George Keith was a brilliant theologian, and one of America’s earliest and most convincing abolitionists. On 13th of 8th Month, 1693, the Philadelpia Monthly Meeting presented, “An Exhortation & Caution to Friends Concerning Buying or Keeping of Negroes”. In this document, Keith writes, “… in true Christian Love, we earnestly recommend it to all our Friends and Brethren, Not to buy any Negroes, unless it were on purpose to set them free…”

This was a man who was clearly ahead of his time, a brave and thoughtful Christian leader who had a profound influence on the early Quakers in America. That the Philadelphia meeting supported him on this point is shown by the concluding words, “…given forth by our Monthly Meeting in Philadelphia, the 13th day of the 8th Month, 1693 and recommended to all our Friends and Brethren, who are one with us in our Testimony for the Lord Jesus Christ, and to all others professing Christianity.”

George Keith began life as a Presbyterian, and in later life became an Anglican. In between times, he was drawn to the Quaker movement. As a young man he was embraced by William Penn, who saw much to admire in him and sent him to Pennsylvania. Over the following years, Keith became a highly respected Quaker preacher and teacher who gradually began to feel uncomfortable with the faith’s vagueness, its lack of difinitive or official Christian creed. He was a powerful and sincere speaker, a skilled theologian, and probably far more sophisticated in this way than most of the people he encountered in America.

The early colonial Quakers were busy felling trees, building houses, planting and harvesting crops. Although some had a university education, for the most part, they were required by necessity to be of a practical turn of mind. However, most had quite recently immigrated from England to escape severe persecution that made it a crime punishable by imprisonment to not attend Church of England services regularly. What drew these seemingly ordinary people to the “nonconforming” Quaker faith and led them to break the law, risking their freedom and well-being to practice it? If we read the autobiographies of early Quakers like William Penn, Thomas Ellwood, Margaret Fell and George Fox himself, all contemporaries of George Keith, we may discern that they were spirtual seekers longing for something that the status quo religion of their time didn’t satisfy. Each had unique traits and experiences that led him/her to sense something deeper, more personal in the spiritual realm that did not resonate with the external social order, with its conventions, rules and punishing practices. I would venture a guess that it was their belief in the value of each individual’s uniqueness that led them toward a faith that celebrated the light that shines within each soul. George Keith was first attracted to this, but later found it too nebulous to satisfy his need for structure and Christian doctrine. This is understandable; he was raised in a highly structured Christian church, and as he matured, it is not surprising that he began to feel a call to return to his more traditional roots.

One of the great strengths of the Quaker way is its complete commitment to respecting the rights of the individual. It supports our right to be true to our inner convictions in our thinking, our beliefs, our practices, without casting judgement on us. How rare this is! I believe the Quaker perspective embodies the teachings of Jesus Christ more purely than sects that have more rigid creeds and rituals, but of course, the Quaker faith does not suit everyone. George Keith was surely respected by the Quakers for being true his inner light in his personal spiritual quest. I believe that in their eyes, his only flaw was his increasingly strong desire to influence others, or we might say, to control others in their beliefs and practices, and ultimately, this is what most likely caused the Quakers as a body to reject his membership. Had he honestly and carefully examined his motives, he may have acknowledged the role his ego played in his need to control others. His own beliefs on these points were valid and true for himself, and he would not have been written out for them, but he crossed the line and became a threat to the Quaker way when he tried to reform the Quaker faith and turn it into a facsimile of the highly structured and punitive churches the English Quakers had gratefully left behind.

There is an entry in the records of the Salem (NJ) Yearly Meetings, dated 29 2nd Mo 1693 that says, “Held by George Keith & Thomas Budd & others… Those of both sides agree – need more than inner light, eg, Jesus Christ … ” This was signed by a number of Philadelphia Quakers, including one of my ancestors who had become so convinced of George Keith’s arguments that he was venturing out of his own community to endorse Keith’s point of view to the wider world. I believe it was Keith’s ability to sway others that led him to be viewed as a danger to the Quakers’ way of practicing Christianity. It is recorded that many of his followers left the Quaker fold when George Keith was written out. My ancestor chose to make his peace with the Quakers and I am thankful that he did, for having explored many religious perspectives and practices, I have found none more truly Christian than the Quaker faith and way of life.

I don’t see the problem in what people say, but in what they hear, how they receive.

The sides in your controversy were both right, both necessary. What could they have learned– not through shutting off or ignoring the conflict– but by reconciling the part they knew with what they were rejecting?