The similarity I noticed was how these two highly capable men from different eras devoted themselves to the cause of justice for the oppressed and vulnerable. Both could probably have done better for themselves if they had taken the side of the powerful, but that’s not what they were about.
Absolutely Drew -
You certainly cut to the chase there (something I’m not good at!!). I didn’t want to risk misreading you although I thought you’d say that - and I completely agree with you. The other reason I asked is that whenever Richard Beck’s blog gets mentioned it usually spells trouble for me 
and I’m not sure how many other people read his blogs 
- even if they read the threads on this site).
There is also an important difference between John and William to my mind - one of style rather than substance - and it relates to what I was saying in my previous post; namely that John the Quaker was creative within some of the constraints puritan attitudes to the arts; while William the flamboyant Anglican/Episcopalian was totally in love with the sensual exuberance of the arts, especially as expressed in the Circus. He once wrote -
“In the circus, humans are represented as freed from consignment to death. There one person walks on a wire fifty feet above the ground, … another hangs in the air by the heels, one upholds twelve in a human pyramid, another is shot from a cannon. The circus performer is the image of the eschatological person – emancipated from frailty and inhibition, exhilarant, transcendent over death – neither confined nor conformed by the fear of death any more…. So the circus, in its open ridicule of death … shows the rest of us that the only enemy in life is death and that this enemy confronts everyone, whatever the circumstances, all the time…. The service the circus does – more so, I regret to say, than the churches do – is to portray openly, dramatically, and humanly that death in the midst of life. The circus is eschatological parable and social parody: it signals a transcendence of the power of death, which exposes this world as it truly is while it pioneers the Kingdom”
(A Simplicity of Faith, pp. 89-91)
Talking of common ground between [some] Quakers and [some] Anglicans I note from the first extract from John Woolman’s journal I have posted that he ‘found no narrowness respecting Sects and Opinions’ – this is the central theme of the Anabaptist Spirituals that the Truth as lived transcends boundaries of institutions and of doctrine/opinion. I also find this theme in William Law the Anglican Universalist who wrote –
‘What degree of sense or divinity George Fox was possessed of, I cannot pretend to say, having never read any of his writings; but if he has said any good and divine truths, I should be as pleased seeing them in his books as in any of the Fathers of the primitive Church…Now this is the greatest evil in that the division of the Church has brought forth; it raises in every communion a selfish, partial orthodoxy , which consists in courageously defending all that it has and condemning all that it has not…
(‘Some Thoughts on Dr Trapp’s Reply’)
So William Law too was ‘not for sect or party’. However the early Quakers claimed not only ‘we are not for sect or party’ but also 'we are not for names or titles’; and William Law – a High Tory loyal supporter of monarchy – would not have agreed with the second part.
As for me? - on this Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee – the Quaker part of me sees her as mere ‘Elizabeth Windsor’ adn want to meet her and address her thus and refuse to bow, while the Church of England part of me is fond of the monarchy without in any way lapsing into idolatry. People are strange Do you have any feelings on this one?
Blessings
Dick 
The other thing I note from the first extract from John Woolman’s Journal is his concern for animals. This seems completely to chime with wider Christian tradition notably in the life of St Francis of Assisi who once preached to the birds adn saw all of GO’d creation and creatures as his borhters and sisters as is evident in his famous and beautiful carol ‘The Canticle of the Sun’ (also know as ‘Praise of the Creatures) – more of this in a moment.
Now I find it interesting that the Puritan Calvinists – certainly in England – were also opponents of cruelty to animals (in the form of popular pastimes, now prohibited thank goodness, such as cock fighting and bear baiting). However their reasons were not to do primarily with a concern for God’s creatures. They didn’t disapprove of cruelty to animals in itself – for example in hunting and in abattoir practices - far from it. Rather they disapproved of the lower orders of society getting pleasure from this cruelty. A similar sort of double standard about cruelty can also be found in the Christian Roman Empire. St Augustine – following the Stoics – disapproved of the Gladiatorial Games not because he was concerned about cruel and inhumane punishment of criminals but because he was worried about Christians getting stimulated and agitated by the sight of it (see the story of ‘Alyppius and the Games’ in his ‘Confessions).
The modern concern in the West against cruelty to animals can be traced to people like Woolman, and to the Romantic poets who were grounded in Christian mysticism and also influenced the concerns of Methodists. AS Blake – the early Romantic poet and Christian visionary wrote -
The robin red breast in his cage
Puts all heaven in a rage
The dog starved at this masters gate
Predicts the ruin of the State
In the twentieth century, Sydney Carter – the Quaker hymn writer/ folk singer- reworked the words to St Francis’ Canticle as ‘Carol of the Creatures’. Here they are – I know John Woolman would have appreciated them – I know that Drew and I like them too – and I imagine C.S. Lewis’ furry talking Narnian creatures carolling merrily along to the words –
Creator high and holy,
To you all praise
and power belong.
Let all men listen
to the carol
of your creatures.
You are the end
and the beginning
of their song. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
And first I call my brother Sun,
for by that light I see,
The leaping of the Holy One
that calls the light to me. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
I call upon my Sister Moon,
I love that gentle light,
And all the stars so sharp and clear
that shiver in the night. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
I call on you my Brother Wind,
be weather foul or fair,
You show the likeness of the Lord
I breathe him like the air. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
I call on you my Sister Water,
come down from the sky,
And show the likeness of the Lord,
I drink him or I die. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
I call on you my Brother Fire,
in yellow light and red,
You leap and carol to the Lord
with sparks around your head. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
My Sister Death, you call me.
To leap and carol I cannot say no.
I am a dancer to the end and the beginning,
Of all the leaping and the carolling I go. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
Come all you men and women, too,
show pity and forgive,
For by your love you show the Lord,
and with Him you shall live. Oh,
Leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show what He has done,
Oh, leap and carol to the Lord, I say,
show Him like the sun.
Blessings
Dick
How you doing Sass - you are the boss here so I hope you are doing OK. ‘Leap and carol to the Lord I say’ …
Hi Dick. I’m good! Out of town right now and waaaay behind on my reading. Post away, I’ll catch up. 
There is a very good Wikipedia article on John Woolman at -
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Woolman
This begins -
***John Woolman came from a family of Friends (Quakers). His grandfather, also named John Woolman, was one of the early colonial settlers of New Jersey. His father Samuel Woolman was a farmer. Their estate was between Burlington and Mount Holly Township in that colony.
In his Journal, John Woolman related a story about a major turning point in his life. During his youth he happened upon a robin’s nest with hatchlings in it. Woolman, as many young people would do, began throwing rocks at the mother robin just to see if he could hit her. He ended up killing the mother bird, but then remorse filled him as he thought of the baby birds who had no chance of surviving without her. He got the nest down from the tree and quickly killed the hatchlings — believing it to be the most merciful thing to do. This experience weighed on his heart, and inspired in him a love and protectiveness for all living things from then on.***
So the experience of the robin nest with its ‘hatchlings’ were, if you like, a part of his conversion narrative (or convincement and conversion narrative to use Quaker terminology). I don’t recall such experiences being part of mainstream evangelical conversion narratives – although I’m sure there are examples. However, a part of many children’s moral and spiritual awakening – especially children who live in the countryside – takes place in the context of a growing empathy for animals who are unable to speak for themselves.
When I was regular at Meetings for Worship there was a fine woman there who was serving on the national Friends committee for animal welfare – so this is still part of Quaker service in the UK although there are no rules concerning a particular diet or a particular stance towards vivisection etc. for Quakers It is enough that all are aware that this is a matter for legitimate and serious concern and debate. I know that the woman work difficult because she found it impossible to take an absolute line against vivisection – unlike others on the committee. I agreed with her and had every respect for her in this as did others who did not share her viewpoint. So Quaker ethical concern in my experience was never a matter of coercion – rather it was done in the spirit of John Woolman who always sought consensus and persuasion by gentle means.
Blessings
Dick
In consequence hereof I propose to refer to Dick as our resident ‘Quanglican’. The office’s appointment is for life, unless apostasy renders it void.
With rather more sincerity, Dick, I’d despise posts of such length and number from anybody else. But, your insight and charm make the burden seem light. Christ’s assurance that His yoke is light applies especially to your gracious and careful teachings. I’ll be praying for your mum and ruminating on these revelations about the Quakers. As someone born Anglican, and with Anarcho-Quakerist tendencies I may apply to be a kind of aggravating Quanglican myself.
All Quanglicans together then Tim (I always knew we had a resonance )
Sass
Haven’t yet finished John Woolman – been otherwise engaged. However…
I just want to apologise for errors of hearsay and memory concerning Margery Kepme – the medieval English mystic we talked about earlier in this thread. I stand by the scope of what I said but the details are wrong.
I’ve just had a good look at ‘he Book of Margery Kempe – and it’s a really enjoyable read. I love Margery – I really do. She was ‘unlettered’ and dictated her book to a clerk. She refers to herself humbly as ‘the creature’ throughout. However, this just serves to bring her more vividly to life, and throws her striking individuality into relief. (Her use of the device of speaking of herself in the third person is sincerely meant, I’m sure. However it is also a necessary strategy for a woman claiming any sort of scriptural authority for her inner experience in the patriarchal Middle Ages – and Margery was twice in trouble for being suspected of heresy, even though she was a loyal daughter of the Church, although both times she was cleared.
Yes, ‘the creature’ Margery has ‘vigour’. She tells in vivid detail about her post natal depression that followed the birth of the first of her fourteen children; her brewery business, which failed to take off; her call to the spiritual life at the age of 40 (which was quite old in the Middle ages) ; her frequent visions and uncontrollable bawling and wailing at the memory of Jesus’ passion; the long struggle to convert her husband to a vow of chastity told without embarrassment (and who can blame her after giving birth to fourteen children!!!) ; and her pilgrimages to holy places in Europe and to Jerusalem. A friend of mine tells me that Margery was recently held up on a radio programme in the UK as an example of how to get through the mid life crisis and embrace the opportunities and freedoms of later life!!!
Margery’s mysticism is very emotional – she bawls and swoons her way around England and then all around the known world of her time – she’s a bit of a holy roller actually. I can’t help feeling sorry for some of the people who rebuke her off from time to time in terms of ‘Give it a rest Margery, you’re frightening the children’ (which she always sees as vindication because it is a sign to her that she is being hated by the world just as her Lord was). Certainly when she falls into her swooning and weeping on a crowded pilgrim ship I am rather glad to not be numbered amongst her fellow travellers. Also her frequent visions of Jesus and her detailed questions to which he provides detailed answers seem a little self absorbed.
Although I’ve not been able to find her vision of helping out at the nativity (perhaps I’ve not remembered this properly – it was so long ago that I was told of this), she certainly has a series of visions during a Passiontide liturgy in which she imagines herself being a sympathetic friend to the Virgin Mary dispensing fussy but practical advice to the Virgin about how to cope with events as they unfold.
She does meet Julian of Norwich – in the real world - and according to her account spends a few days with her dear sister in Christ. And I was wrong about this meeting – she does tell us what Julian advises her. Now Julian is a very different kettle of fish to Margery. Julian is a very grounded person. She is not subject to fits of ecstasy, and her visions came to her just at one brief time in her life – and she spends the rest of her life sorting through them in prayerful recollection. She obviously is aware of the teaching of the Cloud of Unknowing that advises us to move beyond sensual visions and emotional ecstasy. Margery clearly does not know of the teaching of ‘The Cloud’ and seems more influenced by the highly wrought mysticism of Richard Rolle of Hampole (who memorably escaped from his parents disguised as a girl).
Now Julian is very supportive of Margery, at least according to Margery’s account, and she is sympathetic towards Margery’s swoons and crying – but she does seem to qualify her support by hinting to Margery that the swoons are fine as long as they don’t offend against charity towards neighbours. I’m not sure Margery gets the message but it is noticeable that after her meeting with Julian her visions and manifestations do take on a rather less convulsive character.
There was a play written about the meeting between Julian and Margery that was performed at Ely Cathedral in 2004. I’ve not read the play but have seen the photos of the production. There is one photo where Margery has fallen down into a swoon, while Julian looks on with a compassionate, slightly alarmed but also slightly amused twinkle.
Blessings
Dick
I really like the Quakers they were behind a lot of positive social change.
Their founder was George Fox and I read his biography online free once.
Here is some background on him.
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Fox
I am starting to think the Quakers are the Singing Swords of the Spirit.
Because they use spiritual tactics and weapons so well to cut down the demonic forces trying to enslave the peoples of this world.
They actually become the Sword of the Spirit.
Of course, they have to pass through a baptism of fire and water like any sword in the making does.
I belonged to a meeting for many years, that met in silence (see Quakers). I love their mystical orientation. I also like how they view Christ as within the inner light, without reference to creeds, dogmas or religious orientation. On the other end of the spectrum, I also love the mystical orientation of Eastern Orthodoxy - especially the Russian Orthodox Church.
One time, I visited a quarker college in the new england area, and it was like $80,000 a year. That’s quite a bit of money.