alice Posts

Visting 1806's "A portraiture of Quakerism: Taken from a view of the education and discipline, social manners, civil and political economy, religious principles and character, of the Society of Friends"

Thomas Clarkson wasn't a Friend. He didn't write for a Quaker audience. He had no direct experience of (and little apparent interest in) any period that we've retroactively claimed as a "golden age of Quakerism." Yet all this is why he's so interesting.

The basic facts of his life are summed up in his Wikipedia entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Clarkson), which begins: "Thomas Clarkson (28 March 1760 – 26 September 1846), abolitionist, was born at Wisbech, Cambridgeshire, England, and became a leading campaigner against the slave trade in the British Empire." The only other necessary piece of information to our story is that he was a Anglican.

British Friends at the end of of the Eighteenth Century were still somewhat aloof, mysterious and considered odd by their fellow countrymen and women. Clarkson admits that one reason for his writing "A Portraiture of Quakerism" was the entertainment value it would provide his fellow Anglicans. Friends were starting to work with non-Quakers like Clarkson on issues of conscience and while this ecumenical activism was his entre--"I came to a knowledge of their living manners, which no other person, who was not a Quaker, could have easily obtained" (Vol 1, p. i)-- it was also a symptom of a great sea change about to hit Friends. The Nineteenth Century ushered in a new type of Quaker, or more precisely whole new types of Quakers. By the time Clarkson died American Friends were going through their second round of schism and Joseph John Gurney was arguably the best-known Quaker across two continents: Oxford educated, at ease in genteel English society, active in cross-denominational work, and fluent and well studied in Biblical studies. Clarkson wrote about a Society of Friends that was disappearing even as the ink was drying at the printers.

Most of the old accounts of Friends we still read were written by Friends themselves. I like old Quaker journals as much as the next geek, but it's always useful to get an outsider's perspective (here's a more modern-day example). Also: I don't think Clarkson was really just writing an account simply for entertainment's sake. I think he saw in Friends a model of christian behavior that he thought his fellow Anglicans would be well advised to study.

His account is refreshingly free of what we might call Quaker baggage. He doesn't use Fox or Barclay quotes as a bludgeon against disagreement and he doesn't drone on about history and personalities and schisms. Reading between the lines I think he recognizes the growing rifts among Friends but glosses over them (fair enough: these are not his battles). Refreshingly, he doesn't hold up Quaker language as some sort of quaint and untranslatable tongue, and when he describes our processes he often uses very surprising words that point to some fundamental differences between Quaker practice then and now that are obscured by common words.

Thomas Clarkson is interested in what it's like to be a good christian. In the book it's typeset with lowercase "c" and while I don't have any reason to think it's intentional, I find that typesetting illuminating nonetheless. This meaning of "christian" is not about subscribing to particular creeds and is not the same concept as uppercase-C "Christian." My Lutheran grandmother actually used to use the lowercase-c meaning when she described some behavior as "not the christian way to act." She used it to describe an ethical and moral standard. Friends share that understanding when we talk about Gospel Order: that there is a right way to live and act that we will find if we follow the Spirit's lead. It may be a little quaint to use christian to describe this kind of generic goodness but I think it shifts some of the debates going on right now to think of it this way for awhile.

Clarkson's "Portraiture" looks at peculiar Quaker practices and reverse-engineers them to show how they help Quaker stay in that christian zone. His book is most often referenced today because of its descriptions of Quaker plain dress but he's less interested in the style than he is with the practice's effect on the society of Friends. He gets positively sociological at times. And because he's speaking about a denomination that's 150 years old, he was able to describe how the testimonies had shifted over time to address changing worldly conditions.

And that's the key. So many of us are trying to understand what it would be like to be "authentically" Quaker in a world that's very different from the one the first band of Friends knew. In the comment to the last post, Alice M talked about recovered the Quaker charism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charism). I didn't join Friends because of theology or history. I was a young peace activist who knew in my heart that there was something more motivating me than just the typical pacifist anti-war rhetoric. In Friends I saw a deeper understanding and a way of connecting that with a nascent spiritual awakening.

What does it mean to live a christian life (again, lowercase) in the 21st Century? What does it mean to live the Quaker charism in the modern world? How do we relate to other religious traditions both without and now within our religious society and what's might our role be in the Emergent Church movement? I think Clarkson gives clues. And that's what this series will talk about.

Technorati Tags: quaker, quakerism, thomas clarkson, anglican, abolition, anti-slavery, joseph john gurney, christian, gospel order, practice, denomination, testimonies, catholic, emergent chruch, charism

Alice the Public Quaker writes a beautiful post reminding us that we don't need to cut straight to the cross:

It's struck me recently that living the life of Christ doesn't mean going straight for Holy Week and the cross. I think He had 30 years of living inside love's power before he took that walk. I know that I'm only just starting to understand Love's power, so maybe I shouldn't be too hasty for it to take me to healing the sick and transforming the earth.

Josh talks about his personal experience wrestling with how his Baltimore Yearly Meeting would address Friends United Meeting policies on sexuality:

My inner Sanhedrin has been debating the issue for what will be 3 years this August. At first, the consensus of my inner counsel was "String the bastards up!", but that diluted to having BYM leave FUM. That then faded to us "Teaching them a lesson" somehow, but staying involved. This course of change from "String 'em up" to "Teach 'em a lesson" occured in just ONE WEEK! After my inner Sanhedrin was allowed to season, it became more divided.

Update: a few days ago I linked to a blog by Naaman the Ex-Leper. He grew up as a Friend in Baltimore Yearly Meeting but now describes himself as a "universalist-turned-conservative-Christian." I'm always interested in stories of why Friends leave our religious society and there was some good back-and-forth about whether a more strong-articulated Quakerism might have kept him in (no, which is fair enough). He's followed up with a very thoughtful post explaining why he thinks true Christian Universalism is impossible. I don't agree but reading it is a good reminder of how carelessly we liberal Friends sometimes apply the concept of universalism and how it too often comes to mean an abandonment of all judgements theological (he links to an interfaith FGC pamphlet that I've never found terribly convincing). I would venture that Naaman has engaged and wrestled with Quakerism a more than a lot of us still within it, which perhaps is the norm for thoughtful leavers.

And for those that haven't noticed the shuffling of furniture that's been going on here, the nonviolence.org/Quaker page is now a Quaker "links blog," with sidebar photos and bookmarks pulled from various "social" networks (join one and add your stuff!). There's an RSS feed so you can easily keep up with the the posts I find interesting.

So why didn't I get the memo that April is "Don't Blog About Quakerism Month"? On Monday Beppe said he was taking a hiatus from Quakerism. On Tuesday, Amanda confided to us that she's having a midblog crisis. Wednesday has Kwakersauer's announcement that his blog is under deconstruction.

I'm looking around here and I'm getting a little nervous. The Contrarian Quaker started things on Third Month 31, posting a thoughtful piece on those of us who have been expressing doubts lately. Since then a number of Quaker bloggers have gone quiet: The Brooklyn Quaker, Quaker Dharma and Can You Believe Johan have gone almost a week into April without a post. Gulp!

Public Quaker Alice is still with us, she posted three days ago. Just Curious James checked in on April Fool's Day (but he's talking about British Evangelicals--uh-oh!). LizOpp checked in on the third and Kenneth Sutton has had two posts in April (go Kenneth!).

Still I have to wonder if someone else is planning to take the fall on Thursday? I feel like I'm in one of those bad haunted mansion mystery movies: the lights go out, a scream shatters the night and there's one less guest at the hotel. I'm still here. Has anyone seen the butler lately?

Update: Beppe has talked more about the practices and motivations of Quaker blogging.

Regular readers of Quaker Ranter will be familiar with Liz Oppenheimer's frequent comments. My replies and email correspondence with her have inspired more than one blog posts. I've long known her through Friends General Conference work and through the workshops she often leads at the FGC Gatherings. She's been exploring the conservative Quaker tradition over the last few years and is now writing a blog called The Good Raised Up.

Quaker Jane has been a regular on the Plain and Modest Dress group and now has beautifully-designed website that includes some interesting plain dress resources.

Alice Morningstar is another Plain group regular who's now the "Public Friend" (site since closed), writing about both Quakerism and biology; see her post Why It is Essential to Publish Now (via archive.org) for why she's public.

Lorcan is starting to get worried that I've never mentioned him here. He's part of a flourishing New York City Quaker blogging group that includes Amanda's Of the Best Stuff and Rich the Brooklyn Quaker, who's coined the term The New Plain to describe the renewed interest in Quaker plain dress that I've been trying to catalog on this site.

My wife has now finished the first trimester of her pregnancy so we can let people know that our little Theo's going to be a big brother this fall. That means it's time to think of baby names.

Fallen Baby Names List Name Rank: 1900 Rank: 2003 Drop Name Rank: 1900 Rank: 2003 Drop 1 Herbert 32 962 930 1 Edna 17 986 969 2 Herman 45 974 929 2 Louise 24 977 953 3 Floyd 50 964 914 3 Beatrice 44 982 938 4 J 35 920 885 4 Bertha 26 963 937 5 Fred 19 876 857 5 Gladys 15 945 930 6 Earl 27 882 855 6 Lucille 49 954 905 7 Clarence 18 717 699 7 Dorothy 7 846 839 8 Howard 30 721 691 8 Hazel 20 681 661 9 Alfred 33 683 650 9 Edith 25 683 658 10 Ralph 23 660 637 10 Frances 16 580 564 11 Elmer 36 654 618 11 Irene 21 581 560 12 Harold 15 595 580 12 Marie 8 496 488 13 Ernest 26 599 573 13 Martha 31 487 456 14 Eugene 49 578 529 14 Alice 10 426 416 15 Leonard 48 571 523 15 Helen 2 389 387 16 Harry 13 517 504 16 Ruth 5 350 345 17 Francis 37 509 472 17 Rose 14 358 344 18 Willie 28 454 426 18 Annie 28 339 311 19 Roy 24 433 409 19 Clara 23 295 272 20 Walter 11 356 345 20 Esther 30 297 267 21 Arthur 14 353 339 21 Josephine 33 260 227 22 Carl 20 357 337 22 Eva 39 215 176 23 Lawrence 34 344 310 23 Ruby 42 197 155 24 Albert 16 311 295 24 Margaret 3 130 127 25 Joe 38 321 283 25 Catherine 19 106 87 26 Theodore 42 313 271 26 Laura 50 122 72 27 Louis 21 278 257 27 Mary 1 61 60 28 Leo 44 288 244 28 Evelyn 34 89 55 29 Frank 8 228 220 29 Anna 4 21 17 30 Raymond 22 188 166 30 Elizabeth 6 9 3 31 George 4 137 133 31 Mildred 9 n/a 0 32 Edward 9 128 119 32 Florence 11 n/a 0 33 Paul 17 124 107 33 Ethel 12 n/a 0 34 Henry 10 116 106 34 Lillian 13 n/a 0 35 Peter 46 148 102 35 Gertrude 22 n/a 0 36 Kenneth 47 109 62 36 Mabel 27 n/a 0 37 Richard 25 86 61 37 Bessie 32 n/a 0 38 Charles 6 59 53 38 Elsie 35 n/a 0 39 Robert 7 35 28 39 Pearl 36 n/a 0 40 Thomas 12 36 24 40 Agnes 37 n/a 0 41 John 1 17 16 41 Thelma 38 n/a 0 42 James 3 18 15 42 Myrtle 40 n/a 0 43 William 2 11 9 43 Ida 41 n/a 0 44 Jack 41 46 5 44 Minnie 43 n/a 0 45 Joseph 5 6 1 45 Viola 47 n/a 0 46 Samuel 31 23 -8 46 Nellie 48 n/a 0 47 David 29 14 -15 47 Grace 18 13 -5 48 Anthony 43 10 -33 48 Julia 45 33 -12 49 Andrew 40 5 -35 49 Emma 29 2 -27 50 Michael 39 2 -37 50 Sarah 46 12 -34

Most new parents want to give their child unique names and want to steer clear of the most over-used names. Yet if you tell your friends you're naming your boy Jacob or Joshua, they'll all cheer you on. If your little girl goes by Emily, Emma or Madison, they'll think that's darling. Yet those are the top three boy and girl names for 2003.

They are tens of thousands of kids getting these top names every year. All of the kids with these names are going to be getting nicknames to differentiate them from one another: just hope your little angel isn't the one that gets tagged "The Ugly Emily" or "The Stupid Joshua" by their third grade classmates!

There are definite trends in names. Certain names tend to sound fresh and daring even when they're overused and trite. The only way to train your ear away from such trends is to methodically study the data (the New York Times had a fasincating article on all this when we were pondering Theo's name, Where Have All the Lisas Gone?).

Fortunately the U.S. Social Security Administration provides a list of the most popular baby names by year, going back to the turn of the twentieth century. Using this, my wife and I were able to choose "Theodore" for our first child's name; born in 2003, he name is the 313th most popular boy's name and dropping. Yet it's a known name and there have been great twentieth century folks who have answered to it (e.g., Dr. Suess, Theodore Geisel).

How is a parent to choose? One recent afternoon I cut and pasted the top fifty boy and girl names of the first decade of the Twentieth Century. I looked up their current status (the 2003 data) to see what movement has occured in their placement. The old names are still known but some have fallen far out of use. Herbert, for example, was the 32nd most popular boy's name in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, but now ranks a dismal 930! If you want a name everyone knows but no one is giving their kid, Herbert's your choice for boy's and Edna's your choice for girls.

Now these fallen names probably sound awkward. But that's the point: they run counter to the trends. I'll admit that some deserve their reduced status; I cannot imagine saddling a little girl with "Edna." But in the list are some gems which have been unduly demoted by the trend-setters.

We've been very happy with "Theodore," the 26th most fallen name of the Twentieth Century. He's officially named after his great-great uncle. The social security datebase assured us that the name was safe from trendiness.

So what will the new baby be named? Check in soon!! The due date is the end of August.

---

Update: drumroll please.... Our new son's name is Francis.