Sailing Howard Prairie: Fragile Freedoms II

As we consider the values that shape our church life together it seems appropriate to mention two aspects of freedom lifted up by Walter Shurden in his book, Four Fragile Freedoms.

Church Freedomis the “… affirmation that local churches are free, under the Lordship of Christ, to determine their membership and leadership, to order their worship and work, to ordain whom they perceive as gifted for ministry, male or female, and to participate in the larger Body of Christ…”

Religious Freedomis the “historic … affirmation of freedom of religion, freedom for religion, and freedom from religion, insisting that Caesar is not Christ and Christ is not Caesar.” (In a previous article I mentioned two others, Soul FreedomandBible Freedom.)

Quaker history isn’t identical to Baptist history, the perspective from which Shurden writes. It is, however, complimentary to Baptist identity. It can be said without question that the “fragile freedoms” Shurden identifies were, and still are, compatible in many ways with Quaker philosophy and practice.

George Fox founded the Religious Society of Friends, or Quakers, in the 17^thcentury in England. Those in the movement were persecuted for their beliefs, which included the idea that the presence, or “light,” of God exists in every person. This conviction, along with the Quaker rejection of elaborate religious ceremonies and official clergy, contrasted sharply with prevailing Christian theology.

Both Protestant and Catholic churches insisted that children were born in a state of sin, dependent on the reception of the Holy Spirit as an affirmation of God’s presence in their lives. It was the role of the church to usher in the Spirit via infant baptism, preferably right away. Otherwise they might die early and salvation would be impossible. To suggest that God could be resident without such intervention was considered blasphemous, and was firmly rejected. Baptists, who clashed with clerical power primarily over their opposition to infant baptism, were imprisoned in the colonies over this issue.

The Quakers ran afoul of another conviction. It was that every individual had the light of God within them. Not only did they reject infant baptism. They denied the power of the clergy and the church to determine where God would take up residence.

Quakers, then, as inhabitants of both England and the New World, didn’t have official clergy and believed in spiritual equality for men and women. They played a key role in both abolition and women’s rights movements. In some quarters they did not consider themselves Christians.

A current example of Church Freedom arises when we consider the formation of NEFC in its separation from NFC. Without the guarantee of church freedom it could be said that NFC had no “right” to exclude certain members, and likewise NEFC had no “right” to form a separate congregation. Those actions would be viewed as illegal. I have no idea which religious group holds the record for the most church splits in history, but I doubt any party could outdo the Baptists. They might be viewed as the Church Split Experts.

Quakers have traditionally practiced pacifism, insistence on male and female spiritual equality, the refusal to take oaths, and the right of women to speak out during worship. (This last is still a point of contention in both Catholic and some Protestant circles when those pesky women just refuse to remain silent.)

From a broadened perspective it could be said that the idea of religious freedom and the resistance to it is primarily a power struggle. That was the case in Colonial America where Anglican, Puritan, and Congregational churches initially held sway. Most attempted to enforce strict religious observance, with colony governments and town rules mandatingthat everyone attend a house of worship and pay taxes that funded the salaries of ministers. Thus before colonial independence and the passage of constitutional amendments some persecution was common.

Both Quakers and Baptists were initially targeted. Later it was Mormons, Christian Scientists, and Native Americans. Today Muslims are in the crosshairs. Ideally we are a free people who celebrate our religious freedom and honor and defend the freedom of others. Often, however, it falls to Quakers (and Baptists too) to defend those ideals.

At NEFC we have been exploring the implications of a Trinitarian understanding of God. It is one that suggests a meeting of individualism and corporate identity. Shurden identifies three basic types of church government among Christian churches. They are episcopal, presbyterian, and congregational. In episcopal church government, authority is placed in the hands of one person, usually a bishop. In presbyterian church government, authority is vested in a small group, often called elders within the local church. In congregational church government, authority is placed in the hands of all the members of the church.

As Shurden points out, those in the free church tradition, including Friends, practice democratic church polity not because it is more efficient or more reliable or even more biblical than other forms. In fact I suspect if a visiting Quaker told you the “Quaker Way” was more efficient than other approaches, you might wonder which congregation they were previously a part of. Instead Quakers follow democratic church polity because it accents the role of the individual within community, allowing the greatest freedom for the greatest number of people to have a say. Moreover, democratic church polity is a statement of the equality of all believers in determining the mind of Christ.

When Quakers (and Baptists) began in seventeenth-century England, a crucial part of their cry for freedom was the determination to worship God according to conscience. Specifically, they wanted freedom from the set forms of Anglicanism as recorded in The Book of Common Prayer. Their aim was to personalize and revitalize worship. At NEFC, Open Worship sets the stage for vital worship. It offers each of us occasions to hear God’s voice not only for us as individuals, but for the congregation as a whole.