Just got Carole Dale Spencer’s Holiness: The Soul of Quakerism in the mail. There’s been some blogger buzz around it and I’m glad to check it out for myself. I can tell right off the bat that I’m probably not going to be convinced by her arguments. Flipping through the index (the place to start any book like this) I see she makes three scant references to tradition-minded “Conservative” Friends. That’s not a good sign, but she’s far from the first modern historian to quarantine this branch to the footnotes.
I’ll cut her some slack because she’s traveling an interesting route. She’s spending a lot of time talking about the Methodist and Holiness influences in Friends – John Wesley himself directly is indexed eighteen times. If you look at the people who defined modern 20th Century liberal Quakerism, folks like Rufus Jones (28 index references), you find that these influences were very strong. They still are, even if they go unacknowledged. And many of the issues Spencer is tracing are still with us and continue to be relevant even as some of us are talking up the possibilities of a new renewal/revival movement.
I’ll be interested to hear your thought on this book, I have seen this referenced on the Theological Scribbles site and have been tempted to give it a read. On a similar point I have just finished TL Underwood’s ‘Primitivism, Radicalism and the Lamb’s War” which compares the theologies of the Baptists and Friends — I guess the claim to primitivism is analogous to Holiness in this regard although I am not sure Underwood really demonstrates the thesis that Quakers were primitivist.
I’m about halfway through the book and am finding it a very stimulating read. I hope to post a review some time next week.
I’ve just got to the Gurney vs. Wilbur split. Spencer devotes about ten pages to the Wilburites/Conservatives, and considers that Conservative Wilbur “embodies a significant stream of Quaker holiness” and was overall more faithful to the Quaker holiness/perfection tradition than either the evangelical Gurney or the liberal Hicks.
She argues that Wesley was influenced by Quakers, particularly Fox and Barclay, though he distanced himself publicly from them.
Her approach seems both evangelical and mystical, reminiscent of Richard Foster and to a lesser extent John Punshon.
But these are only first impressions. There’s a lot to take in.
Those of us with roots in Indiana Yearly Meeting (30 years ago) understand that a significant numbers of the Friends Church are weslyan/holiness in theological doctrine. The Richmond Declaration is very Holiness in orientation except fot the external ordinances. My mother’s aunt was married to A.J. Tomlinson Holiness Quaker from Indiana that founded the Penecostal Assembly of God.
When we read books on History we need to be aware of the perspective the author has. There are no “theory” neutral histories. I find that even though I do not find the specific instances of second definite acts of grace in the first 200 years of quakerism that Carole Spencer finds. To call Wilbur a Holiness Quaker is a miss reading of his beliefs.
I found that a number of insights in this book on the period after the civil war when the great awakening and the holiness revival transformed Quakers. Thomas Hamm also discusses this change. The head of Earlham Colleges Religion department was a devout Holiness Quaker, Dougan Clark.