Introduction to Non-Violence Part 9

FOOTNOTES:

[117] Barclay, _Apology_, Prop. XIV, Sec. IV, 470.

[118] Fry, _Quaker Ways_. 59-60.

[119] D. W. Kurtz, _Ideals of the Church of the Brethren_, leaflet (Elgin, Ill.: General Mission Board, 1934?); Martin G. Brumbaugh in _Studies in the Doctrine of Peace_ (Elgin, Ill.: Board of Christian Education, Church of the Brethren, 1939), 56; the statement of the Goshen Conference of 1918 and other statements of the position of the church in L. W. Shultz (ed.), _Minutes of the Annual Conference of the Church of the Brethren on War and Peace_, mimeo (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed., Church of the Brethren, 1935); and the pamphlet by Robert Henry Miller, _The Christian Philosophy of Peace_ (Elgin: Bd. of Chr. Ed., Church of the Brethren, 1935).

Ministering to Groups in Conflict

One expression of this philosophy may be abstention from partisans.h.i.+p in conflicts between other groups, in order to administer impartially to the human need of both parties to the conflict.

In this connection much has been made of the story of the Irish Quakers during the rebellion in that country in 1798. Before the conflict broke into open violence the Quarterly Meetings and the General National Meeting recommended that all Friends destroy all firearms in their possession so that there could be no suspicion of their implication in the coming struggle. During the fighting in 1798 the Friends interceded with both sides in the interests of humanity, entertained the dest.i.tute from both parties and treated the wounds of any man who needed care.

Both the Government forces and the rebels came to respect Quaker integrity, and in the midst of pillage and rapine the Quaker households escaped unscathed. But Thomas Hanc.o.c.k, who told the story a few years later, pointed out that in their course of conduct the Friends had not sought safety.

"It is," he said, "to be presumed, that, even if outward preservation had not been experienced, they who conscientiously take the maxims of Peace for the rule of their conduct, would hold it not less their duty to conform to those principles; because the reward of such endeavor to act in obedience to their Divine Master's will is not always to be looked for in the present life.

While, therefore, the fact of their outward preservation would be no sufficient argument to themselves that they had acted as they ought to act in such a crisis, it affords a striking lesson to those who will take no principle, that has not been verified by experience, for a rule of human conduct, even if it should have the sanction of Divine authority."[120]

It is in this same spirit that various pacifist groups undertook the work of relief of suffering after the First World War in "friendly" and "enemy" countries alike, ministering to human need without distinction of party, race or creed. The stories of the work of the American Friends Service Committee and the _Service Civil_ founded by Pierre Ceresole are too well known to need repeating here.[121] It should not be overlooked that in this same spirit the Brethren and the Mennonites also carried on large scale relief projects during the interwar years.

FOOTNOTES:

[120] Thomas Hanc.o.c.k, _The Principles of Peace Exemplified in the Conduct of the Society of Friends in Ireland During the Rebellion of the year 1798, with some Preliminary and Concluding Observations_ (2nd ed., London, 1826), 28-29. All the important features of the story are summarized in Hirst, 216-224.

[121] Lester M. Jones, _Quakers in Action: Recent Humanitarian and Reform Activities of the American Quakers_ (New York: Macmillan, 1929); Rufus M. Jones, _A Service of Love in War Time_ (New York: Macmillan, 1920); Mary Hoxie Jones, _Swords into Plowshares: An Account of the American Friends Service Committee 1917-1937_ (New York: Macmillan, 1937); Willis H. Hall, _Quaker International Work in Europe Since 1914_ (Chambery, Savoie, France: Imprimeries Reunies, 1938). On _Service Civil_, see Lilian Stevenson, _Towards a Christian International, The Story of the International Fellows.h.i.+p of Reconciliation_ (Vienna: International Fellows.h.i.+p of Reconciliation, 1929), 27-31, and Alan A.

Hunter, _White Corpuscles in Europe_ (Chicago: Willett, Clark, 1939), 33-42.

The Power of Example

A social group that acts consistently in accordance with the principles of active goodwill also exerts great influence through the force of its example. A study of the Quaker activities in behalf of social welfare was published in Germany just before the First World War, by Auguste Jorns. She shows how, in relief of the poor, education, temperance, public health, the care of the insane, prison reform, and the abolition of slavery, the Quakers set about to solve the problem within their own society, but never in an exclusive way, so that others as well as members might receive the benefits of Quaker enterprises. Quaker methods became well known, and in time served as models for similar undertakings by other philanthropic groups and public agencies. Many modern social work procedures thus had their origins in the work of the Friends in a relatively small circle.[122]

FOOTNOTE:

[122] Auguste Jorns, _The Quakers as Pioneers in Social Work_, trans. by Thomas Kite Brown (New York: Macmillan, 1931).

Work for Social Reform

The activity of Quakers in the abolition of slavery both in England and America, especially the life-long work of John Woolman in the colonies, is well known. Here too, the first "concerned" Friends attempted to bring to an end the practice of holding slaves within the Society itself. When they had succeeded in eliminating it from their own ranks, they could, with a clear conscience, suggest that their neighbors follow their example. When the time came, Quakers were willing to take part in political action to eradicate the evil. The compensated emanc.i.p.ation of the slaves in the British Empire in 1833 proved that the reform could be accomplished without the violent repercussions which followed in the United States.[123]

Horace G. Alexander has pointed out that the person who voluntarily surrenders privilege, as the American Quakers did in giving up their slaves, not only serves as a witness to the falsehood of privilege, but can never rest until reform is achieved.

"The very fact," he says, "that he feels a loyalty to the oppressors as well as to the oppressed means that he can never rest until the oppressors have been converted. It is not their destruction that he wants, but a change in their hearts."[124]

Such an att.i.tude is based upon a faith in the perfectibility of man and the possibility of the regeneration of society. It leads from a desire to live one's own life according to high principles to a desire to establish similar principles in human inst.i.tutions. It rejects the thesis of Reinhold Niebuhr that social groups can never live according to the same moral codes as individuals, and also the belief of such groups as the Mennonites that, since the "world" is necessarily evil, the precepts of high religion apply only to those who have accepted the Christian way of life. Instead, the conviction of those who hold this ideal that it is social as well as individual in its application leads them into the pathways of social reform, and even into political action.

FOOTNOTES:

[123] Henry J. Cadbury, _Colonial Quaker Antecedents to British Abolition of Slavery_, An address to the Friends' Historical Society, March 1933 (London: Friends Committee on Slavery and Protection of Native Races, 1933), reprinted from _The Friends' Quarterly Examiner_, July, 1933; Jorns, 197-233.

[124] Horace G. Alexander in Heard, _et al._, _The New Pacifism_, 93.

Political Action and Compromise

The Quakers, for instance, have been noted for their partic.i.p.ation in all sorts of reform movements. Since every reform in one sense involves opposition to some existing inst.i.tution, Clarence Case has been led to call the Quakers "non-physical resistants;"[125] but since their real objective was usually the establishment of a new inst.i.tution rather than the mere destruction of an old one, they might better be called "non-violent advocates." They were willing to advocate their reforms in the public forum and the political arena. Since, as Rufus Jones has pointed out, such action might yield to the temptation to compromise with men of lesser ideals, there has always been an element in the Society of Friends which insisted that the ideal must be served in its entirety, even to the extent of giving up public office and influence rather than to compromise.[126] In Pennsylvania the Quakers withdrew from the legislature when it became necessary in the existing political situation to vote support of the French and Indian war, but they did so not because they did not believe in political action, in which up to that moment they had taken part willingly enough, but rather because under the circ.u.mstances of the moment it was impossible to realize their ideals by that means.[127]

Ruth Fry, in discussing the uncompromising att.i.tude of the Friends on the issue of slavery, has well described the process of Quaker reform:

"One cannot help feeling that this strong stand for the ultimate right was far more responsible for success than the more timid one, and should encourage such action in other great causes. In fact, the ideal Quaker method would seem to be patient waiting for enlightenment on the underlying principle, which when seen is so absolutely clear and convincing that no outer difficulties or suffering can affect it: its full implications gradually appear, and its ultimate triumph can never be doubted. Any advance towards it, may be accepted as a stepping stone, although only methods consistent with Quaker ideals may be used to gain the desired end.

Doing anything tinged with evil, that good may come, is entirely contrary to their ideas."[128]

She goes on to say, "As ever, the exact line of demarcation between methods aggressive enough to arouse the indolent and those beyond the bounds of Quaker propriety was indeed difficult to draw."[129]

In such a statement we find a conception of compromise which is different from that usually encountered. In it the advocate of the ideal says that for the time being he will accept less than his ultimate goal, provided the change is in the direction in which he desires to move, but he will not accept the slightest compromise which would move away from his goal.

FOOTNOTES:

[125] Case, _Non-Violent Coercion_, 92-93.

[126] Rufus M. Jones, _The Quakers in the American Colonies_, 175-176.

[127] Jones, _Quakers in the Colonies_, 459-494; Isaac Sharpless, _A Quaker Experiment in Government_ (Philadelphia: Alfred J. Ferris, 1898), 226-276.

[128] Fry, _Quaker Ways_, 171-172.

[129] _Ibid._, 177.

The Third Alternative

The logical pursuit of such a principle leads even further than the type of compromise which Ruth Fry has described, to the establishment of a new basis of understanding which may not include any of the principles for which the parties in conflict may have been striving, and yet which brings about reconciliation.

Eric Heyman, speaking in religious terms, has said of this process of discovering a new basis of understanding through the exercise of positive goodwill, even toward an oppressor:

"That is the way of G.o.d, and it is therefore the way of our disciples.h.i.+p as reconcilers; the way of non-resistance to evil, of the total acceptance of the consequences of evil in all their lurid destructiveness, in order that the evil doer may be reconciled to G.o.d.... The whole consequences of his presence, whether small or great must be accepted with the single realisation that the whole process of the world's redemption rests upon the relations.h.i.+p which the Christian is able to create between himself and his oppressor.

This course has nothing in common with resistance; it is the opposite of surrender, for its whole purpose and motive is the triumphing over evil by acceptance of all that it brings.... The resistance of evil, whether by way of violence or 'non-violence' is the way of this world. Resignation to evil is the way of weak surrender, and yields only a powerless resentment; at its best it is non-moral, at the worst sheerly immoral. Acceptance of evil is the triumphant answer of the redeemer. In the moment of his acceptance he knows of a certainty that he has overcome the world."[130]

This process of finding a new basis of relations.h.i.+p has been called "a third alternative, which produces no majority rule and no defeated minority."[131] The Quakers have long used this method in arriving at decisions within their own meetings. They refuse to make motions and take votes which produce clearcut divisions within the group, but insist that no action shall be taken until all divergent points of view have been expressed, and a statement drawn up which embodies "the sense of the meeting" and is acceptable to all. As Elton Trueblood has said, "The overpowering of a minority by calling for a vote is a kind of force, and breeds the resentment which keeps the method of force from achieving ultimate success with persons."[132] Douglas Steere has described the process in these words: