The Dilemma of Commemoration: ANZAC Day Through a Quaker Lens

Attending this morning’s Dawn service gave me time to reflect on my attitude to commemorating war. The following article was formulated while standing in the dark and cold and polished off with a little help from Copilot in the warmth and comfort of my home office.

As dawn breaks on ANZAC Day, a solemn silence envelops the crowd gathered to honour the memory of those who fought and died for New Zealand. The day is a poignant reminder of the sacrifices made in the name of freedom and peace. Yet, for some, like the Quakers, the commemoration stirs a complex mix of emotions. 

Quakers, known for our commitment to pacifism, hold a deep conviction that war and preparation for war are fundamentally wrong. This belief is rooted in the principle of non-violence and the pursuit of peaceful resolutions to conflict. It’s a stance that often places us at odds with the traditional narratives of valour and heroism associated with military service. 

In New Zealand, ANZAC Day has evolved to emphasise the losses and tragedies of war, reflecting a national consciousness that mourns the cost of conflict rather than celebrating its martial aspects. This shift aligns more closely with the Quaker perspective, which acknowledges the courage of those willing to risk their lives while advocating for a world where such sacrifices are no longer necessary. 

The white poppy, often worn by Quakers in the days leading up to ANZAC Day, symbolises this dual acknowledgement. It represents remembrance for all victims of war and a commitment to peace, challenging the conventional view of war. Wearing it to a dawn service may be seen as controversial, but it also opens a dialogue about the ways we remember and the values we uphold. 

As New Zealanders and Australians diverge in their approach to ANZAC Day, with Australia seemingly placing more emphasis on the glory of war, the question arises: how can we honour the bravery of our soldiers while actively seeking alternatives to armed conflict? The answer lies in a proactive role for New Zealand in international diplomacy and peace-building efforts, embodying the spirit of the white poppy in its foreign policy. 

In commemorating ANZAC Day, we find ourselves at a crossroads between past and future, tradition and progress. It’s a day to reflect on the past sacrifices and to renew our commitment to a future where peace is the norm, not the exception. As we lay wreaths and observe moments of silence, let us also pledge to work tirelessly towards a world where the tragedies of war give way to the triumphs of peace. 

— 

This article aims to capture the essence of the internal conflict experienced by myself and others who deeply respect the sacrifices made by soldiers while holding firm to the belief in non-violence and peace. It’s a conversation starter, inviting readers to consider the full spectrum of emotions and beliefs that ANZAC Day evokes and the role each of us can play in shaping a more peaceful future. 

Sources

1. What do Quakers believe about war and serving in the military? 
2. The Quakers and Their War of Resistance | NCpedia 
3. Quakers in the American Revolution – Wikipedia 
4. Quaker Pacifism in the Context of War – Friends Committee On National … 
5. Explainer: Why do we commemorate Anzac Day? | Newshub 
6. What do the different coloured poppies mean? – BBC Newsround 
7. The ceremony – Anzac Day | NZHistory, New Zealand history online 
8. Anzac Day | New Zealand Story 
9. Anzac Day resources | NZHistory, New Zealand history online 
10. Anzac Day: How to mark the day in your town | RNZ News 
11. The Significance of Poppies in WW1, Memorial Day & Anzac – Lotusmagus 
12. Sharing the Significance of ANZAC Poppies With Our Tamariki! 
13. The History of the ANZAC Day Poppy – Lucy’s Florist 
14. http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1947/press.html 
15. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/apr/16/rare-memorial-inspires-quakers-work 
16. en.wikipedia.org 

Living in sin

What an outdated concept that is. And yet it still pops up in evangelical and fundamentalist Christian literature. I like this observation made in ministry at a Quaker wedding:

A woman came to me several years ago. She had left her abusive husband, had lived by herself for a number of years, then had met a wonderful man and began dating. After a year, they decided to move in together. She admitted feeling guilty about living together.

“We’re going to get married soon,” she told me. “I don’t like living in sin.”
I asked her why she called it living in sin.

She said she’d been taught that living together outside of marriage was sinful.
I told her I disagreed, that I thought living in sin was when you promised to love, honour, and cherish someone, then didn’t.

I think there’s a lot of married people living in sin.

I agree entirely.

Quakerism and orthopraxy (with a little help from Bing Chat)

In a recent (offline) discussion in which I was more a fly on the wall than an active participant, the question arose of whether orthodoxy or orthopraxy was most important in one’s religion. The participants were mostly Evangelical Christians, so it’s not really surprising that the conclusion was that orthodoxy won the day, even though there was some disagreement over what the “correct belief(s)” should be.

The idea that orthodoxy was related “right belief” seemed to be generally accepted, but they were less sure about what orthopraxy was all about. So I took a moment to ask Bing Chat what orthopraxy means. Its reply was:

Orthopraxy means correct conduct, both ethical and liturgical, as opposed to faith or grace. It is often contrasted with orthodoxy, which emphasizes correct belief. The word is a neoclassical compound from the Greek orthos (correct) and praxis (action). Some religions, such as Hinduism, Judaism, and Eastern Christianity, are considered both orthopraxic and orthodoxic, as they guide adherents in both practice and belief. Other religions, such as Scientology and Santeria, are more orthopraxic than orthodoxic, as they focus more on ritual performance and obedience than on doctrine and theology. Orthopraxy can also be applied to secular contexts, such as medicine, law, or politics, where correct action is valued over correct opinion.

I found this answer interesting as some Friends describe Quakerism as being orthopraxic in contrast to traditional Christianity which they describe as being orthodoxic. I’ve done it myself. However our use of orthopraxy to describe Quakerism is inconsistent with the meaning provided by Bing Chat. So I did the obvious. I asked Bing Chat if it thought Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition is orthopraxic. The answer was longer and more nuanced than I expected.

The first part of its reply indicates that a yes or no answer is inadequate:

That is an interesting question. I think the answer depends on how one defines orthopraxy and how one evaluates the practice of liberal unprogrammed Quakers.

The second paragraph was almost word for word identical to the definition of orthopraxy given above, so I won’t repeat it. The third paragraph was a good attempt at describing Quakerism in the liberal unprogrammed tradition:

Liberal unprogrammed Quakers are a branch of the Religious Society of Friends, a historically Protestant Christian set of denominations. They practice unprogrammed worship, which means that they do not follow any prearranged or structured order of events or liturgy. They sit in silence and wait for the Spirit to move them to speak or read from Scripture or other literature. They emphasize the authority of the Inner Light, which is the presence of God in every person, and their membership contains both those who identify themselves as Christians and those who do not. They are often active in service work, but generally not in missionary or evangelical activities

The fourth paragraph sets out an argument supporting the idea that Quakerism is orthopraxic:

One could argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are orthopraxic, because they value the experience of the Spirit over the adherence to creeds or confessions. They do not have a formal doctrine or theology, but rather rely on the testimonies of peace, equality, integrity, and simplicity as guides for living. They do not have a hierarchy or clergy, but rather respect the priesthood of all believers. They do not impose their beliefs on others, but rather seek to listen and learn from different perspectives. They do not judge or condemn, but rather affirm and support.

I go along with that. But in the fifth paragraph Bing Chat provides an argument as to why Quakerism is not orthopraxic:

One could also argue that liberal unprogrammed Quakers are not orthopraxic, because they do not have a clear or consistent standard of correct conduct. They do not have a fixed or prescribed ritual, but rather allow for spontaneity and diversity. They do not have a common or shared belief, but rather allow for individual and collective discernment. They do not have a strict or binding authority, but rather encourage personal and communal responsibility. They do not have a definite or exclusive identity, but rather embrace openness and inclusiveness.

And I go along with that too. So is Quakerism orthopraxic or not? Bing Chat is clearly of the opinion that “it depends” as shown by the final paragraph:

Ultimately, I think the answer to your question depends on your own perspective and criteria. I hope this helps you to explore the topic further. Thank you for chatting with me. 😊

I find I am growing quite fond of Bing Chat as it seems to be much more nuanced in its “opinions” than a great many flesh and blood individuals I encounter on line and in person. Hats off the developers and programmers of Bing Chat.

Why I am a Quaker: reason #5

Democratic decision-making.

By this I don’t mean one person, one vote – that can result in tyranny by the majority. What I mean is the type of decision-making where all voices can be heard, where we seek unity about the wisest course of action.

To be effective, the process requires that everyone come ready to participate fully by sharing their experiences and knowledge, by listening respectfully to the experiences and knowledge brought by others, and by remaining open to new insights and ideas. When everyone present is able to recognize the same truth, the meeting has reached unity.

The practices used to reach unity have been refined over a period of almost 400 years, and is now being taken up by other groups where a genuine desire for unity is sought. It can be a slow and lengthy path on the way to reaching unity, but it’s a process in which there are no losers (or winners, for that matter).

Why I am a Quaker: reason #4

Quakers are comfortable with uncertainty, and with the idea that we might ourselves be mistaken.

Why I am a Quaker: Reason #3

Progressive revelation: What I believe to be true today may not necessarily be true in the future. Perhaps more importantly, it allows me to recognise, appreciate and understand that beliefs I held in the past were not so much “wrong” but they were tentative, based on the experiences and knowledge available to me at that time. As I gain new experiences, knowledge and insights, my perception of Truth, right and wrong, changes.

Why I am a Quaker: Reason #2

All people, whether religious or not, hold beliefs and opinions and values, often assuming they are “self evident” or true. But are they? Quakerism encourages me to to be true to my own beliefs, but to be open to new insights, however they may arise.

Why I am a Quaker: Reason #1

For a great many people, finding a religion is a means towards having their questions answered.

I am a Quaker because I have found it a community in which I am encouraged to question my answers.

Speaking silently

Advices and queries E:4 “Obey the laws of the state, except when they conflict with your inner conviction“. My thoughts go out to those in Russia, who have chosen to protest the invasion of Ukraine, knowing the sure consequences – arrest by an authoritarian regime. Choosing to put oneself in harm’s way by the state when they could remain silent takes much courage. I can understand those who wish to defend their family and way of life, after all, they are directly affected. But to take stance on a matter of moral conviction knowing the inevitable consequences takes a special kind of courage. Let us hold them in the light as well as the people of Ukraine.

Ministry offered at Meeting for Worship 27 Feb 2022

Today I have been having one of those migraines that affect my ability to string together a spoken sentence that will be comprehensible to others. Nevertheless I can still have an urge to communicate. That happened this morning during Meeting for Worship. Usually when I have an urge to offer ministry I resist. In perhaps the last 30 years I’ve offered ministry no more than a handful of times.

My resistance is not because I feel I have nothing to offer. It’s because experience has taught me that by expressing myself I make myself vulnerable and open to misinterpretation. A fact of life that every autist is painfully well aware of, but of which the non-autistic community write off as rudeness, stupidity, or social ineptitude on our part, worthy of being written off as inconsequential or ignored at best, or worthy of ridicule and/or retaliation at worst.

Experience should have also taught me that there are exceptions to that rule – whānau and Friends (Quakers) in particular don’t jump to the conclusion that I might have some ulterior motive such as malice, ego, selfishness or an intent to offend. Whānau because they have known me all their lives, or for seventy plus years (whichever is the shorter), and Friends because they tend to be more considered in their communications – in “Quakerspeak”, seeking, and speaking to that of God in every person.

Before I continue, I’m convinced there is “that of God” (which I usually interpret as being a spark of good or a spark for good) in everyone – no exceptions – but I will admit that there are a few individuals where it seems so well hidden that I have been unable to find it.

Often when I have an urge to speak, beit during Meeting for Worship or any other time, I carefully construct the concern into a series of sentences that I feel are adequate, and then articulate those sentences silently. Unable to overcome the fear of what I want to say being devalued, but needing to speak nonetheless, I speak my words silently, with no movement of jaw, lips or tongue.

Speaking silently like this does ease the urge that has built up, but in practical terms it doesn’t do much in the way of communicating my thoughts or concerns to others. And yet so many times I when I do this at Meeting for Worship, someone will later stand and speak on the very topic I chose to be silent on. Perhaps if I believed in the existence of a divine being then I might explain it away as being the hand of God at play, but my rational self explains it away as more likely that within the community of Quakers, Friends have similar values and concerns, even if our experiences are different. Whatever is concerning me is probably concerning other Friends as well.

We’ve been fortunate on this country in that since the beginning of the pandemic there has been only six or seven weeks when covid mandates have prevented Quakers from holding Meetings at the Meeting House. During those times, Meetings were held via Zoom. That platform has since become part of the local Quaker environment, beit Meetings for Worship, Meetings for Business or discussion groups and seminars. Those who are unable to attend in person can now attend via Zoom. More often than not I’m the only person attending local Worship by that platform, but occasionally I’m joined by one or two others.

Today during Worship I had one of those urges to speak. Today I didn’t need to suppress it because the migraine prevented me from uttering much more than intermittent slurred monosyllabic words. I felt more frustrated than fearful. Then it occurred to me – Zoom has a chat facility. I could speak via the medium of typed words. So I did.

I practiced what I wanted to say, then typed those words into the chat box. Now that the migraine has somewhat abated, I can see that the spelling and grammar were atrocious, but nonetheless after Meeting Several of those attending asked if they could have permission to quote me at other events, so it seems my message spoke to some Friends today. Let’s hope they tidy it up before sharing it 🙂

From my perspective, the experience was liberating. I was able to express myself at my own pace instead of the pace that most people expect of the spoken word. In many ways today’s experience has been even more liberating than discovering the blogosphere. There, I’m more or less anonymous but communication is at a pace that suits me. Within local communities I’m not so fortunate, but at least now, within my Quaker community I have an alternative means of “speaking” when I’m motivated to say something.

The quotation at the top of this blog post is a slightly tidied up version of what I typed into the Zoom chat box this morning. I wonder if I would have the courage to make such a stand if I was a Russian resident?

Quaker conversation

One thing I do notice when with Quakers, is how much my comfort level varies depending on the occasion. In other groups and settings, even on occasions the family, I always feel like a fish out of water, and I feel much the same with Quakers in “unstructured” situations, for example chatting during refreshments after worship. But in more structured situations such as meeting for worship itself, “Afterwords” (a time for reflexions or thoughts that arose during, or outside of, meeting but one felt wasn’t suitable for ministry) or business meetings or discussion groups, I feel “at home”.

What sets “structured” conversation apart is the mode of communication that follows implicit but undefined guidelines. These include moments of silence between each speaker, and one doesn’t respond directly to another speaker but simply speaks their own mind or thoughts. “Let your truth speak” (an old Quaker saying). The idea here is that one should speak to their own truths, not oppose or argue against those of another person or group. It allows individual Quakers to hold a wide variety of perspectives, without being judged right or wrong, and perhaps more importantly, encourages one not to pass judgements on others based on one’s own biases and prejudices. We all have them.

For me this mode of conversation provides me the opportunity to truly communicate. It allows me the time to digest what has been spoken and time for me to convert my own thoughts into reasonably structured sentences. I really struggle forming sentences “on the fly”. Not only do I have to find the right words and put them in the correct order, I then have to manipulate the jaw, lips and tongue “in real time” to convert those words into sounds that will be intelligible to the listener.

This is a tall order for me, even in company that I’m comfortable and familiar with, but in other situations the fear of misunderstanding, or worse, being misunderstood generates stress that has a negative impact on how I perform. Perhaps I’ve mastered the art of conversation to a limited degree, but in my youth I was extremely clumsy. Let me assure you that fear caused through being subjected to violence, both verbal and physical due to communication failures has left an indelible mark on my confidence in social situations.

Simply knowing I don’t need to respond directly to anything anyone else has said is comforting and allows me to feel an equal among equals. Simply knowing I’m not going to be judged by what I might say alleviates that subconscious fear of violence that always lurks when when in company of others. Simply knowing I will be given the space to allow my thoughts to grow into words that can be shared gives me a freedom of expression I seldom experience elsewhere. I feel valued.

Over the years, a number of atheist fellow bloggers have recommended I would be better off joining a sports club than “wasting my time with religion”, but I beg to differ. At least their suggestions have been with the best of intentions, which is more than I can say of some other sections of society. For me religion isn’t about theories, theology, dogma or creeds (absent within quakerism) nor about deities or about believing what others claim is The Truth. For me religion is experiential and how one responds to that experience.

I don’t believe in the supernatural, but often my response to the good within humanity, the beauty found in nature, the awesomeness of the universe, and even simply knowing I’m uniquely me, is so intense that it feels like there is “something” that others might explain as being supernatural or divine. Please note the emphasis on how the experience feels, not that there actually is a supernatural dimension. This is most fully experienced in the company of others with a similar perspective. For me that’s among Quakers.

What gave rise to this post was that I was strongly reminded of how awkward, uncomfortable, and dare I say fearful I feel in unfamiliar situations. In the early hours of yesterday morning (about 12:20 am from recollection) I Zoomed into an online Quaker meeting for worship at Woodbrooke in the UK. As always with silent worship, I felt right at home, and I remained that way until the end of the meeting. Then as conversation started, I felt the panic set in.

There was only one person at the meeting that I knew. I have known her through the medium of blogging for seven or so years, and while I am very comfortable about sharing my thoughts with her through the medium of WordPress, in the “real time” environment of Zoom, I struggled to make any form of “normal” conversation, what is often referred to a “small talk”. I should have reminded myself that she too is a Quaker and that we both could have slipped into the Quakerly “structured” mode where moments of silence aren’t considered awkward and where conversation doesn’t need to imitate small talk. I’ll try to remind myself of that next time.

One final observation. It occurs to me how much the Quakerly form of communication suits the autistic experience. Generally Autistics are not interested in games of one upmanship, debating or winning arguments. In spite of our social awkwardness, we’re more amenable to sharing and cooperation, and due to our minority status in a neuro-normative world, are more appreciative of differences being … well, just different. It’s not a case of being better or worse, right or wrong. When austics get together their form of communication is often along the lines I’ve described here, with perhaps shorter silent periods between speakers. Our normal mode of conversation parallels the Quakerly “structured” mode to a remarkable degree.