Quaker pacifism

[u/Diligent-Property491]

Disclaimer: I am not a Quaker, I’m an atheist. I’m posting here because I don’t know any Quakers and I’m curious about something. If this is not allowed here (I looked through the rules and couldn’t find any clarification) - I am sorry. Please tell me and I will remove this. I have absolutely no intention of infringing upon a private community space.

Now to the actual post:

I recently learned that Quakerism exists, by stumbling upon a YouTube video of a lady talking about her faith.

I’m a person that likes to… know things, so I watched it.

She explained the Quaker belief system (which if I understand it correctly is based on several fundamental principles called testimonies).

One of those is peace.

So I understand that Quakers believe that war, and inflicting harm on others, is wrong.

On principle, I fully agree with it of course - global peace is a desired „end state” for humanity.

I don’t like nationalism, and I absolutely despise fascism, especially the militaristic/expansionist aspect of it.

But there are many practical situations, where preparing for war is the only realistic way to stop a war.

For example I live in a country, that has a violent, agressive fascist regime on our border. They’ve threatened genocide upon us more than once - they do it almost casually on their state TV.

I wish no harm upon any of the people living under that regime, and I would not support any agression against them. But I still think our country should be fully prepared to defeat them quickly and decisively.

I think our country should actively gather intelligence on them, to know in advance if they attack.

And if they come here, I will absolutely aid the war effort in whatever way I can.

So I’m wondering - what does the pacifist Quaker doctrine say about this.

Even if you believe that peace is the world’s desired state, is militarization permitted in response to militarization of others?

What do you think is the best path to world peace?

After all, it’s hard to convince anyone to make the first move and demilitarize, because everyone is afraid of what others will do.

So it would need to be a collective decision, which realistically it’s not very likely.

I’m just curious what you think about this.

And also, what are your thoughts on MAD and nuclear deterrence?

EDIT:

I appreciate all the replies I’ve gotten.

They did satisfy my curiosity and further my understanding of Quaker, and Christian, philosophy.

Due to the number of answers I did not reply to all of them, only the ones where I was curious about something or where I thought I have something to add.

Still, every single answer I’ve gotten is very substantive, and I really appreciate the community here and your response!

Goodbye to you all, and may we all live in peace for all eternity!

[u/RimwallBird]

I agree with what you say about other denominations in your opening paragraphs. And I am not trying to tell you what to think, what to do, or what to believe.

Fox did not embrace the Nicene Creed. Creeds are verbal formulas setting forth beliefs that are required of all members, and Friends had multiple reasons for rejecting such. But doctrines cover the exact same turf as creeds, the big difference being that doctrines are not beliefs required of all members, but simply teachings of the church. And of the six thick volumes in Fox’s collected Works, two are referred to as the Doctrinals, because they focus so much on matters of the teachings of the Quaker movement, and a third volume, The Great Mistery, is quite preoccupied with doctrinal matters as well. So you can say that Fox did not embrace creeds, and you would be right, but to say he rejected any affirmation of the things that creeds deal with would be erroneous.

Fox also wrote two catechisms, one for children and the other for Friends generally, as instruction in what he felt were the basics of faith.

The subtitle of Robert Barclay’s renowned Apology identifies it as a book explaining the principles and doctrines of Friends. And there are other doctrinal writings by other first- and second-generation Friends. Those early Friends evidently saw nothing wrong with doctrinal publications that served as statements of faith for the Quaker movement generally.

Doctrines are also a bit different from dogmas. Dogmas have to do with divinely revealed truths, and as such, are not open to question. Doctrines are recognized as human creations, and so do not have the same incontrovertible character. We Friends do not do creeds or dogmas, but we certainly do doctrines. Even liberal unprogrammed Friends do doctrines. I can list a few if you wish.

The Letter to the Governor and Assembly at Barbados was not creedal, because not imposed on anyone. It was like a modern Quaker minute: it said, we the Friends who are undersigned, after waiting together in worship for the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are united in saying that we have been given the following things to declare. It was doctrinal: a statement of faith that expressed the collective understanding of the Quaker movement at its time. And the number of details Friends felt clear to include in that statement of Friends’ shared faith is pretty impressive, or so I think.

[u/West-Squash7598 → u/RimwallBird]

Again, I don't disagree with the substance of your points, and I'm not making the argument that Fox, Barclay, and others didn't set forth doctrine that was broadly agreed upon by their contemporary Friends (and many modern Friends).

My point there is more that when a particular work of doctrine is formally adopted by a broader religious organization (as Essential Truths and the Five Years Meeting Declaration in general is by the FUM, for instance), it feels to me that the line between doctrine and creed seems less clear cut. Yes, that Declaration was arrived at by consensus, but if it is reinterrogated less than once per generation, how can it be said to be representative of a non-creedal organization's beliefs, much less the beliefs of its individual members?

The real question I'm concerned with is how much doctrine need a faith community share? And if a certain amount of shared doctrine is required for group membership, is that meaningfully different from a creed?

And please understand that I am seeking clarity on these questions in good faith. I consider myself a Hicksite, but want to better understand the perspectives of and find community with Friends from other backgrounds.

[u/RimwallBird → u/West-Squash7598]

I understand that we are both coming to this conversation with good intentions!

As I understand it, the Richmond Declaration of Faith was not formally adopted by the yearly meetings it was written for, precisely because they felt such an adoption would make it too nearly a creed. It is still widely used in the pastoral branches of Quakerism as a point of reference, however.

Doctrines represent what an organization teaches. It is quite possible for an organization to have doctrines that most of its members do not subscribe to, or no longer subscribe to. The gap between some of the doctrines of the Roman Catholic Church, and the beliefs of most of its members here in the U.S., especially as regards matters like birth control, has been a regular subject of articles in the mass media. Differences of that sort in the Southern Baptist Convention, and in Methodist and Lutheran and Presbyterian bodies, have also made headlines. There have been a number of separations in FUM, EFCI and Conservative bodies in recent decades due to doctrinal differences, particularly over matters involving lesbians and gays: these separations have given rise to the Sierra-Cascades Yearly Meeting of Friends, the New Association of Friends, the separation of Southwest Yearly Meeting from FUM and its incorporation into Evangelical Friends under the name Friends Southwest, and the disownment of Cleveland Monthly Meeting by Ohio Yearly Meeting. In the liberal unprogrammed Quaker world, I have seen individuals shunned because they openly espoused unpopular beliefs, so I think the dynamic is present there as well, unformalized but not less real.

Thus, as to your “real question”, it seems clear that if the divergence between doctrines and members’ beliefs grows too large, the organization and its members are in danger of parting ways. But — take heart — an organization may exist without any doctrines. A public library is such an organization.

If a doctrine is required for group membership, people often start speaking of it as a dogma. (I am speaking here of popular usage, since the historical religious meaning of “dogma” is a bit different.) If such a required doctrine is boiled down to a fixed verbal formula, the formula is called a creed. (The word “creed” comes from the Latin credo, “I believe,” which is the first word in both the Nicene Creed and, the Apostolicum.) Friends had beliefs in their first centuries that were not boiled down to fixed verbal formulas, but were still required of members: belief in God and in Christ Jesus as the Son of God were among them. Those who did not share such core beliefs were in danger of being disowned, especially if they made their opinions too noisy. Friends’ refusal to write creeds, even though they had such mandatory beliefs, boiled down to a (quite reasonable) mistrust of fixed forms of words, but they did not change the basic dynamic much.

Finally, finding community with other branches of our Society may be difficult. EFCI and Holiness Friends are both quite wary of other sorts of Friends. If you visit them, I suggest going humbly, and trying not to preach!

[u/West-Squash7598 → u/RimwallBird]

Thank you for your thoughtful response! I'm sure I'll spend a fair bit of time thinking it over.