A meaningful discussion on The Religious Society of Friends (AKA Quakerism)

[techboy]

I won't deny that I've participated in my fair share of topic diversions in the past, but to turn this thread into yet another argument about creationism and/or the general evils of religion is rude, as it's not even close to the original topic, and the original discussion is far from played out.

You guys should find another thread.

My question to my fellow Christians and to any Members that practice Quakerism, Is there any conflict between traditional Christian beliefs and the teachings of Jesus with this manner of worship? Is there anything I should consider before opening this exploration for myself and my family?

Orthodox (in the sense of traditional, not the branch) Christianity requires specific beliefs about Jesus. The Quaker approach conflicts with the tenets of orthodox Christianity in that it does not require specific beliefs about Jesus.

I suppose you could go to meetings and still hold to orthodox Christian beliefs, but you could also go to a meeting of the Toastmasters and hold to orthodox Christian beliefs. I don't see how it would fulfill the role of church.

Without the fundamental beliefs that make Christianity Christianity, it might as well just be a social club, from a Christian point of view (though I can see how it would appeal to a more generally spiritualist type of person without specific religious beliefs).

[alexey]

Sure why not. I don't see a problem with respecting Creationists, I also don't have a problem teaching it in science class as a possible alternative/ competitor/ augmentation to evolution. Hell I wouldn't even have a problem with letting Jimmy Swagart or some other spokesman for the Creationists writing the chapter on it for the textbook. I think it would make the class more interesting, help generate discussion and debate which is great for science classes.

Hell we teach the Greek Pagan Aristotle's ideas in the beginning of every Physics, Chemistry, and Biology book; he didn't get anything right. We also teach why we think he got it wrong. Why not teach Creationism too. The fact that so many influential people believe it makes it pertinent to any discussion on the subject of evolution.

I was just trying to show that tolerance is the default position for people in relation to beliefs of others. You respect their rights to believe, which is called tolerance, but you do not necessarily respect the actual belief. You evaluate beliefs for respectability before deciding on that. I do not consider a belief that it was moral for God to drown sinners, for example, to be respectable. Anyways, going to follow techboy's advice now.

[Jumbo]

A specific and extended digression into creationism, or apologistics, or Catholicism, or atheism, or Buddhism, etc. is derailing the thread topic. Avoid that. As with all thread topics, slight tangents that do have some initial relevance, and are normal to occur in any conversation, online or offline, have always been part of the deal.

And hear this and pass it on: in considering posts and PMs, there are two things I want to make clear---one relates to some of religious folks and their reactions to alexy. It is clear that his openly declared stances on religion are not well-received by everyone. But he is no different in his freedom to do that than a strong conservative constantly posting as such in the political threads and, in a "anti-liberal" fashion, or the inverse, or any of a half-dozen other examples using other topics I could choose. Get that through your heads. His conduct to date isn't even close to the rule violation level in terms of attitude towards fellow members who disagree, or his using insult, or even "trolling-lite" (to which he has come closest), than several "beloved", prolific, and long-time posters here who never draw one complaint from the same people.

The fact that his views are unpalatable to even a majority is not a sole condition subject to censure.

The other thing I'll address is that we do ask members to help the staff moderate by both managing themselves (knowing and following the rules) and guiding others. Such guidance of course is best done by members who really understand the rules and are not swayed by any personal investment in a topic when making such judgments. Some rules are much easier to advise on due to their simplicity. When in doubt, if you think something awry is occuring in a thread, the ideal thing to do if there's any question in your mind is to PM a mod or report the post (best method). Then we decide. That's what we do.

Carry on.

[SnyderShrugged]

All good stuff guys, (all prespectives!) I sort of knew that there was some potential to get a little off topic, but i think in general things have stayed pretty cordial and informative.

I am definitely a Christian, and I think thats where my original worry stemmed from (more along the lines of Techboy's opinion). I am a little different in my view because I think I am seeing a wide range of acceptance of various approaches to my faith within the worship style of the Quakers. To me, what isnt prevented is tacitly accepted and accepted in full.

I havent seen much yet that would disallow Quaker meetings as a form of Christian worship at all, in fact almost the opposite,

Oh, I forgot to add, Are there currently any ES members who are "Friends" members?

[JMS]

.Without the fundamental beliefs that make Christianity Christianity, it might as well just be a social club, from a Christian point of view (though I can see how it would appeal to a more generally spiritualist type of person without specific religious beliefs).

That beleif is really from a historical time also associated with intollerance and backwardness. ( i.e. 300 ad) Today, Lots of folks who consider themselves Christians don't subscribe to .those "fundamental beliefs". Mormon's for example consider themselves Christian, while not believing in the trinity. ( they have four god heads ).

The difference between the Quakers and "toast masters" in your comparison is the toast masters are not prescribing a moral ( ie gods intent ) philosophy. The quakers are, The quakers moral philosophy compliments some folks beliefs who certainly do meet your prerequisit for being called Christians.

Just saying.

---------- Post added August-28th-2012 at 05:56 PM ----------

I was just trying to show that tolerance is the default position for people in relation to beliefs of others. You respect their rights to believe, which is called tolerance, but you do not necessarily respect the actual belief. You evaluate beliefs for respectability before deciding on that. I do not consider a belief that it was moral for God to drown sinners, for example, to be respectable. Anyways, going to follow techboy's advice now.

I see what you did there. That's an interesting point. ( see what I did there )

[Jumbo]

SS, I do not present myself as an expert, but as I have pursued these matters for 5 decades, one phrase that holds great meaning for me as someone who prizes striving for self-honesty in all things, is: "This above all: to thine own self be true."

Given my constructs of principles---and I think most Christian experts would agree--some claimed association with a religion that isn't based on a genuine belief and fairly complete acceptance is little (if any) better than no association (other than the premise that a little buy-in may keep you around long enough to buy in all the way).

But I mean if after much effort, you remain not completely "sold" in the end, then being partially there won't make the grade, salvation-wise, according to "them."

If, in these matters, one finds a path that truly resonates with ones being/perceiving/thinking/feeling/existing but chooses instead to try to align with a path that doesn't, for whatever reasons (like fear of being "wrong" and the proposed God-authored consequences of such an error), it might be the worst of choices.

I can see folks finding much to favor in a Quaker association over some "standard" Christian religious denominations/groups. But Quakers, depending on group and region, can have widely diverse views, themselves (as on homosexuality).

Personally, as with Christianity, there are key elements (according to "them" again) of the religion as currently presented that I reject, though I'm not an atheist. I believe most Quaker groups, the regular attendees at a specific meeting, are more flexible on dogmatic matters.

But in most traditional Christian denominations (ASF/TB/Z-guy can correct me if I'm wrong) from what I was taught and continue to read, you're not able to treat it like a menu where you can "take what you like and leave the rest" (as in A.A.) if "salvation" is your goal.

I would never put myself up as some deliberate "influencer" in another's journey in these matters, but to me, if you have tried any belief system you were told is The Answer, and worked at it, and found it wanting in important ways, but then find something different that helps you feel and conduct yourself more positively, and it's socially sane and socially healthy, give it great heed.

If it brings benign and productive things to your life and encourages you to do the same for others, rock (or Quake) on, amigo.

Obviously, that's not going to be an endorsed POV from true believers of Christianity.

[Koolblue13]

I can see where Quakers wouldn't be considered as Christian as some other religions, but it's not exactly a race and if you're kind and true and going to meeting helps that happen, then how could it be a bad thing.

[Jumbo]

I can see where Quakers wouldn't be considered as Christian as some other religions, but it's not exactly a race and if you're kind and true and going to meeting helps that happen, then how could it be a bad thing.

Well, it's my understanding that the "bottom-line" in the "official" Christian perspective, is if (among other things) there's not a clear acceptance of Jesus Christ as the one true Son of God and your personal savior who died for your sins, and of the Bible as God's Word, then you suffer eternal damnation (or will not receive salvation or everlasting life--the phrasing people use will vary) independent of how "good" you may live your life.

At least, that's what seems to be taught in the vast majority of Christianity.

So for SS , as someone who has labeled himself a Christian, these are likely serous considerations if he finds himself leaning towards Quakerism.

[Koolblue13]

Well, it's my understanding that the "bottom-line" in the "official" Christian perspective, is if (among other things) there's not a clear acceptance of Jesus Christ as the one true Son of God and your personal savior who died for your sins, and of the Bible as God's Word, then you suffer eternal damnation (or will not receive salvation or everlasting life--the phrasing people use will vary) independent of how "good" you may live your life.

At least, that's what seems to be taught in the vast majority of Christianity.

So for SS , as someone who has labeled himself a Christian, these are likely serous considerations if he finds himself leaning towards Quakerism.

I get what you're saying. I also understand that is what's so important to some folks and not how they live their lives.

Despite not having much of a horse in this race, I tend to stick up for the Quakers. They played a large part in my being raised right.

[Jumbo]

Interesting how it's represented on the Catholic Encyclopedia site (part of a major "Catholic site"--in another recent thread i posted a link to the Quaker/org site).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06304b.htm

The gold highlights are statements that stood out to me (keep in mind possible distinctions between various other Christian denominations, Catholic and "official Catholic" perspectives):

Below are the first two paragraphs (broken up due to size) on the page:

The official designation of an Anglo-American religious sect originally styling themselves "Children of Truth" and "Children of Light", but "in scorn by the world called Quakers".

The founder of the sect, George Fox, son of a well-to-do weaver, was born at Fenny Drayton in Leicestershire, England, July, 1624. His parents, upright people and strict adherents of the established religion, destined him for the Church; but since the boy, at an early period, felt a strong aversion to a "hireling ministry", he was, after receiving the bare rudiments of education, apprenticed to a shoemaker.

He grew to manhood a pure and honest youth, free from the vices of his age, and "endued", says Sewel, "with a gravity and stayedness of mind seldom seen in children". In his nineteenth year, while at a fair with two friends, who were "professors" of religion, he was so shocked by a proposal they made him to join them in drinking healths, that he abandoned their company. Returning home, he spent a sleepless night, in the course of which he thought he heard a voice from heaven crying out to him:

"Thou seest how young men go together into vanity, and old people into the earth; thou must forsake all, young and old, keep out of all, and be a stranger unto all." Interpreting the injunction literally, Fox left his father's house, penniless and with Bible in hand to wander about the country in search of light. His mental anguish at times bordered on despair. He sought counsel from renowned "professors"; but their advice that he should take a wife, or sing psalms, or smoke tobacco, was not calculated to solve the problems which perplexed his soul.

Finding no food or consolation in the teachings of the Church of England or of the innumerable dissenting sects which flooded the land, he was thrown back upon himself and forced to accept his own imaginings as "revelations". "I fasted much", he tells us in his Journal, "walked abroad in solitary places many days, and often took my Bible and sat in hollow trees and lonesome places until night came on; and frequently in the night walked mournfully about by myself. For I was a man of sorrows in the first working of the Lord in me." This anguish of spirit continued, with intermissions, for some years; and it is not surprising that the lonely youth read into his Bible all his own idiosyncrasies and limitations.

Founding his opinions on isolated texts, he gradually evolved a system at variance with every existing form of Christianity.His central dogma was that of the "inner light", communicated directly to the individual soul by Christ "who enlightenth every man that cometh into the world". To walk in this light and obey the voice of Christ speaking within the soul was to Fox the supreme and sole duty of man. Creeds and churches, councils, rites, and sacraments were discarded as outward things. Even the Scriptures were to be interpreted by the inner light. This was surely carrying the Protestant doctrine of private judgment to its ultimate logical conclusion.

Inconvenient passages of Holy Writ, such as those establishing Baptism and the Eucharist, were expounded by Fox in an allegorical sense; whilst other passages were insisted upon with a literalness before unknown. Thus, from the text "Swear not at all", he drew the illicitness of oaths, even when demanded by the magistrate. Titles of honour, salutations, and all similar things conducive to vanity, such as doffing the hat or "scraping with the leg", were to be avoided even in the presence of the king. War, even if defensive, was declared unlawful.

Art, music, drama, field-sports, and dancing were rejected as unbecoming the gravity of a Christian. As for attire, he pleaded for that simplicity of dress and absence of ornament which later became the most striking peculiarity of his followers. There was no room in his system for the ordained and salaried clergy of other religions, Fox proclaiming that every man, woman or child, when moved by the Spirit, had an equal right to prophesy and give testimony for the edification of the brethren. Two conclusions, with disagreeable consequence to the early Friends, were drawn from this rejection of a "priesthood"; the first was, that they refused to pay tithes or church rates; the second, that they celebrated marriage among themselves, without calling in the services of the legally appointed minister.

[SnyderShrugged]

Thanks for all the thoughts guys, very good conversation. Jumbo, you are definitely right that it is something that I am very serious about in my considerations regarding this.

I think I'm seeing the Quaker meetings as more of a means and style of worship rather than a belief system different from my own. I firmly believe in my salvation through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ and I firmly believe the Bible is the word of God. I also don't feel a conflict between Quaker meetings and those beliefs at all. In everything I have read on the subject thus far I haven't yet seen where I couldn't maintain my Christian beliefs while worshiping in the Quaker manner.

[Jumbo]

Sounds like a well thought-out personal platform to me, SS, but then I'n not one you want to go by when it comes to "covering your Christian bases", if you know what I mean, and still following your heart (to use a phrase). It seems solid to me, given how you framed it, but I'd listen to what an appropriate clergyman that you respect says, or what our favorite knowledgeable Christian posters say about it.

[DCSaints_fan]

Here's something that might help:

http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/Quiz/What-Kind-of-Christian-Are-You.aspx

[JMS]

Interesting how it's represented on the Catholic Encyclopedia site (part of a major "Catholic site"--in another recent thread i posted a link to the Quaker/org site).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06304b.htm

The gold highlights are statements that stood out to me (keep in mind possible distinctions between various other Christian denominations, Catholic and "official Catholic" perspectives):

Below are the first two paragraphs (broken up due to size) on the page:

I will just note that this passage was written in 1907 when we Cathlocs had not yet voted to allow all people of faith, even protestants into heaven.

( October 1962 )... Today Catholosism is potentially a much more enlightenned bunch.

[Jumbo]

I will just note that this passage was written in 1907 when we Cathlocs had not yet voted to allow all people of faith, even protestants into heaven.

( October 1962 )... Today Catholosism is potentially a much more enlightenned bunch.

I will just note that in August 2012, when you access that page, you get whatever you mean by "this passage."

Assuming what you state is correct (I'm not going to check your account of the citations on that page at this moment) apparently there is interest in keeping the "much more enlightened" attitude less accessible than the "dated one" (per your post) in this specific matter on this specific major Catholic website.

But, we're done with any "Catholic" focus now or it becomes too OT.

I should add, I realize the actual writing is of an earlier time, I am focusing on how this is what they (the site) present still as the "go-to" page when you search for "Quaker." Also note I made a point of distinctions to be made between that site's material and an "official Catholic position."

[PeterMP]

From Jumbo's link:

"Although the Friends repudiate creeds as "external" and "human", yet they, at least the early Quakers and their orthodox modern followers, admit the fundamental dogmas of Christianity as expounded in the Apostles' Creed. Rejecting as non-Scriptural the term Trinity, they confess the Godhead of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; the doctrine of the Redemption and salvation through Christ; and the sanctification of souls through the Holy Spirit. Their ablest apologists, as Robert Barclay and William Penn, have not been able to explain satisfactorily in what respect the "inward light" differs from the light of the individual reason; neither have they reconciled the doctrine of the supreme authority of the "inner voice" with the "external" claims of Scripture and the historic Christ. These doctrinal weaknesses were fruitful germs of dissensions in later times."

That sounds pretty Christian to me. I guess I don't know where they have moved since and what the "dissension in later times" were.

[Jumbo]

<edit>

That sounds pretty Christian to me. I guess I don't know where they have moved since and what the "dissension in later times" were.

I think all major religions should issue tree or flow charts of all related sects and denominations so we all know where everything stands in relation to each other---like the program for a Wagnerian opera. :pfft:

[PeterMP]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quakers#Theology

It would appear to me that if you are an evengelical or Gurneyite Friend, you are very likely to meet the bar of being Christian set by most Christians.

Based on what is stated, it is difficult for me to make a conclusion about the conservatives and certainly when you get down to the Universalist, you have left what most people would recognize as Christianity.

The Liberals seem like they could be or could not be.

(Seems like a much better source than something written over 100 years ago, irregardless of the organization that wrote it originally.)

[Jumbo]

<edit>

(Seems like a much better source than something written over 100 years ago, irregardless of the organization that wrote it originally.)

It is a much better source for a more objective (and current) perspective, and even it's just wiki, so there are even better sources than that, obviously.

Just for the record, there's a reason I specifically used the word "interesting" to describe the material on the site I linked, and made the disclaimers I made in my first post, as well as following clarifying comments.

I admit that sometimes I wonder why I usually take such time and care in choosing my wording so exactly.

[brandymac27]

First off since their are no set doctrine or creeds for Quakerism discussing their beliefs becomes subject to generalities.

• The only teaching all Quakers have in common is George Fox’s “Inner Light” teaching. God can be found in each and every one of us.
  
• Some charismatics believe in handling snakes or talking in tongues, Quakers believe in shaking as they are overcome by God. Hence the name.
  
• Quakers are not really (exclusively?) Christians. Since they look for God in each of us, many Quakers feel belief in virgin birth, Mary, or even Jesus is not necessary towards their salvation.
  
• Quakers are associated with Pacifism.
  
• Quakers obviously do not believe in the Nician Creed which is the oldest, and the most standard definition for Christianity.
  
• Quakers don't really differentiate between doctrines either, thus any document becomes valid for there purposes, i.e. Tao Te Ching, Koran, etc.
  
• Some, but not all Quakers are Unitarian Universalists (by their own description) (i.e. all religions and beliefs are correct and of equal value.
  
• Central in Quaker teachings is tollerance.
  

"We do not require members to conform to a particular view about Jesus." I'd say this is a conflict with traditional Christian beliefs.

Interestingly enough, I find myself actually semi-agreeing with some of the beliefs listed above (not so much the snake, shaking, and talking in tongue part). As an agnostic, or maybe even somewhat of a spiritualist, I tend to believe that there is no "right" or "wrong" religion/doctrine/view per se. If anything, I believe we all have the power to live honest, compassionate, and pure lives without the need for any "religion". But, and admittedly I don't know much about Quakerism, I think I would have less problems adhering to these particular set of beliefs above, than the "typical Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc" that makes up the classes of what I consider to be organized religion.

IMPO, if there is a particular belief that says they believe that all religions are correct and of equal value, regardless of my personal beliefs, I believe this is a step in the right direction, and a step towards enlightenment . I don't believe any particular religion can make the claim they are "correct" and all the others are "wrong". So, for this main reason along with the idea that they don't require members to conform to a particular view regarding Jesus, I feel like if I were gonna follow a particular religion that follows closely in line w/ one of the big 3, this would be the one I'd pick.

[JMS]

I will just note that in August 2012, when you access that page, you get whatever you mean by "this passage."

Assuming what you state is correct (I'm not going to check your account of the citations on that page at this moment) apparently there is interest in keeping the "much more enlightened" attitude less accessible than the "dated one" (per your post) in this specific matter on this specific major Catholic website.

Jumbo, as an organization we still have guys wearing hair shirts and flogging themselves with ticklers. That doesn't mean they speak for the organizaiton. In Catholism you have "the right to seek our own salvation and a responsibility to seek concensus with Rome".. That's in the catacism. If you think monastism is the way to salvation you can have at it. If you get off on fire and brimstone and weekly diets of what's wrong with the world; you can find that too.. Big tent, Big tent. I'm sure we have folks who still think Catholism is the only path to salvation too. But we also have the Jesuits, and the Franciscans, and we have the texts of Vatican council II to go on which is the highest order of Catholic doctrine.... So I'm pretty sure I'm on safe ground in saying a text from 1907 on "the children of light" while historically interesting and probable factually accurate, is probable a little dated on the morality of the folks in question.....

Don't take my word on it... Let me give you the refference..

According to Dr. H.K. Carroll, the acknowledged authority on the subject of religious statistics (The Christian Advocate, Jan., 1907), the standing of the various branches of Friends in the United States is as follows

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06304b.htm

.

[chipwhich]

Jumbo, as an organization we still have guys wearing hair shirts and flogging themselves with ticklers. That doesn't mean they speak for the organizaiton. In Catholism you have "the right to seek our own salvation and a responsibility to seek concensus with Rome".. That's in the catacism. If you think monastism is the way to salvation you can have at it. If you get off on fire and brimstone and weekly diets of what's wrong with the world; you can find that too.. Big tent, Big tent. I'm sure we have folks who still think Catholism is the only path to salvation too. But we also have the Jesuits, and the Franciscans, and we have the texts of Vatican council II to go on which is the highest order of Catholic doctrine.... So I'm pretty sure I'm on safe ground in saying a text from 1907 on "the children of light" while historically interesting and probable factually accurate, is probable a little dated on the morality of the folks in question.....

Don't take my word on it... Let me give you the refference..

.

Sorry but it is Catholicism.

[Jumbo]

<edit>So I'm pretty sure I'm on safe ground in saying a text from 1907 on "the children of light" while historically interesting and probable factually accurate, is probable a little dated on the morality of the folks in question.....

Don't take my word on it... Let me give you the refference..

.

I am tempted to use a well-known expression that even I consider blasphemous. I re-repeat for all concerned: read what I actually write. I am aware of everything you just stated JMS (and I actually enjoyed the humor and the style). Remember, I was raised Catholic and much of my family is still "there." And I have stated many times here that my beloved cousin was a Jesuit priest. I did see that citation, along with several others that are at the bottom, the first time I accessed the page. In my reply to you where I said I wasn't going to check you out, I was meaning that I didn't plan to verify which citations were connected to which passages. I didn't even care, really, since to me it wasn't that crucial to why I posted the stuff. Criminy.

But I did further explain the topically relevant reasons (which should have been obvious for Pete's sake) that I posted that material and noted the disclaimers (repeat repeat repeat). However, since this "dated outlook" sidetrack is still alive, I'll even go ahead and add that much in the way of attitude (not to mention accurate factual specifics) as stated there, is likely still reflective of what many "standard denominational" Christians think about Quakers and Shakers--not to be confused with "movers and shakers":D---and "fringe" denominations in general (like Mormons; Jehovah Witnesses; NASCARians etc.). I now resign participation, and regret I ever found that topic-relevant material interesting in the first place.

I should resume following my own long-standing advice. On that note, back to topic (not tangent). :cool:

[SnyderShrugged]

The wife and I have been talking and we probably will visit a meeting house sometime over the next month. If nothing else, to talk to folks and experience the silent style of worship first hand.

I kind of wish there were an ES member who is a also a Quaker and a Christian to talk with too!

[PeterMP]

It is a much better source for a more objective (and current) perspective, and even it's just wiki, so there are even better sources than that, obviously.

Just for the record, there's a reason I specifically used the word "interesting" to describe the material on the site I linked, and made the disclaimers I made in my first post, as well as following clarifying comments.

I admit that sometimes I wonder why I usually take such time and care in choosing my wording so exactly.

I actually first looked at quakers.org, but if they have a quick and simple statement of their beliefs, I don't see it.

Though that isn't really surprising if they are a mish-mosh of organizations that believe different things and some of which don't belief in creeds.

Given that, it might be difficult to come up w/ a statement of beliefs.

And honestly, if I were you, I'd spend more time wondering about why I took a post that didn't quote me or refer to me (by name or pronoun) as a statement on my post, and then why I further thought it was worth taking the time to comment in such a manner.

But hey, that's just me..

(Iwas trying to draw a conclusion about the state of Quakerism today based on something over 100 years ago. The comment regarded the stupidity and non-usefulness of me trying to draw any conclusions about Quakerism based on the source, given the qualifications that I had to include.)