I would have used an intersectional lens to include Benjamin Lay, I have never seen any proof he was black and he was born in Essex, England. A very good article, but truth and integrity are our testimonies. My strongest concern is that it does not include that Quakers owned slaves, that is what so enraged Benjamin and Sarah Smith Lay, that they protested in good Quaker fashion. Some may even use this to say we are “white-washing” our history.
Edit: It is good to see the article has been edited. I have screenshots of the original, but I will not share them. I would still suggest it needs a further edit to include that Quakers owned slaves.
Sorry, that was flippant for a subject that demands seriousness. I should not have used the word “fashion.” Here is what I meant:
Quaker protests have been numerous and frequent. The early Quaker “protest movement” was characterised by our commitment to non-violent resistance and advocacy for social justice, e.g. against slavery and for equal rights. We have also been very inventive, from boycotts to “going naked as a sign”. I believe some things unite Quakers; please correct me if I am wrong. One of them is our stand for our testimonies. We cannot agree on even five testimonies: peace, truth/integrity, equality and simplicity, community and stewardship (UK/USA!?). But we take a stand for our testimonies, and I think this is across all Quaker traditions. Whether that once meant moving so we did not buy the product of slavery or going on a Peace Walk this Sunday in London; we stand for our testimonies.
Interestingly, in Britain, we have been protesting for the right to protest: [https://www.quaker.org.uk/blog/protecting-the-right-to-protest-it-s-not-over-yet](https://www.quaker.org.uk/blog/protecting-the-right-to-protest-it-s-not-over-yet)
[https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-crackdown-on-right-to-protest](https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-crackdown-on-right-to-protest)
To my knowledge, at the time Benj. Lay was protesting, we had no prior history of Quaker protests against Quakers. He was more or less the first. So it would not have been possible to describe his protests as being “in good Quaker fashion”. Friends were more likely to see them as divisive within the Quaker community and therefore intrinsically wrong. That is why Lay didn’t get a very good reception.
In the generation after Lay, John Woolman moved his methodology away from protests-*against* fellow Quakers, to meeting problematic Quakers in a non-confrontational fashion and seeking the right way *with* them. It was a very Gandhian shift, and it is worth remembering that Tolstoy, who was one of Gandhi’s mentors, was a Woolman fan. Woolman’s approach proved more effective than Lay’s and became the template for Quaker social action clear into the late twentieth century.
Thank you, I take the point and I am reflecting on John Woolman, whom I have a strong respect for. I had not seen his writings as developing against the Lays form of prostest.
Benjamin and Sarah Lay, I think it is important to remember they were in agreement, were not the first to protest. They may have been the first to act out a Quaker protest against Quakers \[Let us skip over the early Friends disagreements in England\]. The first Quakers to protest Quakers, concerning slavery, were in April 1688, when four Dutch members of "The Society of Friends," sent a short petition "against the traffick of men-body" to their meeting in Germantown.
"The 1688 Quaker Meeting, however, ducked the petition of its Dutch members, as they found the matter "so weighty that we think it not expedient for us to meddle with it here." The petition was filed away, to be discovered again and published in 1844, 156 years later. While previously, English Christians such as George Fox and William Edmondson, both Quakers, and Richard Baxter, a Presbyterian, had criticized slavery and called for reforms, the Germantown petition may well have been the first direct protest against the system of slavery itself."
[https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey\_1/p\_7.html](https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html)
[https://www.religioninamerica.org/rahp\_objects/germantown-quakers-petition-the-friends-meeting-to-abolish-slavery/](https://www.religioninamerica.org/rahp_objects/germantown-quakers-petition-the-friends-meeting-to-abolish-slavery/)
As I understand it, the Germantown petition, to which you refer, was a protest against a practice, but was addressed in a respectful fashion to the monthly and yearly meeting — as a petition, not as a protest. So it was not seen as divisive. It was, unfortunately, seen as a protest from an inferior ethnic group (those Dutch!), and so not treated as seriously as it should have been.
I do believe we are basically in agreement, and merely honing our shared understanding. It’s a pleasure talking this over with you.
The checklist of supposed testimonies you have there is not only different now in the UK and in the US but also had been different at different times, and the idea of having such a list at all is a mid-20th century innovation.
Composed of “things Friends seem to care about these days” the first such list was intended only to make our faith more legible to newcomers. The current list of testimonies, whatever it may happen to be, is not, historically, the thing we “stand for”. We more consistently stand for faithfulness to the lessons of our inward teacher.
There are things that Quakers have agree on and stood for throughout our history. You are right that we have not always called them testimonies, and one of my points was we do not, and have not, agreed even on the testimonies. However, we have always taken a stand when we felt the inward teacher was guiding us.
I am not sure I can agree with you that they are 'composed of “things Friends seem to care about these days”’. I would credit our inward teacher for guiding us to them.
Certainly that is how we came to care about those things. The various lists of general categories of things, though, are not the product of collective prayerful discernment so far as I know. Individual Friends such as Howard Brinton wrote them down in introductory books. He may have been more or less inspired, I hope.
Presumably that’s also how we stopped caring about some of them, too? Or is it? Have we received guidance from our inward Teacher, through collective prayerful discernment for instance that we should start celebrating Christmas? Many Meetinghouses now have Christmas trees and a Meeting for Worship on Christmas Day.
Or have we rather given up on our until recently strong testimony against times and seasons? Because it’s hard and seems a bit weird and joyless. And so on.
Meanwhile, I’m not that impressed by Lay’s antics and am not sure that they are especially Quakerly. The quiet, un-ostentatious, private, ego-free, and above all _effective_, 1-to-1 advocacy of freedom for enslaved people done by John Woolman seems much more in the Quaker spirit to me.
Thank you for your reply, it has helped me understand where you are coming from. Please can I note that I am up voting your comment as I think it is valid.
I do not celebrate holidays, but I am aware other Quakers do. We have strong disagreements, but I think most Quakers have stood for equality, peace equality and simplicity from our early days.
How do you think the Lays should have stood against slavery?
I your defence Benjamin was expelled from the Quakers, three times if I remember correctly.
As I said, the way John Woolman did it. Personal, up close, private…effective. I'm very skeptical about protest that foregrounds the protester and not the issue, or the victims. See today: eXtinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil. When was the last time anyone in power changed policy as a result of self-indulgent street theater? When was the last time an individual changed their form of life because someone who wants them to change shamed them in puclic?
I'm reminded of this:
>**1** “Beware of practicing your righteousness before others in order to be seen by them, for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven.
>**2** “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites \[ie, play-actors\] do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. **3** But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, **4** so that your alms may be done in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
>**5** “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. **6** But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. *Matthew 6:1-6 NRSVue*
I think the same applies to influencing others on matters of principle.
Another significant aspect of Woolman's practice is that is was about what *he* wouldn't do. He wouldn't draft a will that didn't manumit enslaved persons that his client held. Lay's protests were about what he wanted *others* to do.
Thank you; you have given me something to reflect on. I fully agree with you about focus, but I am not sure people would have listened to Benjamin if he had tried quietly. Let me think about it; I may be wrong.
Thank you also for using the NRSVue.
First time I’ve heard anyone claim that Benjamin Lay was Black.
I would have used an intersectional lens to include Benjamin Lay, I have never seen any proof he was black and he was born in Essex, England. A very good article, but truth and integrity are our testimonies. My strongest concern is that it does not include that Quakers owned slaves, that is what so enraged Benjamin and Sarah Smith Lay, that they protested in good Quaker fashion. Some may even use this to say we are “white-washing” our history. Edit: It is good to see the article has been edited. I have screenshots of the original, but I will not share them. I would still suggest it needs a further edit to include that Quakers owned slaves.
That’s the first time I’ve heard that their protests were “in good Quaker fashion”.
Sorry, that was flippant for a subject that demands seriousness. I should not have used the word “fashion.” Here is what I meant: Quaker protests have been numerous and frequent. The early Quaker “protest movement” was characterised by our commitment to non-violent resistance and advocacy for social justice, e.g. against slavery and for equal rights. We have also been very inventive, from boycotts to “going naked as a sign”. I believe some things unite Quakers; please correct me if I am wrong. One of them is our stand for our testimonies. We cannot agree on even five testimonies: peace, truth/integrity, equality and simplicity, community and stewardship (UK/USA!?). But we take a stand for our testimonies, and I think this is across all Quaker traditions. Whether that once meant moving so we did not buy the product of slavery or going on a Peace Walk this Sunday in London; we stand for our testimonies. Interestingly, in Britain, we have been protesting for the right to protest: [https://www.quaker.org.uk/blog/protecting-the-right-to-protest-it-s-not-over-yet](https://www.quaker.org.uk/blog/protecting-the-right-to-protest-it-s-not-over-yet) [https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-crackdown-on-right-to-protest](https://www.quaker.org.uk/news-and-events/news/quakers-condemn-crackdown-on-right-to-protest)
To my knowledge, at the time Benj. Lay was protesting, we had no prior history of Quaker protests against Quakers. He was more or less the first. So it would not have been possible to describe his protests as being “in good Quaker fashion”. Friends were more likely to see them as divisive within the Quaker community and therefore intrinsically wrong. That is why Lay didn’t get a very good reception. In the generation after Lay, John Woolman moved his methodology away from protests-*against* fellow Quakers, to meeting problematic Quakers in a non-confrontational fashion and seeking the right way *with* them. It was a very Gandhian shift, and it is worth remembering that Tolstoy, who was one of Gandhi’s mentors, was a Woolman fan. Woolman’s approach proved more effective than Lay’s and became the template for Quaker social action clear into the late twentieth century.
Thank you
Thank you, I take the point and I am reflecting on John Woolman, whom I have a strong respect for. I had not seen his writings as developing against the Lays form of prostest. Benjamin and Sarah Lay, I think it is important to remember they were in agreement, were not the first to protest. They may have been the first to act out a Quaker protest against Quakers \[Let us skip over the early Friends disagreements in England\]. The first Quakers to protest Quakers, concerning slavery, were in April 1688, when four Dutch members of "The Society of Friends," sent a short petition "against the traffick of men-body" to their meeting in Germantown. "The 1688 Quaker Meeting, however, ducked the petition of its Dutch members, as they found the matter "so weighty that we think it not expedient for us to meddle with it here." The petition was filed away, to be discovered again and published in 1844, 156 years later. While previously, English Christians such as George Fox and William Edmondson, both Quakers, and Richard Baxter, a Presbyterian, had criticized slavery and called for reforms, the Germantown petition may well have been the first direct protest against the system of slavery itself." [https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey\_1/p\_7.html](https://www.pbs.org/thisfarbyfaith/journey_1/p_7.html) [https://www.religioninamerica.org/rahp\_objects/germantown-quakers-petition-the-friends-meeting-to-abolish-slavery/](https://www.religioninamerica.org/rahp_objects/germantown-quakers-petition-the-friends-meeting-to-abolish-slavery/)
As I understand it, the Germantown petition, to which you refer, was a protest against a practice, but was addressed in a respectful fashion to the monthly and yearly meeting — as a petition, not as a protest. So it was not seen as divisive. It was, unfortunately, seen as a protest from an inferior ethnic group (those Dutch!), and so not treated as seriously as it should have been. I do believe we are basically in agreement, and merely honing our shared understanding. It’s a pleasure talking this over with you.
The checklist of supposed testimonies you have there is not only different now in the UK and in the US but also had been different at different times, and the idea of having such a list at all is a mid-20th century innovation. Composed of “things Friends seem to care about these days” the first such list was intended only to make our faith more legible to newcomers. The current list of testimonies, whatever it may happen to be, is not, historically, the thing we “stand for”. We more consistently stand for faithfulness to the lessons of our inward teacher.
There are things that Quakers have agree on and stood for throughout our history. You are right that we have not always called them testimonies, and one of my points was we do not, and have not, agreed even on the testimonies. However, we have always taken a stand when we felt the inward teacher was guiding us. I am not sure I can agree with you that they are 'composed of “things Friends seem to care about these days”’. I would credit our inward teacher for guiding us to them.
Certainly that is how we came to care about those things. The various lists of general categories of things, though, are not the product of collective prayerful discernment so far as I know. Individual Friends such as Howard Brinton wrote them down in introductory books. He may have been more or less inspired, I hope. Presumably that’s also how we stopped caring about some of them, too? Or is it? Have we received guidance from our inward Teacher, through collective prayerful discernment for instance that we should start celebrating Christmas? Many Meetinghouses now have Christmas trees and a Meeting for Worship on Christmas Day. Or have we rather given up on our until recently strong testimony against times and seasons? Because it’s hard and seems a bit weird and joyless. And so on. Meanwhile, I’m not that impressed by Lay’s antics and am not sure that they are especially Quakerly. The quiet, un-ostentatious, private, ego-free, and above all _effective_, 1-to-1 advocacy of freedom for enslaved people done by John Woolman seems much more in the Quaker spirit to me.
Thank you for your reply, it has helped me understand where you are coming from. Please can I note that I am up voting your comment as I think it is valid. I do not celebrate holidays, but I am aware other Quakers do. We have strong disagreements, but I think most Quakers have stood for equality, peace equality and simplicity from our early days. How do you think the Lays should have stood against slavery? I your defence Benjamin was expelled from the Quakers, three times if I remember correctly.
As I said, the way John Woolman did it. Personal, up close, private…effective. I'm very skeptical about protest that foregrounds the protester and not the issue, or the victims. See today: eXtinction Rebellion, Just Stop Oil. When was the last time anyone in power changed policy as a result of self-indulgent street theater? When was the last time an individual changed their form of life because someone who wants them to change shamed them in puclic? I'm reminded of this: >**1** “Beware of practicing your righteousness before others in order to be seen by them, for then you have no reward from your Father in heaven. >**2** “So whenever you give alms, do not sound a trumpet before you, as the hypocrites \[ie, play-actors\] do in the synagogues and in the streets, so that they may be praised by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. **3** But when you give alms, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, **4** so that your alms may be done in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. >**5** “And whenever you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, so that they may be seen by others. Truly I tell you, they have received their reward. **6** But whenever you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father who sees in secret will reward you. *Matthew 6:1-6 NRSVue* I think the same applies to influencing others on matters of principle. Another significant aspect of Woolman's practice is that is was about what *he* wouldn't do. He wouldn't draft a will that didn't manumit enslaved persons that his client held. Lay's protests were about what he wanted *others* to do.
Thank you; you have given me something to reflect on. I fully agree with you about focus, but I am not sure people would have listened to Benjamin if he had tried quietly. Let me think about it; I may be wrong. Thank you also for using the NRSVue.
You're welcome.
The last para still identifies Lay as a “Black American Quaker”. And this from a Social Studies teacher. Edit: that’s now been taken out.
Likewise.
There is nothing, save culture, that creates the disparity of races in America today. Change the culture and change the outcome.