| |
I.Beginnings (1652-1689)
II.Consolidation/Withdrawal (1689-circa 1800)
III. Schism and Reform (circa 1800-1900)
IV. Reconciliation (circa 1900-1955)
V. Unity amidst diversity (1955-Present)
Quakers continued to be maligned, and occasionally persecuted,
even after the adoption of the Toleration Act by the English Parliament
in 1689. But for the most part, Quakers were left alone. Perhaps
ironically, their enthusiasm--or in other words, missionary zeal--diminished
almost as soon as they won toleration; and the maintaining of discipline
among a "peculiar people" tended to replace the expansive evangelism
of the early years. What had once been a glorious and creative movement
now took on the characteristics of a closed sect.
By 1720, the Quakers had become a minority of the population of
Pennsylvania, but they retained political control of the colony
until 1755 when, at the onset of the French and Indian Wars, most
Friends gave up their seats in the Assembly rather than vote for
war measures. There was, during this period, a kind of `interlocking
directorate' of the political leaders of Pennsylvania and the leading
figures within Philadelphia Yearly Meeting. Nevertheless, Quakers
throughout the eighteenth century tended more and more to withdraw
from active public life; increasingly, they sought to deepen their
own spiritual lives and to hedge their Society about with distinctive
rules and customs. But there were some, Betsy Ross for instance,
who chose actively to support the American cause during the revolution
and who formed a movement called the Free Quakers; others sought
to avoid the conflict by moving to Canada; and a few Quaker leaders
were exiled to Virginia.
During this period Yearly Meetings established requirements for
membership, and adopted, then rather frequently revised, Books of
Discipline intended to define more precisely the code of Quaker
conduct and to prescribe the means of enforcing this code on members.
For instance, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting's 1704 Book of Discipline
included a provision discouraging the marriage of Friends to non-Friends;
its 1712 Discipline recommended disownment (that is, expulsion)
of members who married `out of meeting;' and its 1722 Discipline
required immediate disownment for this conduct. Such policies obviously
enhanced the exclusivity of the Religious Society of Friends, as
did the Queries and Advices formulated in order to increase Friends'
mindfulness of their distinctive code of conduct.
But this period of consolidation was also a period of creativity.
Even as Friends turned their energies from worldly matters, and
particularly as they withdrew from governing Pennsylvania in 1755,
they clarified and refined the testimonies for which Friends are
known today. For instance, they became more deeply involved as leaders
in the movement to abolish slavery and to achieve racial justice,
they expressed concern for the treatment of prisoners, and for the
treatment of Native Americans, they established a number of philanthropies,
and they opposed the payment of taxes for war purposes and adhered
generally to the principle of nonviolence.
An unprecedented number of reforming ministers arose at this time,
and traveled widely in the ministry, combining an effort to improve
the discipline and to perfect the setting up of meetings, to preach
against slavery and other social evils, and to hold public meetings
in which they preached to the general public, just as their spiritual
ancestors had done a century earlier. One such minister was John
Woolman (1720-1772) who exemplified what a Quaker life could be
when governed by the testimonies of Friends. His untiring efforts
to eliminate the holding of slaves, to improve the treatment of
Native Americans, and to end economic exploitation gave substance
to the Quaker testimony on equality; and his choice of a way of
life `free from much Entanglement and the Desire of outward Greatness,'
as he records in his Journal, likewise demonstrated the practical
import of the Quaker testimony on simplicity. Though he directed
his energies primarily to reform within the Religious Society of
Friends, his work and his public writings were also clearly intended
to influence the practice of the larger society.
|
|