Quaker Theology #11 -- Spring-Summer 2005
In Search of Religious Radicalism -- page 3
The break-up of the Roman Empire left the church in the position of sole unifying influence in the middle ages, but it had been so deformed by its alliance with imperialism that the original impulse of Judaism and Christianity towards social freedom and communal maturity had been effectively destroyed. What remained was a formal religious ritualism and intellectual theology that was egocentric and impersonal. While Protestantism made significant advances in restoring some the dynamism of primitive Christianity it tended to repeat the patterns of Roman Catholicism on smaller, national scales with relatively little maturation of its relational community (p. 45ff).
Macmurray calls for the development of mature religion that takes as its task the practical formation of a universal human community. This modern religion will be experimental and practical rather than dogmatic and emotional. It will continue to satisfy intellectual and emotional needs, but its center of gravity will be on human relationships in full communion (1935, p. 153).
What About Atheists?
Macmurray’s defining and elaboration of a progressive religious philosophy proceeded without reference to either God or atheism. This seems unusual to those of us in the Christian West for whom religion is inherently about God and therefore atheists have no religion.
However, even in casual conversation the word "religious" does not always refer to belief in God. One can speak of reading one’s favorite writer or playing one’s favorite game "religiously". Contemporary theologians such as Paul Tillich or Henry Wieman have spoken about religion being more about one’s "ultimate concern" or "ultimate commitment" than about one’s beliefs in a divine being. Many atheists and humanists have formed religious fellowships such as the American Ethical Union, as well as participating in denominations such as the Unitarian Universalist Association.
If radicals are to develop a progressive religious philosophy it must be dedicated to the practical tasks of human community and only secondarily interested in defining religious doctrines. Although Macmurray himself was convinced of the personal existence of God, he did not consider the classical arguments to have much merit. He was convinced that such arguments arose from the dualistic mindset of medieval Christianity and had little relevance for advancing a progressive religious philosophy.
In sum, Macmurray’s claim has been that religion is an inter-personal synthesis of human rationality, emotionality, and relationality, integrated into the widest relational context, the creation of authentic, universal human community. Such a philosophy of religious community seems inherently compatible with the visions and goals of the progressive movements for social change and liberation. To test this claim calls for an examination of radicalism and social movements.
What is Radicalism?
Radical comes from the Latin word for "root" and is commonly used to describe movements that aim to remove the very roots of social problems. There have actually been many philosophies that have called for radical social change. It would be far beyond the limits of this paper to address all of them. Recall that earlier in this paper, it was mentioned that this writer had created a scheme that enumerated seven categories of social movements and struggles. A comparable attempt that we will examine actually reduces this number to four categories.
Liberating Theory (LT) was published in 1986 as the product of seven veteran activists of the social movements of the 1960s. In the context of the Reaganite era, LT offered a serious attempt to address the divisiveness that had overtaken radical politics. This divisiveness tended to force feminists, anti-racists, socialists, and anarchists into separate hostile camps with each one arguing that their social struggle was the primary site for real progress and radical change (Albert, et al. 1986, p. 6).
This divisiveness was actually nothing new. Over a century earlier, Karl Marx, after the formation of the Communist movement, ran into opposition from anarchists who argued that abolishing the State itself was prerequisite to abolishing capitalism. Marx contended that workers must seize the power of the State in order to abolish capitalism. In the context of the 1980s the dissent among radicals had evolved greater diversity than the 1870s.
LT addresses four primary theories of radical social change: Marxism, anarchism, radical feminism, and anti-racist nationalism. Each of these theories claims that only changes in the institutions that it opposes can form a basis for genuinely radical change. For Marxists, the primary impediment to social transformation is the existence of the capitalist economic system.
The disempowerment that capitalism imposes on workers and the poor is so pervasive that no other struggle has a hope of succeeding in radical change. For anarchists, the primary impediment to social transformation is the existence of hierarchies, most especially the State. If we were to simply abolish capitalism without abolishing the State, anarchists maintained that a new hierarchical economy would be created that mirrored the domination of the State. For radical feminists, the primary impediment to radical change was the existence of patriarchy and the domination by men of the major arenas of social life. Abolish capitalism or the State and radical feminists maintained that women’s position in society would still be subject to patriarchal domination. For anti-racist nationalism, the primary source of social oppression was cultural and racial. In a world divided by language and culture, if we abolished anything other than racism, millions would still be oppressed by racism.
LT criticized "monistic" theorizing, the view that one of these struggles was the key struggle that would make liberation in all other struggles possible. LT argued that each theory had a part of the truth. It was true that socialism couldn’t by itself end statism or patriarchy. However, it was also true that none of the other movements could achieve genuine liberation without participating in struggles outside their preferred domain of social struggle. Radical liberation, argued LT, required a "complementary holism" that would integrate all social struggles into an interdependent movement of visionary revolution (Albert, et al., p. 144).
One apparent weakness of LT is that it was open to the charge that its new theory of interdependent social struggles had left out crucial domains of liberation. Was there a place for religion, ecology, pacifism, or gay and lesbian liberation?
The answer of LT was that each of these struggles were actually part of the larger domains already identified. Pacifism was part of the political sphere addressed by anarchism. Sexuality belonged with gender in the sphere of "kinship." By extension, though not explicitly stated in LT, ecological activism addresses economics in ways that transcend Marxism. Religion actually belonged to a larger social sphere called "community" that included racial and cultural aspects of society.
Contours of Religious Radicalism
The religious perspective that was elaborated earlier argued that dualistic religion had divided humans into fragmented creatures under the domination of an impersonal imperialistic regime inherited from Ancient Rome. LT makes a parallel argument against "monistic" theories. By arguing that one particular form of struggle for social liberation is the primary motor of social change, persons experiencing oppression are forced to subordinate their natural, holistic perception of multiple oppressions into a narrowed activism within only one domain. Monistic thinking has led Marxist organizations to insist that women and persons of color should devote themselves only to the class struggle to the exclusion of struggling against sexism or racism. Radical feminist organizations have also made similar claims against the capacity of men to fight sexism alongside women.
Monistic thinking is also pervasive in religious communities. For example, Christians are compelled to evangelize since only Christian faith can participate in the liberation of humankind. Muslims have often created repressive states, as have many Christians, in order to follow monistic policies. Atheism has been made the official philosophy of Communist nations predicated on similar logic. Religious radicalism repudiates all this in favor of holism and complementarity. Religious radicalism goes further and calls for ending the dualism that pervades political struggles. Marxism, feminism, nationalism, anarchism and other radical perspectives, when pressed to monistic conclusions, end up fragmenting their constituents. Under monism, an individual suppresses their sense of being a whole person in favor of a reductive sense of political identity.
The critique of monistic practice also challenges existing religious communities to transform themselves in ways that are compatible with radical social movements. A progressive religion will be egalitarian in its structure by practicing participatory democracy rather than hierarchical governance. Religious radicals must practice full racial, gender, and sexual inclusion in every facet of their common life. Religious radicalism will advocate economic justice and resist existing exploitation. Religious radicalism entails as well a rich vision of ecological wholeness and world peace.
Macmurtray’s Hope
John Macmurray remarked in one of his books that his vision of religious maturity would no doubt prompt many to protest that such a religion existed absolutely nowhere, and, could not exist in the real world (1936, p. 116). We cannot take this skepticism as final. Once upon a time, slavery existed with approval everywhere. Even in our own day, enormous advances in women’s equality have occurred. The inspiring examples of movements against racism and their significant victories offer testimony against such skepticism and cynicism.
It is true that we have no guarantee that the holistic and unified world of religious radicalism will ever be reality. The question that we must ask ourselves is whether we are ultimately committed to the best that humankind can achieve or are we content with massive exploitation, suffering, and violence? Once we have been inspired by a vision of global transformation, it is hard to ever rest comfortably in the face of the pain of the human condition.
4
Progressive Quakerism and Beyond
In 2001, I formally joined the Religious Society of Friends (RSoF) seeking the sort of genuinely progressive religious community that I now envisioned. Leaving Reba Place had been a heart-breaking experience and there was no small trace of sadness, even as I whole-heartedly embraced my new religious community. My reasons for making this decision is my perception that Quakerism has taken collectively a similar direction to that which I took from Pentecostalism, through Reba Place, into modern religious radicalism.
This direction is most clearly perceived in some historical events of the 1850s in the RSoF. As recounted by Chuck Fager (2000), a group of over thirty Quaker abolitionists were expelled from the main body of Hicksite Quakers in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Yearly Meeting (PaYM). These dissidents had engaged in un-Quakerly "worldly agitation" in the service of the abolitionist cause. Although they were most immediately concerned with abolishing slavery, it is clear that their vision extended to a complete restructuring of the RSoF. To this end they formed a rival Quaker organization, The Progressive Yearly Meeting of Friends.
Although the ensuing struggle for the heart and soul of the RSoF is fascinating and rich in detail, the upshot is that American Quakerism has never been the same since. The change can be summed up in a radical shift from quietism and apoliticism to a fervently social egalitarian activism. Although this activism waxes and wanes with the political mood of the culture, it is still true that whenever social protest raises its voice in American affairs, Quakers are there making a substantial mark on the character of every social movement they join.
In my local meeting, there is a good amount of activism and social non-conformity. Quakers may not be the fire-breathing radicals of the ‘60's New Left, but I have found that they usually champion causes in line with a progressive vision. I do find myself fairly predictably to the "left" of the mainstream of Quakerism. I would be churlish to attribute that fact to some greater sophistication on my part. It is just as likely to arise from some residue of the dogmatism of my youth.
One area of similarity that I find striking is the degree to which modern Quakers embrace an inclusive understanding of religious identity. Since 1978, a coherent movement called "universalism" has been making a persistent appeal for Quakers to include non-Christians of all varieties. It is not uncommon for Quakers to be agnostic, even atheistic. In my meeting we have had at least one active Jewish participant and one will hear references to Buddha or modern Buddhists like Thich Nhat Hanh as often as to Jesus Christ. At least one regular attender styles herself a Pagan Quaker. While some would view such diversity as crippling, I find that there is unity to be found at a practical and emotional level, which is far more satisfying than doctrinal unity.
In contrast again to my experience at Reba Place, Quakers undertake to govern themselves in a principled egalitarian manner. In many cases that means seeking consensus before decisions are made and carried out. Reba Place used a mixture of traditional pastoral headship with limited use of consensus. Quakers in the progressive tradition have never had pastors and consider the idea of concentrating spiritual authority in one person dangerous.
The open-endedness of Quaker practice is epitomized in our practice of waiting worship. There is no order of service or pre-determined speakers. We gather in silence at the beginning of our designated hour. The silence is usually allowed to grow in depth for most of the hour. If worship continues in silence for an hour, it is not considered to have been an empty experience. Each worshiper is invited to use the silence to grow in their communion with whatever they hold to be the sacred ground within themselves.
If someone is moved out of the silence to speak to the gathering, such messages are listened to as the spirit leads each worshiper. The discernment of a message’s value is done in the meeting silently. If a message prompts some worshiper to speak to the one who has given a message that is considered an opportunity for deepening mutual understanding.
To be radical is to "go to the root". My religious orientation has been shaken and remade to its very core. Like any vision, it remains unfulfilled. To paraphrase A.J. Muste, founder of the religious pacifist Fellowship of Reconciliation, being radical is as much about preventing the world from changing one’s values, as it about making those values real in the world. Without some small victories along the way, it would be almost impossible to continue seeking the global community of justice and peace.
Principal works cited:
Albert, Michael, et al. Liberating Theory. South End Press Collective. 1986
Fager, Chuck, "Beyond the Age of Amnesia: Charting the Course of 20th Century Liberal Quaker Theology," Quaker Theology #3, Autumn 2000.
Macmurray, John. Freedom in the Modern World. 1935
Macmurray, John. Reason and Emotion. 1936.
Macmurray, John. The Self As Agent. 1957.