Religious Schism in Early Nineteenth Century America
By Robert W. Doherty (289.6 DOH)
This book traces the sociological or societal, as well as the religious, issues, particularly in the Philadelphia area of 19th century America, that led to the so-called Hicksite Separation (named after Elias Hicks) of 1827. Doherty points out that the early 19th century Quakers in and around Philadelphia headed towards this separation because they “lacked any institutional means for resolving conflict.” There were problems with methods of appointment and with jurisdiction, and with the fact that all decisions were supposed to be unanimous. As for their beliefs, difficulty arose because of the conflict between their commitment to the ideals of peace, equality, and simplicity, and the participation in the affairs of the world—how could Quakers focus on the Inner Light at the same time as taking part in the external affairs of the world? Another source of conflict within the Society was how to deal with slavery. Hicks and his supporters condemned all aspects of slavery, while what would come to be called the Orthodox supporters were not so unqualified in their judgment. By 1827, the “official” Hicksite-Orthodox Separation, the questions that confronted the Society of Friends were: “who should be a member of the Society, how should the Society be organized, how does a Friend seek salvation, and to what extent should a Friend accept the ways of the world?” “The Orthodox wanted to make their peace with the secular world,” while the Hicksites were more drawn to quietism.
One of the principal divisions in approach for the Orthodox and the Hicksites was that of sect and church. The Hicksites were more sectarian, meaning that they favoured withdrawal from the world and from the formal structure of the conventional Christian churches; the Orthodox were more drawn to those formal structures and doctrines. The Orthodox tended to be wealthier and engaged in high prestige occupations, most of them living in the city; the Hicksites, on the other hand, were more deliberately alienated from any focus on wealth and status, and were more rural. Doherty lists the following sources of such alienation: “1) suspicion of the city; 2) commitment to social values which were threatened by Orthodoxy; 3) resentment of Orthodox social climbing; 4) psychological shock resulting from worldly failure; 5) commitment to egalitarianism and/or religious freedom, both of which were felt to be challenged by Orthodoxy.”
Even though agriculture was a focus of both the Orthodox and the Hicksites, “Orthodox Quakers were more likely to be engaged in commercial agriculture.” Elias Hicks appealed to those outside the city, using rural images in his sermons; “he appealed to rural people as one of their own—a devout and kindly tiller of the soil.” “The appeal of Orthodoxy outside the city of Philadelphia,” on the other hand, “seems […] to have been greatest among those Friends who had ties with the outer world. “Such ties might be occupational (commercial farming), residential (living in West Chester or Chester), or institutional (Westtown School).”
Orthodoxy “was in the air” of early 19th century America, but was especially influenced, for American Quakers, by the Orthodox sentiment in English Quakerism. The very fact of the Hicksites’ focus on quietism as opposed to engaging with the secular world at large, was also a factor in the formal organization of Orthodox Quaker churches. The Hicksites were conservatives when it came to preserving the traditions of simplicity and equality from the days of George Fox, but liberal when it came to understanding and interpreting doctrine and the scriptures — also deriving from the days of George Fox. “Liberals felt that all men had the right to believe and worship as they wished. All men should be guaranteed an opportunity to seek religious truth for themselves. In the mind of the liberals, Elias Hicks had a right to believe and say whatever his spirit led him to believe and say.” The Hicksites focused on behaviour; the Orthodox on belief.
To understand the background and consequences of the Hicksite Separation is to understand the divide between programmed and unprogrammed meetings, and to see how our Vancouver Island Monthly Meeting can trace its roots as an unprogrammed Meeting back to Elias Hicks and his supporters.