Follow the Quaker lead in disagreements

By: Ray Brimble, posted on October 24, 2014

Quakers can still be cool and relevant and it’s not just because of those good oats.

Since our national political discourse is such a mess right now, we should consider some good old fashioned Quaker sensibilities.

The Quakers, originally called “The Religious Society of Friends,” now just “Friends,” have an interesting way of conducting certain parts of their worship services. During these services there is no formal leadership. They are expected to sit in silence and wait until the spirit moves them to speak. They can listen, react, remain silent, consider, adjust, defend or explain. The process encourages dialogue. It is the act of respectful discussion on topics of mutual interest. If this sounds like how democracy should work in action, it’s because, to some extent, this is where we got many of our notions of how citizens should act. Remember ol’ Ben Franklin and his wisdom? That was partially the influence of Quaker sensibilities in action.

I can imagine that congregations of Quakers in the old days might have suffered the same impatience, disgust and anger with their fellow community members as we do today when conversing with those we don’t agree with. But imagine if the only “Christian” thing to do was to listen and try to learn from someone who expressed a notion not of your liking. What if you would be ostracized if you acted like a jerk when a fellow citizen spoke his or her mind? Or if the rules of discussion encouraged people to filter their words before they blurted them out.

Friends value discernment and careful reflection of the meaning of what another person has said before responding. In today’s America, our discourse seems to value one-upmanship . “Gotcha” is the gold-standard. What if this is occasionally replaced with, “I see your point, but will you consider this additional perspective”?

Friends’ discussion sensibilities are not just about careful listening and agreement. They are also about speaking up when you need to. This is particularly relevant today because perhaps a larger malady in our society than our angry discourse is that many citizens have dropped out of the conversation all together. Some don’t like the tone and tenor. Others feel threatened by compromise.

Learning from the Friends’ example, consider people having the confidence to know that no matter who their neighbors are and what their viewpoints might be, that they have the right, and indeed the duty, to express those opinions. In that case, there is no need to fear compromise. Why is “compromise” such a bad concept these days? Do we lack that much confidence in our own opinions and have such little respect for those of our friends and neighbors? Isn’t democracy defined by compromise and dictatorship the method of those who see no need for it?

We lack some of these Quaker sensibilities in our national political discourse today. It would seem that our Creator might want us to learn to listen as well as speak. It would seem that respecting our neighbors and fellow citizens is a good and Godly thing to do.

Quakers have now become just “Friends.” Maybe that’s what America needs more of. Can’t we all be friends?