4. Theology

While insisting that "The Society of Friends has no formal creed," the section entitled "Basic statement of Faith," nonetheless presents some pretty definite theological theses, among them (all from UD, pp. 7-9):

Divine immanence: "Friends believe that God is immanent in the world of men and things; and that ‘in Him we live and move and have our being’"

Universalism: "God endows every human being with a measure of His own Divine Spirit by which He reveals Himself to all His children."

Jesus as an Ideal Man: "This manifestation of God in man was most perfectly exemplified in Jesus of Nazareth. As we submit ourselves to the leadings of the Christ Spirit we are enabled to live a life of love in conformity with the will of our Heavenly Father." Also: "Friends have always believed that the spirit which animated Jesus of Nazareth was fully divine and that his teachings, example and sacrificial life were the fullest revelation in humanity of the will of God and that to try sincerely to follow him in spirit and in truth is the true Christian life."

The Bible as Helper: "In the historic Christian revelation as recorded in the Bible, especially in the life and teachings of Jesus, the same spirit is recognized as that which works in the individual soul. These records are helpful in guiding individuals in their search for fuller knowledge of spiritual things and in testing and clarifying their impressions of truth and duty."

Private Religion: "No mediator, rite, or sacrament is a necessary condition of worship or communion. All that is necessary is a seeking spirit on the part of a worshiper."

The Personal Church: "The essential purpose of religious organization is to foster and encourage the spiritual life of men and bring the human spirit into intimate relations with the Divine Spirit....As the relationship with God is a purely personal one, the basis of the Meeting is silent communion, that each may seek help and guidance for his own difficulties and problems, as well as for those of the group." (UD p. 22,23)

Just how distinctive this "non-creedal" set of doctrines was can be easily shown by a comparison with the Philadelphia Hicksite Discipline of 1918. It still retained a section, under the heading of "Conduct and Conversation," which stated:

AIf anyone in membership with us...shall deny the divinity of Christ, the immediate revelation of the Holy Spirit, or the inspiration of the Scriptures, he ought to be tenderly treated with for his instruction, and the convincement of his understanding, that he may experience repentance and forgiveness." (P-H 1918, p.50.) (Earlier editions went on to specify disownment as the consequence if such "repentance" was not soon forthcoming.) Nothing remotely like this is to be found in the UD, or its progeny.

In addition, the 1926 Philadelphia Orthodox Discipline, while speaking rather circumspectly, still authorized disownment as a last resort, "If any of our members...profess beliefs or engage in practices which are not in accord with the gospel of Christ...."P-O 1926 p.101). It also made clear that "AFriends do not differ from other Protestant Christian denominations in the essentials of Christian faith, but it was the great concern of George Fox and the early Friends to turn men away from form and creed to reality and life." And: "With other Christians, Friends believe in God the Father of omnipotent power and infinite love. They believe in his Divine Son, Jesus Christ, who came to reveal to men His nature and His love, and whose sinless life, sacrificial death and triumphant resurrection offer the way for our salvation."(both, P-O 1926, p. ix)

The depth of these contrasts should not be overdrawn. The processes of contact and conciliation which resulted in a merger of the two Philadelphia yearly meetings in 1955 were already underway. By 1935, the Orthodox Discipline was revised to insert a section on "United Meetings," which acknowledged that "...there are neighborhoods...in which our members are joining in worship, or conducting First Day schools, or holding meetings for business, with members of the [Hicksite] yearly Meeting and other Friends, and...in some cases such groups have merged completely..." (P-O, 1935, p. 66)

IV

The Discipline’s Fate

Between 1926 and 1930, all seven FGC Yearly Meetings revised their Disciplines. In 1927, William C. Biddle, Clerk of the UD committee, reported to the FGC Central Committee that APhiladelphia (YM) has adopted the Uniform Discipline," and added that he expected that Baltimore Yearly Meeting would do so as well, "with a few local modifications." (CC 7/1/27, p. 188) The next year he told of further progress in Baltimore and Illinois, adding that he expected Indiana and Genesee Yearly Meetings to adopt it shortly. (They did.) The only negative news was that "New York has not adopted it."(CC Ibid.)

New York did retain its own distinctive text in its 1930 revision. However, much UD influence can be detected in it, from the prominent placement of the Balby quote, to the abolition-by-silence of the recording of ministers. But New York was not alone in retaining its individuality. None of the FGC yearly meetings adopted the UD exactly as it was written. For one thing, the phraseology about "the Christ Spirit" does not show up in any of the other Disciplines I have seen.

Nevertheless, the UD clearly shaped a generation of Disciplines, and many of its key points can still be identified in current Disciplines of FGC-affiliated yearly meetings.

Overcome by Events?

As is true of all such books among Quakers, FGC’s UD was expected to be subject to review and revision. In 1928 the Central Committee, after noting William Biddle’s report on the document’s progress among constituent bodies, minuted that, "The Discipline Committee is retained." (CC 7/7/28 p. 188)

And in 1941, an effort to revise the Uniform Discipline was underway, or at least trying to get underway. A set of minutes turned up of a meeting of the "Committee on Discipline in Friends General Conference," held in Baltimore, with "many Baltimore Friends" in attendance. However, the minutes also indicate that, unlike the 1926 effort, this initiative was not so well-received:

"Baltimore Friends," note the Minutes, "recommend that no change be made in the Discipline at this time, because the Discipline as it now exists is in use by the different Yearly Meetings, and changes should not be made unless and until the Yearly Meetings all approve." (Minutes, 11/28/1941) There were also objections to several of the proposed new Queries, on topics ranging from tobacco to preventing war, as well as to the very idea of having a common set of Queries for all the constituent yearly meetings. (Ibid.)

Other records of this revision process have not yet turned up; but it seems doubtful that much came of it. Looming over the Baltimore session was the shadow of imminent U.S. entry into World War Two, which drastically changed most agendas, both inside and outside the Religious Society of Friends. (It is also worth noting here that a parallel effort in Five Years Meeting in the same period, aimed at revising its Uniform Discipline, ultimately failed as well.) (Williams, p. 266.)

Not long after the war, the FGC scene was subject to additional major changes: some of its meetings, including Genesee and Ohio, disappeared by laying down or merger. Then a move toward reunification began rolling through its heartland from Philadelphia, to New York and Baltimore. In each of these, new Disciplines had to be written, encompassing a much wider range of perspectives and tradition. In 1959, a reunited New England Yearly Meeting also joined. New England had no early Hicksite heritage, but was drawn in by the force of its new, strongly individualistic, formerly independent meetings.

And then, before anyone quite realized it, the Sixties were upon us all. And somewhere amid all this continuing change, FGC’s 1926 landmark got lost in the shuffle; and not only lost, but forgotten.

This brief treatment hardly does justice to FGC’s Uniform Discipline. There is much more to be learned about its origins, shaping, and impact. That it could be so influential, yet so completely forgotten, underlines the fact that study of FGC history, like that of most of Quakerism in the twentieth century, is still terra incognita. It also suggests that many other, doubtless even more illuminating discoveries await those intrepid enough to embark on its exploration.

------------------------

LIST OF WORKS CITED

Abbreviations:

CC ‘ Friends General Conference Central Committee, Minutes, in the Friends Historical

Library, Swarthmore PA.

FI = Friends Intelligencer.

NYYM = New York Yearly Meeting. Discipline, various editions.

P-H = Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Hicksite), 15th and Race Sts. Discipline, various editions.

P-O = Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (Orthodox), 302 Arch St. Discipline, various editions.

UD = Uniform Discipline. Philadelphia, FGC, 1926.

---------------

Bradley, A. Day. "Progressive Friends in Michigan and New York." Quaker History, Vol. 52,

No. 2, Autumn, 1963, pp.95-103.

Mekeel, Arthur. "Quakerism & A Creed," Philadelphia 1923.

Minutes from "A Meeting of the Committee on Discipline of Friends General Conference," held at Park Avenue Meeting House, in Baltimore, Maryland on Eleventh Month 2nd.[1941]." (In the Friends Historical Library.)

Mott, Lucretia. Letter to her cousin Nathaniel Barney, June 7, 1847. Reproduced in the Lucretia Coffin Mott Correspondence, Winter 2000. p. 3. Pomona, CA: Lucretia Coffin Mott Project.

Williams, Walter. The Rich Heritage of Quakerism. Newberg, Oregon, 1987.