Liberal Quakerism in America in the Long Nineteenth Century, 1790–1920 by Thomas D. Hamm

Abstract

Reviewed by: Liberal Quakerism in America in the Long Nineteenth Century, 1790–1920 by Thomas D. Hamm S. Spencer Wells Liberal Quakerism in America in the Long Nineteenth Century, 1790—1920. By Thomas D. Hamm. Leiden, Netherlands: Brill, 2020. 97 pp. Notes, and bibliography. Paper $91.18; ebook $85.00. Just what defines religious liberalism? Such is the question which numerous scholars from Gary Dorrien (The Making of American Liberal Theology) to Amy Kittlestrom (The Religion of Democracy) have increasingly asked in recent years. Yet, few studies have specifically probed Quaker contributions to the growing subfield. Thomas D. Hamm’s recent work Liberal Quakerism in America in the Long Nineteenth Century, 1790–1920 seeks to rectify this lacuna in the literature—and does so with remarkable precision. For Hamm, the growth of Quaker liberalism is defined by Friends’ growing commitment to four distinct ideological tenets: a modernistic belief that God proved “immanent in the world,” faith in the ability of scientific rationalism to explain the divine’s purpose, an allergy to Calvinism, and a deep-seated suspicion of doctrines or actions which tended to [End Page 92] erode an individual’s freedom of conscience (p. 2). The spiritual genealogy which Hamm lays out to explain the genesis and flowering of such a faith is largely convincing. He begins his story with the proto-liberal Hannah Barnard, disowned by Hudson Monthly Meeting (NY) in 1801 for—among other things—arguing that parts of the Hebrew Bible which condoned war were inaccurate. Hamm argues that Barnard walked a pioneering path which other, more organizationally savvy individuals, would soon follow. In clear and concise prose, Hamm charts the ways in which the first stirrings of liberal Quakerism took partial root in Hicksite Quakerism, and the Progressive Friends, while finally maturing as a growing number of Gurneyites imbibed and expressed liberal sympathies in the later nineteenth century. Of particular note is the way in which the trajectory of Quaker liberalism does not come across as a foreordained fait accompli. Hicksites, while arguing that the “Bible was not the ‘Word of God,’” for instance, also continued to hold to other, more traditional, beliefs (p 18). When a number of Hicksites championed working-class or abolitionist movements, they often found themselves on the short end of the budding organization’s disciplinary stick. While Gurneyites eventually embraced religious liberalism, in Hamm’s reading this was the work of decades. Religious liberalism, Hamm rightly argues, was historically contingent, taking numerous detours, and circling varieties of intellectual cul-de-sacs in the process. While Hamm succeeds in laying out the major mile-markers on the road to liberal Quakerism, there are moments which could use broader contextualization. Take, for instance, the notion of the Right of Private Judgment. Throughout the monograph, those Friends pushing the religious envelope along liberal lines are, by and large, seen to be the sole believers in freedom of conscience vis-à-vis their more conservative coreligionists. Yet conservative Protestants throughout the early modern era spoke articulately and often about conscience. To many, freedom of conscience meant the ability to interpret scripture privately as one wished. Even into the nineteenth century many Protestants did not necessarily agree that freedom of conscience gave individuals leeway to publicly air their religious disagreements in contradistinction to the “church’s mind.” While religious liberals—including liberal Friends—argued that such conceptions of freedom of conscience were, in reality no protection to conscience at all, this does not mean that they alone held a monopoly on the concept writ large. [End Page 93] Still, it is all too easy to be over-meticulous as a reviewer. And, while Liberal Quakerism could use a wider historical awareness, the work as a whole is seasoned with more than enough real insight and historiographical heft to make up for such minor critiques. In the final analysis, the work should be seen as essential reading for anyone seeking to trace the experiment in religious liberalism which large parts of Quakerism have long espoused. S. Spencer Wells Southern Utah University Copyright © 2021 Friends Historical Association