|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Quakers and communion
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I was chatting to someone earlier this week who told about some women she knew who'd started attending Quaker meetings around the time of the kerfuffle about women's ordination in the CofE.
Fed up of the fuss and arguments, she felt the Quakers might be a safe place to hang-out. They enjoyed the quiet and the emphasis on peace and social justice and applied to become Friends.
However, as they both liked singing they continued to bob back to the Anglicans now and again to sing in the choir for choral Evensong. The Quakers had no issue with that but once they heard that both women were continuing to receive the eucharist with the Anglicans, according to my informant, the Friends turned very un-friendly and they were asked to leave.
My question isn't so much about Quaker attitudes towards the eucharist and sacraments as such - I 'get' that Friends regard all of life as sacramental and sit loosely by outward forms and observances - although they do retain some, of course, they aren't disembodied spirits floating in the ether - but whether this is likely to have been the case?
If it were, then I must admit I'm very surprised. I've certainly come across a kind of almost off-hand - and even holier than thou - attitude among some Friends - 'We don't have paid ministers, we don't have special holy places nuh nah nurh nurh nah ...' but nothing that would lead me to imagine that they'd actually kick someone out for continuing to receive sacraments in another religious body.
Can anyone enlighten me?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Theres nothing inherent in how the quakers work that would lead them to chuck people out for this. That said any group dynamic can potentially go foobar.
Process wise if a meeting genuinely believed that people in membership no longer really engaged with the quaker way, I would have expected their overseer might have talked with them, perhaps arranged some discussions with one of the elders, maybe suggested a meeting for worship for clearness. A process of discernment etc.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
I can't say it couldn't happen, and, in a sense, I'd say it ought to happen; but in a British context I'd be surprised if it did happen...
As one weighty Friend once put it, "Are we saying that everything is sacramental except the Eucharist?"
Our approach is more usually to say "use it as long as thou canst"...
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Re-reading the OP, I wonder if the issue may have been less the eucharist and more that viewing quakerism as a safe space to hangout - whilst dipping back to another church for bits you consider to be missing - may not be engaging with quakerism as a religion/spiritual tradition in its own right.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ThunderBunk
Stone cold idiot
# 15579
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re-reading the OP, I wonder if the issue may have been less the eucharist and more that viewing quakerism as a safe space to hangout - whilst dipping back to another church for bits you consider to be missing - may not be engaging with quakerism as a religion/spiritual tradition in its own right.
In that case it strikes me as extremely harsh, unless it was done at the end of a long process of movement which just didn't happen.
Moving between congregations within the same tradition can be a sufficiently traumatic and long-winded process, with long periods when neither new nor old feel like home. Moving between traditions must, I would have thought, involve long periods of this feeling, and I can see absolutely what drove the two people described to act as they were. Loyalty, familiarity and coherence of personal narrative all play their part.
--------------------
Currently mostly furious, and occasionally foolish. Normal service may resume eventually. Or it may not. And remember children, "feiern ist wichtig".
Foolish, potentially deranged witterings
Posts: 2208 | From: Norwich | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Which is what George Fox said to William Penn about his sword, if I remember the story correctly ...
And according to one version, Penn continued to wear his sword for about a week ...
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
It's a nice story and good advice - on swords and much else - but I'm not quite sure why desisting from apparently unnecessary outward forms and rituals in one's own meetings should preclude someone from being involved with such things somewhere else ... when in Rome and all that ...
But then, the Religious Society of Friends isn't like the Franciscans, say, or the Jesuits or one of the neo-monastic groups such as the Iona Community or the Northumbria Community where you can be part of that alongside being an Anglican, Catholic or whatever else ... or at least, you ca be a fellow-traveller as it were but if you commit to it as a way of life and so on then you should follow it to its logical conclusion ...
I can see how the Quaker way can and does work for those who find it, but not sure why it should necessarily involve the abandonment of forms found elsewhere - or perhaps I'm missing something?
I s'pose a similar/parallel dynamic can be found within some of the more full-on sacramental Churches - insofar that if you become an RC or an Orthodoxen then you shouldn't really carry on receiving communion in a non-RC or non-Orthodox church.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
[crosspost] Quite, it seems a most unusual reaction - one of the elders at my local meeting went regularly to evensong and nobody thought twice about it.
It does make me wonder if there is some more to the story that we have not been told.
[ 13. November 2015, 20:58: Message edited by: Doublethink. ]
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Don't know the full story, obviously... But could their be a confusion between being welcome to attend meetings and applying for membership?
By all means come to meeting, but if you apply for membership while saying that you find your true spiritual sustenance in another tradition you might just be told to come back later?
Can be quite hurtful, I admit.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cross-posted with Doublethink.
I can see why you might say this from re-reading the OP:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Re-reading the OP, I wonder if the issue may have been less the eucharist and more that viewing quakerism as a safe space to hangout - whilst dipping back to another church for bits you consider to be missing - may not be engaging with quakerism as a religion/spiritual tradition in its own right.
The thing is, I don't know enough about the situation to say whether the two women were being dilettante about their Quakerism and seeing it as a temporary refuge from a storm then raging within the CofE ... or whether they were serious about it as a tradition in its own right.
I've just spent a day or two at the Woodbrooke Quaker Study Centre in Selly Oak. I enjoyed my stay - I was there for a residential editorial meeting for a Christian magazine - and was impressed by what I gleaned about the Friends there. I was happy to attend their meetings and use the Silent Room and other resources - but I could also see that if I were to show it more than a passing interest/admiration, I'd need to go at it hook, line and sinker .... the same if I were to engage fully with any other religious tradition.
I don't think I could be a Friend - I'm too 'sacramental' in the traditional sense and also more interested in dogma and doctrine - in a traditional sense - although conscious of the problems and issues connected with all of that.
I still think the story in the OP is harsh, if true ... but can understand it if there was a 'discernment' on the part of the Friends involved that the women weren't really 'up for' following the Quaker way in its entirety.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
There may be a lot of variation among different groups, too. We have a strong presence of Evangelical Friends in this area who may respond quite differently, but I don't know if they are as common Across the Pond.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fineline
Shipmate
# 12143
|
Posted
I find this very strange, and don't know enough about Quakers to say anything other than that I've been to several different Quaker meetings, and have always been very welcomed and it was always made clear I could come whenever I wanted, even though I usually attended another church. It was never an all-or-nothing thing.
Posts: 2375 | From: England | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
The Friends' communities are probably as diverse as any other church communities.
I think that 'Pick and mix' churchgoing is here to stay. I see nothing wrong with regularly going to two or three different denominations, as long as some effort is made to contribute to each one and not only to take from them.
I know several regulars from 'free' churches who take communion in Anglican churches.
Perhaps in this case it was an attempt to enforce loyalty. If so, I think it unlikely to be effective, or helpful to the ethos of the community.
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
I was told by a lifelong Anglican that when he was a boy he discovered the Quakers and enjoyed their worship, but as a choirboy he was committed to the CofE. Eventually the Quakers asked him to choose, and he chose to remain in the CofE, where he worships to this day.
However, the Society of Friends apparently now allows its members to have dual membership with the CofE, which makes it odd that someone would be asked to leave for taking up the opportunity.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I find this odd, particularly since the Quakers regard belief in what most of the rest of us regard as the core tenets of Christianity as optional. I've a family member who attends Meetings, is quite involved in some Quaker activities but is not a member. I'll try to remember to ask them.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
From the story I heard, Doublethink, and as I think I posted in the OP, it wasn't the Evensong the Friends objected to but the women's continuing to receive communion at the Anglicans.
I kmow the Friends at my nearest meeting house are happy for people to attend their meetings and continue to be involved with other churches - so I assumed that'd be the default position across the board.
But then, as in all these sort of things there may be a lot more to the story in the OP than meets the eye.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I dunno, this seems fairly reasonable to me (perhaps a bit harsh or maybe some details have not been passed on to the OP).
This is only like trying to be part of any group which takes a serious stand on something, and then being found doing the opposite.
Something like, perhaps, wanting to be around the mosque a lot, but then also going back to an RC church because you like saying the Apostle's Creed.
Given who they are, I can imagine that a lot of Quakers wouldn't care very much (seeing it as a personal conscience issue), but some might be very offended.
Just to tie an end others mentioned above - there are no Evangelical Quaker meetings in the UK. There are a very small number of Ohio-style Conservative Quakers, but they would not accurately be considered evangelicals.
I can well imagine that Conservative Quakers would take a dim view of regular attendance at an Anglican Eucharist, as some see Anglicans as in serious error and the inheritors of the guilt of previous generations that persecuted true Quakers.
[ 14. November 2015, 07:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
That might be it, mr cheesy.
I've never encountered anti-Anglican sentiments among Quakers per se - but I have received an impression that they consider theirs to be a more excellent way - which is hardly surprising - allied in some instances with a kind of smugness thst they have no need of external fripperies - but this is only a very mild impression.
If anything, and this is going back a long way, the Quakers I knew at university tended to be more suspicious of evangelicalism than anything else.
The Quakers I've met around here detect a resonance between their own principles and elements in other churches and other faiths - which is what I would have expected.
I know that Terry Waite now considers himself an Anglican Quaker so I would imagine that he and other Quakers with similar views are able to accommodate both strands at one and the same time. How that would work in practice, I don't know but as in the case of Doublethink's elder attending evensong I don't see any intrinsic difficulty - unless there's something in the eucharistic aspect that acts as a deal breaker from the Friends' perspective/s.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tree Bee
Ship's tiller girl
# 4033
|
Posted
This strikes me as a harsh unQuakerly judgement.
I'm a Quaker attender and occasionally take communion if I happen to be at a service elsewhere. I'm always blessed by this.
So I haven't applied for full membership as I don't feel like a full Quaker.
But they come in many shades, I'm sure there are others at our Meeting with divided loyalties.
--------------------
"Any fool can make something complicated. It takes a genius to make it simple."
— Woody Guthrie
http://saysaysay54.wordpress.com
Posts: 5257 | From: me to you. | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I've read about a number of prominent Anglicans who are now Quakers (or Quaker Anglicans), so it can't be a totally unknown phenomena.
But I also read that individual Quakers and individual Quaker meetings can be quite different - so there is no great surprise that some people take offence at things and others don't.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I'm not sure they took 'offence' as such, but felt that continuing to take communion with the Anglicans was incompatible with full Quaker membership.
In a similar vein, I'm told that Orthodox reactions vary towards people who're Orthodox attending or participating in 'heterodox' services. I'm not singling the Quakers out for censure or anything of that kind - simply wondering what their 'take' was on these issues.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rosa Winkel
Saint Anger round my neck
# 11424
|
Posted
I once went for supper to two a married Quaker couple, who were both either Elders or Overseers (this was over ten years ago). I mentioned being interested in being a Member and got the question "Do you plan to receive Communion?" (what with them knowing me to be very much active in Anglican institutions, what with me being a cathedral verger for a few years and then, at this moment in time, living and working in an retreat house). In fact by then I was like the people in the op, attending Meeting in the morning and singing in a choir for Evensong in the evening. I replied "yes" and the conversation didn't go further; they started telling me unrelated stories. I didn't push it any further, scared as I was of being rejected.
This Meeting was quite nervous about Christianity and, what was constantly labelled as the "established church".
--------------------
The Disability and Jesus "Locked out for Lent" project
Posts: 3271 | From: Wrocław | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Interesting, Rosa Winkel.
It boiled down to the communion thing again. They didn't say, 'Do you intend carrying on in the choir for evensong ...'
I've not come across Friends who think the rest of us are priest-ridden' or rule-bound but - as with any group which has particular distinctives - these are bound to come up as deal-breakers sooner or later.
We wouldn't get far with Pentecostals and charismatics if we had an issue with 'tongues' for instance, or with the RCs if the Real Presence was an issue.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
There ia also a difference between seeing communion as an enhancement of your spiritual life, and seeing it as essential to your spiritual life.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I dunno, this seems fairly reasonable to me (perhaps a bit harsh or maybe some details have not been passed on to the OP).
This is only like trying to be part of any group which takes a serious stand on something, and then being found doing the opposite.
Something like, perhaps, wanting to be around the mosque a lot, but then also going back to an RC church because you like saying the Apostle's Creed.
What I don't understand though is the seemingly complete lack of countenance of the fact that some people may need to transition slowly. It may be that I miss the Anglican forms for a while, then as I become more immersed in the Quaker Way, that will taper off and eventually quit.
Instead they seem to insist people go "cold turkey" and immediately jump from one ship to the other. I think there are a lot of people who just don't work that way, and this particular Friends meeting seems to be saying, "We don't want that kind of people here."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I doubt that - for one thing you can be an attender without becoming a member for basically as long as you want. I know people who have been attenders for decades.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
You are probably right about that, Doublethink. I have considered Quakerism, but at my age and considering how long I have been in (or out) of the Church, I would probably never apply for membership, even if I thought myself a good fit. There are too many social and familial obligations that I need to fulfil.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
From what I've seen of Quakers my inclination is to go with Doublethink's 'take' on things - insofar as I do know it's possible to attend Quaker meetings for years without necessarily applying to become a Quaker - or even being expected to.
That isn't to disparage or dismiss the accounts of those who may have found things - or understood things - to be somewhat different on the ground - but as a general principle I'm sure Doublethink is right.
My suspicion would be that there was either some misunderstanding or lack of clarity in the story related in the OP and that what the two women might have understood might have been somewhat different to what the Friends intended ... or the lady who knew them might have got the wrong end of the stick to some extent. I don't know.
I certainly don't think there's a 'cold-turkey' thing going on ... but do recognise the impression that Rosa Winkel picked up.
At the Quaker Study Centre where I stayed this last week, the Friend who was showing us around said a few things by way of explanation - intending to be helpful - that came across as somewhat gauche - but certainly not ill-intended.
For instance, among other things, she explained that they didn't have a chapel as such but a Quiet Room and a Silent Room because they understand everywhere to be a sacred space - as if somehow the rest of us didn't think that way and believed that God could only be found or worshipped in particular consecrated spaces ... but that was fine - it's difficult to condense these things into short sound-bites.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
I suspect Doublethink has it about right. I have known a (very) few cases in which people attended for years, became part of the Meeting community, and then applied for membership only to be told, as gently as possible, that it didn't seem they were really in unity with Friends at that level. This generally resulted in hurt feelings, even though it was not intended as condemnation or even rejection--it doesn't mean "don't show your face here again." It is commonly assumed that because we have no creed, anything goes, but it's not that simple. I don't have much acquaintance with British Friends, but I suspect most American Friends would regard taking communion on an occasional basis as "mostly harmless," because we don't have a general problem with participating in other faiths' worship (I know several Friends who like to go to an Episcopal midnight mass on Christmas Eve). But if someone felt the Eucharist to be an essential part of their faith and practice, it would be an indication that they were not fully committed to Quakerism and while they'd be welcome to attend meeting, they'd be considered not ready for membership.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
This story, if true, is part of the exclusive "my sacraments(or lack of them with Quakers) are better than your sacraments" attitude which bedevils so much of Christianity. Catholics will share the Eucharist with Orthodox, but not with Anglicans or other Protestants. Orthodox will share with no one else, including Catholics. Anglicans will share with anyone in good standing with their church, a policy I wholly endorse. I didn't realise that the Quakers got involved with the holier than thou politics of Christian Churches. The Inner Light could be part of anyone's Christian journey.
In 1999 I went several times to a Friends community. I told them I was looking for the inner light. That I loved the Eucharist in the C of E and may still go when I need. I got no negative feedback and shortly after returned full time to the C of E. I loved what they had to offer, but in the end I preferred a sacramental community. I'm disappointed that the Friends would take such an attitude, although we expect it from the oldest "established" churches.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
I sounded out the family member on this.
The Quakers draw a distinction between Attenders and actual Members. I wonder if in their terminology it's a bit like the difference between being an Acquaintance and a real Friend.
If they were enquiring about actually becoming a Friend, it's very possible that the Meeting would have felt they weren't truly committed to Friendship and all that it stood for if from time to time they were nipping back to the CofE to take Communion. Since people can remain Attenders for years without being pressed to become Friends, if that was the reason, I can see why the Meeting might have taken that line.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Paul, I think you are missing the point. Quakers consider* that all life is sacred / sacramental - that outward forms are not necessary.
If you believe communion is necessary - something you must have to live your faith - then you don't share that understanding.
It is quite a fundamental difference in belief.
However, it is not equivalent to closed communion - anyone can walk in offf the street and fully participate in quaker worship. Becoming a member may mean eventually you spend a few years carrying out functions that in other churches would be the duty of ordained folk. Pastoral care, spiritual development etc. It doesn't determine whether you can give ministry in worship or be part of the meetings community.
(*You may wish to take that as - most Quakers - there is no creed two quakers in a room can generate five different opinions on anything.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Knopwood
Shipmate
# 11596
|
Posted
I guess a "fundamental difference in belief" that can make or break membership and a "creed" are in my ears shades of nuance.
Posts: 6806 | From: Tio'tia:ke | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I think Knopwood makes a good point. I sometimes attend Orthodox Divine Liturgy because I love its rich, mystical beauty. I don't receive communion because I'm not a member. But I'm always made welcome, as are several other regular visitors. So the Quakers make Attenders welcome in the same way. But in order to commit to the cause it becomes necessary to forsake previous attachments. I don't see any difference. It's still exclusive.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think there are certainly parallels but am not sure we are talking about equivalence ...
I do have an issue with the Quaker insistence that 'outward forms' are unnecessary as they have outward forms the same as wveryone else does - Friends aren't disembodied spirits - they have buildings, roofs, a form of ceremony even - however minimalist that is compared to other traditions.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Yes - even a building which "doesn't say anything" - and there are plenty of Nonconformist churches like that! - is still saying something.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Yes - even a building which "doesn't say anything" - and there are plenty of Nonconformist churches like that! - is still saying something.
And of course the plainness is, in and of itself, often a statement.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Well, that's what I meant.
A Baptist church here recently rebuilt its building. It now looks like a school Assembly Hall - which is fine if you see church as the assembling of Christ's people and believe that it is the Holy Spirit, rather than surroundings, who inspires worship.
(Having said that, F.F. Bruce used to wonder if there was a type of dull green paint designed exclusively to depress the congregations of Brethren assemblies, as it seemed so universal!)
[ 06. December 2015, 13:21: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Exclusive Brethren Meeting houses used to have no windows as a statement of something.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
Or, I suspect, high-up ones that give light but can't be looked into. (Mind you, my last church was like that, purely because of adjoining buildings).
[ 06. December 2015, 13:31: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Well, that's what I meant.
A Baptist church here recently rebuilt its building. It now looks like a school Assembly Hall - which is fine if you see church as the assembling of Christ's people and believe that it is the Holy Spirit, rather than surroundings, who inspires worship.
I think it is more than that: in creating worship buildings that were obviously very different to the established church, non-conformists of all kinds were asserting the superiority of their theology over the staid/fake form available in the steeplehouses.
The plainness was a statement of superiority.
Baptists very often went in for a different kind of one-upmanship, as is seen in the style adopted by many 18/19 century baptist churches in England. Often grand with balconies (sometimes double balconies), elaborate lighting and massive pipe organs, the intention was to assault the senses in a way that the stereotypical Anglican parish church could not.
All pretty pathetic in hindsight.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Baptists very often went in for a different kind of one-upmanship, as is seen in the style adopted by many 18/19 century baptist churches in England. Often grand with balconies (sometimes double balconies), elaborate lighting and massive pipe organs, the intention was to assault the senses in a way that the stereotypical Anglican parish church could not.
Not just Baptists but Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians as well. All part of "social climbing" and keeping up with the ecclesiastical Joneses.
Here is a good example.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Not just Baptists but Congregationalists, Methodists and Presbyterians as well. All part of "social climbing" and keeping up with the ecclesiastical Joneses.
Here is a good example.
Well yes and no. Methodists seemed to be split between the massive pointy city centre churches and tiny chapels. Presbyterians often seemed to be trying to ape the Anglican architecture.
Quakers and Unitarians seemed to relish going to the other extreme by meeting in tiny plain boxes to show the stupidity of others.
I'm certainly not trying to call out anyone in particular, but just saying that everyone was at it during the time of religious expansion in England.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
SvitlanaV2
Shipmate
# 16967
|
Posted
Seems as if they were damned whatever they did! If they kept things simple they were flaunting their superiority, but if they spent their money on grand buildings they were trying to keep up with the Jones's.
Nowadays, almost all of these buildings are a liability anyway.
Posts: 6668 | From: UK | Registered: Feb 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Baptist Trainfan:
Or, I suspect, high-up ones that give light but can't be looked into. (Mind you, my last church was like that, purely because of adjoining buildings).
The ones I've seen were definitely windowless entirely. Two in Dartford, one in Cirencester.
On the other hand, the Maidstone Friends Meeting House was to be overshadowed by a massive carpark which would have been as close to the windows as it could be built, and consent was not granted in that form because the authorities recognised that access for the light was important in Quaker worship.
[ 06. December 2015, 14:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
There was certainly a buildings one-upmanship going on across all denominations in the mid-19th century.
Many of the largest non-conformist chapels in the North of England and Midlands were built in the expectation of mass revivals that never came ... and were never full from the moment they were built.
Conversely, the Anglicans adopted a policy in Wales and parts of the North of England to offer grand, barn-like structures to impress the locals and lure them away from Dissent ...
There used to be a popular rhyme in South Wales:
The Trellwyn Methodists have built a church
The front looks like an abbey.
And thinking they can fool the Lord,
They've left the back part shabby.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
In typical Gamalien (chameleon?) fashion I'm going to trot out the old mantra that it's a both/and not either/or thing ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
But you were expecting that ...
More seriously, I don't have an issue with Quaker minimalism at all - it actually does 'connect' with me in some way whenever I encounter it.
I s'pose it's a bit like those historians/theologians who've drawn comparisons and parallels between Orthodox hesychasm and aspects of RC contemplative prayer and Quaker stillness ...
I've known Orthodox priests who can see a parallel and I'd imagine many RC clergy and religious would say likewise.
There is, however, a particular understanding of what is 'going on' in the Eucharist that I suspect does make it hard to completely reconcile High Church/sacramental and Quaker practice ... so I can understand what Double Think and other Friends here are getting at ...
I'm not sure it's quite the same as what PaulTh has identified in terms of the 'exclusivity' of Orthodox practice regarding admission to the Eucharist. It's not as if the Quakers are saying that you can't partake of their worship and stillness, or their Inner Light, unless you are one of their number in an 'official' sense.
What they do seem to be saying, however, is that if you fully wish to embrace Quaker values and practice then holding onto a 'fully-realised' approach to the Lord's presence in the Eucharist more particularly than elsewhere is somewhat at variance with that ...
So, yes, I can understand that. The Orthodox don't mind anyone attending their services, or even participating in them to a certain extent ... provided they don't partake of the Eucharist unless they are fully Orthodox.
This can lead to some bizarre occurences. An Orthodox priest once told me about a Greek Church in London which didn't have its own choir, so they hired a Welsh Male Voice Choir to come in each Sunday to sing the prayers and responses reading off sheets of musical notation with the words spelled out phonetically. They didn't have a clue what they were singing and, of course, they weren't at liberty to partake of the consecrated elements.
At any rate, there can be misunderstandings on both sides with this sort of thing.
I don't know any die-hard sacramentalist who believes that the Lord's presence can ONLY be apprehended/realised in the Eucharist or through the mediation of architecture, ritual or particular forms of words ...
I daresay few - if any - Quakers would believe that the Inner Light only operates in their stillness and 'minimalism' ...
Nor do I suspect that the Quakers believe that the Holy Spirit only operates for a particular hour on a Sunday and then clocks off for the rest of the week ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I wonder if it may not have been a group dynamic rather than a specific Quaker thing. My knowledge is not Quaker in this case but Unitarian. Quaker meetings are often safe places for people who find other traditions hostile.
Lets risk that the women involved were not the first to seek refuge with the Quakers, particularly that there had been those from the CofE who had been excluded from the Eucharist in the past. Such people carry a lot of baggage and find Eucharist very difficult to handle. This is what I know from talking to Unitarians which is another denomination where such people seek refuge.
Now I hope you begin to see the problem. The women's continued taking of Eucharist feels like a rejection of those people who have been refused the Eucharist in the community. Depending on who the other members of the community are will determine how the community responds.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
