When faced with the challenge of writing about Irene Pickard's archive – at first sight a seemingly disparate collection of Jungian and Quaker related items assembled over her lifetime – deciding where to start was always going to be a headache. If the papers in her collection were regarded like Christmas cards hung from a line, then the narrative would be the line, holding them together in some sort of order, giving them relationship one to another. The narrative would need to be fixed at both ends – an introduction and a conclusion. The introduction would be the context which the story grew out of, and the conclusion would be where it fixes itself into the reader's lives. That is the point of history, it provides sustenance for reader by relating to them – it is not simply entertainment – it is part of that function of history as dialogue between the past and the present.
The anchoring of the narrative in Quaker history means, given that the Society of Friends is not well known by non-Quakers, introducing it origins, but briefly enough for Quakers to skim over: a very short synopsis of its early history and its peculiarities would suffice, it is hoped; and, yes, Quakers are a very peculiar lot.
Next comes setting the scene for the entry of the protagonists – the first length of line. That is where A Reasonable Faith (1884) comes in, or to give it its full title A Reasonable Faith, short religious essays for the times by three "Friends". It was a landmark book that altered the direction of Quakerism in Britain, but considered potentially so heretical and shocking to the Quaker community that the authors dared not give their names: they were speaking the unspeakable! Although there was also a strong element of Quaker modesty that forbade them from seeking fame: it was the message that mattered, not who told it. Being "Friends" with a capital "F" was enough to establish their credentials. Being Friends meant that the truth spoke through them rather than simply their telling the truth; just as in Meeting when a Friend is compelled to rise and give ministry, the compulsion and the message is not their volition, they are simply the vehicle, or so it is held.
The acceptance of A Reasonable Faith by the rising generation of Quakers changed the Society from one which, because of the Evangelical emphasis on salvation by faith, on devotion to Jesus, on loving Jesus, would have almost automatically rejected the likes of Jung and any suggestion of a psychological approach to understanding religion, into being a community that was receptive. Many Quakers, after the publication of A Reasonable Faith, might not have agreed with the contentions coming out of the new discipline of psychology, but at least they were becoming accepting of the need to accommodate their faith to the findings of the sciences – to reflect on the truths that the sciences might contain for them; especially those of evolution, of the vast age of the earth and of the extent of the universe. To use Bergson's terms, Quakerism had once more become a dynamic faith not a static one: it was open to transformation.
Although in the book I did not write at length about A Reasonable Faith in that scene setting second chapter – Re-visioning Quakerism: Jones, Harris and Rowntree – and referred to it little thereafter, discovering it and its relevance to the narrative occupied research time far greater in extent than its use might suggest, and produced, as I prefer to do, a set of notes. My method has always been to read a source and make notes on it containing my own interpretation and reflections seeded with quotes, especially those which would seem to contain key points, and which would advance the narrative. Far better to let authors speak for themselves, than paraphrasing – a case of show not tell.
Here they are some of my reflections, quotes and notes from reading the book:
p.7: A Reasonable Faith
And finally, every article of Religious faith must be in harmony with sound reason and common sense; otherwise it becomes mere Superstition. The teaching of True Religion must never contradict the best exercise of the intellectual faculty, however much they may transcend, or supplement, its intuitions.
p.10
We hold, therefore, that no theory of Religion can possibly be satisfactory, which is not broad enough in its range, from the elementary simplicity to reasonable completeness, to comprehend all real God-seeking and truth – and goodness loving of all mankind – savage and civilised, learned and ignorant, child and man.
p.22: re a notion of God = loving father.
Such evidently is the Christian teaching as regards God. How, then, has it happened that one of the most influential schools of though in the Christian Church [the Evangelical] has, during the last three centuries, so far distorted and misrepresented a beautiful and tender religious faith like this, as to sanction and uphold all the horrors of predestination and the injustice of substitutional punishment? We thankfully believe, however, that these doctrines are now rapidly loosing their hold upon the minds of thoughtful Christian people, though not until they have wrought untold mischief and misery in the world.
The paradigm being suggested as the fundamental core of Christianity is that of the Loving Father, a paradigm that has evolved through a process of progressive revelation. The parable of the Prodigal Son is taken as exemplifying this: p.24:
. . . There is the long suffering love that rebellion and disobedience cannot destroy; the changeless love that cannot forget the absent; the deep hopeful love that does not despair of the reprobate; the active unslumbering love that is bent on winning back the beloved, though deluded, wanderer.
p.104: of the Bible as a source:
It is also of the utmost importance to bare in mind, that the Bible is an account of a progressive development, an adaptation of religious truth to the slowly growing capacity of the human race. The unfolding of wisdom and moral righteousness of God was given only as men were able to appreciate and apply it.
And thus of the hermeneutic
understanding of what is written that results.*
The text of A Reasonable Faith is both humanistic, post-enlightenment, and focussed on an understanding of the paradigm of a Loving Father rather than on the Suffering Christ, or upon a Salvationist understanding. Christ is an aspect of the Loving Father, who has in Christ provided a paradigm of perfection. It is thus worldly [concerned with the ethics of living] and is about following in the footsteps as per the paradigm; not about alienation from the Divine Love – as so much of the Calvinistic tradition was – nor in over emphasis on the crucified Christ. It puts the God of love back at the top of the tree.
The text is a critique of the dominant Evangelical theology and practice of its times.
It seems to suggest that integrity is needed not to read into scripture what is not fully and clearly there. The honesty to know that the scriptures are the product of human hands, both in creation and in transmission, and so are not the infallible word of God.
It feels as if the writers are reaching back to the more God-centered, gradualist and circumspect vision of early Quakers – groping in the mist and slowly revealing rather than knowing. They appear to be recommending less certainty of doctrine, more openness to revelations cautiously explored.
They also seem to be recommending the primacy of God not Jesus in their faith. Jesus for them is seen as the manifestation of his will, not as the sacrificial atonement. God is not seen as a dark force fixated on punishment for sin, but as a loving father who came to earth to act as a guide. The Evangelical focus on salvation, resurrection, substitutionary punishment is set aside as not being as honest an interpretation of the bible as claimed. There is a refocussing on the life and teaching and not on the death and resurrection.
The writers seem to be challenging the almost unquestioning acceptance of a superstructure of doctrine, and also questioning the felicity of such acceptance; of whether it would deliver the deepening of faith and understanding that the stance of “what canst thou say” would seem to require? Should Quakers be simply climbing aboard the “ready-made” version of Christianity promulgated by the Evangelicals, and accept the “knowing” implied, or should they have greater humility of faith? Acknowledging that the seed needs careful cultivation and a slow growth into individual fullness, where perhaps that fullness may take different forms in different lives and in different times.
I have a feeling that they were growing wary of the 'we are saved' aspect of Evangelicalism as focussing on the individual salvation in an afterlife and thus focusing on the self, rather than taking on board the teaching of the scriptures as a guide to living more selflessly and discarding thought of afterlife rewards.
Did they feel Evangelism was dishonest?
* Hermeneutics: the critical dialogue between the reader and the text resulting in evolving interpretations. An informed reader reads the text differently to a naive reader, filtering it with and relating it to their experience. There is not a single, therefore correct, interpretation; it will speak differently to different people's condition. The authors are also concerned with the changes over time in understanding consistent with human progress. There is concern with some readers projecting onto the text the interpretation they want to see, but which the text may not bear.
