Skip to content

Peace in Faith and Practice: Religion, Idealism and Pragmatism

    What can the Quaker visualisation of peace tell us about how we view peace ourselves? Should we change the way we integrate our values into peace-making? In this concluding firth piece of the series on Quaker visualisations of peace in Quaker Faith & Practice, I wanted to bring together the threads that have run throughout this series, and re-phrase the central conundrums that these visualisations bring about.

    Source: Wikimedia Commons

    The articles so far in this series have addressed the history of the Peace Testimony, conscientious objection, peace as relief from suffering, and mediation and disarmament; but there have been similar themes that have run throughout. Firstly, the tension between idealism and pragmatism can be applied to all aspects of Quaker peace philosophy. Debates concerning pacifism and disarmament for example can be boiled down to where one sits on the scale between the two. This split is evident within the other pieces in this series – from the dilemma over conscientious objection during the World Wars and whether you can withhold taxes for military purposes, to disarmament and the relief of suffering and how far one is willing to extend the ‘no discrimination’ policy for aid. Faith & Practice, and indeed Quakerism as a whole, allows flexibility in applying these values to one’s own life. Part of this stems from the way the book is written – by a committee that regularly decide on new editions; and in the form of advice, queries, and testimony, rather than narratively structured like other religious texts. The visualisation of peace that the book incubates is one that is able to change with the times and fit to each individual, rather than a set of commandments or rules set out in religious ritual.  Faith & Practice is not the only aspect that promotes flexibility. So to does Quaker worship, as personal witness in an unstructured ‘meeting’. Quakers are ‘moved’ to speak whatever is on their mind; there is no religious figure leading prayer or giving sermons. In short, there is no ‘right’ way to be a Quaker.

    If this is the case, though, how is there any agreement over how to visualise peace; or over how to visualise anything? There may be no single way to follow Quakerism, but there is still a central shared belief, that of a Christian God in every person. Much of Quakerism flows from this idea – if God is in everyone[i] then we shouldn’t harm anyone. If God speaks through everyone, then we shouldn’t discriminate between different people’s words and actions. Believing in a Christian God is obviously something that many disagree with, but if one replaces God with ‘good’ inside each person, you can begin to secularise Quaker values and make them more universal. There are limits to this, of course; there are many that believe in different conceptions of God and the values systems that that comes with; but I think that there is still some utility in highlighting Quaker visualisations of peace.

    Quakerism teaches us that peace is deeply interconnected with society around it, from social justice and responsibility, to participating in a system of government through paying tax, to picking a side in a local dispute. It also shows us what peace looks like when values are put at the centre, rather than rationality or pragmatism, and how these values can succeed in shaping personal, communal, and even international peace. In an era where peace-making and peace-building are dominated by the richest and most powerful in society, maybe there is room for the powerless after all. Quakerism helps to focus attention on ordinary people, everyday life, and grassroots efforts to secure peace in compassionate, inclusive, rights-respecting ways; and it helps us grapple with the role that idealism and aspirational thinking can play in visualising (and perhaps also realising) a more peaceful world.

    What do you think?

    • What do you think your life would look like if you chose idealism over pragmatism more often? Better, or worse?
    • What role can idealism (compared with pragmatism) play in driving collective change?
    • Is believing in God a pre-requisite for visualising peace like a Quaker? Can you believe that there is good in everyone without believing in a Christian God?
    • How can we promote alternative way of visualising peace that aren’t dependent on existing hierarchies of wealth and power? Can Quaker values ever be mainstreamed?

    If you liked this item in our museum…

    You might also like the other articles in this series on Quaker Faith & Practice (The Origins of Quaker Peace Testimony, Quakers and Conscientious Objection, Relief from Suffering and Mediation and Disarmament) as well as other pieces with the tags ‘Moral Peace‘ and ‘Social Repair‘.

    Joe Walker, December 2022


    [i] Benson, Lewis. 1970. ““That of God in Every Man”–What Did George Fox Mean by It?”  Quaker Religious Thoughts 7 (2):2-25.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *