On Thee, Thou, and the Testimony of Equality

by Papaioannou

Plain speech — the Quaker practice of addressing everyone as "thee" and "thou" regardless of rank, and refusing to use honorific titles such as "Mr." or "Dr." — was one of the earliest and most visible testimonies of the Religious Society of Friends. To Quakers, the plural "you" addressed to a single person was a form of flattery, a bowing to worldly status, and a violation of the principle that all human beings stand equal before God.

In August 2003, a Quaker writing under the name Papaioannou, posting from Italy, shared a tract that he and fellow Friends had circulated explaining their practice. The author is a member of a small, theologically traditional Friends community that continues to observe plain speech, refuses honorific titles, and practices the older Quaker distinctives. The letter they shared includes a second voice — that of an unnamed Friend — which supplies the linguistic and scriptural grounding for the practice.

Plain speech declined sharply in most branches of Quakerism during the twentieth century, surviving mainly among Conservative Friends and some smaller groups. This letter preserves the rationale as it was lived and defended by those who never abandoned it.

Greetings in Christ,

I am posting our tract "A Letter on Plain Speech" where we explain why we use plain speech, "thee" and "thou" and no honorific titles.

A Letter on Plain Speech

Dear Friend,

Greetings in Christ our Lord and Saviour!

Thee asks me why I use "thee" and "thou" instead of "you" and why I am against honorific titles such as "Dr", "Mr", "Mrs", etc. Has thee noticed that all these titles start with a capital letter? Doesn't this on its own tell thee something? Doesn't it tell thee that these are false honours, and flattery, created to make man feel special, i.e. to puff up his egoism?

The answer to thy question could be in thy own words, "It is a courtesy that others do not deserve, per se, but a gracefulness we show to others" — we should not give courtesy where it is not due. On the other hand I could say honestly that I am most polite and loving to people when I do not use titles; if (by mistake) I ever do, it is when I am upset with someone and I feel far from them, then I might say "Listen to me Mr....". One can be polite without using vain titles and flattery.

Children should call mum "mum" and dad "dad", the aunt "aunt", the uncle "uncle" because this is their position in the family. A mum doesn't get puffed up when a child calls her "mum" — after all that is what she is. But let us consider why Mr. Jones wants to be called that way, why does he get upset when we don't use this title: it is because it serves his egoism. George Fox (human founder of the Quakers) said that when he stopped using these things he made people see what they really were — egoists hungry for honour.

True courtesy is in truth, false courtesy is in hypocrisy. Teaching our children to call people what they aren't is teaching them to be hypocrites. I know this is all new to thee, and I hope I am not putting thee off about us Quakers and our Faith and Practice. Search the Scriptures — thou shalt not see anywhere a man, a woman, a boy or a girl using to another person, no matter slave or King, anything else but "thee". This is the way God ordered things.

Here is what a Friend wrote to me on the subject:

It is written that "God is no respecter of persons" (Acts 10:34), by which is meant that worldly "status" is of no interest to Him, and He judges us equally as individuals, taking note of our hearts, our spiritual state, and saving whom He will.

Christ Himself says, "Neither be ye called masters." The term "master", as much as it means one who has servants or slaves, has the archaic meaning of a master of a craft — one who has served his time as an apprentice and is now a master craftsman. This is the origin of the common appellation "Mister" or "Mr". A couple of centuries ago, it was assumed as an affectation by the world, as if all had become masters of a craft, and we will have nothing to do with affectations of this nature — an affectation is a puffing up of the self! So we ourselves go by our own full names, and will not be called "Mr" ourselves by anyone. And even if people find it strange, we cannot give to others a title we do not use ourselves.

As for "thee" and "thou" — there is a similar story. English (except in some dialects) has tended to lose its singular, familiar address. But it is the clear, unambiguous language of scripture, and as such is good enough for us! Even in the days when the King James version was being drawn up, men began to take on the affectation of wanting to be addressed in the plural form ("you"), exactly as they coveted being called "Mr John Brown" and "John Brown Esquire." The writers of that version chose to stay with the grammar of the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic.

Thus it came about that even though God was addressed as "Thou" in our prayers, men would rage against being addressed as "thou" by an equal! (I have experienced this in school, in the county of Lancashire, when I was a boy!)

Thus we say thee and thou to all, to show that everyone is as dear to God as we are, and that we are equally all His children. Moreover, it is no bad thing to stick to the language of scripture.

Importantly, all the foregoing is not an affectation on our part. We all found ourselves inwardly judged by God for using flattering titles (even ones whose flattery was historical) and saying "you" to a single person, as much as we found ourselves judged for swearing oaths, lying, using pagan names for days of the week, and so on. And now we could not go back to our former ways even if we tried — it would shatter the peace of God in our consciences, and that peace is a gift to us which we treasure.

These things we know, and we do them to show the world the love and power of Him whom we serve.

I hope all this did not offend thee. By the way, not all Quakers today uphold these testimonies, and it is not a law.

Colophon

This letter was written and posted to soc.religion.quaker in August 2003 by a Friend posting under the name Papaioannou, writing from Italy. The letter is a tract circulated by a small community of theologically conservative Quakers who maintain the traditional practice of plain speech and the refusal of honorific titles. It includes a second voice — that of an unnamed Friend — who provides the scriptural and historical grounding.

Plain speech was a distinctive Quaker practice from the founding generation of Friends onward, rooted in George Fox's conviction that honoring worldly rank with plural address or titles was a form of flattery that denied human equality before God. By the twenty-first century, it had declined sharply in most branches of Quakerism, surviving mainly among Conservative Friends.

Preserved from the Usenet archive for the Good Work Library by the New Tianmu Anglican Church, 2026. Original Message-ID: [email protected].

🌲