Testimony of Simplicity

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The Testimony of Simplicity is the Quaker belief that a person ought to live his or her life simply in order to focus on what is most important and ignore or downplay what is least important. It is the practice among Quakers (members of the Religious Society of Friends) of being more concerned with one’s inner condition than one’s outward appearance and with other people more than oneself. Friends believe that a person’s spiritual life and character are more important than the quanitity of goods he possesses or his monetary worth. Friends also believe that one should use one’s resources, including money and time, deliberately in ways that are most likely to make life truly better for oneself and others.

Contents

1 General explanation

2 Simplicity in dress

3 Simplicity in speech

4 Misconceptions

5 Notes

6 Sources

7 Other Quaker Testimonies

8 External links

[edit]

General explanation

Like the other Friends testimonies, the Testimony of Simplicity is not a fixed or formalized creed but a mutually accepted set of principles and practices that emerged among Friends over time. It is open to modification as Friends listen for continuing revelation from God.

Early Friends believed that it was important to avoid fanciness in dress, speech, and material possessions, because those things tend to distract one from waiting on God’s personal guidance. They also tend to cause a person to focus on himself more than on his fellow human beings, in violation of Jesus’ teaching to “love thy neighbor as thyself.” This emphasis on plainness, as it was called, made the Friends in certain times and places easily recognizable to the society around them, particularly by their plain dress in the 18th and 19th Centuries.

William Penn, an early Friend, wrote:

Personal pride does not end with noble blood. It leads people to a fond value of their persons, especially if they have any pretence to shape or beauty. Some are so taken with themselves it would seem that nothing else deserved their attention. Their folly would diminish if they could spare but half the time to think of God, that they spend in washing, perfuming, painting and dressing their bodies. In these things they are precise and very artificial and spare no cost. But what aggravates the evil is that the pride of one might comfortably supply the needs of ten. Gross impiety it is that a nation's pride should be maintained in the face of its poor.¹

Simplicity to Friends has generally been a reference to material possessions. Friends traditionally limited their possessions to what they need to live their lives, rather than accumulating luxuries. In recent decades Friends have been less and less attentive to this testimony, although most still believe it is important. It is now often taken to have an ecological dimension: that Friends should not use more than their fair share of the Earth's limited resources.

[edit]

Simplicity in dress

People recognized Friends during earlier times by their simple manner of dress, which was often in dull colors and lacked adornments such as fancy (or any) buttons, buckles, lace, or embroidery. This was never a universal practice or a requirement, but it was a testimony to the Friends’ principle of living simply. Most Friends today are not so easily recognized by a certain style of clothing, but some Friends still choose to dress more simply than others around them. They still desire to avoid the pride and wastefulness of wearing expensive, fancy clothes.

[edit]

Simplicity in speech

In regard to speech, Friends refuse to swear oaths, even in courtrooms. Instead they "affirm" that they are going to tell the truth. This was considered an aspect of simplicity because it was simply telling the truth rather than embellishing it with an oath, which is not necessary if one has a reputation for always telling the truth. In a similar manner early Friends avoided haggling over prices. They simply set a fixed price that was fair, which went against the custom of earlier times, but was simpler and more honest (this practice is generally considered more a part of the Testimony of Integrity than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity).

Friends also practiced plainness in speech by not referring to people in the "fancy" ways that were customary. A practice of early Friends was to address high-ranking persons using the familiar forms of "thee" and "thou" , instead of the respectful "you". Later, as "thee" and "thou" disappeared from everyday English usage, many Quakers continued to use these words as a form of "plain speech", though the original reason for this usage had disappeared; their usage was also grammatically distinctive, saying "thee is" instead of "thou art", a holdover from a dialect formerly common in the north of England.

Friends have generally avoided using honorific titles, even Mr., Mrs. and Miss. Instead Friends tended to address each other by first and last name with no title. This often holds true among Quakers today. In many Quaker communities children address adults by their first names, and in many Quaker schools teachers are called by their first names as well. This practice is now considered more a part of the Testimony of Equality than a part of the Testimony of Simplicity.

Early Friends also objected to the names of the days and months in the English language, because many of them referred to Roman gods, such as Mars (March) or Thor (Thursday) and emperors, such as Julius (July). As a result, the days of the week were known as "First Day" for Sunday, "Second Day" for Monday, and so forth. Similarly, the months of the year were "First Month" for January, "Second Month" for February, and so forth (though researchers should remember however that before the Gregorian calendar was adopted, "First Month" was March rather than the current January). Many Friends organizations continue to use the "simple calendar" for official records.

[edit]

Misconceptions

People often have several misconceptions about Quaker plainness.

First, people often confuse the Amish and the Mennonites with Quakers. Although one can note similarities among these groups, the Amish and the Mennonites are separate and different from Friends.
Second, people often think Quakers in all periods and all places had a required "uniform" that was recognizable. The truth is that the typical dress of the Quakers was subject to the individual conscience in most times and places, and the actual practice has always been varied.

[edit]