Advices 18, 19, and 20 of the Elders at Balby

18.-That Christian moderation be used towards all men: that they who obey not the word, may be won by those that in the word dwell, to guide in an holy life and godly conversation.

Comment: I take it that "all men" here refers to "all people", in keeping with the general usage of the time. It's interesting that this advice to use "Christian moderation" is not primarily advice on how to treat other Christians. It's advice on how to treat "they who obey not the word" i.e. either non-Christians or unfaithful Christians. So we should use moderation even toward the immoderate. Who are we tempted to think of as deserving harsh treatment because we don't think they obey the word of God? George Bush? Osama Bin Laden? Michael Jackson? You have your own list of such people. The advice of the elders at Balby is that we should use moderation toward them all. The reason given is so that these people who do not obey the word may be "won" by those who dwell in the word. (Actually, some texts say "won with" rather than "won by", but I prefer the ones that say "won by" because it seems to me to make more sense). Leaving aside the far from trivial question of whether either you or I can be truly said to "dwell in the word", the assumption here is that if we do then our goal will be to "win" others to do the same. Not to win over them, but to win them over.

19.- That the Elders made by the holy Ghost feed the flock of God, taking the oversight thereof willingly, not by constraint, but of a willing mind; neither as lords over God's heritage, but as examples to the flock of Christ.

Comment: There is no comment here on how the community will know who the elders are who are "made by the holy Ghost". Presumably the elders at Balby themselves would be included, but I - for one - hope that they were recognized and named as such by other Friends, not just by themselves and not originally by themselves. There is a clear assumption that there are elders in the Christian community: Friends who have a gift for offering wise counsel. These Friends are to "feed the flock" - that is, nurture the growth of all in the Meeting community. They are to exercise their gifts willingly. The responsibility of eldership should not be shirked. At the same time, the role of elder is not the role of a boss or director. It has more to do with setting a good example than with giving good instructions.

20.- That the younger submit themselves to the elder, - yea all be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility; for God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.

Comment: It isn't obvious to me that chronologically younger people should automatically "submit" to those who are chronologically older, but it does seem more plausible to me now than it did twenty years ago ;) In any case, spiritual maturity rather than chronological age may be what is meant here. The saving grace of this particular advice, in my opinion, is that after beginning with submission of younger to elder, it quickly goes on to say "yea all be subject to one another". So the eldest of the elders and weightiest of the weighty must stand ready to recognize the gifts, talents, leadings and insights of the greenest new attender who just walked through the door. And parents must be willing to learn from their children. It seems like a good prescription for healthy spiritual community

Read full article here...

Advices 15, 16, and 17 of the Elders at Balby

I here resume commenting on the advices of the elders at Balby. You can view the entire text of these advices by clicking this link.

15.That all Friends that have callings and trades, do labour in the thing that is good, in faithfulness and uprightness, and keep to their yea and nay in all their communications: and that all who are indebted to the world, endeavour to discharge the same, that nothing they may owe to any man but love one to another.

Comment: This is the sort of advice that only seems profound when you contemplate trying to live by it. The part about trying to discharge one's debts is the one that has been most challenging to me (not that I've entirely succeeded in keeping to yea and nay or being faithful and upright, but I speak comparitively). To the extent that we can live by such advice, and support one another in doing so as well, we can begin to deserve the reputation for integrity and character that Friends still seem to enjoy.

16.-That no-one speak evil of another, neither judge one against another; but rather judge this, that none put a stumbling-block or occasion to fall in his brother's way.

Comment: I'm afraid many of us fall far short of this advice. It sounds so obvious and even trivial. But we easily neglect it and thereby do great harm to ourselves, one another, and our religious community.

17.-That none be busy bodies in others' matters, but each one to bear another's burdens, and so fulfil the law of Christ; that they be sincere and without offence, and that all things that are honest, be done without murmuring, and disputing, that you may be blameless and harmless. the sons of God without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, amongst whom they may shine as lights in the world.

Comment: Like I said...

Read full article here...

Advices 12, 13 & 14 of the Elders at Balby

12.- That the necessities of the poor, widows and fatherless, may be truly supplied, and that such as are able to work, and do not, may be admonished: and if, after admonition, they refuse to work, then let them not eat. And that the children of such as are in necessity, be put to honest employment; that none be idle in the Lord's vineyard.

Comment: This advice recalls Advice No. 5, already discussed, in which it is advised that Friends make and properly administer collections "for the poor (that are so indeed)". Here, however, the qualification only hinted at with that phrase "that are so indeed" is made more explicit. The elders evidently wanted Friends to make sure that they cared for those who were truly poor, but not to enable (as we might phrase it today) any one whose poverty sprang from a simple refusal to work. Much of the language here (as in all these advices) comes directly from the Bible, including "let them not eat". We have to wonder how this advice was actually applied. Was tender love or "tough love" predominant? Who made the determination of whether a given poor person was unable to work or simply didn't want to? Was it understood that work should be fairly compensated and not under oppressive conditions? There are loopholes here that could be exploited for hard-hearted abuse. That wouldn't be a problem, however, if the advices were read "in the spirit" as their famous postscript urges, rather than in the letter.

13.-That care be taken, that as any are called before outward powers of the nation, that in the light, obedience to the Lord be given.

Comment: This seems to mean "obey God rather than men", but the meaning is not made explicit. I noticed that this advice was recently quoted in a document published by the Friends Committee on National Legislation. FCNL assumed that being called before the "outward powers of the nation" meant being pressed into military service. Sounds likely, but I would like the opinion of an historian. Remember that these advices pre-date the declaration to King Charles against wars and fightings with outward weapons.

14.-That if any be called to serve the commonwealth in any public service, which is for the public wealth and good, that with cheerfulness it be undertaken, and in faithfulness discharged: and that therein patterns and examples, in the thing that is righteous, you may be, to those that be without.

Comment: I just received a jury summons. Is that a case in point?

Read full article here...

Advices 10 & 11 From the Elders at Balby

I now return to the continuing series on the advices contained in what was effectively the first book of discipline (nowadays known as Faith and Practice) in the Religious Society of Friends - a letter containing 20 "advices" to Friends from some elders who met in Balby, England, in 1656. You can view this document in its entirety at this website

I've already commented on Advices 1 - 9 from that letter in earlier posts. Now we proceed to Advices 10 and 11.

10.-That servants be obedient to them that are their masters in the flesh, in things that are good, in singleness of heart as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as the servants of Christ; doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service, as to the Lord and not to men; knowing whatsoever good thing any man doth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And that masters give to their servants that which is just and equal; forbearing threatening, knowing that their Master is also in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

11.- That care be taken that none who are servants depart from their masters, but as they both do see in the light: or any master to put away his servant, but by the like consent of the servant: and if any master or servant in their wills do otherwise it is to be judged by Friends in the light.

Comment: I am handicapped here in that I know very little about the social and economic life of England in 1656. In view of Friends later testimony against slavery both of these advices may seem rather suprising since they seem not to question that there can be "masters" and "servants" in the church and that the latter owe the former their "obedience". What can we make of these advices? Is there anything in them that speaks to our condition today?

First, it should be observed that the word "servants" in this passage does not necessarily mean "slaves" though it would include slaves as well as others. It is my impression (I would welcome documentation from a more competent historian) that many Friends were employed as personal household servants, were indentured servants working off debts, or were apprentices to craftsmen. Any of these might have been referred to as "servants". Those to whom they were indentured or apprenticed were called "masters". In some cases these servants were Friends though their masters were not, because they had been convinced independently. In other cases both servants and "masters" in the same household became Friends at the same time (the most famous example being that of the Fell household in which both Margaret and her servants were convinced by the testimony of George Fox). In still others, Friends who were looking for placement as apprentices or servants preferred to be placed with other Friends. The Journal of John Richardson was from a slightly later period (the 18th century rather than the 17th), but it illustrates this phenomenon. Richardson became apprenticed to a Friend after being disowned by hiw own stepfather. I do not believe that many Friends (if any) were slaves in 1656. Very few would have been slave-holders either at that period, especially in England, though slave-holding was not yet seen clearly as against God's will.

With all this in mind I think it's useful to think about how this advice could be applied to the relationship in our lives most like that of master-servant in 17th century England - namely the relationship of employer to employee or supervisor to staff-member. The first advice could then be paraphrased as

That workers comply with their supervisors in things that are good, in singleness of heart as unto Christ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers, but as workers for Christ; doing the will of God from the heart; with good-will doing service, as to the Lord and not to men; knowing whatever good thing anyone does, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be worker or boss. And that supervisors give to their employees that which is just and equal; forbearing threatening, knowing that their Master is also in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.

How does this advice, as paraphrased, speak to us? One thing that strikes me is that the servant/employee is not instructed to do whatever she or he is told, but to obey "in things that are good", which in many jobs is a significant qualification. One could even say that there is a subversive tendency in this part of the advice, since it implicitly requires each of us to make an independent judgement of which are the "things that are good" when our bosses give us orders. Second, the servant is not to do these good things only for show or to please the master / employer / supervisor but to do them as if for Christ. On the one hand, this advice if followed would probably make the employee a better employee from the boss's point of view. But even if the boss were not truly concerned with a job well done but only, for example, meeting certain production quotas, the employee who followed this advice would be zealous to do a truly good job anyway. It seems to me that this is good spiritual advice, and not just a convenient rule from the point of view of those in power.

Speaking of the "subversive tendency" in these advices: surely the advice to masters that they "give to their servants that which is just and equal, forbearing threatening..." would be such a tendency. The phrase "just and equal" is not defined. Presumably the elders thought that there was some way for a master craftsman to be just and equal in dealing with an apprentice, or a householder with a household servant. But how could this possibly have been applied once some Friends started to have slaves? The seeds of John Woolman's quiet radicalism may have been planted right there in 1656 by the elders at Balby.

Advice number 11 is harder for me to accept, even if modernized and contextualized. I understand that I may have an obligation to "give notice" when I decide to change jobs, but surely not to wait until my employer agrees that it's ok for me to leave. The idea that my employer would have to ask my permission before firing me seems more reasonable, but that is no doubt my class bias. ;-)

While there is a surprising mutuality in the wording of the advice (neither master nor servant is to sever the master/servant relationship without the other's consent) it still seems highly inconsistent with our modern (and praiseworthy) ideals of freedom. One wonders why the advice was felt necessary. One wonders, too, whether the elders themselves were people who had been masters in their lifetimes or servants? Or were there some of both? I know that there were some prominent Quakers whose station in life was far from exalted, but I don't know whether they were among the elders at Balby.

Read full article here...

Advices 8 and 9 of the Elders at Balby

8.-That a record be kept in every meeting of the births of children of such who are members of that meeting, and of the burials of the dead who die in the Lord as they depart out of the body; which be done after the manner of the holy men of God, recorded in the Scriptures of truth; and not after the customs of the heathen; that know not God.

Comment: This advice seems to speak for itself and to be pretty non-controversial. I do wonder what "customs of the heathen" are being warned against. It seems hard to imagine a "heathen" method of record-keeping. Perhaps this refers to customary ways of conducting funerals or celebrating birthdays rather than to the record keeping itself?

9.-That husbands and wives dwell together according to knowledge, as being heirs together of the grace of life; that children obey their parents in the Lord; and that parents provoke not their children to wrath, but bring them up in the nurture and fear of God, walking before them as good examples, in gravity and godliness; providing things honest in the sight of God and man.

Comment: Reading this advice in full is more edifying than reading the summary of it that occurs in the current version of New York Yearly Meeting Faith and Practice (which in turn is quoted from a history of Quakerism by Chrarles Braithwaite). The summary says simply

Advice to husbands and wives, as in I Peter iii:7. Advice to parents and children, as in Ephesians vi:1-4

It's interesting and encouraging that the Friends selected from the available New Testament material those passages on family life that emphasize mutuality and respect rather than heirarchy and submission. Husbands and wives "dwell together according to knowledge" and are "heirs together of the grace of life". And although children are to obey their parents, the parents also have duties to their children: to avoid provoking them to wrath, and to set an example for them.

Read full article here...

Advice number 7 of the Elders at Balby

7.-That as many as are moved of the Lord in his light to take a brother or a sister in marriage, marriage being honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, let it be made known to the children of light, especially to those of the meeting of which the parties are members: that all, in the light may it witness to be of God. And being by the light made manifest to be of God let them be joined together in the Lord and in his fear, in the presence of many witnesses; according to the example of the holy men of God in the Scriptures of truth recorded, which were written for our example and learning; that no scandal may rest upon the truth, nor anything be done in secret; but all things brought to the Light that truth may trample over all deceit, and that they who are joined together in the Lord, may not by man be put asunder, whom God hath joined together. That there may be a record in writing, (witnessing, the day, place, and year, of such things) kept within [that meeting] of which one or both of them are members; under which writing the witnesses present may subscribe their names, or so many of them as be convenient; for the stopping the mouths of all gainsayers, and for the manifesting the truth to all that are without.

Comment: To take a "brother or sister" in marriage meant, of course, taking another Quaker in marriage, not a biological sibling. It is my understanding that in this period only marriages within the established church were clearly recognized in law. That presented a problem for Friends, who regarded the established church as not a true church and not competent to perform or witness marriages. Some critics of Friends began to say that the Quakers were sexually libertine and that they "went together like rude beasts" as George Fox reported some had said. The Friends themselves, however, believed in marriage as a deep and solemn commitment that should be made before God and also in public. It was decidedly not enough that two Friends simply believed themselves to be married or that they made a private commitment between themselves. Rather they were to declare themselves to the meeting, and to proceed only if the meeting could "it witness to be of God". The wedding, when it took place, should also be public, and the parties should actually sign the promises they made to each other. This was not to be a temporary or provisional arrangement, nor to be lightly undertaken. It was to be done in the presence of God and "in his fear" and it was understood that those thus joined by the Lord could not "by man be put asunder".

Echoes of all this survive in the Quaker marriage meetings of today, in which the couple's promises to each other begin with the words "In the presence of God and these our Friends..." The degree to which the underlying assumptions of the early Friends are still understood and accepted may vary from Friend to Friend and meeting to meeting. I have sometimes (not often) felt that couples who came to my meeting looking for marriage have thought of the approval process as more or less a formality. I also know of some Quaker couples who have begun to regard themselves as married without ever seeking either legal status from the state or recognition by the meeting. Divorce, of course, is common and separation even more so. In this we share much with our non-Quaker neighbors. A rigid enforcement of the 17th century discipline would hardly solve these problems, only change their form. Yet surely something has been lost. This 7th advice seems to me one of the most challenging to Friends today. (And no, I do not think that marriage between people of the same gender is anywhere close to being our problem).

Read full article here...

Advices 5 & 6 from Elders at Balby

I am continuing in my plodding methodical way to comment on the advices in numerical order as I come to them, saving the more interesting and controversial ones until it's their turn, so to speak. As always, the advices are quoted from the text published by Quaker Heritage Press at Balby Letter of 1656

5.-That collections be timely made for the poor, (that are so indeed,) as they are moved, according to order,-for relief of prisoners, and other necessary uses, as need shall require: and all moneys so collected, an account thereof to be taken; from which every need may be supplied, as made known by the overseers in every meeting: that no private ends may be answered, but all brought to the light, that the gospel be not slandered.

6.-That care be taken for the families and goods of such as are called forth into the ministry, or who are imprisoned for the truth's sake; that no creatures be lost for want of the creatures.

These two advices seem related in that both call upon local meetings to care for Friends (and maybe others also?) in need. The ideology of "self reliance" and the notion that poverty is a punishment from God are both noticeably lacking.

Number 5 is talking about all who are truly poor, for whatever reason, and urges the local meetings to see to their relief by taking up collections for them and disbursing the funds as needed. The parenthetical qualification "that are so indeed" seems to recognize that even among Friends it might turn out that some who claim to be needy are not, and it is proper for the meetings to take this into account. The advice also specifies that all such collections be properly and openly accounted for. In part this was to avoid public scandal ("that the gospel be not slandered"), but it was also to guard against a temptation to corruption ("that no private ends be answered"). In these quite practical ways the Friends - though they believed that the Lord could take away their sin - implicitly recognized that they needed to guard against human frailty even among their own elders and overseers.

Number 6 concerns the families among Friends who have needs because one member is either traveling in the ministry or in prison for "truth's sake". This seems like a more particular application of the principle in advice number 5. Pastoral Friends sometimes point out that it was also an early recognition among Friends that those who do the work of ministry sometimes merit the meeting's financial support. I don't quite agree that this constitutes a valid argument for the system of paid pastors found in many meetings today, but it does illustrate that the issue may not be quite so cut-and-dried as some of us unprogrammed Friends think it is.

Read full article here...

Advices 1 thru 4 of the Elders at Balby

I see that some readers have still been visiting this blog even though I haven't posted in weeks. At long last I feel ready to write something. (Incidentally, Florence Accetta, whose illness has absorbed the energies of our whole family for the last weeks, is in a rehab nursing home and seems to be recovering her strength but is still enduring many trials. Continued prayers are welcome.)

In one of the last posts on this blog, we began a dialog of sorts about the advices of the elders at Balby. My original hope was to draw attention to the advices themselves as opposed to the postscript to the advices that is so often quoted out of context in Quaker circles. Unfortunately, the discussion was truncated. I would now like to continue it by bringing my remarks on the first three advices out of the "comment" section and into the body of this post, followed by remarks on the fourth. (I will continue with the others in future posts). The quotations are from a posting of the original text by the Quaker Heritage Press as transcribed by Rosemary Moore from "a copy in the Lancashire Records Office at Preston, from the papers of Marsden Monthly Meeting."

"The elders and brethren send unto the brethren in the north these necessary things following; to which, if in the light you wait, to be kept in obedience, you shall do well. Fare well."

Comment: It would be interesting to know whether the "brethren in the north" asked for this advice, or brought some questions that elicited it, or simply seemed like a troublesome lot who needed it. In either case, it's instructive to see that the writers of the epistle thought "obedience" was a good thing. By this they apparently mean obedience to God and His light rather than to themselves as elders.

"1.-That the particular meetings by all the children of Light, be duly kept and observed, where they be already settled, every first-day of the week; except they be moved to other places. And that general meetings be kept in order and sweet in the life of God, on some other day of the week than on the First-day, unless there be a moving to the contrary: that so in the light and life, the meetings may be kept, to the praise of God."

Comment: "Children of light" is the name used here for those we would now call "Friends" or "Quakers". Keeping meetings going was evidently considered a very important duty of the community, and if they were kept this would be "to the praise of God". It's a different mindset than one which views meetings as optional and designed for the benefit of the worshippers. I'm not sure what "general meetings" means in this context: meetings for discipline?

"2.-That care be taken, that as any are brought into the truth, meetings be in such places amongst them, as may be for the most convenience of all, without respect of persons: and that hands be laid on none suddenly, lest the truth suffer."

Comment: To join with Friends was, of course, to be "brought into the truth". Meetings should be set up for the new Friends in places convenient to them, even if they were not convenient for important existing Friends. The caution that "hands be laid on none suddenly lest the truth suffer." still survives among us in the form of a custom that people should attend at least a year before being admitted as members.

"3.-That if any person draw back from meetings, and walk disorderly, some go to speak to such as draw back; to exhort and admonish such with a tender, meek spirit, whom they find negligent or disorderly. And if any, after admonition, do persist in the thing not good, let them again be admonished and reproved before two or three witnesses; that by the mouth of two or three witnesses, every thing may be established. And if still they persevere in them, then let the thing be declared to the church: and when the church hath reproved them for their disorderly walking, and admonished them in the tender and meek spirit, and they do not reform, then let their names and the causes, and such as can justly testify the truth therein, and their answers, be sent in writing to some whom the Lord hath raised up in the power of his Spirit to be fathers, his children to gather in the light, that the thing may be known to the body; and with the consent of the whole body, the thing may be determined in the light."

Comment:Here we get to the meat of the advices, with instructions on how to deal with Friends who "withdraw from meetings" or "walk disorderly". It's striking that no definition is offered of what it might mean to "walk disorderly". My guess is that Friends thought they would know disorderly walking when they saw it. Probably the disorderly walkers would know it, too, and that might explain why they might begin to "withdraw from meetings". I wish we could know more about exactly what kinds of situations prompted this advice. Was the primary effect of the advice to inaugarate a tighter discipline on Friends who were hitherto doing their own thing? Or was it to moderate and regularize the procedures for admonishing them, as an alternative to arbitrary harsh treatment by self-appointed disciplinarians?

A further point of interest is that the elders felt quite comfortable referring to the meeting community as "the church". They identified with the New Testament Church and did not feel in the least squeamish about using such language.

"4.-That as any are moved of the Lord to speak the word of the Lord at such meetings, that it be done in faithfulness, without adding or diminishing. And if at such meetings, any thing at any time be otherwise spoken by any not of the light, whereby the seed of God cometh to be burthened; let the person or persons in whom the seed of God is burthened, speak in the light (as of the Lord they are moved,) in meekness and godly fear, to him; but let it be done in private, betwixt them two, or before two or three witnesses, and not in the public meetings, except there be a special moving so to do."

Comment: This advice embodies all the subtleties and paradoxes about the concept of a free ministry inspired by God alone that is nevertheless accountable to a body of other Friends. The minister is to speak the word of the Lord without adding or diminishing. But if he or she does otherwise, who will know? The answer that other Friends will know by senseing that the "seed of God is burthened". And if they feel this it is their responsibility to speak to the minister who has erred (not, notice to third parties about the minister but to the minister himself or herself). The time place and manner in which this speaking is done is of crucial importance. It must be in "meekness and godly fear". Perhaps this is a tacit recognition that the person who feels the seed is burdened, rather than the minister, may be mistaking the Lord's intentions. Moreover, the conversation should not take place in the meeting itself, which would make it a matter of public debate and would risk humiliating one or more of the Friends. Rather it was to take place in private, or with no more than two or three witnesses. A concern for sound ministry is here balanced with a concern for fairness and balance and good order.

Read full article here...

The Elders at Balby

In 1656 there was a "general meeting of friends in truth" at Balby in Yorkshire, England. These Friends issued a remarkable 20 point document

"from the Spirit of truth to the children of light that all in order be kept in obedience, that he may be glorified who is worthy over all, God blessed for ever."

This document has a postscript:

"Dearly beloved Friends, these things we do not lay upon you as a rule or form to walk by; but that all, with a measure of the light, which is pure and holy, may be guided: and so in the light walking and abiding, these things may be fulfilled in the Spirit, not in the letter, for the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."

Somehow the postscript has come to be quoted far more often by succeeding generations of Friends than the document it was attached to. Thus modern Friends are often in the position of knowing that the "elders at Balby" (as we've come to call them) wanted their advices to be fulfilled in the spirit but of not knowing what their advices actually were. In fact, the postscript is often quoted in such a way as to suggest that Friends really have no guidelines or principles or that if we do we don't really expect anyone to follow them.

With that as a background, I invite you to read the advices themselves. I would be interested in any comment on them.

Rich Accetta-Evans

Read full article here...