- Conversations with Remarkable Friends (13)
- Faith & Practice (7)
- Flexing some forms (2)
- Food (1)
- Journal (33)
- Keeping low (12)
- Neighborhood (1)
- Physical activity (7)
- Prayer (5)
- Uncategorized (1)
- Monday, November 14, 2011: Simplicity and learning transfer
- Tuesday, September 20, 2011: What does Beanite mean?
- Tuesday, August 30, 2011: Honks and labels
- Monday, February 7, 2011: More autobiography in outline form
- Sunday, February 6, 2011: Outline of a spiritual autobiography
- Monday, December 6, 2010: Cucumbers, Advent and immanence
- Monday, September 27, 2010: about the Blog title (reprise)
- Monday, September 27, 2010: Disclaimers and assurances (reprise)
- Wednesday, August 11, 2010: It is enough
- Sunday, April 4, 2010: Intergenerational Worship
Blogroll
- A Passionate and Determined Quest for Adequacy
- A Silly Poor Gospel
- Embracing Complexity
- Gregg's Gambles
- Imperfect Serenity
- Julie
- Linda Johansen
- One Quaker Take
- Other Stuff
- Quaker Quaker
- Ride Herd
- stony run farm
- Tables, Chairs and Oaken Chests
- the Garden at Lincoln School
- The Good Raised Up
- The Quaker Ranter
- The Red Electric
- Travis
- What Canst Thou Say?
- November 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- February 2011
- December 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- July 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- August 2008
- January 2008
- October 2007
- September 2007
- September 2006
To John Woolman on John Locke & John Adams
This morning I came to see what seminal work the Friends were doing in 1755–1758. You relate it well in Chapter Five of the Journal. I notice that you and the editorial committee have brought together many of the entries you made on the scruples of Friends about war–particularly about paying taxes to support it. Some of these events are taken from events that happened before the close of the previous chapter.
This grouping that has been done has been juxtaposed in my mind with the biography I’m currently reading about John Adams, the Massachusetts representative to the Continental Congress that convened in Philadelphia less than a decade later. From Adams actions I came to see how they were learning to put the understandings on natural law of John Locke and other thinkers from the century before yours into plans and resolutions about government and its role in the lives of men.
The justice of the peace who visited you said,
Civil government is an agreement of free men by which they oblige themselves to abide by certain laws as a standard, and to refuse to obey in that case is of like nature as to refuse to do any particular act which we had covenanted to do.
Your reply was that,
in making covenants it was agreeable to honesty and uprightness to take care that we do not foreclose ourselves from adhering strictly to true virtue in all occurrences relating thereto.
My perception is that you were just starting then to discover how far the social covenants made by free people should extend. How should they relate to the covenants we have with God? When conflicts arise, which determines our actions? Jesus’s teachings were given when his listeners saw Caesar as more divinely installed than governments were viewed by most in times since your own. Your reservation of the uprightness of adhering to true virtue may be the initial post-Enlightenment statements that have led to our later understandings of the right of conscience. Thank you for helping us recognize the issues and learn to faithfully follow the true Guide in our hearts.
About 70 years ago rights of conscience were legally recognized for the bearing of arms. The extension to the acts of paying for war is still a matter of different views among Friends and others. Some, myself included, feel led to pay with a heavy heart. Some adjust their outward lives to avoid paying for war by moving to a country that has no army or keeping their income below a taxable amount. Some refuse to pay actively and have their possessions taken by the government.
Friday, May 22, 2009 at 11:44
Thank you so much for this note.
I enjoy seeing the two statements about “covenants” clearly set in the context of Enlightenment thinking.
I am not sure whether John Woolman was pre-Enlightenment or post-Enlightenment or whether he just bypassed the Enlightenment entirely.