Thread: Quakers and Christianity Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020344
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I know we have had this before, but a disccusion with Exclamation Mark in Heaven has raised it again.
quote:
I don't find them as "Christian" as any other church. Why?
- non Trinitarian (not accepting the historic creeds common to Christian Churches)
- plural view of Salvation. Christ for them is not the only way (not accepting the historical praxis and tradition common to Christian Churches)
Nice people and all that. It's possible of course that I may though have been unfortunate in my experiences with Quakers, albeit across in the UK in various different settings.
Now I fully accept that my perception has also been biased, especially as I have not had a wide engagement with Quakerism across the county.
So Quakers don't accept the creeds. We don't accept any creeds, anything that states a formula that we much believe. But I suspect that many Quakers believe the creeds as much as any other church congregation - it is just that we don't officially embrace them.
This is the point - my original point. The point I made that that I think the Quakers are as Christian as any other church.
I suppose I was reminded this last week of the Sea of Faith movement - started by an Anglican Priest, and rejecting the divine entirely. Who argue for religion as a human creation. We have David Boultons doughter in our group (he is a writer well known within this group), and she distances herself from his position.
The problem is, I don't think we can define Christianity in a formal way, in a way that any denomination can be considered to be entirely included. More, I am not sure that this is valid (but, of course, I might not be a real Christian) - why do we need to define this, externally?
Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on
:
I respect your theological position. It has plenty of support. I don't like engaging in 'in or out' discussions around borders, unless I'm feeling like an arse and I want to attack someone.
I kept away from the Quakers at the time that I was thinking about going to church again, but I did go to their website. I stayed away because I wanted boundaries for myself at that time.
As it turns out, I now identify as both Catholic and Anglican, a Cathlican or an Anglic, but not an Anglo-Catholic, much as I love bells and smells. So theological purity is not something I can criticise others for.
If I was asked a question like this at a social engagement and I was behaving nicely that day, I believe I would offer the enquirer a piece of Mrs Doyle's cake ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Here in the US (or at least my part of it) we have more-or-less well defined distinction between "evangelical Quakers" and "liberal Quakers"-- is that not a common distinction in the UK? Evangelical Quakers here hold very traditional evangelical views, while still non-creedal (as noted above, the fact that they don't recite the creeds is not indicative of not believing the things written in the creeds) and non-sacramental.
Evangelical Quakers are one of a couple of Wesleyan traditions that are considered part of the "DNA" of the evangelical univ where I teach. We have many Quakers among our theology faculty and have a very large collection of Quaker research materials in our theological library.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Here in the US (or at least my part of it) we have more-or-less well defined distinction between "evangelical Quakers" and "liberal Quakers"-- is that not a common distinction in the UK?
The basic answer is no.
In the USA there are essentially three groups of Quakers:
Liberal - which can include people who are non-theists (or any other kind of theism). Most liberals are in the Friends General Conference.
Pastoral/Evangelical: are often not much different to other evangelicals and have pastors and programmed services. Often part of the Friends United Meeting or Evangelical Friends Church International.
Conservative Quakers - sometimes but not always dress simply (which can mean more-or-less like the typical image of Amish), stick fairly rigidly to the traditional understanding of Quakerism as defined by Fox and the other early Quakers.
There are also others who are involved in a Quaker reform movement, which often seems to suggest going back to the roots of Quakerism for young people and often seems to include a more significant emphasis on the deity of Christ and becoming generally more Christian as we might recognise it.
--
This is of course an exaggeration, there are various other permutations and complications in North America.
--
In the UK there is basically just one group of Quakers - the British Yearly Meeting.
I understand that there are sometimes elements of the other groups as found in North America that are reflected within British Quakers, and the BYM generally tries to support individuals and individual meetings as they find their own direction, but I think it is fair to say that the thrust of the organisation is liberal. As an indication of this, the Quakers were as a group the first to offer equal marriage services.
I don't think there are planned meetings (or at least not any which could be mistaken for an Evangelical church) within the BYM or paid pastors.
There are a very small number of Quakers who exist in Britain outside of the BYM, but they're generally Conservative But Not Evangelical.
I don't think there are many/any meetings which could really be described as Evangelical Quakers in the UK in the sense that it would be understood in the USA.
[ 28. October 2017, 15:50: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
My feeling on this is that - whatever Quakers, "liberal" Episcopalians or whoever may think - there is a basic content to Christianity which one cannot ignore if one is to say "We are Christian". I agree that not all groups state it formally in creeds (though I think they can be helpful), I accept that there may be wildly different interpretations, I know that some will say "this bit is crucial" while others will say "no, it's not". Nevertheless there is surely some basic minimum belief required for those who call themselves Christians.
At the risk of sounding rather narky or even patronising, it does seem to me that there are some Friends (not the originator of this thread!) who seem to have a quite rigid creed which declares, "Our belief is not to have any fixed beliefs". Yet IMO that itself is as constraining as some of the "classic" creeds.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I don't think there are many/any meetings which could really be described as Evangelical Quakers in the UK in the sense that it would be understood in the USA.
Although I have met people in the UK who explicitly describe themselves as "Christian Quakers".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
This is the point - my original point. The point I made that that I think the Quakers are as Christian as any other church.
I don't know - this is quite a problematic idea. If there is nothing which is held in common amongst a religion, in what sense can all members be said to belong to it?
It seems to me to be a simpler explanation that there are people who belong to various Christian groups who aren't Christians.
And there are people who belong to groups which are not specifically Christian - including Quakers, Unitarians and others - but who are Christians. I don't think there is any shame in being a Christian within a group which isn't a Christian church.
quote:
I suppose I was reminded this last week of the Sea of Faith movement - started by an Anglican Priest, and rejecting the divine entirely. Who argue for religion as a human creation. We have David Boultons doughter in our group (he is a writer well known within this group), and she distances herself from his position.
It is hard to say that Sea of Faith is Christian. I can't see any way that it can be described as Christian. And a vicar who denied the divine - according to the discipline of the Church of England - should have been defrocked.
Harsh, perhaps, but the CofE tends to think that a belief in a deity is a pre-requisite requirement for being a priest.
quote:
The problem is, I don't think we can define Christianity in a formal way, in a way that any denomination can be considered to be entirely included. More, I am not sure that this is valid (but, of course, I might not be a real Christian) - why do we need to define this, externally?
Well y'know, I have some sympathy with this. I think Christianity is about the individual, so it is essentially impossible to talk about a group or country or anything else being Christian.
But, that said, it seems fair for others who have defined Christianity in a particular (and generally basic - ie needing to believe in a single deity) way to look at the Quakers and say "hold on, there is no requirement to believe in a deity to be a Quaker - therefore it is hard to see how the Quakers are any more a Christian group than a scrabble club".
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Although I have met people in the UK who explicitly describe themselves as "Christian Quakers".
Yes. This is the difference I'm trying to get across: in North America one can go to a self-identifying "Christian" Quaker group.
In the UK attendance at a BYM does not imply any belief in Christianity. People who are Christians are Quakers but not all British Quakers are Christians.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
In the UK attendance at a BYM does not imply any belief in Christianity. People who are Christians are Quakers but not all British Quakers are Christians.
But surely the same could be said of any other denomination? Are all Anglicans Christians? How do you define Christian in a way that doesn't immediately define the answer to this?
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan: Although I have met people in the UK who explicitly describe themselves as "Christian Quakers".
I know that there are some in my meeting who would not be happy defining themselves as Christian, whereas I would. But we are all seeking truth, and that truth is (broadly speaking) Christian.
Oh, and yes, some Quakers are arseholes. In that we don't actually differ from any other religious group either.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Meetings typically do not require a faith statement as a prerequisite to joining. One is likely to find various beliefs in Quaker Meetings. Some Friends,like myself, are not Christians, but have membership in a Meeting with many Christian members. It's not always easy to find a Meeting that perfectly suits one's belief set, and, for the most part, there is room in Quaker faith and practice for those with various beliefs to be in community.
Also, there are at least 4-5 different branches of Quakers in the US (see below). To conflate, say, FUM and EFI misses the point of the historical divergence of those two entities.
"Many yearly meetings are part of a larger grouping of Friends. These include:
Evangelical Friends Church International
Friends General Conference
Friends United Meeting
Holiness Friends (one yearly meeting in the US with links to some groups in Bolivia)
Wider Fellowship of Conservative Friends"
http://fwccamericas.org/connections/explore-quakerism.shtml
Also, to argue, as a blanket statement, that Quakers are or are not Christian imposes on the Quaker way a homogeneity that is not part of how we identify.
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Darn, missed edit window.
Re: historical divergence of Quaker groups in the US....they were primarily over issues of belief. But in this day and age, and with so few Meetings to choose from ( in a large country with sometimes great distance between Meetings), one usually finds that community is enacted in Meetings with a looser adherence to specific beliefs than that which caused the split in the first place.
Living the Quaker Way is often as (or more) important in Meeting community than whether one is or is not Christian.
sabine
[ 28. October 2017, 17:55: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Living the Quaker Way is often as (or more) important in Meeting community than whether one is or is not Christian.
sabine
I suppose I see it that the Quaker Way can largely be seen as the expression of a Christian faith. I can totally understnad why people would not want to identify as Christian, but actual behave and act in ways that are in accordance with a Chrsitian faith.
At the same time, I can see that if you live in accordance to Quaker principles, you can do that for other reasons, so you would not naturally identify this activity as Christian. But then, acting in a Christian way, whether or not you subscribe to the belief basis that there is a divinity, that Jesus came to save us.
I suppose I see that the Quaker way is totally compatible with a Christian life, and for many (including me) it is an approach to living the Christian life not unlike a monastic routine. Except totally different.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Living the Quaker Way is often as (or more) important in Meeting community than whether one is or is not Christian.
sabine
I suppose I see it that the Quaker Way can largely be seen as the expression of a Christian faith.
Except when it's not. I mean this on a personal level (I see your paragraph below)
quote:
I can totally understnad why people would not want to identify as Christian, but actual behave and act in ways that are in accordance with a Chrsitian faith.
That's the part that confuses some people. Who others perceive a person to be based on outward behavior is not necessarily who that person sees him/herself to be or actually is.
quote:
At the same time, I can see that if you live in accordance to Quaker principles, you can do that for other reasons, so you would not naturally identify this activity as Christian. But then, acting in a Christian way, whether or not you subscribe to the belief basis that there is a divinity, that Jesus came to save us.
I suppose I see that the Quaker way is totally compatible with a Christian life, and for many (including me) it is an approach to living the Christian life not unlike a monastic routine. Except totally different.
So very well put. Especially the "totally different" part.
In the end, I think it's not so much how we are labeled by the world at large but how we see ourselves in the expression of faith. As you mention for yourself Quaker life is compatible (and perhaps an expression of) Christian Life. I agree. But I also see it as compatible with and an expression of my belief in God outside of Christianity.
Going back to a "no more or no less" comment you made earlier in the thread....putting things into categories is a human trait, but just as human is the spectrum within each category. This tends to make some uncomfortable because it is a nuance to the urge to organize.
sabine
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
In the UK & Ireland, and among the British/Irish expat community, I have met both Quakers who, while rejecting the formality of creeds, are nonetheless fairly clearly within a broad traditional understanding of Christianity, as well as Quakers who state, explicitly, that they are 'non-Christocentric'.
I agree with other shipmates that there is essentially no 'Evangelical Quaker' orientation in the UK & Ireland as that has developed in the USA; the non-plannedness of Meetings for Worship is, as far as I have ever seen, a fundamental and unshaken principle.
In trying to explain The Society of Friends to my Nordic students, who had usually hardly even heard of them, my thumbnail portrait was that on each of the three great parameters of challenge and dissent that constituted the Western Reformation – norms of theology (esp. re salvation and the sacraments), norms of ecclesial authority, and norms of worship – the Friends went that radical step further than all the other major groupings in rejecting all the traditional answers.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
You might send your Nordic students to the Swedish Quaker website. www.kvakare.se and see if any if it makes sense. I'm of Swedish descent, and my fellow Swedes tell me there is a good number there (although nothing like the UK an d US.
sabine
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
The Quakers are a member of Churches Together in England.
I think a family resemblance might be a good way to describe Christians and Churches. Any two might have few points in common, but any one will have a significant overlap with at least a few other members of the family. Most of the members will share many points of resemblance.
The paragraph in the OP saying that Quakers might believe most of the contents of the creeds, but won’t be told that they must believe them, is equally true of Baptists in the UK - or at least, it used to be.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
There are Quakers who identify as Pagan.
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
There are Anglicans who identify as pagan (and witches who say that if only the Roman Catholic Church was really like it's described in Andrew Greeley's novels they'd be Roman Catholic). Individuals shouldn't really be the issue.
And there are some evangelicals who claim to follow Christ but describe him in such a way that he is more nearly Mithras. If we're going to play "you're not really Christian" we may none of us be entirely safe...
And Britain Yearly Meeting does have a corporate statement of faith: Quaker faith and practice. There is some pressure for a revised text and it will be interesting (to me, at least) how (if it happens) that plays out.
Bevan and Schroeder suggest that there are half a dozen questions that Christians in different times and places have answered differently but have nonetheless continued to ask. Corporately, I think British Quakers continue to ask them as well even if there are (numerous) individuals for whom some of them no longer seem relevant.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
But, that said, it seems fair for others who have defined Christianity in a particular (and generally basic - ie needing to believe in a single deity) way to look at the Quakers and say "hold on, there is no requirement to believe in a deity to be a Quaker - therefore it is hard to see how the Quakers are any more a Christian group than a scrabble club".
My problem is that I don't like questions that are proxies for other questions.
If one wants to argue that the divinity of Christ is important, then the question to ask is 'Is the divinity of Christ important?' Asking instead 'Are Quakers Christians if they don't affirm the divinity of Christ?' leads to offence and arguments over semantics without actually addressing the underlying reason for asking the question.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
The paragraph in the OP saying that Quakers might believe most of the contents of the creeds, but won’t be told that they must believe them, is equally true of Baptists in the UK - or at least, it used to be.
Historically true of Baptists (although we do have the "Declaration of Principle"), however ISTM that more and more Baptist churches are adopting detailed Statements of Faith.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
My problem is that I don't like questions that are proxies for other questions.
If one wants to argue that the divinity of Christ is important, then the question to ask is 'Is the divinity of Christ important?' Asking instead 'Are Quakers Christians if they don't affirm the divinity of Christ?' leads to offence and arguments over semantics without actually addressing the underlying reason for asking the question.
Well that's fair I suppose.
The problem is that people have always defined themselves by who they are like or not like.
I was reading yesterday about a group of Quakers who were excluded from the community during the American Revolution - because they felt that it was important to fight rather than continue with the historic peace witness.
And Quakers over the years have done particularly well at excluding people or groups who haven't toed the party line*. And who they're not like in apparently small ways. I think I remember that British Quakers regularly excluded people because they decided not to follow their beliefs on marriage ethics.
OK, so the current Quakers don't like to be defined and therefore allow a wide range of views. It wasn't always like that.
* which isn't any different to any other religious group really, but adds a bit of context to the idea that the Quakers as we see them today were always that way.
[ 29. October 2017, 08:30: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
There are Anglicans who identify as pagan (and witches who say that if only the Roman Catholic Church was really like it's described in Andrew Greeley's novels they'd be Roman Catholic). Individuals shouldn't really be the issue. ...
There may be, but the official position isn't 'that's OK', any more than the official position endorses those that say they don't really believe but like churches to be there for the architecture, the music or a vaguely warm feeling it gives them at Christmas.
The official position is founded in the scriptures, the Historic Creeds, the 39 Articles etc. Those unanimously affirm belief in Jesus Christ as Son of God. We welcome people who say they have difficulty committing themselves to full belief because we hope that they will move towards that rather than away from it.
I'd be a lot more uncomfortable though about a person who claimed they were CofE but was secretly nipping off to perform sacrifices in the nude on some blasted heath at the new moon.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
But the problem is that definitions of "orthodoxy" are usually defined and maintained by churches who then conform to them.
One could argue that a church that embraces those who believe women should not be in a place of leadership, and explicitly discriminates against homosexuals is not Christian, becasue Jesus message was all for the minorities, for the oppressed.
Which would exclude the CofE. It is all about interpretation.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But the problem is that definitions of "orthodoxy" are usually defined and maintained by churches who then conform to them.
One could argue that a church that embraces those who believe women should not be in a place of leadership, and explicitly discriminates against homosexuals is not Christian, becasue Jesus message was all for the minorities, for the oppressed.
Which would exclude the CofE. It is all about interpretation.
Explain to me why you would want to be with a group (say Churches Together) which doesn't recognise you as a Christian church.
What's the big deal? If you don't have a creed, don't believe in the idea of a creed - why do you then care whether other people put you in a box. Feck 'em.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
The issues of Quakers excluding people for fighting in wars or marrying out is really old history. The idea of doing so is now considered not Quakerly by most Meetings. And yes, I know people who are not Friends but who have heard of an exception may well respond with an anecdote. However, from the inside, I can say that it isn't what might be considered right ordering.
And it is not accurate to say "Quakers believe" when there is such a large pool of beliefs among Friends. We have ways of doing things but even those are more like common traditions than beliefs.
It's sometimes hard to see the internal logic of a group one does not belong to. And it's even harder to explain that internal logic if there isn't a shared pov. I think the best way to learn about Friends is to attend Meeting for Worship (more than once) and also experience the life of the Meeting in other ways. But, unfortunately, that's a big ethnographic commitment.
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Oops. Fell into some Quaker lingo in my last post. "Right ordering" generally refers to things that reflect our traditional practices.
sabine
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
But the problem is that definitions of "orthodoxy" are usually defined and maintained by churches who then conform to them.
One could argue that a church that embraces those who believe women should not be in a place of leadership, and explicitly discriminates against homosexuals is not Christian, becasue Jesus message was all for the minorities, for the oppressed.
Which would exclude the CofE. It is all about interpretation.
Explain to me why you would want to be with a group (say Churches Together) which doesn't recognise you as a Christian church.
What's the big deal? If you don't have a creed, don't believe in the idea of a creed - why do you then care whether other people put you in a box. Feck 'em.
The membership of CTE has grown from about sixteen when it started to forty three today. Churches and denominations obviously like to join. It’s not a love of being in a box but of connection and dialogue with others.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
The CTE basis of faith starts, “Churches Together in England unites in pilgrimage those Churches in England which, acknowledging God’s revelation in Christ, confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the Scriptures, and, in obedience to God’s will and in the power of the Holy Spirit commit themselves ...”
However I notice that it now also includes the phrases: “All CTE Member Churches accept this Basis though an exception is made for 'any Church or Association of Churches which on principle has no credal statements in its tradition and therefore cannot formally subscribe to the statement of faith in the Basis provided it satisfies 75% in number of those full members which subscribe to the Basis that it manifests faith in Christ as witnessed to in the Scriptures and it is committed to the aims and purposes of Churches Together in England and that it will work in the spirit of the Basis'. The Religious Society of Friends is a member of CTE under this clause”.
Make of that what you will!
[ 29. October 2017, 13:28: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
Re Sabine's comment umpteen posts back that quote:
You might send your Nordic students to the Swedish Quaker website...
Finns don't necessarily read Swedish comfortably – though I note that the website has pages in English as well. I've stayed at Svartbacken myself. But to put my own comment in context, I was trying to explain the Reformation to (predominantly) post-Lutheran Nordics.
The historical dimension is surely extremely important here. There seems to have been a really major shift in cultural behaviour, as opposed to fundamental principles, in (British) Quakerism ... I'm guessing, 2nd-half C19-early C20? ... away from behaving and being perceived as a dissident sect to behaving and being perceived as very well-meaning if somewhat eccentric. Friends on the thread, does that seem moderately fair?
Posted by keibat (# 5287) on
:
PS: I went back to the Swedish website and – sadly – the page in English only explains something about the history of Friends in Sweden; the Swedish page 'Vilka vi är' [What we are] has not been translated.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think hatless sort of has my point. I don't really give a crap about a group that doesn't want me or doesn't acknowledge me as a Christian.
But I think to exclude the group that I am part of means that my broad approach to faith is being excluded. It means that Quaker Christians are being rejected, and our approach to faith is being dismissed. Dismiss me if you want, but do it after talking to me, not by excluding my view.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
Quakers made a strong contribution to some of the more socially conscious forms of industrial development, such as the Cadburys in Bournville, and the Rowntrees in York. Elizabeth Fry is noted for prison reform, and Quakers’ commitment to forms of pacifism is impressive. Eddington the physicist is worth a mention. The Retreat, pioneering psychiatric hospital in York deserves a mention. Donald Swann can maybe counterbalance Tricky Dickie.
And then there are the extraordinary, perhaps exaggerated, stories about George Fox.
There is a Quaker style or way which we would be much poorer without.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Don't forget abolitionist John Woolman in the US. Thru his efforts, slavery was abolished among Quakers in the US 100 yrs before the Civil War. The Quakers were also the only group that repaid their freed slaves for their stolen labor
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Nobel Peace Prize 1947, American Friends Service Committee.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
1. I think hatless sort of has my point. I don't really give a crap about a group that doesn't want me or doesn't acknowledge me as a Christian.
2. But I think to exclude the group that I am part of means that my broad approach to faith is being excluded. It means that Quaker Christians are being rejected, and our approach to faith is being dismissed. Dismiss me if you want, but do it after talking to me, not by excluding my view.
I can see what you are saying and have sympathy with your views. It doesn't run, though, for me - as I don't recognise the Quaker groups I know/have known in your description. It will reflect my own prejudices of course but there is evidence on which my opinions are based and interpreted in the light of direct experience.
1. I can't see that Quakers are excluded on a "don't want you" basis. Being really picky, any group can self exclude if they don't belong in the sense of accepting the core principles. On a national level 75% of Quakers may accept the central part of CTE's constitution - the revelation of Christ as unique saviour - but I have two issues here:
- the 75% is reflected in an historical position. Many have moved since in all denominations
- that may be true nationally but locally that isn't the case from the evidence on the ground. That's not just here but every locality I've been part of interchurch working.
In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. A place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
2. Exclusion does not mean that that approach to faith is not being rejected. At the very worst end it means that the group self excludes or is not prepared to work within a jointly agreed framework.
At best (and this is the usual case), there is dialogue and listening but the accommodation required to find common ground in a specific location is just too great for the wider body to accept. It's not the approach but the belief: Quaker faith and practice demonstrates that there is a creedal system, even if it is not acknowledged and even if it says "we have no creeds".
An example: a CTE group reviews its constitution. 95% of churches and members agree to the changes. The Quakers refuse/reject on the basis of being non creedal and of the implied uniqueness of Christ in salvation: either the Quakers are excluded in a new group or we stay as we are and accept that the reservations on creeds hold the day. Answer please?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Quakers made a strong contribution to some of the more socially conscious forms of industrial development, such as the Cadburys in Bournville, and the Rowntrees in York. Elizabeth Fry is noted for prison reform, and Quakers’ commitment to forms of pacifism is impressive. Eddington the physicist is worth a mention. The Retreat, pioneering psychiatric hospital in York deserves a mention. Donald Swann can maybe counterbalance Tricky Dickie.
And then there are the extraordinary, perhaps exaggerated, stories about George Fox.
There is a Quaker style or way which we would be much poorer without.
They made. I'd argue the Quaker style you mention here is no longer unique to them
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
1.I suppose I see it that the Quaker Way can largely be seen as the expression of a Christian faith.
2, I can totally understnad why people would not want to identify as Christian, but actual behave and act in ways that are in accordance with a Chrsitian faith.
1. It's a personal view and will not be supported nor shared by others. It may not be "the" expression but it can be "an" expression of the Christian faith. "The" implies a level of uniqueness many Quakers would reject in any other context.
2. I know lots of people like that. They do good things, help others and are nice people. Should we include them in decision making where faith is involved?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
Christians Together is so.. painful. Why does everyone need everyone else's permission to do something? Do it or don't do it. Why is there a need for unanimous affirmation of the idea?
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At best (and this is the usual case), there is dialogue and listening but the accommodation required to find common ground in a specific location is just too great for the wider body to accept. ... An example: a CTE group reviews its constitution. ... either the Quakers are excluded in a new group or we stay as we are and accept that the reservations on creeds hold the day.
I had an experience fairly recently of a Churches Together group planning the best use of their tent at a County Show. While most agreed that this would be a good opportunity for the churches to mount displays on "what Christians believe" and engage in low-key evangelism, the idea was effectively scuppered by the Friend on the committee who argued that (a) a clear explanation of the Christian faith could offend people of other faiths who might come in and (b) it is an un-Quaker thing to "advertise" (the onus is on people to "enquire") and therefore we should not engage in anything that looks like promotion.
I understand that the Friend concerned is held in high esteem within the Society; certainly her objections effectively "held the group to ransom" in its desire to accommodate her views.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I'm very sorry to hear of these anecdotes of Friends behaving badly. I'm sure that never happens among the members of other faiths.
Seriously, though, I am sorry that shipmates have had unfortunate experiences with Friends. If I were part of the Meetings whose behavior has been described here, I would have advocated for different approaches, and I know many Friends who would agree with me. I'm sorry we can't be on hand to offer a more "friendly" interaction.
The "let's not advertise" is really a misunderstanding of let's not proselytize, and even then, many Friends are happy to invite others to seek and engage. My iwn Meeting recently was part of a city-wide outreach called "Festival if Faiths."
And, alas, more than one congregation from more than one denomination falls prey to the allure of helping those afar (e.g. supporting a village in Nepal) while not seeing the need just down the street.
I wish those on this thread whive have bad experiences veith Friends could have the opportunity to get to know the wider world of Friends. It might help to put the behavior you've witnessed in perspective.
Anyway, my apologies for Friends who have wronged you.
sabine
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm not sure that this is an example of Quakers "wronging" others - but it seems a strange set of a affairs when a belief of a minority regarding proselytising is enough to stop everyone else.
Quakers are entitled to believe whatever they want. But why should everyone else have to conform? I don't understand.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
In this case the lady concerned was quite strong in asserting her views, so we acceded to her for the sake of unity. It wasn't a case of "being wronged", rather an example of what can happen in any group decision if one person holds strong views. But it did make decision-making difficult.
On a positive note, one local Meeting of Friends decided that it wanted to know more about different faiths, and held a number of meetings each with representatives from a faith community. We, as a church, were invited to present Christianity; about a dozen of us went and we had a robust but friendly exchange of views which highlighted both our common ground and our differences - it was a good evening.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
I wish those on this thread whive have bad experiences veith Friends could have the opportunity to get to know the wider world of Friends. It might help to put the behavior you've witnessed in perspective.
Sadly my experience is pretty wide - from rural areas, to market towns and big cities there's no discernible difference in the Quaker approach.
Yes other churches - including my own - aren't whiter than white but at least I can (and do) try to influence those I can. No one seems able to shift a Quaker opinion once set. I tend to find too that they don't welcome the dialogue going beyond a certain point either.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I'm not sure that this is an example of Quakers "wronging" others - but it seems a strange set of a affairs when a belief of a minority regarding proselytising is enough to stop everyone else.
Quakers are entitled to believe whatever they want. But why should everyone else have to conform? I don't understand.
I'd say that your last paragraph sums up why the Quaker in question wronged others. She wanted - and achieved - a position where everyone conformed to her will and beliefs (you can't extricate will and beliefs).
The particular incident (which incidentally mirrors my own experience), suggests a widely held reservation about proselytising. Where does that fit with the gospel, notably the Great Commission? If Quakers won't go and proclaim Christ, they how can they claim to be Christian without some pretty smart spiritual gymnastics? Why the concern anyway? Other liberal denominations seem to cope ok with this
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
At best (and this is the usual case), there is dialogue and listening but the accommodation required to find common ground in a specific location is just too great for the wider body to accept. ... An example: a CTE group reviews its constitution. ... either the Quakers are excluded in a new group or we stay as we are and accept that the reservations on creeds hold the day.
I had an experience fairly recently of a Churches Together group planning the best use of their tent at a County Show. While most agreed that this would be a good opportunity for the churches to mount displays on "what Christians believe" and engage in low-key evangelism, the idea was effectively scuppered by the Friend on the committee who argued that (a) a clear explanation of the Christian faith could offend people of other faiths who might come in and (b) it is an un-Quaker thing to "advertise" (the onus is on people to "enquire") and therefore we should not engage in anything that looks like promotion.
I understand that the Friend concerned is held in high esteem within the Society; certainly her objections effectively "held the group to ransom" in its desire to accommodate her views.
BT that's exactly my experience in more places that just here. I find too that in group dynamics that Quakers tend to dominate to het their "point" across and tend now to be amenable to dialogue or correction.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The particular incident (which incidentally mirrors my own experience), suggests a widely held reservation about proselytising. Where does that fit with the gospel, notably the Great Commission? If Quakers won't go and proclaim Christ, they how can they claim to be Christian without some pretty smart spiritual gymnastics? Why the concern anyway? Other liberal denominations seem to cope ok with this
I don't think the idea of not-proselytising is particularly unique to Quakers. So that seems to me to be nonsense.
But more importantly perhaps, what if the Quaker had objected to some statement about the deity - because they happened to be a non-deist Quaker? Would that have meant that the Christians Together group couldn't have agreed on the question of whether there was a deity?
Pointless. This whole exercise is ridiculous.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Christians Together is so.. painful. Why does everyone need everyone else's permission to do something? Do it or don't do it. Why is there a need for unanimous affirmation of the idea?
Yep I agree - trouble is that it isn't always easy to plough one's own furrow (so to speak) without accusations of exclusivity and, having historical connections in CT groups can be a pain too. What has been done tends to determine what will be done/allowed.
We always need the support, advice and correction of others but that is hopeless if it's all strangled at source (which I have encountered on a regular basis). Of course, there's never open disputes just a passive aggressive lack of engagement. Everybody ends up doing their own thing (often the same kind of thing) which would be so much better with pooled talent and resources.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... what if the Quaker had objected to some statement about the deity - because they happened to be a non-deist Quaker?
Pointless. This whole exercise is ridiculous.
If that was the case what on earth is that person doing in planning Christian outreach? As you say, pointless.
Mind you, catch me saying that in a CT context and watch the boots go in. The Quakers are such nice people, I've been told!
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yep I agree - trouble is that it isn't always easy to plough one's own furrow (so to speak) without accusations of exclusivity and, having historical connections in CT groups can be a pain too. What has been done tends to determine what will be done/allowed.
I dunno, there are plenty of churches that do things outside of CT. It just seems like a whole lot of talk about nothing very much at all.
quote:
We always need the support, advice and correction of others but that is hopeless if it's all strangled at source (which I have encountered on a regular basis). Of course, there's never open disputes just a passive aggressive lack of engagement. Everybody ends up doing their own thing (often the same kind of thing) which would be so much better with pooled talent and resources.
It isn't possible to be corrected if one doesn't accept the theological position of the person giving correction.
[ 30. October 2017, 14:44: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
It isn't possible to be corrected if one doesn't accept the theological position of the person giving correction.
I disagree Mr C. I may not accept their position but I receive their wisdom. Mind you, it does depend on what it is.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Yep I agree - trouble is that it isn't always easy to plough one's own furrow (so to speak) without accusations of exclusivity and, having historical connections in CT groups can be a pain too. What has been done tends to determine what will be done/allowed.
I dunno, there are plenty of churches that do things outside of CT. It just seems like a whole lot of talk about nothing very much at all.
Yes there are but it's not so helpful being shot by your own side -- as I say if it comes face to face then that's fine: it's the insidious back stabbing and rumour that slowly suffocates initiative
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Nobel Peace Prize 1947, American Friends Service Committee.
Christmas Bombings 1972, no Nobel Prize for the Quaker in charge.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
ExclamationMark, when I said "wider world of Quakers" I was referring to those outside of the UK. But I have no knowledge of how wide your experience is. What I can surmise is that you and others on this thread have run into some very hidebound Friends. Any Friend or group of Friends who insists on a larger (possibly ecumenical) group doing things their way or not at all is failing Quaker norms in at least two ways:. 1) it is de-facto proselytizing, and 2) it is not done in the spirit of consensus building. I'm really sorry that's been your experience.
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do. The fact that most Quakers in the world live in countries other than England where we got our start and most of these Friends identify as Christian couldn't have happened, really, without some proclaiming going on.
Whenever a thread that mentions Quakers comes along, the list of grievances also come along. I'm saddened by this because I feel that perhaps some of my fellow travelers in the Quaker way are not reflecting more carefully on our Testimonies. There is also a possibility that our way of doing things is hard to fit into the definitions of religious expression that many grow up with.
Unfortunately, there just aren't enough Friends on the Ship to mitigate the bad experiences some have had. Again, this makes me sad.
sabine
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Interestingly, in the meeting between our church and the local Friends (which I mentioned upthread), the Friends pointed out that, in some ways, British Quakers are atypical of the movement worldwide. But I can't remember what they said the differences are - clearly not the peace testimony, with which I strongly agree. So I suspect that the obviously similar experiences had by myself and EM may be markedly different from yours, Sabine.
[ 30. October 2017, 15:42: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Baptist Trainfan, I'm posting on my phone from an airport concourse, so I can't properly address your comment. If you have questions, pmm me and I'll try to answer later.
sabine
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Thanks ... nothing really to say! Have a good trip!
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Is manipulating a meeting to get your own way living the gospel?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Is manipulating a meeting to get your own way living the gospel?
I wish all our faith traditions could say that the most egregious behavior any of our members ever engaged in was a bit of bullying in an ecumenical effort. Seriously, I'm an American evangelical-- that behavior wouldn't even register on my "walk of shame/embarrassed to be seen with him/her" scale.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.[/qb]
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Is manipulating a meeting to get your own way living the gospel?
Of course not. Obviously you've had a bad experience, and perhaps only an apology from those who behaved badly can take seay the bitter after taste.
But you've brought this issue up on more than one occasion over more than one thread about Quakers.
I wonder what you hope to achieve?
Do you think your experience is typical of ALL Quakers? If so, I'd say you don't have a big enough sample group to make that implication.
Do you believe that if some Quakers don't act perfectly they are all to be held in suspicion? Hmm, is there a faith group anywhere that meets this standard.
You've described issues with Friends that no one would want to have to deal with on a continuing basis. Your frustration is obvious. I wish I had the means to offer you an alternative way to think about Friends. Ive tried on this thread. I apologise for the behavior of the Friends who have made it so hard to work with them.
sabine
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
On a practical level, Churches Together's website states that relationships should come ahead of formal membership.
IOW, any group - perhaps even a humanist or a liberal Jewish group - could be admitted into membership if it develops a very good relationship with the churches that are already members.
If we extend this principle, I imagine that a group of Quakers would be 'welcomed' as brothers and sisters in Christ not so much because their theology tells them they are, but because they've already developed a good relationship with whichever more 'official' group of Christians they want to be in fellowship with.
I imagine this kinds of fellowship is most likely to occur at a local rather than a denominational level. After all, there's so much diversity within denominations now. In some communities the local Quakers could work together in Christian love with the local Anglicans. In others, there'd be mutual incomprehension, I'm sure.
Out of interest, are there any warm ecumenical connections in Britain between Quakers and, say, Pentecostals?
[ 30. October 2017, 22:27: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]
Posted by leo (# 1458) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Is manipulating a meeting to get your own way living the gospel?
I was thinking of those Quakers who work for peace
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
The thing I don't understand is this: if you are a Quaker from a meeting where the majority do not see themselves as Christian, wouldn't you want your representative on a CT group to agitate against proselytising?
I mean - if for some reason the CT group was to sponsor some event which somehow justified war, wouldn't the Quakers want to stop it?
Rather than this being an example of "bad" Quaker behaviour, isn't this just a reasonable action by the Quakers (or in fact anyone else who is part of CT who finds the group going in a wrong direction)?
Isn't this a feature of Quakerism rather than a problem of bad behaviour? If not, why not?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
My own experience and encounters with Quakers have largely been positive, but I can understand how they could irritate the pants off people who didn't see eye to eye with them on various issues.
I don't feel I could ever be a Quaker but I've always felt enriched after spending time with them. I could cite some aspects that could be construed as negative, but then that equally applies to everyone else.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
The thing I don't understand is this: if you are a Quaker from a meeting where the majority do not see themselves as Christian, wouldn't you want your representative on a CT group to agitate against proselytising?
I mean - if for some reason the CT group was to sponsor some event which somehow justified war, wouldn't the Quakers want to stop it?
Rather than this being an example of "bad" Quaker behaviour, isn't this just a reasonable action by the Quakers (or in fact anyone else who is part of CT who finds the group going in a wrong direction)?
Isn't this a feature of Quakerism rather than a problem of bad behaviour? If not, why not?
There is what you want to accomplish and how you wish to accomplish it. Friends have tradionally affirmed a core value of consensus building. My way or the highway behavior is not in the spirit if that.
Now Friends are not obligated to embrace that core value, but most do, and when presented with a situation in which one is the lone voice in opposition, Friends have a tradition of "stepping aside" (often accompanied by a non-confrontational statement about their objections).
Clearly, I don't have a personal experience with the Friends mentioned on this thread who want others to adopt a no prosletyzing set of behaviors, but over here it would be considered bad form.
As for our peace testimony-- yes, we do actively try to promote peace and peaceful solutions, often as social activists. But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.
Anyway, YMMV with any Friend. We tend to rely on our inner guide and relationship with the Divine to give us inspiration. Some Friends are better at this than others.
sabine
[ 31. October 2017, 18:41: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Missed edit window but want to add. Certain things, like not prosletyzing, are typically considered things we don't do, not things we want to impose on the world. That's why I found the behavior described not "Friendly."
It would be out of character to ask other faiths to sit in silence at worship or not take a vote for church business or stop baptizing, etc. Not prosletyzing falls into this category.
Most if us would, however, like to see a peaceful, greener, and more equitable world, and some of us lift our voices to that end.
sabine
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thing is, I've seen the opposite of the sort of thing Exclamation Mark describes.
I've seen liberal and moderately evangelical Christians brow-beaten by forceful charismatic evangelicals into accepting a full-on (and to my mind highly crass) proselytising approach at an annual city centre united service of witness.
A wonderful URC minister I know had the unenviable task of mollifying the mayor and other civic dignataries afterwards as they were appalled at the emotional pressure and hype. She did a brilliant job.
I can understand how and why EM took exception to the forceful Friend's behaviour on the occasion he mentioned, but surely there was nothing to stop the evangelical churches in that town from evangelising with or without the 'say-so'of Churches Together.
Surely evangelicals don't need permission from CTE or anyone else to conduct mission?
Sure, I can see that a collective CTE response would have been the preferred outcome but my guess would be that the initiative would have foundered any way as the liberals and evangelicals wouldn't have been able to sustain concerted action for very long anyway given their differences in approach and theology.
I don't doubt that forceful Friends can and do foil the best laid plans of mice and men.
But at the same time, I've seen instances of evangelicals steam-rolling things through to get their own way, sometimes with egregious results.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
1. Thing is, I've seen the opposite of the sort of thing Exclamation Mark describes.
2. Surely evangelicals don't need permission from CTE or anyone else to conduct mission?
Sure, I can see that a collective CTE response would have been the preferred outcome but my guess would be that the initiative would have foundered any way as the liberals and evangelicals wouldn't have been able to sustain concerted action for very long anyway given their differences in approach and theology.
3. I don't doubt that forceful Friends can and do foil the best laid plans of mice and men.But at the same time, I've seen instances of evangelicals steam-rolling things through to get their own way, sometimes with egregious results.
1. Yes so have I and have called it on the occasions I've encountered it (including yesterday FWIW). I wouldn't dispute that any church is whiter than white on this even within its own ranks (especially there perhaps) but we are talking about experiences of Quakers.
Being an activist (that's my problem) I get frustrated by endless dialogue that goes nowhere. I find CTE's awful for that almost as bad as some Baptist meetings.
2. No they don't but if the aim is that "they might be one" it's really helpful and supportive to have the backing of as many people as possible. If you don't, what you then get is usually gossip and backbiting from your own community. It doesn't tend to add authenticity esp if the voices in question punch above their own weight in broader civic circles.
3. Absolutely but that why we need well moderated dialogue and decisions made by people who have a common spiritual understanding. That's not meant to inhibit or prevent debate, it's just a view that decisions of importance affecting the work of the church are made by those committed to the core principles of the faith.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
OK but if it is obvious that an integral part of your Christians Together group does not agree about proslytising, then why are you trying to make it about that?
You have a choice: ignore the CT altogether, find things to do that you can agree on or exclude the Quakers.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
1. Certain things, like not prosletyzing, are typically considered things we don't do, not things we want to impose on the world. That's why I found the behavior described not "Friendly."
It would be out of character to ask other faiths to sit in silence at worship or not take a vote for church business or stop baptizing, etc. Not prosletyzing falls into this category.
2. Most if us would, however, like to see a peaceful, greener, and more equitable world, and some of us lift our voices to that end.sabine
1. I accept your very kind apology on behalf of others. Sadly my (and others') experience with working with Quakers in the UK is that all of these behaviours (with the exception of baptism) have been widely pursued. I really do admire Quakers for their attitude to Peace and Justice but it seems somehow to stop when it comes to local issues where they can have a direct influence
2. That's the call of every believer as it reflects God's intention of harmony. I work with nature where I can on my allotment garden and try to impact the planet as little as possible with my lifestyle. I am not alone in Christian circles.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but if it is obvious that an integral part of your Christians Together group does not agree about proslytising, then why are you trying to make it about that?
You have a choice: ignore the CT altogether, find things to do that you can agree on or exclude the Quakers.
Because its central to Christian faith. I have come to a point where I (and like minded others) do now walk alone. I'd rather not but in order to do anything it's necessary in this neck of the woods to work with like minded people or it gets repressed.
It draws a line I know but there it is. I'd argue that those who won't support even gentle outreach draw a line of their own.
At to excluding Quakers why would I want to provide the ammunition for cries of "Pesecution?"
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.sabine
That's a very interesting statement. It amounts to a declaration of a creed which Quakers claim not to have!
Sadly your approach (like any) can result in or exacerbate strife
[ 01. November 2017, 07:09: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Because its central to Christian faith.
No it isn't. It might be central to the way that you understand the Christian faith, but there are plenty of Christian groups who don't proslytise.
quote:
I have come to a point where I (and like minded others) do now walk alone.
Oh no! You're offended because a group which is clear about something is actually standing up for something they believe in.
quote:
I'd rather not but in order to do anything it's necessary in this neck of the woods to work with like minded people or it gets repressed.
Just do it already.
quote:
It draws a line I know but there it is. I'd argue that those who won't support even gentle outreach draw a line of their own.
Yes. I can see your point, but you also seem to be expecting Quakers to not be Quakers.
quote:
At to excluding Quakers why would I want to provide the ammunition for cries of "Pesecution?"
I thought you'd already raised the question of whether Quakers should be in Christians Together and were making the case that they shouldn't be because they're not Christians.
It seems to me that you're just having a moan.
There are plenty of Christians who do things outside of CT all the time. Loads. If you want I can point you to a whole load of Christians who organise themselves because they have a theological problem with the idea of ecumenicalism. Some are dead against the idea of working with Roman Catholics, some refuse to work with Charismatics, some probably have issues with being in the same room as "the gayz".
If you look hard enough, I'm sure you'll find others who think the same as you do on proslytising.
Posted by hatless (# 3365) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
OK but if it is obvious that an integral part of your Christians Together group does not agree about proslytising, then why are you trying to make it about that?
You have a choice: ignore the CT altogether, find things to do that you can agree on or exclude the Quakers.
Because its central to Christian faith. I have come to a point where I (and like minded others) do now walk alone. I'd rather not but in order to do anything it's necessary in this neck of the woods to work with like minded people or it gets repressed.
It draws a line I know but there it is. I'd argue that those who won't support even gentle outreach draw a line of their own.
At to excluding Quakers why would I want to provide the ammunition for cries of "Pesecution?"
That’s the second or third time you’ve talked about people excluding themselves, although your wider comments talk about you going it alone, or being unable to get your own way if you seek agreement. Perhaps there are different ways of characterising these disagreements?
Churches Together groups are more often sunk by disagreements over women in leadership, LGBT matters, or one church refusing to accept that another is truly Christian. Orthodox churches and many RCs, though, will be as likely as the Quakers to have objections to some evangelistic campaigns.
The belief that it’s all about mission, meaning evangelism, or as you put it, that proselytising is central, is not where everyone is at, and it brings a rigid agenda to the table. But I do recognise that for many churches evangelism really is what they believe they are for, and that this is therefore hard to compromise or have a discussion about.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
As for proclaiming the gospel, many Friends do.
More to the point, they LIVE the Gospel
Is manipulating a meeting to get your own way living the gospel?
I was thinking of those Quakers who work for peace
If you live for peace how do you square that with the turmoil you cause elsewhere?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you live for peace how do you square that with the turmoil you cause elsewhere?
Point of Order Mr Speaker: Leo is not a Quaker.
Also - this is one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Churches Together groups are more often sunk by disagreements over women in leadership, LGBT matters, or one church refusing to accept that another is truly Christian. Orthodox churches and many RCs, though, will be as likely as the Quakers to have objections to some evangelistic campaigns.
The belief that it’s all about mission, meaning evangelism, or as you put it, that proselytising is central, is not where everyone is at, and it brings a rigid agenda to the table.
This is interesting. I didn't realise that evangelical churches were causing so much havoc in CT groups. It must be due to a shift in the balance of power.
It should be obvious though that if some churches refuse to evangelise, those that do will inevitably become stronger and more influential.
That being said, as a mainstream ecumenical organisation I can't see how CT can be a suitable forum for really strict churches with their own agenda. CT's focus, to judge from its website, is social justice, not female clergy or evangelism, etc.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.sabine
That's a very interesting statement. It amounts to a declaration of a creed which Quakers claim not to have!
Sadly your approach (like any) can result in or exacerbate strife
It's a paraphrase of something George Fox said. Friends are free to interpret it individually (if at all). In the spirit of that George Fox statement, I'm not going to debate with you about how you wish to define it.
Peace, sabine
[ 01. November 2017, 12:06: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I can see what you're getting at and where you are coming from, EM but it'd be a bit like joining an ecumenical group and then expressing concern that not all the members are evangelicals.
Or an RC or an Orthodox Christian joining an ecumenical group only to complain that the rest of the group didn't have the same view of the sacraments or ecclesiology as they do.
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.sabine
That's a very interesting statement. It amounts to a declaration of a creed which Quakers claim not to have!
Sadly your approach (like any) can result in or exacerbate strife
It's a paraphrase of something George Fox said. Friends are free to interpret it individually (if at all). In the spirit of that George Fox statement, I'm not going to debate with you about how you wish to define it.
Peace, sabine
Aha! Avoiding dialogue!
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
If you live for peace how do you square that with the turmoil you cause elsewhere?
Point of Order Mr Speaker: Leo is not a Quaker.
Also - this is one of those "when did you stop beating your wife" questions.
Apologies. If a Quaker lives for peace how do you square that with the turmoil you cause elsewhere?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by hatless:
Churches Together groups are more often sunk by disagreements over women in leadership, LGBT matters, or one church refusing to accept that another is truly Christian. Orthodox churches and many RCs, though, will be as likely as the Quakers to have objections to some evangelistic campaigns.
IME CTE groups sink mostly because they cannot work within their terms of reference. CTE aren't there to make decision over matters like women in leadership, LGBT matters etc
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Here's a couple
1. In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. They talked it out at a CTE meeting demanding that consensus be accommodated
2. In a place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
I can add more -- but of course other groups behave in similar ways
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.sabine
That's a very interesting statement. It amounts to a declaration of a creed which Quakers claim not to have!
Sadly your approach (like any) can result in or exacerbate strife
It's a paraphrase of something George Fox said. Friends are free to interpret it individually (if at all). In the spirit of that George Fox statement, I'm not going to debate with you about how you wish to define it.
Peace, sabine
Aha! Avoiding dialogue!
This feels like a bait and pounce, not an invitation to dialogue.
You and I have been through this on other threads, and your mind does not seem to have changed when it comes to your assertion that Quakers have creeds.
My participation on this thread certainly indicates an ability to engage in dialogue, but I don't see the point in going round and round with you again.
I can live in a world where you believe Friends have creeds. You have an opinion, and that's fine. I don't need to rehash a former debate.
sabine
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Here's a couple
1. In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. They talked it out at a CTE meeting demanding that consensus be accommodated
2. In a place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
I can add more -- but of course other groups behave in similar ways
Forgive me, but this is still vague. What outreach events were being proposed? What was the Quaker position from which they wanted concensus? What initiatives on the doorstep was everyone else proposing? I'm trying to get a picture and currently don't grasp it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
At the risk of a tangent, I'd have thought that it's a reasonable expectation that a CTE group would find common cause on issues of social justice.
On evangelism and evangelisation less so.
Had there been some initiative on that bottom 10% of the indicators housing estate that involved something that went beyond thrusting tracts at people, then perhaps the Quakers and others might have been better disposed to support it.
It seems a bit rich to accuse them of supporting things abroad and not in their own backyard when what they were being asked to support may have been misunderstood from their perspective.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
That's why I'm probing for details.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sure, Karl, I get that.
From what I know of EM from the Ship I'm sure he takes a nuanced and holistic approach to these things, but not all evangelicals do, if course.
How would the Quakers or anyone else involved with the CTE know that the outreach initiative wasn't going to be kind of tub-thumping revivalist effort that was all about saving people's souls but doing diddly-squat about the systems, structures and multifaceted factors that led to that town having areas that had such high levels of deprivation in the first place?
Heck, back in the day, long before The Eden Project made this sort of thing fashionable, I moved onto a deprived housing estate in some kind of noble, if rather misguided effort, to evangelise. We did have some impact, later on and elsewhere in an unplanned kind of way, but looking back had Quakers, liberal Christians and whoever else come along and advised us to do things differently, we'd have been wiser had we listened to them.
I'm sure EM and his colleagues would have been wiser than we were, mind.
I can certainly understand where EM is coming from but at the same time I'd be surprised if it was simply a case of Quakers putting the kibbosh on evangelism simply because they don't hold proselytising... although I'm sure that was a big factor.
Now, if someone had started some kind of outreach activity already which took a multi-agency approach with various strands of support services, community cohesion activities and so on and then invited the CTE group to get involved, I wouldn't be surprised if the outcome would have been different.
As it was, what were they presented with?
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
1. This feels like a bait and pounce, not an invitation to dialogue.
2. You and I have been through this on other threads, and your mind does not seem to have changed when it comes to your assertion that Quakers have creeds.
3. My participation on this thread certainly indicates an ability to engage in dialogue, but I don't see the point in going round and round with you again.
I can live in a world where you believe Friends have creeds. You have an opinion, and that's fine. I don't need to rehash a former debate.
sabine
1. I've probed what to me was the clear inconsistency in some of the statements you've made. There is no intentionality to bait, only to delve deeper.
2. You're right. Neither my mind nor my opinions have changed but I am open to them being changed
3. What I feel is that you are able but unwilling to engage. You may well be right that it is ultimately pointless as we both have what we believe to be the "correct" take on the issues we've covered.
However I do have a more nuanced view now as a result, to help me understand why Quakers may approach things in the way they do.
[ 02. November 2017, 06:44: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's why I'm probing for details.
Thanks Karl.
I'm happy to PM the particular instances if you like, as to detail them here would publicly identify places and people.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can certainly understand where EM is coming from but at the same time I'd be surprised if it was simply a case of Quakers putting the kibbosh on evangelism simply because they don't hold proselytising... although I'm sure that was a big factor.
What I have noticed in Ecumenical contexts is that the group tends to defer to the Quakers much more than they defer to some other groups. To put it bluntly, they seem to lean over backwards to accommodate the Quaker position more than they will to (say) accommodate the Methodist or Baptist position. Equally I feel that the Friends in this sort of context can be just as intransigent on some issues (which is their right, of course) as (say) some Evangelicals are on others - they just express themselves much more quietly.
Now this may be my personal perception and it may not be true everywhere ... but am I "on to something" here or barking up a very wrong tree?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Now this may be my personal perception and it may not be true everywhere ... but am I "on to something" here or barking up a very wrong tree?
A long time ago, I was at a discussion group at university. The group included various people from different Christian denominations and various chaplains, including someone from the Quakers.
I don't remember what the discussion was about, but I do remember clearly that there was fundamental disagreement on the topic, the Quaker guy would wait until there was a lull and say something like "well, Quakers do this.."
Which at the time seemed incredibly unhelpful, it wasn't really addressing the question and wasn't even really giving a personal view or explaining reasoning.
I got the feeling that the Quaker process was more important to this guy at least than the solution/destination - which was frustrating when most of the rest of us were trying to battle it out in debate.
Just an anecdote, of course.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Tangent alert
I was told earlier this week that the true term which distinguishes the 'real' and faithful to Fox Quakers from the rest is not "Inner Light" but "Inward Light". It is the term he used and is regarded as a shibboleth by those who regard themselves as True Friends. "Inner Light" though is the popular term among Friends of the anything goes sort of spirituality, the sort that EM is grumbling about.
I found that interesting.
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
That's why I'm probing for details.
Thanks Karl.
I'm happy to PM the particular instances if you like, as to detail them here would publicly identify places and people.
Need it? I wasn't after chapter and verse, just trying to establish what sort of "outreach" you were talking about. Standing on a street corner waving a black floppy bible? Putting on street theatre? Having a speaker in a marquee? It's just too vague to know what the objection might be.
Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
But more than that, one of our traditional core values has been to work to eliminate the causes of war and strife.sabine
That's a very interesting statement. It amounts to a declaration of a creed which Quakers claim not to have!
I think it’s a pretty big stretch to call that statement (which sabine terms a “value”) a “creed.” A creed sets forth what beliefs a group holds in common, particularly with regard to doctrine. Beyond the pretty obvious idea that war and strife are undesirable, what is there about belief, particularly the kind of belief typically set forth in a creed or confession, in the statement sabine shared?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Tangent alert
I was told earlier this week that the true term which distinguishes the 'real' and faithful to Fox Quakers from the rest is not "Inner Light" but "Inward Light". It is the term he used and is regarded as a shibboleth by those who regard themselves as True Friends. "Inner Light" though is the popular term among Friends of the anything goes sort of spirituality, the sort that EM is grumbling about.
I found that interesting.
I guess the difference would be that "inward light" implies that its origin is external to you, but "inner light" means that its origin is inside of you? The former would indeed seem more compatible with the idea of an objectively existing God.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
In some ways, I think, there are parallels between dialogue between Western Christians and the Orthodox here, insofar as Western and Eastern Christians can sometimes end up 'talking past each other'.
In a similar way Quakers can probably think they are being helpful whilst everyone else finds them difficult to pin down or understand. Equally, the kind of concepts that evangelicals might be familiar with or which more sacramentally inclined Christians might be familiar with might not cut much ice with the Friends. They'd understand what was being proposed or upheld but it wouldn't necessarily be an 'issue' as far as they were concerned.
I remember a discussion a while ago when I raised the issue of some Anglican 'fellow travellers' who'd begun attending Friends' meetings because they were fed up of the in-fighting over women's ordination and other issues within their own church.
They were then surprised and offended when they weren't admitted to full Quakerhood as it were because they were still receiving communion occasionally in Anglican parishes.
The various Friends here, Sabine included, explained why this was the case and I could understand the logic, but at the same time I could understand the upset and sense of rejection the Anglican women felt at being excluded, as they saw it, because they were persisting in a practice that was dear to them but not to the Friends.
I'm not taking sides on that one, simply punting it out as an example of the kind of dynamic we are talking about here.
It isn't an issue of 'fault' or 'blame' but of a need for a clearer understanding of one another's respective positions.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
However I do have a more nuanced view now as a result, to help me understand why Quakers may approach things in the way they do.
I'm glad about this. I think you may have run into Friends who are treating this issue as if it were a creed. That's disappointing. How one enacts our Testimonies is really a fruit of one's personal relationship with the Divine. It will vary, and it's not a rule or a hammer.
In this specific instance, is the outreach just secular (food, housing, employment)? It there a religious aspect (e.g., must attend a certain kind of worship service before receiving help)?
In my city, we have several faith-based outreach efforts. If the end game is to get people into the church/belief set of the faith organizers, I think Friends would (and do) opt out rather than try to change the nature of the outreach.
But there are also ecumenical groups with which we happily serve, despite our differences. I wish it could be that way for your concern.
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Oops, didn't make myself clear about outreach
EM, I am not saying I think your situation is one of trying to get recipients to believe or join (there isn't enough info to go on) it seems the Friends you mention are holding whatever the group hopes to do hostage to a threshing out of one member-group's pov differences with the rest. That would not go down well in wider Quaker circles (see my"standing aside" comment earlier in this thread).
There is a time and place for trying to form an organization based on common ground. After it is formed is not the mostne effective.
sabine
[ 02. November 2017, 15:11: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
However I notice that it now also includes the phrases: “All CTE Member Churches accept this Basis though an exception is made for 'any Church or Association of Churches which on principle has no credal statements in its tradition and therefore cannot formally subscribe to the statement of faith in the Basis provided it satisfies 75% in number of those full members which subscribe to the Basis that it manifests faith in Christ as witnessed to in the Scriptures and it is committed to the aims and purposes of Churches Together in England and that it will work in the spirit of the Basis'. The Religious Society of Friends is a member of CTE under this clause”.
Make of that what you will!
Good evening Ffriends,what I've been told by a Friend involved in some way in negotiations leading up to the creation of this clause was that it was a fudge that allowed us in, but still kept the Unitarians out.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Welcome to posting on the Ship, fellow Friend!
sabine
[ 02. November 2017, 20:18: Message edited by: sabine ]
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
1. I can't see that Quakers are excluded on a "don't want you" basis. Being really picky, any group can self exclude if they don't belong in the sense of accepting the core principles. On a national level 75% of Quakers may accept the central part of CTE's constitution - the revelation of Christ as unique saviour - but I have two issues here:
- the 75% is reflected in an historical position. Many have moved since in all denominations
- that may be true nationally but locally that isn't the case from the evidence on the ground. Th
The clause refers to 75% of existing CTE members being willing to allow the Society of Friends being allowed to join CTE. It would always have been impossible to ascertain what percentage of Friends would agree with the basic statement of faith of CTE.
[ 02. November 2017, 20:21: Message edited by: Amor ]
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
Welcome to posting on the Ship, fellow Friend!
sabine
Thanks for the welocome, Friend!
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Here's a couple
1. In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. They talked it out at a CTE meeting demanding that consensus be accommodated
2. In a place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
I can add more -- but of course other groups behave in similar ways
I think the problem with "Outreach" for Friends Christocentric or not is related to, for want of a better word, our universalism, the knowledge that God is within everyone. Early Friends called on people not to run after the clergy but to look within themselves to find the light of Christ. There remains a wariness of telling people what to believe, if anything accentuated by the fact that may contemporary Friends have come to Quakerism from other faith groups because they of their disatisfaction with being led and told what to believe
As to working within the broader community Friends individually and Meetings collectively don't shy from local involvement,although this can take different forms. Within my own Meeting which is near a London major prison, a large proportion pf our members are involved in different ways in working with and supporting those incarcerated. I don't know if you would count those in the local gaol as the local community, but its challenging and difficuly work and I'm glad that Friends are doing it.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amor:
I think the problem with "Outreach" for Friends Christocentric or not is related to, for want of a better word, our universalism, the knowledge that God is within everyone, ... (snip) ... if anything accentuated by the fact that many contemporary Friends have come to Quakerism from other faith groups.
Those certainly square up with my experience.
[ 03. November 2017, 06:54: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Amor:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Here's a couple
1. In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. They talked it out at a CTE meeting demanding that consensus be accommodated
2. In a place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
I can add more -- but of course other groups behave in similar ways
I think the problem with "Outreach" for Friends Christocentric or not is related to, for want of a better word, our universalism, the knowledge that God is within everyone. Early Friends called on people not to run after the clergy but to look within themselves to find the light of Christ. There remains a wariness of telling people what to believe, if anything accentuated by the fact that may contemporary Friends have come to Quakerism from other faith groups because they of their disatisfaction with being led and told what to believe
As to working within the broader community Friends individually and Meetings collectively don't shy from local involvement,although this can take different forms. Within my own Meeting which is near a London major prison, a large proportion pf our members are involved in different ways in working with and supporting those incarcerated. I don't know if you would count those in the local gaol as the local community, but its challenging and difficuly work and I'm glad that Friends are doing it.
Outreach is this case wasn't telling people what to believe, it was showing Christ's love.
It's just like your prison ministry which is very laudable. Please tell me, though, why the local Quakers here in this town are exclusively concerned about world issues but wouldn't be part of the Living Wage Coalition (not a church body) on their doorstep, when its proven that over 20% of people in this town live in wage poverty.
I take your point about a number of Quakers moving from other denominations. One of the main protagonist here left another denomination years ago and, to judge from his input into joint meetings (bearing and language), still has anger issues to resolve on that score
I'd also want to suggest - again from experience - that the reasons people leave churches isn't necessarily about being told what to believe. In some cases they want to cast God in their image and so leave to find a forum which is loose enough to accommodate that perspective. The issue with belief is only a cloak, albeit one that they fail to recognise.
A bad church experience (for whatever reason) makes one wary - you'll understand then why evangelicals might have issues with Quaker theology and praxis. The big question for some outsiders is this; how do you know as a Quaker that the light you find when you look within is truly the light of Christ, especially as it is self determining without external references?
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Outreach is this case wasn't telling people what to believe, it was showing Christ's love.
You've still notably not explained exactly what it is that you mean.
quote:
It's just like your prison ministry which is very laudable. Please tell me, though, why the local Quakers here in this town are exclusively concerned about world issues but wouldn't be part of the Living Wage Coalition (not a church body) on their doorstep, when its proven that over 20% of people in this town live in wage poverty.
Once again, you appear to think that the person you are interacting with here has intimate knowledge of the situation you describe. Why would that be the case?
Maybe the local Quakers you mention have other things to occupy their time. Maybe all kinds of things - why are you grilling an Apprentice on something they may have zero knowledge about simply because they're a Quaker?
quote:
I take your point about a number of Quakers moving from other denominations. One of the main protagonist here left another denomination years ago and, to judge from his input into joint meetings (bearing and language), still has anger issues to resolve on that score
Plenty of those kinds of people about in many denominations. I don't think this is really a very fair reflection of your issues with the Quakers.
quote:
I'd also want to suggest - again from experience - that the reasons people leave churches isn't necessarily about being told what to believe. In some cases they want to cast God in their image and so leave to find a forum which is loose enough to accommodate that perspective. The issue with belief is only a cloak, albeit one that they fail to recognise.
Maybe. So what?
quote:
A bad church experience (for whatever reason) makes one wary - you'll understand then why evangelicals might have issues with Quaker theology and praxis. The big question for some outsiders is this; how do you know as a Quaker that the light you find when you look within is truly the light of Christ, especially as it is self determining without external references?
This is self-evidently asking the wrong question.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It's just like your prison ministry which is very laudable. Please tell me, though, why the local Quakers here in this town are exclusively concerned about world issues but wouldn't be part of the Living Wage Coalition (not a church body) on their doorstep, when its proven that over 20% of people in this town live in wage poverty.
Once again, you appear to think that the person you are interacting with here has intimate knowledge of the situation you describe. Why would that be the case?
Maybe the local Quakers you mention have other things to occupy their time. Maybe all kinds of things - why are you grilling an Apprentice on something they may have zero knowledge about simply because they're a Quaker?
Some of EMs responses also seem to imply a sense (incorrect) that Friends have a homogeneity of behavior and belief that we don't, in fact have. Not prosletyzing isn't even a Testimony (just a trend that grew out if our quietist period, which is why I speculate without knowing specifics that these Friends are acting as if it were a Testimony), and even if it were, all Friends interpret things differently. Same for deciding which specific outreach issues will be adopted by a local Meeting. Many Friends help their neighbors at home. The only way to know why the Friends you mention are behaving the way you describe is to ask them, not us.
quote:
A bad church experience (for whatever reason) makes one wary - you'll understand then why evangelicals might have issues with Quaker theology and praxis. The big question for some outsiders is this; how do you know as a Quaker that the light you find when you look within is truly the light of Christ, especially as it is self determining without external references?
How does anyone explain any number of beliefs (spiritual or mundane) to another who doesn't believe? It's very difficult. How does one explain Grace if another person is not inclined to believe in it? How does one explain
intuition?
Some parts of Quaker thinking have to do with authority. One's personal relationship with the Divine informs behavior (in the best of circumstance). The Inner voice is a metaphor to explain spiritual promptings. I have heard people (not Friends) say " God laid it on my heart to do such and such." I accept that this is a valud metaphor for them. Some people say "God told me it would be Ok." I'm not inclined to ask if they actually heard a voice
As well the Inner Light, which I believe all of humanity has. It's a metaphor that Friends can relate to. Some people say we are "children if God," another metaphor.
EM has had a bad experience, and seems to be trying to figure out who these people are and why they are behaving badly. Answers from Friends on the Ship don't seem to satisfy EM who then has more questions. I know it's hard to convey tone in plain text, but it does, at times, feel like a grilling, as Mr. Cheesy pointed out, and as the "Aha!" statement earlier felt.
Learning about an unfamiliar faith is extremely hard when one has an ongoing difficult relationship with people who are part of that faith body. I'm sympathetic to that predicament. But I think the ability for threads on the Ship to assuage EMs residual feelings from this experience are not good, sadly.
EM, I'm very sorry that we can't seem to help out here.
sabine
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Thanks everyone. What you have said has been helpful: I will be able to approach my conversations with Quakers with more understanding and grace.
Posted by Amor (# 18031) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Amor:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
EM - can you point to a post where you describe what these Quakers allegedly did? I'm struggling to know what to think based on what I can glean being a bit vague. Ta.
Here's a couple
1. In one town, Quaker influence directly prevented any joint outreach events taking place. They talked it out at a CTE meeting demanding that consensus be accommodated
2. In a place of great need, in the bottom 10% of deprivation. For all their claims on social justice, the Quakers did nothing at all on their doorstep in the town yet supported causes elsewhere in the world. In the long run that attitude led to a breakdown in inter church relationships.
I can add more -- but of course other groups behave in similar ways
I think the problem with "Outreach" for Friends Christocentric or not is related to, for want of a better word, our universalism, the knowledge that God is within everyone. Early Friends called on people not to run after the clergy but to look within themselves to find the light of Christ. There remains a wariness of telling people what to believe, if anything accentuated by the fact that may contemporary Friends have come to Quakerism from other faith groups because they of their disatisfaction with being led and told what to believe
As to working within the broader community Friends individually and Meetings collectively don't shy from local involvement,although this can take different forms. Within my own Meeting which is near a London major prison, a large proportion pf our members are involved in different ways in working with and supporting those incarcerated. I don't know if you would count those in the local gaol as the local community, but its challenging and difficuly work and I'm glad that Friends are doing it.
Outreach is this case wasn't telling people what to believe, it was showing Christ's love.
It's just like your prison ministry which is very laudable. Please tell me, though, why the local Quakers here in this town are exclusively concerned about world issues but wouldn't be part of the Living Wage Coalition (not a church body) on their doorstep, when its proven that over 20% of people in this town live in wage poverty.
I take your point about a number of Quakers moving from other denominations. One of the main protagonist here left another denomination years ago and, to judge from his input into joint meetings (bearing and language), still has anger issues to resolve on that score
I'd also want to suggest - again from experience - that the reasons people leave churches isn't necessarily about being told what to believe. In some cases they want to cast God in their image and so leave to find a forum which is loose enough to accommodate that perspective. The issue with belief is only a cloak, albeit one that they fail to recognise.
A bad church experience (for whatever reason) makes one wary - you'll understand then why evangelicals might have issues with Quaker theology and praxis. The big question for some outsiders is this; how do you know as a Quaker that the light you find when you look within is truly the light of Christ, especially as it is self determining without external references?
I can't of course answer the question about the Meeting I dont know being unwilling to get involved in campaigning for a living wage.
You ask if we are seeking to create a god in our own image. Perhaps we do sometimes, but the same could be asked of anyone in any faith group, particularly those in positions of authority over others, in a context where the others are expected to accept and at times revere the leadership. History is scarred with the damage wrought by the Charismatic leader.
Within Quakerism we minister to our peers and leave it to them to discern the truth of ministry, they are our external referants. Quaker worship and ministry is collective and decision making is by the worshipping community listening together for the "still small voice" to guide us. Do we need other external authorities? Friends have a nuanced relationship with the Bible and other religious texts.One that many evangelicals might find challenging, but in reality not so different from that of many non-evangelicals who those evangelicals share denominations with. In some ways we may be closer to the Pentecostal and Charismatic movemengs with their belief that revelation is ongoing; but in reflctive calm, I personally feel we do so in a more rational and discerning way. In the end it's all about the Mystery of Faith.
Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The big question for some outsiders is this; how do you know as a Quaker that the light you find when you look within is truly the light of Christ, especially as it is self determining without external references?
Due to the activities of James Naylor early in the history of the Quaker movement, serious consideration was given to how folk discern whether something is a genuine leading of the spirit rather than a personal aspiration. There is a process called a meeting for worship for clearness, that Quakers in the unprogrammed worship tradition use for this kind of discernment.
It is a meeting for worship specifically convened to support a friend who feels they may be experiencing a leading of the spirit.
Depending upon how you understand what is happening in a meeting for worship, this is may be an opportunity for people within the community to reflect and feedback a consensus view on what is being suggested, or an opportunity to commune with the divine and be inspired by the holy spirit to understand whether the person is truely being called by God to do a specific thing.
In any case, it is testing against an external referent rather than solely being determined by an individual.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
In fact St. Paul advocated much the same thing to the church at Corinth: "Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said" (1 Cor. 14:29). This has also been true in the best - though not the worst! - of Charismatic churches.
Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on
:
Exclamation Mark
You might be interested to read The Sacred Compass which is an American Quaker take on spiritual discernment. They apply the term far more widely than the rest of us and seem to have a far more developed system for discerning a 'leading'. I have reviewed The Sacred Compass as part of wider reading around spiritual direction I am doing slowly.
Quotation marks are used there because I think that is Quaker terminology.
Jengie
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
I think The Sacred Compass is a good resource, and I'm not saying this because the author is known to me and belongs to my Yearly Meeting (roughly comparable, but a bit different than, a church conference).
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Missed the edit window, and I wanted to say that Jenjie Jon wrote some very thoughtful things in her review.
Missed the fact that there are actually 5 streams of Quakerism in the US, but no matter. Even among Friends, classifications are a matter of ongoing discussion.
sabine
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Thing is, I can see why evangelicals might have an issue with Quakers, but let's face it, many evangelicals have a problem with anyone who isn't evangelical not to mention the 'wrong' type of evangelical even ...
It wasn't just the Establishment that had an issue with the Friends. You've only got to read Bunyan's views on the Quakers to see that.
I sort of 'get' the Quakers, even though my theology would tend to be more conservative.
I'm on the editorial board of a Christian magazine and we have an annual residential at Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Birmingham. I won't be able to make this year's. Last year's coincided with the election of Donald Trump.
The younger Friends were clearly agitated by this, understandably so. I sat in on their morning Meeting and it was far from quiet. All manner of agitated readings from the bloodier parts of Revelation.
I stuck my neck out and shared a few thoughts from something I'd observed at the evening meeting, a flower/plant arrangement where decay and new growth co-existed.
I used this as an analogy for how good and bad and indifferent coexist at any one time and the need to develop an equilibrium.
One of the Friends then shared something which struck a real chord with me, something which went from agitated cliche to poetic metre, almost. Very striking.
It beat everything I'd encountered in what passes for 'prophecy' in charismatic circles.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Sorry to double-post but I also think Jengie is onto something with her observations about the Friends' discernment process.
No such process is infallible, but from what I've seen and heard the Quakers are more robust on this than those charismatic evangelicals who claim to have a stock in trade on these things.
The apparent lack of an 'external reference point' is certainly troublesome from an evangelical perspective, but then again many evangelicals tend to be chary of any reference point - be it the Church, Tradition, other criteria - other than their own, often subjective, particular 'take' on scripture ... which some of them don't even recognise to be a tradition like anyone else's.
I suppose the conclusion I've come to is that the Quaker Way is coherent and consistent within its own frame of reference, although I doubt it looks that way to many Friends themselves at times, let alone anyone else ...
Problems may then arise if there's an expectation that this frame of reference ought to apply to everyone else or that Quakers should conform to other people's reference points.
That appears to have happened, on both sides perhaps, in the instances EM and Baptist Trainfan cite.
I have to say that I wonder whether EM's commendable activism can have a flip-side. Frustration with lack of action can lead to judgementalism if we aren't careful. I struggle with that in things I'm involved with.
I can see why EM is frustrated that the Quakers weren't apparently supporting a fair wage initiative but at the same time I'm sure there were any number of worthy causes or initiatives that anyone around that table could have been challenged about.
'Not supporting the local XYZ? Call yourself a Christian? Call yourself an evangelical / Catholic / Quaker (delete as appropriate) ...?'
Anyhow, as EM says some good insights into Quakerdom here on this thread.
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The apparent lack of an 'external reference point' is certainly troublesome from an evangelical perspective...
In the Quaker tradition there is the Clearness Committee. It's purpose is not to tell a person what to do or give permission, but rather to listen and ask questions to help someone achieve clearness about a leading for him/herself and then the way forward with that leading.
Clearness Committee members do not decide whether a person's leadings are "ccorrect." In the course of reflection during a Clearness Committee, outside references certainly come into play, not authoritatively, but as suggestions to ponder.
Here is a description of how they work
sabine
Posted by sabine (# 3861) on
:
Missed edit window. Clearness Committees can be used by a group as well as by an individual.
sabine
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Sorry to double-post but I also think Jengie is onto something with her observations about the Friends' discernment process.
No such process is infallible, but from what I've seen and heard the Quakers are more robust on this than those charismatic evangelicals who claim to have a stock in trade on these things.
The apparent lack of an 'external reference point' is certainly troublesome from an evangelical perspective, but then again many evangelicals tend to be chary of any reference point - be it the Church, Tradition, other criteria - other than their own, often subjective, particular 'take' on scripture ... which some of them don't even recognise to be a tradition like anyone else's.
I suppose the conclusion I've come to is that the Quaker Way is coherent and consistent within its own frame of reference, although I doubt it looks that way to many Friends themselves at times, let alone anyone else ...
Agreed.
As part of my doctoral work, I did some study in Quaker discernment, and was impressed. One quote from a book written by a (small f) friend who is a (big F) Friend that I found particularly apt, especially in an American context: “If a Friend were asked if consensus tends to slow down or derail progress, he or she would probably reply, ‘That depends on what you consider progress!’"
Having seen how seen the fruit of corporate decision-making in more individualistic evangelical & Pentecostal contexts, I think he was on to something.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Yes, and it's certainly an area where I think the rest of us can learn from the Quakers.
It's often struck me how, in the UK at least, given the Quaker emphasis on inclusivity, reflection, social justice and what we might call a kind of spiritual 'mindfulness', one might expect them to have more adherents. They chime with the zeitgeist.
Of course, some would say that's a negative thing, but other expressions do so too, the informality of charismatic worship and fellowship for instance.
Quakers are thin on the ground. Only around 15,000 of them here from what I can gather. Many more in some countries.
I suppose one can hold Quaker style values without necessarily having to be one or formally align oneself.
I have a small f friend who meets with the Friends and who may well become one, I think. I can see how it 'fits' and suits her.
Meanwhile, although it's been observed that Quakers want their own way or apparently so, I think there's another aspect that should be noted. Whilst it's true that I've heard Quakers make disparaging remarks about how other groups 'tell people what to believe' and boast how they are free from the constraints found elsewhere, it's certainly true, in my experience, that they are very keen to recognise what they take to be evidence of divine activity, the work of the Spirit, elsewhere.
I remember hearing an Orthodox priest relate how a group of Quakers turned up unannounced at the Liturgy one Sunday morning simply because they wanted to listen and observe. When he spoke to them afterwards he was struck by how much they 'got' the essence of it, far more so in his judgement than some people from more formal liturgical backgrounds within Western Christianity.
Apparently, Romanides, a recent Greek theologian was intrigued by the Quakers and was convinced they'd encountered the Uncreated Light.
Equally, I've heard Quakers say that visiting RCs often 'get' what they are about given the contemplative and meditative traditions within Catholicism.
I'd suggest that this needs to be held up as a counter-balance to those times when others may have found the Friends perplexing or frustrating to deal with.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
... It's often struck me how, in the UK at least, given the Quaker emphasis on inclusivity, reflection, social justice and what we might call a kind of spiritual 'mindfulness', one might expect them to have more adherents. They chime with the zeitgeist. ...
I'd suspect they like the idea of the Quakers, but don't want actually to sit in silence with others for an hour on a Sunday morning.
It's the flakier equivalent of people who would like to imagine that their local CofE church still has 'all services 1662' and none of that nasty shaking hands, but don't dream of actually wasting their precious time going there.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by sabine:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
The apparent lack of an 'external reference point' is certainly troublesome from an evangelical perspective...
In the Quaker tradition there is the Clearness Committee. It's purpose is not to tell a person what to do or give permission, but rather to listen and ask questions to help someone achieve clearness about a leading for him/herself and then the way forward with that leading.
Clearness Committee members do not decide whether a person's leadings are "ccorrect." In the course of reflection during a Clearness Committee, outside references certainly come into play, not authoritatively, but as suggestions to ponder.
Here is a description of how they work
sabine
Parker Palmer describes one of his own experiences with a Clearness Committee in Let Your Life Speak. He had been offered a prestigious position as president of a Quaker college. He writes that he formed a Clearness Committee cuz that's what they do, but mostly he wanted to brag indirectly about this great honor.
So the committee meets and does what it does-- pray and listen together. And then they ask him some gentle questions. They begin wtih the more obvious ones, "what are your goals? What would you like to accomplish in your first 5 years as president? What strengths do you bring?" etc.
Then the committee asked what should have been an easy one: "what would you like best about being president?" Palmer responded: "well, I wouldn't like having to wear a suit every day." The committee gently reminded him the question was what would you like, not what would you not like. So Palmer took another stab at it, but each time he was asked, he just kept saying things he wouldn't like-- having to leave the classroom, having to schmooze donors, etc etc.
Finally, after several rounds of answering the question with what he would not like, Palmer was forced to say quietly, "I guess I would like having my picture in the paper with the word "president' under it."
In typical Clearness style there was no rebuke, no advice given, no evaluation. Just one final question: "Is there a simpler way to get your picture in the paper?"
Palmer remained in the classroom.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
When we lived up north and before we were married, my wife lodged with a sweet old couple in Leeds, overlooking Headingley Cricket Ground. Sacred soil to many.
The husband had been a professional footballer, a Battle of Britain pilot and a 'floor-walker' in a department store when such things were new to the UK. At one time he'd worked for a family-run Quaker firm.
The Friends there called everyone 'Friend' and still used 'thee'and 'thou' (although quite a few other people still did in Yorkshire back then, and still today to an extent).
He liked them but felt they were nepotists and promoted relatives beyond their capabilities.
The neice of the Quaker boss came to work in the typing pool where she quickly made a nuisance of herself. My friend dared to speak out about this at the weekly office meeting whereupon his boss sat back in his chair and said, 'Take thy papers, Friend' and summarily sacked him on the spot.
On the bus journey home, my friend resolved not to tell his wife until after they'd had their tea (evening meal to non-UK readers).
As they were sat there after the meal and he was summoning the courage to tell his wife, he saw his boss's hat bobbing past the window. Rat-a-tat. There was a knock on the back door. My friend opened it to find his boss on the doorstep. '8.30 sharp, Monday morning,' said the boss, then turned on his heels and walked away.
He'd reflected on his decision and relented.
I've told a few Quakers this story and they've all laughed. Times have changed but they recognise it.
Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on
:
Thank you Gamaliel. That tale works particularly well with the boss's voice bits in a Yorkshire accent.
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
Huddersfield or Leeds rathr than Sheffield or Doncaster, I feel.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
It was Leeds indeed.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0