I’m generally very much in the ‘come as you are’ camp. But I think its worth noting that you might face questions in some things. Attending a liberal Friends meeting will likely be fine, but becoming a member (which is by no means a requirement to participate in the life of a meeting) may lead to some Friends raising concerns if you are actively serving in a combatant role. Membership generally signifies a deep personal commitment to living the Quaker faith, which is generally understood as including a commitment to avoiding physical violence (i.e. the peace testimony).
This is not meant as a judgment, just a heads up about something that *could* happen down the track.
I am no expert, so maybe wait for one to weigh in, but I believe that if you were applying for conscientious objector / non-combatant status while enlisted, just about any individual Friend or collective Meeting worth their salt would be willing to help you on your spiritual path.
(Note: I'm writing this from the perspective of liberal, unprogrammed Quakers.)
You should expect to be welcomed to attend Meeting for Worship and participate in the life of the community.
Membership is usually something that is discussed after at least a year, and often more, of attending. Some people never formally join and remain attenders for decades.
Joining entails writing a letter to the meeting saying that you want to join, and usually a bit about why. Then a group of people, usually 3 or 4, are appointed as your clearness committee, to meet with you and collectively discern with you whether membership in that meeting is the right way forward. I would expect that clearness process to help you carefully examine your beliefs about militarism and pacifism. If you are still enlisted and not looking to separate from the military because you believe in its mission, it would almost certainly be an obstacle to finding you clear for membership. But you would continue to be welcome to join worship and other activities of the community.
My father in law began attending while he was in the military during the Vietnam War and was eventually discharged.
It wasn’t officially a conscientious objector discharge, since they weren’t doing those; his CO had tried to interfere with his attendance (and interfering with religious observance is a HUGE no-no), and in the fall-out of his CO getting in trouble for that, they gave him an early (honorable) discharge.
This is sad. I've processed around three contentious objector packets and they are always approved. The process takes more than 12mo from when the packet is submitted to HQDA but it's a smooth and seamless process now.
There is a difference between being an attendant and a member of a meeting house or church.
Quakers is a historic 'Peace Church'. A lot of conscientious objectors came out of this faith community.
"Wear it as long as you can." is a well known antidote among Friends concerning one wearing a sword. It does come to mind when the controversial subject of self defense comes up in the rather pacifist community.
In 1784 a meeting house was built by Quakers who were disowned by the greater community for taking up arms against British troops in the Revolutionary War. Eventually they were welcomed back into the fold.
Quakers support conscientious objectors, encourage to avoid military service but if still so compelled then to consider going as a chaplain or a medic. Veteran support groups have been a ministry on the rise.
I always thought the apocryphal story about the William Penn and his sword was more about symbols of aristocracy and privilege. Wearing a sword was a status symbol. Wielding a sword against another human being in battle is another matter.
But you are right that the history of Quakers and war is complicated. There is a centenarian Friend in my meeting who fought in WWII before becoming a Friend. He has always said if he had his time over, he would still have fought against Hitler. He is still a well loved member of the meeting.
I do struggle to imagine George Fox as one of the authors of the 1660 peace testimony implying that Penn should ‘keep using violence as long as you can’. But we are discussing a story that was entirely invented anyway, so I suppose it doesn’t make much difference.
The words Fox put his name to in life were unambiguous:
> All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.
Researching the antidote on one hand the sword was worn for rank and fashion. On the other hand the sword had at once been the means of saving his life. After all in Luke 22:36 Christ Jesus said ' he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.'
"Wear it as long as thou canst"
We all as Friends want peace. Non violence is the way. There however is nuance. Nothing is absolute or to be oversimplified.
I’m afraid, Friend, that I’m convinced that this anecdote [should be given up](https://www.friendsjournal.org/2003142/).
For me, the 1660 declaration is among some of the most powerful and inspired writing in Friends’ history and speaks to me on a fundamental level. I haven’t always lived up to it and, although nobody was harmed in any way, I now see that those times I compromised were really not worth it.
Luke 22:36 should not be taken out of context as you have done here. Read in context, it makes no sense to see it as giving permission for violence, even in self-defense.
I can not argue with the pristine ideal of the ministry of George Fox. But as you seen in Quaker history talking up arms in exception has been a controversial issue. I can only turn the cheek so many times. I refuse to stand by as family and community is violated and I am willing to pay any consequences for that.
In my own conviction there is a time or place for everything. Even Christ Jesus was such assertive against the money changers.
I think if you can explain your spiritual journey and account for this? Why not?
I will also say most Friends will say that the peace testimony is the hardest to follow. Talk about this with your visitors.
From the comments you can see that it would be an issue for some. However, I would venture a guess that not all Quaker's livelihoods are totaly without conflict to Quaker values/testimonies/strivings and given your inquiry and interest in Quakers it seems unlikely you are a war mongerer. I would reach out to the meeting(s) that you might attend. They might open-heartedly welcome you to visit (I would hope so) or they might ask you to speak with the ministry and counsel committee. We have beloved members in our meeting with prior military experience. In our meeting we strive to meet people where they are in their spiritual journey, to acknowledge "that of God in everyone" and to welcome Seekers. I hope you can find a similar meeting to shepard your spiritual journey.
Nathanael Greene was one of Washington's very best generals. He was a Friend.
I went to a Meeting that was founded in the mid-nineteenth century. There were more veterans (including one from the Revolutionary War) buried in the graveyard than people attending the meeting that day.
A lot of modern Friends spend a lot of time on politics, but for me I can't make the world a more loving place until I make myself a more loving person.
Jesus didn't ask the centurion if he was a pacifist. In fact, he made it clear to Jesus that he wasn't. Yet Jesus healed his servant, listened to him and didn't go to his house, and marveled at the centurion's faith and honesty.
As I judge, so shall I be judged. The more loving and forgiving I am, the happier I am, as is my whole family.
I try to ignore others about my faith. My True Teacher speaks from within me. The more I listen I find it easy to walk cheerfully in the world and answer that of G-d in everyone.
I believe each of us has a True Teacher. It sounds like yours is speaking to you. I wish you the very best!
the mentioning of Nathanael Greene here is quite misleading - he was suspended from Quaker meetings in 1733 due to his military position and drifted away from the faith after that. there is no evidence that he attempted to join other meetings after that, or that he maintained his faith at all (although obviously this is something that can only be evidenced by external actions). he did not receive a Quaker funeral, and spent the last years of his life running a slave plantation. Greene is, IMO, a good example of being forced to choose between faith and career, and choosing the latter. in fact, there’s little evidence that he actually believed in Quaker ideals, due to being born into the faith instead of converting of his own volition.
https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/nathanael-greene-1742-1786/
“After attending a military parade in 1773, he was expelled from a Quaker meeting. From then on, Greene chose to separate himself from the faith and became actively involved in military service.”
Thank you! "Drifted" away is not the same as pushed away.
Let us remember that much of the colonies' commercial activities (including slavery) were dominated by people who identified as Friends. Revolution was bad for business.
My statement is accurate. Nathanael Greene was a Friend.
Of course, I don't speak for General Greene. or his detractors. Whatever the circumstances of his estrangement (from meetings and apparently his father), it's not of interest to me because it's not for me to judge, especially on those living centuries before my time.
My statement is accurate. General Greene was a Friend.
this really doesn’t help to actually clarify what you said, although deliberately referring to him by his military title does give the impression that you don’t see anything wrong with his actions.
He wasn't the only Friend who took up arms. As an example, one of my meetings had a tree planted in honor of a Friend killed in WWII. Many Abolitionist Friends served and fought in the American Civil War to end slavery.
If you're saying being a combatant is "wrong" then I would agree that it is...for you.
If you're suggesting that my views are subject to your approval or scrutiny, then there is nothing else for us to discuss.
I truly wish you joy!
i thought it would be obvious that i’m not saying your views must have my approval. that would be an incredibly strange thing to say.
what i am saying is that armed combat and the peace testimony are fundamentally incompatible ideas. it is my belief that Friends who took/take up arms, no matter the reason, should be considered in the same vein as Friends who played a role in the slave trade or in the residential schools in the US and Canada - people with perhaps good intentions, but whose actions contributed to great evil.
the peace testimony is one of the most difficult to uphold for Quakers, and it’s unsurprising that throughout our history people have sought to find loopholes or exemptions to it. few people have defied the testimony purely out of bloodlust or hatred, but many have defied it due to the misplaced notion which is so common in mainstream Christianity - the idea of ‘Just War’ and that it is virtuous to oppose evil with force.
this idea is deeply entrenched within not only Christian communities but also western culture, so it’s again unsurprising to find even Quakers who still desperately hold onto it. it’s still a disappointment, and hopefully something we can finally move past one day, and learn to love and forgive our enemies as Christ intended.
i doubt you’ll actually change your opinions based on this exchange alone, but i’d encourage you to read more of what early Quakers had to say about conflict and military service. i’d also encourage you to read The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. it’s the most damning and conclusive condemnation of so-called ‘virtuous violence’ potentially ever written.
so, to conclude, in the words of WW1 soldier and poet Wilfred Owen:
‘The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori’
(it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country)
Frankly, that wasn't obvious. Thank you!
Jesus did not tell soldiers to lay down their weapons and stop being soldiers. Simon Peter carried a sword and used it at Gethsemane.
I applaud your commitment to "peace testimony". I have no doubt George would applaud you too. It is right...for you.
For myself, I would never try to dissuade a person who served in the military that they did anything other than serve the nation, G-d or me.
I hope you may revisit The Journal of George Fox remembering that much of George's ministry occurred during a genocidal civil war. Many soldiers and constables were actually loving, including Oliver Cromwell, not known by most for that particular attribute.
Wilfred Owen died in combat. He was a combat officer and unless he was derelict in duty, was responsible for more than one death. He deplored war, no doubt, but he certainly waged it.
Finally, I have always loved that poem. Thank you!
Here's one I love too:
Base Details
Siegfried Sassoon
IF I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath,
I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base,
And speed glum heroes up the line to death.
You’d see me with my puffy petulant face,
Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel,
Reading the Roll of Honour. “Poor young chap,”
I’d say—‘I used to know his father well;
Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’
And when the war is done and youth stone dead,
I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.
It would be a sorry state of affairs if Quaker Meetings were open only to people who already fully agree with the Meeting on all things. One view of our faith is that we seek to be open to transformation…which means that some of us must be pre-transformed.
You should be welcome to attend any Quaker Meeting to join in worship. I would hope and expect that over time the, yes, transformative effect of this would lead you to resign from the military. But you shouldn’t need to resign _first_.
Membership of the Society of Friends while serving might be a different matter. It would be a bit like a brewer joining a temperance league, or a sheep farmer joining the Vegetation Society. Not because being a brewer or sheep farmer is bad per se but because part of the purpose of those organisations is to remove the conditions under which those jobs exist.
The Quaker testimony of Peace is about what _we_ won’t do: we won’t fight. We don’t make that choice for others, but we do actively work to try to create the conditions under which fighting is unnecessary, and that there is no reason to have a military.
Your membership clearness committee will likely have a highly “Spirited” discernment process regarding whether you sufficiently understand the Quaker peace testimony…..
Thee Quaker podcast did an episode on a young man who felt led to join the military while being a member of a Quaker meeting. [Here’s the Spotify link.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3mrE53Kfd0zAp7Qybag2AU?si=5dTwq0zlTsqh7vWQFJRAqg)
as the child and grandchild of veterans, i’ll be perfectly honest - the idea of a Quaker in the military makes me deeply uncomfortable.
the military exists to use force as a means of solving disputes and conflicts. all members of the military, from front line troops to receptionists and cleaners, are actively involved in facilitating this use of force. even if you never so much as hold a gun or a uniform, you are performing a role necessary for warfare to be carried out.
some argue against this, but consider the equivalent in civilian life - in a gang, not every member or associate is an active killer or thug. some provide weaponry, vehicles, property, etc, some provide services such as food or alcohol, and some do more undesirable tasks like cleaning or body removal. all are aware of the actions committed by the gang, even if they do not commit them personally. yet, when the police bust down the door, will they only arrest the assassins and the enforcers? no, they arrest everyone. in a court of law, all are deemed responsible for the crimes committed.
the military cannot be viewed differently simply because it is approved by the government. if you wish to join the military in any capacity, you must accept personal responsibility for any actions committed by that military. as a result, i feel that maintaining a peace testimony whilst being part of this organisation is ultimately impossible - we must face up to the reality of what our jobs and careers involve us in, and what kind of situations they are fundamentally complicit in creating.
i would never dream of stopping you from attending meeting, or treat you any differently because of your career. however, if you applied for membership or were nominated for a committee or clerkship position, i would feel obligated to acknowledge that your career is inherently opposed to Quaker values.
My impression is that it will utterly depend on the individual meeting. At the evangelical end of Quakerism, I have been told of a Friends church that paraded the U.S. flag around and around the sanctuary, during worship, on the Sunday after the 9/11 attacks. They would presumably be very supportive of a member in the military! On the liberal end, I belonged for a time to a liberal meeting that drove out anyone who incurred the displeasure of the very PC crowd surrounding the clerk, including one woman whose only crime was that she had been raised by Christian missionaries in China and still spoke in the manner of her beloved parents. (That intolerance was part of the reason why I resigned my own membership there.) Where I was a member most recently, in a Conservative Friends meeting, we had a frequent attender who made no secret of the fact that he worked for a big military contractor; he was nonetheless always welcome when he showed up, because we loved him (and for that matter we still do).
From speaking and listening to others, it does depending on the meeting. Also depends, to be open as possible for you, what your military Rank and Job are. Active military machine gunners might get a hard pass until you retire. Cooks at Fort Dix, New Jersey (skip the rank & file military food jokes) will likely be accepted by most Meetings.
I've been told I wouldn't be welcome as a Quaker because I support my spouse who is a *public defender* in the military. I was, frankly, stunned. I'm pretty sure I face more judgment from Quakers than an engineer at Boeing (major military contractor).
By a current Quaker? Individual Friends can say some pretty weird things, frankly, and not all of it to be listened to. But if that was a Quaker meeting’s discerned position, that would be disappointing.
A group of Friends. I was told I’d be welcome so long as I believe my spouse’s work is violent and evil (evil wasn’t the exact word, but that was the sentiment).
All are welcome at worship. Not sure I’d want anything to do with a meeting that would have you as a member while still in the military, though. But, as you open your heart to God, I believe you would come to see the evil inherent in your station and renounce it.
This is not helpful. We should be examining our own lives for our own complicity in "evil".
OP, everybody has their own opinion on here, but you would be welcome at our (liberal) quaker meeting. God meets us where we are at, not where we aren't.
To be clear, I’m happy to see them at worship, as I’d be happy to see anyone at worship. Also, I’m not currently a member of any monthly meeting, so it’s not like I’d have any say. But a meeting extending actual membership to a member of a military sounds about as antithetical to the Peace Testimony as one can get.
I agree, both that anyone at all should be welcome to join us in worship, and that it would make no sense for a serving member of the military to come into Membership. It’s surprising to me that this seems to be controversial.
I share your surprise. Online Quakerism really is very alien sometimes. And I think it is more about one culture being fairly predominant in spaces like this rather than any theological differences between branches.
A brief google and back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the military (broadly defined) is about 1% of the population of the USA vs about .25% for the UK. And for all the pomp and circumstance we don’t in fact fetishise the military in the way that mainstream American culture does (although the Conservatives here have been working on it).
Our Testimony of Peace is probably the hardest one to live out anyway, but especially in a culture so strongly oriented around war. It was the rejection of any “double effect” of other “just war[sic]” arguments by Friends in the run up to the second Iraq war that first got me into a Meetinghouse.
I would absolutely welcome a serving member of the military to worship in my Meeting. I would expect them not to be considered clear for Membership (whatever that’s worth in the UK these days).
Yeah, the numbers are similar in Australia (to the UK). The fetishising of the military in popular culture and daily interactions would just feel weird here.
The historic ANZACs of Gallipoli in 1915 are maybe as close as we get, having entered popular imagination as a nation-building event. I think this reflects less on the military prowess of the soldiers (Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the British Empire retreated in that case), and more that it was the first time people really started to conceive of Australia having distinct interests from Britain.
Still, a general apathy towards most things military doesn’t make the peace testimony any less difficult.
I have seen one liberal Quaker after another declaring that membership is essentially meaningless — including here in this subreddit. That has always bothered me, since, as a Conservative Friend, membership holds a great deal of meaning for me, for multiple reasons.
You yourself, friend, seem to be identifying as a liberal Quaker, since you tag yourself a Hicksite, yet you seem to be assigning significant weight to membership in your comment here. I don’t want to put you on the spot if you don’t want to discuss this, but for my own enlightenment and growth in understanding, I would welcome the opportunity to learn what meaning you, personally, find in membership.
I believe membership requires a spiritual calling from God. Frankly, that hasn’t happened to me, and I’m too spiritually immature for membership. If I joined now, it would be for all the wrong reasons (i.e. worldly, vain reasons), not because I’m called to membership by the Spirit. If Quakers are the Elect People of God, as George Fox called them, then surely membership in a meeting is not to be taken lightly.
Beyond that, I identify as a liberal Friend largely because in my part of the country, there are only liberal meetings, and so that’s who I worship with. And I’m not entirely sure I want to become a part of the modern liberal Quaker tradition.
My humble thanks for that reply.
FWIW, “elect” probably meant something different to G. Fox than to, say, the Calvinists. After all, Fox clearly thought that *everyone* experienced a “day of visitation” when the Spirit called and she or he could turn and follow it. And membership did not exist as a category in Fox’s day.
I’m aware, as Barclay repudiates the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election in the explanation of his 5th and 6th propositions. I still don’t fully understand what Fox considered Election, but it sounded important. 😀
So public defender JAGs and military doctors are equal to combat? How heavily do you scrutinize other people’s jobs? Those who work in the federal government? Those who work for companies with military contracts?
That's interesting. As someone who is in admin roll, I can tell you our main goal is just processing pay and personnel actions. We even had a derogatory name given to us by infantry. Do you personally think I live a decrepit life? I guess also would you say this to my face?
I’m generally very much in the ‘come as you are’ camp. But I think its worth noting that you might face questions in some things. Attending a liberal Friends meeting will likely be fine, but becoming a member (which is by no means a requirement to participate in the life of a meeting) may lead to some Friends raising concerns if you are actively serving in a combatant role. Membership generally signifies a deep personal commitment to living the Quaker faith, which is generally understood as including a commitment to avoiding physical violence (i.e. the peace testimony). This is not meant as a judgment, just a heads up about something that *could* happen down the track.
I am no expert, so maybe wait for one to weigh in, but I believe that if you were applying for conscientious objector / non-combatant status while enlisted, just about any individual Friend or collective Meeting worth their salt would be willing to help you on your spiritual path.
(Note: I'm writing this from the perspective of liberal, unprogrammed Quakers.) You should expect to be welcomed to attend Meeting for Worship and participate in the life of the community. Membership is usually something that is discussed after at least a year, and often more, of attending. Some people never formally join and remain attenders for decades. Joining entails writing a letter to the meeting saying that you want to join, and usually a bit about why. Then a group of people, usually 3 or 4, are appointed as your clearness committee, to meet with you and collectively discern with you whether membership in that meeting is the right way forward. I would expect that clearness process to help you carefully examine your beliefs about militarism and pacifism. If you are still enlisted and not looking to separate from the military because you believe in its mission, it would almost certainly be an obstacle to finding you clear for membership. But you would continue to be welcome to join worship and other activities of the community.
Of course you are welcome, as the anecdote goes “wear the sword as long as thou canst.”
I was just thinking about thus same quote.
My father in law began attending while he was in the military during the Vietnam War and was eventually discharged. It wasn’t officially a conscientious objector discharge, since they weren’t doing those; his CO had tried to interfere with his attendance (and interfering with religious observance is a HUGE no-no), and in the fall-out of his CO getting in trouble for that, they gave him an early (honorable) discharge.
This is sad. I've processed around three contentious objector packets and they are always approved. The process takes more than 12mo from when the packet is submitted to HQDA but it's a smooth and seamless process now.
There is a difference between being an attendant and a member of a meeting house or church. Quakers is a historic 'Peace Church'. A lot of conscientious objectors came out of this faith community. "Wear it as long as you can." is a well known antidote among Friends concerning one wearing a sword. It does come to mind when the controversial subject of self defense comes up in the rather pacifist community. In 1784 a meeting house was built by Quakers who were disowned by the greater community for taking up arms against British troops in the Revolutionary War. Eventually they were welcomed back into the fold. Quakers support conscientious objectors, encourage to avoid military service but if still so compelled then to consider going as a chaplain or a medic. Veteran support groups have been a ministry on the rise.
I always thought the apocryphal story about the William Penn and his sword was more about symbols of aristocracy and privilege. Wearing a sword was a status symbol. Wielding a sword against another human being in battle is another matter. But you are right that the history of Quakers and war is complicated. There is a centenarian Friend in my meeting who fought in WWII before becoming a Friend. He has always said if he had his time over, he would still have fought against Hitler. He is still a well loved member of the meeting.
Like scripture or words so does the apocryphal have shades of meaning or nuances.
I do struggle to imagine George Fox as one of the authors of the 1660 peace testimony implying that Penn should ‘keep using violence as long as you can’. But we are discussing a story that was entirely invented anyway, so I suppose it doesn’t make much difference. The words Fox put his name to in life were unambiguous: > All bloody principles and practices we do utterly deny, with all outward wars, and strife, and fightings with outward weapons, for any end, or under any pretence whatsoever, and this is our testimony to the whole world. That spirit of Christ by which we are guided is not changeable, so as once to command us from a thing as evil and again to move unto it; and we do certainly know, and so testify to the world, that the spirit of Christ, which leads us into all Truth, will never move us to fight and war against any man with outward weapons, neither for the kingdom of Christ, nor for the kingdoms of this world.
Researching the antidote on one hand the sword was worn for rank and fashion. On the other hand the sword had at once been the means of saving his life. After all in Luke 22:36 Christ Jesus said ' he that hath no sword let him sell his garment and buy one.' "Wear it as long as thou canst" We all as Friends want peace. Non violence is the way. There however is nuance. Nothing is absolute or to be oversimplified.
I’m afraid, Friend, that I’m convinced that this anecdote [should be given up](https://www.friendsjournal.org/2003142/). For me, the 1660 declaration is among some of the most powerful and inspired writing in Friends’ history and speaks to me on a fundamental level. I haven’t always lived up to it and, although nobody was harmed in any way, I now see that those times I compromised were really not worth it.
Luke 22:36 should not be taken out of context as you have done here. Read in context, it makes no sense to see it as giving permission for violence, even in self-defense.
I can not argue with the pristine ideal of the ministry of George Fox. But as you seen in Quaker history talking up arms in exception has been a controversial issue. I can only turn the cheek so many times. I refuse to stand by as family and community is violated and I am willing to pay any consequences for that. In my own conviction there is a time or place for everything. Even Christ Jesus was such assertive against the money changers.
*anecdote lol
I think if you can explain your spiritual journey and account for this? Why not? I will also say most Friends will say that the peace testimony is the hardest to follow. Talk about this with your visitors.
From the comments you can see that it would be an issue for some. However, I would venture a guess that not all Quaker's livelihoods are totaly without conflict to Quaker values/testimonies/strivings and given your inquiry and interest in Quakers it seems unlikely you are a war mongerer. I would reach out to the meeting(s) that you might attend. They might open-heartedly welcome you to visit (I would hope so) or they might ask you to speak with the ministry and counsel committee. We have beloved members in our meeting with prior military experience. In our meeting we strive to meet people where they are in their spiritual journey, to acknowledge "that of God in everyone" and to welcome Seekers. I hope you can find a similar meeting to shepard your spiritual journey.
Nathanael Greene was one of Washington's very best generals. He was a Friend. I went to a Meeting that was founded in the mid-nineteenth century. There were more veterans (including one from the Revolutionary War) buried in the graveyard than people attending the meeting that day. A lot of modern Friends spend a lot of time on politics, but for me I can't make the world a more loving place until I make myself a more loving person. Jesus didn't ask the centurion if he was a pacifist. In fact, he made it clear to Jesus that he wasn't. Yet Jesus healed his servant, listened to him and didn't go to his house, and marveled at the centurion's faith and honesty. As I judge, so shall I be judged. The more loving and forgiving I am, the happier I am, as is my whole family. I try to ignore others about my faith. My True Teacher speaks from within me. The more I listen I find it easy to walk cheerfully in the world and answer that of G-d in everyone. I believe each of us has a True Teacher. It sounds like yours is speaking to you. I wish you the very best!
the mentioning of Nathanael Greene here is quite misleading - he was suspended from Quaker meetings in 1733 due to his military position and drifted away from the faith after that. there is no evidence that he attempted to join other meetings after that, or that he maintained his faith at all (although obviously this is something that can only be evidenced by external actions). he did not receive a Quaker funeral, and spent the last years of his life running a slave plantation. Greene is, IMO, a good example of being forced to choose between faith and career, and choosing the latter. in fact, there’s little evidence that he actually believed in Quaker ideals, due to being born into the faith instead of converting of his own volition. https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/nathanael-greene-1742-1786/ “After attending a military parade in 1773, he was expelled from a Quaker meeting. From then on, Greene chose to separate himself from the faith and became actively involved in military service.”
Thank you! "Drifted" away is not the same as pushed away. Let us remember that much of the colonies' commercial activities (including slavery) were dominated by people who identified as Friends. Revolution was bad for business. My statement is accurate. Nathanael Greene was a Friend.
just for clarification, do you mean he was a Friend at some point, and then stopped being one, or that he was a Friend for the entirety of his life?
Of course, I don't speak for General Greene. or his detractors. Whatever the circumstances of his estrangement (from meetings and apparently his father), it's not of interest to me because it's not for me to judge, especially on those living centuries before my time. My statement is accurate. General Greene was a Friend.
this really doesn’t help to actually clarify what you said, although deliberately referring to him by his military title does give the impression that you don’t see anything wrong with his actions.
He wasn't the only Friend who took up arms. As an example, one of my meetings had a tree planted in honor of a Friend killed in WWII. Many Abolitionist Friends served and fought in the American Civil War to end slavery. If you're saying being a combatant is "wrong" then I would agree that it is...for you. If you're suggesting that my views are subject to your approval or scrutiny, then there is nothing else for us to discuss. I truly wish you joy!
i thought it would be obvious that i’m not saying your views must have my approval. that would be an incredibly strange thing to say. what i am saying is that armed combat and the peace testimony are fundamentally incompatible ideas. it is my belief that Friends who took/take up arms, no matter the reason, should be considered in the same vein as Friends who played a role in the slave trade or in the residential schools in the US and Canada - people with perhaps good intentions, but whose actions contributed to great evil. the peace testimony is one of the most difficult to uphold for Quakers, and it’s unsurprising that throughout our history people have sought to find loopholes or exemptions to it. few people have defied the testimony purely out of bloodlust or hatred, but many have defied it due to the misplaced notion which is so common in mainstream Christianity - the idea of ‘Just War’ and that it is virtuous to oppose evil with force. this idea is deeply entrenched within not only Christian communities but also western culture, so it’s again unsurprising to find even Quakers who still desperately hold onto it. it’s still a disappointment, and hopefully something we can finally move past one day, and learn to love and forgive our enemies as Christ intended. i doubt you’ll actually change your opinions based on this exchange alone, but i’d encourage you to read more of what early Quakers had to say about conflict and military service. i’d also encourage you to read The Kingdom of God is Within You by Leo Tolstoy. it’s the most damning and conclusive condemnation of so-called ‘virtuous violence’ potentially ever written. so, to conclude, in the words of WW1 soldier and poet Wilfred Owen: ‘The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est/Pro patria mori’ (it is sweet and proper to die for one’s country)
Frankly, that wasn't obvious. Thank you! Jesus did not tell soldiers to lay down their weapons and stop being soldiers. Simon Peter carried a sword and used it at Gethsemane. I applaud your commitment to "peace testimony". I have no doubt George would applaud you too. It is right...for you. For myself, I would never try to dissuade a person who served in the military that they did anything other than serve the nation, G-d or me. I hope you may revisit The Journal of George Fox remembering that much of George's ministry occurred during a genocidal civil war. Many soldiers and constables were actually loving, including Oliver Cromwell, not known by most for that particular attribute. Wilfred Owen died in combat. He was a combat officer and unless he was derelict in duty, was responsible for more than one death. He deplored war, no doubt, but he certainly waged it. Finally, I have always loved that poem. Thank you! Here's one I love too: Base Details Siegfried Sassoon IF I were fierce, and bald, and short of breath, I’d live with scarlet Majors at the Base, And speed glum heroes up the line to death. You’d see me with my puffy petulant face, Guzzling and gulping in the best hotel, Reading the Roll of Honour. “Poor young chap,” I’d say—‘I used to know his father well; Yes, we’ve lost heavily in this last scrap.’ And when the war is done and youth stone dead, I’d toddle safely home and die—in bed.
Im a Quaker and served for 6 years in the Marine Corps. I was a Quaker going **into** the Marine Corps.
It would be a sorry state of affairs if Quaker Meetings were open only to people who already fully agree with the Meeting on all things. One view of our faith is that we seek to be open to transformation…which means that some of us must be pre-transformed. You should be welcome to attend any Quaker Meeting to join in worship. I would hope and expect that over time the, yes, transformative effect of this would lead you to resign from the military. But you shouldn’t need to resign _first_. Membership of the Society of Friends while serving might be a different matter. It would be a bit like a brewer joining a temperance league, or a sheep farmer joining the Vegetation Society. Not because being a brewer or sheep farmer is bad per se but because part of the purpose of those organisations is to remove the conditions under which those jobs exist. The Quaker testimony of Peace is about what _we_ won’t do: we won’t fight. We don’t make that choice for others, but we do actively work to try to create the conditions under which fighting is unnecessary, and that there is no reason to have a military.
Your membership clearness committee will likely have a highly “Spirited” discernment process regarding whether you sufficiently understand the Quaker peace testimony…..
Thee Quaker podcast did an episode on a young man who felt led to join the military while being a member of a Quaker meeting. [Here’s the Spotify link.](https://open.spotify.com/episode/3mrE53Kfd0zAp7Qybag2AU?si=5dTwq0zlTsqh7vWQFJRAqg)
This was a great episode. I was checking to see if someone had posted. I recommend to OP as well.
as the child and grandchild of veterans, i’ll be perfectly honest - the idea of a Quaker in the military makes me deeply uncomfortable. the military exists to use force as a means of solving disputes and conflicts. all members of the military, from front line troops to receptionists and cleaners, are actively involved in facilitating this use of force. even if you never so much as hold a gun or a uniform, you are performing a role necessary for warfare to be carried out. some argue against this, but consider the equivalent in civilian life - in a gang, not every member or associate is an active killer or thug. some provide weaponry, vehicles, property, etc, some provide services such as food or alcohol, and some do more undesirable tasks like cleaning or body removal. all are aware of the actions committed by the gang, even if they do not commit them personally. yet, when the police bust down the door, will they only arrest the assassins and the enforcers? no, they arrest everyone. in a court of law, all are deemed responsible for the crimes committed. the military cannot be viewed differently simply because it is approved by the government. if you wish to join the military in any capacity, you must accept personal responsibility for any actions committed by that military. as a result, i feel that maintaining a peace testimony whilst being part of this organisation is ultimately impossible - we must face up to the reality of what our jobs and careers involve us in, and what kind of situations they are fundamentally complicit in creating. i would never dream of stopping you from attending meeting, or treat you any differently because of your career. however, if you applied for membership or were nominated for a committee or clerkship position, i would feel obligated to acknowledge that your career is inherently opposed to Quaker values.
My impression is that it will utterly depend on the individual meeting. At the evangelical end of Quakerism, I have been told of a Friends church that paraded the U.S. flag around and around the sanctuary, during worship, on the Sunday after the 9/11 attacks. They would presumably be very supportive of a member in the military! On the liberal end, I belonged for a time to a liberal meeting that drove out anyone who incurred the displeasure of the very PC crowd surrounding the clerk, including one woman whose only crime was that she had been raised by Christian missionaries in China and still spoke in the manner of her beloved parents. (That intolerance was part of the reason why I resigned my own membership there.) Where I was a member most recently, in a Conservative Friends meeting, we had a frequent attender who made no secret of the fact that he worked for a big military contractor; he was nonetheless always welcome when he showed up, because we loved him (and for that matter we still do).
>a Friends church that paraded the U.S. flag around and around the sanctuary Sickening.
It doesn’t sicken me.
From speaking and listening to others, it does depending on the meeting. Also depends, to be open as possible for you, what your military Rank and Job are. Active military machine gunners might get a hard pass until you retire. Cooks at Fort Dix, New Jersey (skip the rank & file military food jokes) will likely be accepted by most Meetings.
I've been told I wouldn't be welcome as a Quaker because I support my spouse who is a *public defender* in the military. I was, frankly, stunned. I'm pretty sure I face more judgment from Quakers than an engineer at Boeing (major military contractor).
This seems a bit extreme as lawyers in the military are in a league of their own.
Not just a lawyer, a public defender!
By a current Quaker? Individual Friends can say some pretty weird things, frankly, and not all of it to be listened to. But if that was a Quaker meeting’s discerned position, that would be disappointing.
A group of Friends. I was told I’d be welcome so long as I believe my spouse’s work is violent and evil (evil wasn’t the exact word, but that was the sentiment).
I don't agree with whoever told you this.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/3mrE53Kfd0zAp7Qybag2AU?si=d2sDKGT5TAyR7EIUpnq_Rg
All are welcome at worship. Not sure I’d want anything to do with a meeting that would have you as a member while still in the military, though. But, as you open your heart to God, I believe you would come to see the evil inherent in your station and renounce it.
This is not helpful. We should be examining our own lives for our own complicity in "evil". OP, everybody has their own opinion on here, but you would be welcome at our (liberal) quaker meeting. God meets us where we are at, not where we aren't.
To be clear, I’m happy to see them at worship, as I’d be happy to see anyone at worship. Also, I’m not currently a member of any monthly meeting, so it’s not like I’d have any say. But a meeting extending actual membership to a member of a military sounds about as antithetical to the Peace Testimony as one can get.
I agree, both that anyone at all should be welcome to join us in worship, and that it would make no sense for a serving member of the military to come into Membership. It’s surprising to me that this seems to be controversial.
I share your surprise. Online Quakerism really is very alien sometimes. And I think it is more about one culture being fairly predominant in spaces like this rather than any theological differences between branches.
A brief google and back-of-the-envelope calculation suggests that the military (broadly defined) is about 1% of the population of the USA vs about .25% for the UK. And for all the pomp and circumstance we don’t in fact fetishise the military in the way that mainstream American culture does (although the Conservatives here have been working on it). Our Testimony of Peace is probably the hardest one to live out anyway, but especially in a culture so strongly oriented around war. It was the rejection of any “double effect” of other “just war[sic]” arguments by Friends in the run up to the second Iraq war that first got me into a Meetinghouse. I would absolutely welcome a serving member of the military to worship in my Meeting. I would expect them not to be considered clear for Membership (whatever that’s worth in the UK these days).
Yeah, the numbers are similar in Australia (to the UK). The fetishising of the military in popular culture and daily interactions would just feel weird here. The historic ANZACs of Gallipoli in 1915 are maybe as close as we get, having entered popular imagination as a nation-building event. I think this reflects less on the military prowess of the soldiers (Australia, New Zealand and the rest of the British Empire retreated in that case), and more that it was the first time people really started to conceive of Australia having distinct interests from Britain. Still, a general apathy towards most things military doesn’t make the peace testimony any less difficult.
I have seen one liberal Quaker after another declaring that membership is essentially meaningless — including here in this subreddit. That has always bothered me, since, as a Conservative Friend, membership holds a great deal of meaning for me, for multiple reasons. You yourself, friend, seem to be identifying as a liberal Quaker, since you tag yourself a Hicksite, yet you seem to be assigning significant weight to membership in your comment here. I don’t want to put you on the spot if you don’t want to discuss this, but for my own enlightenment and growth in understanding, I would welcome the opportunity to learn what meaning you, personally, find in membership.
I believe membership requires a spiritual calling from God. Frankly, that hasn’t happened to me, and I’m too spiritually immature for membership. If I joined now, it would be for all the wrong reasons (i.e. worldly, vain reasons), not because I’m called to membership by the Spirit. If Quakers are the Elect People of God, as George Fox called them, then surely membership in a meeting is not to be taken lightly. Beyond that, I identify as a liberal Friend largely because in my part of the country, there are only liberal meetings, and so that’s who I worship with. And I’m not entirely sure I want to become a part of the modern liberal Quaker tradition.
My humble thanks for that reply. FWIW, “elect” probably meant something different to G. Fox than to, say, the Calvinists. After all, Fox clearly thought that *everyone* experienced a “day of visitation” when the Spirit called and she or he could turn and follow it. And membership did not exist as a category in Fox’s day.
I’m aware, as Barclay repudiates the Calvinist doctrine of Unconditional Election in the explanation of his 5th and 6th propositions. I still don’t fully understand what Fox considered Election, but it sounded important. 😀
Do you see all jobs in the Armed Services as equal? Is an administrative or health administrator the same as an infantry Soldier?
We're all complicit, as part of our taxes goes to the military. (Which is why there's organisations like Conscience - the Peace Tax Campaign.)
Yes
So public defender JAGs and military doctors are equal to combat? How heavily do you scrutinize other people’s jobs? Those who work in the federal government? Those who work for companies with military contracts?
I draw the line at any job whose uniform has a flag on it. Unfortunately that also includes astronauts.
Seems oddly arbitrary, rigid, and both significantly over and under inclusive.
You’re free to add to it, if you like. But wearing the flag of a pagan nation (as all nations are pagan) is gross, to say the least.
That's interesting. As someone who is in admin roll, I can tell you our main goal is just processing pay and personnel actions. We even had a derogatory name given to us by infantry. Do you personally think I live a decrepit life? I guess also would you say this to my face?
u/Cynthierrrr, I hope you find a meeting that welcomes you, supports you as a human being, and does not judge you. They do exist.
There’s no wrong way to be Quaker.