Recently an email came into my inbox entitled: "Towards a testimony on Gun Violence." Oh how exciting I thought. I opened it in anticipation of something that calls out in a similar way to the listener to forsake the violence of Guns. Imagine my surprise when instead I read what I can only describe as a policy proposal for Friends to endorse existing proposals for gun registration. I was quite disappointed. Now mind you I have no objection whatsoever to gun registration; it is a logical and much overdue step. Certainly it is strategically the next step this country could/should take. But is it a Quaker Testimony? Certainly not. In fact I was moved to write the committee writing the minute saying if it was presented at Yearly Meeting that I would most probably rise to oppose it as long as it used the word testimony because as such it violated my sense of what a testimony is.
I was raised with the understanding that our testimonies are different than creedal statements because they are statements of "the truth as we know it now." I was told that the Truth is known experientially and that we struggle as a community to hold up to each other the truth and to find it together and reach unity on the Truth, that we act as a corporate body when we recognize together a shared Truth. Well Friends, it cannot be that the greatest truth we have after 350 years as pacifists is that guns should be registered! When we say that we live in the Life and Power that takes away the occasion for all war...do we not also feel it takes away the occasion for violence? Do we not feel that while we may fail, that we are called to live as nonviolently as we can? I assume that means that little ol' Quaker ladies are not packing pistols in their purses, nor do Quaker men keep guns in the bedside table. I think we are called to put our faith in God for safety and to live in ways that make no one intent on hurting us, and to speak to that of God in the stranger who may come with ill intent, and to suffer an injury if need be rather than to inflict one. This, I believe, would be consistent with the Peace Testimony. And in fact when we look at the first part that I quoted: "all outward wars & strife, & fightings with outward Weapons, for any end" (emphasis added) it would seem pretty clear. A gun is an outward weapon and it is rejected for all ends or means.
Now I realize that in proclaiming to the world that they should lay down their guns and try to live nonviolently that this will seem dangerous to some, laughable to others, way too idealistic to be "practical," a threat to the Second Amendment, etc. But why should that stop us from proclaiming the truth? After all the peace testimony itself is seen to be absurdly impractical and idealistic to most of the world and has for three and half centuries and that has not stopped us! In fact, when we first suggested to the world that they give up slaves that was seen as unrealistic (something that we had first had work a century on within our own ranks) and yet it was useful to the world that we held out that idea, or the idea of women's suffrage, or same sex marriage. Eventually the world sometimes catches up to idealists. It still has not come to accept the idea that it is wrong to fight wars and yet I don't see us laying down that testimony any time soon.
So instead it is time to note that if a testimony is the "truth as we know it so far" that it is indeed now time to expand the peace testimony. I think it is time for us to tell the world that we are called to that Life and Power that takes away the occasion for all violence against other humans. That we utterly deny the use of any weapon against another child of God and that we are called to walk in struggle for understanding, love, and compassion which can lead us into peace with others when there is conflict.
