having a strong conviction inequality and wanting to live that out in the most radical way possible. It shouldn't be radical, it should be common sense, but human nature being what it is, we live according to a history of tribalism, of violence, of cruelty, of militaristic power grabbing, uh and that's a consistent pattern. But all the more reason then to resist it and to refuse to fall into that temptation to resolve issues through violence. It seems to me it would be immeasurably valuable to human experience for more people to refuse to do that.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And how would you respond to somebody who would say, you know, how can you be a pacifist if there are people like Hitler? That actually, when Hitler invades Poland and you've got this vulnerable country that is being attacked and controlled by this vicious army of people to just sit back and not fight for justice in that situation?
SPEAKER_00:Well, one thing to clarify is pacifism is not passivity. It's not a philosophy of doing nothing.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:It's an ethos for life that refuses to countenance violence as the first point of call in resolving difference, or as a legitimate strategy for resolving difference. It doesn't mean that all Quakers or all pacifists should um refuse to support any kind of military conflict in all circumstances, and there are Quakers who are absolutist pacifists who say that they will never participate in any kind of military conflict or in any way support it. And I'm pretty sure I'm one of those. There are those also who are more qualified pacifists who would say they wouldn't fight, but if the cause was right, they might contribute through other ways. So there might be a role for those who are in the medical corps or those who are involved in administration that's supporting military efforts of some kind.
SPEAKER_01:And we mentioned Desmond Doss, didn't we? And actually he was that sort of pacifist that I'm not gonna bear arms, I'm not gonna fight, but I will support the military through medical support.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah, absolutely, yeah. Yeah. So there are different strands of pacifism that follow that. The one thing that's that I find persistently tricky is that living in a relatively stable, privileged Western culture, it's very easy to be pacifist because we're not called upon to respond to violence in our immediate experience very often.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And certainly not called upon to fight for our nation anymore in a way that conscription used to require individuals to fight. And so it's very easy to say, yeah, I'm against all war, I'm a pacifist, but you don't really have to do much to actually uphold that. There isn't a great cost to it, which means that it's it's easy to fall foul of not reflecting on it critically, and and also to fall foul of the problem of imagining that it's easy, it's not easy. And you know, look to what's happening in the Middle East and in Ukraine and look to the gun violence in the US, and it's abhorrent and it's it's it's awful. And I recognise fully that if I was to go to talk to someone who's involved in those conflicts and say, I believe everyone should lay down their guns and get on better, then that wouldn't necessarily be the help a helpful contribution to discussion. But but at the same time, what gives me hope is that war is a bit like let me put it differently, there are things in human history that at different points of time have been understood to be inevitable and normal and commonplace and immovable, like the secondary status of women, like slavery, like the restriction of marriage to heterosexual couples.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:All of these have been not just overthrown, but have been recognized as things of a bygone era, and uh their opposites have become more normative, certainly in the culture in which we live. That gives me hope that humans can overturn what have previously been dominant patterns of experience for the better.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:And that's why I remain a fervent pacifist and will not give up simply because human experience tells me it's unrealistic.
SPEAKER_01:So there's almost a commitment to being on the right side of history that you don't want to be supportive of something in the future, we're gonna look back and go, how could we normalize that? That was abhorrent.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, well, definitely. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And there's also, I'm seeing real links to Hindu Dharma. So the idea of ahimsa and practicing non-violence towards all living things because of this belief that there is the divine in every living thing.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:And actually, for you, there's consistency between your commitment to stewardship and your commitment to non-violence. That actually this is about seeing the value in living things and not destroying it.
SPEAKER_03:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. My experience of Quakerism is generally they're buildings. You know, that there's a real focus on serving the community. And I've done yoga in Quaker buildings, I've done toddler groups when I was a my children were young. That seems to be quite a big thing is to serve the community through the buildings you have. And then the other thing is the bookshops. And I that's something that that I don't know anything about. So, what's the sort of relationship between the sort of Quaker buildings and their communities that they serve?
SPEAKER_00:So, Quakers, from the very beginning of the Quaker tradition, there have never been churches or chapels. There have there have been meeting houses, and meeting houses were much plainer buildings in ref reflection of Quaker teachings on simplicity and not wishing to celebrate sort of the ornateness of architecture and really have a much greater emphasis on functionality and service. So Quaker meeting houses were very simple buildings, would include a meeting space in the middle, and some very, very old ones still exist across the country. But what they also function as in the contemporary UK is venues for community events, and often Quaker meeting houses will serve as the place where the yoga class happens, or the place where the food bank is set up, or the place where there are lessons in English for the refugee community, or you know, so it's an opportunity for a variety of compatible ethical initiatives to have a context in which they can be. Because the Quaker community in the UK is relatively small, lots of meeting houses have have closed, and so they're not as big a presence as they used to be in British towns. But those that still remain, especially the bigger ones, are uh you know a vibrant source of witness in in their communities, which are great.
SPEAKER_01:Out of interest, do you know how many Quakers there are in the UK, roughly?
SPEAKER_00:Oh, I did used to know this.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:We're talking tens of thousands.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:So yeah, quite a tiny proportion.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah.
SPEAKER_00:I mean, globally, it's not huge. I mean, it's not a massive community. And there are all sorts of ways of arguing why that might be the case. Yeah.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. But a very beautiful one, as many small things tend to be. And then just you know, on that, what is it that you personally love? I mean, you mentioned a few things that have attracted you to. Quaker, but what for you do you love most about it?
SPEAKER_00:I love the silence, the shared silence. I find that profoundly humbling and insightful and inspirational. I love the values and how they become embodied in people's lives and to learn from the example of others who've tried to live that way. The commitment to peace and equality have always resonated with me. And when I first started going to Quaker meeting a long time ago now, there are elements of the tradition that I intuitively already followed, but didn't have a tradition in which I could develop. And those were the big ones, the commitment to equality and commitment to peace. But I'm also I I really like the fact that there's a strong emphasis on putting these things into practice, that it matters most how you live your life. And I became a Quaker at a time when when I needed to find a new direction for myself, and I just found it hugely uplifting to find a direction that not only provided me with a tradition in which I could become a better version of who I am, but also one that gave me lots of people to be inspired by and whose lives I could be inspired by.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, oh my goodness. Yeah. I think there's so many people out there listening that feel this, that they want to find some kind of meaning on purpose and direction and community. And I think this scene is a very beautiful one. If we were teaching it in the classroom, have you got sort of any do's and don'ts? Like, how would you like us to represent you? What message would you like us to get across with our students?
SPEAKER_00:I would like the most important legacy, the most important thing that I think should be channeled from Quaker tradition into the school classroom is teachings on conflict resolution and finding ways of relating to people that are non-violent and that increase understanding rather than division.
SPEAKER_01:Okay.
SPEAKER_00:There's a lot of work already going on amongst Quakers in schools who talk about this and try and invite young people to reflect critically on the assumptions that they might pick up from the media and from the government and from various other parties about the military, about war, about the use of force and violence. And to me, if they go away having learnt about Quakers and with a sense that there is a different way, and that that way is better, and it's a peaceful way, and it leads to human flourishing, then that would be uh wonderful.
SPEAKER_01:Where would we go to find that information?
SPEAKER_00:Well, you could go to the Quakers in Britain website, yeah, where there's not only uh information on conflict resolution and and Quaker work in schools, there's also resources you can download so that there's plenty that can be used within the context of the classroom to teach both about what Quakers do and also to get people talking about how you deal with conflict.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, okay. I'm gonna I've just found it on there and I'm just gonna put a little link to that in the show notes so people can go straight there. Brilliant. And obviously, there are people within the local area, your local Quaker group, there'll be someone who can come into schools and do like some workshops and things like that with your students and talk about conflict resolution. I think that would be really I mean, I'm just thinking personally that I need to do this because often people they're taught to use conflict, they're not taught any other methods. So you've got to arm them, you've got to give them the tools to be able to make informed decisions about how they react to things. I think that's great. Thank you so much. And if there's just one final thought that you could leave our listeners with, what would you want that to be?
SPEAKER_00:If you're curious about what Quakers stand for, go to a meeting and see how you feel. Because the silence is so counterintuitive, we just don't sit down and be quiet and then listen to people and then shut up and think about what they've said. And just to do that is not just sort of refreshing and and inspirational, it's hugely healing as well. And I would encourage people to go along and and check it out and give it give it a chance to see what they find, you know, because no one's gonna tell you what to believe in a Quaker meeting. No one is going to shout down at you or tell you that you don't belong. It's an experience that's inclusive and there to uphold everybody.
SPEAKER_01:Is there like a set time?
SPEAKER_00:It depends on the meeting. You'd have to look up the local meeting online, but usually on a Sunday, usually sort of 10:30 or 11 o'clock, something like that.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah. Okay, we'll do that. And if you could wake up tomorrow, Matthew, and one thing was different about the world, what would you like that to be?
SPEAKER_00:Um There's a few things I've I better not say. I think no, I tell you what, I would really like to see. I would like to see well, there's a couple of things. I'd like to see Donald Trump toppled from the Republican nomination and Nikki Haley get the vote.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah. And I don't think the state of Iowa agree with you.
SPEAKER_00:No, I don't think most of the Republican Party agree with me.
SPEAKER_01:No.
SPEAKER_00:I would like to see the US take leadership in pressing Israel into a two-state solution in the Middle East because otherwise they'll be locked into this cycle of violence that's just heartbreaking.
SPEAKER_01:Yeah, yeah, I know it is. Because everybody comes to conclusions and believes things based on their experience, and it makes sense in their head. And sometimes you look at what other people are voting for or deciding or value, and it's frustratingly difficult to understand the decisions that certain people make. So I'd love to know what it is that attracts people to certain politicians that have a track record of breaking the law. Yeah. You know, it's an interesting one. I'd love to know. I you know, I'm curious by nature, so I'm always interested in understanding. But yeah, yeah, I think they're two really good ones, and I think the world would be a nicer place to exist in if things like that would change.
SPEAKER_00:Absolutely.
SPEAKER_01:Matthew, I I have loved this chat so much, and I do sometimes feel every time I speak to somebody, I want to be that thing that they are. You know, I get so attracted to belief systems and structures that just create beauty and kindness to themselves, to other people, to the world. I think it's just such an attractive thing. So thank you so much for sharing this incredible, beautiful faith with us and for just educating us into something that I think is going to impact positively into our classrooms having listened to this. So thank you.
SPEAKER_00:Oh, thank you for asking me. It's been a pleasure.
SPEAKER_01:My name is Louisa James Smith, and this has been the R.E. Podcast, the podcast for those of you who think RE is boring, but it's not. It's absolutely beautiful and can inspire us to be the best versions of ourselves. So thank you so much for listening to us for the life out of you.