How Quakers got to be described as "Suckers".

 It was lovely to go away for a few days even though in hindsight, I should have been more aware my mobile phone. This somewhat elderly device is very set in its ways, has a mind all of its own and severe attitude problem when it comes to describing Quakers.

Whilst at the beach with a few spare moments, it seemed a good idea to send a text message to my mother, letting her know some things I  had been doing and to wish her a happy Easter. There was beautiful scenery about, so many other distractions and at the time it did not seem of particular significance that I did not receive a reply.

On my return I was somewhat dismayed when my Mother tactfully referred to that very disrespectful text message that I had sent her on Easter Day.
Through lack of vigilance on my part, it would seem she had received a message to say that I was having a lovely time on the South Coast and had spent Easter morning with "Suckers." Even allowing for her alternative Baptist upbringing and daughter's wicked sense of humour, this implication about the Local Quaker Meeting did rather concern her.

Since the risk had been evident for a while, I was able to explain how some of the keys on my phone are less responsive than they should be. Instead of providing the word "Quakers" as originally intended, we had both received "Suckers" instead. Although the need for greater vigilance has been emphasised, it would seem to me that even very very bad phones need to be forgiven. I remain sentimentally attached to this libellous piece of technology since it was originally given to me by my son. My Mother remains unconvinced on how a system of predictive text messaging could possibly make life easier!

It probably goes without saying that the Meeting for Worship I attended on Easter Morning was lovely. Perhaps all those friendly welcoming individuals would feel a little dismayed to be described as "Suckers." I hope very much that they would be able to see the funny side.

The term "Quaker" could also hardly be described as flattering.  Early Quakers can have been in very little doubt that the majority of people really did not like them. Although they may not have been described as "Suckers" some of the other terms used at this time went pretty close!

These days things are a little different. Quite often, people on hearing that I am a Quaker, will go on to describe some other Quaker they have encountered at some point in their lives. This practice gives me the impression that we are rather endangered (comparable to pandas) so people feel a responsibility to introduce us to each other! Since these other Quakers that I get to hear of, are invariably very worthy, I usually feel a little guilty as if the average expected standard of Quakers has now mysteriously dropped.

At other times it is evident to me, that Quakers are not without their faults. They might seem arrogant especially when that characteristic belief of having the Light Within is not properly explained. Traditionally Quakers have been particularly inclined to preaching. This characteristic which often comes full on, is only likely to be welcome if you just happen to agree.

At times Quakers can be particularly disruptive, launching themselves in to some form of action simply because they believe there is a right to be heard. When we do not take the trouble to appreciate different perspectives there is the risk of being both arrogant and ill informed.

At times Quakers can be so preoccupied by the possibilities of good as to completely ignore the danger. This approach can make us risky to have around. Instead of generating trust, the world suddenly becomes more uncertain- even scary if you do not happen to be particularly strong in the first place. Quakers are not exempt in their ability to make misjudgements, get it all quite wrong, and cause considerable unhappiness to others. Possession of a peace testimony does not apparently stop us from being extremely forceful in our opinions, and arguing with considerable enthusiasm among ourselves.

I recall once how a journalist asked me whether Quakers really were a religion. To him it seemed we were now much more like a debating group whose identity was shaped by sharing a particular type of culture, mostly hippies, very liberal and with a shared social obligation at best. This devastating observation emphaised to me how easy it would be to forget our place.
To me it would seem the crucial difference between a Quaker and a Sucker was about maintaining our Meetings for the purpose of Worship.