Archive for March, 2011

George Fox

If you’ve been a Christian for a while, you may have picked up on the tendency for Christians to fight among themselves over doctrinal issues, usually resulting in labeling and a general intolerance towards other Christians we consider “wrong.”  The labeling (“I’m a dispensationalist” or “I’m a five point Calvinist” or “I’m a seven point Calvinist” [yes, they exist] or “I’m a Charismatic” “I’m a Methodist”) has the tendency to make our particular persuasions and/or denominations more important than our desire to be called “son” or “daughter” by God.

The dogmatism and intolerance that is seen today is rather tame to what existed a couple hundred years ago.  Today we write nasty blogs back and forth without the fear of being killed for our differences.  For instance, Servetus  — considered a heretic in both Protestant and Catholic camps – was passing through John Calvin’s Geneva after escaping from his Inquisition imprisoners.  His identity was exposed in Geneva and Calvin himself offered 38 accusations against Servetus, who was then burned at the stake.  Few Christian leaders in this time period are clean of the blood stains of supposed “heretics”.  Certainly — on a larger scale — the Spanish (1478–1834) and Portuguese (1536–1821) Inquisitions are a major blemish in the history of the Church.

The strong emphasis on doctrine worked in favor of the rich who were able to afford education.  Justo Gonzalez (who’s two volumes on “The Story of Christianity” have been hard to put down over the last couple months) writes that “Those who did not have such opportunities, and who therefore could not discuss complicated matters of theology, were seen as children, needing someone to guild them through the intricacies of dogma in order not to fall into error.”

Like today, there were reactions against the absolutism, intolerance and theological aristocracy of these dogmatic believers.  The reaction was exemplified in both the Spiritualists and the Pietists.

The Spiritualists attracted two types of people: well cultured people who didn’t appreciate the dogmatism and those who had little education that wanted the freedom to express their relationship with God.  Probably the most known figure in the Spiritualist movement was George Fox, the founder of the Quakers … who were called such by their opponents because their “religious enthusiasm was such that they would tremble” (Gonzalez; 253).  George Fox himself preferred that his group be called “friends” because of the egalitarian nature of their movement, so that today they’re called, “The Society of Friends.”

One major feature of the Quakers that aided in their ability to lesson dogmatism and intolerance is their emphasis on the “inner light.”  Although today the term sounds eastern, Fox’s sense of the term was in opposition to Calvin’s doctrine of “total depravity” and in opposition to the “natural reason” of the Deists.  Instead of believing that man is innately corrupt or naturally endowed with a compass that points to God, Fox believed that man had the “capability … to recognize and accept the presence of God.”  And thus, all men had the ability to legitimately speak about God.

The “inner light” lead to the “spirit lead” types of services that marked the “friends meeting.”  This belief that all were equal and so all could engage in God talk, lead to Quakers not addressing their superiors “properly” nor respecting social tiers and statuses.  These practices, as well as others, caused the Quakers to receive numerous types of persecutions.  George Fox’s first beating came when he countered a preacher who was saying that ultimate truth is found in scripture.  Fox stated that ultimate truth was the Spirit who inspired scripture and was consequently beaten.  He spent years in prison, as did his wife and many of his followers.

The most famous of Quakers was William Penn, who founded our great Commonwealth.  Gonzalez writes of Penn, “He was convinced that the Indians, and not the crown, were the legitimate owners of the land.  And he hoped to establish such cordial relations with them that the settlers would have not need to defend themselves by force of arms” (256).  Such cultural respect, that arose in reaction to the dogmatism and intolerance of their time, can be traced back to the Quakers deep sense that all men have something to share from God.

Most Churches failed in defending slaves.  For instance, the Church of England held a common belief that white Christians couldn’t hold baptized believers as slaves.  So most white Christians and slave masters preferred that their slaves weren’t baptized; until a law was passed in 1667 that removed their difficulty for owning baptized slaves: it declared baptism didn’t change the status of a slave.  For all the abuses of the church, it was the Quakers who asserted that slavery was wrong and they stand as one of the lone shining lights of grace and freedom during the legality of slavery in the United States and Europe.