_THE CONTRIBUTION OF FRIENDS TO THE LIFE AND WORK OF THE CHURCH_
BY HENRY T. HODGKIN, M.A., M.B.
Secretary of the Friends Foreign Mission Association, of London,
England
=Introductory Words=
After a general introduction I shall refer briefly to some ways in
which Friends in the past have made a contribution to the Church’s
life and work. I shall then set forth under seven heads the
distinctive mission which I believe the Society of Friends has to our
own generation both in Western lands and in the awakening nations of
the East. In closing we may pause to consider what is required in
order that this message may be believed in its fullness and power.
I.
During the time that I spent in China as a missionary, it was my
privilege to be associated with the members of other Christian bodies
who were working alongside of Friends in the Province of Szechwan. For
a number of years there has been a large measure of co-operation in
the missionary work in that province, in some directions of a more
thorough character than in any other part of the mission field. The
province was mapped out thirteen years ago between the various
missions, and by this means overlapping has been avoided and great
harmony has prevailed. To such an extent has this been the case that,
at the Conference of West China Missions held in Chengtu in 1908, the
ideal of “One Protestant Christian Church for West China” was
unanimously adopted by a gathering representing the missions of six
different denominations, and two inter-denominational societies. It
was also resolved “that whereas all Christian missions laboring in
West China have for their aim the establishment of the Kingdom of
God, and whereas there is a sincere desire for more co-operation and a
closer union of our Churches, this Conference recommends the free
interchange of full members on a recommendation from the Pastor of the
Church from which they come.” This remarkable action on the part of
the West China Missionary Conference compelled me to look into the
problem suggested by the title of this address in an altogether new
way. If we were really working for a single united Church, what was to
be the contribution of our Society: had we in fact anything
distinctive and vital to give, and in what way were we to give it? The
still more remarkable gathering held at Edinburgh in 1910, and the
contact which I have since had with members of other Christian bodies
in following up the results of that Conference, have pressed the
question home with renewed force.
To many it may seem that the ideal of a single organically united
Christian Church is a wild and impracticable dream. To some it will
appear as an altogether undesirable object to set before ourselves.
We are indeed perpetually reminded in a variety of ways of the
inestimable gain which comes to the Kingdom of God through the wide
differences of opinion and view-point represented by the existing
sections of the Christian Church. If union spelt uniformity, I confess
that I should be found amongst its strongest opponents. If, indeed, it
stood for merging all differences and an emphasis upon nothing beyond
the minimum upon which we are all agreed, I could not look forward
with any satisfaction to such a prospect. To me, however, union stands
for something far other. My ideal of it is represented by the
following sentence from the report presented to the Edinburgh
Conference on this subject: “They desire that ... those who are at
present separated should seek to be led by the Spirit of God into a
unity in which all that is true and vital in the principles and
practices of each may be preserved and reconciled.... Unity when it
comes must be something richer, grander, more comprehensive than
anything which we can see at present. It is something into which and
up to which we must grow, something of which and for which we must
become worthy. We need to have sufficient faith in God to believe that
He can bring us to something higher and more Christ-like than anything
to which at present we see a way.”[4]
[Footnote 4: Report of World’s Missionary Conference, vol. viii,
pp. 137, 138.]
It is not, however necessary for us to determine in our own minds what
is the ideal towards which the Christian Church is moving, or ought to
move, in regard to this particular problem. One thing is abundantly
clear, and that is that, if our own generation is to receive and
respond to the Christian message, every section of the Church must
bring its best contribution. No one section will, in itself, contain
the whole of truth. In this day of Foreign Missions we are enabled to
see on the horizon the glorious ideal of the Kingdom of God into which
each nation and each race shall contribute its own distinctive
elements of moral strength and spiritual illumination. Even so may we
not conceive, as a preparation for this end, the delivery of a
Christian message more comprehensive than any which has been delivered
to the world since Apostolic days? If this message is to be delivered,
either at home or abroad, there must be a larger sympathy and a better
understanding between the various Christian communions. Each must seek
to interpret its own message in terms intelligible to the others: each
must make a patient endeavor to appreciate the strength and beauty of
that which has been committed to other Christian communions with which
it has perhaps hitherto been at war. Whether this will ultimately lead
into an organic unity or not none of us can possibly say. Whether,
indeed, we should work for organic unity or not will evoke large
divergence of opinion. Whether or not we should cultivate the spirit
of unity—the atmosphere in which the beautiful flower of unity will
come to perfection—this is a question upon which there can surely be
no divergence of view.
I approach this question as one who dares to believe that
Christianity is the future religion of mankind. I believe this because
I see no other religious system in the least degree competent to take
this place. I believe it because the closer linking of mankind by
commercial and intellectual bonds appears to me as nothing less than a
preparation for the linking together of the whole human race in one
great spiritual kingdom. I believe it because I see in the Man Christ
Jesus the One who alone can appeal to all ages and all races and all
classes of men: who is in very truth the Son of Man. I believe it
supremely because I see in Him the only begotten Son of God sent into
the world for the redemption of mankind, and offering His life as the
one supreme sacrifice for the sins of the whole world. It is with
nothing short of a passionate longing that I desire that the Society
of Friends may make its full contribution to the achievement of this
glorious ideal. In the great purposes of God the full content of truth
will, I feel assured, be some day discovered and followed by a
redeemed humanity. For the Society of Friends, which has already
played a great part in leading men into the truth, I am ambitious that
we may not, through any failure of spiritual perception or moral
earnestness, lose the opportunity of giving what has been given to us.
That which we have, we hold in trust for the Church and for the world.
On this occasion, it is not my purpose to enlarge upon the
contribution of our Society to the _world_. In common with all the
Christian Churches, we have a great message to deliver. Even as George
Fox said in his day we are charged primarily with “the preaching of
the Everlasting Gospel.” The great essentials of this gospel—the
Divine Sonship of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ: His great
sacrifice for sin: His victory over it in His resurrection: the gift
of His Holy Spirit—these are the things which bind us together with
all sections of the Christian Church, and which give us, in common
with them, a life-giving message to our own generation. I wish it to
be clear that, in passing over these fundamental questions, it is not
because I lightly esteem them; but simply because I feel so sure that
we here are united with one another and with all who truly call upon
the name of Christ, and because I wish rather to emphasize and plead
for a more deliberate and sympathetic attempt to bring the message of
Quakerism to our own generation.
But I do this in no narrow sectarian spirit. It may be that the
following recollection of a Quaker boyhood represents to some extent
the attitude which many of us have held at one time in our lives. “I
said ‘thee’ and ‘thy’ to everybody, and I would fully as soon have
used profane words as have said ‘you’ or ‘yours’ to any person. I
thought only ‘Friends’ went to heaven, and so I supposed that the use
of ‘thee’ and ‘thy’ was one of the main things that determined whether
one would be let in or not. Nobody ever told me anything like this and
if I had asked anybody at home about it, I should have had my views
corrected. But for a number of years this was my settled faith. I
pitied the poor neighbors who would never be let in, and I wondered
why everybody did not ‘join the Meeting’ and learn to say ‘thee’ and
‘thy.’ I had one little Gentile friend whom I could not bear to have
‘lost,’ and I went faithfully to work and taught him ‘the language,’
which he always used with me till he was ten or twelve years old, when
the strain of the world got too heavy upon the little fellow! I am
quite sure no Israelite, in the days of Israel’s prosperity, ever had
a more certain conviction that he belonged to a peculiar people whom
the Lord had chosen as His own than I had. There was for me an
absolute break between ‘us’ and anybody else. This Phariseeism was
never taught me nor encouraged directly by anybody; but I none the
less had it. If I had anything in the world to glory over, it was that
I was a Quaker.”[5]
[Footnote 5: “A Boy’s Religion from Memory,” by Rufus M. Jones,
pp. 24, 25.]
I have no doubt that we shall all wish to banish from our minds any
lingering suspicion of such a spirit as is represented by these words.
To us it must be clear that no one sect is the sole repository of
truth, and that others may have more to give than we; but this
attitude is not inconsistent with a clear sense of what _is_ entrusted
to us and an intense desire to share it with all.
Again I want to make it clear, in referring to various elements of the
Quaker contribution, that I am well aware that in respect of many of
these questions there are many individuals belonging to other
Christian denominations who hold the same views and exemplify in their
lives the same moral qualities. I think, however, that I am right in
saying that in each case Friends hold a distinctive position through
the fact that they, as an organization, stand for these views of truth
and, in some cases, exhibit them through that organization in a way
which it is not possible for them to be exhibited in the lives of
single individuals.
II.
When one looks back upon the past 250 years and attempts to estimate
the value of Friends to the Christian life of England and America,
there are certain outstanding features which at once arrest
attention. Amongst the chief contributions which the Society has been
successful in making hitherto to the Christian life of England and
America are the following:
1. At a time when religion was in danger of becoming, to a large
extent, formal, ceremonial and external, the early Friends succeeded
in calling the attention of their own generation to the necessity for
a vital, inward experience. They undoubtedly helped many besides those
who actually joined with them into a clearer understanding of the
inwardness of the Christian gospel, and into a personal experience of
the living and indwelling Christ.
2. The Reformation and post-Reformation period was marked by that
intensity of religious conviction which so often leads to intolerance
and religious bigotry. Even those who had suffered persecution
themselves followed the very example one would have expected them to
avoid as soon as the opportunity occurred. That our spiritual
forefathers had an immense influence upon that age, in bringing about
a greater spirit of religious toleration, cannot be doubted by any
who read carefully the religious history of that time.
3. From the day that William Penn entered into treaty with the Red
Indian Chiefs till the day when John Woolman made his protest against
Negro Slavery, and on till John Greenleaf Whittier thrilled the nation
with the songs which called to love and brotherhood, Friends have
consistently stood for an attitude of sympathetic understanding of
other races. Nowhere perhaps has this been more publicly and more
deservedly acknowledged than by the action of President Grant in
handing over to Friends the management of certain reservations for Red
Indians, a policy which he declared had proved “most satisfactory.”
4. Even at the time when Quakerism ceased to be a powerful evangelical
force, and when Friends seem to have lost something of their first
love, the Society was producing men and women of outstanding Christian
character, who were known to be no hypocrites; whose word was their
bond; whose business integrity was proverbial and whose character for
truthfulness and honesty was surely an outstanding contribution to the
Christian life of the eighteenth century. This type of character has,
I believe, been largely maintained till the present day.
5. And lastly, scarcely any great philanthropic movement has risen
during the last 200 years which has not had the support of Friends;
and notable cases could be quoted to show the way in which Friends
have taken the lead in such matters. Especially at times when
religious revival has taken on emotional forms, and when the emphasis
has been thrown almost exclusively upon the subjective side, it has
been of great benefit to the Church to have the association of
practical philanthropy with the very Society which has always insisted
on the necessity for an inward experience.
I refer to these few historic examples in order to illustrate the way
in which I am approaching the question, and to show how a particular
Christian Society has, for upwards of 250 years, been steadily
bringing its influence to bear upon the Christian life of two great
nations. In looking back upon the past, we may truly thank God and
take courage. Let there be no thought of arrogance in our minds; but
rather of deep humility, as we proceed to look into the problems which
confront us to-day, and consider in what direction our Society may
contribute towards their solution.
III.
In whatever direction we look to-day, we see the danger of an invading
materialism. By this I do not mean any philosophic position. In fact,
I do not believe that what might be called philosophic materialism is
gaining ground at the present time. It does seem to me, however, that
a practical agnosticism is making itself felt in very many quarters.
The vague sense that God is responsible for the Universe, that at one
time some great Cause operated to bring it all into being and that, in
some way, we are all still depending upon the benevolent activity of
that Cause, is not Christianity. The Christian Church is being
invaded by this uncertainty with regard to God. There is a loosening,
it seems to me, of that close grip upon the eternal verities which
enables men perpetually to draw upon the resources of God, to throw
themselves in the abandonment of faith upon a living Savior and to
find that faith justified at every step of the way. Men do not like to
set forth upon a path without knowing whither it leads. The prevailing
scientific temper leads men to test everything many times, to trust
nothing beyond the range of verifiable scientific facts. This breeds a
spirit which only takes cognizance of the things which can be seen and
felt and weighed and measured. Where is there room in this narrowed
universe for the limitless activity of the God of Love?
When we turn our eyes to the non-Christian world, the danger becomes
more startlingly apparent. Here are the “child races” filled with that
sense of the mystery and awe which the little child, even in our
materialistic modern world, still has. The savage thinks of God as
infinitely near, or at least he thinks that the spirits of the
departed are. It needs no carefully stated argument to demonstrate the
existence of an unknown world. It lies all about and around. He is
reminded of it by the thunder and the lightning. And to him there
comes our modern education explaining away all the beautiful or the
dreadful mystery of life, and, before he knows what has happened, he
is losing his sense of God. The old sanctions are loosened as the old
fear is removed, and he has got helplessly adrift into the mid-stream
of a barren rationalism.
What are we to do for him and what are we to do for the modern man in
our midst? We shall not have to go very far to search for those who
still find the remedy in an elaborate and beautiful religious
ceremonial; who will tell us that it is foolish to build our religious
conviction upon mere personal experience: that we are rather to turn
back to the experience of the Christian Church. We are to observe its
ordinances perfectly. There are to be stated seasons of prayer: there
are to be stated means of grace: and through these, whether you
_feel_ any better for it or not, you will be brought into line with
the experience of the Catholic Church and become partakers of Heavenly
grace. I am far from denying that beautiful forms of worship, that
stated seasons of prayer, or that time-honored ritual may have a real
place in the spiritual experience of very many. Doubtless, these
things have been of value in bringing numbers of souls into the
Kingdom of God, and will still be so. To me it seems, however, that
they are fraught with great danger. Especially at the present time,
when men intensely desire reality, they are apt to become impatient
with the forms of a bygone age, however zealously they may be followed
by some of their contemporaries. And, on the other hand, there are
those who are too readily content with the outward and allow the mere
forms of religion to salve the uneasy conscience. Was there, I wonder,
ever a time when men needed more than they do to-day a clear summons
into a life of spiritual reality and of personal intimate knowledge of
God? Can we summon them back as did our forefathers? Have we the
message that they had? Can we say, as did Francis Howgill, “The Lord
appeared daily to us to our astonishment, amazement and great
admiration, insomuch that we often said one to another with great joy
of heart, ‘What! Is the Kingdom of God come to be with men?’” The
message sent forth by the Edinburgh Conference to the whole Church of
Christ called her to realize that “God is demanding of us all a new
order of life ... that He is greater, more loving, nearer and more
available for our help and comfort than any man has dreamed.” If there
was one thing which the Society of Friends was called into existence
to proclaim, it was this very truth. Are we proclaiming it to-day?
And, for the non-Christian world, how great is the danger of
substituting one set of ceremonies for another. To those who have been
in the habit of trusting to such barren rites as the burning of paper
money, the washing in the Ganges and the sacred but often most unholy
feasts, how easy it is to allow the burning of incense or the rites
of Baptism or the Holy Communion to take the same place in their
thoughts and to be trusted for salvation or merit in the same way. In
fact, one of our own missionaries in Ceylon was a man who had, for
some years, worked in connection with another Society, and who had
found that he was in constant difficulty because he was building up
with one hand what he had to remove with the other. He came to the
conclusion that, if he was to help men into a personal experience of
Christ, he must take away entirely all possibility of trusting to
outward rites, and preach to them the simple Quaker message. When the
Friend missionaries in China met after the West China Conference to
consider the way in which we might express in a few words the
contribution of Friends towards the doctrine and practice of a Union
Church, they drew up a brief statement which contains the following
words under the heading of “sacraments.” These words are intended to
convey the essence of the Quaker position on this point.
1. “The Pre-eminence of the Spiritual Experience.
2. “The Spiritual Experience may be realized independently of any
special occasion, rite, or mediating person, except our Lord.
3. “Membership of the Church of Christ is of such a character that any
outward recognition fails adequately to determine it.”
If the complete Christian message is to be given, if the Christian
Church is to enter fully into an understanding of the mind of the
Master, this aspect of truth needs to be emphasized, not only by words
but by lives, and not only by the lives of individuals but by that
added emphasis which comes through the existence of a corporate Body,
whose very existence depends upon the validity of this tremendous
fact. Our position as a Society does depend upon this truth, and out
of it grow many other of our special contributions, if not all. We are
set in the world of to-day to testify to a truth the enunciation of
which has never been more urgently or more widely needed. The whole
Church of Christ should be sounding forth this message. _She needs,
therefore, a body of persons who stand for the principle that God
deals directly with every soul of man, ever challenging the spirit of
man to rest in nothing short of direct personal intercourse with God._
IV.
No one can be blind to the way in which every detail of our life is
being modified by the many new inventions which accelerate the rate of
living. We crowd into a single day more than our forefathers could put
into a week. The express train, the telegraph and the telephone, the
typewriter, the multiplied devices for saving time—all these things
are speeding up life to the point at which the time for meditation and
quiet is crowded out. This is surely a great and growing danger of
which none of us is wholly unconscious.
I have been surprised to find in how many different circles there is
at the present time a feeling of dissatisfaction with the forms of
worship which have for long been regarded as sufficiently
satisfactory. I know a number of cases where, in high church circles,
prominent people are feeling after something more akin to a Quaker
Meeting than anything else. I am also intimately associated with some
of the most living movements in my own country, in which meetings have
been held on the same lines. This does not mean that great value does
not still attach to regular arranged services. No doubt the vast
majority of those who attend the services of the Anglican Church are
still finding out that their spiritual needs are met thereby; but,
there are others, and some of them are choice spirits, who feel the
need of more liberty and who crave for more stillness in their
worship. They are coming to recognize the great danger of the regular
pre-arranged service such as is usual in most other denominations.
They fear, perhaps, the invasion of the sanctuary by the spirit of
rush and hurry.
Turning to the mission field, I could quote many examples which show
the way in which the Quaker form of worship appeals to some of those
who are being brought out of heathenism. I think of one young man, a
close personal friend of my own in China, who, having attended one or
two Friends’ Meetings, came to us and urged us, at a very early stage
in our mission work in Chengtu, to establish a regular Friends’
Meeting in addition to the ordinary mission services; and I recall
with keen satisfaction the experiment which we made and the true
worship into which Chinese and English together entered and the
helpful and inspired ministry which arose out of it. A leading Indian
Christian, describing the establishment of the National Missionary
Society of India, explained to a Friend the way in which the
Christians had met together for united worship, sitting as he said
often as much as half an hour in silence and then breaking out, as
prompted by the Spirit, into prayer and praise. “We,” he said, “find
this most helpful; it means a great deal to us, and we have meetings
of this kind before every one of our business sessions; but,” he
continued, “you won’t be able to understand it; it is so different
from your English ways.” You can imagine his surprise on being told
that he had almost exactly described the way in which the Friend to
whom he was speaking habitually worshiped. Not long ago I took a
friend of mine to Meeting. He was a man who had spent some years in
India and had become intimately associated with a number of Indian
students. After Meeting he asked me if our Meetings were open to the
public; because, if so, he would like to bring some of his Indian
friends to Meeting, as he felt it was exactly the thing which would
help them.
It seems to me that, in the forms of worship in other Churches, we
have either on the one hand a united act of worship which is to some
extent formal, as when the congregation joins in the singing of a hymn
or in a set prayer; or else on the other hand we have an individual
act which is not formal but inspired, as when a man filled with a
message from God delivers it to the congregation. I know no other
form of worship which fulfils my idea of a _united act inspired of
God_. As we wait together upon Him we are together called into His
Holy presence. The silence represents to us not merely the touch of
each individual spirit with the Spirit of God; it represents rather
the uniting of our spirits together in harmony with His Spirit. Thus
are we privileged to understand something of that true Communion of
the Saints which is to be fully experienced in the life beyond. A
Friends’ Meeting filled with the sense of the presence of God is, to
my mind, one of the chief contributions which Friends ought to be
making to the life of the Church of Christ. This ideal was well
expressed by T. R. Glover in the Swarthmore Lecture.
“When it is real worship, common worship may take the individual soul
a good deal further than it may go alone. We make the atmosphere for
one another—courage, depression, hope, study, reflection or whatever
it may be; and faith is, as a matter of fact, as liable to be helped
as hindered by environment. Prayer, when it is reality, and when it
is the common activity in one place at one time of a community of like
experience, may reach a higher plane than we have known before, not as
a matter of mere emotion but with results that do not pass away.
“Love is reinforced by this solidarity of the Christian communion, for
in it Christ becomes more real, and things are apt to be seen here
_sub specie aeternitatis_ in their true proportions. Such vision of
reality will over and over again be translated into action and
consecration. The common worship, if it is the act of all, and done in
deep seriousness, passes out of the formal into the effective, with or
without mystical rite or element, it becomes communion, and we
understand in a new and quieter way what the early Church meant by its
doctrine of the Holy Spirit. God’s Spirit is not bound by our
choosing, but it is possible for us to become more receptive. It is
easy to see how men have come to the view that through the Church the
gift of the Spirit is mediated.”[6]
[Footnote 6: Swarthmore Lecture, 1912, pp. 68, 69.]
He has to add however, “It is, I think, right to say here that these
paragraphs are an epitome of my observations and experience of the
Student Christian Movement;” a statement which may well suggest to us
in England that our Meetings have not been all they might have been in
recent years. Although I do not consider the following statement as
satisfactory as that previously quoted from the same source, I should
like again to refer to the statement drawn up by the members of the
Friends’ Mission in West China.
“1. United worship should provide opportunities for the Spirit of God
to deal individually with each worshiper as well as for each worshiper
to approach to God in the way best suited to his individuality.
“2. Each individual has a ministry for the benefit of all, to be
exercised in spirit, and the true worship of believers depends upon
the faithfulness of each.
“3. Worship should provide an opportunity for this ministry to assume
vocal form, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, who may thus use
any worshiper.”
I recently received a letter from one of the most prominent religious
leaders in this country in which he said: “This morning I attended the
Old Friends’ Meeting here in Philadelphia and was much refreshed in
spirit. I believe we must have more of the spirit of the Friends if we
are to save North American Christianity.”
If meetings such as these have a real and timely message to-day, it
becomes us to see that we do not lower our ideal and that we strive to
achieve it more nearly in every meeting we hold. _For the Church needs
a quiet place in which its members can together hear God’s voice and
find afresh the message and the power to believe it. It needs to learn
how to wait upon God._
V.
One of the most notable features of the last century has been the
progress of the democratic movement. Every one who has watched that
movement must realize the great danger of the tyranny of majorities.
It is true that this danger seems to most of us to-day a smaller one
than the danger of the tyranny of a bureaucracy or of an autocrat.
But, whichever way we look at it, it does not seem that we have found
the true solution. Is it not possible that the pendulum has swung too
far and that we have yet to discover the highest principle upon which
a State may be governed?
In the new democracies of the East there is perhaps a greater danger,
owing to the rapidity with which the new ideas have spread and the
lack of an understanding of the deeper principles out of which they
spring. Those who have closely followed affairs in the Far East will
realize with what anxious eyes Japan has been watching the democratic
movement in China, and how she would have given almost anything to
preserve at least the name of monarchy for China. In India and in
other nations the desire for an independent government and the rule of
the people is outrunning the growth in ability to fulfil such
functions. The spread of democracy and the desire for national
independence is making itself felt, not only in the State but also in
the young Churches in the Far East. On the one hand we have those
systems of Church Government which are classed together as Episcopal,
and in which the authority is vested in a comparatively few. On the
other hand we have Churches which pin their faith to the old adage
“_vox populi vox Dei_.”
I question whether either has found the solution to the difficulty of
the young Church. In both systems there lurk dangers which can here
only be hinted at.
It has often seemed to me that Friends do not realize how much they
have in their Meetings for Discipline. I believe that we have here a
most valuable contribution towards the solution of the difficulty at
which I have hinted. We have at least an ideal which we ought to be
most careful not to surrender. Let me explain a little more fully what
I mean.
We meet together on the assumption that Jesus Christ is the Head of
the Church and that we can trust Him to lead it. We enter upon the
discussion of a difficult matter of business with the full knowledge
that many different shades of opinion will be represented in that
meeting. Nevertheless, we discuss it with the confidence that the will
of God will be made known to us as a Body of persons, and through the
whole Body; not that is to say merely through the individual or set of
individuals who act as a Cabinet, nor even through the majority of
those present. We discuss the question together and we believe that,
at the end of that discussion, we shall be led to a united judgment as
to the wisdom of a certain course of action. That judgment may not be
the opinion of any one individual in the room. It may be the opinion
of the actual minority of those present; but, if we are in a true
Friends’ Meeting for Discipline, we come out of that room all of us
satisfied that the Spirit of God has Himself determined our action and
that He has, as it were, made Himself responsible for it. If we
entered our Meetings for Discipline in this spirit, they would
assuredly be a sacrament to every one of us. There is need for as much
consecration of heart in them as in the Meeting for Worship; and
perhaps more, for it is not easy to give up one’s own pet theories and
prejudices. If this call to sacrifice is cheerfully accepted, our
Meetings for Discipline should be of untold blessing to each of us;
and thus there would be a chance for us to do our part in the solution
of this most difficult problem. The end towards which we are working
is the Kingdom of God—neither a democracy nor bureaucracy, but a
theocracy. Here again I am encouraged by noticing in some movements
with which I have been connected in recent years, a tendency to follow
in certain lines the methods which Friends have adopted in their
Meetings for Discipline. I refer especially to certain Missionary
Conferences and Committees with which I am connected, and to my
experience in the Student Christian Movement of Great Britain and
Ireland. And to apply this more particularly to the conditions in the
mission field at the present time: in every mission we find this
restless desire for autonomy. If we truly believe that the Spirit of
Christ is present in the Church itself, surely there need be no fear
in our standing aside as foreigners and leaving the Church to Him who
has been the Founder of it and who is Himself responsible for its
future. If, on the other hand, we leave only the ideal of government
by certain Bishops specially chosen, or by a majority which can
perhaps be maneuvred in the interests of a particular person or
opinion, we shall indeed have grave cause to fear for the Church as it
is left to itself.
To those not accustomed to such procedure this seems, no doubt, like a
wild impossibility. To Friends it is a serious truth and the
experience of this one Christian body has demonstrated, amid much
failure at times, its entire practicability as a method of transacting
business. Whether or no this method be adopted by wider circles, it is
nevertheless true that _the Church needs a deeper conviction of the
active presence of God “in the midst of her,” not merely to inspire
the individual but also to direct the counsels of the body as a
whole_.
VI.
Next to the danger of materialism or practical agnosticism in the
Church of Christ comes perhaps the danger of opportunism. I suppose to
the end of time there will be difference of opinion on the question of
compromise. That a certain element of compromise must come into human
life, as it is now arranged, seems to me inevitable. Much as we chafe
against it, we are bound to accept it, owing to the limitations of our
existence here. To take one of many examples: I suppose there is no
one of us who does not year by year contribute, through the payment of
taxes either direct or indirect, to the maintenance of the Army and
the Navy, and perhaps to other actions on the part of the State with
which he equally disapproves. There is, however, a whole range of
problems upon which opinions differ very greatly. The question to
which I have made allusion—the question of Peace—illustrates my
meaning perhaps as well as any. At what point are we going to make our
Peace principles felt? There are certain fundamental propositions to
which every member of the Church of Christ can be found to assent.
That we should love our enemies: that we should do good to those that
hate us: that we should show kindness to all men: and so forth. But at
what point are you going to apply these principles? We are living in a
world where some kind of physical force seems to be absolutely
necessary. I doubt if there are any of us who would go as far as
Tolstoi in our rejection of it.
But does this mean that we must therefore accept war as a necessity of
this present evil time, and therefore be prepared ourselves to take up
arms, as many of our fellow-Christians think? The “practical
commonsense man” sees no other course, even if his conscience do cry
out at times.
To take another of the great problems which press upon us in these
days, viz: the relation of Christianity to business. “Business is
business” too often means that Christian principles cannot be applied
to it. There are so many things a man “must do” if he is to get along
at all. “It is better to leave religion out altogether in some of
these practical affairs.” In non-Christian countries we constantly see
the divorce of ethics from religion; and I am afraid the evil is not
confined to distant lands. We all know something of the pulpit that
dare not denounce the sins practiced by the wealthiest of the
congregation: the minister whose tongue is tied upon sweating and
overcrowding: the church-member who is zealous in the observance of
religion, but lacking in his business obligations.
What a need for the thoroughgoing Christian who has ideals and
maintains them in everyday life, who will not lower them to suit the
exigencies of life, or the pressure of social custom, to whom
expediency is a forbidden word even though its exclusion may mean the
Cross!
Or turn to the great non-Christian world with which we are daily
brought into contact. Here is one of the greatest problems, if not the
greatest, which confronts our civilization to-day. How are we going to
meet our fellow-men of other races? The politician has his solution:
the commercial man has his. What is to be the solution of the citizen
of the Kingdom of God? There can only be one answer: we must go to
these men as to those who are our brethren; we must see them not as
wholly bad or depraved, but as those who have in them infinite
potentialities, who are called into the same citizenship and the same
sonship which we enjoy. We must reaffirm to-day our belief in that
Light which lighteth every man, but we dare not be content at that. As
our forefathers led the way in the understanding of sympathy with
other races; so we to whom these still more intricate problems present
themselves, must stand for the ideal, however hard it seems—the ideal
of spiritual kinship and the strenuous effort to realize it in our
relationship with other races; and so it comes about that the Foreign
Missionary enterprise seems to be of the very essence of Quakerism,
and that we find it closely akin to the great causes of Peace and
Anti-slavery with which our Society has ever been identified. Is the
Church of Christ playing the part which it ought to play in regard to
these matters? Is it taking the stand which it ought to take in regard
to the color problem in this country, in regard to the export of
spirituous liquors, and so forth? What, indeed, is to be our view of a
Christian Mission College which deliberately includes in its
curriculum military drill with the full paraphernalia of warfare, and
this in the traditionally peace-loving empire of China? To me it seems
evident that there is a great place for the Society of Friends in this
movement, just because we stand upon the side of idealism in all these
complicated issues.
Right along the line Quakerism ranks itself on this side. The Society
of Friends, as I read its history, has stood for an idealism which is
well in advance of the current practice. In the holding of our
Meetings for Worship we have stood for the absolute ideal; many of our
Christian brethren admit it in theory, but regard it as quite outside
the sphere of practical religion. The same seems to be true as regards
the Sacraments, Oaths, and so forth. The idealist is needed as much
to-day as ever he was. The moral reforms, to the achievement of which
Friends have contributed so much, have been attained by men who dared
to be regarded as utterly impracticable, as mere dreamers and
visionaries. When slavery, for example, was knit into the very fabric
of Society, when its abolition seemed certain to lead to an industrial
cataclysm, Friends were not wanting who boldly said, “Whatever
happens, we must liberate the slave;” and in the end the visionary was
right and the practical common-sense man was wrong; and the simple
secret of it all was that the visionary saw God first and his
fellow-men in the light of God’s will for them.
No less has it been true in business affairs that Friends have
maintained the strictest standard of integrity in the face of
opposition and probable loss. They recognized a higher obligation
which must be obeyed whatever the consequence which faced them. And in
the strength of that idealism they won their way to the respect and
confidence of their fellows. In the end they were often found to be
the more practical in spite of (or was it because of?) _their
unreasoning idealism_. “It was in this focussing upon moral effort
that the Quakers differed most from the other sects of the
Commonwealth period. Their ‘views’ were not novel or original. Every
one of their peculiar views had already been proclaimed by some
individual or by some religious party. What was new was the fixing of
their ideas into one living truth, which was henceforth _to be done_,
was to be put into life and made to march.”[7]
[Footnote 7: W. C. Braithwaite’s “Beginnings of Quakerism,”
p. xliii.]
And to-day, if the Society is true to its past it will not lose the
chance of standing on the same side for the ideal, the Christian and
the only final solution of these complex problems. The _Church needs a
body of men and women who will dare to be fools, unpractical,
dreamers, in following the Light and who will act up to their ideals._
VII.
Another outstanding feature of to-day, to which the Society of Friends
ought to have a special relation, is that which is spoken of as the
Women’s Movement. This undoubtedly expresses much more than a
political or social aspiration. It corresponds in some measure to the
democratic movement and indicates the stirring of spiritual
aspirations. Its symptoms are seen not only in the movement for
women’s suffrage, and not only in Western countries. A recent book,
published by the wife of one of the ruling chiefs of India, is
symptomatic of great changes that are taking place all over the East.
The book is a statement of the positions which are open to women in
Western countries, and an urgent plea for the opening of these doors
to the women of the East also. Although lacking in the realization of
the difficulty of suddenly making so great a change in India, the book
is well worthy of notice as indicating the stirrings of a new life
among Indian women. Hardly any contrast could be imagined greater than
their condition in the past and that which is sketched out for them in
the future by the authoress of this book. Probably many will have
noticed that an incident in the deliberations of the Provisional
National Convention of China at Nanking was the presentation of a
petition from the women of that country for the granting of women’s
suffrage.
I was recently made vividly aware of the vast difference between the
practice of Friends and that of other Christian denominations by the
consideration of a report on the relations between men and women in
the mission field, which was presented to a representative Missionary
Conference in Great Britain last summer. The report urged that an
equal share in the management of mission affairs should be given to
women, and brought forward a strong array of reasons in favor thereof.
It was referred to by a member of one of the largest missionary
societies as “a momentous report.” A lady Friend described it as
“daring incursions into the obvious.” The fact is that we as Friends
possess the very thing which some other Churches are beginning to
realize they need. A brilliant writer and prominent Free Church
leader in Great Britain has recently asked the question why, in these
days of the higher education of women, should the ministry be a
monopoly of the men; and we Friends echo, with the thought of
Elizabeth Fry and Hannah Chapman Backhouse and many another in our
minds, “Why, indeed!” To the spiritual insight and courage of our
forefathers we owe it, that in the Society of Friends we can say
“There is neither male nor female.” I wonder if we sufficiently
realize how great an heritage this is—how sacred a trust; and if we
take sufficient pains to bring our message in this respect to the
notice of others. If the women’s movement, with all its great
possibilities, is to be a contribution, as it ought to be, to the
building up of the Kingdom of God, the Churches need to adopt a
sympathetic attitude towards it, and to express in their own
organizations their readiness to adapt themselves to meet its ideals.
If they are to do this with confidence, what greater stimulus could
they have than the knowledge, which few outside our borders possess, I
fear, of the uniform experience of our Society throughout its
history? _The Church needs to realize with greater vividness how much
the consecrated womanhood in her midst can contribute to her life, and
to give women the fullest opportunity to make that contribution._
VIII.
If the women’s movement expresses, as it undoubtedly does, a spiritual
aspiration, I think the same may be said with perhaps equal force of
the labor movements in Western countries. That many working-men have
been practically unable to develop the higher side of their nature, on
account of the conditions of labor, is generally admitted. The
movement for higher wages and better conditions of work is, after all,
something more than the expression of a grievance against capital.
There is the deep yearning for a fuller life. This great aspiration
the Churches should recognize and seek to meet. Speaking for my own
country, I can say that one of the great obstacles with which the
Churches are confronted in dealing with the working-men is the
suspicion of the mercenary spirit. To the workingman, the clergyman is
paid to do a certain job and must justify his existence. Of course
this is a prejudice which is soon removed when the man gets into such
personal relations with the minister as to feel the heartbeat of a
true friendship, but often these personal relationships are hindered
through the prejudice referred to. Do not these facts suggest that
there is a need for one section of the Church which has not this
disability and whose ministers are all laymen?
And this brings me to the further thought of the need for this very
testimony on the mission field to-day. The other day in India a
missionary of another Society said to me, “Whatever you Friends do, do
not give up your principles in regard to a free ministry,” and he
proceeded to quote to me a case of some well-to-do young men whose
mother was an earnest Christian woman. She, it appeared, had been
urged to take up regular Christian work, and they had constantly stood
in the way. When pressed as to the reason for such action, they
informed the missionary that they could not allow their mother to take
up Christian work because the neighbors would at once say that they
could not afford to keep her; so intimately were the ideas of
Christian work and the payment of a salary connected in the minds of
the Indians. How often do we hear the gibe flung at Christian Missions
that their converts are all “rice Christians!” The element of truth in
the slander of course is this—that so many of the best are called to
direct religious work for which they receive regular payment. At a
conference of leading Christians held recently, a strong
representation was made to the foreigners present, and through them to
the home boards, to the effect that missionaries should lay greater
emphasis on the calling of Christians into business life and cease to
so state the problem of Christian service as to lead to the inevitable
conclusion that the only place for the most consecrated Christians was
the ministry. The great need, in fact, is that there should be a vast
increase of voluntary workers; that the idea of “every Christian a
missionary” should permeate the whole Church, both at home and abroad.
We have seen recently that wonderful results can flow when this ideal
dominates the Church, as in the history of the last ten years in
Korea.
Now Friends have a position of peculiar strength in this matter and
one which in England has been nobly used, especially through the Adult
School movement.
I am not here to say that the practice of Friends needs no
modification, in view of the special circumstances either of
missionary work abroad or of the conditions of a new country like
this; but I do most emphatically believe that Friends have here a
great testimony and one which is needed by the whole Christian Church.
I am not maintaining that there is no place for the supported
minister. You in America have found for him a larger place, in the
special conditions of your life, than we have among Friends in
England; but, even here, I am persuaded that you recognize to the full
the primary thought that a man is not paid for his services or in
proportion thereto, but that he is simply maintained in order that he
may fulfil the ministry which has been entrusted to him.
Is there not also great value in the insistence upon the fact that the
ministry of the Church is not dependent upon the laying on of hands,
or any other outward ceremony? I should like to quote again from the
West China document to which I have already referred, under the
heading of “Ministry.”
“1. The supreme and only indispensable qualification for the Christian
ministry is the Divine call, habitually responded to. Any man or woman
so used of God is thereby constituted a Christian minister.
“2. The part of the Church is to recognize such ministers.”
It is not only the mere fact of his salary which makes the workingman
shun the parson. It is the thought of a class set apart, different
from the ordinary man in the street. Are we making full use of the
advantage we possess through having our business men engaged in the
active ministry of the Church? If we have broken down the barrier
between lay and cleric, have we not at the same time done something to
remove the barrier between labor and the Church?
_The Church, then, needs to be reminded perpetually that the ministry
is not the work of a class but of all, and that the service of Christ
is not a profession but a free-will offering._
IX.
There is one other direction in which my own experience leads me to
believe that Friends have a position of peculiar advantage and
responsibility, and I cannot close this address without making some
reference thereto. We are all well aware of the great difficulties
which have been faced and are still being faced by the Church of
Christ to-day through the advent of the historical criticism of the
Bible. On the one hand there are those who believe that the Bible
should be treated exactly as any other book; that the various
documents which have been embodied in it should be critically
examined and that every statement should be checked and challenged.
This treatment of the Bible has led to results which many regard as
serious, if not disastrous. So much is this the case that many of the
most earnest followers of Christ believe on the other hand that the
whole movement, generally spoken of as the “higher criticism,” is
altogether evil and to be resisted with the whole strength of the
Church. This school, with which are associated some of the most
saintly and earnest Christian workers, believes that we should
maintain the entire literal inspiration of the whole of Holy
Scripture. From the results which they have seen in the case of many
who have been grievously upset, and whose faith seems to have been
shipwrecked through following the higher critics, they have come to
the conclusion that it is wrong to allow any question to be asked
which might lead to the shaking of our faith in the literal accuracy
of the whole book. To some it seems as though these two schools of
thought could not possibly be reconciled. They regard their opponents
as hopelessly narrow-minded and bigoted or as giving away the very
essence of Christian faith. But can the Christian Church afford to
lose either section? It is true there may be irreconcilable extremists
on both sides; but even this I should be sorry to admit. Of course,
there are some who have entered upon the critical study of the Bible
from a sceptical standpoint: I am not referring to these. But there
are many who are truly devout scholars and who are intensely loyal to
our Lord Jesus Christ; and there are many younger men and women who
long to be able to maintain the faith delivered to their fathers, but
who feel that, in doing so, they dare not be untrue to their own
God-given reason, and who are therefore compelled to face the
questions which some would counsel them to leave alone. The cure for
such is not to tell them that an unorthodox view with regard to the
authority of a certain book puts them outside the Kingdom of God:
unfortunately there are not a few whose counsels to the young would
seem to point in this direction. Can we not find a _via media_ which
will help us to work together in love in spite of the fact that we
differ so greatly even on so important a question? If we cannot so
work together I believe there must be weakness in our testimony to
Christ.
I think that the Society of Friends is in a position of unique
strength in regard to this difficult problem. The early Friends
realized—as their contemporaries did not—that the Holy Scriptures
contained the word of God; but that it was not right to speak of them
as being the word of God. They realized the danger, to which the
Reformers were many of them blind, of a literalism in the
interpretation of Scripture which would bind men as did the tradition
of the Elders in the time of Christ. Nevertheless, they held with
tremendous tenacity the view that the Scriptures were indeed inspired
of God, and this none the less because the same Spirit who first
inspired men of old to write was present and necessary to help the men
of to-day in the interpretation of those writings. This view is thus
expressed by Samuel Fisher:
“And because we do not, with the misty ministers of the mere letter,
own the bare text of Scripture entire in every tittle, but say it hath
suffered much loss of more than vowels, single letters and single
lines also, yea, even of whole epistles and prophecies of inspired
men, the copies of which are not by the clergy canonized nor by the
Bible sellers bound up, and especially because we own not the said
alterable and much altered outward text, but the holy truth and inward
light and spirit to be the Word of God, which is living [and] the true
touchstone, therefore they cry out against us. Yet the Scriptures are
owned by us in their due place and the letter is acknowledged by us
full as much as it is by itself, to have been written by men moved of
God’s Spirit.”[8]
[Footnote 8: Quoted in “Beginnings of Quakerism,” p. 289.]
This, it seems to me, is the platform upon which all reverent scholars
and devout lovers of the Bible can meet. The Society of Friends, which
has ever stood for tolerance, is not the Body to hurl anathemas at
those who are finding light for their path in ways that to some of us
may seem dark and tortuous. Rather, is it not the Body which, in the
true spirit of its founders, may bring us together with a tendering of
spirit, as we own allegiance to one common Lord and as we recognize
together the far greater dangers that confront the Church in the sin
and unbelief of the world in which we live.
_The Church needs to recognize that even large divergence of view in
reference to the Bible is consistent with loyalty to Christ, and that
we must all stand together to face the great tasks that demand her
undivided attention._
X.
In conclusion, let me say a few words upon the meaning of all this to
ourselves. Much that I have said to you will be familiar, and perhaps
even of the nature of platitudes to many of you; but it is worth
saying if it does no more than bring us all to the same point for
facing the tasks that are before us to-day. We come to this point
recognizing that, whether at home or abroad, the Society of Friends
is called to play a part, to make a contribution of permanent worth to
the Church of Christ. I have touched upon some of the things that are
included in the heritage of the past. In our Books of Discipline, in
the memoirs of ancient Friends, in the lives of our own parents and
grandparents we have abundant proof of our goodly spiritual
inheritance; and the amazing fact that confronts us to-day is surely
this—that, having so much, we are giving so little. The really
pressing question is not, “What is our contribution?” but, “How are we
to make it?” What a glorious heritage the Jews possessed when our Lord
was on earth, and yet how many of them were content to say “We have
Abraham to our father!” We need, then, first a new conviction—a
conviction that what God has given to us is not only beautiful,
uplifting and inspiring, but that it is true. Whence can this
conviction come? It can come to us only from God Himself. The records
of the past, however luminous, will not enlighten us without His
Spirit. We need to be brought into His presence, that we may see Him,
as did our fathers, and have that note of conviction in all that we
say and do that shall compel men to believe that what we say is true.
And, secondly, we need a new consecration. To us there may be revealed
“the vision beautiful”; but only when we have said with the whole
heart, “Here am I, send me,” can we be trusted to bring that vision
into the lives of others. If we are mere imitators of others, the
ideal may seem beautiful, but it is not compelling enough for us to
take up the cross and go all lengths in the service of the Master.
When we draw our inspiration from Him direct, there comes into our
lives that intensely personal motive which the Apostle described in
the words “The love of Christ constraineth us.” In this spirit of
consecration to Him we shall be united with one another, and, being
thus joined together, we shall be permitted to bring our message home
to others as we could in no other way.
And, thirdly, we need to have a larger sympathy with those to whom we
go. It is not the passion of bigotry which will enable us to deliver
our message. Let us remind ourselves again that we are one with all
who love the Lord in sincerity and truth. If we expect others to
understand us, let us be at least as patient in seeking to understand
them. Let us beware of the sectarian spirit. Let us emphasize the
fundamentals which we hold in common with others even more than our
own distinctive views. The more we have to give, the more vital does
it become that we should “walk humbly with our God.” The spiritual
pride which writes off the achievements of our ancestors on the credit
side of our own balance sheet is perhaps one of the chief hindrances
to our paying the debt which we owe to the Church.
And, fourthly, we need a corporate sense of our mission and message.
If only each of us in this great representative gathering might be
given afresh the child-like spirit, and if all together we might hear
once more the call of the Master ring out clear and strong to our
Society, might not even the early triumphs of Quakerism be surpassed?
A new age needs indeed a new spirit. We are not called to give just
the same thing as was given by our spiritual forefathers; but we are
called each and all to give our best, without stint, without counting
the cost, and, unless we do, we cannot be true to that which God has
given us.
Out of the dedicated spirit of the body as a whole there will be born
a race of apostles. To each is given his ministry—“To some apostles.”
We must have such if our message is to ring forth with its ancient
power and in new and living tones. It should be the peculiar task of
the Society of Friends to raise up apostles. We need to travail in
pain till they be born, and the pain is to be the long sorrow of a
world’s need which God has given us the ability to meet, and which for
Christ’s sake we will make our own.
When I think of these great needs around me, I can sometimes feel that
the illusion lifts and “the _truth_ lies bare.” In the Church and
beyond its borders I seem to hear the yearning cry of those who
aspire and whose aspirations are checked and thwarted: the bitter
murmurings of those who have lost their confidence in organized
Christianity and have been soured and alienated where they should have
found sympathy and help: the warring and discordant notes of those who
quarrel and misunderstand each other where they should unite firmly to
represent Christ to the world: the perplexed questionings of those who
seek to steer a straight course through the maze of modern life, and
who have no certain guide: the weary sigh of those for whom life is
too rapid and who have no time to turn inward and find their peace in
Christ: the almost stifled sob of the souls that are cramped by the
pressure of a materialistic view of life, or by the crushing weight of
a world that leaves out God.
The call comes from far and near for sympathy, deliverance, direction,
peace and courage. Through it all may we not catch the tones of One
whose heart still beats with the heart of his weakest child, saying
“My voice is crying in their cry,
Help ye the dying lest ye die”?
BIBLIOGRAPHY
J. S. Rowntree: “_Friends—Their Faith and Practice._”
T. E. Harvey: “_Rise of the Quakers._”
Elizabeth B. Emmott: “_Story of Quakerism._”
Rufus M. Jones: “_A Dynamic Faith._”
“_Social Law in the Spiritual World._”
“_Quakerism a Religion of Life._” (Swarthmore Lecture.)
W. C. Braithwaite: “_Spiritual Guidance in Quaker Experience._”
(Swarthmore Lecture.)
“_Beginnings of Quakerism._”
Allen C. Thomas: “_History of Friends in America._”
Transcriber’s Note
Inconsistent hyphenation (common-sense/commonsense,
Church-arrangements/Church arrangements) has been retained as printed.
A handful of minor typographical errors have been corrected.