Voicing dissent
In the weekly newsletter from Britain Yearly Meeting, Suzanne Ismail says that, ‘Over the last few months Quakers in Britain staff have been hearing from many Quakers concerned about the crackdown on dissent. Most are outraged; some are resigned, others scared. Many more want to do something but are confused about what is and isn’t “permissible” in a rapidly changing context’.
Is this article about dissent being suppressed in the country or about dissent in the world of British Quakers?
I ask this because I see a lot of suppression of dissenting opinion in British Yearly Meeting nowadays.
For example: the censorship exercised by paid staff at Friends House of the Facebook forum ‘Quaker space’; or the calling of Friends who do not agree with some statements issued in our name ‘agitators’ (said recently by the clerk of our trustees).
A tendency seems to be developing of classing those Quakers who dissent from ‘official’ statements as troublemakers. Emma Roberts with her series of YouTube interviews under the heading of ‘Quakerology’ could be one. I seem to recall that there was a troublemaker called George Fox some time ago. Thank God for troublemakers.
Almost six years ago in the 30 August 2019 issue of the Friend there was a perceptive article by a very thoughtful Friend, Rex Ambler, in which the headline was ‘I have seen our traditional decision-making process being slowly eroded, and I have been puzzled and dismayed by it’.
Unfortunately much of what he foresaw has happened.
The old Quaker model of decision making depends on tapping ‘that of God in everyone’ and is described well in Quaker faith & practice chapter three. It is a process of discernment in which we all come to understand the truth of the situation and how we are called to respond to it.
The new management model seems to be a practice of secular decision-making, based on research into what people want or need.
Are we now finding the secular model much more suitable to the Society of Friends we have become?
Eric Walker
Not in unity
With reference to the letter from Cherry Lewis (25 July), it has become clear, I think, at Yearly Meeting and at Meeting for Sufferings, that Friends in Britain are not in unity about all the particulars of the debate about gender. So it is hard for Friends as a body to ‘advocate further for transgender people’, although our Friend wishes this.
I welcome the judgement of the Supreme Court, as it clarifies the law as it is, rather than how trans advocates would like it to be.
Friends respect the laws and only break them in exceptional circumstances, in accordance with our testimonies. We also respect the findings of science as to material facts.
We have a testimony to truth. One truth is that we human beings cannot change our biological sex. The chromosomes we are born with help to shape our medical history through life.
I believe that our sex is God-given. I also see the distinction often made nowadays between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ as artificial and arbitrary. Respect should be given to the beliefs and feelings of ‘gender-critical’ people who feel uncomfortable with the blurring of the boundary between male and female.
Friends believe (I am sure) that the rights of minorities should be protected. But this cannot be at all costs. The rights of different groups (for example, trans people and biological women) can come into conflict. We cannot wish this away.
Proper risk assessments need to be carried out, where there is such conflict, with aroused fears and feelings taken into account. Failing this, I await with dread the first case of a safeguarding issue, arising from policies poorly thought out.
David Harries
Trans agenda
In her letter of 25 July, Cherry Lewis rightly draws attention to the situation of transgender people in the UK. However, I would like to discuss two points.
She refers to the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention and Human Security, which appears to say that the way transgender people are treated in the UK is, or could be, genocide. When Hitler attempted to wipe out completely not only Jews but also gay people and others, and succeeded in killing millions, that was genocide. What is happening to transgender people in the UK cannot be compared to that, and I do not think it is helpful to talk of genocide in this context.
Meeting the needs of women in general can conflict with meeting the needs of transgender women, and compromises have to be reached. An obvious example is that of sport. In most sports, men and women compete separately, as it is recognised that men have a physical advantage. Transgender women are likely to be more muscular and stronger than other women, and if they participate on an equal basis, are likely to be disproportionately successful.
Elizabeth Coleman
Revelation
My own understanding is that the Book of Revelations was attached to the Bible many, many years later. It is completely out of sync with the rest of the Bible, all those prophesies and the language.
It is clearly meant to frighten people, yet many believe that it foretells armageddon, and some are ensuring that we are careering towards this apocalyptic myth. These ‘believers’ don’t seem to understand that they and their children, and their children’s children, will die horribly because of a piece of subterfuge. It is truly a collective madness caused by rapid social and economic change and the spread of warfare. It doesn’t have to be this way.
Neil Crabtree
The nature of Jesus
Annie Miller’s reflection on the Council of Nicaea (25 July) has led me to look further at its theology. It gave us the widely adopted creed, confirmation of the role and authority of bishops, and the readiness off Christians to go to war. But its central issue, written into the creed, was the nature of Jesus. Was he an integral element of the creator God, or an inspired human person?
We Quakers even now live with this dilemma. Some of us follow George Fox in hearing the voice of Jesus. Others reckon his teaching to be the voice of God, drawn as best we can from the Gospels. To me, ‘the presence in the midst’ when we are gathered, is experiential and valid, however we interpret it.
Richard Seebohm
The responsible thing
I worked for a company that made plastic pellets. Plastic is a derivative of crude oil. Rubber is a natural plastic derived from plants.
The end product of the pellets I helped to manufacture went on to make buckets, spades, pails. It also made millions of toys for children to play with.
The point is that I had no intention of polluting the oceans of the world! So while I realise that I have contributed to our pollution problems, I am not guilty of wrong-doing in this matter. A person can only be found guilty of something when he or she knowingly does something to harm the environment or any of the lifeforms that inhabit this amazing blue sphere that we call home.
The responsible thing for adults to do is to realise the damage that has been done and to work towards clearing up our mess. Science will help us to do that if we have the will and skill to really understand the nature of our problem.
‘To err is human, to forgive is divine’ – Alexander Pope.
Bill Bingham
Planting trees
I’m not sure of the best way to publicise this, but together we could help tackle climate change if we plant trees.
I’ve got a monthly direct debit to Just One Tree. They plant a tree for every pound you give.
I’ve suggested this at our Local Meeting, but a national appeal would go further.
Ian Negus
Comments
There was one letter from a trans ally last week, and this week there are three answers published.
For the moment, I will limit myself to answering David Harries’ insistence that “human beings cannot change our biological sex”. He is very insistent- “respect the findings of science as to material facts”…”testimony to truth”…”Chromosomes”…”God-given”…
All this multiplicity of words shows David’s absolute refusal to accept trans is real, and trans matters. Some people are trans. The experience of gender dysphoria at being unable to express our true selves, and trans joy in expressing our authentic light, is merely “artificial” for him, as if we could just snap out of it. But we can’t. I am not a man, however much David insists “material facts” say I am. David, please reflect on “bear witness to the humanity of all people”. I cannot be other than I am.
As to the “safeguarding issue” he fears, it has already happened. It is the terrible distress of trans children at being forced into the wrong puberty. Trans people have been benefiting from puberty blockers for forty years, but now in Britain they are refused, and the damage done to the affected children is clear. For example, see here: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09589236.2025.2521699#d1e281
Abigail Maxwell
By katemackrell on 2025 08 07
Before we give up on the Book of Revelation, we might consider how it was read by early Friends. This discussion is interesting:
https://jollyquaker.com/2015/11/22/five-reasons-why-quakers-should-read-revelation/
By tpittpayne on 2025 08 07
Eric Walker speaks my mind. I resigned my membership earlier this year, in part because of the refusal to speak truth about the genocide in Gaza. This has of course changed and I feel enabled and supported to work and worship with Friends again, albeit as an attender. But the underlying reasons were those articulated here: defensiveness, anxiety about, sometimes disparagement of, local discernment; autocratic decision making. We as ordinary members and attenders, though, must take some responsibility. It was only when I began to systematically read minutes from Meeting for Sufferings and Trustee meetings, that I recognised how far down the corporate road the Society of Friends has travelled. Maybe I am alone in having, in the past, given only a cursory look, or relied on reports from representatives, but I reproach myself for not speaking out earlier, when such ministry might have had an effect.
By Nicola Grove on 2025 08 08
I find Quaker Kathleen Lonsdale’s words (QF&P26;.23) helpful:
“ have learned, as a scientist, how much I don’t understand. I have learned too that when a scientist encounters two apparently irreconcilable ideas, these are the stepping stones to new knowledge.”
This relates to our daily experiences of uncertainty and unknowing. In a world in which so much is a matter for doubt we can choose the way of contention - or we can, more helpfully, acknowledge that we don’t know everything (that we see “through a glass, darkly”) and that there is much yet to be learnt and discovered.
In relation to sex and gender, we can cling for safety to what we were taught as children and insist that it is an immutable truth. Alternatively, we can embrace the uncertainty and unknowing that we may also embrace in our spiritual lives, and accept that we lack full understanding and may learn at least a little from those whose experience of life is different from our own. The science of sex and gender, which in Victorian times in Britain insisted that women should be protected from too much learning or vigorous exercise, continues to make new and surprising discoveries. We are more aware, for instance, that some people are intersex.
This sense of the uncertainties and continuing research of scientists is one reason to accept and welcome trans friends as themselves. A second, of course, is the injunction to “judge not” combined with the vital reminder that we should love our neighbours as ourselves.
By kazbel on 2025 08 08
The letters reflect the problem with Minute 31, when we committed to welcoming and affirming trans and non binary people. I think most friends interpret this as it is written - we welcome (are happy to have in our meetings) and affirm (see them as equals in our meetings and the eyes of god).
However, my impression is that the minute is interpreted by paid staff and quaker role holders from Friends House to mean that sex i.e male/ female, is a social construct and that gender identity is innate in a way sex is not.
So there are two narratives related to minute 31: we welcome people no matter who they are, the other: our new religion is a form of poststructuralism.
By RebeccaVaughan on 2025 08 08
Might I suggest that our Friends who have adopted “sex realism”, as their one issue that they can’t find new light on, have much more in common with New Atheism than the established practice of our Society of working to find new light and seeing the humanity in all?
It’s very telling, and frankly very saddening, that so many spend their time making pantomime villains out of a minoritised group and denying their existence, their reality.
Too many Friends are being attracted to secular, partisan ways rather than attending to what love requires of them.
By Kmpmcnamara on 2025 08 11
Please login to add a comment
