I was intrigued by the history and behaviour of the Friends or Quakers until I saw in every meeting I visited no longer any presence of the Gospel. However, despite the poor spiritual witness I experienced in the many Quaker meetings I have considered as a confessing, committed Christian/Believer what our Lord says in Matthew 5:34–5:37 and have concluded I would still choose to express affirmation rather than to swear on/by the Bible (or any such instrument). In Matthew 5:34–5:37 it reads, ‘I say to you, don’t use an oath at all. Don’t swear by Heaven for it is God’s throne, nor by the earth for it is His footstool, nor by Jerusalem for it is the city of the Great King. No, and don’t swear by your own head, for you cannot make a single hair—white or black! Whatever you have to say let your ‘yes’ be a plain ‘yes’ and your ‘no’ a plain ‘no’—anything more than this has a taint of evil’ (J.B. Phillips).
Wikipedia reports on this: ‘A right to give an affirmation has existed in English law since the Quakers Act 1695 (An Act that the Solemne Affirmation & Declaration of the People called Quakers shall be accepted instead of an Oath in the usual Forme; 7 & 8 Will. 3 c. 34) was passed. The text of the affirmation was the following: “I ___ do declare in the Presence of Almighty God the Witnesse of the Truth of what I say”.[1] The right to give an affirmation is now embodied in the Oaths Act 1978, c.19,[2] which prescribes the following form: “I, do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm” and then proceed with the words of the oath prescribed by law, omitting any words of imprecation or calling to witness.[2]
‘It has its origins in the refusal of Quakers to swear any oath, which would otherwise have barred them from many public positions. Quakers believe in speaking the truth at all times and so they consider the act of swearing to truth only in court rather than in everyday life implies double standards. As in James 5:12, they tried to “let your yea be yea and your nay be nay”.
‘The cause for such a right is exemplified R v William Brayn (1678). William Brayn was charged with the theft of a horse from Quaker Ambros Galloway. Brayn pleaded “not guilty”. One witness testified that the horse was owned by Ambros Galloway, and another witness said that he [probably Galloway] bought it from Brayn. As Galloway was a Quaker, he would not, “for conscience-sake”, swear and so could give no testimony. The court directed the jury to find Brayn ‘not guilty’ for want of evidence and committed the Quaker “as a concealer of Felony” for “refusing an Oath to Witness for the King”.[3]
‘Some Christians, who may not be Quakers, refuse to swear oaths, based on Matthew 5:34–5:37.
‘All elected members of parliament must make an oath or affirmation to the Crown before they can take their seats.[4] MPs are asked which form they prefer to take with the statement “Swear or Affirm”, meaning swear an oath or make an affirmation.[5] The oath or affirmation may be made in Welsh, Gaelic, Cornish or English.’