The Friends Peace Testimony
as "Questing Beast" -- 3
Today, the Faith and Practice documents of our yearly meetings, for the most part, still emphasize war in their sections on peace. The F&P of the Evangelical Friends Church Eastern Region (Ohio) titles its section "War and Peace," while the counterpart section in the Discipline of Iowa Yearly Meeting (Conservative) is simply "Militarism." The majority of these books stress war and matters pertaining to war, such as conscientious objection to military conscription and the payment of war taxes.
A few go notably further, however. New England Yearly Meeting's F&P states:"More than a mere refusal to participate in the military is required of the servant of peace. We are called to root out the causes of war from our own lives and from the political and social structures about us."
From there, various disciplines include a variety of concerns under the topic "Peace," some of which include: eliminating the seeds of war in one's employment and consumption practices, advocating for peace with government, working for social justice, resolving conflict nonviolently at the community and interpersonal levels, and teaching peace in the family. The F&P's of New England, New York and Philadelphia Yearly Meetings, as well as the New Zealand peace epistle, all include as part of the peace testimony doing no harm to our planet. In the F&P of Pacific Yearly Meeting, the proactive building of peace is so strongly emphasized that the mention of war seems almost peripheral.
The individual Quakers I heard from were more likely to emphasize violence than war per se, and to discuss the peace testimony as being a testimony against violence in daily life. One Friend wrote:"In its broadest sense, the Peace Testimony has led to Quaker involvement in community mediation, AVP [Alternatives to Violence Program], peace education, anti-racism work, etc., etc."4
But in conclusion, he came back to the beginning: "Rejection of war (i.e., organized armed violence) is the key point."
One respondent whom I feel obliged to recognize by name was Judy Brutz, the researcher who is so frequently quoted and misquoted among Friends for her study of violence in Quaker families, in which she found that we were no different from the general population on that score. She referred to her unpublished dissertation in which she explored the possibility of a developmental process in the understanding of pacifism. She found that:
"New and/or young pacifists think of pacifism [as] applying to national conflicts. The evolving continues to include in turn, sensitivities to social justice issues, community issues, interpersonal relations, and then family relations."
2. Restraint, rather than action, is emphasized.
A second observation I made about our discourse on the peace testimony is the
frequency with which we use variations of the word "not." We talk about the testimony in terms of what it requires us not to do, rather than what it might require us to do. This is a weak emphasis, with many exceptions, but it is pervasive.
Most of the individuals who described their peace testimonies via e-mail emphasized some version of restraining from certain actions as central to their peace testimony."I am called by my religious persuasion to refuse to kill."
"This testimony denies us the use of violence in conflicts . . . not only physical violence, but also spiritual, intellectual, moral and economic violence."
Similarly, there is a strong emphasis on restraint in many of our published queries:
Are you free from inward as well as outward violence? (Philadelphia YM, 1972)
Do you observe the testimony of Friends against military training and service? (Southwest YM)
Do we refrain from taking part in war as inconsistent with the spirit of Christ? (Pacific YM)
We need to avoid . . . benefiting not only from the manufacture of arms, but also from company practices that do violence to employees, consumers, or the natural world. (Philadelphia YM, approved F&P revision)
Robert Barclay included in the list of prohibitions that when our country is engaged in a war, Friends must not pray for victory. And if victory is nonetheless forthcoming, we must not thank God for it.
Secondary to the emphasis on what we should not do are less strong but persistent strains of what instead we should do. They include: we should profess peace, we should live in a way that fosters peace, and we should actively serve as peacemakers.
Perhaps not surprisingly, it is the programmed, and particularly the Evangelical yearly meetings that most consistently call on their members to profess peace. "Do you endeavor to make clear to all whom you can influence that war is inconsistent with the spirit and teaching of Jesus?" asks a query of Southwest Yearly Meeting Friends Church.
But on the opposite end of the Quaker theological spectrum, it is easy to forget that the New Zealand Statement on Peace--which I believe is well on its way to becoming our third most frequently quoted peace textCwas itself a public profession of peace. It was addressed not to other Quakers, although some American yearly meetings accepted it as an epistle, but to the people of New Zealand, and it concludes with the following passage of peace evangelism:"What we advocate is not uniquely Quaker but human and, we believe, the will of God. Our stand does not belong to Friends alone--it is yours by birthright. We challenge all New Zealanders to stand up and be counted on what is no less than the affirmation of life and the destiny of humankind.
Together, let us reject the clamor of fear and listen to the whisperings of hope."
To actively live as peaceful persons, both inwardly in our natures, and outwardly in our relationships, our work, and our consumption practices, is another theme that weaves through our individual and corporate discourse on peace. Many of the Friends who responded to my inquiry emphasized the principles of active nonviolence in their daily lives: "Living the Peace Testimony is like breathing, where the Peace Testimony is the oxygen," one Friend wrote. Another wrote, "Our personal behavior to others around us is where 'peace' can really start and end from."
Similarly, Baltimore YM queries its members, "Do you work to make your peace testimony a reality in your life and in your world?"
"Bring into God's light those emotions, attitudes and prejudices in yourself which lie at the root of destructive conflict, acknowledging your need for forgiveness and grace," advises Britain YM.
And practically every book of discipline includes the query: "Do you live in the virtue of that life and power that takes away the occasion of all wars?"
Finally, outward peacemaking is a faint but constant note in the peace testimony chord. Only one of my electronic respondents put peacemaking first in importance. "How can I be alert to situations that might turn to conflict and work to turn them instead toward peace?" was how he described his personal query. Some other respondents indicated that they were working for equality and justice, as necessary components of a peaceful world.
The majority of disciplines contained some mention of work that fits the category of peacemaking. For example, New England YM queries: "Do you take your part in the ministry of reconciliation between individuals, groups and nations?"
>>>
