Published online by Cambridge University Press: 31 July 2008
British Quakers are arguably the least dogmatic group in Christendom; indeed, Universalist Friends would not describe themselves as Christians at all. Possibly because of this relaxed attitude to doctrine, some Friends tend also to assume that they operate in a rule-free environment. When I told the clerk of our Preparative Meeting that I was working on an article on ‘Quaker canon law’ her immediate response was, ‘Oh, we don't have any of that’—which is probably why Anthony Bradney and Fiona Cownie gave their recent study of the Quaker business method the gently-ironic title, Living Without Law.
1 I should like to thank Nina and Chris Gwilliam, Michael Bartlet and Professor Robert Forrest for reading various drafts of this article, and the Librarian of Friends House and Beth Allen of Quaker Communications for supplying information about the current structure of central committees. I should also make it clear that I write as a Quaker.Google Scholar
2 The Society's formal position is that ‘…expressions of faith must be related to personal experience. Some find traditional Christian language full of meaning: some do not’: Yearly Meeting of the Religious Society of Friends in Britain, Quaker Faith and Practice, 2nd edn (London, 1999) 1.01—subsequently cited as QF&P: references are to paragraph numbers.Google Scholar
3 Living Without Law: An Ethnography of Quaker Decision-making, Dispute Avoidance and Dispute Resolution (Aldershot: Dartmouth-Ashgate, 2000). Quite apart from its merits as legal anthropology, Part II provides a lucid and helpful summary of Quaker history and culture.Google Scholar
4 ‘Why then the Law?’: New Blackfriars (1974) 296–304, p. 303.Google Scholar
5 ‘Why then the Law?’ p. 302.Google Scholar
6 I first heard him say it in a lecture at Cardiff in 1999.Google Scholar
7 QF&P 19.32.Google Scholar
8 Early Friends had the same problem: George Fox's Epistle CXXXI, written in 1656–1657, exhorts Friends to ‘take heed of slothfulness and sleeping in your meetings; for in so doing ye will be bad examples to others, and hurt yourselves and them’.Google Scholar
9 Bradney, and Cownie, , Living Without Law, p 137.Google Scholar
10 In 1828–29, American Evangelicals who wanted to adopt a statement of faith split from Liberals who did not: Livingstone, Elizabeth A (ed.), Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn (Oxford: OUP, 1997) p 766. ‘Orthodox’, ‘Conservative’ or ‘Evangelical’ Friends in the USA hold to the priesthood of all believers, but take a high view of scripture, employ stipendiary pastors and hold liturgical services with readings, hymns and sermons—known as ‘programmed worship’. Liberals are in a minority.Google Scholar
11 E.g. prison ministry, hospital chaplaincy, the arrangement of funerals, and chaplaincy in institutions of further and higher education. However, in many churches with separate clergy, lay people can undertake some of these functions.Google Scholar
12 Traditionally of course, in Western Christianity, the ministers of the marriage rite are the couple themselves.Google Scholar
13 Usually referred to simply as ‘Sufferings’: see below.Google Scholar
14 QF&P 8.22. The Recording Clerk at the time of writing was Elsa Dicks.Google Scholar
15 Other YMs have similar handbooks, eg. Philadelphia YM's Faith and Practice (revised 1997) and New York YM's Faith and Practice (revised 1998).Google ScholarFrom 1959, as well as its own Organisation and Procedure Canadian YM used BYM's Advice and Queries (London: 1995)Google Scholarand Christian Faith and Practice of London YM (London: 1959). However, because the 1959 publication was out of print and the current British QF&P was not entirely suited to their needs. Canadian Friends decided in 2000 to produce their own manual: CYM 2000 Minute 29.Google Scholar
16 Though ecclesiology is addressed at lenth in One in the Spirit, BYM's preliminary response to the 1995 report of Churches Together in England. Called to be One. The full text is set out pp 1–17 ofGoogle ScholarFrom Friends, with love: Book I 1995–1997 (London: BYM, 2002): see especially pp 2–7.Google Scholar
17 I Cor 14: 40.Google Scholar
18 QF&P 10.03.Google Scholar
19 Though the reality is more complex, with an intermediate General Meeting [GM] and a web of central committees (just as, in Sctland, the basic structure of kirk session ⇔presbytery⇔ General Assembly leaves out of account the ad hoc boards and the Commission of Assembly).Google Scholar
20 QF&P 11.01, para 7 [emphasis added].Google Scholar In its response to the ARCIC statement entitled The Gift of Authority, the BYM Committee for Christian and Interfaith Relations noted that ‘In our understanding “the Church” is precisely what the document calls “the laity”—laos, the whole people of God—i.e. an undivided body of men and women who minister to one another in a mutual priesthood modelled on the servant priesthood of Jesus’:Google ScholarFrom Friends, with love: Book 2 1998–2000 (London: BYM, 2002), p. 51. The full text of the response is set out at pp 49–57.Google Scholar
21 QF&P 11.44–46.Google Scholar
22 QF&P 11.07, 11–16, 11.19.Google Scholar
23 QF&P 11.37.Google Scholar
24 QF&P 11.39, 11.41.Google Scholar
25 QF&P 4.22.Google Scholar
26 QF&P 12.05–07.Google Scholar
27 For life, during good behaviour: see, for example, the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland's Act X of 1932. as amended [anent Election and Admission of Elders and Deacons], ss 6–8.Google Scholar
28 QF&P 12.07.Google Scholar
29 QF&P 12.11. For a full list of duties, see QF&P 12.12 (elders) and QF&P 12.13 (overseers). Meeting for worship is ended by two of the elders shaking hands—a rare example of Quaker ceremonial. Worship is normally very sedate, but if anyone behaved in an unseemly fashion it would be for the elders to persuade that person, very gently, to desist. Being remonstrated with in such a fashion is known in Quakerspeak as ‘being eldered’.Google Scholar
30 Interim Report of Local and Regional Groupings Working Party (BYM: London. 2003), para 8. Similarly, it is proposed to change the name ‘Monthly Meeting’ because it is no longer accurate or helpful:Google Scholaribid, para 14.1. At as June 2003 no decisions had been taken about the proposed changes.
31 QF&P 4.33–35.Google Scholar
32 Interim Report of Local and Regional Groupings Working Party, p 10.Google Scholar
33 QF&P 4.07.Google Scholar
34 QF&P 5.01.Google Scholar
35 QF&P 5.02.Google Scholar
36 Quaker-speak for ‘abolished’.Google Scholar
37 Friends are very aware of the possibility of individuals being overloaded: ‘[i]t is not expected that any Friend should attend every meeting of sit upon innumerable committees’: QF&P 3.09. Nevertheless, in addition to meeting for worship, a very conscientious Friend will be attending PM and MM and, possibly. Sufferings and BYM as well.Google Scholar
38 Interim Report of Local and Regional Groupings Working Party, para 18.6.Google Scholar
39 QF&P 16.10.Google Scholar
40 QF&P 5.05.Google Scholar
41 Meeting of Friends in Wales, which represents BYM in relations with the National Assembly and with domestic ecumenical bodies and the like. is not a GM—it is sui generis: QF&P 5.06.Google Scholar
42 QF&P 7.05, 7.08. The current membership is about 200, and many feel that it is simply too large to function efficiently as an executive body: Interim Report of Local and Regional Groupings Working Party, Part IV.Google Scholar
43 The automatic right of all elders to attend Sufferings was withdrawn in 1974: QF&P 7.01 para 8.Google Scholar
44 QF&P 8.15.Google Scholar
45 QF&P 6.09. Internationally, each community of Friends has an autonomous YM linked through the Friends' World Committee for Consultation established in 1937. Some countries, such as Canada and Australia, have a single, national YM; the USA has several. partly because of geography, but partly also because of tensions between Evangelicals and Liberals.Google Scholar
46 QF&P 6.09.Google Scholar
47 QF&P 6.11, 6.12.Google Scholar
48 QF&P 6.10.Google Scholar
49 QF&P 6.15, 6.17.Google Scholar
50 QF&P 6.04.Google Scholar
51 QF&P 6.15, 6.19. The 2002 epistle appeared in the summer 2002 edition of the BYM newsletter, Quaker News.Google Scholar
52 QF&P 8.01.Google Scholar
53 QF&P 8.02.Google Scholar
54 QF&P 8.11.Google Scholar
55 Or, ‘God so loved the world that She did not send a committee…: The Quaker Jargon-Buster (London: Ealing PM, leaflet, nd), ‘Gospel order’ is a term of art. suggesting that the Friends’ structure is in conformity with (or, at any rate, not inimical to) the teachings of the early church, rather than a description of first-century church government.Google Scholar
56 Interim Report of Local and Regional Groupings Working Party, para 5.Google Scholar
57 See, for example, BYM's response to the 1995 Papal Encyclical on ecumenism, Ut Unum Sint. The full text is set out at pp 39–40Google Scholarof From Friends, with love: Book 1 1995–1997 (London: BYM, 2002).Google Scholar
58 Defined as ‘a group of people waiting to go home’: Fox, Catherine, Scenes from Vicarage Life: or, the Joys of Sexagesima (London: Monarch Press, 2001), p 189.Google Scholar
59 QF&P 3.13. Even for someone who has spent most of his professional life clerking meetings ranging from occasional sittings of the House of Commons to a subcommittee of an Anglican parochial church council (and, much more rarely, chairing them), the dual rôle of a Quaker clerk looks extremely demanding.Google Scholar
60 Nina Gwilliam: personal communication.Google Scholar
61 QF&P 3.15.Google Scholar
62 Bradney, and Cownie, , Living Without Law, p 144.Google Scholar
63 Lord Bridge of Harwich, Synodical Government in the Church of England: a Review (London: Church House Publishing, 1997), para 9.10.Google Scholar
64 See Cranmer, Frank ‘Christian Doctrine and Judicial Review: The Free Church Case Revisited’: (2002) 6 Ecc LJ pp 328–330.Google Scholar
65 The Preparative Meeting that Bradney and Cownie studied had 91 offices to be filled by about 125 members and 73 attenders: Living Without Law, pp 105, 113, 114.Google Scholar
66 Tyldesley, Alan: ‘Changing Our Ways’: The Friend, 21 February 2003, p. 15.Google Scholar
67 Personal communication.Google Scholar
68 Bradney, and Cownie, , Living Without Law, p 144.Google Scholar
69 Ibid. p. 153.
70 ‘The Great Goodness in Silence’, The Guardian, 29 July 2002.Google Scholar
71 Mind the Oneness (London: Quaker Home Service, 1991) p 45.Google Scholar
72 See, for example, QF&P 19.38 for the testimony of Margaret Fell in 1664.Google Scholar
73 QF&P 1.02.37.Google Scholar
74 Matt, 5: 33–37: Jas 2: 12.Google Scholar
75 Charities (Exception from Registration) Regulations 1996, SI 1996/180. The Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2001, SI 2001/260. provided that excepted status would end on 1 October 2002, but the Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2002, SI 2002/1598, revoked the 2001 Regulations and extended excepted status until 1 October 2007—at which point it will almost certainly cease to exist.Google Scholar
76 QF&P 15.03–04. Six Weeks Meeting, founded in 1671, supervises property matters in London.Google Scholar
77 QF&P 15.13. There is no provision for registration of places of worship in Scotland.Google Scholar
78 Charity Commissioners for England and Wales. CC22: Registration of Religious Charities (London: HMSO, 1994) p 3.Google Scholar
79 Income Tax Special Purposes Commissiners v Pemsel [1891] Ac 531. HL. per Lord Macnaghten. For example, a gift to maintain a Quaker burial ground has been held a valid charitable gift: Re Manser, Attorney-General v Lucas [1905] I Ch 68.Google Scholar
80 Charity Commissioners. Registration of Religious Charities, p. 5.Google Scholar
81 For example, the Clandestine Marriages Act 1753 (26 Geo 2, c 33) (‘Lord Hardwicke's Marriage Act’) made special provision for Quakers.Google Scholar
82 Marriage Act 1949, s 26(1)(c)–(e). References to the Church of England include references to the Church in Wales: s 78(2). The Act has attracted considerable criticism for its selectivity: see, for example, Bradney, Anthony, Religions, Rights and Laws (Leicester: Leicester UP, 1993), pp 42–43,Google Scholar and Hamilton, Carolyn, Family, Law and Religion (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1995), pp 50–51.Google Scholar
83 Marriage Act 1949, s47(1).Google Scholar
84 Ibid, s47(2)(a), (b).
85 Ibid, s47(3).
86 Ibid, s47(4).
87 QF&P 16.04.Google Scholar
88 QF&P 16.10.Google Scholar
89 See QF&P 16.04ff.Google Scholar
90 QF&P 16.15.Google Scholar
91 QF&P 16.36. 16.40.Google Scholar
92 QF&P 16.46, a, b.Google Scholar
93 QF&P 15.18.Google Scholar
94 QF&P 15.17.Google Scholar
95 QF&P 15.20.Google Scholar
96 For the text, see QF&P 24.04.Google Scholar
97 The anecdote is part of the oral tradition of the Society: see QF&P 19.47.Google Scholar
98 QF&P 1.02.2 (or as Cownie and Bradney put it, ‘Quakers are Quakers all the time’:Google ScholarLiving Without Law, p. 143).Google Scholar
99 Acts of Assembly of the Church of Scotland, Act IX of 1697, which provides that any Act altering the ‘Rules and Constitutions of the Church’ is to come into force only with the consent of a majority of presbyteries. A special two-thirds majority was required for the proposal to abolish provincial synods, enacted as Act V of 1992 [amending Articles Declaratory anent Synods].Google Scholar
100 At the end of 2001 there were 73 MMs and 487 local meetings, of which 387 were PMs. Adherents totalled 28.615: 16,243 full members, 8,719 adult attenders and 3.635 children (statistics from BYM).Google Scholar
101 A mechanism that the Church of Scotland itself has recently abolished: Act III of 2001 [anent Discipline of Ministers, Licenciates, Graduate Candidates and Deacons].Google Scholar
102 QF&P 11.21.Google Scholar
103 Briden, Timothy and Hanson, Brian, Moore's Introduction to English Canon Law, 3rd edn (London: Mowbray, 1992), p 8.Google Scholar
104 Coriden, James A., An Introduction to Canon Law (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1991), p 4.Google Scholar
105 Bradney, and Cownie, , Living Without Law, p 4.Google Scholar